Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Australian news and politics.

erogenouszone said:
This is where it all went.

Through Senate estimates, it has been revealed that, as part of that larger IT system overhaul, consulting firm Accenture received $78m in a contract for the website aspect. BoM has faced criticism in the past few years for the nine contract extensions made on the Accenture contract – which was originally supposed to cost $31m.

Deloitte also received $35m for its work – a contract that was originally supposed to cost $11m.

Pollies get lobbied, give consulting work worth billions to their mates, consultancy fees eat up most of the work, the end result is sub par, then the pollies blame the departments that had the consultants forced upon them.
Click to expand...
Its worse than that.
 
I bet the ABC are pretty pissed off about this. They are constantly criticised for wasting tax payers money too. Yet with a relatively small budget, they produce one of the best public television and radio services in the world. Not to mention the online news content.

I got the feeling listening to one of their news radio shows this morning that the presenters and their guest speaker on the BoM matter that they would probably be a little indifferent about the wastage of the BoM.....

I mean generally I'm not a public service basher but the BoM?? Wow....

Australian's should be proud of the ABC. I think it's a fantastic effort in terms of what they are given for a country with 27m people....
 
erogenouszone said:
Is that some sort of one line profound wisdom or do you want to expand on that? :LOL:
Click to expand...
I work in infrastructure for both government and private sector. I get to see stuff that just makes me lose all hope. But I can't really say much because of employment and legal ramifications. Retirement cannot come soon enough.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
If investors aren't allowed to buy houses and new home buyers can't afford to buy houses, builders won't build houses they cant sell... its not rocket science.
Click to expand...
The argument is new home buyers cant afford housing because investors are pricing them out under the system.

There is zero argument that there will never be a demand for housing.

There will always be a market for builders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Heard it all now.

If investment properties aren't a thing houses won't be built.

Meanwhile 180 000 people are coming through the door every single year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tsf
tsf said:
The argument is new home buyers cant afford housing because investors are pricing them out under the system.

There is zero argument that there will never be a demand for housing.

There will always be a market for builders.
Click to expand...
Sure, now I cant speak for ALL builders obviously, but the ones I know are all crying foul and struggling to stay afloat because the cost of materials and labour is 3-4 times what it was pre-pandemic. There is a valid argument to say that they will have to increase the amount of homes they are building in order to make it profitable considering an increasing cost to themselves while having to endure lower margins.

But there IS a line where increase costs and increasing demand at lower margins is NOT sustainable... Even for the large volume builders... There is a reason why so many domestic builders have gone into liquidation in the past 24 months. I have NEVER argued that the increased cost of housing ISN'T a problem... Even from my perspective any equity I have from property is a false balloon and only serves as a vehicle to be able to lend more... its NOT a good thing. There is a generation of over-lending that is almost, but not quite, reached its bubble... Cutting a big slice of buyers out of the equation be restricting property ownership is going to do two things.

1) Create a massive glut of exiting properties that will suddenly need to be sold driving the prices down and force people with massive debt to settle at unfavourable timeframes
2) reduce the current existing rental stocks by 80-90% which will make rentals rates even higher.

Cost of housing is a massive problem but "boomer investors" is a bullshit boogyman.

Again this is all just my opinion, Im no economist/biologist/philosopher/gender studies prof like your mate. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Muz said:
Heard it all now.

If investment properties aren't a thing houses won't be built.

Meanwhile 180 000 people are coming through the door every single year.
Click to expand...
If thats what you took out of my comment you really need to pull your head out of your arse ...

Yeah yeah, everybody but you is a cunt, we get it, you are incredibly concerned about the future generations of Australians and have made every sacrifice in your life, forgoing clothes, cars, holidays and craft beers, to provide for their future.

Those 180,000 people that came into our country this year are living where exactly now? Can you tell me?
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Sure, now I cant speak for ALL builders obviously, but the ones I know are all crying foul and struggling to stay afloat because the cost of materials and labour is 3-4 times what it was pre-pandemic. There is a valid argument to say that they will have to increase the amount of homes they are building in order to make it profitable considering an increasing cost to themselves while having to endure lower margins.

But there IS a line where increase costs and increasing demand at lower margins is NOT sustainable... Even for the large volume builders... There is a reason why so many domestic builders have gone into liquidation in the past 24 months. I have NEVER argued that the increased cost of housing ISN'T a problem... Even from my perspective any equity I have from property is a false balloon and only serves as a vehicle to be able to lend more... its NOT a good thing. There is a generation of over-lending that is almost, but not quite, reached its bubble... Cutting a big slice of buyers out of the equation be restricting property ownership is going to do two things.

1) Create a massive glut of exiting properties that will suddenly need to be sold driving the prices down and force people with massive debt to settle at unfavourable timeframes
2) reduce the current existing rental stocks by 80-90% which will make rentals rates even higher.

Cost of housing is a massive problem but "boomer investors" is a bullshit boogyman.

Again this is all just my opinion, Im no economist/biologist/philosopher/gender studies prof like your mate. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

If thats what you took out of my comment you really need to pull your head out of your arse ...

Yeah yeah, everybody but you is a cunt, we get it, you are incredibly concerned about the future generations of Australians and have made every sacrifice in your life, forgoing clothes, cars, holidays and craft beers, to provide for their future.

Those 180,000 people that came into our country this year are living where exactly now? Can you tell me?
Click to expand...

Struck a nerve I see.

Those people that came to the country this year are probably living in rentals owned by people using houses as an investment vehicle which is how this discussion started.
 
Muz said:
Struck a nerve I see.

Those people that came to the country this year are probably living in rentals owned by people using houses as an investment vehicle which is how this discussion started.
Click to expand...
Well being called a cunt doesnt endear you to an amicable conversation generally.

So if those people coming to Australia this year didn't have a rental property to live, where would they live?
In a housing estate house that costs 900K to buy?
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Well being called a cunt doesnt endear you to an amicable conversation generally.

So if those people coming to Australia this year didn't have a rental property to live, where would they live?
In a housing estate house that costs 900K to buy?
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder where they put millions of post war migrants before kind hearted property investors came along. I guess they would all live in tents like they did in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

What a shame they didn't have property investors back then.
 
Last edited:
Muz said:
Makes you wonder where they put millions of post war migrants before kind hearted property investors came along. I guess they would all live in tents like they did in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

What a shame they didn't have propert investors back then.
Click to expand...
Yeah true, investing in brick and mortar is fairly new concept... and all the migrant camps and social housing decrepit or laughably insufficient, I guess tents and cardboard boxes are the way to go until they can stump up a $200K deposit...
 
I'm a lefty footer does that count and for D's sake I did learn using both surely I can run for office hahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top