Wow how could TD possibly top the last standout ripper of an article? Well he writes this blinder with possibly the best ever rallying cry slogan:
'two-party system has become so sclerotic, we need a controlled demolition of the status quo.'
An aside - funny how JWH has so enthralled GM. His call in “doing a Howard” as a solution to a problem that was tubocharged by John Howard as a pernicious tactic to maintain his political career is bizzare. Just demolishes my head with an uncontrolled thermonuke explosion.
Yes, like a white knight riding on a grey donkey with a jousting stick that was a little too big causing him to overbalance slightly, JWH rode to the rescue to implement the economic policy that killed the political career of John Hewson, who knew a whole lot more about economics than Howard ever did.
Industrial superannuation funds to the rescue is what Albanese is banking on. We have to keep monetising to get anything done in true neoliberal fashion or disgruntled Tories may vote Greens instead of Liberal,I mean Labor, I mean Liberal.
Is a minority government capable of ending neoliberalism in Australia? Could be the beginning of it, I hope.
Great writing as usual, Mr Dunlop. All the best for Christmas and the New Year.
I'm not sure the crossbench would be that radical, probably not, but they would be less beholden to vested interests than the current duopoly and that opens up possibilities. Ideally, it would be good see some genuine democratic socialists elected to be part of the mix, but they are nowhere near that organised in communities atm, with maybe a couple of exceptions.
Yes, we definitely don't need to hark back to the Howard era - things like giving pocket money to mothers in wealthy families who stay at home? The only thing you could say about those times is that with all the money available, more public housing should have been built.
Is it only the media and the nature of its ownership, that have influenced ALP governments in this century to be so cautious?
There needs to be some recognition of a set of rights in Australia, including that of secure and well insulated housing. In legislation that involves rights, no-one could vote against the asap provision of decent housing for everyone. It's not something that can be haggled over because developers would be banned from making donations to political parties and any meeting between such individuals or their lobbyist sidekicks and politicians would be required to be live-streamed.
Negative gearing and capital gains tax needs to be addressed. But if that's too scary for politicians,
declare a limit on how many properties can be owned by an individual or SMSFs before the negative gearing and capital gains tax benefits cut out. Or after ownership of a second investment property, suggest that the third and subsequent ones need to have an 80% owner deposit put on them before loans could be applied for (the banks would love it).
Something also needs to be done at State Government level. For example, in Victoria the state government have set out designated hubs, mainly close to railway stations, where buildings of six storeys high (I think) can be built. This has prompted outrage in electorates such as Kooyong and Goldstein which is yet another issue that Federal Independents have to deal with.
I agree that denser living needs to be achieved, especially along transport routes but does it have to be in the form of such higher towers. Inner suburbs have modern higher level buildings between older housing. What about inviting good architectural planning rather than a solid something to maximise a space and ensure there is allocation for 'affordable' (and make it affordable) housing within.
Another thing for all housing is that public transport needs to be much better
I think you can make a case that we used to do something like what you call for: not a right to housing per se, but we had an industrial system that took as given that there was a need for a balance between labour and capital and that people should be paid a living wage. Which meant, people should be able to earn enough to put a roof over their heads. Going back to at least the Harvester judgement of 1907.
Of course, the Accord took care of that and we have been market driven ever since, in a way we never were. Not to say some sort of reform wasn't needed, only that we live in the shadow of those decisions.
Yes, Gough experienced the lack of facilities in the sprawling outer suburbs of Sydney and saw governments as being responsible for providing the same amenities that those in other areas took for granted.
Albanese in the last election, attempted a log cabin story: growing up in public housing but managing to run for PM. However, he doesn't see government as the driver in providing housing for everyone. In particular he can't pick up on the urgency of the need (people suffering worse health because they are homeless or children experiencing disrupted schooling through having to move on multiple times from temporary living arrangements).
He needs to confer with more people. What he initially came up with was like a futures fund. Now he has an array of plans and acronyms and isn't able to sell any of them. With something like housing shortage and affordability, he should have started off with a vision and a voice about how they were going to deal with it. How much opposition would he face? They could have started in a real and practical way and attended to some shortages Australia-wide through building and even renovations. You wouldn't solve everything all at once but you need to show something and give people hope. Wait lists for public housing are incredibly long.
And you need to have the guts to address negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts. Hopefully the new, higher land taxes in Victoria will induce more people to assess the real value of their investment properties
I don't understand Albanese's positioning and attitude at all. He seems completely lost in the minutiae of internal party management and political-class preoccupations and to have lost contact with anything like an understanding of what the moment demands. Maybe I'm wrong.
For me the ALP is like a deer frozen if the lights of an on coming car. They were burnt by the 2018 election defeat and the loss of the Voice referendum. So the ALP will go to the next election with a ‘safe’ list of promises and no vision. And if they hold a ‘minority’ government they will be even more cautious.
Hi Mark - yeah, one of the interesting things about GM's essay is how it reveals the extent to which senior people like Albanese and Chalmers feel burned by the experiences of Gillard-Rudd and the other things you mention. Personally, I think they learned the wrong lessons from those moments, but in fairness, I can see why they have reacted as they have. As I've been saying for a while now, if they could lean in a bit more to the possibilities of a supportive crossbench they would find a lot of other things would fall into place. But from their pov, as you suggest, the incentives just aren't there: they aren't structured to work that way. So I think you are right: minority govt is likely to make them more cautious. And round we go. Unless whoever has the balance of power is willing to use it.
Worth recalling that the absurdly inadequate Housing Australia Future Fund was the only significant expenditure policy in Albanese's 2022 campaign (the Voice and NACC weren't about money). In Albanese's mind, he's already done the hard yards on this issue.
And I don’t know that Albanese is the leader for that transformation. And to be honest I can’t think of anyone in the ALP who is. Sorry to be a pessimist. They are all trapped by their battering by the LNP over the past 30 years from when Keating was defeated by Howard b
I assume Chalmers would be the replacement. My impression is that he is more intellectually flexible, and less tribally Labor than most of the alternatives (Albanese score zero on the first count and 100/100 on the second).
I’m no longer in the greens party room and obviously won’t be there if negotiations happen post election in the case of Labor needing crossbench support to form government but it’s a pretty fair bet that updated versions of these platform docs will be the Greens starting point in such negotiations.
Thanks, Janet. I honestly hope they do avail themselves of these, at least as a starting point for a discussion. Obviously, the Greens have owned this issue this term and I hope they can keep the pressure on. I think John Quiggin is right (above) in saying that the PM thinks he's already done the hard yards. He needs to realise he hasn't.
I agree with that assessment, and that there will need to be something that Labor can go to the election with that they see as a winner, doesn’t rely on big govt money ( because sadly they are so unlikely to agree to that, even though it’s such a classic investment that has such big societal returns) and ideally for them is not seen as a greens win.
I also agree that the most critical element of what is needed is massive investment in public and social housing. Reform of negative gearing and CGT would give them the tax take to afford that investment but sadly that is also highly unlikely to happen in the next term.
So maybe the answer is for Labor to agree to and fund what’s needed to unlock a big chunk of super fund investment eg
Yes, nothing seems to be achievable in a single term, and any serious is always battling the easy undermining that Murdoch and co specialise: one the things GM definitely got right. A resourceful and determined crossbench with the balance of power seems the only way to force that sort of change. Not easy though.
Wow how could TD possibly top the last standout ripper of an article? Well he writes this blinder with possibly the best ever rallying cry slogan:
'two-party system has become so sclerotic, we need a controlled demolition of the status quo.'
An aside - funny how JWH has so enthralled GM. His call in “doing a Howard” as a solution to a problem that was tubocharged by John Howard as a pernicious tactic to maintain his political career is bizzare. Just demolishes my head with an uncontrolled thermonuke explosion.
Yes, like a white knight riding on a grey donkey with a jousting stick that was a little too big causing him to overbalance slightly, JWH rode to the rescue to implement the economic policy that killed the political career of John Hewson, who knew a whole lot more about economics than Howard ever did.
John Hewson writes great analysis these days esp as a trenchant demolisher of the LNP.
Industrial superannuation funds to the rescue is what Albanese is banking on. We have to keep monetising to get anything done in true neoliberal fashion or disgruntled Tories may vote Greens instead of Liberal,I mean Labor, I mean Liberal.
Is a minority government capable of ending neoliberalism in Australia? Could be the beginning of it, I hope.
Great writing as usual, Mr Dunlop. All the best for Christmas and the New Year.
I'm not sure the crossbench would be that radical, probably not, but they would be less beholden to vested interests than the current duopoly and that opens up possibilities. Ideally, it would be good see some genuine democratic socialists elected to be part of the mix, but they are nowhere near that organised in communities atm, with maybe a couple of exceptions.
Thanks, Tim. Yeah democratic socialist government. We can still dream.
Yes, we definitely don't need to hark back to the Howard era - things like giving pocket money to mothers in wealthy families who stay at home? The only thing you could say about those times is that with all the money available, more public housing should have been built.
Is it only the media and the nature of its ownership, that have influenced ALP governments in this century to be so cautious?
There needs to be some recognition of a set of rights in Australia, including that of secure and well insulated housing. In legislation that involves rights, no-one could vote against the asap provision of decent housing for everyone. It's not something that can be haggled over because developers would be banned from making donations to political parties and any meeting between such individuals or their lobbyist sidekicks and politicians would be required to be live-streamed.
Negative gearing and capital gains tax needs to be addressed. But if that's too scary for politicians,
declare a limit on how many properties can be owned by an individual or SMSFs before the negative gearing and capital gains tax benefits cut out. Or after ownership of a second investment property, suggest that the third and subsequent ones need to have an 80% owner deposit put on them before loans could be applied for (the banks would love it).
Something also needs to be done at State Government level. For example, in Victoria the state government have set out designated hubs, mainly close to railway stations, where buildings of six storeys high (I think) can be built. This has prompted outrage in electorates such as Kooyong and Goldstein which is yet another issue that Federal Independents have to deal with.
I agree that denser living needs to be achieved, especially along transport routes but does it have to be in the form of such higher towers. Inner suburbs have modern higher level buildings between older housing. What about inviting good architectural planning rather than a solid something to maximise a space and ensure there is allocation for 'affordable' (and make it affordable) housing within.
Another thing for all housing is that public transport needs to be much better
Emergent City is good on the public transport aspect too, so worth a look. Agree with you: you need the infrastructure as well and remember, this was the key to Gough's political success (see the quote I used in this piece, for instance: https://open.substack.com/pub/tdunlop/p/housewarming?r=bhqa3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true)
I think you can make a case that we used to do something like what you call for: not a right to housing per se, but we had an industrial system that took as given that there was a need for a balance between labour and capital and that people should be paid a living wage. Which meant, people should be able to earn enough to put a roof over their heads. Going back to at least the Harvester judgement of 1907.
Of course, the Accord took care of that and we have been market driven ever since, in a way we never were. Not to say some sort of reform wasn't needed, only that we live in the shadow of those decisions.
Yes, Gough experienced the lack of facilities in the sprawling outer suburbs of Sydney and saw governments as being responsible for providing the same amenities that those in other areas took for granted.
Albanese in the last election, attempted a log cabin story: growing up in public housing but managing to run for PM. However, he doesn't see government as the driver in providing housing for everyone. In particular he can't pick up on the urgency of the need (people suffering worse health because they are homeless or children experiencing disrupted schooling through having to move on multiple times from temporary living arrangements).
He needs to confer with more people. What he initially came up with was like a futures fund. Now he has an array of plans and acronyms and isn't able to sell any of them. With something like housing shortage and affordability, he should have started off with a vision and a voice about how they were going to deal with it. How much opposition would he face? They could have started in a real and practical way and attended to some shortages Australia-wide through building and even renovations. You wouldn't solve everything all at once but you need to show something and give people hope. Wait lists for public housing are incredibly long.
And you need to have the guts to address negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts. Hopefully the new, higher land taxes in Victoria will induce more people to assess the real value of their investment properties
I don't understand Albanese's positioning and attitude at all. He seems completely lost in the minutiae of internal party management and political-class preoccupations and to have lost contact with anything like an understanding of what the moment demands. Maybe I'm wrong.
For me the ALP is like a deer frozen if the lights of an on coming car. They were burnt by the 2018 election defeat and the loss of the Voice referendum. So the ALP will go to the next election with a ‘safe’ list of promises and no vision. And if they hold a ‘minority’ government they will be even more cautious.
Hi Mark - yeah, one of the interesting things about GM's essay is how it reveals the extent to which senior people like Albanese and Chalmers feel burned by the experiences of Gillard-Rudd and the other things you mention. Personally, I think they learned the wrong lessons from those moments, but in fairness, I can see why they have reacted as they have. As I've been saying for a while now, if they could lean in a bit more to the possibilities of a supportive crossbench they would find a lot of other things would fall into place. But from their pov, as you suggest, the incentives just aren't there: they aren't structured to work that way. So I think you are right: minority govt is likely to make them more cautious. And round we go. Unless whoever has the balance of power is willing to use it.
Worth recalling that the absurdly inadequate Housing Australia Future Fund was the only significant expenditure policy in Albanese's 2022 campaign (the Voice and NACC weren't about money). In Albanese's mind, he's already done the hard yards on this issue.
Yes, good point. And such a good indicator of how his political brain works.
And I don’t know that Albanese is the leader for that transformation. And to be honest I can’t think of anyone in the ALP who is. Sorry to be a pessimist. They are all trapped by their battering by the LNP over the past 30 years from when Keating was defeated by Howard b
I assume Chalmers would be the replacement. My impression is that he is more intellectually flexible, and less tribally Labor than most of the alternatives (Albanese score zero on the first count and 100/100 on the second).
Great article Tim
There’s a pretty good housing policy that the teals might to like to have a look at that reflects the need for bold action here
https://greens.org.au/policies/housing-and-homelessness
With specific platform commitments here
https://greens.org.au/housing
and here
https://greens.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-01/Greens-2022-Policy-Platform--Services--Homes.pdf
I’m no longer in the greens party room and obviously won’t be there if negotiations happen post election in the case of Labor needing crossbench support to form government but it’s a pretty fair bet that updated versions of these platform docs will be the Greens starting point in such negotiations.
Thanks, Janet. I honestly hope they do avail themselves of these, at least as a starting point for a discussion. Obviously, the Greens have owned this issue this term and I hope they can keep the pressure on. I think John Quiggin is right (above) in saying that the PM thinks he's already done the hard yards. He needs to realise he hasn't.
I agree with that assessment, and that there will need to be something that Labor can go to the election with that they see as a winner, doesn’t rely on big govt money ( because sadly they are so unlikely to agree to that, even though it’s such a classic investment that has such big societal returns) and ideally for them is not seen as a greens win.
I also agree that the most critical element of what is needed is massive investment in public and social housing. Reform of negative gearing and CGT would give them the tax take to afford that investment but sadly that is also highly unlikely to happen in the next term.
So maybe the answer is for Labor to agree to and fund what’s needed to unlock a big chunk of super fund investment eg
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/19/australia-superannuation-funds-housing-crisis-ifm
Yes, nothing seems to be achievable in a single term, and any serious is always battling the easy undermining that Murdoch and co specialise: one the things GM definitely got right. A resourceful and determined crossbench with the balance of power seems the only way to force that sort of change. Not easy though.