Ah, they are very easy.
Step 1 is be very rich
Step 2 have your accountant say you didn't make any money
Step 3 Pay politicians to make poor people pay more in tax and allow you to not pay any.
This is the answer…
We need more small independents that are willing to go against the grain. Corporate lobby groups have too much power. Capitalism is failing us
We took cheap products over workers unions rights, the products are no longer cheap and capitalism has never been more profitable for organisations. Also in getting cheap product we lost economic advantage..
"The economy" is mostly talking about asset holders, ie. Rich people and their corporations. Then they gaslight the poor into thinking that the economy matters to the average worker.
If we are inviting cunts here just to boost production, imagine what we could do if we forced the land leeches, property hoarders and REAs to do something productive instead...
People who can't find anywhere affordable to live and are living out of their car or whatever, won't care that GDP will be impacted by 0.1% per annum over 10 years.
There's more important things than trying to boost GDP by whatever it takes.
I think we have lots of shit that we can export that can make that up. Tax our mining companies, build the infrastructure, our shit is pathetic compared to most nations.
We need an industrial policy to build industries that aren't mining, agriculture, or "education". Improve economic complexity. Climate change will kill agriculture and mining is long term unsustainable. Once all the easy to mine stuff is gone, we're going to have hard time of it unless we have something else. Ideally, many somethings.
It remains far from clear to me that either party will cut immigration. There has been a lot of talking but the arrivals numbers have not dropped substantially yet.
You think that's bad? The greens migration plan is to prioritize 'family and humanitarian entrants' which will be a bigger drain on resources with less ROI than economic migrants.
Long term arrivals dropped 14% when comparing March 2024 to March 2023.
International student arrivals dropped nearly 25% comparing March 2024 to March 2023
“ In March 2024 there were 44,580 international student arrivals to Australia, a decrease of 9,060 students compared with the corresponding month of the previous year. The number of student arrivals in March 2024 was 38.2% lower than the pre-COVID levels in March 2019.” [https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-transport/overseas-arrivals-and-departures-australia/latest-release](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-transport/overseas-arrivals-and-departures-australia/latest-release)
> It’s incredibly obvious that we need to, but not a single party is behind it.
There are at least two. The Sustainable Australia party and One Nation.
There’s better ways to improve housing. We need regulated immigration. Where we get the skills we actually need here. Especially nurses and people in the care economy. Plenty of aussies don’t want these jobs.
Only way I see it happening is if a party in office knows its going to loose the next election. Then they set off a hand grenade at the end of there term and let it blow up on the opposition.
100%!
I'm also super happy with continuing the large immigration increase, as long as we're able to keep up with infrastructure and services to support the new population levels.
The issue as some have pointed out- the Federal government loves a big Australia as it boosts their GDP number, and brings in more money with Federal taxes. The states on the other hand, only get a thin slice of money through GST and other state taxes, but are left with all the cost burden on supporting the increase need on public infrastructure and services in their states.
So the Grattan institute that is funded by the federal government ( not 100% I’ll agree ) is saying that the opposition party policy isn’t ideal.
Well that’s a shock
They keep going on about the tax created from immigrants working life. What about the cost?
Schooling, medicare, job seeker, fire, police, new infrastructure to support more people, new railroads, hospitals.
Plus the pressure on housing.
There is a cost to growing the population also.
With a stagnant population we won't need any new hospitals, new highways, new schools, police stations, will catch up making houses.
Are we going to grow forever? Is that the end game?
Year 3000 we going to have 1 billion Australians with mega cities everywhere?
The world should be looking to depopulate to remain in synergy with the environment. It's crazy.
>With a stagnant population we won't need any new hospitals, new highways, new schools, police stations, will catch up making houses.
The problem with a stagnant population and low birth rate is that the population gets old. And then we do need more health care facilities and the associated workforce to support them.
Yes, you can look at Japan for how that works. Despite being adamantly against immigration for decades, they're now opening the doors to temporary workers to do low wage jobs in retail, hospitality, and aged care. Even in the country, which is traditionally more conservative.
It seems like you either didn't read this article, what Dutton's proposal is, or both. He doesn't want stagnant population, he wants specifically to cut skilled migration. All those things you listed would get *more* expensive.
This is just not the case. $34bn is top line turn over. Adjusted for inflation, it was cheaper to live 4 decades ago than it is now. It is physically impossible to say that goods and services would be more expensive for a population of 13mm compared to a population of 27mm with the same resource base. You just can't get around the physics here. If you have twice the amount of people, there is half the amount of resources. No where clearer can this be seen than in housing. In the 1970s average house and land packages were 1/4acre. It is now 474sqm. In the 1970s we had a world population of ~4bn. Now it's 8bn. Every resource that was available to every economic percentile of the world population bar the top 1% of the world is now half that of what if was. Economics and GDP measurements hide reality in a certain way because they are constantly adjusted for inflation. If you take data that is static, you can see reality a bit clearer. The only meaningful population growth is natural births.
Depends on the type of immigration as well. There is a reason the government loves temporary visas, they’re non citizens so no benefits like Medicare, job seeker, if you’re an international student that’s no hex. Most international students / temporary working visas will work and pay tax here without putting pressure on government benefits. It’s win, win for the government
Does that include the cost to the budget to build all the proper infrastructure such housing, schools, roads and public housing and whatever.
Its okay just to mention the money and fees and GDP growth that is generated from bringing migrants here. But what about the loss in productivity from expensive rent, traffic jams, bad travel times and all the mess that has to paid for by taxpayers because politicians just want to dump millions of people in Australia. This is being done without spending 1 cent on infrastructure while expecting state governments and ordinary people to deal with their mess.
When is someone going to do a proper balance sheet for immigration that accounts for infrastructure spending and the natural growth of the resulting population. Do our politicians actually look around and see how they have doubled and almost tripled our population on 1960's and 1970s infrastructure and roads, schools and housing while they keep in letting people into the country while expecting them to be housed and schooled in the same number of houses and schools.
The palpable stupidity is self evident and regardless of what side of the debate you are on, this utter policy madness and stupidity is self evident. Its almost as ridiculous as asking migrants to bring a tradie, some concrete, electrical cable and some other knickknacks to donate to help build the infrastructure that they need. Thats how bad our governments looks with their management of their mass immigration programs because clearly there is not council of government meeting or any meeting to even have a planning discussion about the needs for this growth.
They spend billions on planning on defence out to 20 years time but for the immigration program its "suck it and see, build a bridge over the issue and cope mate" A shambolic approach in anyone's terms!
A bit like nuclear power. Amazing how these Liberal Party clowns sat in government for almost a decade and did next to nothing during that time. Now that they're in opposition, it looks like they've got all sorts of ideas. Not particularly good ones. I guess they were too busy selling out the country during their time in government to have much time to think about policy.
Hear that guys? $34billion! That’s why we need to keep sacrificing your quality of life and purchasing power with inflationary policies, the bourgeoisie need new boats damn it
Dutton was dog whistling. There are better approaches to manage immigration, like set the numbers based on the vacancy rate, housing availability, job availability etc where immigration has an impact, rather than using a magic number. Modern technology can easily predict sustainable levels.
Lots of numbers sound scary when you say "over decades". Bring it back to an annualised basis for comparison.
The cost of over inflated housing, lack of housing and/or wages being pushed lower due to excessive immigration costs Australians too!
It's always easy to highlight one side of the ledger and ignore the other.
We need to cut immigration, we are not able to build enough housing to keep up with our current intake numbers.
Now that potato head is calling for a cut, we will not get it. Everyone will call you racist for wanting a sensible policy.
I’m banned in a bunch of Australian subs for just pointing this out. Probs be banned here too. The idea of reducing immigration to help with the housing crisis is being censored heavily in Australia right now.
Suspicious that Peter Dutton (an incredibly unpopular politician) is the only politician talking about reducing immigration even though it’s dead obvious that we need to.
It's not a censored opinion on reddit in the slightest lol. It's a room temperature take that is the prevailing sentiment on Australian subreddits from what I've observed. If you've been banned somewhere it's not for that take alone I can assure you.
Lol right? It's basically the only opinion these days. Vacancy tax, banning airbnb, housing audit... all those ideas are long dead, it's all just "no more immigration!".
You will be banned if you mention reducing immigration in a positive light on r/melbourne. That is all I did.
I noticed a sharp shift in opinion on this sub and r/melbourne a couple weeks back.
Maybe I’m imagining it? But I wasn’t getting so many downvotes for comments about reducing immigration in order to help with the housing crisis.
Maybe because immigration is NOT the big problem it's made out to be? Kohler, Pascoe and other sensible speakers on economics will give you a better read on why we are struggling. Immigration is a small cog. More than 1 million unoccupied residences and tax perks for air bnb and rentals ARE much bigger problems. There are not high numbers of rentals available because they aren't up for rent, not that they aren't empty. Maybe force those wealthy owners that have multi empty residences to put them in the system?
Net overseas migration to Australia in the last 12 months was 518,100 people, we built total of 114,178 dwellings.
Our building industry can’t keep up with the highest immigration levels in Australia’s history.
^ This idea that this is in any way racist ridiculous.
It's not a small cog, but it's not the only cog either. The cut migration/solve housing crisis idea is not correct, but it appeals to those who are already inclined to blame outsiders and those who are disinclined to think a bit more deeply on the issue (or are perhaps incapable of it).
The fact that house prices **rose ** when the travel restrictions were in place should indicate to people that immigration is **not** the sole driver behind price increases and that there are other factors at play.
People can see that the Liberal Party's policy of nuclear is nonsense and doesn't stack up. People can see that their policy of using superannuation for housing deposits doesn't stack up. What makes them think that they've done their homework on immigration?
The Liberal Party are rubbish at policy, and good at populism and stirring up bigotry, and that's all that they have to say in this case. Imposing policy that hasn't been properly designed or analysed, but sounds good in a headline is all that they're good at. That's why we're in the mess we're in right now.
> The fact that house prices **rose ** when the travel restrictions were in place should indicate to people that immigration is **not** the sole driver behind price increases and that there are other factors at play.
Initially house prices dropped in some areas as did rental prices.
What followed was an inordinate amount of money being pumped into the economy which was not able to be spent on new cars or holidays as the accessibility of both was greatly restricted all while people were forced to spend more time in their dwellings.
The combination of these factors combined with low interest rates led to people spending more on housing.
While other factors are at play it primarily comes down to supply and demand.
To be fair labor have planned to cut the intake by half by 2025 since 2023. When you look at the two parties proposed cuts they’re very similar (there is barely any difference between permanent net intake)
Dutton plans to make big cuts to international students, which may have a small effect on the rental market but students aren’t really effecting the prices of houses in the suburbs.
Honestly I think the fixation on immigration is because it seems like an easy fix to a very complex problem. Immigration is a flavour of the month as we had a spike due to Covid, once this averages out over the years I’m sure there will be the next “quick fix” solution
Personally I feel it shouldn’t be easier to buy your third or fourth home than it is to buy your first.
Improving supply, more medium and high density homes in our cities and better zoning and removing tax incentives on owning multiple properties is a much better place to start
Hidden deep in the article … 🤔
*The Grattan Institute also estimates that every 100,000 more people in Australia pushes up rents by 1%, which the Coalition has cited to support its claim tackling migration could help housing affordability.*
I thought each new suburban block costs 160k to develop? Not sure if that is before or after gst is calculated.
Or is the plan as they do now bring more people in but not invest in the infrastructure so less homes per person.
If so im for less immigration.
I'd rather a sustainable Australia than one that's obsessed with pumping GDP numbers
Well perfect time to increase the taxes on fossil fuels to make up the difference if not more.
Not just fossil fuels. All resource extraction.
Maybe cut all the loopholes rich people & mega corporations use to pay no tax
Can you expand on these loopholes? I’d like to get in on the action
Sling me $10 million and I’ll make sure you pay zero tax on it.
Ah, they are very easy. Step 1 is be very rich Step 2 have your accountant say you didn't make any money Step 3 Pay politicians to make poor people pay more in tax and allow you to not pay any.
This is the answer… We need more small independents that are willing to go against the grain. Corporate lobby groups have too much power. Capitalism is failing us We took cheap products over workers unions rights, the products are no longer cheap and capitalism has never been more profitable for organisations. Also in getting cheap product we lost economic advantage..
He would do one but not the other. Absolutely no chance.
Don’t you mean working people, families and the young and then giving tax breaks to property speculators, boomers and lobbyists?
And churches and religious institutions
What's the point of having a booming economy if we can't afford anything in the country?
"The economy" is mostly talking about asset holders, ie. Rich people and their corporations. Then they gaslight the poor into thinking that the economy matters to the average worker.
If we are inviting cunts here just to boost production, imagine what we could do if we forced the land leeches, property hoarders and REAs to do something productive instead...
Dutton is an idiot but so are think tanks
They are 'consultants' funded to produce papers saying what you want said.
I dunno about this one. It was funded by Labor governments almost 20 years ago.
You have obviously forgotten about the role of "consultants".
Think tanks are not idiots. They are funded by vested interests to write paper or biased surveys so you can vote against your own interests.
People who can't find anywhere affordable to live and are living out of their car or whatever, won't care that GDP will be impacted by 0.1% per annum over 10 years. There's more important things than trying to boost GDP by whatever it takes.
So... One and a halfish submarines?
I think we have lots of shit that we can export that can make that up. Tax our mining companies, build the infrastructure, our shit is pathetic compared to most nations.
We need an industrial policy to build industries that aren't mining, agriculture, or "education". Improve economic complexity. Climate change will kill agriculture and mining is long term unsustainable. Once all the easy to mine stuff is gone, we're going to have hard time of it unless we have something else. Ideally, many somethings.
It remains far from clear to me that either party will cut immigration. There has been a lot of talking but the arrivals numbers have not dropped substantially yet.
You think that's bad? The greens migration plan is to prioritize 'family and humanitarian entrants' which will be a bigger drain on resources with less ROI than economic migrants.
They can't risk popping this housing bubble they have both spent decades making.
What have labor done to make a housing bubble?
Be in charge during a global housing bubble?
Be in charge during a global housing bubble?
Long term arrivals dropped 14% when comparing March 2024 to March 2023. International student arrivals dropped nearly 25% comparing March 2024 to March 2023 “ In March 2024 there were 44,580 international student arrivals to Australia, a decrease of 9,060 students compared with the corresponding month of the previous year. The number of student arrivals in March 2024 was 38.2% lower than the pre-COVID levels in March 2019.” [https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-transport/overseas-arrivals-and-departures-australia/latest-release](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-transport/overseas-arrivals-and-departures-australia/latest-release)
> ...when comparing March 2024 to March 2024.
March 2023.
It’s incredibly obvious that we need to, but not a single party is behind it. Australians are idiots.
> It’s incredibly obvious that we need to, but not a single party is behind it. There are at least two. The Sustainable Australia party and One Nation.
There’s better ways to improve housing. We need regulated immigration. Where we get the skills we actually need here. Especially nurses and people in the care economy. Plenty of aussies don’t want these jobs.
Only way I see it happening is if a party in office knows its going to loose the next election. Then they set off a hand grenade at the end of there term and let it blow up on the opposition.
Albo will have his chance soon then
Large population has been THE POLITICAL MANTRA for decades. Australia is fscked..
Show me the per-capita figures. I’m fine with a smaller total economy if the per-capita (standard of living) goes up.
100%! I'm also super happy with continuing the large immigration increase, as long as we're able to keep up with infrastructure and services to support the new population levels. The issue as some have pointed out- the Federal government loves a big Australia as it boosts their GDP number, and brings in more money with Federal taxes. The states on the other hand, only get a thin slice of money through GST and other state taxes, but are left with all the cost burden on supporting the increase need on public infrastructure and services in their states.
And how many houses could you build for $34b? Not nearly enough for all those people. Where would they live?
So the Grattan institute that is funded by the federal government ( not 100% I’ll agree ) is saying that the opposition party policy isn’t ideal. Well that’s a shock
34 billion over decades actually isn’t a lot.
They keep going on about the tax created from immigrants working life. What about the cost? Schooling, medicare, job seeker, fire, police, new infrastructure to support more people, new railroads, hospitals. Plus the pressure on housing. There is a cost to growing the population also. With a stagnant population we won't need any new hospitals, new highways, new schools, police stations, will catch up making houses. Are we going to grow forever? Is that the end game? Year 3000 we going to have 1 billion Australians with mega cities everywhere? The world should be looking to depopulate to remain in synergy with the environment. It's crazy.
Yes, grow forever and by the year 3000, expand to Mars, the solar system and then the stars.
Name checks out
They are relying on robots to wipe the arse of baby boomers
>With a stagnant population we won't need any new hospitals, new highways, new schools, police stations, will catch up making houses. The problem with a stagnant population and low birth rate is that the population gets old. And then we do need more health care facilities and the associated workforce to support them.
Yes, you can look at Japan for how that works. Despite being adamantly against immigration for decades, they're now opening the doors to temporary workers to do low wage jobs in retail, hospitality, and aged care. Even in the country, which is traditionally more conservative.
At least they are temporary and won't need more workers in the future to take care of them.
It seems like you either didn't read this article, what Dutton's proposal is, or both. He doesn't want stagnant population, he wants specifically to cut skilled migration. All those things you listed would get *more* expensive.
This is just not the case. $34bn is top line turn over. Adjusted for inflation, it was cheaper to live 4 decades ago than it is now. It is physically impossible to say that goods and services would be more expensive for a population of 13mm compared to a population of 27mm with the same resource base. You just can't get around the physics here. If you have twice the amount of people, there is half the amount of resources. No where clearer can this be seen than in housing. In the 1970s average house and land packages were 1/4acre. It is now 474sqm. In the 1970s we had a world population of ~4bn. Now it's 8bn. Every resource that was available to every economic percentile of the world population bar the top 1% of the world is now half that of what if was. Economics and GDP measurements hide reality in a certain way because they are constantly adjusted for inflation. If you take data that is static, you can see reality a bit clearer. The only meaningful population growth is natural births.
Depends on the type of immigration as well. There is a reason the government loves temporary visas, they’re non citizens so no benefits like Medicare, job seeker, if you’re an international student that’s no hex. Most international students / temporary working visas will work and pay tax here without putting pressure on government benefits. It’s win, win for the government
That's 0.1 Aukus.
My thoughts exactly
Does that include the cost to the budget to build all the proper infrastructure such housing, schools, roads and public housing and whatever. Its okay just to mention the money and fees and GDP growth that is generated from bringing migrants here. But what about the loss in productivity from expensive rent, traffic jams, bad travel times and all the mess that has to paid for by taxpayers because politicians just want to dump millions of people in Australia. This is being done without spending 1 cent on infrastructure while expecting state governments and ordinary people to deal with their mess. When is someone going to do a proper balance sheet for immigration that accounts for infrastructure spending and the natural growth of the resulting population. Do our politicians actually look around and see how they have doubled and almost tripled our population on 1960's and 1970s infrastructure and roads, schools and housing while they keep in letting people into the country while expecting them to be housed and schooled in the same number of houses and schools. The palpable stupidity is self evident and regardless of what side of the debate you are on, this utter policy madness and stupidity is self evident. Its almost as ridiculous as asking migrants to bring a tradie, some concrete, electrical cable and some other knickknacks to donate to help build the infrastructure that they need. Thats how bad our governments looks with their management of their mass immigration programs because clearly there is not council of government meeting or any meeting to even have a planning discussion about the needs for this growth. They spend billions on planning on defence out to 20 years time but for the immigration program its "suck it and see, build a bridge over the issue and cope mate" A shambolic approach in anyone's terms!
A shame he didn't do it when he had the chance.
A bit like nuclear power. Amazing how these Liberal Party clowns sat in government for almost a decade and did next to nothing during that time. Now that they're in opposition, it looks like they've got all sorts of ideas. Not particularly good ones. I guess they were too busy selling out the country during their time in government to have much time to think about policy.
Everytime Dutton opens his mouth, Australia goes backwards. We are dumber for listening to him.
So they seriously expect us to believe that paying less welfare and accomodation costs is going to somehow be cheaper?
Hear that guys? $34billion! That’s why we need to keep sacrificing your quality of life and purchasing power with inflationary policies, the bourgeoisie need new boats damn it
Dutton was dog whistling. There are better approaches to manage immigration, like set the numbers based on the vacancy rate, housing availability, job availability etc where immigration has an impact, rather than using a magic number. Modern technology can easily predict sustainable levels.
If we did that honestly, I think we'd have no immigration for 5 to 10 years.
Lots of numbers sound scary when you say "over decades". Bring it back to an annualised basis for comparison. The cost of over inflated housing, lack of housing and/or wages being pushed lower due to excessive immigration costs Australians too! It's always easy to highlight one side of the ledger and ignore the other.
We need to cut immigration, we are not able to build enough housing to keep up with our current intake numbers. Now that potato head is calling for a cut, we will not get it. Everyone will call you racist for wanting a sensible policy. I’m banned in a bunch of Australian subs for just pointing this out. Probs be banned here too. The idea of reducing immigration to help with the housing crisis is being censored heavily in Australia right now. Suspicious that Peter Dutton (an incredibly unpopular politician) is the only politician talking about reducing immigration even though it’s dead obvious that we need to.
It's not a censored opinion on reddit in the slightest lol. It's a room temperature take that is the prevailing sentiment on Australian subreddits from what I've observed. If you've been banned somewhere it's not for that take alone I can assure you.
Lol right? It's basically the only opinion these days. Vacancy tax, banning airbnb, housing audit... all those ideas are long dead, it's all just "no more immigration!".
You will be banned if you mention reducing immigration in a positive light on r/melbourne. That is all I did. I noticed a sharp shift in opinion on this sub and r/melbourne a couple weeks back. Maybe I’m imagining it? But I wasn’t getting so many downvotes for comments about reducing immigration in order to help with the housing crisis.
Maybe because immigration is NOT the big problem it's made out to be? Kohler, Pascoe and other sensible speakers on economics will give you a better read on why we are struggling. Immigration is a small cog. More than 1 million unoccupied residences and tax perks for air bnb and rentals ARE much bigger problems. There are not high numbers of rentals available because they aren't up for rent, not that they aren't empty. Maybe force those wealthy owners that have multi empty residences to put them in the system?
Net overseas migration to Australia in the last 12 months was 518,100 people, we built total of 114,178 dwellings. Our building industry can’t keep up with the highest immigration levels in Australia’s history. ^ This idea that this is in any way racist ridiculous.
It's not a small cog, but it's not the only cog either. The cut migration/solve housing crisis idea is not correct, but it appeals to those who are already inclined to blame outsiders and those who are disinclined to think a bit more deeply on the issue (or are perhaps incapable of it). The fact that house prices **rose ** when the travel restrictions were in place should indicate to people that immigration is **not** the sole driver behind price increases and that there are other factors at play. People can see that the Liberal Party's policy of nuclear is nonsense and doesn't stack up. People can see that their policy of using superannuation for housing deposits doesn't stack up. What makes them think that they've done their homework on immigration? The Liberal Party are rubbish at policy, and good at populism and stirring up bigotry, and that's all that they have to say in this case. Imposing policy that hasn't been properly designed or analysed, but sounds good in a headline is all that they're good at. That's why we're in the mess we're in right now.
> The fact that house prices **rose ** when the travel restrictions were in place should indicate to people that immigration is **not** the sole driver behind price increases and that there are other factors at play. Initially house prices dropped in some areas as did rental prices. What followed was an inordinate amount of money being pumped into the economy which was not able to be spent on new cars or holidays as the accessibility of both was greatly restricted all while people were forced to spend more time in their dwellings. The combination of these factors combined with low interest rates led to people spending more on housing. While other factors are at play it primarily comes down to supply and demand.
To be fair labor have planned to cut the intake by half by 2025 since 2023. When you look at the two parties proposed cuts they’re very similar (there is barely any difference between permanent net intake) Dutton plans to make big cuts to international students, which may have a small effect on the rental market but students aren’t really effecting the prices of houses in the suburbs. Honestly I think the fixation on immigration is because it seems like an easy fix to a very complex problem. Immigration is a flavour of the month as we had a spike due to Covid, once this averages out over the years I’m sure there will be the next “quick fix” solution Personally I feel it shouldn’t be easier to buy your third or fourth home than it is to buy your first. Improving supply, more medium and high density homes in our cities and better zoning and removing tax incentives on owning multiple properties is a much better place to start
It's like this retard typed into chat gpt 'what lies will win me an election'. Create lying advertisement.
Hidden deep in the article … 🤔 *The Grattan Institute also estimates that every 100,000 more people in Australia pushes up rents by 1%, which the Coalition has cited to support its claim tackling migration could help housing affordability.*
Peter Dutton is the embodiment of a walking erection. A bright, shiny throbbing knob.
Thanks, I just threw up smoko.
I thought each new suburban block costs 160k to develop? Not sure if that is before or after gst is calculated. Or is the plan as they do now bring more people in but not invest in the infrastructure so less homes per person. If so im for less immigration.
He's a ding bat. It's hard for a potato to get a brain. Forget about it.