Is an extra 40cm the secret to happiness in the bedroom? This economics expert doesn't think so
It's not often that the book you're reading illuminates perfectly the strange reality of housing being played out in the nation's suburbs.
But there I was, working my way through Abundance, the latest must - read in economics by American journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, which has become a clarion call aimed at the world's progressives, when just that happened.
Abundance effectively argues that all the rules they helped create to protect the environment, prevent pollution, ensure people had quality housing and generally improve our standard of living have turned into a quagmire of red tape that is leaving people worse off.
Everything from the efforts to decarbonise the world to ensuring people have affordable homes is being stymied by the left's bureaucratic success, or so say Klein and Thompson. And so pervasive is this book that about half of the federal cabinet has a dog-eared copy on their bed stands.
With the key themes of the book still swirling in my head as I began to catch up on the news of the day, I was struck by a story by my colleague, Daniella White, about the bunfight over a multi-storey housing development in the northern Melbourne suburb of Greensborough.
The story opened with the words: 'Apartments falling short of minimum space requirements' have been approved by the Victorian state government to help meet its housing targets.
Loading
Naturally, I found myself wondering what these minimum space requirements are. About 30 minutes later, after going down the rabbit hole that is state planning regulation, I discovered something quite discomforting.
Under current regulations, the main bedroom in any new build has to measure at least 3 metres by 3.4 metres, while other bedrooms must be at least 3 metres by 3 metres.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
38 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court closes term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries". Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act".
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Disgraceful': John Pesutto's bail out money left a ‘bad taste' in some Liberal MP's mouths
Women's Forum Australia Stephanie Bastiaan says the Liberal Party loaning money to bail out former Victorian Opposition leader John Pesutto has 'left a bad taste in many Liberal Party members' mouths'. 'There's a great deal of unrest about how this has unfolded,' Ms Bastiaan told Sky News Senior Reporter Caroline Marcus. 'There's also a great deal of concern about the fact that he is being bailed out at some sort of forgiveness by the party. 'What he did was frankly disgraceful. 'Had he apologized or settled the matter … there'd be a lot more sympathy.'
Sky News AU
7 hours ago
- Sky News AU
NSW Premier Chris Minns and state MPs to receive sizable wage hike as pay freeze draws to a close
New South Wales Premier Chris Minns is set to see his salary surge as a government pay freeze to public sector wages draws to a close. It was revealed on Saturday the NSW government had made a submission to the Parliamentary Remunerations Tribunal requesting for the pay packets of state MPs and senior bureaucrats to be raised by 3.5 per cent, including superannuation benefits. The wage increase is in line with the base pay offer made to the general public sector workforce in the NSW budget, which was handed down on Tuesday. The change would see Mr Minns' salary increase to $431,015, up by $14,575. The Premier however would still be earning far less than his interstate counterparts, with Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan raking in a whopping $498,031. Opposition Leader Mark Speakman could also see his earnings surge to $326,867, up from $315,814. The controversial public sector wage freeze was pursued by the Minns government in July 2023 due to complex budget pressures, with NSW Treasury at the time estimating the policy would save taxpayers around $260 million. It is understood that those savings have since been banked, with the government choosing not to extend the wage moratorium. The move comes just months after federal politicians, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese received a 2.4 per cent wage increase. However, while the Prime Minister will see his salary balloon by $15,000 to $622,050, he would still not be earning as much as Band 4 department chiefs around the nation who rake in an annual salary of up to $671,947. The combined salaries of top executives at various NSW government departments, agencies and state-owned corporations had soared to an unsustainable $1 billion a year when the freeze was first introduced. The state government also faced a number of wage claims after Mr Minns revoked a 2.5 per cent public sector cap to wages implemented by the former Coalition government. These caps encompassed nurses, police officers, teachers, and other frontline workers. Following an Industrial Relations Commission recommendation, NSW nurses were awarded a 4 per cent pay bump in 2023 and an additional 3 per cent rise in 2024. NSW Nurses and Midwives Association general secretary Shaye Candish slammed the NSW governments submission to the Remuneration Tribunal and said the state's nurses were just as deserving as politicians. 'It's pretty tone deaf to leave the state's biggest female-dominated workforce out in the cold, while taking steps to facilitate a pay rise for themselves,' she told The Daily Telegraph.
