I need to know....

[Jimmy_041]

To make it sound like they check bank accounts with a click of a button is completely misleading and incorrect.

I can't see where I ever used those words or made it sound as such. That's an action of access - not an authority to access.

Like most authority, they (should) protect it by only using it when absolutely necessary.
I would suggest they would want some pretty serious reasons to access your records without your knowledge (eg) criminal, including money laundering or terrorism, activity.

Notwithstanding, they can check how much interest you have earned with a click of a button

[Trader]

Was there free beer? Seemed like a popular event, I know quite a few that went.

Which bit were they protesting?

I'm not getting into a debate over politics or other peoples views, each to their own.

That's probably the smart thing to do.
With that said, I'm not that bright.

I didn't attend either protest, that being the March, or the counter March.
Anyway, here's my thoughts on the topic.

Yesterday, major Australian cities were filled with crowds waving the national flag in the March for Australia. What began as a fringe protest quickly gained traction, tapping into public frustration over issues like infrastructure strain, housing affordability, and rising living costs. While critics, including the media, politicians and other key leaders on the left dismissed the movement as right-wing or xenophobic, it reflects a broader concern: Australia’s immigration intake has surged at a time when many feel that public services and the standard of living are in decline.

Australia is facing mounting challenges: overcrowded schools, strained hospitals, unaffordable housing, and a skyrocketing cost of living. These issues coincide with record-high immigration, an estimated 477,000 new arrivals in 2025 alone, or roughly 1,300 per day. While immigration has historically contributed to Australia’s success, many are asking whether the current pace is sustainable without urgent investment in infrastructure.

This isn’t a modern issue. Immigration has been the backbone of the Australian economy for decades. With successive governments on both sides of politics embracing new arrivals as a way of pumping up the size of the economy and resulting in GDP figures reflecting growth.

However, following the explosion of government debt during the pandemic, coupled with insufficient productivity advancements, the Australian way of life has gone backwards. It’s not surprising that if you don’t have advancement, and you run up huge debts while paying people not to work for up to 18 months, that ultimately, there comes a time where the bill needs to be paid, and the Australian public doesn’t appreciate that the bill is coming in the form of a reduction in the standard of living.

This isn’t a surprise. Anyone with their eyes open could see this problem coming. The issue, however, is that anyone who dared to question it, was drowned out of the conversation, labelled a racist and shunned off as a right-wing nutter.

There are always fringe elements in any movement, and some voices at the protests hold views that are discriminatory or exclusionary. However, it would be a mistake to ignore the broader concern shared by many Australians; that large-scale immigration, regardless of origin, places real pressure on housing, public services, and social cohesion if not carefully managed and supported with proper infrastructure.

So, the natural question becomes; why? Why would the government, both current and past, continually allow so many immigrants to come to the country without taking the time to improve the infrastructure before their arrival?

As alluded to earlier, the answer, in my opinion, is economics. The government wants to be re-elected, and having negative GDP growth is one quick way to get booted out. So, increase the size of the economy by importing more people, and report gross figures, not per capita. Simple. But it goes beyond that. Mass expansion of the economy is the best way to erode government debt. You see, during the pandemic, government debt exploded. Australia as a country, historically ran with a small debt. In 2008 Government debt as a percentage of GDP was just 4.5%. Since that time, it rose, culminating at 37% on June 30 2021, some 15 months after the March 2020 lockdowns hit our shores. This debt, which is interest bearing, prevents the government from spending as freely as it would like. You can’t build new hospitals when you don’t have access to money. You can’t set up schools or supply critical infrastructure to new housing developments when you are struggling to finance your existing commitments. So, to reduce that debt, you need to grow the economy. Productivity gains is the preferred method, but that’s easier said than done. The simple method is to import people. If you double the size of your economy, that existing debt effectively halves, freeing you up to spend more in the future. This, in my opinion, is the main reason why successive governments on both sides of politics have been importing more and more people. You don’t need to pay off the debt if you shrink its effective size.

The debt is just one element too. You also have an aging population here in Australia. Not only are people living longer, but the birth rate has been on a steady decline for decades. In 1961 there were 3.54 births per Australian Woman. In 2023 that figure was just 1.50. This leaves no new taxpayers to cover the costs of society to house and maintain the growing number of retirees within the Country. As such, the government has no option but to import new taxpayers.

University has become the natural breeding ground for obtaining new taxpayers. At the end of the 1980s we saw the emergence of a private sector in higher education. During the early 2000s, this expanded dramatically, and universities opened their doors to as many international students as they could, with fee-paying international student propping up their profit margins. While not every university in Australia is now private, the vast majority are public institutions that operate commercially. International students in the late 80s and 90s were typically English speakers from western countries. However, as the universities looked for more and more numbers, they expanded, taking in students from China and India, relaxing standards to accommodate non-english speaking fee payers, and as a result, the value of the degree fell. This hasn’t helped when it’s come to getting productivity gains. The non-english speaking students often come from countries with a lower standard of living, so naturally wish to get a job and stay on here after. In time, they then bring their families over, and before you know it, there has been a natural progression from the European immigrants we saw in the 50s and 60s, to the Indian and Chinese that dominate the figures in the 2020s.

Why is productivity important? Naturally, every generation wants the next to have a better life than they did. That’s human nature for parents to want kids to have a better life. More holidays, better access to entertainment, reduced working hours, greater imports, etc. There is nothing wrong with wanting a better life, but you can’t have that without increased productivity. If all families have more money, then the cost of things just goes up. You need to produce more, more effectively, if standards of living are to increase. Unfortunately, despite some productivity gains, like the expansion of the internet, simply haven’t kept up with the increasing expectations of Australians. Productivity gains in the 80s under the Hawke/Keating Macroeconomic reforms were great. I can’t think of many examples since then, yet our expectations continued to grow.

Many Australians aspire to a better work-life balance: shorter working weeks, earlier transitions to retirement, and greater flexibility in the workplace. These goals reflect a society that has, for decades, enjoyed rising living standards. But without corresponding productivity gains, these expectations can become difficult to sustain. It’s a dilemma; people want more from life, but productivity growth hasn’t kept pace with these desires.

We as a country, have been eating up any productivity gains, through increased entitlements, or unproductive roles. Social media influencers, they produce entertainment, not a product, yet they earn a living. That living is paid for by wider society. Advisors, consultants, marketing, human resources, etc. These are full time roles, that while valuable in their own way, add little with respect to production. Yet they all need to be paid their full wage.

Simply put, some would say the Australian way of an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work has disappeared or at least is no longer as strong as it used to be. A growing number of people no longer want to put in an honest day’s work, yet they still want the full pay. This has, naturally, resulted in a decrease in the standard of living. It’s small, but it’s there, and when it’s overlaid with an increasing expectation passed down from generation to generation, it’s no surprise that Governments can’t appease the masses.

So, getting back to the March. It’s natural for the masses to be upset. The standards they’ve come to expect are not being met. But equally, what can the government do? When innovation isn’t there, when birth rates are declining, when work ethics aren’t what they used to be, the government doesn’t have much choice. It’s either go backwards or import people to expand the economy artificially.

What the government should be doing however, is rather than labelling those calling for a limit on immigration numbers as Nazi’s, they should be educating the public on why immigration is required under the current system, or what the alternative options are. Public debate on tax reform to better fund infrastructure, innovation incentives, encouraging domestic population growth and improved housing regulation would all benefit Australians, but would require politicians with substance.

Ultimately, if Australians want to maintain a high standard of living without relying so heavily on immigration, it will require difficult choices; greater investment in innovation, stronger work participation, and policies that encourage population growth. Immigration, when well-planned, can benefit a nation. But without honesty and long-term planning, it risks becoming a short-term fix for deeper structural problems.

Apologies in advance if there are a few too many generalisations and oversimplifications in there. I jotted down some thoughts quickly without giving it too much consideration or refinement.

[MW]

I got asked the other day from someone why I thought Adelaide housing prices were so high. Amongst other reasons (lack of supply, people investing in Adelaide during the pandemic, unlimited negative gearing on properties, lack or urban sprawl etc) one other factor I offered was allowing effectively unlimited foreign investments in our housing markets was one reason, and I was immediately then told I am a racist.

The reason I mention this, is I am sure at these protests on the weekend there are genuine people who are worried there is too much immigration at the moment, and we should revert back to the limits that were in place not that long ago. Are they racists and neo-nazis? No. Unfortunately with this type of movement, you get branded the same way.

[Trader]

I was immediately then told I am a racist.

Are they racists and neo-nazis? No. Unfortunately with this type of movement, you get branded the same way.

Correct.
It is a big part of why I was hesitant to post my thoughts above.

With that said, by saying nothing, it only encourages those that jump to labels to continue to do just that.

We need to get back to better public debate. Informed discussion on both side of a topic.
Unfortunately, that used to be a big part of the role of the media, whereas they too are now chasing a commercial reality, and therefore clickbait is more important than informed discussion.

It's no one person, sector, policy, or other factor, that is to blame, but overall, society has declined and meaningful discussion on important topics is a rare thing these days.

[dedja]

I got asked the other day from someone why I thought Adelaide housing prices were so high. Amongst other reasons (lack of supply, people investing in Adelaide during the pandemic, unlimited negative gearing on properties, lack or urban sprawl etc) one other factor I offered was allowing effectively unlimited foreign investments in our housing markets was one reason, and I was immediately then told I am a racist.

The reason I mention this, is I am sure at these protests on the weekend there are genuine people who are worried there is too much immigration at the moment, and we should revert back to the limits that were in place not that long ago. Are they racists and neo-nazis? No. Unfortunately with this type of movement, you get branded the same way.

It’s a good point, you posted something about foreign property investment a while back on here and I must admit, that that was my first reaction (racism). I haven’t looked up the thread but recall we had some posts back and forth and I then realised what your argument was.

I honesty haven’t paid much attention to the rallies on the weekend, but, as you suggest, there are people with seemingly genuine grievances, but with a sprinkling of conspiracy theorists, neos and other undesirables going along for the ride.

I have no idea who organised it or who tried to run it on the day, but was surprised from the brief interest I took in the reporting to hear of the numbers involved.

I have always been a proponent of immigration, mainly due to the fact my parents were not only beneficiaries of this in the 1950s, but also that they were able to deliver back to their new country in spades. The real question is what is the most suitable level, especially today, and I don’t have an answer for that.

[The Bedge]

Enjoyed your write up Trader, gave someone like me who really has no idea some insight and was thought provoking.

[MW]

without turning this into a housing crisis debate, I have the same thoughts on housing ownership for Australians as well as foreign investors, and would 100% support a policy to only have negative gearing on one investment property.

[Jimmy_041]

I went to my son's party yesterday

It was very interesting listening to the views of mid 30's on all of these issues.
I kept quiet: mainly because I wasn't asked but they probably didn't want to know my views as it is, essentially, their problem now - not mine.
Because of their age; many are managers, run their own business, own a mortgaged house (or more) and have kids
There were discussing immigration, housing costs & the effects of the government's 5% deposit scheme on housing values.
I was, actually, very surprised at their knowledge of what is going on politically and which politicians are which. The good and the bad
Malinauskas had better do something, other than propaganda, about the algae boom or this age group are going to turn against him.
Many of them surf, fish or are from the beach suburbs, and they aren't happy

[Jimmy_041]

I got asked the other day from someone why I thought Adelaide housing prices were so high. Amongst other reasons (lack of supply, people investing in Adelaide during the pandemic, unlimited negative gearing on properties, lack or urban sprawl etc) one other factor I offered was allowing effectively unlimited foreign investments in our housing markets was one reason, and I was immediately then told I am a racist.

The reason I mention this, is I am sure at these protests on the weekend there are genuine people who are worried there is too much immigration at the moment, and we should revert back to the limits that were in place not that long ago. Are they racists and neo-nazis? No. Unfortunately with this type of movement, you get branded the same way.

I had this discussion with someone on the weekend
Try buying an investment property overseas - especially in those countries with the people calling you a racist

[dedja]

Why was the original thread on this topic deleted if we’re talking about the same thing here?

[Lightning McQueen]

Why was the original thread on this topic deleted if we’re talking about the same thing here?

Maybe ask gazzamagoo

[amber_fluid]

Why was the original thread on this topic deleted if we’re talking about the same thing here?

Maybe ask gazzamagoo

Did he get banned coz of the topic or what he posted in it?
I never saw what he posted in it?

[wenchbarwer]

Why was the original thread on this topic deleted if we’re talking about the same thing here?

Maybe ask gazzamagoo

Did he get banned coz of the topic or what he posted in it?
I never saw what he posted in it?

The thread asked who was going to the march, reasonably harmless banter I thought.

[dedja]

You know it makes sense …

[Booney]

@Trader, really good post mate.

I said on the weekend that the biggest problems the March for Australia faced were :

A) No actual organizers. If there had been a group or a body take control and actually put in place some measures around the concerns more people would likely have been involved. Define what an Australian is - ie "Put Australians first" and define what is mass immigration ie "We're against mass immigration".

One part of immigration, international students topped $3bn in 2023 in SA as our largest export, that's not something we can ignore. So what is "mass immigration"?

B) Extremists like the NSN taking over the front pages of the papers and mainstream media, why wouldn't they, it's sensationalist and the government would be laughing at the NSN/Palestine/Israel fights in the streets, keeps the eyes off them.

The issues around cost of living, housing, productivity etc as you so eloquently point out run far deeper than the "Fit in or f*ck off" extremists that took the headlines.

Good post. Now go and fix it.

[Trader]

Trader, really good post mate.
Now go and fix it.

Thanks.

I think the fix is rather simple, on paper.
It's having the political will, and the public sticking with you for long enough to implement it properly, that's the impossible part.

As bad as it sounds, and as much as it's a massive generalisation, I think in the past people generally were willing to sacrifice a little for the greater good.
I am not so sure that is still a thing.

There has been an erosion of pride in the country.
I think nationalistic pride peaked in the late 80s. Perhaps in 1988 at the bicentenary. Some may say it lasted a little longer, perhaps through to the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
But wherever you draw that line, it's clear, that in 2025, there is a lower percentage of people who are proud to be Australian, than there was previously.

Today, if you demonstrate pride in being Australian, you run the risk of being labelled a nationalist, or worse.

Why has this changed?
Thats a massive question with even more answers.
Is it cause of the breakdown of family and community?
Is it cause things are tougher so it's harder to be happy?
Is it a greater awareness of our past transgressions?
Is it that click bait media is the future, and negative clicks at 10 times the rate of positive?

But yes, for whatever reason, it's harder to convince people today that their sacrifice is needed for the betterment of the country, and in turn, future generations.

I think society today is more self interested, than nationalistic. Generally prime ministers got multiple terms. From the 70s to the 00s, you'd see Governments for 10 years, and often longer. Since Kevin 07, its more likely than not, that the government, well, more so the prime minster changes at each election, as parties knife their own to appease the electorate who wants change.

Fraiser 75-83
Hawke/Keating 83-96
Howard 96-2007

However after that it went:
Rudd for 3
Gillard for 3
Rudd again, albeit less than 1 year
Abbott got 2
Then Turnbull for 3
then Scomo from 18 to 22
Now we have Albo.

So yeah, I think we've seen a big shift, and that the electorate, or the party in charge, will make a change if they aren't getting what they want right now. It's not a matter of long-term thinking, it's about what can I, as a voter, get now, for myself, and as a politician, what do i need to do right now to get re-elected.

I think if a politician came out and said: "Productivity hasn't kept up with expectations, as such we all need to tighten the belt for the next 3 years" he or she would be voted out before they finished the sentence.

The answer is easy, cut spending on a range of unnecessary items, raise taxes in strategic locations, and invest in long term infrastructure and innovation.

If I were in charge, the areas I'd go after are:
- GST - Raise it to 15% and remove all exemptions. This is a user pays system, its fair for all. You pay your share on what you consume.
- Superannuation - Increase it to 15%. Force people to invest in their futures. The idea being that you put that money away and you fund your own retirement.
- Aged Pension - I wouldn't phase it out immediately, but I'd make it clear that by 2040 it won't exist anymore. Work now, put your money into super, and fund retirement out of that. It isn't for future generations to fund your retirement, it's for you to do that now through employer contributions.
- Natural resources royalties - I know they tried the mining super tax previously, and that was a major failure, but I'd go to a royalty model. Pay x for every tonne you pull out of the ground. Copper, Coal, Gas, Gold, etc. Everything that has value, you can pay a small portion to the government. It's not based on profit that you can move oversees through corporate overhead costs, it's a rate per tonne pulled out of the ground. Simple as that.
- I'd also do a massive review on all forms of subsidies, costs of living allowances, first home buyers grants, electricity rebates, etc. These 'payments' do nothing to increase supply. They do increase demand, and in turn, increase costs. They are not helpful in terms of solving rising prices, but simply are used to buy votes.
- Finally, I'd like to review family tax benefits A and B.

To put some context around the numbers:
By removing the aged pension, you'll save $60bn a year.
By increasing the GST to 15% and removing exemptions, you'll raise another $50bn.

Those two items alone, would see the total government paid off in 5 years (which sits at approx $550bn). It also isn't just that 5 year period you spend removing the debt, it now also means you've freed up roughly 15% of the government budget. Structurally resolving major restrictions and permitting governments to invest in critical infrastructure and innovation initiatives moving forward.

However, as mentioned earlier, there's no way you'd get support from the public to implement those items.
Australian voters would rather we continue to run up a national debt (passing it on to future generations so current voters can live above their means right now), rather than having to take a 5% hit to the household budget through increased GST, nor would they want to be forced to be responsible to fund their own retirements through superannuation increases and the removal of the aged pension.

Even if you did a massive education campaign, with bipartisan support from both sides of politics, and managed to convince the media to talk up why this is in the national interest right now, and you somehow managed to get it approved and implemented, I suspect, that within a very short period of time, you'd see a creeping back in of all the wastage. Support payments would balloon, tax cuts would be handed out to buy votes, and a new debt would be run up, rather than investment in long term strategics and strategic infrastructure.

It sounds cynical, I know, but unfortunately, I think it's where we are at as a society in 2025.

[The Bedge]

I think in the past people generally were willing to sacrifice a little for the greater good.

Agree

There has been an erosion of pride in the country.

Disagree for the following quote.

I think society today is more self interested, than nationalistic.

I think people have become more selfish and self absorbed / self interested over recent years. Most individuals seem to be all about themselves, and what's in it for them IMO

[wenchbarwer]

Another great post, Trader

[amber_fluid]

Another great post, Trader

I read half now I’m going to have a lay down
Read the rest later

[dedja]

Thanks.

I think the fix is rather simple, on paper.
It's having the political will, and the public sticking with you for long enough to implement it properly, that's the impossible part.

As bad as it sounds, and as much as it's a massive generalisation, I think in the past people generally were willing to sacrifice a little for the greater good.
I am not so sure that is still a thing.

There has been an erosion of pride in the country.
I think nationalistic pride peaked in the late 80s. Perhaps in 1988 at the bicentenary. Some may say it lasted a little longer, perhaps through to the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
But wherever you draw that line, it's clear, that in 2025, there is a lower percentage of people who are proud to be Australian, than there was previously.

Today, if you demonstrate pride in being Australian, you run the risk of being labelled a nationalist, or worse.

Why has this changed?
Thats a massive question with even more answers.
Is it cause of the breakdown of family and community?
Is it cause things are tougher so it's harder to be happy?
Is it a greater awareness of our past transgressions?
Is it that click bait media is the future, and negative clicks at 10 times the rate of positive?

But yes, for whatever reason, it's harder to convince people today that their sacrifice is needed for the betterment of the country, and in turn, future generations.

I think society today is more self interested, than nationalistic. Generally prime ministers got multiple terms. From the 70s to the 00s, you'd see Governments for 10 years, and often longer. Since Kevin 07, its more likely than not, that the government, well, more so the prime minster changes at each election, as parties knife their own to appease the electorate who wants change.

Fraiser 75-83
Hawke/Keating 83-96
Howard 96-2007

However after that it went:
Rudd for 3
Gillard for 3
Rudd again, albeit less than 1 year
Abbott got 2
Then Turnbull for 3
then Scomo from 18 to 22
Now we have Albo.

So yeah, I think we've seen a big shift, and that the electorate, or the party in charge, will make a change if they aren't getting what they want right now. It's not a matter of long-term thinking, it's about what can I, as a voter, get now, for myself, and as a politician, what do i need to do right now to get re-elected.

I think if a politician came out and said: "Productivity hasn't kept up with expectations, as such we all need to tighten the belt for the next 3 years" he or she would be voted out before they finished the sentence.

The answer is easy, cut spending on a range of unnecessary items, raise taxes in strategic locations, and invest in long term infrastructure and innovation.

If I were in charge, the areas I'd go after are:
- GST - Raise it to 15% and remove all exemptions. This is a user pays system, its fair for all. You pay your share on what you consume.
- Superannuation - Increase it to 15%. Force people to invest in their futures. The idea being that you put that money away and you fund your own retirement.
- Aged Pension - I wouldn't phase it out immediately, but I'd make it clear that by 2040 it won't exist anymore. Work now, put your money into super, and fund retirement out of that. It isn't for future generations to fund your retirement, it's for you to do that now through employer contributions.
- Natural resources royalties - I know they tried the mining super tax previously, and that was a major failure, but I'd go to a royalty model. Pay x for every tonne you pull out of the ground. Copper, Coal, Gas, Gold, etc. Everything that has value, you can pay a small portion to the government. It's not based on profit that you can move oversees through corporate overhead costs, it's a rate per tonne pulled out of the ground. Simple as that.
- I'd also do a massive review on all forms of subsidies, costs of living allowances, first home buyers grants, electricity rebates, etc. These 'payments' do nothing to increase supply. They do increase demand, and in turn, increase costs. They are not helpful in terms of solving rising prices, but simply are used to buy votes.
- Finally, I'd like to review family tax benefits A and B.

To put some context around the numbers:
By removing the aged pension, you'll save $60bn a year.
By increasing the GST to 15% and removing exemptions, you'll raise another $50bn.

Those two items alone, would see the total government paid off in 5 years (which sits at approx $550bn). It also isn't just that 5 year period you spend removing the debt, it now also means you've freed up roughly 15% of the government budget. Structurally resolving major restrictions and permitting governments to invest in critical infrastructure and innovation initiatives moving forward.

However, as mentioned earlier, there's no way you'd get support from the public to implement those items.
Australian voters would rather we continue to run up a national debt (passing it on to future generations so current voters can live above their means right now), rather than having to take a 5% hit to the household budget through increased GST, nor would they want to be forced to be responsible to fund their own retirements through superannuation increases and the removal of the aged pension.

Even if you did a massive education campaign, with bipartisan support from both sides of politics, and managed to convince the media to talk up why this is in the national interest right now, and you somehow managed to get it approved and implemented, I suspect, that within a very short period of time, you'd see a creeping back in of all the wastage. Support payments would balloon, tax cuts would be handed out to buy votes, and a new debt would be run up, rather than investment in long term strategics and strategic infrastructure.

It sounds cynical, I know, but unfortunately, I think it's where we are at as a society in 2025.

Responding to each colour:

2007-2013 : Labor 6 years
2013 - 2022 : Coalition 9 years
2022 - 2028 (at least) : Labor 6+ years

The length of govt terms, whether Labor or Coalition, hasn’t really changed (who cares who the PM is). The Australian electorate has a history of releatively large swings away from a govt when they are swept from power, has been like this for decades.

All this would do is create a large shift from a progressive tax regime to a regressive one, whereby the richer get richer and the poor get poorer. This what the USA does, not Australia. Raising the GST to 15% will disproportionally affect lower income earners.

Raising super to 15% will be an increased burden on employers as they pay the super guarantee and hence an effective drag on productivity.

You cant phase out the Aged pension, it’s a safety net for lower income earners. The Keating Labor government in 1992 had the vision to legislate a super guarantee do exactly what you are suggesting. That is, enable people to self fund their retirement. Phasing out the aged pension would remove a necessary safety net to those that simply cannot fund their retirement. Pension ages are increasing to address future costs.

Natural resource royalty changes previously been tried and largely failed. Resource companies do currently pay, but there is a line between fairly taxing them and stifling investment. It’s a complex matter and not easily solved due to the massive investments and interest groups affected.

All of the subsidies and assistance to low income earners is what makes Australia the great country it is. Again, we are not the USA, but a progressive society that understands social responsibility. You have grossly simplified this and, in my view, incorrectly tagged as a ‘vote buying’ exercise, which misrepresents why it's there for. Do we also make healthcare a totally user pays system like the USA and just let people who can’t afford it suffer?

You’re conflating timeframes. The aged pension to be phased out by 2040 but the benefits of eliminating it are realised in the next 5 years? Doesn’t work that way.

Well done for putting your thoughts on paper, you’ve obviously spent a bit of time doing this.

Unfortunately, any government who would even contemplate doing some of the things you suggest would be creating political suicide. As mentioned in previous comments, Australia is a progressive society who understands there are social and wellbeing responsibilities. Are there issues with government spending? Of course, but its very nature it can and usually is very inefficient, but the core reason why govt services, support for lower income earner and the vulnerable will always be required.

Instead of the outcome you’re intending, some of your proposals will have the opposite effect and create a drag on the economy. Businesses need incentives to invest (or rather, regressive tax or other measures reduced), to enable them to flourish.

One of the biggest issues currently is the cost and future of energy. This is a complex issue that many governments, both federal and state, have stuffed up over many decades. The kudos to the Keating Labor govt for super is somewhat negated by the sheer stupidity of the same govt for seeding the Australian Energy Market that currently governs and operates all aspects of energy across the country (WA excluded). Its not a problem solely caused by renewables (although that has exasperated the problem), but the poor regulatory environment and govt policy that has allowed market players to game the system at the expense of consumers (I’ve worked in this sector, so have some appreciation of how the wheels work)

In my opinion, very little of all the talking points have much to do with immigration, nor have they much to do with pride or nationality … it’s just the world has moved on from decades ago.

The only immigration issues I agree need to be attended to are the Universities reliance on foreign students for income (I’ve also worked in the uni sector), and the level of foreign investment in real estate, etc. These 2 issues do need review, although I can’t offer what the ideal model for either should be.