this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2026
53 points (100.0% liked)

Australian Politics

1852 readers
95 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bignose@aussie.zone 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Asked about the Coalition’s plan […] and whether that meant some low-income Australians would have to accept substandard housing, Bragg told ABC radio: “Yes, definitely … it’s more important to have a house than to not have a house. And so, given the affordability crisis we have in the housing system, we need to just build more houses.”

A total non-sequitur. Yes living in a house is better, yes we need to build them. Why not build them to (or better than) the robust safety standards we have now?

Neo-liberalism's answer is: oppose spending any money to improve real people's lives. Unsafe housing is cheaper.

The truth: Australia issues Australian dollars any time they choose to. If high-quality, safe housing can be built by spending Australian dollars, the federal government can always choose to pay. No need to “find” the money anywhere, they can pass a bill to spend the money and it's there.

They just don't want to.