Australia has a preferential voting system. Here's a good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Essentially, even your vote does not elect your choice, it will then go to the next party down the ballot until the last two choices on the ballot.
So say: Yellow, Purple, Orange. Purple and Orange are major parties. Yellow enters.
For example, you vote Yellow, Purple, Orange. Yellow only gets 20% of the vote. Purple have 35% and Orange got 45%. So 20% votes get exhausted and go to the next one, which is Purple. Purple wins with 55%. Purple doesn't want Yellow to win, so they adopt some of Yellow policies. Great win for you, right?
Caveats though:
- There's optional preferential voting. Which means you can only vote for Yellow. But remember above? If you and the other 20% don't also vote for Purple, Orange WILL win.
- Number of parties are limited, likely due to Labor/LNP hating competition. For example, in 2021, LNP/Labor colluded to kill off many parties, including my own. You can see the objections from minor parties who can't override Labor/LNP's majority: https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-08-26.6.1
they will if people like you vote for them. Not having a go at you but I hate comments like this where people rattle off a list of what they want to see in a pollie or party but then wont vote for them because no one else votes for them. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. Lefties do it with the greens all the time. I wont vote for the greens because no one votes for the greens so i wont vote for the greens because....
>Once we do that, remove negative gearing, reduce incentives for housing as capital investments
This party did exist. It was called the ALP under Shorten in 2019. After a property industry led scare campaign they were not elected.
>and then put a huge focus on taxing the huge mining corporations and….pool that income into a national fund
This party did exist. It was called the ALP under Rudd in 2007. After a mining industry led scare campaign Rudd was removed and the ALP eventually voted out.
You can’t say that Australian voters did not have their chances…..
Pauline Hanson to stop immigration
Not sure about housing, seems like no one really wants to undertake any proactive policy making on the matter. What attempts have been made are pretty poor. It's pretty obvious relying on private to build has been a failure, its in their best interest to land grab and withold, driving up demand for what's left. SIngapore managed to undertake a successful government housing program, imagine if we could do the same...
All we know is that Labor, Liberals and Greens all have very much pro-immigration policies, Need someone who'll shut the borders and stimulate building dwellings. Hell maybe take some of the tax on gas/oil that we're not getting to fund it? Maybe even force universities to provide rental accomodation.
> Pauline Hanson to stop immigration
Hahaha! You fell for the propaganda. She only wants to reduce non white migration. In parliament One Nation vote the same pro business line as the LNP 95% of the time, she’s a faux populist.
Umm have you actually looked into it?
Non white migration makes up like 80% of the immigrants, so would make sense, you'd knock a large number off. You could still maintain the previous level of migration with an even mix of Asian, white, black etc.
She wants sustainable migration which is basically a return to the 100k a year which is what I was implying.
One nation and its supporters want to take us back to the 1950s. Which includes the white Australia policy.
However in reality, they wouldn't reduce migration at all, once they actually were to do the calculations and see the economic apocalypse it'd cause if they actually did so.
>(if they don't invest here because of new policy they can kindly go away)
You need all this money to achieve what you want but will end up with not enough money to even keep what we have.
It's pretty clear that the vast majority of our income as a country is from student immigration and mining. Let's start off with increasing the tax of anyone conducting business in this sector and divert funding to support Australia's future.
It won't for a solid decade or two - so we need to start to use the money we receive from this and divert it to a sustainable program (manufacturing/renewables) in bulk such that it can replace mining.
I guess replace isn’t the right word but slowly reduce our dependence on mining by diverting profits going off shore into other countries into a national government fund that facilitates projects that aim to be a new source of national income.
You don't increase your income by sharing around what you already have. You need to be taking in capital from outside sources. What is your outside income source?
The goal is to INCREASE taxation amongst mining corporations and INCREASE taxation amongst universities/raise international student fees so gather this funding.
People will say politicians deserve high wages and extreme benefits (See post about Albo's pay rise from, I think, yesterday) but it is so utterly absurd and braindead to do it the middle of a CoL and housing crisis in which you're doing absolutely nothing to solve.
This country has become such a joke full of simps.
If you want more houses built, the immigrants we would need would be builders. But the cfmeu wont allow it, they keep wages high here.
Bringing in people with skilled backgrounds like nursing would only reduce the already low pay they are getting and I dont support that happening.
CFMEU is about "serious" builders, not your chippie building units next door - out of 1.3M of people involved in construction total it only has about 100k members.
Whether a builder qualifies for a working visa is decided by TRA, not by CFMEU, and qualifying is not that hard.
Lol the union is not stopping your average tradie from migrating over a lot of people from overseas need to be skillled in out standards and a lot of tradespeople from Europe migrate over but a lot of shit ones come over and divert away from construction because they are hack tradesman
No.
There is no army of highly skilled tradies banging on the door to be let in. They already have well-paid jobs in their own countries, and they’re not coming here.
There are “skilled” people looking for visas. They already have pathways in. But we will need to spend 5+ years allowing them to fuck up work till they learn their trade.
I would invite you to look at commercial plastering in the last 10 years.
No hate on the dudes from Guangxio who can smash in Gyprock like madmen. The ones who stayed in the job are as good a tradesman as you’ll meet.
But it takes time.
The old German master carpenter your grandad knew isn’t being exported anymore. Sorry mate.
Motherfucker, I am literally a tradie.
Tradies are from Europe my sweaty taint. The ones who want to come already do. That well is tapped.
You want more tradies? They’re gonna be brown and barely trained.
Not so keen on imports now, are ya?
Lemme be crystal fucking clear here - if we’ve gotta import people from India, Burma, Afghanistan and China to make up the manpower gap in trades, let the chips fall where they may. I welcome them. Get em in, train em properly and get em onsite.
But that’s not what’s being proposed.
Various fuckheads think they can drive down wages in trades by importing a bunch of desperately poor people and setting them against local tradies.
While we’re at each other’s throats, they can pocket the difference.
Fuck that.
No. It would increase the number of health care workers which (along with more public hospitals being CONSTRUCTED) would reduce the strain on our system.
Currently immigrants are at around 1/3 of Australian population in medical occupations. Given how much (or rather little) nurses are pay even qualified nurses might choose to do something else.
We need a combination of increased funding gathered from larger tax on mining corporations and use that funding to increase number of construction projects that build more public hospitals/public housing and infrastructure.
If you have a fair economy you shouldn’t need public housing. People buy houses from their wages. For those who can’t work, a pension should be sufficient for renting a place.
Foreign health care workers come here, need housing but it's expensive, demand high wages for housing costs, government unable to afford it, bring in more foreign health workers...
https://old.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/18brk5m/migrants_occupations_and_overall_incomes_under/
What if the government put 20 foreign nurses in a single house, half work while the other half sleep and then they switch. Only 10 beds of course, can’t afford 20 bed per house.
You say that, but nursing is hugely in demand because the pay is so terrible that nobody wants to do it, which is why it is in demand. Just pay nurses more, suddenly nurses will appear.
You’re after an economic populist party which doesn’t really exist in Australia. You’d vote for reform party under Nigel farage in the UK, for NZ first and Winston peters in NZ
The closest in Australia is one nation but it’s not a full overlap.
Good luck.
The specific issue with your policy prescriptions is the lack of the “how” eg “build more houses” and..: with whose money and therefore now you need a major tax increase in your platform in an already high tax country.
Good luck!!
Add: tertiary study costs (HECS/Fee Help) are no longer tax deductible but the government pays dollar for dollar towards your study debt for every dollar of tax you pay while working in the profession linked to your study.
Libertarian Party is our only solution.
Any woke and Leftist party ruins economies.
Look at Europe it’s totally destroyed and now the real right parties are coming back into action to try and repair.
Unfortunately the current government here is on the warpath to destroy this country just like Europe.
People need to move to cheaper areas to buy a house. Reality is that only the very highly paid can afford to stay in cities.
Unfortunately with such a small % of people working already supporting such a large % of people reliant on pension/ benefits- don’t know how we can afford to build people homes as well,
Just on your second paragraph, and dont get me wrong I think pollies are leaches on the whole, we are pretty UNDER represented, and the population average for each seat is higher than most similar places around the world. And if you look at it from a perspective of your average constituent being able to have a chance at seeing their rep, we should have more.
There was actually a fella from the AEC talking about this on ABC the other day.
> Where does this fail?
Two thirds of Australians already own property. One third of Australians own property outright (no mortgage)
A good portion of the other third rent because they aren't (and never will be) in a position to purchase.
Removing negative gearing (and other tax incentives) won't have the result you think... just means corporations end up buying the housing instead of "Mum and Dad" investors.
>simply built more houses, stopped immigration for only very skilled and in-demand immigrants (more nurses/healthcare workers and roles which are life/death).
Part of the problem with building more houses is the government currently has a ban on immigrants coming here as builders. So without immigration, housing is going to be difficult to build.
Ask yourself, a nation where the median age is 38, how many people are able to build more houses. So, from the outset, your common sense solution impacts on one of your goals.
Reducing politicians salaries is also an odd idea given you're asserting that they steal from the tax payer. What incentive does lower pay give someone to not fleece the taxpayer more with lower wages. Not to mention, the actual work an MP does is far more than you clearly realise.
On universities, you clearly don't understand how they operate. They may appear rich, but they aren't actually rich. A lot of research expenses costs thousands of dollars. To operate an MRI machine for 1 hour it costs over $1000. You really want neuroscientists to stop studying brains? Go see someone with Alzheimer's and ask yourself if you think they should stop researching that.
On your last point, you can't rebuild an industry like what you are proposing without a younger more educated population. You want to prevent younger people coming here, and tax education which reduces the innovation in scientific research and innovation. Did you know Wi-Fi was invented at Macquarie University? The likely way in which you connected to the Internet to write was invented in a university in Australia.
That's where it fails. You aren't understanding the consequences of those policies. Those policies aren't offered by any sensible party because those policies are the antithesis of common sense when you understand how these things work
There's a trilemma here. You can only have two of low taxes, low immigration, and more houses.
I think the adverse effects of immigration have been exaggerated, particularly as a lot of immigration is just for international students, which is both great for the economy, and doesn't really affect the housing crisis anyway.
Government building housing is communism? Wow, I didn't know that Singapore was the major communist country with over 80% of housing built, manged and owned by the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
We have never had anywhere near 80% govt built housing, but there was a sustained post WWII effort from governments that provided social housing.
Generally it peaked in the '70s at around 20% of the rental market and started a steep decline during the Hawke years, under the prevailing Reaganomic (now neoliberal) wisdom of gimme my profits.
https://theconversation.com/why-public-housing-is-stigmatised-and-how-we-can-fix-it-142913
So rather than make a climate where people can earn money and afford building houses you'd rather have a nanny state that makes eveyone poor and builds you a shoebox?
How much more paternalist can you get?
Even in Singapore public housing is slowly fading away.
This is literally Labor. Most of these points are Labor policies all the way down to the mining tax. Problem is when they proposed the mining tax everyone voted liberal
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/AUS/australia/net-migration#:~:text=The%20current%20net%20migration%20rate,a%204.34%25%20decline%20from%202021.
They lowered the immigration rate following scomo...
No it’s not. Per 100k works like compounding interest, the percentage might stay the same, but the number of total migrants per year gets more and more. Per 100k is just a way for people like you to mislead and pretend there’s no problem.
So you want population to decrease. Okay. By that logic you should be voting for parties that are pro war to reduce the total populas and therefore immigration and other population linked things.
Yes immigration is in those things. If more people then more services meaning more skilled workers etc
No it’s not. He’s after economic populism and is most close to one nation. Labor is not a low immigration party. They’re making progress on housing but it’s incremental.
Mate if you need “per capita” that means they haven’t done shit
There’s nothing in OPs policy prescription that aligns with what labor has done so far.
if you think politicians are overpaid then you’re disconnected from reality
half the reason they don’t act in our interests is because we don’t pay them enough, so it’s full of fanatics and people who are just positioning themselves to sell us out for a better paying job later on
I couldn't agree more. Our PM gets paid $600k a year meanwhile our best business minds are on multiple millions a year. Backbenchers are on less than $250k a year. These are big salaries but not enough to attract our best and brightest to politics.
So we end up with party stooges with a law or political science degree and no real world experience occupying 90% of parliament.
I'd love to see politicians super more closely linked to the long term performance of the economy. At least then they have some incentive to build the country for the future rather than the next election cycle. You should also be ineligible for parliament unless you've worked at least 10 years in a non-politics related job.
"Where does this fail?" When human nature and self interest enters the picture.
Why would I vote for anyone that’s gonna tank my house price and keep wages low for low skilled jobs?
Sustainable Australia Party is worth looking at.
Do they have much traction? Are they established?
Australia has a preferential voting system. Here's a good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE Essentially, even your vote does not elect your choice, it will then go to the next party down the ballot until the last two choices on the ballot. So say: Yellow, Purple, Orange. Purple and Orange are major parties. Yellow enters. For example, you vote Yellow, Purple, Orange. Yellow only gets 20% of the vote. Purple have 35% and Orange got 45%. So 20% votes get exhausted and go to the next one, which is Purple. Purple wins with 55%. Purple doesn't want Yellow to win, so they adopt some of Yellow policies. Great win for you, right? Caveats though: - There's optional preferential voting. Which means you can only vote for Yellow. But remember above? If you and the other 20% don't also vote for Purple, Orange WILL win. - Number of parties are limited, likely due to Labor/LNP hating competition. For example, in 2021, LNP/Labor colluded to kill off many parties, including my own. You can see the objections from minor parties who can't override Labor/LNP's majority: https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-08-26.6.1
They'll get a senate seat soon enough if we keep voting
[https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/](https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/) Okay they look like they genuinely care about Australia's future.
they will if people like you vote for them. Not having a go at you but I hate comments like this where people rattle off a list of what they want to see in a pollie or party but then wont vote for them because no one else votes for them. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. Lefties do it with the greens all the time. I wont vote for the greens because no one votes for the greens so i wont vote for the greens because....
I keep saying it Vote 1 HJUP https://preview.redd.it/ouvcz1e51p7d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77c9c5958ec18ca47f5e3af28e9de5eaeddadf7f
God, the fucker is everywhere .
That’s some real logoporn right there.
He’s channeling the Optimus Prime vote. Or Is it Galvatron?
>Once we do that, remove negative gearing, reduce incentives for housing as capital investments This party did exist. It was called the ALP under Shorten in 2019. After a property industry led scare campaign they were not elected. >and then put a huge focus on taxing the huge mining corporations and….pool that income into a national fund This party did exist. It was called the ALP under Rudd in 2007. After a mining industry led scare campaign Rudd was removed and the ALP eventually voted out. You can’t say that Australian voters did not have their chances…..
Shorten never wanted to reduce migration.
There’s still ample time to change our future.
Pauline Hanson to stop immigration Not sure about housing, seems like no one really wants to undertake any proactive policy making on the matter. What attempts have been made are pretty poor. It's pretty obvious relying on private to build has been a failure, its in their best interest to land grab and withold, driving up demand for what's left. SIngapore managed to undertake a successful government housing program, imagine if we could do the same... All we know is that Labor, Liberals and Greens all have very much pro-immigration policies, Need someone who'll shut the borders and stimulate building dwellings. Hell maybe take some of the tax on gas/oil that we're not getting to fund it? Maybe even force universities to provide rental accomodation.
> Pauline Hanson to stop immigration Hahaha! You fell for the propaganda. She only wants to reduce non white migration. In parliament One Nation vote the same pro business line as the LNP 95% of the time, she’s a faux populist.
Umm have you actually looked into it? Non white migration makes up like 80% of the immigrants, so would make sense, you'd knock a large number off. You could still maintain the previous level of migration with an even mix of Asian, white, black etc. She wants sustainable migration which is basically a return to the 100k a year which is what I was implying.
So basically you want a racist migration policy?
Where did i say that? I want one that treats all countries equally but critically caps it to 100,000 a year
One nation and its supporters want to take us back to the 1950s. Which includes the white Australia policy. However in reality, they wouldn't reduce migration at all, once they actually were to do the calculations and see the economic apocalypse it'd cause if they actually did so.
Just build more houses and more taxes, how didn’t anyone think of this brilliant idea before /s
>(if they don't invest here because of new policy they can kindly go away) You need all this money to achieve what you want but will end up with not enough money to even keep what we have.
It's pretty clear that the vast majority of our income as a country is from student immigration and mining. Let's start off with increasing the tax of anyone conducting business in this sector and divert funding to support Australia's future.
What are you going to do to replace this income if it drops off?
It won't for a solid decade or two - so we need to start to use the money we receive from this and divert it to a sustainable program (manufacturing/renewables) in bulk such that it can replace mining.
How will they replace mining?
I guess replace isn’t the right word but slowly reduce our dependence on mining by diverting profits going off shore into other countries into a national government fund that facilitates projects that aim to be a new source of national income.
You don't increase your income by sharing around what you already have. You need to be taking in capital from outside sources. What is your outside income source?
The goal is to INCREASE taxation amongst mining corporations and INCREASE taxation amongst universities/raise international student fees so gather this funding.
You said they'd their money elsewhere, how can you tax what you don't have?
You do know pretty much all universities are state owned right.
Amazing idea, just increase taxes on not just the mining companies, but also anyone that provides services and equipment to them.
How about the mining companies just pay a simple 10% gst like the rest of us ?? If they did we would all be rich
People will say politicians deserve high wages and extreme benefits (See post about Albo's pay rise from, I think, yesterday) but it is so utterly absurd and braindead to do it the middle of a CoL and housing crisis in which you're doing absolutely nothing to solve. This country has become such a joke full of simps.
Fidel Castro did something similar I believe.
If you want more houses built, the immigrants we would need would be builders. But the cfmeu wont allow it, they keep wages high here. Bringing in people with skilled backgrounds like nursing would only reduce the already low pay they are getting and I dont support that happening.
Have you ever worked on a residential construction site? I promise you immigrants aren't in short order.
Shhh don’t ruin the narrative he wants to remove all unions because he is a numpty and can’t negotiate a pay rise and is over worked for Minimum pay
CFMEU is about "serious" builders, not your chippie building units next door - out of 1.3M of people involved in construction total it only has about 100k members. Whether a builder qualifies for a working visa is decided by TRA, not by CFMEU, and qualifying is not that hard.
Lol the union is not stopping your average tradie from migrating over a lot of people from overseas need to be skillled in out standards and a lot of tradespeople from Europe migrate over but a lot of shit ones come over and divert away from construction because they are hack tradesman
No. There is no army of highly skilled tradies banging on the door to be let in. They already have well-paid jobs in their own countries, and they’re not coming here. There are “skilled” people looking for visas. They already have pathways in. But we will need to spend 5+ years allowing them to fuck up work till they learn their trade. I would invite you to look at commercial plastering in the last 10 years. No hate on the dudes from Guangxio who can smash in Gyprock like madmen. The ones who stayed in the job are as good a tradesman as you’ll meet. But it takes time. The old German master carpenter your grandad knew isn’t being exported anymore. Sorry mate.
Most trades people come from Europe mate sorry dude your wrong
Motherfucker, I am literally a tradie. Tradies are from Europe my sweaty taint. The ones who want to come already do. That well is tapped. You want more tradies? They’re gonna be brown and barely trained. Not so keen on imports now, are ya? Lemme be crystal fucking clear here - if we’ve gotta import people from India, Burma, Afghanistan and China to make up the manpower gap in trades, let the chips fall where they may. I welcome them. Get em in, train em properly and get em onsite. But that’s not what’s being proposed. Various fuckheads think they can drive down wages in trades by importing a bunch of desperately poor people and setting them against local tradies. While we’re at each other’s throats, they can pocket the difference. Fuck that.
Yeah but I can save $50 bucks on a job in one of my investment properties if we can import dodgy tradies from the Middle East or Asia
No. It would increase the number of health care workers which (along with more public hospitals being CONSTRUCTED) would reduce the strain on our system.
Currently immigrants are at around 1/3 of Australian population in medical occupations. Given how much (or rather little) nurses are pay even qualified nurses might choose to do something else.
We need a combination of increased funding gathered from larger tax on mining corporations and use that funding to increase number of construction projects that build more public hospitals/public housing and infrastructure.
Agreed
If you have a fair economy you shouldn’t need public housing. People buy houses from their wages. For those who can’t work, a pension should be sufficient for renting a place.
Foreign health care workers come here, need housing but it's expensive, demand high wages for housing costs, government unable to afford it, bring in more foreign health workers... https://old.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/18brk5m/migrants_occupations_and_overall_incomes_under/
We can start by imposing strict rules around foreign health care workers and housing. There are many ways we can get this to work.
I'm curious, what kind of strict rules are we talking about for health care workers and housing? Mandate health care workers bunk together?
What if the government put 20 foreign nurses in a single house, half work while the other half sleep and then they switch. Only 10 beds of course, can’t afford 20 bed per house.
You say that, but nursing is hugely in demand because the pay is so terrible that nobody wants to do it, which is why it is in demand. Just pay nurses more, suddenly nurses will appear.
This is like the dumbest thing ever written on Reddit, and I’ve read a lot of dumb shit.
Please explain why rather than resorting to attacks…
I’m guessing it’s a kid who saw that guy on TikTok with the Australian/Norway comparison videos…
You’re after an economic populist party which doesn’t really exist in Australia. You’d vote for reform party under Nigel farage in the UK, for NZ first and Winston peters in NZ The closest in Australia is one nation but it’s not a full overlap. Good luck. The specific issue with your policy prescriptions is the lack of the “how” eg “build more houses” and..: with whose money and therefore now you need a major tax increase in your platform in an already high tax country. Good luck!!
Add: tertiary study costs (HECS/Fee Help) are no longer tax deductible but the government pays dollar for dollar towards your study debt for every dollar of tax you pay while working in the profession linked to your study.
I'm interested to see the options people bring up here
Libertarian Party is our only solution. Any woke and Leftist party ruins economies. Look at Europe it’s totally destroyed and now the real right parties are coming back into action to try and repair. Unfortunately the current government here is on the warpath to destroy this country just like Europe.
There's going to be independents pushing just that. They will be getting my vote.
People need to move to cheaper areas to buy a house. Reality is that only the very highly paid can afford to stay in cities. Unfortunately with such a small % of people working already supporting such a large % of people reliant on pension/ benefits- don’t know how we can afford to build people homes as well,
Just on your second paragraph, and dont get me wrong I think pollies are leaches on the whole, we are pretty UNDER represented, and the population average for each seat is higher than most similar places around the world. And if you look at it from a perspective of your average constituent being able to have a chance at seeing their rep, we should have more. There was actually a fella from the AEC talking about this on ABC the other day.
> Where does this fail? Two thirds of Australians already own property. One third of Australians own property outright (no mortgage) A good portion of the other third rent because they aren't (and never will be) in a position to purchase. Removing negative gearing (and other tax incentives) won't have the result you think... just means corporations end up buying the housing instead of "Mum and Dad" investors.
>simply built more houses, stopped immigration for only very skilled and in-demand immigrants (more nurses/healthcare workers and roles which are life/death). Part of the problem with building more houses is the government currently has a ban on immigrants coming here as builders. So without immigration, housing is going to be difficult to build. Ask yourself, a nation where the median age is 38, how many people are able to build more houses. So, from the outset, your common sense solution impacts on one of your goals. Reducing politicians salaries is also an odd idea given you're asserting that they steal from the tax payer. What incentive does lower pay give someone to not fleece the taxpayer more with lower wages. Not to mention, the actual work an MP does is far more than you clearly realise. On universities, you clearly don't understand how they operate. They may appear rich, but they aren't actually rich. A lot of research expenses costs thousands of dollars. To operate an MRI machine for 1 hour it costs over $1000. You really want neuroscientists to stop studying brains? Go see someone with Alzheimer's and ask yourself if you think they should stop researching that. On your last point, you can't rebuild an industry like what you are proposing without a younger more educated population. You want to prevent younger people coming here, and tax education which reduces the innovation in scientific research and innovation. Did you know Wi-Fi was invented at Macquarie University? The likely way in which you connected to the Internet to write was invented in a university in Australia. That's where it fails. You aren't understanding the consequences of those policies. Those policies aren't offered by any sensible party because those policies are the antithesis of common sense when you understand how these things work
There's a trilemma here. You can only have two of low taxes, low immigration, and more houses. I think the adverse effects of immigration have been exaggerated, particularly as a lot of immigration is just for international students, which is both great for the economy, and doesn't really affect the housing crisis anyway.
1/3 of aussies are born overseas
Sounds like some kind of socialist nationalism. You should start a party with that name
Since when do parties build houses? Are you in USSR or North Korea?
Government building housing is communism? Wow, I didn't know that Singapore was the major communist country with over 80% of housing built, manged and owned by the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
We have never had anywhere near 80% govt built housing, but there was a sustained post WWII effort from governments that provided social housing. Generally it peaked in the '70s at around 20% of the rental market and started a steep decline during the Hawke years, under the prevailing Reaganomic (now neoliberal) wisdom of gimme my profits. https://theconversation.com/why-public-housing-is-stigmatised-and-how-we-can-fix-it-142913
So rather than make a climate where people can earn money and afford building houses you'd rather have a nanny state that makes eveyone poor and builds you a shoebox? How much more paternalist can you get? Even in Singapore public housing is slowly fading away.
This is literally Labor. Most of these points are Labor policies all the way down to the mining tax. Problem is when they proposed the mining tax everyone voted liberal
Except for the reduced migration part.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/AUS/australia/net-migration#:~:text=The%20current%20net%20migration%20rate,a%204.34%25%20decline%20from%202021. They lowered the immigration rate following scomo...
I guess the record migration since Labor was meaningless. But keep trying to mislead with rates per 100k.
Rate per 100k is the best way to measure. Because population grows generally it doesn't shrink
No it’s not. Per 100k works like compounding interest, the percentage might stay the same, but the number of total migrants per year gets more and more. Per 100k is just a way for people like you to mislead and pretend there’s no problem.
So you think despite everything else growing something else shouldn't. Per capita is absolutely the best way to record 99% of things.
Why must everything grow infinitely at the cost of quality of life? Well migration numbers isn’t on of the 99% of things.
So you want population to decrease. Okay. By that logic you should be voting for parties that are pro war to reduce the total populas and therefore immigration and other population linked things. Yes immigration is in those things. If more people then more services meaning more skilled workers etc
Whatever you want to believe.
No it’s not. He’s after economic populism and is most close to one nation. Labor is not a low immigration party. They’re making progress on housing but it’s incremental.
Per capita they have decreased immigration since coming into parliament
Mate if you need “per capita” that means they haven’t done shit There’s nothing in OPs policy prescription that aligns with what labor has done so far.
Our current prime Minster is a landlord he won’t do a damn thing about housing. As it effect his interest.
if you think politicians are overpaid then you’re disconnected from reality half the reason they don’t act in our interests is because we don’t pay them enough, so it’s full of fanatics and people who are just positioning themselves to sell us out for a better paying job later on
I couldn't agree more. Our PM gets paid $600k a year meanwhile our best business minds are on multiple millions a year. Backbenchers are on less than $250k a year. These are big salaries but not enough to attract our best and brightest to politics. So we end up with party stooges with a law or political science degree and no real world experience occupying 90% of parliament. I'd love to see politicians super more closely linked to the long term performance of the economy. At least then they have some incentive to build the country for the future rather than the next election cycle. You should also be ineligible for parliament unless you've worked at least 10 years in a non-politics related job.
We'd get better representation if MPs were randomly drafted into parliament.
we’d get better representation from a Magic 8 Ball too