Linkage

The Republican Party thought it could ride the tiger of the Christian Right: instead, that movement swallowed the party whole. There a presidential candidate’s victory could depend on their success at gaining the Christian Right leaders’ endorsement. The news released on Sunday that Coalition candidates submitted a Christian principles statement to the Australian Christian Lobby’s (ACL) voter advice site signals they are making the same dangerous gamble.

The ACL is not lobbying for the traditional Australian definition of Christian, which leans more to the “live and let live”. Rather, this is an organisation committed to coercive, American style Christianity. It has been listed as a “hate group”. Rumours in Pentecostal circles that the ACL is encouraging its leaders to undertake training from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a radical right American organisation that has argued for the “state-sanctioned sterilisation of trans people” need to be addressed. That body also works towards the (re)criminalising of homosexuality and stripping of access to reproductive healthcare. The ACL and the ADFwere both at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London in February, with the ADF’s Kristen Waggoner listed as a speaker. Many Coalition politicians are on the ARC’s advisory board and attended that conference.

[…]

The statement concludes with a transphobic commitment to the “biological fact” that there are only two sexes. The Coalition’s statement deviates from the extreme position represented in Trump’s second government only by allowing that intersex biology exists. This grade school understanding of human biology, let alone psychology, is reductive and wrong. It also flags the continued misuse of trans people as the first targeted outsider in an ugly politics that prioritises the insider identity against a chosen mutual enemy.

Because of course it does.

Carney has seized on Trump’s tariff crisis to push through a pro-corporate agenda that attacks Indigenous peoples, workers, and the environment. Now, it’s up to social movements to respond as quickly.

Some nice infographics based largely on census data, provided as a turnkey service for local government.

The 2025 Rental Affordability Snapshot surveyed rental listings across Australia and found that affordability has crashed to record lows. The Snapshot surveyed 51,238 rental listings across Australia and found that:

   352 rentals (0.7%) were affordable for a person earning a full-time minimum wage
   165 rentals (0.3%) were affordable for a person on the Age Pension
   28 rentals (0.1%) were affordable for a person on the Disability Support Pension
   3 rentals (0%), all rooms in sharehouses, were affordable for a person on JobSeeker
   No rentals were affordable for a person on Youth Allowance.

In response to the findings, Anglicare Australia is calling on the Government to return to directly funding and providing housing itself, instead of leaving housing to the private sector. Anglicare Australia is also calling on the Government to wind back landlord tax concessions.

This project built on previous Australian and recent international research to develop a set of budget standards for low-paid and unemployed Australians and their families.  

The family types included are:

• a single person (male and female) 
• couples without children
• couples with one and two children 
• a sole parent with one child.

The approach incorporated existing community norms, expert judgments and relevant evidence from social surveys. It emphasised the views expressed by low-paid and unemployed individuals in focus groups to ensure that the standards are grounded in everyday experience and reflect actual needs.  

The results were also used to inform debate and guide decisions about the adequacy of minimum wages and income support payments for the unemployed required to support healthy living consistent with individual needs, family needs and prevailing community standards.

Ooh. This is really nice.

The annual rental affordability index (RAI) report is an easy-to-understand indicator of rental affordability relative to household incomes. Since its establishment in 2015, it has become a crucial tool for policymakers. It helps track rental affordability trends and informs evidence-based policy decisions – highlighting nuances between places and the experiences of disadvantaged households. To produce the Index each year, we work closely with our partners: National Shelter and Beyond Bank. 

Pissweak:

The study authors said the effects of decades of underinvestment in the social housing sector were gradually being reversed as state and federal governments looked to ease the housing crisis.

Dr Martin said the renewed focus on the sector posed an opportunity to deliver housing support differently.

“It may not always be about the golden ticket of a social housing tenancy, even though that’s what a lot of people will rightly want and need,” he said.

His examples included additional assistance to very low-income households in the private market and a bigger focus on individual housing needs.

Queensland recently reported an average wait time of about 21 months for high-needs households moving into government-owned social housing.

In Victoria, priority households face a wait of about 18 months. The wait for a two-bedroom property in inner-city Sydney is 10 years or more.

“We do need a more person-centred approach,” Ms Toohey said.

“We can integrate choice-based letting where people can search for their own social housing properties, or have a system whereby we check in on people on the list and see if there’s any other housing assistance you can provide.”

This report provides data and insights about social housing need across Victoria and models social housing growth targets required to meet expressed demand and total demand. These growth targets are based on a set of housing scenarios, policy scenarios and distribution scenarios. The method is detailed in the body of this report.

All data, insights and analysis, and modelling in this report has been produced by SGS Economics and Planning for the Victorian Housing Peaks Alliance.

While the government has housing targets for the private market, there are no strictly defined social housing targets.

"In Victoria, the current proportion of social housing is 3.1 per cent. After the Big Housing Build, it will be about 3.5 per cent — still well under the national average of 4.5 per cent (which itself isn't enough to meet demand)," the report notes.

"In order to catch up to the national average of 4.5 per cent social housing stock, Victoria needs to build 7,990 new social housing dwellings a year for the next 10 years."

Without building 7,990 new social dwellings each year for the next decade, Victoria's proportion of social housing would drop to about 2 per cent by 2051, the report forecasts.

The report also notes its target is "modest", with modelling showing the state would need to build 10,700 social housing dwellings a year for the next decade to meet "expressed demand" for social housing — enough to house those on the social housing waitlist as well as those currently receiving social housing assistance.

To meet the total demand for social housing — enough for all Victorians who need assistance, including those who haven't formally requested it — the state would need to build 27,900 social dwellings a year.

Income inequality and radical right parties have both been on the rise in Western democracies, yet few studies explore the linkages between the two – despite prominent arguments about voters feeling ‘left behind’. We argue that rising inequality not only intensifies relative deprivation, but also signals a potential threat of social decline, as gaps in the social hierarchy widen. Hence, voters higher up in the social hierarchy may turn to the radical right to defend existing social boundaries. Using International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) data from 14 OECD countries over three decades, we find that rising income inequality increases the likelihood of radical right support – most pronouncedly among individuals with high subjective social status and lower-middle incomes. Adding to evidence that the threat of decline, rather than actual deprivation, pushes voters towards the radical right, we highlight income inequality as the crucial factor conditioning perceived threats from a widening social hierarchy.