With parliament about to get underway for the new term, housing advocates Everybody’s Home has a list of solutions for Australia’s housing crisis that a willing government could actually implement.

One of the strange things about the housing crisis is that you have the federal housing minister saying that it’s the state’s fault/responsibility. And while it is right that housing is not the immediate responsibility of the federal government, the well being of Australians is. And the power of being in the federal government is the ability to be able to make national laws. That doesn’t require reading Abundance (if you haven’t heard of that book, protect your peace) or mean that property developers are the ones who will save us. It means, as Everybody’s Home points out, actually taking action.

Everybody’s Home’s new report, Out of Reach, shows that “once-affordable cities are now suffering from some of the worst rental pressures in the country”.

With rents surging 57% across capital cities over the past decade, and social housing declining to around 4% of all homes, the housing crisis has reached unprecedented levels that demand urgent government action.

As parliament starts for this new term, Everybody’s Home is calling on the government to:

• Build more social housing (940,000 new homes within 20 years to meet demand) 
• Phase out unfair tax handouts to property investors that fuel property speculation
• Coordinate nationally consistent protections for renters
• Boost income support to help keep people housed and out of poverty.

Everybody’s Home spokesperson Maiy Azize said: 

Labor has the mandate but they won’t have this opportunity forever. This term is their moment to leave a lasting legacy on housing or they can be remembered for letting it slip through their fingers.

This is a defining opportunity for the Labor government to show they’re serious about fixing the housing crisis. They must seize this second term to deliver housing policies that will create lasting, generational change.

Australians expect this new Parliament to show up with ambition and drive bold, visionary housing reforms that match the enormity of the crisis. Our leaders cannot afford to waste this second chance to deliver lasting, transformative change for millions of Australians.

The government mustn’t take for granted the Australians who voted them in with the hope of making housing more affordable. The government can’t ignore the increasing number of Australians who are sleeping on streets and couches, forgoing food and medicine to pay rent, and living in unsafe and makeshift housing.

Warnings that the government is unlikely to meet its 1.2 million housing target is further proof that relying on the private market alone won’t work. The government must step up and directly deliver the rentals that are guaranteed to be affordable and meet demand.

If Labor is serious about fixing the housing crisis, it must return to the business of building. This requires a big and long-term commitment to delivering hundreds of thousands of social and affordable housing.”

All the MPs are filing into the Church. We will be able to bring you some of that soon. Essentially the politicians all sit together and hear about love, peace and working in unison and then step outside the church and start poiticking on the steps. That was worse in the Abbott/Morrison/Dutton years, so let’s see how Sussan Ley handles it.

Given this is Australia’s strongest statement to date on Gaza, the government has sent out Tony Burke for the main media appearances. He’s an established player who won’t stumble or go further than the government intends, while also speaking plainly. He’s appeared on all the major networks to give the response to the statement, and parliament starting in beginning.

And why did it take the government so long to act on the South Australian algae bloom which is devastating local marine life? (Phil Coorey at the AFR has been one of the loudest journalist voices in covering the disaster, and made the point early and often that if the dead marine life had been washing up at Bondi beach, it would have been national news from the beginning)

Environment minister Murray Watt recently went to look at the devastation himself, and has now led to a stronger government response.

Tony Burke says:

Look, the wording of national disaster applies to very specific events. There’s a legislated, formalised list of events that this is not in.

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s an environmental disaster. It doesn’t change the fact that all eyes of the nation are on it. It doesn’t change the fact that for the people of South Australia, what they are seeing, you know, carcasses washing up onto their beaches, is absolutely horrific. It’s appropriate there’s a national response.

There are particular words that don’t fit a legal definition that’s there but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re treating it as something that matters to the whole nation, that is a disaster and that warrants our response.

Would it have received a quicker response if it were happening in Sydney or Melbourne?

Burke:

Murray Watt, the Environment Minister, was there on the ground yesterday. The Premier made statements as well yesterday. We’re working cooperatively. This is a new event. You know, we’ve had algal blooms before but of this particular scale. It’s affected by climate change. It’s something that is a slow-moving, but having a horrific impact. You know, I’ve spoken to people who live in some of the coastal areas in South Australia, who have just spoken about the horror of, you know, going for what’s meant to be, you know… they love, absolutely love the concept of going for a walk on the beach and what’s been one of their great joys in life has now just become this horrifically depressing moment. It’s not something that governments, state or federal, can immediately, you know, fix. We don’t have a method of immediately stopping an algal bloom, but we need to be able to work together in dealing with a response and that’s what we’re doing.

The first day of a new parliament begins at church with a mixed-dominational service. Tony Burke is speaking from outside this year’s chosen church (it moves around) and when asked about what the new parliament will look like, Burke says:

Well, obviously the House of Representatives on the floor will feel different this time, just because the numbers, the nature of it is very different. Every Parliament feels different in that way. But the expectations on us, I’ve got to say, I don’t feel that different. When we were first elected, people wanted us to get wages moving, they wanted us to be defending Medicare. They wanted us to make sure that people would earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those themes carried us through the campaign and those themes are what we need to get down to this term. Tomorrow, Jason Clare will introduce legislation, big cost-of-living measure, to reduce every student debt by 20%.

There’s people who went to uni and TAFE who carry student debts. For a lot of them, it’s a problem in them trying to get a home loan and to be able to cut that by 20%, that’s one of the things we committed to in that legislation and that will be introduced tomorrow. Immediately following that, there’ll be legislation about early chidehood education centres in making sure that that we’ve got the laws in place to make sure that we are really lifting the standards in every centre, but the horrific stories that we’ve seen in a number of centres, every parent needs to be able to have the confidence that we’ve put the laws in place to be able to address that.

Q: Has it taken too long to get to this point, Tony Burke? Because there’s been many, many months of evidence of mass atrocities, allegations of war crimes. Why has it taken us this long to issue a statement of this kind?

Burke:

Well, some of what this statement refers to is referring to recent events as well, with the shifts that have happened in how aid’s being managed into the area, and also, you know, the increasing sight of people being killed on their way simply to get food and water. So it deals with the most recent events. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that, you know, we’re in 2025, we’re going back to October of 2023 when this started and even in 2023, we were calling for ceasefire, we were voting for ceasefire. It’s… Yes, this is a very strong statement, but we should not pretend that it’s only begun today.

Q: Israel has responded immediately, refuting the statement, and given Israel appears increasingly hostile to the calls from its allies, what’s our next step from here? Because the statement foreshadows what it calls further action. What would that be?

Burke:

Look, I think at the moment, you let the statement speak for itself. It’s been worked out with other countries to be precisely in the terms that it is. And I don’t think it’s helpful for me to be clarifying or adding to the words. It’s a powerful statement. It’s got countries, powerful countries, from all around the world, saying the same thing. The slaughter has to end.

Q: Tony Burke, is this Australia’s strongest statement we’ve issued since the beginning of the conflict?

Burke tells the ABC:

It would be. There’s been a series of very strong statements that we’ve made. What we’ve been making sure of is that whenever we make a statement of this nature that we’re bringing as many other countries along with us at the same time. On our own, Australia’s not a loud voice or a decisive voice on the other side of the world. But when you can make a statement together with so many other significant powers, then, you know, we’re all hoping that there’ll be something that will break this.

We’ve seen too many images of children being killed, of horrific slaughter, of churches being bombed, the images that we’ve seen have been pretty clear that so much of this is indefensible and as that statement referred to, you know, aid being drip-fed in. None of this changes the fact that the hostages need to be released. Of course that needs to happen. But what we are watching on the other side of the world is indefensible. The hostages still need to be released, but the war needs to end.

Well would you look at that. Australia has just joined the UK and the foreign ministers of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the EU commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management is calling for an end to Israel’s war on Palestine (they specify Gaza in the statement).

This is the strongest statement Australia has signed up for to date. Australia has now officially called for an end to the war, condemned Israel’s aid delivery system and “inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food”.

It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid. The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable. Israel must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law.

The statement also condemns Israel’s “humanitarian city” (concentration camp) as “completely unacceptable” and opposes Israel’s proposed take over of territory within Gaza. The statement ends by saying it supports the efforts for a permanent ceasefire (which have gone nowhere, with multiple reports Israel refuses to negotiate) and threatens “further action” to support a ceasefire, but doesn’t say what.

The whole statement is as follows (passive language warning):

We, the signatories listed below, come together with a simple, urgent message: the war in Gaza must end now.

The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity. We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food. It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid. The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable. Israel must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law.

The hostages cruelly held captive by Hamas since 7 October 2023 continue to suffer terribly. We condemn their continued detention and call for their immediate and unconditional release. A negotiated ceasefire offers the best hope of bringing them home and ending the agony of their families.

We call on the Israeli government to immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their life saving work safely and effectively.

We call on all parties to protect civilians and uphold the obligations of international humanitarian law. Proposals to remove the Palestinian population into a “humanitarian city” are completely unacceptable. Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law.

We strongly oppose any steps towards territorial or demographic change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The E1 settlement plan announced by Israel’s Civil Administration, if implemented, would divide a Palestinian state in two, marking a flagrant breach of international law and critically undermine the two-state solution. Meanwhile, settlement building across the West Bank including East Jerusalem has accelerated while settler violence against Palestinians has soared. This must stop.

We urge the parties and the international community to unite in a common effort to bring this terrible conflict to an end, through an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire. Further bloodshed serves no purpose.  We reaffirm our complete support to the efforts of the US, Qatar and Egypt to achieve this.

We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region.

Meanwhile, Albanese’s assistant minister Patrick Gorman has decided to start the 48th parliament as he means to go on – treating the subject lines in media transcripts as an Olympic sport.

For those unfamiliar with this particular game, MPs release transcripts of their interviews and press conferences with a list of topics which were discussed as the subject line. Over the last few years, some savvy media advisors have realised the potential for the subject line to set the tone for how journalists should read the transcript. Sussan Ley’s office liked to push the boundaries, and James Paterson’s office also indulges in a bit of subject line gaming.

But Gorman remains the gold medal holder and his first transcript for this week showed it’s a title he intends on holding:

Subjects: Returning to Canberra for the opening of the 48th Parliament; the Albanese Government is cutting 20% off HECS debt and providing cost of living relief; the Coalition’s record on education policy has failed Australians; Barnaby Joyce was Deputy Prime Minister when Australia signed up to the Paris Agreements – and now he is criticising net zero; internal Coalition uncertainty on emissions reduction policy; the new crossbench in the 48th Parliament.

Interestingly, both the Sky News program and Gorman’s transcript refer to Gorman’s co-panelist in the segment Jason Falinski, as the former member for Mackellar – which he is – but make no mention of his role in establishing and authorising Australians for Prosperity – a pro-Coalition lobby group which campaigns on anti-superannuation reform, cutting regulations and free market propaganda (sound familiar?)

In terms of more serious issues, Albanese was also pressed on the why of it all in regards to his six-day visit to China, and in particular, his relationship with leader Xi Jinping.

Albanese had a private lunch with Xi, which is a rarity for a western world leader. He says it was “personal” and he will not discuss what the pair spoke about, other than it gave him a better insight into who Xi is:

Albanese:

We raised a whole range of issues. Because it was personal, I’m not going to go into the detail. But it wasn’t so much discussing the affairs of state that we did in our formal bilateral meeting as President of China and Prime Minister of Australia. It was more talking about personal issues, our history, our backgrounds.
 

Ferguson : What did you learn about his history and background?
 
Albanese:

I learned a fair bit, but again, they’re personal. He’s, I think, quite a private person. And it’s important that you are able to have those conversations, but in order to understand where people are coming from, you’ve got to know their background and you’ve got to know some of their views about personal things. And I feel as though we got to know each other much more.
 

Ferguson: You said that there were jokes. What were the jokes about?
 
Albanese:

The jokes were about all sorts of things, but once again, I’m going to keep that private. But he had showed a real sense of humour and it was a very warm conversation that we had. He, of course, has visited all six states and territories in Australia. Now, most Australians have not done that.
 

He says Taiwan and other “heavy” policy issues were not discussed but again said he would not go into detail because he will not break the Xi’s trust that private conversations will be private. What is that trust worth?

Albanese:

Well, what it’s worth is not coming on the program and talking about the personal issues. For example, that shows a level of engagement there and building personal relations. It’s no different from building personal relations around this building or at a Labor party conference, engaging internationally…

So would Xi take a phone call from him over Taiwan if that issue boiled over?

Albanese:

That’s a hypothetical which I’m not going to go into. But I have said before that anything that he has said to me has been fulfilled. There hasn’t been any breaches of personal commitments that he has given to me. That doesn’t mean he’s agreed with everything that I’ve put forward, far from it. But I’d rather that than someone on an international level saying, ‘yep, we can do all that’, and then doing the opposite.
 

Ferguson: So, you trust him that when he says something, he’s going to keep his word?
 
Albanese:

I have no reason to point to any breach that has occurred up to this point.
 

Ferguson: That’s about the past. What about the future?
 
Albanese:

Well, all I can do is talk about the past, because I can just talk about facts rather than – going forward we don’t know what it will bring. We know there are significant differences. China and Australia have different political systems, we have different values. We have our alliance with the United States, which is very important. We’re a democratic nation and tomorrow will be the expression of that democracy.

Ok, to quickly cover some of last night off, after going to the traditional Last Post ceremony (which is where Mike Bowers snapped the main blog photo you can see) Anthony Albanese headed to the ABC studios for an interview with Sarah Ferguson and 7.30.

Albanese is making a point of making himself available to all media – which includes content creators and podcasters – as he enters this new term, building on his approach to the leadership in the last parliamentary term. He’ll go where the audience is, which is something the Coalition is only just attempting now (hello to Ley’s media team who continue to refuse to put me on their media list 🙂 )

At the end of the interview, Albanese was asked about the future of Latham’s portrait – which hangs with the other leaders of the Labor party – after a push to have it removed. It won’t be – instead there will be a little sign added explaining that he was banned from the Labor party for life, and that his actions and values do not accord with the party.

Albanese said it for better or worse, Latham is a part of Labor’s history and therefore the portrait will stay:

Well, it’s a historical fact. It’s a bit like statues and a range of things. History is there. The way to deal with that is to point out the changes that have occurred. Mark Latham has views which I find repulsive across a range of areas. He is someone who I regret ever being elected leader of the Labor Party. That’s not something I do in retrospect, that’s something I fought very hard on when I was one of the people doing the numbers for Kim Beazley in that ballot. And so, I think that history has proven that judgement to be correct. Mark Latham since, though, has certainly under any circumstances, has gone further and further and further away from any values that represent mainstream Australia.