Opinion AUSTRALIAN Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 6

Remove this Banner Ad

I think most people would agree with this. As it is now, it is a mess.

It's way above my pay grade but how would it best be achieved? Tax brackets to be rejigged? GST to increase?
There have been expensive, Government commissioned reviews done in the past that have amounted to a whole lot of not much by both sides of politics. The last major one was the Ken Henry review, where the only thing the Rudd/Gillard Government acted on was the mineral resources tax, choosing to ignore the rest because of possible voter backlash... it's pretty much rinse and repeat every time, no matter who is in office.

The tax base is in relative terms shrinking overall, and has been relying on bracket creep and GST to prop up the budget.

Cracking down on tax loopholes by Multinational companies should have been a quick and easy fix - I would prefer having a blanket ban on claiming interest from overseas related entity loans to prevent profit shifting (which is not available to many overseas countries like the USA), but the universal 15% tax that was proposed (while as delicate as a M1 Abrams tank) would also do the job. But now even that's under threat, courtesy of Trump's tariff posturing (along with his Nazi-wannabe Oligarch supporters wanting to continue to avoid paying any tax at all as part of their pound of flesh for continued support).

I've said before, someone, sometime, has to make some really unpopular decisions to right the massive leakage of money that's disappearing through the tax system. They will probably have to lie their asses off before an election, and no matter what their buffer, are likely to pay the price and be kicked out the next one (Howard was very, very lucky to survive after bringing in the GST... not so lucky after Workchoices).
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Well, you will be in fact. you'll need to carefully consider the preference cascading tree.
Well I'm not voting directly for either!

So technically I'm correct.

Yes, I understand preferncing & also going informal when needed.
 
Well, you will be in fact. you'll need to carefully consider the preference cascading tree.
It helps if you can read... and choose the option of not being lazy.

Ultimately (more-so in the Lower House) it will filter down to one of the two major parties. But if you bother to tick ALL of the boxes you need to, your vote should in theory go to the least unpalatable @rsehole you have to choose from...

Or if you really hate all the options, you can just draw a gigantic d!ck on the ballot sheet and say none of those c0cksuckers deserve your $3.386 that you would give them with a vote. I've done that a few times with the lower house ballot.
 
Last edited:

You keep banging on that you don't have freedom like you are living in North Korea.

How about you articulate what you can't currently do?

What does this have to do with being a multicultural country?
 
Not a surprise to see people in a state of panic about recent migration trends when this is all they’re looking at (or being shown):
1742513229798.png

Take a longer term view, and it’s not nearly so dramatic:
1742513203801.png

I'd expect if you looked at most developed countries during this period they all would have seen a similar 'jump', playing catch up for 2 years of zero/negative migration during the pandemic, and that they'll all revert to the long term trend for sensible/normal migration levels once this correction has been made - the Australian government have been clear that this is the plan:
1742511441454.png

^(the speech accompanying this strategy is also a very interesting read on some of the actual problems with our migration system, and the vision to fix it).

The other important feature of the above graph is the black shaded area. We’ve had a declining birth rate and an ageing population since the 1960s. Migration has been essential to offsetting this. It is critical to our economic and social fabric. Our country would unravel in a hundred different ways without it.

Do you think it’s a good thing we’ve built a country like that though? That’s really the issue here.

Dragging discussion in here as it’s more relevant to Aus politics.

It’s a good question.

I’m working on the assumption from our COVID chats that you’re not advocating for closing the borders and pulling up the drawbridge, and your question is more about the volume of migration, and who we are and aren’t allowing in.

That’s good because the Intergenerational Report projected that if we turned off migration now, by 2060 our overall population would decline by 4% including a 40% reduction in the working age population. I’m sure I don’t need to explain why this would be a ‘bad thing’.

The first point to make is that on balance and over the long term, migration has been incredibly positive for our country. It’s what makes Australia great. Economically, culturally and socially. It’s how we all ended up here. It's been a major contributor to our world leading living standards.

The second point I’d make is that irrespective of whether you think it’s been a good thing or not, for most of the biggest drivers of migration over the past century we haven’t had much of a choice in the matter any way. Look at the graph I shared above.
  • War: We lost a generation of young men in WW2. Migration was non-negotiable to fill this gap.
  • Ageing population: Improvements in public health mean we’re all living longer now. That’s obviously a good thing. It does create additional demand for services, particularly health care. Who’s providing these services? Who’s paying for them?
  • Birth rates: The advent of the contraceptive pill in the 1960s opened a new world of economic and employment opportunities for women, not to mention sex for pleasure rather than just procreation 🥳. It also kick started a decline in birth rates as people gained control and choice over how many children they wanted and when.
These are drivers that we either can't change, or wouldn’t even if we could. Migration has been a non-negotiable to offset these trends, keep our population profile in balance, and our economy ticking.

Then there are the factors driving migration that we do have some control over. The decline in birth rates has also been driven by deliberate economic policies that are increasing hardship on young people. If we really wanted to, we could change this, incentivise people to have more children, and we wouldn’t need so much migration to fill the gap. We can also (and have) put the brakes on international student numbers, which increased as universities sought a substitute for declining government revenue.

That’s the question around whether the magnitude of migration we have accepted as a country has been a ‘good thing’. The other question is around who we invite to live here. I agree Australia needs to be more strategic with this. On balance I think we’re probably too demand driven at the moment, with the tail wagging the dog. There’s always room for that, but we need to do a better job of identifying what we need, and actively incentivising and making it easier for those people to come here too.

The other somewhat related issue that people seem to be a bit naive on in the Trump era is globalisation. This idea that we can just opt out of global labour markets and supply chains, and get back to the good old days in the 60s where we manufactured everything locally is completely out of touch with reality. I posted more on this the other day.

I’m not really interested in paying $15,000 for an iPhone or $100,000 for a Mitsubishi Lancer. Are you?

That’s how much those products would cost if we manufactured them here.

We can’t put the genie back in the bottle at this point.

Wages in Australia are now among the highest in the world, and we have relatively stable low unemployment.
Thats a good thing. It has given us world leading living standards.

No-one will accept those wages going backwards. And with the exception of a very, very small number of critical manufacturing industries where it’s a security risk not to maintain sovereign capability, no-one will accept the level of subsidies it will require from tax payers to make them viable in a global market where the same product can be made far cheaper overseas. No-one will accept having to wear huge Trump style tariffs to artificially drive up the cost of the overseas product to make locally made products appear more competitive either.

I think you need to move on from being anti-globalist for the sake of it. You need to be more specific.

It’s not realistic, or in our interest anymore to pine for the past and think we can cut ourselves off from the global supply chain and go back to the 60s when we made everything and manufacturing was 25% of our economy and 1 in every 3 jobs.

We need to look forward and specialise in new and more advanced industries or industries which require specific resources and tools where we have unique competitive advantages over the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
Dragging discussion in here as it’s more relevant to Aus politics.

It’s a good question.

I’m working on the assumption from our COVID chats that you’re not advocating for closing the borders and pulling up the drawbridge, and your question is more about the volume of migration, and who we are and aren’t allowing in.

That’s good because the Intergenerational Report projected that if we turned off migration now, by 2060 our overall population would decline by 4% including a 40% reduction in the working age population. I’m sure I don’t need to explain why this would be a ‘bad thing’.

The first point to make is that on balance and over the long term, migration has been incredibly positive for our country. It’s what makes Australia great. Economically, culturally and socially. It’s how we all ended up here. It's a major contributor to our world leading living standards.

The second point I’d make is that irrespective of whether you think it’s been a good thing or not, for most of the biggest drivers of migration over the past century we haven’t had much of a choice in the matter any way. Look at the graph I shared above.
  • War: We lost a generation of young men in WW2. Migration was non-negotiable to fill this gap.
  • Ageing population: Improvements in public health mean we’re all living longer now. That’s obviously a good thing. It does create additional demand for services, particularly health care. Who’s providing these services? Who’s paying for them?
  • Birth rates: The advent of the contraceptive pill in the 1960s opened a new world of economic and employment opportunities for women, not to mention sex for pleasure rather than just procreation 🥳. It also kick started a decline in birth rates as people gained control and choice over how many children they wanted and when.
These are drivers that we either can't change, or wouldn’t even if we could. Migration has been a non-negotiable to offset these trends, keep our population profile in balance, and our economy ticking.

Then there are the factors driving migration that we do have some control over. The decline in birth rates has also been driven by deliberate economic policies that are increasing hardship on young people. If we really wanted to, we could change this, incentivise people to have more children, and we wouldn’t need so much migration to fill the gap. We can also (and have) put the brakes on international student numbers, which increased as universities sought a substitute for declining government revenue.

That’s the question around whether the magnitude of migration we have accepted as a country has been a ‘good thing’. The other question is around who we invite to live here. I agree Australia needs to be more strategic with this. On balance I think we’re probably too demand driven at the moment, with the tail wagging the dog. There’s always room for that, but we need to do a better job of identifying what we need, and actively incentivising and making it easier for those people to come here too.

The other somewhat related issue that people seem to be a bit naive on in the Trump era is globalisation. This idea that we can just opt out of global labour markets and supply chains, and get back to the good old days in the 60s where we manufactured everything locally is completely out of touch with reality. I posted more on this the other day.

Decent post. Lots of really good points. Will address a bit later on.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

  • War: We lost a generation of young men in WW2. Migration was non-negotiable to fill this gap.
Most of what you said is accurate and fair. However, I need to argue against this point.

Australia lost ~40K in WWII - mostly young men, as you point out. This is roughly 2/3 of the ~60K we lost in WWI, when Australia's population was much lower.

We can probably thank the yanks for our limited losses in WWII, as they effectively sidelined us from the war after 1943. Australia's battles after Kokoda & Milne Bay (both fought in 1942) were largely irrelevant and unnecessary sideshows - we were completely out of the main game.

In 1918 (at the end of WWI), Australia's population was just 5.07M. In 1945 (at the end of WWII), it was 7.4M. Proportionately, we lost half as many soldiers in WWII as we did in WWI.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1066666/population-australia-since-1800/

Yes, the Govt of the day had the whole "populate or perish" thing going, but the reality was that WWII didn't have THAT big an impact on our demographics. We simply needed to increase the population in order to properly develop the country, not because of any demographic damage done as a result of WWII.

That's not to say that we didn't need immigration in the wake of WWII - we absolutely did - just that our WWII losses were not the driving force behind the need for immigration.
 
Last edited:
Surprise surprise....Not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just another example of the total incompetency and scant regard for the taxpayers money of the Victorian ALP under Dicktator Dan/Jacinta Allan saddling Victoria with what will be generational debt.


Suburban Rail Loop benefits overstated, costs underestimated Infrastructure Australia assessment finds​

The nation’s peak infrastructure body has savaged the Suburban Rail Loop, saying its benefits have been “overstated” and the cost of building the first stage is all but sure to surge past a budgeted $34.5bn.

The Suburban Rail Loop has been thrown into turmoil after a plea for more federal funding was torpedoed by the nation’s top infrastructure advisers.

An assessment of the $34.5bn SRL East by Infrastructure Australia found it is likely to soar above its gargantuan price tag, and that benefits in the project business case were “overstated”.

It recommended the Victorian government develop “exit strategies” in case the risky project, which would link Cheltenham to Box Hill, goes off the rails and needs to be abandoned.

The Allan government is seeking $11.5bn for its signature rail loop from the federal government, and on Friday insisted the “on time and on budget” project would “transform the ways the people live, work, and move all over the city”. “Based on the information provided, we have low confidence in the cost estimate for SRL East, presenting a major risk to the SRL East project, and the SRL Program as a whole,” it states.
 
Hahahaha of course it's an election bribe but more than that an admission that the ALP's headlong rush into renewables is costing households and businesses big time. You're fooling nobody Grim Jim.


Treasurer Jim Chalmers insists power belief relief is not an ‘election bribe’​

The government has found money in its budget to lock in an energy bill subsidy until the end of the year, but the Treasurer insists it’s not an ‘election bribe’.

Energy bill rebates will be extended through 2025, but Treasurer Jim Chalmers insists the fresh support payment is not an “election bribe”.
Appearing on Sky News with Andrew Clennell on Sunday morning, Mr Chalmers spruiked the budget sweetener, which will wipe $150 from every household’s power bill, but rejected the claim it was an election cash splash.
Finance Minister Jane Hume said the Coalition would not oppose the rebate extension, but argued the policy would not address the structural shortages affecting Australia’s energy grid.

“We will not stand in the way of those Australians getting the relief that they need but the most important thing is an energy policy that fixes the broken system,” she told Sky on Sunday.
Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor and Nationals Leader David Littleproud also said the Coalition would support the rebates, however Mr Littleproud was the most pointed in his comments.

“Well, we’ll have to back this, otherwise there’ll be Australian families that go broke,” he said.

“This government promised a reduction in your energy of $275, yet they’ve gone up by over $1,000 and they’ve spent over six and a half billion dollars in trying to give you that.”
 
The Teals....enough said..

Can't have his meal ticket and $$$$'s taken away...What a lowlife campaigner.


Monique Ryan’s husband filmed removing Liberal sign​


A man with a striking resemblance to the husband of independent teal MP Monique Ryan has been filmed removing a campaign poster for Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer and refusing to give his identity when confronted about it.

The video appears to show Rhinomed executive Peter Jordan being chased down the street while carrying a campaign poster for the 31-year-old Hamer, who was preselected to run against Ryan early last year.
The video filmed on Saturday and obtained by The Australian Financial Review shows the man, who appears to be Jordan, being asked by the camera operator what he is doing, to which he replies, “I am taking the sign down.”
“It’s on public land,” he says when asked why, before refusing to give his name.
“Are you a Monique Ryan supporter ripping down people’s signs are you?” the camera operator asks again. “That belongs to me. You can take it off my property, but it belongs to me.”

Jordan hands back the sign but says, “If it goes back up it will [be] taken down again. It’s [an] illegally put up sign, anyone can take it down because it’s illegal”.
“I am not acting on behalf of anyone mate,” he says.
e25ca3de43ac66df2c462181fe10cde4d198228a

Ryan with husband Peter Jordan, stepchildren Campbell and Annabel, son Patrick and cavoodle Alfie. Eddie Jim
The person filming the altercation was the son of the property owner who asked for the sign to be erected by Hamer’s campaign team. The son, who asked not to be named to avoid any backlash, told the Financial Review a noise outside prompted him to see what was happening.
 
What a lowlife campaigner..

Goes to the Teals integrity....they have none!!!


Monique Ryan’s husband Peter Jordan filmed removing Amelia Hamer poster in Kooyong electorate​

The husband of Teal MP Monique Ryan has become embroiled in a pre-election controversy after video emerged of him pulling down a poster of her Liberal competitor Amelia Hamer.


Don't miss out on the headlines from Victoria. Followed categories will be added to My News.
unfollow
The husband of Teal MP Monique Ryan has become embroiled in a pre-election controversy after video emerged of him pulling down her Liberal competitor’s poster.
The video shows Peter Jordan carrying a large Amelia Hamer poster down the street near Burke Rd, Hawthorn, in the Kooyong electorate over the weekend.
Mr Jordan, who was wearing a Teal t-shirt, refuses to reveal his identity when asked in the video.

Asked if he is a “Monique Ryan supporter ripping down people’s signs” he says “no” and that he is “not acting on behalf of anyone”.

The person filming the video is seen trying to grab the sign back from Mr Jordan saying “you can take it off the property but it belongs to me”.

A Liberal Party spokesman said: “The Teals preach integrity in public, but then behave like this when they think no-one is looking”.

“Regretfully this is not the first time we’ve seen this sort of behaviour,” he said.

“It’s disappointing that we now need to consider how to best keep our property and volunteers safe when Monique and her husband are around.”

1742778561156.png
Peter Jordan makes off with a large Amelia Hamer poster in Kooyong. Picture: Supplied

Peter Jordan makes off with a large Amelia Hamer poster in Kooyong. Picture: Supplied
 
Dragging discussion in here as it’s more relevant to Aus politics.

Credit where it’s due. This was a very comprehensive and considered post.

I agree with about 80% of it.

I took particular interest in these parts:

Then there are the factors driving migration that we do have some control over. The decline in birth rates has also been driven by deliberate economic policies that are increasing hardship on young people. If we really wanted to, we could change this, incentivise people to have more children, and we wouldn’t need so much migration to fill the gap. We can also (and have) put the brakes on international student numbers, which increased as universities sought a substitute for declining government revenue.

Couldn’t agree more with this. The key part is “if we really wanted to” and there seems to be no desire to incentivize Australians to have children above replacement rate.

Why?

I think the problem is mainly cultural, not governmental. The old adage of politics being downstream from culture is applicable here.

That’s the question around whether the magnitude of migration we have accepted as a country has been a ‘good thing’. The other question is around who we invite to live here. I agree Australia needs to be more strategic with this. On balance I think we’re probably too demand driven at the moment, with the tail wagging the dog. There’s always room for that, but we need to do a better job of identifying what we need, and actively incentivising and making it easier for those people to come here too.

Agree with this too. On the “who” part, there is also a conversation to be had about what it does to a country from a cultural perspective. It’s not a comfortable conversation for most people, nor is it a politically correct conversation. But it’s one we have to have before it’s too late.

It’s not all about economics.

The other somewhat related issue that people seem to be a bit naive on in the Trump era is globalisation. This idea that we can just opt out of global labour markets and supply chains, and get back to the good old days in the 60s where we manufactured everything locally is completely out of touch with reality. I posted more on this the other day.

You’re right again here that the horse has sadly bolted (in this country at least). Hard to see Australians ever giving up their thirst for cheap consumer goods.

Agree with your other post about establishing self-sufficiency in other areas.
 

In short:​

The husband of federal Victorian MP Monique Ryan has apologised after he was filmed removing a sign belonging to rival Kooyong candidate Amelia Hamer.

Mr Jordan said he believed the sign was illegally placed and that he should have reported his concerns to council.

Ms Ryan also apologised for the incident, saying: "It should not have happened."
 
How much will Duttons nuclear power cost?

Has he released any costed policies for the federal election?
It's going to be irrelevant for the next term as won't have any impact on power supply or prices.

It's unlikely to get up at all, so just a distraction from having an actual energy policy for the short to medium term.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion AUSTRALIAN Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 6


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top