surreptitiouswalk

I think your first paragraph nails it. Developers are holding off development not to introduce artificial scarcity, but to maximise development. So they keep the land empty until either they can convince the council to approve a higher density, or a change in state government gives them an avenue to bulldoze through the council roadblocks.

At least in NSW a single graph is needed to show this relationship: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/housing-supply-insights/quarterly-insights-monitor-q1/trends-in-housing-supply the correlation between number of approvals and number of constructions is basically exact. Which means, the roadblock to construction is council approval, not corporate greed or developers gaming the system to generate artificial scarcity or any other conspiracy you can think of.

I do agree that removing infrastructure charges is not a solution. From my perspective, this won't do anything since developers aren't blocked because of costs, but either materials supply or council blockades. Removing infrastructure charges solves neither of these issues.

The opposing viewpoint is that the reason apartment building is slowed is because developers are incentivised to maximise profit, and thus they are disincentivised from building too many apartments at once, creating an artificial scarcity and keeping home prices high. Developers are land-banking to the detriment of society as a whole.

I find this hard to believe. Every time council releases land, or the state government increases allowable density, developers are licking their lips and inundating councils with applications. Why submit an application, with the architect and application costs to get a DA to sit on, if they want to create artificial scarcity. Just don't sit on the land without a DA.

The reality is, since covid, building companies have been collapsing left right and centre due to supply chain issues which has led to way higher building materials costs. Projects builders have started are now operating at a loss and causing builders to go bust. Furthermore, the lack of building supplies means projects can't proceed, despite the record demand for construction work. It's really one of those rare situations where a highly in demand industry is in recession.

Just just way more convenient and fits the narrative to, once again, put it down to pure corporate greed.

I don't understand why state liberals who support the voice are not out in droves to rebuff Dutton's acrobatic positions. At this stage "Liberals for Yes" is an impotent empty shell of a campaign group.

So what's not obscene then? 1x?

Seems like she was convicted on a technicality, possibly that by the letter of the law she committed the crime, even if it was done under duress and she didn't benefit from it.

It seems the judge recognised this by not recording a conviction against her and no additional jail time. The bond seems unfair though but maybe it's to provide assurance that she won't start the prostitution ring again.

Why is this a single box people have to write in, rather than two boxes with "yes" or "no" that the voter has to tick, cross, fill in to select?

What if people write yes/no in their own language.

Honestly this set up does seem dumb and leaves so much to for error.

If it's known that cars are less manoeuvrable and have poorer sight lines, why do motorcyclists insist on gunning it past cars and swerving into the next lane before they've fully cleared the car they're trying to overtake. Not to mention the constant overtaking from the left, which is a completely moronic thing to do. If they're weaving in and out of traffic rather than just staying in their lane and spot, they're far less likely to sneak up on a car unawares and get hit.

That is entirely on them.

Surely they have more incentive to drive safe coz the price of having an accident is so much higher for them (physical injury, maiming and death).

While I'm a strong supporter of the Voice, I fear it's going to be defeated. I've spoken to a number of people around me and there's genuine confusion around whether it's something indigenous Australians want. While the statistics show 80-90% support amongst indigenous Australians for the Voice, when the Coalition trots out Price and Mundine, the public sees a sizable dissenting indigenous faction. Those I've spoken to are unsure if they should vote yes solely on the basis that they aren't sure if indigenous Australians want it, and that's from my more progressive mates.

Labor has and is botching this campaign in a major way. Their near silence and passive approach to this campaign is failing and it's shifting normally supportive people into undecideds, let along flipping the undecided voters.

Either Labor and the Greens lift their game fast or this referendum is dead. Polling is suggesting that support has already dipped below 50%.

Honestly any business that uses an ISP email address just looks amateurish to me.

There's a reason insurance companies don't cover flood plains, because it's a matter of when, not if, and insurance won't cover losses that will definitely happen.

Surely what it demonstrates is once you have foreign citizenship, don’t go back to China? That’s not good for the Chinese economy.

I don't even think it's necessary to go that far. This should be "don't work in a political position in/for China".