The counter-strike was launched yesterday, or Saturday - news story about apprentices benefiting so much from $10,000 to pave their way to trades - but gee whoa on there, Pilgrims - we 'need' more tradies than that to build the much needed 'homes'* so some asshole can buy investment and force the peons into permanent servitude and worthlessness neofeudally.... so , hold it right there - we 'need' to import more tradespeople..... and their extended families etc since we dont have GUEST WORKER VISAS.

Now I don't know how that sits with you, pardner - but to me I smell one mighty big gutter skunk right there...


*

Frank wrote Today at 11:39am:


Well, we do need more builders, nurses, and farm workers; and the independent candidate in the Farrer by-election is running on that very point.

Jasin wrote Yesterday at 6:03pm:


So builders aren't interested in finding cheaper products to build with?

Or no-one wants a house that will turn into mulch in 12 months?

*buzz
*buzz

Both wrong.
Builders want home buyers to spend big.
Hence only building Block mansions at $300,000 more than the usual.

Builders and 'their' Councils opposed Staw Bale since the late 80's.
But since then, more and more Engineers & University tests proved their superior qualities and forced Councils to accept and builders to stop harass.

I myself helped build the Garden building at Carrs Park, Kogarah for the Council which realised the financial benefit for a building built in just 2 days. Despite the abuse from builders turning up to harass to no avail. 

Straw Bale is the choice for fire prone areas.
I've even worked on a mansion in Wollongong building one.

Only a fool wouldn't build one for a house which the only flaw is that it has to be built on raised earth so water doesn't collect and sit at the base.

freediver wrote Today at 12:40pm:


At least Gnads asked a sensible question, for which I supplied the figures (see #166); do you only read replies to your own posts?  (Might explain your ignorance of economic history.)

Quote:


At a time when public housing remained a significant part of the Oz housing portfolio.

https://www.menziesrc.org/news-feed/the-menzies-government-and-housing-policy#:~...


Menzies appreciated that the key to boosting housing supply was the reduction of building costs. He remarked that ‘by sound industrial policies, adequate supply of materials, and the steady continuity of work, the costs of building have been reduced’. In his 1949 bid to return to office, he had vowed to ‘review the incidences of such imposts as sales tax on home fittings and furniture. The lower costs of building would of course translate into more affordable houses for Australian families.

Er ...what happened between then and now?

Housing is now unaffordable for average wage earners, and building costs are rising.

Amazing - after decades of neoliberalism, we have a cost of living crisis affecting low and middle income groups (...pity Coles, who are trying to lay the blame on suppliers...).

The first Minister appointed to the new housing portfolio in December 1963 was Leslie Bury, the Member for Wentworth in Sydney’s eastern suburbs. Born in London in 1913, Bury read economics at Queens College, Cambridge University, before emigrating to Australia in 1935 to take up a position with the Bank of NSW. Following successful careers in the Departments of External Affairs and Treasury, Bury won the seat of Wentworth in the December 1956 by-election. An ardent supporter of free-trade, Bury was critical of Keynesianism and excessive state intervention. In 1961, Menzies appointed Bury to his first portfolios as Minister for Air and Minister for Assisting the Treasurer. Despite being sacked from these posts in 1962 for his outspoken views on Britain’s integration into the European common market, he returned to the ministry in 1963 as the inaugural Minister for Housing.

Homes Savings Grant 1964

As Housing Minister, Bury’s most noteworthy achievement was the introduction of the ‘Homes Savings Grant’ for first home buyers in 1964. The scheme offered cash grants for married or engaged couples under the age of 36 to buy a home. To be eligible for the grant, the house or unit purchased needed to be the first home owned by either or both of the married couple upon or after marriage. Eligibility for the grant also had a cap on properties valued at more than 7000 pounds, reflecting the view of the Government that those acquiring more expensive homes  needed less help from the taxpayer. It applied equally to properties in urban and rural areas.

Re the underlined (taxpayer support for couples): Labor tday is forced to pay for 95% of the deposit on a home, to enable to people to become slaves to $million dollar mortgages....