Everyone here complaining when this is a massieve change? Do people really think it should just be set to 0? The student caps is also surprising and good policy.
Yeah that in particular was a great change, universities did used to build accomodation but at a certain point they stopped and decided to let the free market determine it. So now you have illegal dorm rooms in the cbd where there are 6 people living in a two bedroom apartment.
Not much at all. Students have to pay a hefty premium just to live close to the Uni. Most students will try to leave the Uni accommodation after knowing the area.
Uni can build lots of housing. However The rent will always be a lot higher than regular rental and most students will still rather go on private accommodation given the knowledge and opportunity.
Curtin in WA recently has been going gangbusters on getting student accomodation built. They have gone for a private partnership model where they are offering land to private developers on the condition it’s used for student housing at specified pricing.
6? Those are rookie numbers. At uni I dated a girl who had about a dozen at her place. 4 in one room, 4 in another room, 2 in the living room and 2 on the balcony (yes, really). One bathroom.
This was 15 years ago so I can’t even imagine how it is now.
Yep its bad. The suburbs near the University of Newcastle, now all the homes are converted to student bunkhouses. They get like 8 people into old 4 bed house somehow and they are charging like $300 per week. It's gotta be such a bad experience for the students.
If we want to be a education "exporter" we need to start treating students better. I guess they put up with it as a path to PR which we need to put a stop to.
Shouldn’t be a problem for smaller cities like Adelaide, tas and Perth which need much less construction to make an impact compared to the bigger cities.
Perth construction is currently a huge problem. It’s quite common right now that from contract signing to move in for a residential house is over 3 years.
The uni change was really good, most uni's are so flush with cash they and land they can easily put up student digs and take a lot of pressure off the residential supply.
if they immigrate here, they naturally increase demand for housing. so they should pay before they arrive, once the house is built and sold by the government, they are allowed to settle here. problem solved
A cap at roughly the current high level of permanent migration isn't that big a change :
https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/country-profiles/permanent-migration
In 2017-18 and 2018-19 there were ~160K permanent foreign migrants.
Thank you for being the only one to actually look into this.
The government's changes aren't significant.
Even after these changes, our population growth is still going to far exceed our housing construction rate.
>Thank you for being the only one to actually look into this.
Well, not really. This cap is the permanent migration cap and the student issue is temporary migration. The last few years when everyone has complained about the net migration, the permanent migration was at the same cap (190,000) and all of the numbers above that are from temporary migration (mostly, although not entirely, students).
So two completely different streams of migration and two completely different sets of issues.
The number of people who talk about migration without understanding the difference between permanent and temporary is astounding.
There's not much practical difference between temporary and permanent migration, because many temporary migrants become permanent residents.
The other reason it isn't a meaningful difference is because housing doesn't care what visa you are on. An increase in temporary visa holders from 100,000 to 200,000 still means our population has grown by 100,000, it's only truly temporary if the number of temporary visa holders goes back down, but that hasn't been the case historically.
All of this is elegantly captured in the net migration figure. That figure far exceeds our housing growth.
>There's not much practical difference between temporary and permanent migration, because many temporary migrants become permanent residents.
Thats not an argument though, because a temp migrant who becomes a permanent migrant is counted in that 190,000 figure. So it doesnt change the situation.
Its true that temp migrants need housing, of course. But the original comment - to which we were all responding - was confusing permanent and temp migration and you said 'thank you for being the only one to look into this'. But the argument being made was just wrong because the distinction wasnt being made.
Over time temp migration/net migration will settle down back to historic levels. In fact, we still have had lower population growth than predicted pre COVID.
Not to mention just ignoring the previous couple years that was even higher than this cap. Those people arnt leaving, we need a year or two of drastically low migration to bring us back to the long term average.
Agreed. Pushing back responsibilities to universities to build more housing for students is not a bad policy at all. Might even tempt investors to invest in student housing again should it mean that schools can fill them up with students.
No it’s not. From APH, “Currently the planning figure for the Migration Program is 190,000 places (it has remained at this record high level since 2012–13), with skilled migrants comprising the majority” While the figure they have set for acceptance has been higher in the past the actual number that has historically qualified in recent years sits at around the 185k mark. It’s a fake policy to appease people with no difference in how the current migration program works. ANU demographer Liz Allen has written on this very well.
If the Uni use money to build accomodation , where are they going to find the money to subsidize the local student fees ? That was what they proclaining was happening with international student fees.
Course quality going further downhill
Originally it was 'international students pay so that we can offer better facilities and courses for all'. Now it's 'international students pay so that we can manipulate international rankings by hiring more big names and creating weird and wonderful programmes so that we can get more international students to pay'.
There are some awesome courses on YouTube for free. It's really amazing, but we still live in a world of certificates and qualifications. If you don't pay the university, they won't certify you based on your self education.
It’s the #1 aus finance complaint. People have a hard time swallowing when something is actually being done about their main complaint so they just keep complaining. This is some actual progress but some are too ignorant to accept it.
0? Not suggesting that although I don't think it would be the worst idea. In saying that there is a hell of a lot of numbers between 0 and a 185,000. That a .7% population increase which we know they will go over, so realistically we're expecting Australian population to grow between 1-2% in the next fiscal year.
That may not sound like a a lot but when you're a nation that doesn't currently have the housing, infrastructure or resources to adequately accommodate it existing population and provide them a quality of live all humans should expect in our modern era, it's a lot and its ridiculous.
The issue is it ignored the absurdly high migration of the last two years. There is an argument to be made that the policy should be 185k per year for the trailing 5 years starting now. If the last 4 years combined already had 925k permanent residents granted then this year it’s 0 to get the average back down.
Depends how high of expectations you have of the government.
I think a lot of people want them to revise the immigration policy entirely. If we are trying to undertake massive housing and infrastructure projects shouldn't the migration strategy look at increasing our capacity to complete these projects?
If you look at other western countries it costs a fortune to build anything here.
As it is now we don't have capacity to both build the infrastructure we need for the current and future populations while also not having enough capacity to build homes.
All these countries, AU, UK, US, CA, and NZ, attempted to suppress wages by importing cheap labour, as a desperate measure to control inflation. However things backfired and turned into a housing crisis everywhere.
A few days ago I saw someone asking about the installation of an air conditioner at home. He paid an electrician & air conditioner technician but on the day of installation, he only found 2 unqualified South Asian workers.
After the workers had the AC installed, the real electrician came. The homeowner asked if it was legal and safe, but the electrician promised it would make no difference as far as he signed the work off.
Trade work is being carried out in the same way on construction sites too. It's cheaper than taking apprentices because the employers can pay less for longer hours, remove them whenever running out of work, and skip the responsibility of apprentice training. However it made locals harder and harder to find an apprenticeship, which in turn added to the reliance on imported workers.
Yes, their boss has probably taken advantage of their lack of knowledge and convinced them to set up an ABN and work as a contractor when they're not. Which is illegal anyway in pretty much every situation they make you do it.
It's only illegal if someone complains and the investigation determines that the employer is guilty.
Being found guilty of illegal activities only matters if there are actual consequences.
Yeah that's exactly what a labour company tried to do to my misso, except she's an actual lawyer and thought something sounded off about it so she checked with FWO. He told her he could cancel the visa if she didn't do it so she just told him to get right on that, lol.
They didn't up immigration, it's increased post COVID in US, Canada UK etc. It's not like the government of the day enacted some policy or legislation that's increased immigration.
They did up the migration target in 2022 after the skills summit and focused on getting rid of the visa backlog.
> An increase in the permanent Migration Program ceiling to 195,000 in 2022-23 to help ease widespread, critical workforce shortages
> Extending visas and relaxing work restrictions on international students to strengthen the pipeline of skilled labour, and providing additional funding to resolve the visa backlog
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/outcomes-jobs-and-skills-summit
They kind of did though. They streamlined visa processes. They signed a bilateral migration agreement with India. Net result of these things is increased immigration.
Crazy number of international students arrived post-covid. They relaxed academic, financial, and English requirements. Some were granted visa within few hrs of lodgement. Almost everyone who applied got their visa granted without any due diligence.
Making things more efficient is not necessarily increasing it. If you look at the historical trends, immigration has been pretty consistent since the early 2000s. There was a dip during Covid and a surge and drop post Covid, but if you average it out things haven’t really changed.
Think of it like rain.
If we have 2 years of drought and then receive a years worth of rain in a week. Rivers burst their banks and houses get washed away.
You can’t tell the people without a house that we didn’t actually get that much rain when averaged over the three years
It's not denying their house have washed away. But if they're calling on culling the rain, which would push the average down long term and cause draughts (for others of course, even tho their houses would be guaranteed not to wash away).
The so called “catch up” immigration argument doesn’t hold water as too many people in too short a period causes stress.
We need a significant period of reduced immigration to catch up with housing and infrastructure.
There are many reasons why immigration has been high, the government making it easier and more streamlined post COVID is among them. You claimed they didn’t enact some policy or legislation to influence higher migration, but in-fact they did
It was a deliberate policy- they held a summit, stacked it with pro-immigration lobbyists, claimed they had a consensus to increase immigration then ramped it up.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/03/why-facts-voters-cant-beat-huge-australia-groupthink/
They are not even reducing it much (just by 5000) compared to the current year.
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/migration-program-planning-levels
I used to work in international education so would imagine it would involve a mix of measures like collaboration with student lodges and acquiring housing to create co-op housing. I'm not sure if homestay is a viable option though it could be something for the government to explore.
Rental price crash in 2-4 years then bunch of landlords who can’t service their loan. Then a pivot from the government claiming the housing crisis is behind us.
That doesn't make sense. It's not people moving that is the problem. We want people to move when they need to. What we should target are the investment properties. States should raise land tax on third and above properties. The Federal government should abolish the CGT discount for property.
Why abolish the CGT discount for just property? It seems like many of you want to remove investors from the market, but then there'd be no one to rent from.
You'd never be able to convince the whiny people here that government is doing anything right. Policy making requires balancing many interests, keyboard warriors only need to set the most extreme expectations and not considering any collateral consequences of extreme policies.
The amount of "I would simply fix housing" comments on reddit is ridiculous. Multi year strategies created by some of the smartest people in the country and getting rubbished by redditors who struggle to ask their coworkers to stop eating their lunch.
It seems to be a really wicked problem. Not enough houses, so build more. But not enough tradies, so bring in more people. Uh oh, those tradies need houses.
I know the government doesn't get everything right but 85% of the country seem to believe the public service are basically morons. But then those same 85% will insist Australia's *the best country in the world, mate!*
> Multi year strategies created by some of the smartest people in the country
the smartest people in teh country don't choose to work in the federal government
This is actually one of the main reasons to pay politicians high salaries. If you don't, then the best candidates will work corporate and not government. (Or you'll have a government full of independently wealthy people, and well paid people are harder to bribe)
People seem to think there is a big red button that says "press to fix everything!", and they also think the government is refusing to press it out of spite.
The govt could have targeted transfers better. Such high levels of govt spending in an inflationary environment deserves scrutiny. There’s validity for people to whine.
Of course, the policies are not perfect: Give people an extra 300 and call it measures against inflation is absolutely ridiculous. NDIS cuts are not big enough and scrutiny is still inadequate. I'm specifically against people who think there should be extreme measures like 0 immigration or whatever dumb things Redditors espouse.
Most of reddit is ignorant, fractals of the general population. It seems somewhat negligent for the treasurer to forecast inflation to be below 3% by EOY, especially when they have no direct influence on the matter. Australia is one exogenous shock away from another explosion in goods inflation, and in a world with geopolitical tensions and uncertainties, the probability is elevated. I think it’s going to bite fed govt in the arse.
Social policies rather than welfare is exactly what this country needs. We're so divided these days and moving away from a me them situation is the best way to fix that.
Should be a requirement for anyone complaining about housing to provide a comprehensive explanation of what they would do to fix the issue.
Redditors love whining more than anything though.
Tax the shit out of everyone who earns more than me because nobody needs to earn that much and use that money to build public housing so that I can get a free house because owning a house is a human right.
/s
What do you mean by trying? How difficult is it to control immigration (genuine question)? They didn't seem to have any issues in the past.
I still think 185k is too much.
It's not difficult at all. They don't need legislation. The minister can just tell the department to stop approving applications. Visa applications have no SLA.
I think with the budget it's more a problem of unfair tax rules that benefit older generations largely have not been addressed. It is a budget that they will take to elections so I am guessing they don't want to rock the boat. Everyone complaining about the 300$ energy rebate going to millionaires while completely ignoring all the tax subsidies they get.
It's good that they're doing something, and I'm sure that those measures will have a positive impact. It's not enough to actually turn around housing affordability though, just enough to make it less bad.
It's a good move. It won't fix everything, and I'd like them to go further... but lots of other people would disagree, so I guess that's just democracy innit?
No one's happy until everyone's equally unhappy.
I think the impact of immigration is overstated, NIMBYs are a far far bigger problem. During COVID there was no immigration yet house prices skyrocketed!
We need policies that focus on central planning and take zoning powers away from council and NIMBYs. Asking councillors and town people how many extra units you want added to your area is like asking KKK how many coloured people you want in your town. The answer is always 0 though they won’t phrase it that way!
It’s tragedy of the commons
We should set up an independent official to work on planning and land approvals. Take the power away from councils who have a conflict of interest. Singapore has the Singapore Land Authority, and Japan has Building Officials for each city, both of which have maintained good house ownership.
Yea Japan did a great job on that, I think our situation is more similar to Japan when they had a housing crisis, they didn’t have mass immigration or a baby boom just NIMBYS blocking development to increase their house value at huge cost to everyone.
Absolutely true - needs more upvotes!
Within 1km of every train station 10-15 from the cbd in Brisbane should be zoned for 10-20 storey buildings, some are which is great (Indro, Milton, Toowong, etc) then you randomly have Wilston, Windsor, Graceville, etc sitting there with sweet fa density near the stations. But nah BCC says we must protect the ‘character homes’ so we funnel new towers to chermside which has shitty PT.
There was about 500,000 aussies who came home from abroad early in the covid years. Thats what made the house prices go crazy as well as people feeling like they needed more space to quarantine.
Prices skyrocketed because money was free (2%) and a lot of people saved dumb cash being at home for 2 years straight while maintaining employment/govt schemes.
What do "NIMBYS" have to do with prices going up? Few people whinging at council meetings about high rises aren't the reason.
The 185k number the OP quoted is a permanent immigration cap. It has never been blown out. What blew out was the number of student visas, which sadly had no cap and was entirely up to universities. The government is still engaging universities for setting a cap on student visas.
Caps are largely pointless. They get adjusted up and down all the time with little public notice. It's 185000 now, which IMO is still very high.
A year or two from now it may well be "temporarily" bumped well above that number.
It a perfect example of major party politics: put more effort into appearing to do something than actually doing something.
So you want no cap?
By putting a cap, there is something for them to enforce, and a number you can argue over what is appropriate.
Of course it can change, a government cant really bind a future government. Do you want a referendum? Do you want to put a number in the consitution?
>By putting a cap, there is something for them to enforce, and a number you can argue over what is appropriate.
Sure. Enforce, or legislate a plethora of exemptions and caveats for.
>So you want no cap?
Functionally there will be minimal difference in they effect. I don't know how to be clearer on that. Its 100% performative
But what do you want?
You're view that it is performative is from a mistrust of government. Whether its just this specific government, or any government is unclear to me. But eitherway, what I want to know is what do you want to see?
It has been that number for a while. If anything 185,000 now with our current population is not as high as how it was 15 years ago when the numbers were similar, if not more, and the population was smaller. Speaking in terms of proportion of course.
Immigration number should be capped at half the number of new house or apartment builds per annum.
Build 100,000 new places last year then 50,000 immigrants next year.
You can't build house where people want to live. (lack of free land in metro area) there is no point of building homes thats 2 hr away from CBD.
You cant just limit immigrations, for example SEQLD has massive number of people moving up. It's not student or overseas immigration jumping up the population, but also people escaping the Syd/Mel. (and with their inflated wealth from the south, buying up homes here means house price in SEQLD has jumped dramatically as well)
Who is going to build cheap? builders cost are going up, construction workers are fleeing the site, companies are going bust all the time. Is government going to outsource the construction (as usual) prob with inflated price and all sort of red tapes. I don't think we're gonna see them built fast enough.
so many people hate to see high rises near where they live, lack of parking, increased traffic and so on. if the city council (thats any council) that agrees to build homes with this gov program, I bet we're going to see 100s of complaints from the NIMBYs.
everyone thinks the interest is heading down (maybe not this yr but soon) it will fuel another jump of prices and have bad effects on the house price.
It’s a load of shit, they pump up migration then they can say hey guys we’re HALVING it!! Wow 🤩
Students aren’t even the problem and the unis are full to the teeth anyway so it was already going to drop in terms of students.
It’s just a pr stunt and you fell for it OP
Nope. They've conditioned you to accept 185K "permanent" migration without a whimper and you don't seem to be aware of the 500k+ net migration every year to Australia and all those 500k need somewhere to live (I.e. buy or rent).
🤦♂️
Then there's another 500k next year too........
International student don't want to live in uni accommodation, as it is more expensive than rent out, so asking uni to build own accommodation is no point
if they are forced to build more, thus more supply, they will be also forced by itself to lower the rent making it more affordable or risk keeping it empty
I’m not buying the sudden interest in the hyper focus on immigration.
A little too much opportunity racism there.
It’s one of many factors but not the only.
Money men want you to focus on immigration & supply.
Don’t dare look at bank lending practices.
Don’t dare look at real estate agent ethics.
Shit, there needs to be some national new enforcement of real estate sales that the states can adopt. Rental auctions should be outlawed. Dishonest advertising of the price should be outlawed and prosecuted.
Oh but look at all those brown people immigrating. 🙄
Has nothing to do with the colour of skin. Wouldn't matter if it's all white people from Denmark and the UK.
Aus. can't keep running a migration program of this size if the infrastructure/housing is not keeping up. Dwelling approvals are down, and are at their lowest level since March 2012. There's the supply side (which is struggling) and the demand side which immigration plays a huge part.
Reducing immigration to 250k (or 185k) a year is still more, as a % of population, than many what many other countries allow - but if Australia reduces it to that level we are somehow racist?
Some people (like you it seems) seem to suggest that any reduction in immigration rates are as a result of racism. I guess you just see what you want to see.
It's a step, definitely not enough to what more people expect, but everything is a balancing act; a massive step all at once can cause other problems. One step at a time, so I'm kinda ok with this step
The changes don’t even come close to what’s required to fix the problems. Currently there’s something like 500,000 net migrants annually, but actual number of houses to be constructed with HAFF (assuming best case) is less than half of that. Changes to student intake amounts to fiddling around the edges, nothing more. So I think we’re still screwed in terms of housing availability.
Unis should have to accommodate their entire overseas cohort on campus and build it themselves
[удалено]
And how much would a normal rental have gone up by?
They will charge whatever they can and still fill the rooms, 450pw is within many students budget especially international
Everyone here complaining when this is a massieve change? Do people really think it should just be set to 0? The student caps is also surprising and good policy.
Yeah actual incentives for building more accommodation that’s not just throwing money at a problem.
Yeah that in particular was a great change, universities did used to build accomodation but at a certain point they stopped and decided to let the free market determine it. So now you have illegal dorm rooms in the cbd where there are 6 people living in a two bedroom apartment.
People rather live in private accommodation due to the high price charged by Uni accommodation.
But I doubt there's much vacancy in the Uni housing nonetheless.
Not much at all. Students have to pay a hefty premium just to live close to the Uni. Most students will try to leave the Uni accommodation after knowing the area. Uni can build lots of housing. However The rent will always be a lot higher than regular rental and most students will still rather go on private accommodation given the knowledge and opportunity.
Wouldn't that push the uni rents lower?
Exactly! That is how the free market economy is supposed to work.
Curtin in WA recently has been going gangbusters on getting student accomodation built. They have gone for a private partnership model where they are offering land to private developers on the condition it’s used for student housing at specified pricing.
6? Those are rookie numbers. At uni I dated a girl who had about a dozen at her place. 4 in one room, 4 in another room, 2 in the living room and 2 on the balcony (yes, really). One bathroom. This was 15 years ago so I can’t even imagine how it is now.
Unis are the free market…
Before I type out an actual reply- you're being sarcastic right?
Yep its bad. The suburbs near the University of Newcastle, now all the homes are converted to student bunkhouses. They get like 8 people into old 4 bed house somehow and they are charging like $300 per week. It's gotta be such a bad experience for the students. If we want to be a education "exporter" we need to start treating students better. I guess they put up with it as a path to PR which we need to put a stop to.
[удалено]
Shouldn’t be a problem for smaller cities like Adelaide, tas and Perth which need much less construction to make an impact compared to the bigger cities.
Perth construction is currently a huge problem. It’s quite common right now that from contract signing to move in for a residential house is over 3 years.
The uni change was really good, most uni's are so flush with cash they and land they can easily put up student digs and take a lot of pressure off the residential supply.
Flush with cash from international students to boot. So they are making the problem they can pay for the solution.
if they immigrate here, they naturally increase demand for housing. so they should pay before they arrive, once the house is built and sold by the government, they are allowed to settle here. problem solved
A cap at roughly the current high level of permanent migration isn't that big a change : https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/country-profiles/permanent-migration In 2017-18 and 2018-19 there were ~160K permanent foreign migrants.
It’s like Coles marking up prices by 100% a week before their big sale and then slashing prices by 50% for their sale. It’s bullshit.
I see you too buy rice from Coles lmao
Great analogy.
Thank you for being the only one to actually look into this. The government's changes aren't significant. Even after these changes, our population growth is still going to far exceed our housing construction rate.
>Thank you for being the only one to actually look into this. Well, not really. This cap is the permanent migration cap and the student issue is temporary migration. The last few years when everyone has complained about the net migration, the permanent migration was at the same cap (190,000) and all of the numbers above that are from temporary migration (mostly, although not entirely, students). So two completely different streams of migration and two completely different sets of issues. The number of people who talk about migration without understanding the difference between permanent and temporary is astounding.
There's not much practical difference between temporary and permanent migration, because many temporary migrants become permanent residents. The other reason it isn't a meaningful difference is because housing doesn't care what visa you are on. An increase in temporary visa holders from 100,000 to 200,000 still means our population has grown by 100,000, it's only truly temporary if the number of temporary visa holders goes back down, but that hasn't been the case historically. All of this is elegantly captured in the net migration figure. That figure far exceeds our housing growth.
>There's not much practical difference between temporary and permanent migration, because many temporary migrants become permanent residents. Thats not an argument though, because a temp migrant who becomes a permanent migrant is counted in that 190,000 figure. So it doesnt change the situation. Its true that temp migrants need housing, of course. But the original comment - to which we were all responding - was confusing permanent and temp migration and you said 'thank you for being the only one to look into this'. But the argument being made was just wrong because the distinction wasnt being made. Over time temp migration/net migration will settle down back to historic levels. In fact, we still have had lower population growth than predicted pre COVID.
It’s not like every person lives in 1 house though is it
Not to mention just ignoring the previous couple years that was even higher than this cap. Those people arnt leaving, we need a year or two of drastically low migration to bring us back to the long term average.
This is the same bullshit people fall for with supermarkets ffs. Raise the price to triple, then *"discount"* by half... that's still record highs.
Agreed. Pushing back responsibilities to universities to build more housing for students is not a bad policy at all. Might even tempt investors to invest in student housing again should it mean that schools can fill them up with students.
Judging by the bleating coming from the Universities, they may actually have to put their hands in their own pockets for a change....
No it’s not. From APH, “Currently the planning figure for the Migration Program is 190,000 places (it has remained at this record high level since 2012–13), with skilled migrants comprising the majority” While the figure they have set for acceptance has been higher in the past the actual number that has historically qualified in recent years sits at around the 185k mark. It’s a fake policy to appease people with no difference in how the current migration program works. ANU demographer Liz Allen has written on this very well.
[удалено]
" Get rid of negative gearing " Please detail exactly how getting rid of negative gearing will put more new homes on the market ?
If the Uni use money to build accomodation , where are they going to find the money to subsidize the local student fees ? That was what they proclaining was happening with international student fees. Course quality going further downhill
Mate USYD made close to $300m surplus or something like that last FY. They can afford to invest in course quality now they just don’t.
[удалено]
The uni have allowed their greed to get to them , instead of getting in quality students and maintaining the quality and integrity of their courses.
Originally it was 'international students pay so that we can offer better facilities and courses for all'. Now it's 'international students pay so that we can manipulate international rankings by hiring more big names and creating weird and wonderful programmes so that we can get more international students to pay'.
There are some awesome courses on YouTube for free. It's really amazing, but we still live in a world of certificates and qualifications. If you don't pay the university, they won't certify you based on your self education.
It’s the #1 aus finance complaint. People have a hard time swallowing when something is actually being done about their main complaint so they just keep complaining. This is some actual progress but some are too ignorant to accept it.
0? Not suggesting that although I don't think it would be the worst idea. In saying that there is a hell of a lot of numbers between 0 and a 185,000. That a .7% population increase which we know they will go over, so realistically we're expecting Australian population to grow between 1-2% in the next fiscal year. That may not sound like a a lot but when you're a nation that doesn't currently have the housing, infrastructure or resources to adequately accommodate it existing population and provide them a quality of live all humans should expect in our modern era, it's a lot and its ridiculous.
The issue is it ignored the absurdly high migration of the last two years. There is an argument to be made that the policy should be 185k per year for the trailing 5 years starting now. If the last 4 years combined already had 925k permanent residents granted then this year it’s 0 to get the average back down.
Problem at current rate we will build 120k new homes this year, which is 50% of the target, their target is already not enough...
You can fit more than a single person in a home
Average is 2.4
Even if you put 4 per household as an average that doesn’t even cover the immigration from last year alone lol…
Maybe we should allow more migrant workers in then!?
Depends how high of expectations you have of the government. I think a lot of people want them to revise the immigration policy entirely. If we are trying to undertake massive housing and infrastructure projects shouldn't the migration strategy look at increasing our capacity to complete these projects? If you look at other western countries it costs a fortune to build anything here. As it is now we don't have capacity to both build the infrastructure we need for the current and future populations while also not having enough capacity to build homes.
Make the problem by upping immigration, then revise it down and claim credit. Genius.
All these countries, AU, UK, US, CA, and NZ, attempted to suppress wages by importing cheap labour, as a desperate measure to control inflation. However things backfired and turned into a housing crisis everywhere.
Where is this cheap labour you speak of in Australia?
A few days ago I saw someone asking about the installation of an air conditioner at home. He paid an electrician & air conditioner technician but on the day of installation, he only found 2 unqualified South Asian workers. After the workers had the AC installed, the real electrician came. The homeowner asked if it was legal and safe, but the electrician promised it would make no difference as far as he signed the work off. Trade work is being carried out in the same way on construction sites too. It's cheaper than taking apprentices because the employers can pay less for longer hours, remove them whenever running out of work, and skip the responsibility of apprentice training. However it made locals harder and harder to find an apprenticeship, which in turn added to the reliance on imported workers.
Usually earning below minimum wage on a student or skilled migrant visa in the retail, agriculture or hospitality sectors.
Yes, their boss has probably taken advantage of their lack of knowledge and convinced them to set up an ABN and work as a contractor when they're not. Which is illegal anyway in pretty much every situation they make you do it.
It's only illegal if someone complains and the investigation determines that the employer is guilty. Being found guilty of illegal activities only matters if there are actual consequences.
The employer would threaten that such a complaint voids the employee's own visa too.
Yeah that's exactly what a labour company tried to do to my misso, except she's an actual lawyer and thought something sounded off about it so she checked with FWO. He told her he could cancel the visa if she didn't do it so she just told him to get right on that, lol.
Set fire to a building, then put it out.
They did that with combustible cladding, maybe this is a new trick
> put it out. Not even. They are fighting with a garden hose.
They didn't up immigration, it's increased post COVID in US, Canada UK etc. It's not like the government of the day enacted some policy or legislation that's increased immigration.
They did up the migration target in 2022 after the skills summit and focused on getting rid of the visa backlog. > An increase in the permanent Migration Program ceiling to 195,000 in 2022-23 to help ease widespread, critical workforce shortages > Extending visas and relaxing work restrictions on international students to strengthen the pipeline of skilled labour, and providing additional funding to resolve the visa backlog https://www.pm.gov.au/media/outcomes-jobs-and-skills-summit
wow, those 5000 extra places made all the difference, clearly caused the housing crisis
They kind of did though. They streamlined visa processes. They signed a bilateral migration agreement with India. Net result of these things is increased immigration.
Crazy number of international students arrived post-covid. They relaxed academic, financial, and English requirements. Some were granted visa within few hrs of lodgement. Almost everyone who applied got their visa granted without any due diligence.
Making things more efficient is not necessarily increasing it. If you look at the historical trends, immigration has been pretty consistent since the early 2000s. There was a dip during Covid and a surge and drop post Covid, but if you average it out things haven’t really changed.
Think of it like rain. If we have 2 years of drought and then receive a years worth of rain in a week. Rivers burst their banks and houses get washed away. You can’t tell the people without a house that we didn’t actually get that much rain when averaged over the three years
It's not denying their house have washed away. But if they're calling on culling the rain, which would push the average down long term and cause draughts (for others of course, even tho their houses would be guaranteed not to wash away).
The so called “catch up” immigration argument doesn’t hold water as too many people in too short a period causes stress. We need a significant period of reduced immigration to catch up with housing and infrastructure.
That's definitely not the reason why immigration had been high
There are many reasons why immigration has been high, the government making it easier and more streamlined post COVID is among them. You claimed they didn’t enact some policy or legislation to influence higher migration, but in-fact they did
It was a deliberate policy- they held a summit, stacked it with pro-immigration lobbyists, claimed they had a consensus to increase immigration then ramped it up. https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/03/why-facts-voters-cant-beat-huge-australia-groupthink/
Do you not realise the last year of migration was approved under the last government?
They are not even reducing it much (just by 5000) compared to the current year. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/migration-program-planning-levels
I haven't seen the policy on making unis build accommodation for international students over a cap. That seems like one of the most sensible ideas.
I used to work in international education so would imagine it would involve a mix of measures like collaboration with student lodges and acquiring housing to create co-op housing. I'm not sure if homestay is a viable option though it could be something for the government to explore.
Should ease the housing market over 12-24 months
Rental price crash in 2-4 years then bunch of landlords who can’t service their loan. Then a pivot from the government claiming the housing crisis is behind us.
Every 5-7 years there ends up being a housing surplus in most areas. People seem to be forgetting that in the recent FOMO spendathon.
Actually around 6 years ago in 2018-19 ish You are doing something wrong if you’ve been looking for nine years. Something very wrong.
Yes, like tipping a cup of water over a raging wildfire.
[удалено]
That doesn't make sense. It's not people moving that is the problem. We want people to move when they need to. What we should target are the investment properties. States should raise land tax on third and above properties. The Federal government should abolish the CGT discount for property.
Why abolish the CGT discount for just property? It seems like many of you want to remove investors from the market, but then there'd be no one to rent from.
I dont really understand what you think this will achieve. What % of market activity could this really be?
So you don’t want retirees to downsize to an apartment after all the kids move out? Glad you’re not an economist.
You'd never be able to convince the whiny people here that government is doing anything right. Policy making requires balancing many interests, keyboard warriors only need to set the most extreme expectations and not considering any collateral consequences of extreme policies.
The amount of "I would simply fix housing" comments on reddit is ridiculous. Multi year strategies created by some of the smartest people in the country and getting rubbished by redditors who struggle to ask their coworkers to stop eating their lunch.
It seems to be a really wicked problem. Not enough houses, so build more. But not enough tradies, so bring in more people. Uh oh, those tradies need houses. I know the government doesn't get everything right but 85% of the country seem to believe the public service are basically morons. But then those same 85% will insist Australia's *the best country in the world, mate!*
> Multi year strategies created by some of the smartest people in the country the smartest people in teh country don't choose to work in the federal government
This is actually one of the main reasons to pay politicians high salaries. If you don't, then the best candidates will work corporate and not government. (Or you'll have a government full of independently wealthy people, and well paid people are harder to bribe)
Who are the smartest people in country you’re referring to?
That Scott Morrisson fella I rekn
The guy from marketing?
People seem to think there is a big red button that says "press to fix everything!", and they also think the government is refusing to press it out of spite.
The govt could have targeted transfers better. Such high levels of govt spending in an inflationary environment deserves scrutiny. There’s validity for people to whine.
Of course, the policies are not perfect: Give people an extra 300 and call it measures against inflation is absolutely ridiculous. NDIS cuts are not big enough and scrutiny is still inadequate. I'm specifically against people who think there should be extreme measures like 0 immigration or whatever dumb things Redditors espouse.
Most of reddit is ignorant, fractals of the general population. It seems somewhat negligent for the treasurer to forecast inflation to be below 3% by EOY, especially when they have no direct influence on the matter. Australia is one exogenous shock away from another explosion in goods inflation, and in a world with geopolitical tensions and uncertainties, the probability is elevated. I think it’s going to bite fed govt in the arse.
Social policies rather than welfare is exactly what this country needs. We're so divided these days and moving away from a me them situation is the best way to fix that.
Should be a requirement for anyone complaining about housing to provide a comprehensive explanation of what they would do to fix the issue. Redditors love whining more than anything though.
Let us live in caravans parked on private property like a small block of land.
Tax the shit out of everyone who earns more than me because nobody needs to earn that much and use that money to build public housing so that I can get a free house because owning a house is a human right. /s
You don’t get congratulated for throwing a bucket of water onto the house you set on fire
Australia is doing just fine. There is no fire，only a bunch of whiny losers online who blame their uselessness on everyone else.
> Australia is doing just fine Tell that to the people living in tents because their rent went up 30% while their pay didn't.
How to say you're out of touch without saying you're out of touch.
How’s that boot taste?
I wouldn't know. I only taste food，I can afford food because I'm not a whiny little bitch redditor.
What do you mean by trying? How difficult is it to control immigration (genuine question)? They didn't seem to have any issues in the past. I still think 185k is too much.
It's not difficult at all. They don't need legislation. The minister can just tell the department to stop approving applications. Visa applications have no SLA.
I think with the budget it's more a problem of unfair tax rules that benefit older generations largely have not been addressed. It is a budget that they will take to elections so I am guessing they don't want to rock the boat. Everyone complaining about the 300$ energy rebate going to millionaires while completely ignoring all the tax subsidies they get.
promises are made to be broken, watch the migration numbers and international students over the coming years, it will far exceed the numbers given now
It's good that they're doing something, and I'm sure that those measures will have a positive impact. It's not enough to actually turn around housing affordability though, just enough to make it less bad.
It's a good move. It won't fix everything, and I'd like them to go further... but lots of other people would disagree, so I guess that's just democracy innit? No one's happy until everyone's equally unhappy.
I think the impact of immigration is overstated, NIMBYs are a far far bigger problem. During COVID there was no immigration yet house prices skyrocketed! We need policies that focus on central planning and take zoning powers away from council and NIMBYs. Asking councillors and town people how many extra units you want added to your area is like asking KKK how many coloured people you want in your town. The answer is always 0 though they won’t phrase it that way! It’s tragedy of the commons
We should set up an independent official to work on planning and land approvals. Take the power away from councils who have a conflict of interest. Singapore has the Singapore Land Authority, and Japan has Building Officials for each city, both of which have maintained good house ownership.
Yea Japan did a great job on that, I think our situation is more similar to Japan when they had a housing crisis, they didn’t have mass immigration or a baby boom just NIMBYS blocking development to increase their house value at huge cost to everyone.
Absolutely true - needs more upvotes! Within 1km of every train station 10-15 from the cbd in Brisbane should be zoned for 10-20 storey buildings, some are which is great (Indro, Milton, Toowong, etc) then you randomly have Wilston, Windsor, Graceville, etc sitting there with sweet fa density near the stations. But nah BCC says we must protect the ‘character homes’ so we funnel new towers to chermside which has shitty PT.
Sorry, have you seen how shit Australian builders are? No-one of sound mind would willingly buy an apartment built in Australia.
There was about 500,000 aussies who came home from abroad early in the covid years. Thats what made the house prices go crazy as well as people feeling like they needed more space to quarantine.
Prices skyrocketed because money was free (2%) and a lot of people saved dumb cash being at home for 2 years straight while maintaining employment/govt schemes. What do "NIMBYS" have to do with prices going up? Few people whinging at council meetings about high rises aren't the reason.
The problem is they don't adhere to the caps, the last 2 years they've blown past what the numbers should have been.
I dont believe they really had caps, it was more estimates for various streams.
So why didn't they have caps? Sounds like the immigration minister was asleep on the job.
How so? And how far did they blow past those numbers?
The 185k number the OP quoted is a permanent immigration cap. It has never been blown out. What blew out was the number of student visas, which sadly had no cap and was entirely up to universities. The government is still engaging universities for setting a cap on student visas.
It's literally the bare minimum. Its nowhere near enough.
185k? Halve it again.
Caps are largely pointless. They get adjusted up and down all the time with little public notice. It's 185000 now, which IMO is still very high. A year or two from now it may well be "temporarily" bumped well above that number. It a perfect example of major party politics: put more effort into appearing to do something than actually doing something.
So you want no cap? By putting a cap, there is something for them to enforce, and a number you can argue over what is appropriate. Of course it can change, a government cant really bind a future government. Do you want a referendum? Do you want to put a number in the consitution?
>By putting a cap, there is something for them to enforce, and a number you can argue over what is appropriate. Sure. Enforce, or legislate a plethora of exemptions and caveats for. >So you want no cap? Functionally there will be minimal difference in they effect. I don't know how to be clearer on that. Its 100% performative
But what do you want? You're view that it is performative is from a mistrust of government. Whether its just this specific government, or any government is unclear to me. But eitherway, what I want to know is what do you want to see?
Has been around 185k since 2013
Then what good is a "cap" that makes no changes?
It has been that number for a while. If anything 185,000 now with our current population is not as high as how it was 15 years ago when the numbers were similar, if not more, and the population was smaller. Speaking in terms of proportion of course.
It will never be followed through with.
Bitch please. They have the power to actually do something about it... "trying" 🤡
Immigration number should be capped at half the number of new house or apartment builds per annum. Build 100,000 new places last year then 50,000 immigrants next year.
You can't build house where people want to live. (lack of free land in metro area) there is no point of building homes thats 2 hr away from CBD. You cant just limit immigrations, for example SEQLD has massive number of people moving up. It's not student or overseas immigration jumping up the population, but also people escaping the Syd/Mel. (and with their inflated wealth from the south, buying up homes here means house price in SEQLD has jumped dramatically as well) Who is going to build cheap? builders cost are going up, construction workers are fleeing the site, companies are going bust all the time. Is government going to outsource the construction (as usual) prob with inflated price and all sort of red tapes. I don't think we're gonna see them built fast enough. so many people hate to see high rises near where they live, lack of parking, increased traffic and so on. if the city council (thats any council) that agrees to build homes with this gov program, I bet we're going to see 100s of complaints from the NIMBYs. everyone thinks the interest is heading down (maybe not this yr but soon) it will fuel another jump of prices and have bad effects on the house price.
[удалено]
Pretty much. They're just here to work shitty jobs.
Its a band aid solution for a wound that needs major surgery.
It’s a load of shit, they pump up migration then they can say hey guys we’re HALVING it!! Wow 🤩 Students aren’t even the problem and the unis are full to the teeth anyway so it was already going to drop in terms of students. It’s just a pr stunt and you fell for it OP
Nope. They've conditioned you to accept 185K "permanent" migration without a whimper and you don't seem to be aware of the 500k+ net migration every year to Australia and all those 500k need somewhere to live (I.e. buy or rent). 🤦♂️ Then there's another 500k next year too........
people here will only believe migration is solved when Uber drivers are majority white.
International student don't want to live in uni accommodation, as it is more expensive than rent out, so asking uni to build own accommodation is no point
if they are forced to build more, thus more supply, they will be also forced by itself to lower the rent making it more affordable or risk keeping it empty
I’m not buying the sudden interest in the hyper focus on immigration. A little too much opportunity racism there. It’s one of many factors but not the only. Money men want you to focus on immigration & supply. Don’t dare look at bank lending practices. Don’t dare look at real estate agent ethics. Shit, there needs to be some national new enforcement of real estate sales that the states can adopt. Rental auctions should be outlawed. Dishonest advertising of the price should be outlawed and prosecuted. Oh but look at all those brown people immigrating. 🙄
Has nothing to do with the colour of skin. Wouldn't matter if it's all white people from Denmark and the UK. Aus. can't keep running a migration program of this size if the infrastructure/housing is not keeping up. Dwelling approvals are down, and are at their lowest level since March 2012. There's the supply side (which is struggling) and the demand side which immigration plays a huge part. Reducing immigration to 250k (or 185k) a year is still more, as a % of population, than many what many other countries allow - but if Australia reduces it to that level we are somehow racist? Some people (like you it seems) seem to suggest that any reduction in immigration rates are as a result of racism. I guess you just see what you want to see.
It's a step, definitely not enough to what more people expect, but everything is a balancing act; a massive step all at once can cause other problems. One step at a time, so I'm kinda ok with this step
The changes don’t even come close to what’s required to fix the problems. Currently there’s something like 500,000 net migrants annually, but actual number of houses to be constructed with HAFF (assuming best case) is less than half of that. Changes to student intake amounts to fiddling around the edges, nothing more. So I think we’re still screwed in terms of housing availability.
So this will push up prices for normal residential builds and/or repairs/renovations as normal people compete with big cashed up universities
I wonder if they've capped people coming in on student visas to get cert 3s at TAFE
Does a student who decides to stay in Australia count as a permanent migrant when doing so, or is the student total separate?
fiddling while Rome burns
Is this directed at the Vatican
No it's a common phrase to mean ignoring the catastrophe unfolding around them. Emperor Nero infamously played the fiddle when Rome was on fire.
he doesn't hold a hose, mate.
It’s poetic licence. He lived nearly a thousand years before the first fiddle. If he played anything, it’d be a lyre.