Should Australia Create New Cities or SEZ (Special Economic Zones) to Reduce Housing & Infrastructure Pressure on Major Cities?

Ldealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 11:30
Last edited 30/07/2023 - 10:07 by 2 other users

It seems to me that there is no vision or will from successive Labor/Liberal govts to create new cities to reduce rental/housing pressure and congestion in big cities.

There are so many potential sites to create new SEZ (special economic zones) with existing ports infrastructure, if govt offers incentives, special tax benefits and preferential treatment for foreign investment. Similar initiatives have been successful overseas boosting GDP and economy of the country overall, Dubai, Shenzhen & Johor Baru being the most successful examples.

Also, make it a condition on new migrant visas to live & work in these new cities/SEZs for at least 5 years before granting permanent residency. It will definitely reduce rental/housing pressure on big cities. Australia already has a similar Visa (subclass 491) under which prospective migrant has to work/live in a regional area for 3 years before being eligible for permanent residency and move.

I will probably be the first one to move out of big cities to avail cheaper land, open spaces, better infrastructure, if there are jobs.

Below is a list of locations with existing sea ports in Australia some of which can be established as SEZs and developed further for global trade and connectivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ports_in_Australia

Poll Options expired

  • 171
    Yes
  • 96
    No
Home & Garden

Comments

    • mskeggs on 23/07/2023 - 13:56
      +1

      This is a great way of stating my view. Half-arsed, dollars-only SEZ style programs are worthless boondoggles.
      Comprehensive, long term, generational, nation building projects can work, but have no pay off for decades.

    • AustriaBargain on 23/07/2023 - 14:03
      +2

      Why would these new cities need to be so far from our current major cities, or so far from the coastline? I guess we already are trying to build up areas a few hours outside our cities, but maybe we need even more things to attract people out there. And in cities like Sydney and Melbourne those efforts have already paid off, there's already loads of people living a few hours in all directions away from the CBD.

      • AngoraFish on 23/07/2023 - 14:11
        +1

        The primary reason for dormitory cities is extreme and uneconomic capital city house prices. It's not a Sydney or Melbourne thing. You see it in pretty much every single developed country around the world, and plenty of underdeveloped ones as well.

        Dormitory cities are evidence of policy failure, they are not some kind of success or "pay off". These are cities with no local industry to speak of, they're just places where people can buy-in a bit more cheaply while spending the money they save on house prices in time and petrol commuting for an hour and a half to their inner city jobs.

        A successful decentralization policy would actually see jobs and industries in those areas, not 8 lane tollways running express through to the CBD.

        • AustriaBargain on 23/07/2023 - 14:15
          +1

          Encouraging WFH might help. Perhaps mixed/virtual reality will help, you can't accuse workers of being distracted when they have a headset on set to work mode.

          • AngoraFish on 23/07/2023 - 14:21

            @AustriaBargain: I'm looking forward to the day we see genuine self-driving vehicles. Then I can use the hour and a half spent commuting each way on something more productive than listening to talkback radio, like playing League of Legends.

        • buffalo bill on 23/07/2023 - 21:16
          +1

          With the state of infrastructure in Vic you don't really need dormitory cities to experience those travel times. You can just live and work in Metro Melbourne.

    • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 14:31

      Access to deep sea port is a must for SEZs to succeed in this day and age. Inland towns unfortunately don't qualify and the fact that Australians love to live on the coast can't be ignored. Also, preferably within 200-300 KMs of a major city.

      • AngoraFish on 23/07/2023 - 14:54
        +2

        No, a deep water port is a must for exporting and importing manufactured goods and commodities.

        For a deep water port to offer any benefit Australia would have to actually make something worth exporting, make that thing in proximity to the port, and do so more cheaply than sweat shops in South East Asia. Or we can sell services, like we currently do, completely disconnected from any kind of brute-force high-volume manufacturing base. The actual constraints in a service-based economy are things likes housing, tertiary education and electricity supply, not export capacity.

        It's always amusing to watch these L-plate shower thought-threads being vigorously argued as if they have anything to offer that hasn't already been worked through literally thousands of times over more than a century of academic research, elected governments and specialist government departments.

        Regardless, the cities you nominate as successes are, for the large part, not. All are run essentially as ponzi schemes on the back of massively government subsidies by government-owned corporations (possibly excepting Shenzen, which has the advantage of proximity to Hong Kong). Large parts of Dubai and Johor Baru are essentially uninhabited wastelands, with a significant percentage of the economic activity that is happening driven by building the cities themselves rather than any inherent value-adding happening in these regions.

        See, for example https://www.insider.com/ghost-town-malaysia-forest-city-chin… , and https://says.com/my/news/empty-puteri-harbour-jb , and https://theprint.in/economy/dubai-applies-brakes-real-estate…

        • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 15:03

          You don't need port to just export, you need it to import too. We import everything from a needle to a car. Why do you think there is congestion in port Botany? Is it because we're exporting goods?

          Examples of the countries you linked don't have strong migrant inflows. Both those countries don't even offer permanent residency to migrants. People work and go back to their home country. BTW those cities are already established.

          • AngoraFish on 23/07/2023 - 15:07

            @dealhunter52: They were your examples, not mine, although you're wrong about that too. Nearly 90% of the Dubai workforce are migrants.

            The other cities have also had massive migrant inflow, although in those cases from rural areas of the country itself predominantly - either way they're importing population.

            The question of permanent residence is another matter, although you're really grasping at straws at this point.

            • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 15:18

              @AngoraFish:

              Nearly 90% of the Dubai workforce are migrant

              Yes migrants, temporary migrants to be precise, who will never be permanent inhabitants. You're welcome.

              • SBOB on 23/07/2023 - 15:21
                +1

                @dealhunter52: You want Australia to have the same temporary migrant labour force, along with the working conditions and 'pay' rates that Dubai use for its workforce…
                Pretty bad thing to be in favour of.

                • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 15:26
                  -3

                  @SBOB: Read the comments properly mate and you will realise that you implied opposite of what I said.

                  It's not that complicated is it?

          • SBOB on 23/07/2023 - 15:08

            @dealhunter52:

            Why do you think there is congestion in port Botany?

            Artificially controlled constraints due to previous port lease agreements and port access,workers and throughput thanks to MUA?

          • AngoraFish on 23/07/2023 - 15:33
            +1

            @dealhunter52: It's indicative of the quality direction in which this discussion is heading that the main advantage OP's idea seems left with is that improved capacity to unload containers of pencils and televisions near empty apartments might encourage people to move into those empty apartments simply due to the ability to buy stuff being unloaded from containers nearby.

            • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 15:42

              @AngoraFish: So you want all the iron ore, coal, oil, gas and other commodities that we export also sent through the same port? Do you realise our trade surplus?

              Go look inside your house and see how many goods were manufactured in Australia. I would love for Australia to be manufacturing hub of the world but I'm realistic and those days are long gone. I'm against consumerism but that's just me. People will keep buying cars, TVs or whatever they need.

              • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 16:58

                @dealhunter52: Against consumerism, for importing people to the first world which massively increases their consumption.
                There is nothing in progressivism that is not self-defeating.

                • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 17:04

                  @LVlahov: We are already importing people. Not because we're doing a favour to them but because it's in our interest to support our ageing population and economy. Luckily, we have more sensible people than racist rednecks.

                  • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 17:04
                    -2

                    @dealhunter52: It is not in the interest of any people to be replaced in their own nation.
                    I suggest you ask people who have been replaced in their own nation.

                    • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 17:08

                      @LVlahov:

                      It is not in the interest of any people to be replaced in their own nation.
                      I suggest you ask people who have been replaced in their own nation.

                      I suggest you take the first available flight out to England to leave the indigenous Australian land then.

                      • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 17:09
                        -2

                        @dealhunter52: The modern nation of Australia was founded and built by my folk.

                        It is my people (and Aboriginals) you advocate being replaced.

                        Nice to show your anti-White, anti-Celtic, anti-Anglo racism though.

                        Par of the course for chaps like you isn't it.

                        • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 22:18
                          +2

                          @LVlahov: No one is replacing anyone dummy. We already have most multicultural society. You will see that if you care to remove your racist glasses.

                          • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 22:26
                            -1

                            @dealhunter52: Every society is multicultural, not every society has to push its population into minority status in their own nation.

                            You willing blindness is your immorality, and there is nothing more racist, than overlooking a right of a population to their own sustainable group self-determination, wholly incompatible with replacement, because their colour, language, race & culture, are ones you are happy to push to the side.

                            EVERY taking from a people has at its heart the same basis as your own view, a willingness to overlook the rights of people born to a place.

                            But you'd be an 'anti-colonialist', of course, the kind that cannot discern their own true reflection in the mirror, just the one they imagine there.

                            • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 22:38
                              +1

                              @LVlahov:

                              Every society is multicultural, not every society has to push its population into minority status in their own nation.

                              Aboriginals probably think the same.

                              From your earlier comments, it's pretty clear that you're a racist and a white supremacist. Fortunately, we only have a handful like you. Most Australians are way more sensible.

                              • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 22:44
                                -1

                                @dealhunter52: "Aboriginals probably think the same"

                                You see it is not I that see it as bad in case X, and good in case Y, just because racial roles are reversed.

                                But you do pal, don't you.

                                And you throw out all the labels you want to justify the harm you believe is right - it is what good colonisers do right?
                                Deem a group worthy of being replaced, as they are 'undeserving' of a right we might normally believe exists for others.

                                As I said, you have no idea of your actual reflection, so projection is what you are left with.

    • smalltime0 on 24/07/2023 - 21:00

      Ord River scheme was a non-starter. Somehow people forgot en-masse that mangrove forests have insects in them.

    • duchy on 26/07/2023 - 15:12

      I see Albury-Wodonga as a great success. Terrific place to live in by the way.

      • AngoraFish on 26/07/2023 - 18:45

        Which has nothing to do with the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, the goal of which was to grow existing townships in the Albury-Wodonga region to 300,000 people by the year 2000.

        Currently, a quarter of a century later than that, the population of the region remains less than 100k, which is about where it would have been tracking towards if the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation had never existed.

  • mskeggs on 23/07/2023 - 13:53
    +7

    SEZ are always about cutting taxes in exchange for “growth” to the benefit of wealthy investors, with nothing for the people giving away the land and resources to contribute this ‘growth’.
    The most successful examples cited are some of the worst places to live and work for humans (admittedly great for financial returns for corporations).
    If you wish to foster additional housing in a regional Australia (for what purpose? To slow down congestion in current cities?) there are plenty of policies that can promote this without gifting tax breaks to the wealthy.
    For example:
    - building high quality communications, like high throughput, low latency fibre
    - building low cost energy supplies, like battery backed renewables
    - building low cost transport links, like ports and rail
    - building high quality education facilities, like schools, universities
    - building high quality health facilities, like tertiary hospital, aged care
    - building employment opportunities like relocating suitable government facilities (defence bases, government departments).
    - building high quality cultural institutions, like an art gallery, a museum, a performance space
    - rezoning suitable residential land adjacent to these facilities to provide high quality housing and good places to live.

    None of this requires tax breaks - quite the opposite, it requires a long term investment in infrastructure that will ultimately be repaid by increased taxes on the successful residents of a good place to live paying their taxes.

    The shortcut of the SEZ approach that says, ‘screw all the good things people want in life, I’ll just bribe them with dollars and forced relocation for immigrants” is poison to building genuine good places.
    I’d love to see a government committed to this style of regional development, but it is costly, attracts few votes and is ‘nation building’, while a SEZ enriches political party donors, resulting in windfalls and kickback appointments.

    So I am bitterly opposed to SEZ.

    • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 14:19
      -5

      That's absolute load of BS!

      High quality communication, energy, transport, health does not fix rental/housing affordability crisis. It might do the exact opposite because it being more attractive to real-estate investors.

      I’d love to see a government committed to this style of regional development, but it is costly, attracts few votes and is ‘nation building’, while a SEZ enriches political party donors, resulting in windfalls and kickback appointments.

      People follow jobs and unfortunately no business likes to take risk without some incentive. If I'm a business owner why would I risk my capital and move to regional area? It's not like tax breaks last forever. Most incentives last 10-15 years until the population centre is established and self-sustainable.

      Not every business is political donor or rely on kickbacks and windfall.

      • mskeggs on 23/07/2023 - 17:13
        +3

        What business would invest in a SEZ with reduced taxes if it wasn’t profitable? The only extra opportunity is relaxed regulatory conditions - a race to the bottom.

        • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 17:19

          Good infrastructure and cheap real-estate will entice many, on top first mover advantage. Also, those who can't afford costs of running businesses in big cities.

          • mskeggs on 23/07/2023 - 21:10

            @dealhunter52: So you want to reduce taxes and increase spending on infrastructure and give land incentives? In the hope of attracting businesses too marginal to operate otherwise?

            Are you sure it wouldn’t be better to just invest in improving infrastructure and services to make an area more attractive without also cutting our country’s income?

            We can see immediately that countries with poor infrastructure and services struggle to compete, and places with good infrastructure and services are very attractive.

            Apart from further enriching shareholders, I don’t see how dropping taxes so the country has less to invest in infrastructure or services is sensible.

            • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 21:59

              @mskeggs:

              So you want to reduce taxes

              Not reduce existing taxes on existing businesses but only for businesses who would risk operating in this new area. There has to be some sort of incentive otherwise why would any business take risk. There are other ways of collecting taxes, like income tax and GST etc from there.

              give land incentives

              Not sure where you getting this, but land is already much cheaper outside of big cities. No incentives needed.

              I don’t see how dropping taxes so the country has less to invest in infrastructure or services is sensible.

              Govt will earn much more money in income tax, stamp duty and GST etc than any tax incentive given to businesses. Population increases tax base and this is basic economics. Short-term incentives will have much larger benefits in the long-term.

              further enriching shareholders

              Contrary to the popular belief, lot shareholders are also mum & dad investors or superfunds where average Joe's like me have their super invested.

    • dtc on 23/07/2023 - 16:41

      Most of the examples you have given require government funding, which is no different to a tax break (both cost the government money to attract people to a particular area).

      I don’t actually disagree with you, but you are saying the same thing as the OP. While you claim SEZ enriches political donors, surely the risk is also there when the government decides where to spend its billions. Not to mention the issue of whether the government should be picking winners or leaving it to the market.

      • mskeggs on 23/07/2023 - 17:03
        +1

        I don’t agree with the “government shouldn’t pick winners” story in this case.
        The government is us, Australia. If we spend money to make parts of Australia better, for the benefit of Australians, that is very different to cutting taxes to attract financial investment, presumably from non-Australians, aiming to extract profit.

        If an investment is profitable with tax cuts, it is also profitable with taxes, just maybe a little less so. The problem with SEZ style tax cuts is the accompanying relaxation of regulatory arrangements (working conditions, development conditions etc.). It is race to the bottom stuff.

        • dtc on 23/07/2023 - 19:44

          However clearly the investment isn’t profitable enough at the moment to cause companies to invest in regional areas.

          Also to jump from tax cuts to reduced working conditions is a bit of a slippery slope

          • mskeggs on 23/07/2023 - 21:04

            @dtc:

            bit of a slippery slope

            Indeed.
            If you declare a SEZ tax reduced area with all the same laws as elsewhere there is motivation for a business 5minutes outside the zone to move down the street to save tax. No growth, just tax leakage. So you need to work out both what it will cost in reduced tax against any possible new investment.

            If you invest the amount you would forgo in tax collection with SEZ in making a place more competitive - cheaper energy/transport better services etc. - then you improve the place to work and live, making it easier to turn a profit and a better place for all activities.
            If you just give away the tax you get no improvement, just some enriched shareholders.

  • GordonD on 23/07/2023 - 15:07
    +9

    Cause of most of population growth in Australia … immigration, not natural population growth.

    Latest poll on immigration …, 59% think its too high, 25% think its about right 3% think its too low. Political response to poll … nil. Media response to lack of political response … nil.

    Some people say build more roads and more people will drive. Building more cities will just give those who won't listen to us now on immigration an excuse to increase it even further. They'll say now there's no reason to not increase it. If we have 5 over-priced over-crowded cities now, and they persuade us to "invest" our taxes and our wealth in 5 more cities, they'll just bring in more and more immigrants until we end up with 10 over-priced over-crowded cities. WE won't be any better off.

    Big immigration is just a ponzi scheme.

    • Ghost47 on 23/07/2023 - 15:44
      +2

      Building more cities will just give those who won't listen to us now on immigration an excuse to increase it even further.

      The people who won’t listen would probably want to limit building more cities because that would also constrain housing supply which would pump prices up more.

    • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 15:48

      Have you been to a retirement home? Most of the workers are migrants. Do you think an purebred Aussie will be cleaning your bum when you're old?

      If people are not going to have more kids, we will need immigration to support our economy and ageing society whether you like it or not.

      • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 16:56
        +3

        The idea that purebred Aussies won't do certain work is racist and wrong.

        Supply and demand is mediated by price, and by bringing in foreign migrants to work for less, "Aussie" provision of such services is discouraged.

  • 7ekn00 on 23/07/2023 - 16:32
    -3

    Wow, talk about the World Economic Forum disguising 15 minute cities as "SEZ"s ;) Is that you Klaus?

    Sure it is assumed to work for autocracies (because they say it does and there is no way to externally verify those claims), but it's failing hard in the UK:

    https://www.timeout.com/uk/news/the-small-english-city-at-th…
    https://www.politico.eu/article/dont-lock-me-neighborhood-15…

    It's a gateway idea for social credit scores (your migrant example will need a "gateway" mechanism to prevent movement within Australia - this will need to be extended to all Australians where the entrances to every city will have some sort of electronic "pass" mechanism based on a social credit score - score not high enough because of migrant status OR you said the wrong thing online, then you are blocked from city access - starting to sound like China or The Hunger Games)

    How did the Uyghurs SEZ's turn out in China?!?

    • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 17:05
      +2

      Subclass 491 visa already have condition where migrant needs to stay in regional area for 3 years before they can apply for permanent residency and move. Does that make us an Autocracy?

      https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-li…

      People like you are part of the problem who don't offer any solution to the problem but bomb every other opinion with sansational claims without doing your due diligence. Also, negging my every comment won't help your case either.

      • 7ekn00 on 23/07/2023 - 17:10

        And people like you would have us all locked up and paid slave wages claiming "but it was a great idea that I had for your best interest"

        Just like every other dictator on the planet …

        • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 17:13

          And people like you would have us all locked up and paid slave wages claiming "but it was a great idea that I had for your best interest"

          Just like every other dictator on the planet …

          Are you calling me a dictator? Are you normal?

  • dtc on 23/07/2023 - 16:43

    The issue with preventing migrants from moving is what happens if they are being exploited, need to move to maintain employment, need to escape a violent relationship etc etc?

    • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 17:28

      Visa subclass 491 already has condition of stay in regional area for 3 years before they can apply for permanent residency. If someone needs to move they can perhaps go to other regional area in my opinion. I don't know the exact rule in that situation.

  • Hardlyworkin on 23/07/2023 - 16:55
    +2

    Build fast trains to cities like Geelong and Ballarat and expand those areas instead.

    • dealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 17:10

      Most people here think high-speed rail is also waste of taxpayers money.

      • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 16:54

        It often needs supporting legislation to drive usage, that itself would be unpopular/fail to get passed.

        Like I would support a legislated permanent 90% cut in air travel between Sydney and Melbourne, with the remainder directed to a high speed rail service between the two.

        In this manner usage can be guaranteed, the service can be profitable and cheap, the average person is barely inconvenienced (when the issues of airport delays and extra security processing and so on is taken into account), and those that urgently need the fastest form of transport, can still access it.

        • smalltime0 on 24/07/2023 - 21:16

          The issue is that the HSR will never be politically popular and economical at the same time
          .
          You'd need to bypass currently serviced areas so that the HSR links can actually get to any sort of speed that would make them preferable to air travel.

          You'd have townships of 50k or more going "there should be a station here, the line is less than 2k away from the outskirts of the town".
          And sure, it will be, but putting stations there means that the train won't be doing 200+ km/hr so Brisbane to Newcastle/Sydney won't be a 3~4 hr train ride.

          Also 'true' HSR between Melbourne and Sydney is a pipe dream, the train line would basically need to be underground for it to work.
          Something akin to a higher speed V/Line could be possible, but likely still sub 200km/hr

          • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 23:00

            @smalltime0: All legitimate issues I agree. I have family in N.E. Victoria and it is amazing to me how often when I have visited I've encountered troubles even on regular speed rail (replacement buses and the like). Japan makes it work, but one can't argue that we haven't been having our difficulties.

            • smalltime0 on 24/07/2023 - 23:39

              @LVlahov: Japan is the only nation that makes it work, even Europe has very few high speed connections, outside of domestic routes between major cities.
              Berlin to Hamburg, sure $50 and 2 hours great connection.
              Berlin to Paris? Pipe-dream, 1 or 2 stopovers and 9 hours.
              London to Paris? Better chances of taking a Portkey across the channel than the Eurostar. (also it leaves from St. Pancras and not any other station you'd normally go to).

              People point to China's explosive growth of a HSR network, but ignore that only a few lines are anywhere near used enough - despite having an autocratic government there able to force the needed changes.

              Realistically getting regional rail up to the point where it is able to consistently support 180km/hr speeds is probably shooting for the moon.
              When/if that happens, maaybe there is a chance for a 5 hour Melbourne/Sydney Line using small-ish sections of HSR. But who would actually go the full distance? It would just be rural journeys terminating in Sydney and Melbourne. Still worthwhile, but it would not be Sydney residents/visitors traveling to Melbourne or vice versa.

  • tonka on 24/07/2023 - 07:29
    +2

    Yes, it's been generations since the Government has done anything nation building.
    The government has become an impotent risk adverse debating forum that does nothing besides create cheap labor for it's campaign contributors and media masters and work to be the least offensive party for re-election.
    I would suggest instead though a massive investment in industry, something with good synergy with our natural resources. Perhaps something suited to our northern landscapes and industries closer to the growing Asian markets.

    • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 10:30
      +1

      True. I don't know how long we can just dig earth and send it overseas as our primary source of income.

      There have been ideas thrown around every now then like creating Green industries like Steel production using renewal energy to create value added product rather than exporting just iron ore. There's no initiative though.

      • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 16:51

        Diverse nations cannot effectively orientate to their own needs. Because diversity delivers differing ideas, desires, and needs.

        DIV, i.e. divide, it is in the word.

        • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 16:53

          No, it's all in your head mate. You need help.

          • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 23:43

            @dealhunter52: Yes, it is self evident that it is possible to move a nation in many different and opposite directions at once. How stupid of me not to have realised this.

            • tonka on 24/07/2023 - 23:57

              @LVlahov: You just described growth, was that the intention?

    • brandt on 24/07/2023 - 16:18

      Because governments get voted out as soon as the words "deficit" are uttered. Australian voters have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by "government spending is wasteful" narrative they won't stop to listen that investments take time to pay off, and that a government in surplus is essentially a useless husk which is taking money from the tax payers pocket and putting it back into the tax payer's other pocket.

    • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 16:51

      A diverse land is an economic zone, to be maximised for profit by its elite masters, not a nation.

    • smalltime0 on 24/07/2023 - 23:52

      Every time someone mentions North Australia and emerging Asian markets it makes me cringe.
      Shipping is bloody cheap as a mode of transport, when the ship is under power it doesn't cost that much money.
      What costs money is the port side fees, something that will never be cheap in North Australia because:
      A. Nobody lives there
      B. Few places are well suited to deep ports that don't already have one

      There is a grand total of 1 multi-modal port in Northern Australia, guess where it is.
      Cairns, just kidding, its Darwin.

  • asCMSas on 24/07/2023 - 08:24
    +1

    it all comes down to rates of immigration. we need a pause to invest in infrastructure & housing. Immigration stopped during covid and wages went up, simples

    • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 10:48
      +2

      Wages went up not just in Australia but globally because of unprecedented stimulus measures by central banks and helicopter money thrown around by govt. If you factor in the inflation that followed we actually went backwards in wages.

      My wages went up 20% since pandemic but in that time house and car prices went up 30% before we even opened our borders. Everything from groceries to insurance and utilities also gone up way higher.

      Should I celebrate my wage rise?

      • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 16:49
        -2

        Real wages went up during the pandemic, per capita, after inflation, thanks to low rates of migration. Real wages have plummeted, per capita, after inflation, after migration has been ramped up.

        • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 16:51

          because of stimulus measures by central banks and helicopter money thrown around by govt. Not because you all of a sudden became more productive.

          • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 17:03

            @dealhunter52: Reduction in labour supply, increases the price achievable per unit of labour, which feeds capital investment, which improves productivity.

            Increase in labour supply, depresses the price achievable per unit of labour, which reduces capital investment, which lowers the rate of productivity growth.

            Standards of living are not higher in larger nations, but smaller nations. Driving the total economy to be bigger, when it is divided amongst more people does not lift the average standard of living, but increases the number of poor, squeezes the middle, and increases the return to the top end.

            Progressive economic illiteracy underlies your proposal.

            • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 17:06

              @LVlahov: No, reduction in labour supply creates more demand and higher wages that feeds into higher inflation and create wage/price spiral. This is basic economics 101.

              • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 17:07

                @dealhunter52: Higher wages feed capital investment, which LOWERS wage pressures, bringing them back into balance.

                I suggest you go back to school, or try studying beyond 101 level.

                What you seek to do is intervene in the economy with an EXTERNAL intervention, before it can regain INTERNAL equilibrium.

                Left alone it will achieve internal equilibrium.

                • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 17:10

                  @LVlahov:

                  Higher wages feed capital investment

                  Higher wages cause investment to flee to lower wage countries. This is basic economics.

                  • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 17:11

                    @dealhunter52: Yeah, I mean look at Japan, vs South Africa.

                    All that money that fled Japan to make the South African economy boom.

                    You are so economically illiterate it isn't funny.

                    • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 17:13

                      @LVlahov: Very poor example. Japan has robust manufacturing and innovative economy unlike Australia. Thanks for wasting my time.

                      • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 17:14

                        @dealhunter52: Australia is a resource economy, with per capita returns that REDUCE with every person imported.

                        I suggest you do nothing but waste time with your lack of understanding.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/07/2023 - 09:19

    Unfortunately our pollies are too stupid to put them in correct locations.
    Just look what they did with the HEZ

    • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 11:05

      Totally agree with you. Best said at 7:18, "anyone calling it strategically located has no idea how to read a map".

  • Lawrencep93 on 24/07/2023 - 09:24
    +1

    Some simplistic measures would be rather than trying to get immigration from an average of 120k > 300+k to make the budget look good they could limit migration to housing as in, if someone wants a visa they need to purchase a new build (apartment or house and land package) before they can move over or for existing migrants to have to purchase a new build if they want to bring their family over, eg single migrant wants to bring their spouse, kids and parents would need to purchase a 4-5bedroom house and land package and the Visa would be granted once the build is complete.

    The other issue is that there need to be more incentives to build higher quality apartment buildings that are liveable in the inner city and along lines of mass transport (train lines are usually great for this) if you go to any booming Asian city with affordable housing they generally have 40 story buildings inner city that are not built completely next to each other, they are generally built with decent spacing to the next major building allowing for livable green areas, plenty of car parking, pick up and drop off points for residents to keep cars off the roads and plenty of visitor parking which also reduces people trying to find street parking and clogging roads. Along with this these buildings generally have superior amenities and much larger internal apartments than most inner-city apartments in Australia.

    The other issue we have is striking a balance between red tape and safety vs productivity and cost-effective building. I am not sure if this can be done through lower taxation or tax incentives eg no stamp duty and land tax along with accelerated depreciation for a new high-quality apartment build with only long-term rentals (no short stay, Airbnb allowed in bylaws) built-in the inner city catchment say within 5km of the CBD of 30-40 floors with a rooftop garden, a large podium with a pool, gym, sauna, dining hall, meeting rooms, lounge and other amenities for the residents. Sure it might mean demolishing 20-30 smaller units/townhouses to create up to 400 residences.

    At the end of the day the only real benefit immigration has on the nation is to cover up a useless Government that has a major spending and taxing problem. Honestly, so many Government departments could be axed as they produce nothing, they could have their workforces reduced and the people who leave Government can then go get re-skilled/up-skilled into private industry jobs that actually have economic production easing the shortage of workers.

  • payless69 on 24/07/2023 - 10:01

    Be like Dubai: Get worthy people and group them together. They learned that from the English…

    • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 16:48

      Dubai does not extend citizenship to the vastest majority of its foreign residents, nor provide them a pathway for masses to achieve it, like they do in Australia.

    • Miami Mall Alien on 25/07/2023 - 16:57

      Get worthy people

      You mean get millions of Indian, Pakistani, Bengali and Filipino slave labourers to do all of the work while holding them hostage by confiscating their passports with the 25% native Emiratis who are all related to the ruling family reaping all of the rewards and spending their billions of petrodollars on useless, public-d*ck-measuring-contest infrastructure projects designed by American/British/European expats?

      Great idea.

      Dubai is a sh*thole (as are all of the oil-rich, despotic, Gulf Arab states) whose failings are best articulated by Adam Something on YouTube.

      • payless69 on 25/07/2023 - 19:01

        Real Arabs would probably say: Silly infidels down in AUS pay huge taxes for them endless drug addicts…..

      • RefusdClassification on 26/07/2023 - 05:28

        The Gulf states are a fantastic example of how to do things right. Overseas workers do all of the hard, "real" jobs, and can never become citizens, while the natives get easy, high paying government white collar jobs. Their governments and rulers actually look after their constituents rather than mindlessly worshiping growth and the free market as they do in Anglophone countries. Australia, please emulate the Gulf state model.

  • 2esc on 24/07/2023 - 10:28
    +1

    I'd be interested in knowing how many residential houses are now owned by non residents of Australia.

    There are many contributors to the housing crisis.

    Is actual foreign ownship tiny and more localised to places like apartments on the Gold Coast or is it more wide spread?

    • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 16:47
      +2

      If foreign ownership includes migrants, and it should, huge numbers of Australian properties are foreign owned. And if going by land area, even excluding this type, you will find it well above 20%.

    • payless69 on 24/07/2023 - 17:43

      Non residents pay a 48% tax on ALL income.

      • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 20:42

        They do not. They are allowed deductions like others, and can structure their tax affairs to pay a rate far less, for instance by setting up a local trust to hold the property.

        • payless69 on 25/07/2023 - 08:06
          +1

          greetings from pwc!!

  • jrvb42 on 24/07/2023 - 11:17
    +2

    I'd be in favour of simply removing Sydney and Melbourne (greater areas) from the country of Australia. The disparity between these cities and more normal Australia has become too great. Maybe include Canberra and SEQ in the area as well.

    • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 16:46

      Like London, globalist cities end up not representing or even being majority peopled by the nation they reside in. Wrong for such places to then hold such sway over the rest.

  • Gekov on 24/07/2023 - 12:31
    -4

    Not to worry.

    If the globalwarming ® alarmist useful idiots have their way, we'll all soon be living in enforced "human habitat settlement zones".

    To "save-the-planet" of course.

    Here's a taste of this future …. *** SHUDDER ***

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=vWkepoLUZfs

    Today's warmunists, distracted by a fake, manufactured "climate crisis" are innocently aiding this transition, where you will "Own Nothing & Be Happy"

    • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 13:19
      -5

      This sounds like right wing propaganda push.

      Far right and far left are equally eroding press, judicial and personal freedoms all over the world. You take our pick but I'm in neither camp.

      Russia - Right wing
      Serbia - Right wing
      India - Right wing
      Hungary - Right wing
      China - Left wing
      North Korea - Left wing
      Cambodia - Left wing
      Venezuela - Left wing

      • Gekov on 24/07/2023 - 13:59
        +1

        " right wing propaganda push."

        Too bad it's already emerging eh?

        Great Reset In Action:
        Forced closure of 3,000 farms in the Netherlands
        Misanthropic climatechange AGENDA Gathering Steam … mass starvation to reduce population coming? Neither a conspiracy nor theory.
        https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/12/08/the-great-reset-in-a…

        CLIMATE AGENDA: FIRST STEPS TOWARD TOTALITARIAN WORLD GOVERNMENT?
        Climate lockdowns …
        You will be tracked in your suburb & be happy about it
        https://joannenova.com.au/2022/12/oxford-2024-climate-lockdo…

        • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 14:18

          So Northern hemisphere going through unprecedented heatwave and floods is just normal? Phoenix, Arizona just had record 19 consecutive days of above 43 degree temperature and that sound pretty normal to you too. Greek islands are currently burning at unprecedented pace, there were once in a generation floods in South Korea, Japan and North India earlier this month, Pakistan had their 1/3 country submerged last year and that was pretty normal too.

          Just because we had La Nina for last 3 consecutive years and didn't endure bushfire seasons like 2019, when Sydney's air quality index was worse than Beijing and Delhi, it should all be good going forward. Right?

          Also, all the scientific research backed by real facts and figures, just a hoax according to you?

          https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66229065

          If you had offered real facts and figures, you will sound more credible but unfortunately conspiracy theories don't amount to anything but fiction.

          • Gekov on 24/07/2023 - 14:28
            -1

            @dealhunter52: "Northern hemisphere going through unprecedented heatwave and floods is just normal? "

            Too bad it's not true eh?

            HEATWAVE PROPAGANDA ON STEROIDS

            No evidence that the heatwave was in any way unprecedented, never mind the inferno suggested.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/23/record-breaking-heatw…

            Hottest day ever …?
            <<<NOT SO FAST >>>
            https://youtube.com/watch?v=qnSyDr0F9_M
            This video has been SUPPRESSED by WOKE #YouTube for obvious reasons
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/18/youtube-suppressed-th…

            • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 14:33

              @Gekov: More propaganda and conspiracy theories rather than hard facts and figures.

              • ssfps on 24/07/2023 - 19:15

                @dealhunter52: You don't have any "hard" facts to back up your claims. The BOM's own temp measurements showing climate change are "heuristically adjusted". Yeah, great, "hard" science we've got there. The claims by some weirdos on odysee are pretty much as credible as the claims by these mainstream institutions.

                unprecedented fires/floods/whatever

                Yeah? I've been hearing about the unprecedented weather for nearly 40 years. Too bad there is no trustworthy data because measurement equipment and standards change, and it's all "normalized" or "adjusted" subjectively by people who would really rather show that the world is falling apart.

                • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 19:22
                  +1

                  @ssfps: Thanks for your 2 cents and just stick to Alex Jones & Joe Rogan podcasts.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join