HOW can the Constituency confidence be assured with the Service NSW model being adopted by the Scomo Government in view of the track record of SERVICE NSW?

The most recent example being the leaking of the private details of the former leader of the NSW Labor Party Michael Daley and his wife Christina together with those of thousands of NSW drivers to the media  … in the lead-up to the NSW Election!

DOES this appear to be a move by the Scomo Government to privatisation … a pipeline of yet more Public Assets to donor cartels as they lay off thousands of public servants/Constituents?  What of their prospects?  How many will end up on the welfare card to in turn benefit Indue?

IT so happens that Australia’s new Minister for Government Services is Stuart Robert!

View the following articles and others on CAAN WEBSITE concerning Stuart Robert!

The Real Threat to Our National Security

Close to the wind: the trials of Liberal MONEY-MAN Stuart ROBERT

Stuart Robert ‘In LNP Branch Coup to bolster Influence’



Dominello “relieved” Service NSW model adopted by Feds

Dominello "relieved" Service NSW model adopted by Feds

Renewed service delivery focus applauded.

NSW’s freshly re-branded Customer Service Minister Victor Dominello says he’s “relieved” by the Morrison government’s decision to create a new centralised, digital-first agency to simplify federal government services.

Speaking at the FST Government NSW conference on Wednesday, Dominello said Service Australia would pave the way for better customer-facing services, particular those that cut across federal, state and territory governments.

“What we’ve got to do is get those pipelines [between jurisdictions] working, and it’s not working as well as it should,” he said during one of his first public addresses in the new portfolio.

“That’s why I was very relieved when the Prime Minister made his announcement, his ministerial changes.”

Any work to simplify and amalgamate cross-jurisdiction services would build on a commitment by federal, state and territory governments last year to accelerate the development of digital services and improve data sharing across borders.

Dominello also said Australia’s new Minister for Government Services Stuart Robert had wasted no time getting to work on the gargantuan task at hand, having already scheduled a meeting with his state counterpart early next week.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has flagged Services Australia will be made in the image of Service NSW, which now offers more than 1000 services under a digital-first, one-stop shop delivery model.

But Dominello said he would be recommending the federal government adopt some of NSW’s ways of working around development, which largely sits with the Digital Transformation Agency.

“One of the things I’m going to suggest to Minister Robert is that we do what we do here in NSW: design big builds, do a lot pilots, get the trust working,” he said.

“And there’s a whole lot of things that, for example, the feds and us can do together, where we’re sharing information, putting people first, getting better outcomes, pilot it up, and the build it out.”

Following the release of Administrative Arrangements Orders on Wednesday, it was still unclear whether the DTA would remain as an independent agency within Services Australia or be subsumed entirely.

NSW policy initiatives to require digital, data sign-off

Dominello also used his address on Wednesday to explain why the creation of the state’s own customer-facing service department, the Department of Customer Service, was a game-changer for the citizens of NSW.

The department will allow the government to double-down on its already country’ leading approach to service delivery that has now led the feds to copy the model.

Crucially, it will hold responsibility for the government’s technology policy and deliverythat were previously under the command of the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation.

“This is truly a change in dimensions. This is the most significant Machinery of Government change I have ever seen,” Dominello said.

Dominello said one of the fundamental changes with the new department was the creation of a delivery and performance committee.

The new committee – or Dapco for short – replaces a number of existing committees spanning areas like infrastructure, advertising and social policy, which he said had been recently “collapsed”.

Dominello said the committee, which sits alongside Cabinet and the Expenditure Review Committee, will assess the digital or data components of every policy proposal to ensure that service are more seamless and uniform.

“We’re going to have a look at the data architecture, we’re going to have a look at the digital design, we’re going to look and see if you are putting the people in our state first, not as a collective, but as an individual,” he said.

Dominello said the creation of the committee was an important step delivering on the purpose of the new department.

“What we need to do is create vents between the silos so that we share more information so that we actually get those structures stronger, so that we can put the citizen first,” he said.










Rob Stokes’ push for Sydney development: no more nasty surprises

Image may contain: plant and outdoor
CAAN Photo:  At ‘The Ponds’ taken in July 2018 during the drought.  The ponds had actually shrivelled up! Water leak between the tiny residences under construction on 200 M2 x 6M lots.  Raises questions about the quality of the job!
Image may contain: sky, cloud, house, tree and outdoor
CAAN Photo:  example of a ‘fort-like’ stark development in an area of traditional style homes; out of character and over-sized. Complying development would appear to fit developers needs not that of the established community 
The element of surprise needs to be stripped from the state’s planning system, says Planning Minister Rob Stokes, to reduce community mistrust and anti-development hostility.


*Speaking to a room of property executives and employees on Friday, Mr Stokes put his case for overhauling the culture of development in Sydney and NSW, arguing the current system was a recipe for mediocrity.


Image may contain: plant, sky and outdoor

CAAN Photo:  Increased development for a 100% overseas market has robbed Sydney communities of their rights! Here a duplex development is built far forward of the setback of its neighbours; out of character; what appears to be a fast-tracked build of cheap shed-like materials!  It is oversized and towers over neighbouring cottages



*Mr Stokes is attempting to reduce reliance on so-called spot rezonings – processes used by developers or landowners to propose projects exceeding local planning rules.

Such processes have helped foster a culture of mistrust, he said.

Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Rob Stokes.
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Rob Stokes.CREDIT:DOMINIC LORRIMER



*“When we are dealing with a community we need to recognise that planning is the process through which society makes decisions about its future,” Mr Stokes, who is in his second stint as planning minister, told a Property Council of Australia lunch.


*“The stakes are enormously high. And when we plan we make decisions that affect those around us,” he said.

“It’s no surprise that people get angry when things happen that they didn’t expect.”


Image may contain: house, sky and outdoor

Photo:  Earlier development can be seen to the rear of the photo with yards, gardens and trees. Recent development of smaller lots 400M2 or less, with loss of yard, trees and shade!



No doubt mindful of his audience, however, Mr Stokes also argued strongly in favour of increased development. “The reality is growth is inevitable, change is inexorable, and development is a logical extension of both of those processes.”

Sydney’s development trajectory was reasonably modest, he said. “Put it this way, by 2056 the average population density across greater metropolitan Sydney will be around 610 people per square kilometre. To put that in context today Paris has a population density of more than 6000 per square kilometre.”

CAAN:  What the Planning Minister and the developer lobby appear to fail to recognise is that France is a country with many rivers whereas Australia is the driest continent on Earth;  with few rivers crossing this land; it cannot accommodate a larger population like France.  Desalination plants are very expensive and can only operate on the coast!


“Even after sustained growth over the next three decades or so we will still be a very sparely populated city by international standards.”

But he called on industry and government to lift their ambitions. For example, industry buzzwords like liveability, sustainability or productivity communicated little about the sorts of development that people might want or be impressed by.


Image may contain: sky, house, tree and outdoor

CAAN Photo:  Again with Complying development the community have no say about what goes up nextdoor!  Place this next to, for example,  a Federation bungalow, a Colonial cottage! There are two massive oversized duplex.  Concrete seems to be the favoured material despite it emitting Co2 during construction and in its ongoing use!  Where is the beauty … only in the eye of the developer?  How likely is it that the ‘inspiration’ is shared?


Image may contain: tree, plant and outdoor

CAAN Photo:  Imagine an oversized duplex or row of townhouses as shown next to a neat 60s style cottage!  That is not being a “Nimby”  … it is about retaining the right of what one has paid for! That is why we had “Planning”!!! 




“We can do even better than liveability, he said. “We can do delight, we can do beauty, we can do inspiration.”


Image may contain: sky and outdoor

Photo:  huge site developments underway in southwestern Sydney; cleared of all vegetation with tiny lots 200M2 x 6M ranging up to 400M2. A heat sink underway!



But he argued that the culture of development in Sydney needed to change.

“The culture of development that has grown up in this city has pitted in many ways supposedly avaricious developers against supposedly blinkered communities with a hapless Department of Planning doing its best to try and mediate the culture of conflict,” he said.

This approach, he said, was a “recipe for mediocrity” in which “the very best outcome” was that all parties were a bit unhappy.



Image may contain: tree, plant, sky and outdoor

CAAN Photo:  Where there was one cottage now 6 townhouses; all trees and garden removed replaced with concrete dwellings and paving. Demolition, excavation, rebuild took more than 12 months;  streets parked out with tradie trucks, concrete pours, noise and air pollution. There is nothing in OVERDEVELOPMENT of benefit to the established community!



As an alternative to spot rezonings, Mr Stokes is pushing for councils to more often remake their Local Environment Plans (LEPs) – laws that govern the shape of development in a particular area.

Spot rezonings or planning proposals are used when proponents push for a development outside the limits of an LEP.

Limiting their use, he said, would help remove surprise from planning.



Jacob Saulwick

Jacob Saulwick is City Editor at The Sydney Morning Herald.



Image may contain: people sitting, tree, house and outdoor


WITH Sydney having been SHANGHAI’D some of Sydney’s leading urban designers have called for a rethink on high-rise residential developments … they are damaging people’s health and wellbeing.

Read more:

Also recall the photo of ‘the Semi’ cut in two by a residential apartment development.  Good planning?



Image may contain: house and outdoor


CAAN Photo:  How can the neighbouring community ever get over ‘the surprise’? With a duplex the size of a block of flats, built forward of the setback, rendering a huge impact much taller and larger than its substantial 2-storey neighbours.  Surfaces largely concreted sitting and emitting Co2








‘ …While income inequality has been growing globally over the past couple of decades, Australia’s hasn’t grown quite as fast on average.

BUT *Wealth is a different story. While Australia ranks eighth among developed countries for the equality of wealth distribution, the Gini coefficient is around 0.6that means the distribution of wealth is twice as unequal as the distribution of income.

*And it has become worse over the past decade or so, with a 7 per cent increase in wealth inequality between 2003/04 and 2015/16.

From the Evatt Foundation, Christopher Sheil and Frank Stilwell used OECD and ABS data to estimate that the Australia’s richest 10 per cent now hold more than 50 per cent of the nation’s wealth a share that increased substantially over the four years to 2016. …’

CAAN Observation …. 2003/04 during the term of the Howard LNP Government and the rise of foreign investment, Visa Manipulation  …. 2011 NSW LNP to date and 2013 to date the Federal LNP with increased competition for jobs from Visa Workers and the lowest wages growth for 60 years creating high youth unemployment and underemployment!





Australia’s wealthiest have become 50 times richer in my lifetime

31 MAY 2019


They say it takes money to make money, and Australia’s 2019 Rich List shows how apt that cliche is.

Minimum-wage workers may be celebrating the Fair Work decision this week, but the wealthy have again left everyone else in their Bentleys’ dust.

While Australia’s lowest paid workers will see their pay packets grow 3 per cent from July 1, Australia’s richest increased their wealth by more than 20 per cent over the past year.

And it’s not a one-off. Australia’s well-to-do have consistently increased their wealth much faster than the rest of the nation.

Business Review Weekly started the Rich List back in 1983 with the top hundred, but expanded it to 200 the next year.

Back in 1984, Australia’s 200 richest people had a combined wealth of $6.4 billion.

The Australian Financial Review has since taken over the list from the now-defunct BRW, and this year’s list reveals a combined wealth of $342 billion.


That’s a staggering 53-fold increase in wealth for the top 200 in just 35 years. It’s still a 17-fold increase in real wealth even when you account for the declining value of money due to inflation.

The 0.001 per cent

Of course, they’re not all the same 200 people who have grown this wealth. Only 13 people have stayed on the list every year since it started and there have been many — often high-profile — casualties along the way.

But the Rich List presents a unique insight into wealth inequality at the extremes.


ABS data going back to the late 1980s shows Australian households have increased their collective wealth nearly eight-fold since 1989.

That sounds impressive until you look at the rich listers, who have done twice as well over the same period, boosting their fortunes 16 times over in three decades.

Of course, during that time, Australia’s population has increased from 17 to 25-plus million people, meaning the general population’s wealth is now also spread among about 50 per cent more people.

To put it another way, in 1989 the richest 200 Australians held about 1.6 per cent of the nation’s wealth. Currently they control nearly 3.4 per cent.

As one expert I spoke to put it, “The rich get richer and the poor get richer more slowly”.

Rank Name 2019 wealth 2018 wealth
1 Anthony Pratt & family $15.57b $12.9b
2 Gina Rinehart $13.81b $12.68b
3 Harry Triguboff $13.54b $12.77b
4 Hui Wing Mau $10.39b $9.1b
5 Scott Farquhar $9.75b $5.16b
6 Mike Cannon-Brookes $9.63b $5.16b
7 Frank Lowy $8.56b $8.42b
8 Andrew Forrest $7.99b $6.1b
9 Ivan Glasenberg $7.17b $8.32b
10 John Gandel $6.6b $6.45b

Source: AFR Rich List 2019

The Gini is out of the bottle

Compare that to the official picture on inequality in Australia, where the Productivity Commission assured the nation that “over nearly three decades, inequality has risen slightly in Australia”.


This analysis rests heavily on something called the Gini coefficient.

It’s a mathematical formula that measures the gap between the income or wealth distribution that would happen if everything was evenly distributed.

If the gap is zero, then there is perfect equality in the distribution of income or wealth — everyone gets exactly the same. But if it is 1, then a single person earns or owns everything.

The closer to zero, the more equal the society.

On this measure, Australia has a reasonably equal distribution of income. Once taxes and government payments to low-income earners are factored in, the nation’s Gini coefficient is just above 0.3. That’s about mid-table for developed nations.


While income inequality has been growing globally over the past couple of decades, Australia’s hasn’t grown quite as fast on average.

Middle class fall behind as wealth gap grows

*Wealth is a different story. While Australia ranks eighth among developed countries for the equality of wealth distribution, the Gini coefficient is around 0.6that means the distribution of wealth is twice as unequal as the distribution of income.

*And it has become worse over the past decade or so, with a 7 per cent increase in wealth inequality between 2003/04 and 2015/16.


Moreover, there’s a good chance that these measures understate inequality because they are based on household surveys that would rarely include people on the Rich List.

Some experts say, given the size of Australia’s economy and the wealth of its middle and upper classes, the absence of 200 super rich is unlikely to shift the dial much on the measures of wealth inequality.

But others disagree. In an article published earlier this month, Christopher Sheil and Frank Stilwell used OECD and ABS data to estimate that the Australia’s richest 10 per cent now hold more than 50 per cent of the nation’s wealth, a share that increased substantially over the four years to 2016.

Almost all of that increase went to the top 1 per cent, which increased their share of the nation’s wealth from 14.2 to 16.2 per cent.

In contrast, both the middle-class segments recorded a declining share of wealth — collectively, the majority of households between the 40th and 90th percentile own 47.1 per cent of the wealth, down from 49.1 per cent in 2012.

As for the poorest 40 per cent of households, they remain stuck with just 2.8 per cent of the nation’s wealth between them.

“Wealth inequality in Australia is evolving along two fault lines,” note Sheil and Stilwell.

“The bottom 40 per cent of Australian households have practically no share of the rising total.

“Meanwhile, the middle 50 per cent of households have a declining share relative to the top 10 per cent, and particularly relative to the top 1 per cent.”

And the AFR Rich List seems to confirm that everyone is falling behind relative to the top 0.001 per cent.







BACK in 2013 when O’Farrell was Premier was Packer able to exploit the “unsolicited proposal” mechanism to avoid an open tender for Sydney’s second casino?  For Packer’s Crown Resorts to be handed its Barangaroo goldmine?

Was this on the assumption they will be making money through the proceeds of crime from the Chinese operator because it is illegal to advertise gambling in China?

And now Packer is pulling out and selling to said Chinese Macau Casino. Where he previously had done a runner.  Was this a setup all along for Hong Kong based Melco Resorts to gain ownership?

A proxy buyer?  Have the Libs been double-crossed?  How dumb is that?

Because it is not your regular casino … it’s for big money, and money laundering.  Will this be a big hub for Chinese property money laundering?  Cough … cough …

For yet another so-called ‘vibrant’ planning failure having stolen public land … land that wasn’t theirs to take.

IT IS ABORIGINAL LAND … and should have been returned!

And not turned into this neocon abomination; that is off limits to normal people and tourists.

AND what of the regulatory issue … a 2014 agreement with the NSW Government which saw Crown promise it would prevent associations with Stanley Ho … the controversial 97-year-old godfather of gambling in Macau … as a condition of its licence to establish its Barangaroo complex … this is Stanley Ho’s Son Laurence Ho, one would have thought a close associate being a blood relative!



Packer’s sale of $1.76b stake in Crown Resorts puts spotlight on Barangaroo pledge

By Nick Toscano and Nick Bonyhady

Billionaire James Packer has sold almost half of his stake in casino giant Crown Resorts for $1.76 billion in a deal that is set to spark questions about whether it complies with the conditions of a licence with the NSW government.

Mr Packer’s private investment vehicle on Thursday night said it had sold about half its shares in Crown to the Hong Kong-based Melco Resorts & Entertainment, which runs venues in Macau and once had a joint-venture casino with Crown in the hugely popular Chinese gambling hub.

James Packer at the opening ceremony of Crown Macau in 2007.
James Packer at the opening ceremony of Crown Macau in 2007. CREDIT:AP

Melco, which is purchasing the shares from Mr Packer’s private investment company Consolidated Press Holdings, is run by Lawrence Ho, son of the gambling tycoon Stanley Ho, who once enjoyed a monopoly on gambling in Macau.

“I am thrilled Lawrence Ho and Melco have chosen to invest in Crown,” Mr Packer said.



Mr Ho said the two companies shared similar DNA and expressed confidence in Crown’s Barangaroo development in Sydney.

“Crown’s resorts in Perth and Melbourne are world class entertainment destinations and I believe that Crown Sydney, much like Melco’s Morpheus property, will create an architectural icon for the city, the country and the world,” Mr Ho said.

On Wall Street, Melco shares dropped on the announcement and finished 5.6 per cent lower.

Melco said it intended to pursue representation on Crown’s board once it obtains approval from gaming regulatory authorities across Australia.

The company also signalled it would be willing to increase its stake in Crown.

“Additionally, subject to obtaining requisite regulatory approvals, Melco welcomes the opportunity to increase its ownership in Crown,” Melco said in a statement to the Nasdaq stock exchange.

One regulatory issue could be a 2014 agreement with the NSW government which saw Crown promise it would prevent associations with Stanley Ho as a condition of its licence to establish its Barangaroo complex.

That included a clause saying: “Crown will ensure that it prevents… Stanley Huang Sun Ho or a Stanley Ho Associate from acquiring any direct, indirect or beneficial interest in Crown, a subsidiary of Crown.”

The agreement also bans any material deals between Crown and Stanley Ho or his associates and precludes Stanley Ho from holding certain roles with Crown.

Stanley Ho has faced allegations of links to organised crime which have long troubled gambling regulators in other jurisdictions. He has denied those allegations.

Crown has previously stressed that Lawrence Ho’s business dealings are independent of his father’s interests. Crown has said in the past that Lawrence Ho has passed probity screens from regulators without an issue.

For 12 years from 2004 Crown was in a joint venture with Melco before ending the partnership in 2016 after Crown executives were detained in China. During that time the companies operated the City of Dreams and Melco Crown resorts in Macau.

Packer vows to stay on

Mr Packer, who had held a 46 per cent stake in Crown, said the company would remain a massive part of his life.

“My continuing Crown shareholding represents my single largest investment,” Mr Packer said in a statement released late on Thursday night.

“I am still vitally interested in Crown’s success as a world class resort and gaming business.”

The sale of about 20 per cent of Mr Packer’s shares leaves him with about a quarter of the company, worth about $2.3 billion. Sources close to Mr Packer said he would use the money from the sell-off to diversify his investment interests outside of the gambling sector, but would not be “rushing in” to do so.

Uber posts $1.45b loss

James Packer's $10 billion Crown Resorts deal falls through

Play video


James Packer’s $10 billion Crown Resorts deal falls through

Today Show Sydney reporter Gabrielle Boyle is at Barangaroo, where James Packer’s reported $10 billion takeover deal for Crown Resorts with US giant Wynn Resorts has fallen through.

Speculation of a potential sale of Mr Packer’s shareholding has been rising in recent weeks after news broke that Crown had been engaged in discussions for a $10 billion cash-and-stock buyout with Las Vegas casino giant operator Wynn Resorts before the negotiations abruptly collapsed in April.

Sources close to the Crown board on Thursday night said they had not been aware of Mr Packer’s plan to sell shares to Melco, however, they were not surprised, given his consideration of a sale to Wynn.

“We knew Packer had put Crown in play when Wynn came knocking,” one insider said.

“But I’m not sure that this means he is going to sell out altogether … and I don’t think he will.”

Crown insiders on Thursday night suggested Mr Packer’s sale to Melco would be a “positive for Crown”.

“We know them very well and they’ve always been a terrific partner,” one said.

The sale is considered especially beneficial to Crown due to Melco’s knowledge of the lucrative high-roller market of wealthy Chinese punters, who have become an ever-important source of revenue to the global casino industry.

Since a Chinese government crackdown and the high-profile arrests of 19 Crown staff for illegally promoting gambling on mainland China, where gambling is illegal, casino moguls around the world have been beset by uncertainty about the fortunes of their international high-roller program.

Uber posts $1.45b loss

Packer promises transparency at Crown AGM

Play video


Packer promises transparency at Crown AGM

Billionaire James Packer says Crown Resorts should be more transparent about its business, promising the Crown board will discuss revealing the company’s revenue from its poker machines.

Chinese gamblers, who often play baccarat, can turn over hundreds of thousands of dollars a hand, and millions of dollars an hour.

“Given their [Melco’s] deep knowledge of Asian gaming and VIP programs … if you’re a Crown shareholder, you’d be thinking this was a positive,” a source close to Mr Packer said.

The sale of Mr Packer’s shares comes at a critical time for the ASX-listed Crown Resorts, which is in the process of building a multibillion-dollar casino and hotel complex in Sydney’s Barangaroo, due for completion in 2021.

Those who know Mr Packer say the billionaire had been “disengaged” from the Crown business for some time and had made it known to international casino operators that he was prepared to sell his stake.

He definitely wants and easier life, and a less-stress life. No doubt about that.

Colleague of James Packer

Mr Packer has privately expressed a desire to seek a “lower-profile” life, especially in the wake of his shock decision to step down from Crown’s board in 2018 citing the need to deal with mental health issues. Days after departing the board, he checked into a psychiatric hospital in Boston.

“He definitely wants and easier life, and a less-stress life,” one colleague said. “No doubt about that.”

Mr Packer’s sale to Melco was conducted without the involvement of investment banks and advisors, another source said on Thursday night, adding that Mr Packer considered the sale price to be “fair”.


Business reporter for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald.

Nick is a journalist for The Sydney Morning Herald.







IN the lead-up to the May Election SCOMO made much of the 30,000 cut to Migration … what he did not mention was that happened 2 years ago!

NOR did SCOMO refer to the huge number of Visa holders in Australia … 2.2 MILLION of which there were 1.6 MILLION Visa Workers midway through 2018 now having risen to 2.3 MILLION Visa Holders!

THE obvious consequence from the surge in temporary migration with Visa Holders is that it has had a deleterious impact on wages in Australia for the  incumbents particularly our Youth!

THEREFORE isn’t it time the International Student Trade was subjected to a public review by the Productivity Commission to ascertain the true costs and benefits of the system?  

Australian temporary visa numbers surge past 2.3 million


The Department of Home Affairs temporary visa statistics for the March quarter of 2019 have been released with the total number of temporary visas on issue ballooning past 2.3 million:

As shown above, this was the highest number of temporary visas on issue for a March quarter on record, with total visas up 92,400 on March 2018 and 635,600 higher than March 2012.

The next table shows the changes by temporary visa category:


As you can see, international students (+268,000) are by far the largest driver of the surge in temporary migrants since 2012. There has also been big rises in visitor visas (+128,500) and bridging visas (+96,000) over the same period.

As noted yesterday, the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ short-term arrivals data shows a similarly large rise in student visas, from 367,000 in March 2012 to 610,000 as at March 2019:

This surge in student visas represents further bad news for Australian wage growth.

International students have been at the pointy end of the systemic exploitation of migrant workers and wage theft across the Australian economy, as noted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions:

The relatively recent availability of a large and vulnerable pool of temporary migrant workers has undoubtedly contributed to current record low levels of wages growth and a growing reluctance by employers to train local workers…
While there are approximately 1.5 million temporary entrants with work rights, the overseas worker team at the Fair Work Ombudsman consists of only 17 full time inspectors to investigate cases of exploitation – over 80,000 visa workers per inspector.
Inadequate enforcement and penalties act as an incentive for employers to exploit temporary workers when the benefit from doing so outweighs the cost of the penalty. or where the probability of being caught is sufficiently low….
There have been a range of abuses uncovered which have clearly shown that the entire system is broken. From 7-11 and Domino’s to agriculture, construction, food processing to Coles, Dominos and Caltex, it is clear that the abuses occur in a number of visa classes whether they be students, working holiday makers or visa workers in skilled occupations.
Last year’s book, The Wages Crisis in Australia, raised similar concerns about the surge in migrant workers and their deleterious impact on wages:

Official stock data indicate that the visa programmes for international students, temporary skilled workers and working holiday makers have tripled in numbers since the late 1990s…

*Decisions by the federal Coalition government under John Howard to introduce easier pathways to permanent residency for temporary visa holders, especially international students and temporary skilled workers, gave a major impetus to TMW [temporary migrant worker] visa programmes.

Most international students and temporary skilled workers, together with many working holiday makers, see themselves as involved in a project of ‘staggered’ or ‘multi-step’ migration, whereby they hope to leap from their present status into a more long-term visa status, ideally permanent residency…

Though standard accounts describe Australian immigration as oriented to skilled labour, this characterisation stands at odds with the abundant evidence on expanding temporary migration and the character of TMW jobs… the fact that their work is primarily in lower-skilled jobs suggests that it is more accurate, as several scholars point out, to speak of a shift in Australia towards a de facto low-skilled migration programme

Research shows that in industries where employers have turned to temporary migrants en masse, it erodes wages and conditions in these industries over time, making them less attractive to locals…

Alongside eroding tertiary education standards and crush-loading the major cities, Australia’s international student boom is also flooding Australia’s labour market with cheap exploitative labour.

It’s time the international student trade was subjected to public review by the Productivity Commission to ascertain the true costs and benefits of the system.








DOES it seem that such a trend is a healthy one for the prospects of Our Youth?

Previously CAAN has shared with you this report questioning the validity of the claim that International Students are a $32 or $34 Billion Export Industry


AND fyi … University Vice Chancellors are enjoying an annual remuneration averaging $1 MILLION!

Following this article from the Unconventional Economist we share a Commentator’s research on this issue!

International students will soon dominate Australia’s universities



Late last year, Dr Bob Birrell from the Australian Population Research Institute (APRI) released a report showing how the share of international students at Australia’s Group of Eight (Go8) universities ballooned from 21.8% in 2012 to 28.9% in 2017:

As we reported yesterday, the number of temporary student visas on issue ballooned by another 77,000 in the year to March 2019 to a record high 613,000:

With this big lift in student visas, we can confidently assume that the share of international students across Australia’s G08 universities grew further in 2018, most likely to above 30%.

Moreover, shares of over 40% are now likely for the University of Melbourne, the University of Sydney, Monash University, the Australian National University, and the University of New South Wales.

One commentator, that goes by the avatar JerryOneClass, believes that this trend will continue and that international enrollments could surpass domestic enrollments at the University of Melbourne by 2020:

In this report, we use the University of Melbourne as a case study for international tuition and student enrollment trends as they relate to domestic student trends and inflation…

In 2014, international students represented 31 per cent of the University of Melbourne student population. In a matter of four years, that percentage rose to 46 per cent.

In the University of Melbourne’s annual report for 2018, it was reported to be 42.1% in 2018, yet their international load to their total student load, when calculated, indicates its 45.81%. We rounded it up here.

international students are enrolling at the University of Melbourne at a far greater pace than domestic students…

In reality, domestic enrollments has not only slowed, but declined since 2014. In 2014 there were 29,437 domestic enrollments. In 2018 there were 28,579.

In 2017 and 2018, the University of Melbourne saw a fall of domestic enrollments by -0.8 per cent and – 5.5 per cent, respectively…

If the present course remains unchanged, there could be more international students enrolled than domestic students by 2020.

Total enrollment of international students has gone from 13,200 to 24,166 in the period from 2014 to 2018. That is, the percentage of international students enrolled at the University of Melbourne has increased by 83.07 per cent in a matter of four years.

With no cap in place for international student enrollment at the University of Melbourne, international students will continue to eat away at the student population proportion.

In 2018, 4178 new international students enrolled in 2018. That makes last year the largest intake of international students ever by the University of Melbourne…

By our estimates, the University of Melbourne could see international student enrollments surpass domestic enrollments as early as 2020 if present trends are extrapolated to the next few years.

Given four Go8 universities had higher international student shares in 2017 than Melbourne University, it also won’t be long until they too are dominated by international students, assuming current trends persist.



The Foreign students & partners – please note the actual total of all foreign students & partners on a secondary visa in Australia is across a number of visa categories and is 712,050.The International student and post graduate visa holders are 653,000, plus another 62,000 on a ‘partner visas’ & the rest (6,280) as special or DFAT scholarship visas as shown below.
The total number of foreign students & partners yearly increase was 77,340.

Here are the full numbers of all the TR & NZ SCV intake & the social & economic impact.

There are 712,050 foreign students & ‘partners’ which aren’t being included. Up 77,000 in total in the last year.

It’s not an ‘export industry’, their money – almost all over the life cycle of a visa period is earned here.
They are a highly negative impact to Australians in the tens of billions.
Each foreign student has on average a negative impact of some -$25k a year to our society. Detail below.

The bigger picture.
In March 2019 we have 2.561 million non residents Temporary visa holders.

1,866,089 who are non Resident TR, the vast majority are third world unskilled & at least 1.4 million are working & living illegally in visa breach.

Plus another 695,760 on a NZ SCZ with 278,304 of those as non NZ born & third world unskilled.

Total 2,561,849. Up 5.3% in the last year.

The full list as of March 2019.

Source: Visa Sure & DHA quarterly tables.

Visa category, the 2018 number, the 2019 number & the yearly growth rate.

🔹Overstayers permanent stay
2018: 63,000
2019: 66,150 +5%

🔹Visitor long stay, repeat stay, many are entering to live & work illegally.
2018: 395,000
2019: 404,760 +3%

🔹Bridging/protection, come in as a tourist on an electronic visa virtually no checks then claim some protection need and a 5 year plus stay as they exploit the appeals process with full work rights.
2018: 195,000
2019: 230,000 +18%

The Foreign students & partners – please note the actual total of all foreign students & partners on a secondary visa in Australia is across a number of visa categories and is 712,050.

The International student and post graduate visa holders are 653,000, plus another 62,000 on a ‘partner visas’ & the rest (6,280) as special or DFAT scholarship visas as shown below.

The total number of foreign students & partners yearly increase was 77,340.

🔹International Student primary, 4 year plus stay, and many up to 9 years as they churn courses, COE & visa categories.
2018: 526,000
2019: 573,520 +7.5%

🔹Post Graduate, another 3-5 year stay plus full work rights as they exploit this loophole, very long stay
2018: 65,000
2019: 69,550 +7%

🔹Temp partner ‘foreign student’ very long stay – 4 to 9 years
2018: 53,000
2019: 62,000 +16%

DFAT/special ‘education’ visas (below)
2018: 6,300
2019: 6,980 +15%

Total foreign students & partners

The foreign students pay a total of only $8.3 billion in fees (Deloitte Access Economics) – an average of $11,650 per year for the visa alibi.

Exposing that the vast bulk of foreign students as a ‘primary’ / enrolled are doing extremely low level education, often available free online or in their home country.

Funds. They only bring in a total of $2.4 billion in ‘self declared’ or ‘one time check’ funds (ABF), extensively frauded, with only the first semester paid & the rest of the money for fees, living expenses, loan debt repayment & remittances back to their family’s is earned here illegally.

Not an ‘export’ if their money is earned here.

The average foreign student has an income & economic activity of around $43,700 a year – close to half the Australian GDP per Capita average, with up to 75% working illegally (Sydney Uni & UTS studies – SMH).
They have lowered the Australian gdp per Capita average by 6.8%.
The net result is over 505,000 full time equivalent Australian jobs are stolen in underground & cash in hand illegally work displacing Australian youth & unskilled Workers.
We have 1.5 million Australians unemployed & 1.3 million seeking work (Roy Morgan April 2019).
Those 505,000 now unemployed Australians cost $9.3 billion in Centrelink payments.
So just the unemployment impact costs to the Australian taxpayer exceed the total foreign student fees (which are paid from money earned illegally here anyway).

On just this one simple measure it’s obvious the ‘foreign students’ are not an ‘export industry’ at all.

If you add on illegal work, lowered wages for everyone, little or no taxation as cash in hand, the $18 billion remittances outflow from all the TR, the housing contention & costs, illegal cash in hand subletting run by the foreign criminal landlords, the public transport & road congestion, crime, vice, the degradation of our education and now environmental (water power etc) impacts…

then the foreign student industry is a massively negative social and economic impact of many tens of billions to Australia. Up to $17 billion negative, itemised here on MB before.

Which means every foreign student & partner individually creates a -$25,000 or more net negative impact to Australian’s society & economy.
But,, but they are a ‘high value pool that can be selected as ‘highly skilled human capital’ (Deloitte value this as an $7 billion ‘human capital’ contribution)..


The productivity commission in 2016 ruled that foreign students were not at all productive or skilled intake contribution. The Migrant pathways a decade on report stated only 3.9% of foreign students achieved a high income professional vocation in Australia or their home country – most are doing very low level nonsense courses with no international accreditation or particular high skill outcome.

. So in other words 96% of the foreign students ‘studying in Australia’ achieve lower than average socio economic outcomes after a decade – exposing just what a farce this so called ‘international education industry’ really is – a visa alibi to live & work illegally, repay agent procurer loan debt, send back remittances to try and secure a PR as an anchor for chain migration.

Remove work rights and enforce it and visa conditions of entry – and over half a million of these ‘foreign students & partners’ would immediately exit.
Then we have outside of the foreign students.

🔹Temp partners not foreign student
2018: 38,000
2019: 39,300 +3%

🔹Working holiday, very long stay
2018: 148,000
2019: 153,400 + 4%
90% are in Sydney & Melbourne, doing the 3 month ‘farmer or labor ring bribe’ rural work for a further visa extension.

🔹Skilled Regional, very long stay
2018: 20,000
2019: 21,500 +7%
Again heavily frauded, third world unskilled in areas where we have 20% youth unemployment.

🔹Other Temporary Visas, long stay including scholarships & other rackets.
2018: 70,000
2019: 72,800 +4%

🔹Employer Sponsored, very long stay
2018: 152,000
2019: 155,040 +2.4%

🔹Business Provisional, long stay
2018: 28,000
2019: 28,840

➡️ The Total TR number is
2018: 1,762,000
2019: 1,866,089 + 5.9%

🔹Plus add on the NZ SCV

2018: 669,000 of which 270,000 are non NZ born born third world unskilled entering via the NZ transit lounge.
Our fastest growing third world unskilled migrant intake category. They should never have been allowed in, the NZ / Aust SCV should only be for NZ / Aust born.

2019: 695,760 with an increasing ratio of non NZ born unskilled (and another 290,000 who are stacked up waiting for entry into Australia). 90% one way flow to enter NZ, get the passport stamp, then enter Australia as permanent stay.

All up numbers.

2018: 2,431,000 non resident permanent on a very long or permanent stay visa alibi onshore in Australia.

2019: 2,561,849 non resident, as above & mostly third world adult unskilled with the majority on a visa pretext, many in visa breach, living & working illegally onshore. +5.3% yearly growth.

TR & NZ SCV migrant concentrations.

89% + concentration or 2,280,046 in Sydney & Melbourne.

🔻1.27 million are in Sydney (pop 5.2 million)
🔹1 in 4 people.

🔻1.01 million are in Melbourne (pop 5 million)
🔹1 in 5 people.

🔻and 281,000 are elsewhere, mostly highly concentrated in other state capital cities & towns.

The Australian people need a Royal Commission into the entire corrupted border controls & visa system.

Our migrant intake policy settings, conditions of entry & numbers need to be controlled by a people’s representative body, not the political party in charge of government.

Over 1.4 million temporary visa holders who are in visa breach & over 270,000 non NZ born SCV who should never have been allowed in – need to be force exited.







IN the late 1990s John Howard introduced the changes to our immigration policy for the Chinese Middle Class to embrace the offer of ‘flexible citizenship’ in return for investing in property and education

THE latter years of Mr Howard’s prime ministership delivered significant increase to net overseas migration as a proportion of the population.

BY the time of the 2007 election, his government had doubled the permanent intake.

IN both the 457 — temporary business visa — and overseas student categories, Mr Howard oversaw significant growth from the turn of the century. 

The 457 Visa was conceived when Paul Keating was Prime Minister. The aim being to plug skills gaps in the labor market. However, it meant Visa workers were in fact exploited by employers …

VIEW Video:


How John Howard boosted migration and embraced foreign students, in five charts

Former prime minister Tony Abbott wants Australia to cut its immigration intake to what it was under the Howard government.

He told an internet radio station on Tuesday afternoon that “we’ve got to get the numbers down, and get them down very significantly”.

“[John] Howard got them down 30 per cent in the first couple of years of his prime ministership,” he said to the Daily Telegraph show.

“We should look to getting [the migration intake] back down towards 110,000 a year, which was the average of the decade of the Howard government.”

The declaration follows comments from Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton last week where he signalled “we have to reduce the numbers where we believe it’s in our national interest”.

Changes in Australia’s immigration sector were significant under Mr Howard, but not because his government kept the permanent intake — now at 190,000 visas per year — low.

Share of population growth

Chart showing how a larger share of population growth is due to migration since the Howard years.

Every year since John Howard lost the 2007 election to Kevin Rudd, more of Australia’s population growth has been attributed to migration than a natural increase due to births.

*The period under Howard was transitional, but brought substantial migration growth in its later years.

Migration as proportion of population

Stretching back to the first half of the 20th century, the above chart from Treasury’s 2015 Intergenerational Report identified three separate phases in Australia’s rate of migration.

Treasury describes the rate in the past decade as exceeding the rate of any period since World War II.

Much of Mr Howard’s time as prime minister was linked — by the Treasury’s chart — to a period of low migration.

However the latter years of Mr Howard’s prime ministership delivered significant increase to net overseas migration as a proportion of the population.

Migration intake

Chart showing growth in permanent visas granted annually under Howard.

The planned size of the migration program — the number of permanent visas the government plans to grant each year — was reduced in the early Howard years.

*Those reductions were more than made up for in later years.

*By the time of the 2007 election, his government had doubled the permanent intake.

Permanent visa streams

The growth to the permanent program under Howard came in the “points tested” category of the skilled stream, as noted in the above chart from the Productivity Commission’s 2016 report on the migrant intake.

Under the points scheme, applicants are scored based on their background. More points are given for characteristics deemed preferable, like superior English and employment experience.

In contrast, the employer-sponsored permanent visas — where migrants have already lined up jobs — has been the source of growth in the years following Mr Howard’s time as PM.

Student and 457 visas

Chart showing grown in student and 457 visas during the Howard government.

A major change to the migration program in recent decades has been the increase in temporary migration.

Many temporary visa holders come to Australia to work, and even those who come to study can work up to 20 hours in a typical week.

*In both the 457 — temporary business visa — and overseas student categories, Mr Howard oversaw significant growth from the turn of the century.





Believe that Scomo was confident in the outcome from the ‘Lies and Fear Campaign’ together with the UAP Ads …

CHRIS WALLACE. How might Labor win in 2022? The answers can all be found in the lessons of 2019. (The Conversation 27.5.2019)

The high tide of analysis concerning the Australian Labor Party’s shock 2019 federal election loss has been reached. It looks like so much flotsam and jetsam with the odd big log – leadership popularity, Queensland – prominent among the debris. Sorting through it, making sense of it, and weighting the factors driving the result really matters. It matters because decisions influencing the outcome of the next federal election will flow from it.

The learner’s error is to grasp onto a couple of factors without considering the full suite, weighting them and seeing the connections between them. What does the full suite look like? 

1. Leadership popularity

Labor’s Bill Shorten was an unpopular leader, neither liked nor trusted by voters. The shift from Shorten in private to Shorten in leadership mode in the media was comparable to the shift in Julia Gillard when she moved from the deputy prime ministership to prime minister: the charm and wit went missing, replaced by woodenness and lack of relatability.

Shorten accepted advice to appear “leader-like”, creating a barrier Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who sought to directly connect with voters, was not hampered by. “It is often said of democratic politics,” historian David Runciman has said, “that the question voters ask of any leader is: ‘Do I like this person?’ But it seems more likely that the question at the back of their minds is: ‘Would this person like me?’” Morrison passed and Shorten flunked that test.

Shorten generally failed the “theatre of politics”. His suits often looked too big, making him look small. Television footage of him jogging in oversized athletic clothes during the campaign made him look small. Poor production of Shorten in these ways diminished perceptions of him as an alternative prime minister – a professionalism fail that could have easily been fixed but was not.

Lesson: Leadership unpopularity costs votes. Successful “theatre of politics” matters.

2. Supporting players’ unpopularity

Shorten was weighed down by frontbenchers in the key economic and environment portfolios who fell well short in the performativity stakes too. The camera is not kind to shadow treasurer Chris Bowen. While he developed serious policy chops, partly through sustained study of Paul Keating’s history as a reforming treasurer of historic stature, he also picked up Keating’s hauteur, but without actually being Keating and able to pull it off.

The arrogance of Bowen’s franking credits policy comment that “if people very strongly feel that they don’t want this to happen they are perfectly entitled to vote against us” was a defining misstep of the Shorten opposition. It made the leader’s job that much harder.

Shadow environment minister Mark Butler is another to whom the camera is unkind. He embodied the soft, urban environmentalist persona that is poison in those parts of Australia where Labor needed to pick up seats. An equally knowledgeable but more knockabout environment spokesperson – Tony Burke, for example – would have been the cannier choice in a “climate election” where regional voters had to be persuaded to Labor’s greener policy agenda.

Lesson: Appoint frontbenchers capable of winning public support in their portfolios.

CAAN:  Not sure that I agree with this opinion about Mark Butler; don’t believe that was the issue!

3. Misleading polls The maths wasn’t wrong but the models on which the two-party-preferred vote is calculated have been blown up by this election, an event foreshadowed by recent polling miscalls in Britain.

Long-time conservative political consultant Lynton Crosby’s presence in the Coalition campaign has been invisible except for the tiny but crucial, and completely overlooked, detail that the Liberals’ polling “was conducted by Michael Brooks, a London-based pollster with Crosby Textor who was brought out from the United Kingdom for the campaign”.

The Coalition had better polling. Labor and everyone else were relying on faulty polling that misallocated preferences and uniformly predicted a Labor win – false comfort to Labor, which stayed a flawed course instead of making necessary changes to avoid defeat.

Lesson: Focus on the primary vote, the polling figure least vulnerable to modelling assumptions.

4. Media hostile to Labor

The Murdoch media have created an atmospheric so pervasively hostile to Labor that it has become normalised.

It contributed significantly to Shorten’s unpopularity and Labor’s loss.

Its impact is only going to get worse with Australia’s nakedly partisan Fox News-equivalent, “Sky After Dark”, extending from pay-TV to free-to-air channels in regional areas.

Lesson: Labor has to be so much better than the Coalition to win in this dire and deteriorating media environment. It needs a concrete plan to match and/or neutralise the Murdoch media’s influence.

5. Regional variations

Labor failed to win support in resource-rich states where it needed to pick up seats to win, and suffered a big fall in its primary vote in Queensland.

There is a danger of this being overplayed as a factor since, in fact, not much really changed at this election: the Coalition has two more seats and Labor two less seats than in the last parliament.

Further, there are nuances to be engaged with even in hard-core resource areas. More Queenslanders, for example, are employed in the services sector in industries like tourism than are employed in the coal sector; and Labor has a strong tradition in Queensland and is capable of renewal.

The concerns of both sides need to be woven into a plausible policy path forward, with opportunities for different, deeply-held views to be heard and acknowledged as part of the process.

Lesson: Develop “ground up” rather than “top down” policies that integrate diverse concerns without overreacting to what was actually a modest change in electoral fortunes.

*6. Weak advertising strategy

Labor’s advertising campaign was complacent, unfocused and completely failed to exploit the leadership chaos and chronic division in the Coalition parties for the previous six years.


Labor’s decision not to run potent negative ads on coalition chaos in parallel with its positive advertising campaign is the biggest mystery of the 2019 election – naive in the extreme. It left Labor defenceless in the face of a relentlessly negative, untruthful campaign from the other side.

Lesson: Have brilliant ads in a sharply focused campaign that doesn’t fail to hit your opponents’ weaknesses.

7. Massive advertising spending gap

Along with the hostile media environment created by the Murdoch press, the unprecedented spending gap between the Labor and anti-Labor sides of politics and its role in the Coalition win has passed largely unremarked.

The previous election was bought by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull with a $1.7 million personal donation that boosted Coalition election advertising in the campaign’s crucial last fortnight.

That now looks like small beer next to the 2019 election’s anti-Labor advertising spending (approximately $80 million when one adds the Coalition’s $20 million spend to the Clive Palmer-United Australia Party spend of $60 million-plus). This is four times the size of Labor’s $20 million ad budget – a huge disparity.

Palmer’s gambit, which creates a friendly environment for him to gain regulatory approval for a Queensland coal mine vastly bigger than Adani’s during this term of parliament, takes Australia into banana republic territory in terms of money politics.

*Lesson: Australia already needed campaign finance laws to stop the purchasing of elections. It needs them even more urgently now.

8. Large policy target

Misleading polling showing it was persistently ahead gave Labor false comfort pursuing a “big” policy agenda – that is, making policy offerings normally done from government rather than opposition.

If everything else goes right in an election, and with a popular leader and effective key supporting frontbenchers, this may be possible. That was not the case in the 2019 election.

Lesson: When in opposition, don’t go to an election promising tax changes that make some people worse off. Save it for government.

CAAN:  KEEP your powder dry!

9. Green cannibalisation of the Labor vote

The primary vote of the Labor Party (33.5%) and the Greens (9.9%) adds up to 43.4% – a long way off the 50%-plus required to beat the conservatives.

For a climate-action-oriented government to be elected in Australia, Labor and the Greens are going to have to find a better modus vivendi.

They don’t have to like each other; after all, the mutual hatred of the Liberals and Nationals within the Coalition is long-standing and well-known.

But like the Liberals and Nationals, though without a formal agreement, Labor and the Greens are going to have to craft a way forward that forestalls indulgent bus tours by Green icons through Queensland coal seats and stops prioritising cannibalisation of the Labor vote over beating conservatives.

Lesson: For climate policy to change in Australia, Labor and the Greens need to strategise constructively, if informally, to get Labor elected to office.

10. Every election is winnable

Paul Keating won an “unwinnable” election in 1993 and pundits spoke of the Keating decade ahead. John Howard beat Keating in a landslide three years later, despite being the third Coalition leader in a single tumultuous parliamentary term.

Morrison won the 2019 election despite internal Coalition leadership turmoil, political scandals and a revolt of the party’s women MPs against the Liberals’ bullying internal culture.

Lesson: Every election is there to be won or lost. Take note of Lessons 1 to 9 to do so.

Chris Wallace is ARC DECRA Fellow, Australian National University.  VIEW THE COMMENTS BELOW!!!


3 Responses to CHRIS WALLACE. How might Labor win in 2022? The answers can all be found in the lessons of 2019. (The Conversation 27.5.2019)

  1. Martin Martinez says:

    In my view, most factors mentioned can be overcome. The two factors that are structurally against Labour and can only be, at most, partially mitigated are the spending gap and the media bias. All points being valid, though, there is one issue that the article does not include (and, for that matter, it is avoided in virtually all after-election commentary): immigration.

    Immigration is a boon for business and a boon for the Liberal Party. It is a boon for business because it gives it arbitrage capacity in the labour market. Business wants immigrants. And the Liberal Party obliges. And it is a boon for the Liberal Party as well because the Libs can do what PC-constrained Labour can’t do: use the cultural card regarding immigration.

    Both Libs and Labs support the neo-liberal globalization program (ever further integration in global markets, deregulation, privatisation, dismantling of the welfare state and workers’ protection… the whole lot), of which the current immigration regime is part and parcel. Labour (all Labours/social democrats of the world, for that matter) bought the globalization program wholesale some 30-40 years ago.

    The problem for Labour is that that one is a program for the right, and people know that. Labour has chosen to be, at least since I arrived in Australia 8 years ago, and I assume for much longer, the sensible right (as opposed to the lunatic right incarnated by the Libs and their acolytes) and they are committed to contest elections as the sensible right. Hence the debate about leadership and campaign technicalities, all matters of no programmatic relevance.

    But immigration is not only part of the globalization program: it is the very face of it for most people. The benefits of globalization tend to be perceived as abstract (a byword for lacking), whereas the flooding of the labour market with immigrants is a reality that Australian workers perceive with their own eyes every day.

    Leaving cultural reasons aside: Labour can’t pretend to be on the side of the workers and support the current globalization program.

    Immigration has become the test for a party’s commitment to that program, and whole swathes of old Labour supporters are recognizing that and voting accordingly: if the primary issue of the defence of their economic rights is not taken up by the Labour Party, then they will vote based on secondary issues. And there the Libs and their ilk can play the cultural card.

    Immigration would be the one issue that could give Labour a sweeping victory in the next election. It could even give it a majority to address the campaign financing issue mentioned in your article. But it is disheartening to see that the ALP does not want to learn from its mistakes. And even more disheartening to see the huge effort made in every single analysis on the left to avoid mentioning the big elephant in the room.

    If it was only Australia, I would understand that reaction, but after Trump, Brexit, Italy’s Lega Norte and the variegated right-wing populisms in Europe… we have had plenty of warning. Just equating anti-immigration with racism, xenophobia or otright stupidity is a recipe for losing the next election, no matter how sophisticated (or precisely because sophisticated) your analysis is.

  2. In my safe Labor seat there was no brilliantly focused campaign material about Coalition weaknesses – but in Higgins there was. One brochure I saw there was a single-issue, graphic and biting description of the Coalition exits, resignations, portfolio swaps etc. Nothing tepid or diffused – or cheap-looking- about its singular focus on division and chaos there. Try and get a copy.

  3. “Labor’s advertising campaign was complacent, unfocused and completely failed to exploit the leadership chaos and chronic division in the Coalition parties for the previous six years. Why?”

    Why indeed. It was maddening waiting for them to do so. I shouted at the telly after each of their ads.






ACTU … a step in the right direction … but the increase would leave the min. wage more than 7 per cent short of the living wage target  … it’s above inflation …

MEANWHILE thousands live in poverty while working full time … the increase amounted to 57 cents an hour  …

700,000 workers are facing their 3rd annual pay cut … with penalty rate cuts

DID SCOMO give the expert panel a call?


Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Secretary Sally McManus.
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Secretary Sally McManus.


The Fair Work Commission has granted a $21.60 a week increase in the minimum wage that will flow through to 2.2 million workers from July 1.


The national minimum wage will rise by 3 per cent from $719.20 a week to $740.80 a week.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions had called for a 6 per cent, $43 a week rise while most business groups wanted a pay rise of about two per cent, limited to $13 to $14.40 a week in line with inflation rate.

The ACTU claim was significantly higher than the above-inflation $24.30-a-week rise granted by the commission last year.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson said employers were concerned the three per cent rise “will put jobs in danger and risk the viability of some small businesses”. ACCI had urged the commission to grant a maximum $12.95-a-week increase, describing it as an “appropriate and prudent level of increase”.

“Australia already has one of the highest minimum wages in the world, and continuously increasing minimum wages by significantly more than inflation has consequences,” Mr Pearson said.

He said the increase would cost Australian employers an extra $3.1 billion per year.

“Employers respect the independent decisions of the Fair Work Commission, but a third straight increase well in excess of inflation will be difficult for businesses, particularly small businesses, to absorb,’’ he said.

“These increases will make it that much harder for more than 680,000 of our fellow Australians who are unemployed, and a further 1.1 million underemployed, to find a job or more hours of work.

“We hope today’s decision — the 10th straight annual increase in excess of inflation, and the third of 3 per cent or more — restores a sense of perspective to the minimum wage debate. Recent attempts to portray Australia’s minimum wage rules as failing working people are misplaced. It is time to get back to facts and encourage collaboration not conflict between employers and employees.”

The ACTU said the increase was a “step in the right direction” but fell far short of re-establishing the living wage and ensuring that no worker lived in poverty.

*ACTU assistant secretary Liam O’Brien said the increase would leave the minimum wage more than seven per cent short of the living wage target60 per cent of the median full-time wage.

“This is a welcome pay rise for millions of low paid workers, especially in the face of further penalty rate cuts in a few weeks,’’ he said. “We have a long way to go to ensure that the minimum wage is enough for workers to live on and support their families.

“No one in Australia should be living in poverty while working full time, but we know that thousands of people are facing this reality.”

*United Voice national secretary Jo-anne Schofield said the increase equated to 57 cents an hour and did not make up “for the years of neglect by an out of touch system that doesn’t understand low paid workers”.

“Fifty seven cents an hour will not remedy historically low wage growth in the face of real cost of living pressures,’’ she said. “Added to this, 700,000 hospitality and retail workers are just weeks away from the next 10 percentage point penalty rate cut. 57 cents an hour is cold comfort to those 700,000 workers facing their third annual pay cut.”

*Handing down its decision, commission president Iain Ross said the expert panel has decided to award a smaller rise than last year’s 3.5 per cent increase due to changes in the economic environment, particularly the recent fall in GDP growth and the drop in inflation.

The panel also took into account recent tax-transfer changes which have provided a benefit to low-paid households.

*“We are satisfied that the level of increase we have decided upon will not lead to any adverse inflationary outcome and nor will it have any measurable negative impact on employment,’’ he said.

“However, such an increase will mean an improvement in real wages for those employees who are reliant on the national minimum wage and modern award minimum wages and an improvement in their living standards.’’

He said despite the recent fall in GDP growth, the Australian economy had performed moderately well and the relevant data indicated a strong labour market.

“Although business conditions have declined from the high levels recorded in the first half of 2018, they remain consistent with trend growth in the economy and the labour market has performed strongly,’’ he said.

The proportion of the working-age population that is in employment is at record levels, he said.

“The prevailing economic circumstances provide an opportunity to improve the relative living standards of the low paid, and to enable them to better meet their needs, by awarding a real increase in the national minimum wage and modern award minimum wages.”

*He said relative living standards of minimum wage and award-reliant employees had improved over recent years, although some low-paid award-reliant employee households have household disposable incomes less than the poverty line.










“Homelessness epidemic” sweeps Sydney and Melbourne


By Leith van Onselen

Last year, Industry Super chief economist, Stephen Anthony, penned a detailed article in Fairfax warning of a “homelessness epidemic” in Sydney and Melbourne due to the serious lack of affordable and social housing.


Renters flock to an open inspection.

Renters flock to an open inspection


Now, a report by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) estimates that the proportion of people experiencing homelessness in capital cities had increased from 48% to 63% over 2001 to 2016, concentrated in Sydney and Melbourne. From The Guardian:


Homelessness in cities, such as Melbourne, is increasing in areas with a shortage of affordable private rental housing.

 Homelessness in cities, such as Melbourne, is increasing in areas with a shortage of affordable private rental housing. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAP

The Ahuri study used census data dating back to 2001 to determine where people experiencing homelessness were living and how that has changed over time.

The problem of “rough sleeping has been transformed from a remote phenomenon to an urban phenomenon in the 15 years to 2016”, the report found.

“In 2001, roughly one-third of rough sleepers were located in capital cities, but in 2016 the share of rough sleepers in capital cities had reached nearly one-half of all rough sleepers,” the report said…

Parkinson said the study’s most “striking” finding was “the rate of overcrowding and how that is shaping a large part of homelessness growth”.

“Homelessness is rising in areas with a shortage of affordable private rental housing and higher median rents,” the study said. “This rise is most acute in capital city areas, specifically, Sydney, Hobart and Melbourne.”

The report, undertaken by researchers from Swinburne and RMIT, identifies a “corridor” in Sydney, from the inner city westward where homelessness rates are particularly high.

It includes suburbs such as Marrickville, Canterbury, Strathfield, Auburn and Fairfield.

In Melbourne, suburban homelessness splays out in all directions, including hotspots such as Dandenong in the south-east, Maribyrnong and Brimbank in the west, and Moreland and Darebin in the north, and Whitehorse in the east…

Our cities are undergoing a major structural change that is widening inequality and it’s having a spatial effect,” she said.

“There needs to be a concerted effort to address that.”

Clearly, the epic population expansions in Sydney and Melbourne, which added 1.0 million and 1.3 million people respectively to each city over the past 14, is the key driver of both cities’ housing shortfalls, escalating housing costs, and rising homelessness:

And as we know, this population growth has been driven by the ‘Big Australia’ mass immigration policy:

With Sydney’s and Melbourne’s populations projected to balloon to around 10 million in half-a-century, homelessness will only worsen:

It’s the federal government’s mass immigration ‘Big Australia’ policy that must first be stopped if a “homelessness epidemic” is to be prevented.

%d bloggers like this: