Linkage

Usual caveat:  "affordable housing" isn't "social housing", which isn't "public housing". Public housing is what's needed. Also what was delivered as mandatory trickle-down housing in Sydney and presented here as a success story is not going to make a measurable difference to the situation.

New analysis from the Community Housing Industry Association Victoria (CHIA Vic) has revealed that since 2016, when the Central City Planning Provisions were amended to include a “public benefit uplift” incentive, developers have secured approval for almost 31,000 new homes. Not one of those has been delivered as affordable housing.

Instead, the voluntary scheme has overwhelmingly favoured commercial office space as the “public benefit” of choice. As reported by this masthead in early 2018, within just a year of its introduction more than 54,000 square metres of office floorspace had been awarded to applicants under the FAU mechanism, while no uplift had been granted for social housing, libraries, kindergartens or other community facilities that were also originally contemplated.

The result, according to CHIA Vic chief executive Sarah Toohey, is proof that voluntary approaches do not work.

"The voluntary developer contribution scheme for the Melbourne CBD and Southbank has not delivered a single affordable home since it was introduced nearly a decade ago," she said.

“What we’ve seen instead is developers opting for office space and other benefits that serve their own interests, while communities continue to miss out on the affordable homes they desperately need.”

The issue is back in the spotlight with the Suburban Rail Loop East planning documents now proposing a similar voluntary uplift framework around new station precincts. CHIA Vic has warned that without mandatory requirements, there is little chance of affordable housing being supplied in these high-demand areas either.

“The Suburban Rail Loop will add tens of thousands of new homes around station precincts but right now it’s not clear if any of them will be social or affordable housing,” Ms Toohey said. “We can’t leave the delivery of social housing in these precincts up to a voluntary scheme that we know from experience won’t work.”

By contrast, Sydney’s long-standing mandatory affordable housing contributions scheme has already provided more than 1500 homes since 1996, with a further 1950 projected by 2036.

Andor ruined the rest of Star Wars for me. The original trilogy was one long homage to cinema, fittingly for the nostalgia-drenched 1970s and 80s. Everything since inadvertently commented on commercial culture. Andor deliberately told an urgently relevant story about our current time, made more powerful by shifting the setting to a very familiar galaxy long ago and far, far away.

John Maynard Keynes, in a 1942 BBC address:

   Let us not submit to the vile doctrine of the nineteenth century that every enterprise must justify itself in pounds, shillings and pence of cash income … Why should we not add in every substantial city the dignity of an ancient university or a European capital … an ample theater, a concert hall, a dance hall, a gallery, cafes, and so forth. Assuredly we can afford this and so much more. Anything we can actually do, we can afford. … We are immeasurably richer than our predecessors. Is it not evident that some sophistry, some fallacy, governs our collective action if we are forced to be so much meaner than they in the embellishments of life? …

   Yet these must be only the trimmings on the more solid, urgent and necessary outgoings on housing the people, on reconstructing industry and transport and on replanning the environment of our daily life. Not only shall we come to possess these excellent things. With a big programme carried out at a regulated pace we can hope to keep employment good for many years to come. We shall, in fact, have built our New Jerusalem out of the labour which in our former vain folly we were keeping unused and unhappy in enforced idleness.

The Trumpists want the escalation. They are convinced it is the only path to defeating the “enemy within” and imposing their vision of “real America” on a society they know does not want to comply. That is one major goal of the militarization of American cities: Create situations that are likely to result in violent escalation sooner or later. This is the context in which Charlie Kirk was murdered. The Trumpists believe they may have found their Reichstag fire moment. And if it is not this one, then how long until something else happens that might serve as pretext? When those who are controlling the levers of state power are itching for violence, how long until mass violence follows?

Over the past few months, I have been thinking about a different moment from the Nazi period, and as imperfect as it may be as a potential analogy, I find it terrifying: The assassination of Ernst vom Rath. On the morning of November 7, 1938, a 17-year-old Jewish boy named Herschel Grynszpan shot German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in the German embassy in Paris. Grynszpan was the son of Polish Jews who had fled to Germany in 1911. Herschel emigrated to France by himself in 1935, at the age of 14, trying to get away from Nazi repression. In November 1938, he found out that his family had been deported to a border region between Poland and Germany, robbed of almost everything they possessed. The details of the story are contested, but it seems he decided he wanted revenge. Vom Rath died in the afternoon of November 9. In reaction, the Nazi leadership ordered stormtroopers and party loyalists to vandalize and destroy synagogues across the country. What followed was the so-called Reichskristallnacht, a nation-wide pogrom in which the Nazis killed 1,300 people, arrested tens of thousands, and destroyed over 1,400 Jewish synagogues and town halls. The Nazi propaganda presented it as a spontaneous eruption of the anger of the German people. But the regime had long planned this next escalation, and the killing of Ernst vom Rath offered a welcome pretext to radicalize the persecution of German Jews.

In 1987, the Medical Journal of Australia published a paper titled Gender-disordered children: does inpatient treatment help? by Robert Kosky, then director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Services in Western Australia.

It described eight children, all under 12, who were hospitalised at Stubbs Terrace between 1975 and 1980 for what the paper called "gender identity disorder".

The children were separated from their families and treated for months at a time. The paper argued their "cross-gender behaviours" were the result of inappropriate family dynamics — and suggested the hospital program corrected them.

When Anja Ravine, a trans youth health researcher at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, came across it decades later, she was alarmed.

"It's implicit that they were expecting gender identity to return to what was expected. So that is really within the definition of conversion therapy."

Efforts to suppress or change a person's gender identity or sexuality, often referred to as "conversion therapy", are now illegal in most parts of Australia.

"We know now that people who've been exposed to this actually carry long-term psychological scars. It's very harmful," Dr Ravine said.

Despite being nearly 40 years old, the Kosky paper is regularly cited by opponents of gender-affirming care in submissions to lawmakers, courts and medical regulators around the world.

Even in Australia, the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists, has written a clinical guide on how doctors should care for gender diverse youth that also cites the paper.

Dr Ravine said that the study being used is "deeply troubling".

There are investors like the Wilsons all over Australia, who have built or bought disability homes where they are not needed, often under the guidance of property or investment advisers.

Property investment adviser Goro Gupta said part of the problem was that the NDIA — the agency that administers the policy — has not released clear data about where eligible people with a disability want to live.

That has meant many SDA houses have been constructed on the outskirts of capital and regional cities where the land is cheap.

"That's why, of course, the average investor wants to invest," Mr Gupta said.

At one estate in outer-western Melbourne, he was incredulous that so many houses for people with profound disabilities had been built.

"In these areas, there's a lack of amenities," he said.

"It's not close to shops, it's not close to the allied health services that people with disabilities need on a day-to-day basis.

"I mean, have a look at this area. It's paddocks."

For some investors who have overextended to build the homes, renting them out as a normal property is not an option because the returns are nowhere near enough to cover their mortgage repayments.

That means the homes are sitting empty in the hope that an eligible disability client will move in.

Some state governments were suspicious of the Commonwealth's desire to involve itself in housing supply, but the government still managed to secure their support to introduce a national scheme for subsidised rental housing.

The policy was less ambitious than housing reformers wanted, but it was better than nothing.

During the second reading debate on the legislation, a Labor MP from Tasmania, John Frank Gaha, told his parliamentary colleagues that he supported the CSHA "in its entirety". 

However, he said, he regretted the fact that constitutional limitations prevented the Commonwealth and states from taking a "wider view" of the role that housing played in the structure of the economy itself.

He said it made a huge difference to people's lives when they owned their own homes, especially in retirement.

He said it would be great if the government could devise a scheme to keep rents at a low level nationally, so some of the money that low-income families would otherwise spend on rent could be used to help them pay off a family home.

"In this way, we would make the average worker a capitalist; and that is our only solution to communism in this country," Dr Gaha said.

Anti-immigration rallies that have drawn out tens of thousands of Australians in capital cities are being secretly controlled by neo-Nazis – part of a co-ordinated “fraud on the public” experts say could become even more violent when they march again next month.

An investigation by this masthead can reveal how neo-Nazi leadership is using far-right influencers to sell the March for Australia rallies as a “spontaneous” groundswell of “everyday Australians”, while they stack crowds with plain clothes Nazis and send key members interstate to headline rallies. Some neo-Nazis have even donned yellow vests to act as official safety marshals in order to bring marches under the group’s control.

Leaked chatlogs, recordings and insider accounts tell the full story of how the March for Australia rallies grew out of a mysterious TikTok video in early August and descended into a day of chaos and violence across the country on August 31.

And they lay bare the strategy of Australia’s most prominent neo-Nazi group, the National Socialist Network, as they move to radicalise the right to their dangerous fascist ideology under the cloak of the Australian flag.

Actually, the Kimmel story mattered quite a lot – both diagnostically (meaning: as a window into the state of American politics) and politically (in terms of how it is impacting the ongoing struggle). Regardless of its outcome, it pointed to what is one of the key differences between the first Trump administration and his second presidency. While the Trumpists were never defenders of free speech, there was no systematic attempt during Trump I to nullify the First Amendment or use the levers of state power to suppress protest and public dissent. They simply didn’t know how to use the government in that way, and they didn’t have the people in place who could have systematically used the state machinery as an instrument of repression. This led to a pervasive frustration within MAGA, and it is precisely what animated the big planning operations the Right launched during the Biden era – most infamously Project 2025. In fact, Brendan Carr literally wrote the chapter on the FCC in Project 2025’s policy agenda – in which he envisioned using the agency exactly the way he has since taking over as chairman in January: As an instrument to put pressure on business and media, threatening regulatory action or lawsuits against anyone not sufficiently deferential to Trump’s will.

The FCC’s attempt to coerce ABC into canceling Jimmy Kimmel was a reminder that the Trumpists intend to use the federal government as a machine that serves only two purposes: To impose Trump’s will and desire for retribution – and to impose a reactionary societal order against the will of the majority. It was also a demonstration of how an authoritarian transformation of a democratic society tends to work in the twenty-first century. Kimmel’s cancellation sits right at that intersection of open state repression – and pre-emptive self-censorship and complicity by businesses and civil society actors. No need to send the thugs in boots and brown uniforms to rough the place up, or to send the secret police to arrest everyone, if you can also “nudge” these institutions to comply by… less untidy means.