They used to say "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Now they just skip straight to "You animals should be happy with a dog kennel"
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2026
51 points (100.0% liked)
Australian Politics
1852 readers
21 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:
- Australia (general)
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Slumlords want to keep their slums
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.
We really really need to stop putting up with substandard politicians.
It's about the cruelty with these people. They need to see people suffer so they feel justified in the side they chose.
To get off you mean, they can only cum if they think of a child going hungry in slum level housing.
Even though I make above median I have accepted it. Just like I've accepted that I'm only ever going to get the cheapest, shittiest repairs that my landlord can legally get away with, so I'll never actually live somewhere nice.
That doesn't mean I can't complain about it.
"Aye ya fukin yobs wadya expect?"
Go live in one yourself for a year first, jackass.
And what is the standard? Will safety be compromised? Will there still be safe plumbing, wiring, gas, drainage? Will it be clean and made with no toxic construction materials? How long will the house last?
Why the hell do they care?
Liberal frontbencher should accept contents of 12 gauge buckshot cartridge to the brain stem, internet user says
Unironically agree as long as its healthy to live in. I live in a freezing fucking house and its fine.
However, again, as long as its healthy to live in. No mold thank you very much
He creates a false dichotomy. The idea that we can’t have affordable homes and that them keep to standards is a myth.
I guess my thinking is my house was cheap af even for the time and its served us well. Couldn't live in there if you were really old tho, too cold.
Not sure how much it costs to get to standard, but I am just very anti 3 toilets, 5 bedrooms, tripple glazed, smart lighting mansions being the entry home (exageratting of course).
I suppose I want to see 2 bedrooms (or even 1), one toilet small houses being common place. A very humble house.
Smaller homes is exactly what we need, for a mountain of reasons, AND they can be made well. Good insulation to keep out extreme temperatures, good overall design, all electric, solar powered homes would ultimately help reduce public health and other costs. Giving people on low-incomes sub-standard housing is false economy as well as heartless.
The thing is we are going to be seeing far more climactic extremes, in part due to this exact sort of person. Building houses with standards is absolutely more expensive up front and usually heaps cheaper over the longer life of the house.
My in-laws house is built to a pretty damned high standard, compared to my father's. My old man is forever spending money on small repairs, his powerbills are higher (I mean my in-laws are currently net exporters so their powerbills are almost entirely usage charge free), and his property price is largely based on the size of his block, whoever buys it will just knock it down and throw 2-3 units on the land.
It's the Sam Vimes Boots Theory all over again, its expensive to be poor.
What do you think "substandard" means? And how do you think this would turn out in practice?
Actually. On an extra thought. My house is kinda hostile to my health at times lmao. Its sometimes hazardous o stay in my room (it has 3 big windows with no insulation) when its > 35 degrees). I have changed my mind lol
Like some US states where houses are sheathed in cardboard, then wrapped in plastic. Then they have chronic mold, wonder why.
Whatever my house is. It would be way way below modern standards. Still an absolute delight to live in.
I do get having standards thinking on it more, if I had any physical disabilties sensitive to temp I would have to move.
Exactly. It's often elderly people or people with health problems who live in low-income housing.
And low-income sole parents with kids. What do you think this does to them? More days off work because of child or parental illness, doing homework in very cold or very hot rooms, psychological effects, etc, etc. Politicians from privileged backgrounds who make such thoughtless statements are a blight.
It's not thoughtless. They want to perpetuate poverty.
It certainly looks that way.