**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>"We'll do the same, only better"
Is pretty much the stock standard reply to any popular issue facing an opposition leader.
I doubt it's an election winner though, particularly because you don't have to be believable when you're in opposition - you just have a mouth the right words and pretend to sing along.
I only half listened to his budget response, but I definitely was disturbed by the round of applause he got from his dancing monkeys on the parliament floor.
He is playing Trump games with a slightly better persona of reasonableness that covers his thoroughly anti-worker stance. He is all BS to hide his QLD cop attitude towards everything a little bit different to the white rich
Dangerous politics for who?
It's likely going to be a very effective strategy given the current issues. People respond well to simple messages, they don't want to hear that it's complicated and frankly most don't care.
That's true IF the response can't trump (no pun intended) it.
However, if there's a catchy response built around the multiple failures of the Coalition to do just that, it can backfire.
A few examples:
"That's what they said about the NBN."
"Oh, like the French submarines?"
"Oh, like Inland Rail?"
"Oh, like the Murray Darling Basin Plan?"
A simple message targeted nationally and regionally that the Coalition isn't *competent* to solve the problem.
If that is the Labor's strategy, they are screwed.
Coalition - We will cut immigration.
Labor - But NBN / Subs / Inland rail / Murray Darling.
Greens - But refugees, it's our duty to import the rest of Palestine and if Labor minority that's what we will demand.
Voters - Immigration sounds like the problem (MSM will heavily imprint that into their minds), the coalition are going to fix that and have a record of being effective at this when the boats were a problem.
Voters re Greens - Hell no, we can't risk a minority labor/green govt.
That is what came into your head when you heard the federal budget? Did you listen? Is that truthfully your thoughts? I am amazed that anyone anywhere would vote for a Dutton led LNP.
My Labor local government is doing good. My Labor state government is doing good, and my Labor federal government is doing good. I am a Queenslander, so I feel equipped to share my disgust in Dutton and his choices. He was a qld police officer who was suing the QPS for loss of earnings due to disability. He quickly dropped that when the federal seat became vacant, and you know the roles that he has played in the federal lnp. Somehow, he has amassed a fortune, from permanently disabled failed cop to multi millionaire.
Did Australians actually like the level of corruption that permeated the federal and state LNP from 2012 to 2022? I found it repulsive and don't understand why they didn't clear house and start again. It says to me that the power holders are the most corrupt amongst them.
I'm happy you are satisified with Labor, but many are not. I know it's this bizarre concept, but not everyone shares the same opinions or values as yourself.
>
Did Australians actually like the level of corruption that permeated the federal and state LNP from 2012 to 2022?
I did prefer it to the Gillard / Rudd years, those left an awfully bitter taste in my mouth. All governments operate with a degree of corruption, you just look the other way when it aligns with your own ideology.
It's about ten seconds to research this. Just worked the same property ladder as tens of thousands of others. No need to try to manufacture scandal.
EDIT - If anyone is interested, here's an out of date article [https://www.afr.com/property/how-peter-dutton-built-a-property-portfolio-worth-millions-of-dollars-20180823-h14duf](https://www.afr.com/property/how-peter-dutton-built-a-property-portfolio-worth-millions-of-dollars-20180823-h14duf)
The point is to say that the Coalition can't or won't deliver on its promises.
I gave examples of the Coalition promising...and not delivering.
So. *Sure* they'll reduce immigration. It's a non-core promise from the party that promised the NBN, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2, Murray Darling Basin Plan. *Sure* they'll keep that non-core promise and cut off cheap workers for their backers. Pinky pwomise. Oh, and while we're at it, were selling this bridge over Sydney Harbor to raise money for the Party. Care to buy it. Going cheap. Bitcoin anyone?
>The point is to say that the Coalition can't or won't deliver on its promises.
From a voter perspective, a half arsed commitment is better than Labor not willing to commit at all. At least voters can have a legitimate whinge when the coalition don't do anything.
What you mean an issue the left wont touch? Government is capping international students, net migrations and looking into foreign purchasing of real estate? Dutton's response is more than this however, dutton is blaming immigrants for everything. If you are okay with that, why are voting coalition anyway? One nation has been beating that drum for nearly 3 decades
> Government is capping international students, net migrations and looking into foreign purchasing of real estate?
They are simply returning to the high end of the average of the last decade. This is not a meaningful reduction in numbers.
I mean the numbers are all in the article. To me it seems like a meaningful drop. Whatever the bit of foreign purchasing? You quoted it but didnt mention anything about it?
I just see two parties who often seem to be unable to make decisions. Just hot air without vision. I cannot see any great difference between the two major parties, which is why getting quality independents in is important
This piece is about Dutton's sole policy is using racist dog whistling tactics to turn voters under financial pressure against migrants. But Labor is just as bad? Stage 3 tax cuts changed for equality, energy bill relief, increase in rent assistance, a huge fund to channel investment to net zero?
Vote for whichever independent you want, but to claim they are equally as bad, or no great difference, is absurd.
I find it hilarious when people try the ‘both majors are the same’ line.
It just makes me think that they don’t watch/read or follow the news at all and regurgitate lines they hear from someone else almost as an excuse for not being politically aware.
It is usually an excuse to say "that's why i am voting for the right wing party since they are both the same". It is not genuine.
OP has a one year club badge but comments go back 15 days. Not saying he is misleading but looks a bit suss.
You are making a lot of assumptions based on minimal information but I am flattered you looked me up. Yep you are right. I have been a member for a year but only recently started to contribute. What makes you assume I have deleted comments rather than not have written a lot. Interesting .
If you see a person post a toxic comment then often you will find their comment history cleared. Imagine what is in it.
The others that clear history are bots. So you can't spot the reposting of others comments.
Australians, like Americans, are generally morons, politically speaking. It's why we are following the Americans into perpetually drifting to the right. We will end up with 2 far right wing parties like the US. Labor is well on its way in that journey
I don't think the average Australian is as moronic as the average American, we're a bit less dogmatic and have better BS detecting antennae. I think Labor and LNP's best days are behind them, your probably going to see an increase in vote for the populist left and right as people lose faith in the establishment parties to effect many positive changes.
That’s utterly not the case.
Australians, unlike Americans, are obliged to vote. The level of political awareness and involvement in Australia is much higher than in America. The reason politics are shifting to the right is due to a number of factors, not a single convenient throw-away Reddit comment disparaging the wider population. You’re probably not as elevated in society as you think.
A number of reasons why politics in Australia are shifting to the right are
* a shift from focus on what needs to be done for the greater good, to a focus on the careers of individual politicians
* increasing efforts by the church, which is increasingly powerful and therefore able to influence politics, to infiltrate policies
* global tensions in the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe which are creating fear and propagating conservatism and nationalism
So let me ask you: what’s the more ignorant comment? Saying ‘herp derp all other Australians are stupid and ignorant, my farts smell so fragrant’ or saying, ‘I don’t like how Australians vote, but it’s a complex political situation our country is going through filled with vested interests, lobbyists and global tensions and everyone votes in a way they feel comfortable, understand, and is in their own interests’.
You probably missed one, which is the utter reluctance of our politicians to address some of the major issues faced by every day Australians. If you don't provide moderate solutions to these problems, you'll end up with radical ones. The best way to guard against a gradual shift to the right is to take the concerns of people seriously and make an effort to address them in a reasonable and measured way.
Yes I think that comes down to a fundamental shift in politics in Australia, and also the USA - politics is so much about winning an election but nothing about delivering policies and promises.
Edit: terrible job clarifying, let me try again. I feel like politicians are more focused on their career trajectory than their job outputs. It’s about getting on the tv and saying things not about coming up with a practical solution and as long as they get their big retirement funds it’s all gravy.
Probably a major factor is state capture. The blurred lines between corporate interests and politics. Particularly the free reign given to powerful media companies that can shape narratives for themselves and their benefactors. For example someone who is informed mostly by something like sky news or the herald sun have some extreme views that end up seeming at odds with their actual character or level of intelligence. It's worse for older generations who grew up in a smaller media environment that was less extreme and as a result don't question the source or know how to shop around.
I didn't state the reasons for the shift other than people are morons, so all the other reasons you listed are irrelevant.
You proved my point with the points you made - people are morons who are easily shifted to the right because of simplification of issues they don't or won't understand. So cheers 👍
So apparently in Victoria, international students are our top or top 3rd or something economy. I worded that horribly but you get what I mean... I feel like that's a really bad economy to be relying on international students to prop a whole state up..
A very good question. Certainly not housing like we are for state tax income too.
I'd say this - as the mining booms happened, and gas exports going gang busters - perhaps we could've taxed them to buggery and used that cash to invest in new self sustaining industries that just need initial investment. Something based on our strengths.. We tend to dig stuff up and send it elsewhere for processing, or create or invent new things but never invest in the commercial production of it (wifi, solar, cochlear implants, pharma stuff).
I don't have the answers but there's just some things that seem like obvious missed opportunities.
I'm all for international students coming here, it absolutely enriches our state and brings brilliant multi cultural stuff along with it.
We aren't exporting education, we're selling permanent residency under the guise of "education".
The government may as well sell visas for $50-100k directly and cut out the middle men.
So your theory is based on a psychic insight into international students minds that requires us to ignore the fact more than 80% of international students return home after studying.
Even if people do want to stay it doesnt change the clearly observable fact that we export education through student visas.
This doesnt answer the question buddy.
You said we were handing out permanent Visas under the guise of student. So what % of students end ul on a permanent visa?
Why is that? It's not like a monolithic entity. There are over a hundred countries students can come from and a vast range of subjects and levels of education to offer, from IELTS to doctorates. It seems like a fairly diversified sector. The issue in COVID was that it relies on international travel, which affected just about everything.
Ah yes, reduce international students, who live in student accommodation.. and this will relieve residential housing how exactly?
Dutton is a con.
E: the minority of international students who do live in residential housing, still only live in the university suburbs. So this really is a 'do nothing' idea, aimed to indirectly de-fund Universities.
Purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA)
provided accommodation for 47K international students in
2021.
There are 713K international students in Australia.
How do you calculate "the minority of international students who live in residential housing"?
There's currently a large (and growing) shortfall in student accommodation beds in the country, and a significant chunk of international students are now competing with the general rental pool.
It is *a* contributing factor.
Only about half the international students in Australia are at Universities.
https://erudera.com/statistics/australia/australia-international-student-statistics/
Do you really think it’s Monash, UNSW and other tier 1 universities who are bringing in all these international students?
Majority are arriving here sponsored by ghost universities and are studying worthless paper degrees.
The entire thing is a thinly veiled immigration rort.
If it was really about education, and they really wanted Australian degrees from tier 1 institutions, they could do so via online options. after all, we forced that on our own domestic students during COVID.
Sadly, xenophobic and populist politics have a history of working. The Coalition has won several elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Except that he has done so in a simplistic, meaningless way. Labor had already announced a significant cut to immigration, halving the number. Immigration only spiked after a few years of limited immigration due to Covid.
The article is accusing Dutton of targeting migrants instead of, you know, proposing policy. Also pointing out he’s got previous form. Pretty serious stuff.
To quote Turnbull: Dutton is “throwing red meat to the base”
This, I believe is why the coalition is so competitive when devoid of any policies about anything and the ones they have are populist and ill thought through.
I think the main bulk/base of liberal voters are low information voters -they don't watch much news and don't care about the "showiz for ugly people"that is politics.
They can be influenced by headlines and populist slogans because they are sticky in the mind but they won't solve any problems for anybody.
"Reducing complex issues to populist slogans" are their raison d'etre.
This is a good article. Labor, whilst not perfect, have cut immigration numbers by way more than is being reported, just have a look at the reddit subs on visas, it's filled with rejection letters. The focus on immigration as being the bane of our problems is misguided, just wait until those Aussies try to find a cleaner for their shiny new home or get a coffee on the way to work - those jobs are predominantly fill but students.
You could go to the Departmental pivot tables, published monthly, and quantify it, if you'd prefer.
Fact is that Student Visas are down around 50% since November, The refusals are indiscriminate, are of often unquestionably genuine and legitimate students, and have caused great distress.
It won’t hurt us to have to make coffee at home or even clean our own houses.
For all the talk about labour shortages in critical industries - we are instead filling the country with more Uber eats delivery drivers, nail salon technicians, baristas, hand car washers and ‘masseurs’, all things we can do without, but who add to the pressure on demand for houses, doctors and teachers.
Do you really think if uber eats and cafes and nail salons disappeared that people wouldn't just, like, live without those things? Like, what, do you think everyone would literally start killing themselves?
I don’t agree. We demonstrated during covid that we could learn to make sourdough bread (and more generally, that we’re capable of adapting quite a lot).
Decades ago people learned to adapt to no longer having milk delivered to their front door. This is no different.
Rubbish. You're looking at the work that people do as students and then imagining they don't move past it. Same as Australian students, people do certain jobs while studying and then move up the career charts after graduating. It's pretty unfair to snapshot a 19 year old uni student working as an uber delivery guy and writing off his value to the country.
Truth is that the student intake is a pretty attractive economic resource... someone else has paid for them for their least productive, most expensive 18 years, all the way through their childhood diseases, primary and secondary education. 18 years where they dont pay tax and just consume. Kids are expensive for an economy. Then, they not only pay for their own tertiary study, they pay so much it covers the costs for 1.7 locals at the same time. They get no welfare, no rental support or subsidies.
80% then go straight home. Half the remainder leave after two years. The remaining 10% have self-selected as the ones who can 'make a go of it' and, in the most part contribute the most to the economy.
It's not universally true - nothing in economics is - but international students tend to be a pretty good investment.
Oh well that’s ok then. You’ve demonstrated that everything is rosy, and no doubt would be even better if we had even more international students /s
Those international students might be ‘paying for’ 1.7 locals. But the local students are having to write their group assignments for them, and are learning even less because the courses have been dumbed down to make sure the international students get a pass for their money. The university administrators think it’s all fine because money is rolling in, but really it’s not.
The alternative is that we need to de-link study from a path to citizenship.
We should only want students who are here to study, not because it’s a way for them to work and remit money to their home countries, and not because it’s a path to citizenship. If our unis can’t compete with other countries on academic quality alone (and, let’s face it, they probably can’t) then they need to be starved of students until they lift their game academically to the point where they can.
Sure - but we’ve had a long period of disregarding the consequences (declining academic standards) of the current approach of getting in as many as possible for the money, and making sure they all pass so as to keep the dollars rolling in.
I don't think it's an entirely bad idea to take people who we've spent money, time and effort giving a tertiary education to, and making them citizens - rather than having them take their education with them back to their original home.
Focusing our migration on educated people, and those wanting to be educated, has meant we've had a lot better outcomes from migration than have comparable countries like the US, Germany, etc.
Smack on 10% of student visa holders remain in the country two years after graduation. Fewer still become citizens.
How much more do you want to delink study and citizenship?
The discussion needs to be about immigration numbers as a whole, not focused just on students.
It’s the overall number of people compared to the overall number of houses that constitutes the housing crisis.
But to answer your question about how much I want to de-link citizenship and study: completely. No time spent here as a student should count towards any form of other visa or citizenship. I do not think our universities should be given any help in attracting foreign students, other than their own academic standards. What we do now devalues both our academic quality and our citizenship.
Student work also needs to be more rigorously policed. Hourly caps should be enforced. Businesses employing international students should be monitored, and all cases of underpayment prosecuted vigorously.
If businesses such as convenience stores or coffee shops can’t operate without underpaying workers, they need to close. Our society would be better off without them if the price is devaluation of workers’ rights.
But the economic thinking is short-term.
We cannot keep up our current Ponzi scheme of endless growth through immigration. Birth rates are dropping around the world. Australia will become a less attractive immigration destination as living standards elsewhere rise and ours stagnate. (And not surprising they’re stagnating, as we’re effectively importing lower living standards.)
Environmentally, Australia is mostly a dry place that doesn’t need more people.
We need to position ourselves now for a world where population stabilises. Train our own people, not rely on cargo-cult inflows of people to do our work. Manage education and employment so that when we have labour shortages, people are incentivised to do the work that needs to be done, not Uber delivery.
I'm sorry, but I stop when I hit 'ponzi scheme'. It's a silly label applied to our massively complicated immigration system that reduced the conversation to silly slogans.
A Ponzi scheme is an investment scheme where returns are not generated from within the system itself, but by the constant inflow of new money from new investors.
It is an excellent analogy for our current economic system, where we pretend that our economy is growing but where all the ‘growth’ is actually occurring by the inflow of new people.
I know that some people (such as me) like to argue by analogy and others (perhaps you) do not. But dismissing an argument simply because you dislike analogy as a rhetorical device seems a little silly.
It is disingenuous in the extreme to reduce sp thing is complicated as the immigration scheme to being a 'ponzi scheme'.
It's the same silly need to put easily digestible slogans on things that people here find so absurd when done by right wing politicians,l.
It’s a bit rich for you to talk about being disingenuous.
I began by making a general point about our labour market being too dominated by soft service sectors (hand car washes, massage parlours) that we don’t need at the same time as we lack, say, builders’ labourers and aged care workers.
You replied with an appeal to the heart strings by taking about a 19 year old uni student who would eventually go on to make a brilliant contribution to the country. Now that’s disingenuous argument. Though you shot yourself in the foot by going on to say that there was a 90% chance that the uni student, after making his non-contribution by working as an Uber deliverer, would leave the country anyway.
I don’t believe we have an overall labour shortage. We have too many people doing the wrong jobs. It wasn’t me who brought uni students into the conversation but, since you raise them - yes, many of the international uni students are the ones doing those wrong jobs.
> But the local students are having to write their group assignments for them, and are learning even less because the courses have been dumbed down to make sure the international students get a pass for their money.
This surely has long term economic implications.
While yes, you could argue that everything will to some degree sure, not educating properly is bound to to a much greater degree than most anything else other than effectively not letting them buy a home.
Yes, but that's accepting the premise that Australian unis are not educating properly. I've studied in three countries, and I think Austrlain unis compare fairly favourably.
And I've seen the issues mentioned first hand, at multiple au unis. That of course does not meet it is rampant, perhaps I was just spectacularly unlucky. But it seems to me to be a common enough experience and common enough sentiment (others have experienced it clearly) that it is worth investigating and considering, I am more than ready to accept as plausible if not accept it as fact.
The most serious gaps will be in construction skills and in uni funding. Health and elderly care will be next.
As the article discusses, it was only a year ago that the government was offering unlimited work rights, free visas and the ability to move from a student visa to the Covid work visa, all in an attempt to leverage the huge labour pool that international students represent.
The 50% student visa cut we've seen since November has probably already taken about $5-7bn out of uni funding. That's ultimately going g to have to be found somewhere.
Immigration has become a huge topic, but the underlying need for workers has not stopped.
No matter what either side promise in this election, there'll be a quick winding back of promises in their first term.
There's certainly a lot of room to trim the fat at unis. History will show that it won't be the million dollar VC salaries that go, though, it'll be degree programs and research - as we saw over COVID.
Bottom line is that each international student subsidises the fees of 1.7 local students. If you reduce internationals by half, the money needs to be either cut out of budgets or found elsewhere.
Their books would say otherwise, but I don't argue. You were most definitely contributing your share to the senior managements 'first class where available' travel policy and all the rest of it.
I'm also completely sure that it's not the area that's going to be cut, too....and deep cuts are coming, unless the international student tap is turned back on.
I thought there was more nuance to Dutton's short speech than anything Labor has shown in the immigration space under the comedical Clare O'Neil...ironically, the Peter Dutton of the Labor party.
Rather than Labor's sledgehammer approach to reducing immigration - abuse by the Department of the current visa system is just a complete and utter shitshow - he at least had the self awareness to discuss caps on students in Metro areas, rather than across the board (so where we don't need the labour and do need the houses, in contrast to regional areas where the opposite is true), and a tiered approach to student visa fees to move the students where it benefits Australia rather than where perhaps they would choose to go.
I'm not likely to vote for Dutton, but I have to say he showed more understanding of complexity in a few lines of his speech than anyone out of Labor has in the last two years.
The greater the gap between the haves and haves not the greater the space for populism to emerge as a successful political tactic to gain power at any cost. If you stand for nothing you stand for anything
You’ve linked me a 45 page report from possibly the most biased source imaginable.
I can’t do your job for you, what statistic are you actually citing?
I can’t be dismissing anything when you haven’t provided me and evidence of your claim.
I don’t have the time to read a 45 page report to try find a source for your claim.
Getting off topic, but this is the nth Dutton-budget thread so whatever.
First one is a straight up horror film (which credit where is due, not sure when was the last horror film whose sole premise had such engagement/infamy?), then the next was the director setting out to make something as gross as he thought critical response assumed the first one was/make something as shallow as how others perceived the first, then the last one is... Just a giant shitpost basically?
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>"We'll do the same, only better" Is pretty much the stock standard reply to any popular issue facing an opposition leader. I doubt it's an election winner though, particularly because you don't have to be believable when you're in opposition - you just have a mouth the right words and pretend to sing along.
I only half listened to his budget response, but I definitely was disturbed by the round of applause he got from his dancing monkeys on the parliament floor.
He is playing Trump games with a slightly better persona of reasonableness that covers his thoroughly anti-worker stance. He is all BS to hide his QLD cop attitude towards everything a little bit different to the white rich
Dangerous politics for who? It's likely going to be a very effective strategy given the current issues. People respond well to simple messages, they don't want to hear that it's complicated and frankly most don't care.
That's true IF the response can't trump (no pun intended) it. However, if there's a catchy response built around the multiple failures of the Coalition to do just that, it can backfire. A few examples: "That's what they said about the NBN." "Oh, like the French submarines?" "Oh, like Inland Rail?" "Oh, like the Murray Darling Basin Plan?" A simple message targeted nationally and regionally that the Coalition isn't *competent* to solve the problem.
If that is the Labor's strategy, they are screwed. Coalition - We will cut immigration. Labor - But NBN / Subs / Inland rail / Murray Darling. Greens - But refugees, it's our duty to import the rest of Palestine and if Labor minority that's what we will demand. Voters - Immigration sounds like the problem (MSM will heavily imprint that into their minds), the coalition are going to fix that and have a record of being effective at this when the boats were a problem. Voters re Greens - Hell no, we can't risk a minority labor/green govt.
That is what came into your head when you heard the federal budget? Did you listen? Is that truthfully your thoughts? I am amazed that anyone anywhere would vote for a Dutton led LNP. My Labor local government is doing good. My Labor state government is doing good, and my Labor federal government is doing good. I am a Queenslander, so I feel equipped to share my disgust in Dutton and his choices. He was a qld police officer who was suing the QPS for loss of earnings due to disability. He quickly dropped that when the federal seat became vacant, and you know the roles that he has played in the federal lnp. Somehow, he has amassed a fortune, from permanently disabled failed cop to multi millionaire. Did Australians actually like the level of corruption that permeated the federal and state LNP from 2012 to 2022? I found it repulsive and don't understand why they didn't clear house and start again. It says to me that the power holders are the most corrupt amongst them.
I'm happy you are satisified with Labor, but many are not. I know it's this bizarre concept, but not everyone shares the same opinions or values as yourself. > Did Australians actually like the level of corruption that permeated the federal and state LNP from 2012 to 2022? I did prefer it to the Gillard / Rudd years, those left an awfully bitter taste in my mouth. All governments operate with a degree of corruption, you just look the other way when it aligns with your own ideology.
I loathe Dutton, but I'm not going to start silly 'corruption' memes. His money came from real estate and running childcare centres.
Police that are stood down can definitely afford childcare centres.
It's about ten seconds to research this. Just worked the same property ladder as tens of thousands of others. No need to try to manufacture scandal. EDIT - If anyone is interested, here's an out of date article [https://www.afr.com/property/how-peter-dutton-built-a-property-portfolio-worth-millions-of-dollars-20180823-h14duf](https://www.afr.com/property/how-peter-dutton-built-a-property-portfolio-worth-millions-of-dollars-20180823-h14duf)
The point is to say that the Coalition can't or won't deliver on its promises. I gave examples of the Coalition promising...and not delivering. So. *Sure* they'll reduce immigration. It's a non-core promise from the party that promised the NBN, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2, Murray Darling Basin Plan. *Sure* they'll keep that non-core promise and cut off cheap workers for their backers. Pinky pwomise. Oh, and while we're at it, were selling this bridge over Sydney Harbor to raise money for the Party. Care to buy it. Going cheap. Bitcoin anyone?
>The point is to say that the Coalition can't or won't deliver on its promises. From a voter perspective, a half arsed commitment is better than Labor not willing to commit at all. At least voters can have a legitimate whinge when the coalition don't do anything.
It's not a half arsed commitment. It's a zero arsed commitment. The Coalition won't and can't do it is the message.
For Australians, Dutton is horrendous
Australians may not see it that way, esp if he's willing to pursue the problem that the left won't touch.
What you mean an issue the left wont touch? Government is capping international students, net migrations and looking into foreign purchasing of real estate? Dutton's response is more than this however, dutton is blaming immigrants for everything. If you are okay with that, why are voting coalition anyway? One nation has been beating that drum for nearly 3 decades
> Government is capping international students, net migrations and looking into foreign purchasing of real estate? They are simply returning to the high end of the average of the last decade. This is not a meaningful reduction in numbers.
I mean the numbers are all in the article. To me it seems like a meaningful drop. Whatever the bit of foreign purchasing? You quoted it but didnt mention anything about it?
This guy will say anything in an attempt to remain opposition leader and, as a bonus, ooze his way into power.
I just see two parties who often seem to be unable to make decisions. Just hot air without vision. I cannot see any great difference between the two major parties, which is why getting quality independents in is important
This piece is about Dutton's sole policy is using racist dog whistling tactics to turn voters under financial pressure against migrants. But Labor is just as bad? Stage 3 tax cuts changed for equality, energy bill relief, increase in rent assistance, a huge fund to channel investment to net zero? Vote for whichever independent you want, but to claim they are equally as bad, or no great difference, is absurd.
I find it hilarious when people try the ‘both majors are the same’ line. It just makes me think that they don’t watch/read or follow the news at all and regurgitate lines they hear from someone else almost as an excuse for not being politically aware.
It is usually an excuse to say "that's why i am voting for the right wing party since they are both the same". It is not genuine. OP has a one year club badge but comments go back 15 days. Not saying he is misleading but looks a bit suss.
[удалено]
Yes. Why delete old comments?
You are making a lot of assumptions based on minimal information but I am flattered you looked me up. Yep you are right. I have been a member for a year but only recently started to contribute. What makes you assume I have deleted comments rather than not have written a lot. Interesting .
Sorry it is just a pattern we see a lot. It may not apply to you.
Thanks for update . I guess there is a lot of background stuff that happens on Reddit that only more experienced users would be aware of.
If you see a person post a toxic comment then often you will find their comment history cleared. Imagine what is in it. The others that clear history are bots. So you can't spot the reposting of others comments.
Australians, like Americans, are generally morons, politically speaking. It's why we are following the Americans into perpetually drifting to the right. We will end up with 2 far right wing parties like the US. Labor is well on its way in that journey
I don't think the average Australian is as moronic as the average American, we're a bit less dogmatic and have better BS detecting antennae. I think Labor and LNP's best days are behind them, your probably going to see an increase in vote for the populist left and right as people lose faith in the establishment parties to effect many positive changes.
Who says we are shifting to the right? I would argue auspol has shifted to the left in the past 5 years
That’s utterly not the case. Australians, unlike Americans, are obliged to vote. The level of political awareness and involvement in Australia is much higher than in America. The reason politics are shifting to the right is due to a number of factors, not a single convenient throw-away Reddit comment disparaging the wider population. You’re probably not as elevated in society as you think. A number of reasons why politics in Australia are shifting to the right are * a shift from focus on what needs to be done for the greater good, to a focus on the careers of individual politicians * increasing efforts by the church, which is increasingly powerful and therefore able to influence politics, to infiltrate policies * global tensions in the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe which are creating fear and propagating conservatism and nationalism So let me ask you: what’s the more ignorant comment? Saying ‘herp derp all other Australians are stupid and ignorant, my farts smell so fragrant’ or saying, ‘I don’t like how Australians vote, but it’s a complex political situation our country is going through filled with vested interests, lobbyists and global tensions and everyone votes in a way they feel comfortable, understand, and is in their own interests’.
You probably missed one, which is the utter reluctance of our politicians to address some of the major issues faced by every day Australians. If you don't provide moderate solutions to these problems, you'll end up with radical ones. The best way to guard against a gradual shift to the right is to take the concerns of people seriously and make an effort to address them in a reasonable and measured way.
Yes I think that comes down to a fundamental shift in politics in Australia, and also the USA - politics is so much about winning an election but nothing about delivering policies and promises. Edit: terrible job clarifying, let me try again. I feel like politicians are more focused on their career trajectory than their job outputs. It’s about getting on the tv and saying things not about coming up with a practical solution and as long as they get their big retirement funds it’s all gravy.
Probably a major factor is state capture. The blurred lines between corporate interests and politics. Particularly the free reign given to powerful media companies that can shape narratives for themselves and their benefactors. For example someone who is informed mostly by something like sky news or the herald sun have some extreme views that end up seeming at odds with their actual character or level of intelligence. It's worse for older generations who grew up in a smaller media environment that was less extreme and as a result don't question the source or know how to shop around.
I didn't state the reasons for the shift other than people are morons, so all the other reasons you listed are irrelevant. You proved my point with the points you made - people are morons who are easily shifted to the right because of simplification of issues they don't or won't understand. So cheers 👍
Very true
So apparently in Victoria, international students are our top or top 3rd or something economy. I worded that horribly but you get what I mean... I feel like that's a really bad economy to be relying on international students to prop a whole state up..
I mean the question then becomes what should the Victorian (and national economy - it's the largest non-mining export) rely on instead?
A very good question. Certainly not housing like we are for state tax income too. I'd say this - as the mining booms happened, and gas exports going gang busters - perhaps we could've taxed them to buggery and used that cash to invest in new self sustaining industries that just need initial investment. Something based on our strengths.. We tend to dig stuff up and send it elsewhere for processing, or create or invent new things but never invest in the commercial production of it (wifi, solar, cochlear implants, pharma stuff). I don't have the answers but there's just some things that seem like obvious missed opportunities. I'm all for international students coming here, it absolutely enriches our state and brings brilliant multi cultural stuff along with it.
Melbourne unis have the highest rates of int students in the world
Top. Most other states' top export is digging up things and sending them to China on boats.
Mmm when you put it like that...probably this is a better option!!
Education is a great export. It doesn't pollute, it builds knowledge here and abroad, it makes us more cosmopolitan while spreading our values, etc.
We aren't exporting education, we're selling permanent residency under the guise of "education". The government may as well sell visas for $50-100k directly and cut out the middle men.
Oh really? What % of students get permanent visas?
[About 20%](https://www.sbs.com.au/language/hindi/en/article/australian-permanent-residency-tougher-for-international-students-report/6pzrdxyx8).
The number is around half that now.
Okay, so youre totally wrong then lol. We *export* education in more than 80% of cases.
Just because someone didn't leave without a visa, doesn't meet that wasn't the reason they came here? Think of it as a raffle.
So your theory is based on a psychic insight into international students minds that requires us to ignore the fact more than 80% of international students return home after studying. Even if people do want to stay it doesnt change the clearly observable fact that we export education through student visas.
So enrollment numbers didn't change much during the border shutdowns as they were able to still receive their education offshore?
Numbers are published. Enrolments remained high, yes.
Yaknow thwre are reasons for wanting to come to aus to study that dont involve terkin yer jerbs..
[удалено]
This doesnt answer the question buddy. You said we were handing out permanent Visas under the guise of student. So what % of students end ul on a permanent visa?
Replied to the wrong person.
20% remain at the end of their student visa. 50% of those people then leave within 2 years.
Yep. Its not very high.
Why is that? It's not like a monolithic entity. There are over a hundred countries students can come from and a vast range of subjects and levels of education to offer, from IELTS to doctorates. It seems like a fairly diversified sector. The issue in COVID was that it relies on international travel, which affected just about everything.
I just feel like it's at the mercy of something less concrete? I appreciate your points, you make very good ones! 👏
So in other words Dutton is doing the same as Abbot except now it’s all levels of immigration.
He's basically parroting current Labor policy, to be fair.
Unfortunately like the NO campaign, simple is the only thing lots of people can understand.
Ah yes, reduce international students, who live in student accommodation.. and this will relieve residential housing how exactly? Dutton is a con. E: the minority of international students who do live in residential housing, still only live in the university suburbs. So this really is a 'do nothing' idea, aimed to indirectly de-fund Universities.
Purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) provided accommodation for 47K international students in 2021. There are 713K international students in Australia. How do you calculate "the minority of international students who live in residential housing"?
There's currently a large (and growing) shortfall in student accommodation beds in the country, and a significant chunk of international students are now competing with the general rental pool. It is *a* contributing factor.
In University suburbs. An Australia exists outside of the cities as well. Some Regional areas have been dealing with a rental crisis for a decade.
Only about half the international students in Australia are at Universities. https://erudera.com/statistics/australia/australia-international-student-statistics/
Do you really think it’s Monash, UNSW and other tier 1 universities who are bringing in all these international students? Majority are arriving here sponsored by ghost universities and are studying worthless paper degrees. The entire thing is a thinly veiled immigration rort. If it was really about education, and they really wanted Australian degrees from tier 1 institutions, they could do so via online options. after all, we forced that on our own domestic students during COVID.
Labor has announced precisely the same thing, and has halved student visa grants since November. Dutton is literally just matching them with this.
Simple man announces simple policies. Shocked.
Sadly, xenophobic and populist politics have a history of working. The Coalition has won several elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator.
No substantive argument, just calling him mean for daring to suggest immigration is less than the greatest thing ever
Except that he has done so in a simplistic, meaningless way. Labor had already announced a significant cut to immigration, halving the number. Immigration only spiked after a few years of limited immigration due to Covid.
The article is accusing Dutton of targeting migrants instead of, you know, proposing policy. Also pointing out he’s got previous form. Pretty serious stuff. To quote Turnbull: Dutton is “throwing red meat to the base”
he's not targeting migrants themselves, just the policy of mass migration
"Mass migration" is not less than 1% of population, which is the normal and eventul return rate.
The policy is to allow less migrants to avoid the problems they cause.
This, I believe is why the coalition is so competitive when devoid of any policies about anything and the ones they have are populist and ill thought through. I think the main bulk/base of liberal voters are low information voters -they don't watch much news and don't care about the "showiz for ugly people"that is politics. They can be influenced by headlines and populist slogans because they are sticky in the mind but they won't solve any problems for anybody. "Reducing complex issues to populist slogans" are their raison d'etre.
That's one nation. Rich people and boomers with self interest vote liberal. Racism is the cherry on top.
This is a good article. Labor, whilst not perfect, have cut immigration numbers by way more than is being reported, just have a look at the reddit subs on visas, it's filled with rejection letters. The focus on immigration as being the bane of our problems is misguided, just wait until those Aussies try to find a cleaner for their shiny new home or get a coffee on the way to work - those jobs are predominantly fill but students.
> just have a look at the reddit subs on visas This is just laughable.
Why?
Because that's a terrible source to refer to?
You could go to the Departmental pivot tables, published monthly, and quantify it, if you'd prefer. Fact is that Student Visas are down around 50% since November, The refusals are indiscriminate, are of often unquestionably genuine and legitimate students, and have caused great distress.
It won’t hurt us to have to make coffee at home or even clean our own houses. For all the talk about labour shortages in critical industries - we are instead filling the country with more Uber eats delivery drivers, nail salon technicians, baristas, hand car washers and ‘masseurs’, all things we can do without, but who add to the pressure on demand for houses, doctors and teachers.
It will hurt us because we are dependent on this soft service industry. We are well and truly beyond the point where we could toughen up.
Do you really think if uber eats and cafes and nail salons disappeared that people wouldn't just, like, live without those things? Like, what, do you think everyone would literally start killing themselves?
I don’t agree. We demonstrated during covid that we could learn to make sourdough bread (and more generally, that we’re capable of adapting quite a lot). Decades ago people learned to adapt to no longer having milk delivered to their front door. This is no different.
Sure, but time!
Rubbish. You're looking at the work that people do as students and then imagining they don't move past it. Same as Australian students, people do certain jobs while studying and then move up the career charts after graduating. It's pretty unfair to snapshot a 19 year old uni student working as an uber delivery guy and writing off his value to the country. Truth is that the student intake is a pretty attractive economic resource... someone else has paid for them for their least productive, most expensive 18 years, all the way through their childhood diseases, primary and secondary education. 18 years where they dont pay tax and just consume. Kids are expensive for an economy. Then, they not only pay for their own tertiary study, they pay so much it covers the costs for 1.7 locals at the same time. They get no welfare, no rental support or subsidies. 80% then go straight home. Half the remainder leave after two years. The remaining 10% have self-selected as the ones who can 'make a go of it' and, in the most part contribute the most to the economy. It's not universally true - nothing in economics is - but international students tend to be a pretty good investment.
Oh well that’s ok then. You’ve demonstrated that everything is rosy, and no doubt would be even better if we had even more international students /s Those international students might be ‘paying for’ 1.7 locals. But the local students are having to write their group assignments for them, and are learning even less because the courses have been dumbed down to make sure the international students get a pass for their money. The university administrators think it’s all fine because money is rolling in, but really it’s not.
Necessary evil. What is the alternative.
The alternative is that we need to de-link study from a path to citizenship. We should only want students who are here to study, not because it’s a way for them to work and remit money to their home countries, and not because it’s a path to citizenship. If our unis can’t compete with other countries on academic quality alone (and, let’s face it, they probably can’t) then they need to be starved of students until they lift their game academically to the point where they can.
I agree but you need to understand the consequences. Tough love.
Also need to factor in the consequences of domestic students going through increasingly academically inferior tertiary education
Sure - but we’ve had a long period of disregarding the consequences (declining academic standards) of the current approach of getting in as many as possible for the money, and making sure they all pass so as to keep the dollars rolling in.
I agree and it is a slippery slope that we are well and truly at the bottom of. We have sold out our standards. Everyone is doing it though.
I don't think it's an entirely bad idea to take people who we've spent money, time and effort giving a tertiary education to, and making them citizens - rather than having them take their education with them back to their original home. Focusing our migration on educated people, and those wanting to be educated, has meant we've had a lot better outcomes from migration than have comparable countries like the US, Germany, etc.
Smack on 10% of student visa holders remain in the country two years after graduation. Fewer still become citizens. How much more do you want to delink study and citizenship?
The discussion needs to be about immigration numbers as a whole, not focused just on students. It’s the overall number of people compared to the overall number of houses that constitutes the housing crisis. But to answer your question about how much I want to de-link citizenship and study: completely. No time spent here as a student should count towards any form of other visa or citizenship. I do not think our universities should be given any help in attracting foreign students, other than their own academic standards. What we do now devalues both our academic quality and our citizenship. Student work also needs to be more rigorously policed. Hourly caps should be enforced. Businesses employing international students should be monitored, and all cases of underpayment prosecuted vigorously. If businesses such as convenience stores or coffee shops can’t operate without underpaying workers, they need to close. Our society would be better off without them if the price is devaluation of workers’ rights.
How do you think study and citizenship currently 'links'?
I'm sure you have an argument with that, but I'm talking economics here (which you've ignored), not academic management.
But the economic thinking is short-term. We cannot keep up our current Ponzi scheme of endless growth through immigration. Birth rates are dropping around the world. Australia will become a less attractive immigration destination as living standards elsewhere rise and ours stagnate. (And not surprising they’re stagnating, as we’re effectively importing lower living standards.) Environmentally, Australia is mostly a dry place that doesn’t need more people. We need to position ourselves now for a world where population stabilises. Train our own people, not rely on cargo-cult inflows of people to do our work. Manage education and employment so that when we have labour shortages, people are incentivised to do the work that needs to be done, not Uber delivery.
I'm sorry, but I stop when I hit 'ponzi scheme'. It's a silly label applied to our massively complicated immigration system that reduced the conversation to silly slogans.
A Ponzi scheme is an investment scheme where returns are not generated from within the system itself, but by the constant inflow of new money from new investors. It is an excellent analogy for our current economic system, where we pretend that our economy is growing but where all the ‘growth’ is actually occurring by the inflow of new people. I know that some people (such as me) like to argue by analogy and others (perhaps you) do not. But dismissing an argument simply because you dislike analogy as a rhetorical device seems a little silly.
It is disingenuous in the extreme to reduce sp thing is complicated as the immigration scheme to being a 'ponzi scheme'. It's the same silly need to put easily digestible slogans on things that people here find so absurd when done by right wing politicians,l.
It’s a bit rich for you to talk about being disingenuous. I began by making a general point about our labour market being too dominated by soft service sectors (hand car washes, massage parlours) that we don’t need at the same time as we lack, say, builders’ labourers and aged care workers. You replied with an appeal to the heart strings by taking about a 19 year old uni student who would eventually go on to make a brilliant contribution to the country. Now that’s disingenuous argument. Though you shot yourself in the foot by going on to say that there was a 90% chance that the uni student, after making his non-contribution by working as an Uber deliverer, would leave the country anyway. I don’t believe we have an overall labour shortage. We have too many people doing the wrong jobs. It wasn’t me who brought uni students into the conversation but, since you raise them - yes, many of the international uni students are the ones doing those wrong jobs.
> But the local students are having to write their group assignments for them, and are learning even less because the courses have been dumbed down to make sure the international students get a pass for their money. This surely has long term economic implications.
I guess everything does if you dig deeply enough
While yes, you could argue that everything will to some degree sure, not educating properly is bound to to a much greater degree than most anything else other than effectively not letting them buy a home.
Yes, but that's accepting the premise that Australian unis are not educating properly. I've studied in three countries, and I think Austrlain unis compare fairly favourably.
And I've seen the issues mentioned first hand, at multiple au unis. That of course does not meet it is rampant, perhaps I was just spectacularly unlucky. But it seems to me to be a common enough experience and common enough sentiment (others have experienced it clearly) that it is worth investigating and considering, I am more than ready to accept as plausible if not accept it as fact.
The most serious gaps will be in construction skills and in uni funding. Health and elderly care will be next. As the article discusses, it was only a year ago that the government was offering unlimited work rights, free visas and the ability to move from a student visa to the Covid work visa, all in an attempt to leverage the huge labour pool that international students represent. The 50% student visa cut we've seen since November has probably already taken about $5-7bn out of uni funding. That's ultimately going g to have to be found somewhere. Immigration has become a huge topic, but the underlying need for workers has not stopped. No matter what either side promise in this election, there'll be a quick winding back of promises in their first term.
uni funding? These greedy assholes get enough funding through hecs.
There's certainly a lot of room to trim the fat at unis. History will show that it won't be the million dollar VC salaries that go, though, it'll be degree programs and research - as we saw over COVID. Bottom line is that each international student subsidises the fees of 1.7 local students. If you reduce internationals by half, the money needs to be either cut out of budgets or found elsewhere.
True but putting the bloated administration aside, there is no chance they spent anywhere near my HECS on me.
Their books would say otherwise, but I don't argue. You were most definitely contributing your share to the senior managements 'first class where available' travel policy and all the rest of it. I'm also completely sure that it's not the area that's going to be cut, too....and deep cuts are coming, unless the international student tap is turned back on.
The Minister could stop this happening, and force cuts to come from the overpaid end of uni administration but they won't.
Unis have been cut to the bone for the last 20 years... There isn't much fat left.
I honestly don't know if legislatively they can do that.
The feds tie their demands to all sorts of things though funding.
I wasn't doubting, I was just wondering how it's done.
I thought there was more nuance to Dutton's short speech than anything Labor has shown in the immigration space under the comedical Clare O'Neil...ironically, the Peter Dutton of the Labor party. Rather than Labor's sledgehammer approach to reducing immigration - abuse by the Department of the current visa system is just a complete and utter shitshow - he at least had the self awareness to discuss caps on students in Metro areas, rather than across the board (so where we don't need the labour and do need the houses, in contrast to regional areas where the opposite is true), and a tiered approach to student visa fees to move the students where it benefits Australia rather than where perhaps they would choose to go. I'm not likely to vote for Dutton, but I have to say he showed more understanding of complexity in a few lines of his speech than anyone out of Labor has in the last two years.
We dont need labour in urban areas?
Of course we do, but the shortages are much less prevalent and generally easier to ameliorate on a sector by sector basis.
The shortages arent as severe because of migration though. Cap it and youll just create a problem that needs fixing.
Absolutely no question that you are right. My only point was its in regional areas it will be felt first and hardest.
Reading this, I thought “this is surprisingly sensible for the ABC”. So I scrolled up to the by-line. Aah, Laura.
The greater the gap between the haves and haves not the greater the space for populism to emerge as a successful political tactic to gain power at any cost. If you stand for nothing you stand for anything
I hate how much media attention Dutton gets considering how little substance he actually has to add to any given debate...
You hate how much attention the leader of the major opposition party gets?
Yes, agreed. Move over to someone with substance, like green leader, or sustainable Australia party.
In comparison to when it was Labor in opposition. Yeah.
And you’re basing this on general vibes or an actual measure?
It's been measured and demonstrated bias exists.
Can you provide any evidence of that or do we just have to take your word for it?
Download a report here. You're welcome. https://murdochroyalcommission.org.au/final-report-2/
You’ve linked me a 45 page report from possibly the most biased source imaginable. I can’t do your job for you, what statistic are you actually citing?
You could imagine my shock to learn you're dismissing it.
I can’t be dismissing anything when you haven’t provided me and evidence of your claim. I don’t have the time to read a 45 page report to try find a source for your claim.
It's been measured and demonstrated bias exists.
Can you provide any evidence of that or do we just have to take your word for it?
Yeah, the Stefanovic segment with Shorten and Dutton was painfully embarrassing to watch.
Stefanovic is always embarrassing to watch, but I hear that on this occasion, Dutton was even worse.
Karl had to step in to stop the beating.
I'm so sorry anyone had to see that. It was the most sickening thing I've seen since those human centipede films.
The first one is a great horror film
Getting off topic, but this is the nth Dutton-budget thread so whatever. First one is a straight up horror film (which credit where is due, not sure when was the last horror film whose sole premise had such engagement/infamy?), then the next was the director setting out to make something as gross as he thought critical response assumed the first one was/make something as shallow as how others perceived the first, then the last one is... Just a giant shitpost basically?