Labor squibs immigration debate

Labor’s Home Affairs spokesperson Kristina Keneally on Friday broke her silence on the immigration debate, dropping motherhood statements that Australia needs a migration program “that supports good, secure jobs for Australians – that stamps out wage theft and exploitation”:

“As we start to open to the world again, where is Mr Morrison’s plan for re-starting Australia’s migration program?” Senator Keneally said…

Senator Keneally said the “historic moment” of closing the international borders had presented the chance to transform the migration program.

She called for a migration program “that supports good, secure jobs for Australians – that stamps out wage theft and exploitation”.

“A migration program that creates equitable economic growth in which all Australians can share”…

The Labor senator raised concerns that temporary migration had risen to a “historic high” under the Morrison government and “made it harder for people to settle permanently or become citizens”.

She said this had turned a “successful model of migration on its head” and taken Australia’s migration program in the “wrong direction”.

“It is hard not to notice temporary visa holders, denied JobSeeker and JobKeeper, queueing up at food banks and charities during the pandemic,” she said.

“It is hard not to notice shocking examples of wage theft, like at 7-11, or exploitation, as chronicled in the #88daysaslave in the Working Holiday Maker program.”

Only two months ago, Labor supported a parliamentary the migration committee’s recommendations that ‘skilled’ visa holders and international students be given easier access to work rights and permanent residency, in a plan designed by business groups and universities to ease labour shortages (read lower wages) and drive up student enrollments:

The committee’s proposal to give all temporary skilled visa holders a pathway to permanent residency was driven by businesses saying they were struggling to find workers to fill skill shortages.

The plan would effectively reverse changes made under former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2017 when his government narrowed the pathways to permanent residency by scrapping the 457 visa…

The committee suggested the government offer the “best and brightest” international students, who were willing to fill skill shortages, a two-year pathway to permanent residency under the employer nominated scheme, shaving one year off the process. It also recommended offering students longer temporary graduate visas of three years to give them time to find jobs…

The report also called for workers who go to regional areas to have an easier path to residency, including easier English tests and looser experience requirements.

Labor committee member Julian Hill branded the recommendations a “remarkable and blatant repudiation” of Mr Dutton’s tenure as immigration minister… Mr Hill, speaking on behalf of the Labor committee members, said they agreed with most but not all of its recommendations…

So basically, Labor also supports ‘Big Australia’ mass immigration. Only they want it skewed more towards permanent visas rather than temporaries.

Thankfully, the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) has done a much better job of representing Australians, categorically rejecting the NSW and federal governments’ mass immigration push and instead calling policy makers to “increase training and wages, not immigration”:

The NSW Premier last week opened the door to allowing an additional two million people into the country in the next five years, whilst the Morrison Government is currently negotiating a free trade deal with Britain which will make it easier for hundreds of thousands more Britons to take Australian jobs.

This is despite the stagnant wages and working conditions indicating no competition amongst employers to attract staff.

“Dominic Perrottet and Scott Morrison are solving a problem which doesn’t exist,” said Michael Wright Assistant National Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

“If the resource and sectors were suffering critical skills shortages, we would see rising wages and improving conditions. Instead, we’re fighting against insecure work and a race to the bottom with labour hire. Dumping thousands of temporary British migrants into our capital cities is only going to make these problems worse.

“And the answer to skills shortages is always more training for local apprentices, not bringing in vulnerable workers from overseas.

“We have also seen reports of worrying plans to abolish labour market testing which would allow major employers to import cheap labour to undercut their workforce without any statistical proof of a skills shortage.

“All Australians wage earners know they haven’t seen a pay rise in a decade, but meanwhile their mortgages, rents, and grocery and utility bills have all gone up.

“This feels suspiciously like Scott Morrison and Dominic Perrottet doing the bidding of their mates in the big end of town by bringing in cheap labour to undercut hardworking Australians, it’s a total betrayal.

“This is big business gearing up to pump up their profits at the expense of their workforce under the guise of a COVID recovery plan.

“We urgently need more information about the Federal Government’s immigration changes before millions more people are let loose on our jobs market. It’s time for Scott Morrison to come clean on his plan to sell out Australian workers.”

If Labor had half a brain, it would copy the sentiment of the ETU and would take a policy of significantly lower immigration (both temporary and permanent) to the next election.

Doing so would not only be excellent policy that would protect the wellbeing of incumbent Australians, but it would also see Labor win in a landside.

We know this because the overwhelming majority of Australians oppose pre-COVID levels of immigration, as evidenced by the latest representative polling by The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI).

In particular, 70% of Aussies want lower levels of immigration (of which 48% want significantly lower or zero immigration):

The overwhelming majority (61%) of Australians do not support importing labour to fill skills shortages and would prefer employers pay higher wages and train Australians:

 

The overwhelming majority (69%) of Australians do not believe that Australia needs more people:

Why? Because more people means declining liveability, a degraded environment and more expensive housing:

And before somebody howls ‘dog whistling’ or ‘racism’, lower immigration is overwhelmingly supported by migrants as well as the Australian born:

Other opinion polls show similar support for lower levels of immigration after the pandemic than existed beforehand.

In other words, Labor should represent Australian voters, rather than big business, and take a lower immigration platform to the upcoming federal election.

It’s time for Labor to represent Australians and its traditional working class base.

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)

Comments

    • Strange EconomicsMEMBER

      Where is Albo?
      Probably settling his sale of his inner city investment just sold that doubled to 2 million in the last 6 years. Aah the benefits of overcrowding if you have rental property. Get those temorary/permanent arrival renters back soon policy.

      • I dunno. It’s almost as if the unions should join together and coalesce a party For the Workers and not the Wokers.

        Has anyone thought about that genius idea of Swampy’s? Feedback welcome.

    • Strange EconomicsMEMBER

      Where is Albo in this ?
      Probably settling his sale of his inner city investment just sold that doubled to 2 million in the last 6 years. Aah the benefits of overcrowding if you have rental property. Get those temorary/permanent arrival renters back soon policy.

  1. Do people really care about the quantitiy of just the bad quality we’ve been getting?

    If there’s any place for equality and diversity quotas, it should be in the immigration intake:

    Max 10% from any one country
    Max 49% male from any one country

    Then set a minimum lifetime income tax paid of $100,000 in order to be eligible for citizenship.

    • $100K doesn’t get you very far if you have to import the worker and all their associated family (partner, kids and parents). Medicare for the oldies and PBS, schooling for the kids etc.

      $100K for just them if they are under 40, sure thing. Much more if they get rights to bring the flock.

  2. Hmm, ALP running on empty into the elections? That might work…
    Even MB needs $ to operate, not just ideas, a keyboard and internet connection. A serious political party needs much more dough.

  3. Reus's large MEMBER

    Vote PHON, if enough people do then it will force the hand of the majors to start doing what the locals actually want !

      • Yep for all the years that PHON held the balance of power did you see any threats not to supply her votes unless immigration is reduced to a reasonable level?
        PHON talks a big game but completely in the LNP pocket. It actually works quite well for her – put on a show that she is not in favor of higher immigration – get the protest vote for people who don’t want higher immigration. Nothing is done and more people are unhappy with higher immigration -> more PHON votes. Status quo works very well for her.

        • Only two parties have put a number up on their website Sustainable Australia & One Nation (both at the ong term Ave of 70,000). The only other party that would seem to guarantee a low immigration level would be Flux (as their policies would be voted on directly by thei Aussies, so would be low as well according to those poles).

          The remarkable thing about those polls is that the numbers are almost identical no meatier whether Aussie born or immigrants from all regions.

    • PHON… Hmm.

      I like there low migration policies. Thats what caught my eye a while back. Even if they screwed up every single thing they did in Australia but kept migration policies low, it would make such a huge difference that I dont think anyone would care.

      However, I didnt like there connections to Liberals. If you vote for them and they dont get in ( which is high probability ), then your essentially empowering another 4 years of Liberalist Bullsh*t.

      PHON’s connection to the Liberals is why they get nothing from me.

    • The media, specifically their backers decide what makes the national agenda. Wahlid doesn’t talk about it and if anyone asks on Q and A they run out of time. Gay marriage had some groundswell of support but the media kept it front and centre and made it way bigger than it was in my opinion. I doubt the Tony Abbott’s of the world really cared that much it was just a distraction so their backers could keep making money.

      I’d be pretty confident Labor would be disproportionally attacked if they made it an election issue. e.g.
      https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/back-to-the-future-daley-s-tilt-at-labor-leadership-opposed-by-asian-australian-party-members-20210531-p57wju.html

      • kierans777MEMBER

        Daley’s problem was that he mentioned a race of people. He should have just said that young people were being forced to leave Sydney and left it at that. The way to attack mass immigration is through the lenses of economics and environmental degradation. Leave the race card to PHON and Andrew Bolt.

          • That poll of opinions based on peoples place of birth clearly shows it’s not a race thing, at least it shouldn’t be, Aussies of all kinds see that the very high rate of immigration is destroying the very thing they came for, quality of life! And of course their own job opportunities and their kids future. It must be the mainstream press & their big business buddies, that play the race card (thanks to support from those further out to the left wing)

    • ”So why isn’t being an election defining issue? Why aren’t people making noise about this issue?”
      Chomski would probably have a field day discussing what terms were said and not said by the MSM. Saul would probably say many simply struggle to see past the edifice of lies about inevitability, necessity, and whatever BS the MSM conjures to capture the attention/fears of swinging voters.
      The reality is any politician running a reform agenda in this environment takes on enormous risk. Most people knew negative gearing was a sh!t last election. Did they vote to change that?

  4. Its a bl00dy distraction.
    When was the last time MB posted anything to do with the Climate Catastrophe ?
    Sure Immigration is important, but unless the Australian Government joins the nations of the earth in serious CO2 abatement there will be no Australian economy to stuff the hordes of migrants into.
    We act now or condemn our children to a living hell on Earth.

    • You’ve got it back to front, been reading too much Kath Murphy perhaps. Australia’s total war on the environment takes in land clearing, logging, habitat removal, water guzzling, species crashes, rising emissions, and big population growth.

      Just do the thought experiment. Is United Nations Net Zero 2050 going to “save” Australia’s environment or rescue its threatened species? Doubtful. Besides which, human population growth is way easier to manage than human emissions.

    • Bolstrood. The issues go hand-in-hand. It is contradictory to complain about ‘climate change’ while supporting the importation of millions of people into Australia. More people means more resource use, land clearing, and emissions.

      Australia directly controls its borders and its population. It has minimal control over global emissions. Even if we magically (impossibly) went to zero emissions tomorrow, it would have minimal impact on global emissions.

      Of course Australia should support global efforts to reduce emissions. That’s what a global citizen should do. But don’t act like virtue signalling about climate change is more important than controlling our own population growth.

      Your comment is a “bl00dy distraction”.

      • UE the issue go hand in hand only to the extent that Australians have the largest CO2 footprint of all the peoples on earth, and adding millions more to this footprint is not a good idea.
        Australia is in the top 4 exporters of fossil fuels , up there with Saudi Arabia ,Dubai and Russia, and we cannot dodge our respnsibility for the emissions of our exports. We are not a minnow in these matters.
        We are less than 5 minutes to midnight on the Climate Catastrophe clock, in fact we are leaving any action on meaningful emission reduction to the very last minute.
        “But don’t act like virtue signalling about climate change is more important than controlling our own population growth.”
        You may regard immigration as more important than meaningful action on CO2 emissions, but I think you are being blinded by your economic background.
        If the Glasgow Cops talks fail, as is looking more and more likely, that will be it for emission reduction and we will unleash runaway Climate disaster on this and future generations.
        I don’t call that a distraction

        • As I said mate, we directly control our population, which negatively impacts everything to do with Australia’s environment (eg. land clearing, energy use, water consumption, loss of habitat, emissions etc). We have minimal impact on global emissions. Emissions are also only one component of the environmental puzzle.

          I prefer to focus on what we have direct control over and has the most damaging impact.

          • The point is that Australia has direct control over its fossil fuel exports and they have a vastly higher impact on climate change than its population.

          • Sure. But they have far less impact on Australia’s natural environment than importing 13.1 million people in 40 years.

            Do you honestly expect Australia to stop exporting fossil fuel energy? Ain’t gonna happen. We’ve got long-term contracts locked in.

            It’s up to importing nations to shift to renewables and stop buying from Australia. Where there’s a demand, there will always be a supply.

          • You really do not get it , do you UE.
            The difference between 1 degree of global heating above pre industrial and 2 degrees is NOT double, it is 10 fold.

            We will reach 2 degrees between 2030 and 2040. At that stage all bets ,(and contracts ) are off.

            “We have long term contracts locked in”
            Tell that to the French.

          • I get it Bolstrood. But virtue signalling about climate change isn’t going to make it go away. So Australia should first and foremost ensure that it is prepared to meet the impacts. This necessarily involves not importing 13.1 million additional people over 40 years. Importing those people will make managing the downsides so much more difficult.

            It seems you “don’t get it”. Don’t worry, most climate activists are the same (e.g. the fake Greens). That’s why you never hear them offer a sliver of opposition to the ‘Big Australia’ mass immigration policy. They are environmental hypocrites.

          • UE I agree that mass immigratin is a very poor idea.
            I have supported your arguements many times over many years, I have argued it with my Greens friends, and been called a rascist but…
            Climate Catastrophe is a more pressing problem which has been absent from MB posts for a while now.
            I also note that comments generally are waning. Something is needed to spice things up
            I deeply believe we are out of time on addressing Climate Catastrophe, and I deeply believe that there is no issue more urgent.

          • I couldn’t care less about the volume of comments. It’s subscribers that pay the bills.

            Climate change is Dave’s issue since he wrote the book with Ross Garnaut. He knows way more about it than me.
            Climate change also receives blanket coverage all over the media, unlike population growth.

          • It seems you “don’t get it”. Don’t worry, most climate activists are the same (e.g. the fake Greens).

            Australia’s population growth is irrelevant to climate change. Heck, Australia’s entire population is nearly irrelevant to climate change. Just because someone doesn’t get onboard with your pet issue doesn’t mean they haven’t got a point about their pet issue.

          • kierans777MEMBER

            Australia’s population growth is irrelevant to climate change.

            No it’s not because of our high(est) rate of emissions per capita. Importing more people to live the Aussie dream while needing to convince the population of the need to change how we structure our society, and economy is madness.

            As I said mate, we directly control our population, which negatively impacts everything to do with Australia’s environment (eg. land clearing, energy use, water consumption, loss of habitat, emissions etc).

            LVO is spot on here. Acting on these other environmental concerns is just as important. Extinct species don’t care about climate change.

            There’s also the issue of resource depletion (including fossil fuels running out fast) that’s coupled to population growth given the feedback loop between population and our debt based economy.

          • No it’s not because of our high(est) rate of emissions per capita.

            It is, because the number of people is insignificant on a global scale.

            There’s nearly 2.8 _billion_ people in India and China combined. Another 1.2b in Africa. That’s two orders of magnitude more than Australia’s *entire* population, three more than the population increase in this discussion. And a significant proportion of them will be modernising their living standards in the coming decades.

            We are lost in the noise. You could wipe out the entire Australian population and it wouldn’t make a difference.

            There’s also the issue of resource depletion (including fossil fuels running out fast) that’s coupled to population growth given the feedback loop between population and our debt based economy.

            Sure. Things would be easier with fewer people. But, again, the only way to address climate change through population in a useful timeframe is for – I don’t know, surely at least a billion+ people – to die.

          • …the only way to address climate change through population in a useful timeframe is for – I don’t know, surely at least a billion people – to die.”
            Given the lunatics in charge, that may well be on the cards.
            Note: I do agree with your point.

    • More migrants means more trees cut down for the houses they got to live in… ROFL.

      But please… do continue…

      • Thank you I will.
        If we don’t succeed in containing the Climate Catastrophe there won’t be any trees to cut down, or food to eat, or water to drink.
        Did we not witness the devastation of the 2019 fires ? The longest drought in whiteman’s history on this continent ?
        The hottest years on record ? The water rationing ? The dead fish in the Murray? The destruction of the Great Barrier Reef ?
        The 3 once in ahundred year floods this decade ?
        Do think this will magically stop of it’s own volition ?
        Unless we can rapidly reduce CO2 in the atmosphere we are totally F#cked.

        • “Unless we the world can rapidly reduce CO2 in the atmosphere we are totally F#cked”.

          Rapid population growth makes everything you stated above much worse. That’s in Australia’s direct control.

          Try rationing water with a 50% bigger population in 40 years. That’s the IGR’s official projection. Good luck with that.

          • 40 years time ? You are an optimist.
            UE , the people who would migrate here are already on the planet, it really matters little where they are.
            Yes , we can buy ourselves a bit of time , and spare our natural rescources by cutting immigration numbers, but the Climate disaster will not spare Australia, in fact we will be among the worst effected. The Tropics at 2 degrees will become uninhabitable,
            see light bulb effect. The fires ,droughts , floods, heatwaves, sea level rise, and super cyclones will get more abundant and more powerful and more destructive.
            Food production is already being effected.
            https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/hard-to-swallow-how-climate-change-is-affecting-australian-food/
            “Rapid population growth makes everything you stated above much worse. That’s in Australia’s direct control.”
            The Climate diaster is a Global problem, not a national one.
            Humanity and life as we know it will live or die by what we humans do now.
            Climate Catastrophe puts everything else second.

          • “UE , the people who would migrate here are already on the planet, it really matters little where they are.”

            It matters greatly to Australia’s environment. I am Australian and live in Australia. So I care most about that.

            “The Climate disaster will not spare Australia, in fact we will be among the worst effected. The Tropics at 2 degrees will become uninhabitable”.

            Adding 13.1 million people over 40 years, as projected in the IGR, will make the situation so much worse then, won’t it?

            See the light bulb? Australia will struggle to cope with “fires ,droughts , floods, heatwaves, sea level rise, and super cyclones” with 50% more people.

            “Food production is already being effected”.

            No shit. Better not add 13.1 million people then, hey?

            “The Climate diaster is a Global problem, not a national one”.

            No shit. But we directly control our borders and population size. So which of the two issues should we focus on?

            “Humanity and life as we know it will live or die by what we humans do now”.

            So best to not import 13.1 million people over the next 40 years.

            What don’t you get here bolstrood? Virtue signalling over climate change while ignoring Australia’s extreme population growth is ridiculous.

          • What don’t you get here bolstrood? Virtue signalling over climate change while ignoring Australia’s extreme population growth is ridiculous.

            Presenting Australia’s population growth as being relevant to climate change is entirely “virtue signalling”.

            UE response: It is directly relevant to Australia’s environment, which I care more about. Do you disagree?

          • Even StevenMEMBER

            No it’s not, smithy.

            If Australia opens its borders, it creates capacity from wherever immigrants originated for more population growth, exacerbating the problem.

            The truth is that we need to start exercising global population control asap.

            This is a sustainable means of easing pressure on climate, global resources.

          • UE response: It is directly relevant to Australia’s environment, which I care more about. Do you disagree?

            Not really, but the discussion point raised was climate change.

            I’d also add that a substantial proportion of Australia’s environmental destruction is independent of population as it’s the result of export industries, or just sheer vandalism.

            If Australia opens its borders, it creates capacity from wherever immigrants originated for more population growth, exacerbating the problem.

            These numbers aren’t even a rounding error.

            The truth is that we need to start exercising global population control asap.

            Firstly, this is already happening. Global birth rates have already peaked, and continue to drop pretty much everywhere in the world.

            Secondly, if you want to accelerate this process, what are you proposing that will have a meaningful impact in a useful timeframe ? Because you need to reduce world population by probably at least a billion people – maybe twice that ? – in a matter of a decade or two for it to matter. I cannot imagine any way to do that in an ethical and moral fashion.

          • UE, FYI, on ABC radio this evening, yet another Big Australia ponzi-embedded demographer full of bs on skills shortages; wages; environment; migration rates; with no idea of policies and means in other countries of incentivising natural birth rates (eg., Poland, Hungary, Russia etc) that do cost a quid, more than Costello’s pitiful $5k baby bonus, BUT that do cost much less in monetary and other terms than crazy immigration to the second driest continent on earth; supposed population and immigration debates “we’ve” (the elites) had in Australia; and on and on:

            https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/is-demography-destiny/13592676

            Duration: 54min 5sec
            Broadcast: Tue 19 Oct 2021, 8:05pm

            Hugo Memorial Lecture recorded 16 July 2021 Adelaide Festival of Ideas
            Speaker: Adam Graycar- Professor of Public Policy and Director Stretton Institute University of Adelaide

            Is demography destiny?

            How many houses, schools, pensions, and skilled workers will we need in the next decade?
            The answer to that requires a handle on the size and shape of our population.
            Demographers give governments a snapshot but the modelling contains guesswork about fertility rates , life expectancy and immigration policy.
            Could we do more to make Australia an attractive destination for skilled migrants?

          • drsmithy – the environment isn’t just climate change. More people would definitely increase our impact on the land, flora and fauna here. We already have mass land clearing for ponzi housing development, lower water quality and less of it in general, and I would argue a more unequal society as the benefits of immigration accrue mostly to the big end of town with the average person getting most of the negative externalities (noise, pollution, traffic, overcrowding, less environment to enjoy, I could go on).

            As an export based economy, as you mention, to have on average the same GDP per capita we need to burn through our resources at a faster rate with more people. Even with our current population we are doing it at a rapid rate; it would only increase AND/OR we get less of it each if we increase the head count.

          • drsmithy – the environment isn’t just climate change.

            Yes ?

            But this thread is specifically about climate change.

            We already have mass land clearing for ponzi housing development, lower water quality and less of it in general, and I would argue a more unequal society as the benefits of immigration accrue mostly to the big end of town with the average person getting most of the negative externalities (noise, pollution, traffic, overcrowding, less environment to enjoy, I could go on).

            The vast majority of land clearing and poor water use is agriculture and industry.

            As an export based economy, as you mention, to have on average the same GDP per capita we need to burn through our resources at a faster rate with more people. Even with our current population we are doing it at a rapid rate; it would only increase AND/OR we get less of it each if we increase the head count.

            Yes ?

            The point is that since it is export driven, it’s not going to be any slower / less impactful with fewer people here.

          • “The point is that since it is export driven, it’s not going to be any slower / less impactful with fewer people here.”

            It won’t be slower but it will be more divided per capita for the same output. Stock vs flows. With export commodity economies it is always better to have less people not more so each person gets more of a share.

            TL;DR May not be slower, but each person gets less which means a poorer per capita society.

            i.e. to maintain per unit of time the same export dollar per capita (i.e. $ per person per year) you need to mine/extract/clear our natural bounty quicker/faster if population grows. This means you drain your fixed resource endowment at a faster rate OR each person gets less per year. Ironically for service/knowledge economies population growth has less of an impact on livability than for resource based ones as extra people can help. You are proving my argument with your statement even if you don’t quite realise it.

            The article is about immigration, and mentions other environmental factors. I live in Australia so I want my quality of life to be better than it is now. Looking at the SMH article today with 400 replies against immigration I know what the public wants; problem is there is no way to vote for it. Vested interests have captured the parties.

          • Even StevenMEMBER

            Drsmithy: your arguments against immigration / population control are weak. They devolve to “well, it’s not going to make a big difference so we might as well do it”. A lot of things I could apply that logic to.

          • Drsmithy: your arguments against immigration / population control are weak. They devolve to “well, it’s not going to make a big difference so we might as well do it”. A lot of things I could apply that logic to.

            If I were advocating, or even supporting, high immigration you might have a point. But I’m not.

            The point is that the environmental arguments against immigration are weak. If your environmental focus is climate change, we’re basically irrelevant (other than fossil fuel exports) in overall picture. If your environmental focus is things like land clearing, overuse of water, pollution, etc, then these things are driven by export industry and mostly independent of population.

            That is why the economic and quality-of-life reasons should be the focus.

        • Bolstrood, good on you for picking up the cudgel on climate change.

          A mild spring and Australians are as complacent as can be.

          • The federal government’s plan is to import tens-of-millions of people while doing SFA on emissions.

            The media talks incessantly about the need to cut emissions, but never about restricting immigration and population growth. That’s why I concentrate on the population issue. To provide some balance.

  5. I don’t think for a second Labor have the will or the way to ‘stamp out wage theft’, hypothetically if they did the ponzi economy would implode.

    • Lets start with an Anti-Corruption Commission and go from there 🙂

      > if they did the ponzi economy would implode

      For who? People with 20 propertys? or todays aspiring young who are the future for tommorrows Australia?

      I’ll let you in on a little secret, ” The economys already dead ” 🙂 From this point forward, we are just living from one can kick to the next until it all implodes.

    • Australias Interest Rates have been tanking like crazy

      Australia Interest Rates – https://gyazo.com/761a02ea6a662d12ec4c40eeb28fbc19

      But dont worry… another 10 years of this bullsh*t and Im sure it’ll better ( even though its done nothing since 1990 ).

      If we murder off the young generation with high house prices, suicide and lifelong debt, Australia will be a much better place then.

  6. Sustainable Australia Party is the new Labor Party.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXEa8bcn8kE

    I like Dick Smith. One of the few boomers who I really like.

    He’s got a daughter and unlike most Boomer hypocrites in Australia, he’s actually concerned with tommorrows future.

    That guy deserves Australian of the Year Award ( if he doesnt have it already ).

      • Yep reminds you of a time you were proud of people like Dick. True blue legend. I used to drink with a bloke who has a Asian wife, this bloke would fume when he heard Dicks name and hiss and fit ‘rascist’ .

  7. Perhaps what the ALP really needs is a new name – one that represents what they really care about.

    • Arthur Schopenhauer

      How about the “The really ambitious Law and Political Science Graduates who’ve only ever worked in the Party System Party”?

      Or:
      “Donors, We Do Thy Bidding Party”?

      Or:
      “The Once We Were Lobbyists Party”?

      Or:
      “The Party that once represented Labor, and now only represent themselves”?

    • … Australian Losers Party?
      … The ” I hate anyone Australian” Party?
      … The ” Chinese and Feminists ” party?

      So many people hate Australians these days. I dont know what we’ve done. The only reason I can see that people hate Australians so much is because they cant squeeze money out of us. Apparently its not enough to just live your damn life. If people cant enslave and screw you then its up to them to destroy you. Seems to be the culture nowadays.

      If I had to trust a politician or nature, I’d rather go bush anyday. You cant tax a fruit tree and a snake in the bush is more trusting then any politician you’d find in Canberra. The snake just wants to live life. The politician in Canberra is your enemy.

  8. It would have to have a sexy acronym. I’m for the AWP. There’s a bonus possibility of confusion which should help bring in some votes.

  9. I recall an MB comment from long ago that referred to a study about the overall life improvement outcomes per dollar comparison of foreign aid vs immigration. Something like that. I can’t find anything – does someone out there know?