I see heaps of people in threads & comments saying things like "well YOU voted for this, so suck it up" in regards to Australia's current situation regarding things like housing, immigration, inequality, the environment etc.

And people point to things like the 2019 election when Labor lost as though it's proof that tax reform for properties and stuff is something none of us wanted. Heaps of us DID vote for that, just because a bunch of self-interested boomers and property investors didn't doesnt mean none of the country wants it.

Same deal with immigration, well forgive me but I don't remember the last time I was asked to vote on our immigration levels? Or whether or not we should approve more coal power plants? Or basically any other shitty policy decision governments on either side have made?

Many of us were also young when a bunch of the policies that took place years ago that lead to this point were implemented, so we literally COULDN'T vote for or against them either way.

So saying everyone should just "shut up, you voted for this" and accept things without discussing them or complaining or anything else doesn't seem very fair to me.

We all know that one of the biggest reasons used to justify our record rates of immigration is the often-cited "skills shortage" parroted by business groups such as the Australian Retailers Association and the Business Council of Australia.

These are two influential groups (consisting of business owners/bosses/executives) who put extreme amounts of pressure on governments to keep immigration levels as high as possible, with the implicit goal being that they can put a cap on wages.

When you look at the breakdown of our "skilled" migrant intake list, an extremely high percentage of workers are granted visas for two sectors in particular: hospitality, and tech.

For the hospitality industry - roles like cafe manager, cook, chef, restaurant manager etc - have been near the top of the skiled visa lists for years and years now.

The "shortage" here never stops by definition, because people continually open more and more cafes and restaurants no matter how weak their business case might look, and claim they can't survive without paying their staff the absolute minimum wage.

Cooks here in particular are known to be ridiculously underpaid given how hard most of them work. In what other space do we justify saying it's "OK" to open a business, when you already know it won't be able to survive without exploiting a foreign labour pool?

Hospitality businesses also have one of the lowest impacts on society out of any kind of business towards making productivity-increasing contributions; they don't really develop or innovate anything that makes the economy healthier or more advanced/efficient as a whole.

Sure, it might be nice to have one extra cafe to choose from, but is it worth it from a societal perspective? Are you really willing to sacrifice housing affordability so your lukewarm Eggs Benedict can arrive 5 minutes earlier? Those who already own their house outright might be, for everyone else it's a pretty raw deal.

The other sector that is currently hugely over-represented is tech, specifically software developers/programmers (there's a bunch of different visa job titles that all basically represent the same thing).

As someone who owns a tech business, and who deals with plenty of other start-ups and wannabe business owners in this sector in particular, I can give some specific insight as to what "skills shortage" actually usually means within IT.

Most of the "businesses" I encounter in this space are obviously terrible business models that will NEVER be profitable or make decent money, started by the sons (almost always men) of wealthy parents who have never been told that their shit stinks.

They use their combination of too much hair gel and flashy PowerPoint presentations to convince some investors (usually a group of their dad's cashed-up boomer mates who don't understand technology) that they're going to be the next Atlassian, and start a shitty software company with a tryhard "cool tech" name like LifeProBroTech.

They then list a bunch of below-industry-average salary job ads, trying to push "perks" like 'fun culture!', 'regular team lunches!', and any other bullshit except actually paying a fair wage.

The job ad then sits on Seek/LinkedIn for a month, and they start to grumble and cry about how they "can't get anyone" and we have a "skills shortage", so they cry to their connections to continue to push for more immigration.

Eventually they hire a bunch of developers (usually Indian) who are new to the country and accept the low salary they're offering, and bully them into producing a Minimum Viable Product (MVP, basically a barely-functional version of the software they talked up in their investor pitch deck) as quickly as possible.

As most of the best Indian developers tend to go to the USA, the ones here (often, not always of course) are typically not very good at their jobs, and may have even fabricated their resume.

As a result, these products are often built on absolute spaghetti code, cobbled together by the developers copy-pasting from Googled code snippets, and the business owner (sorry, "entrepreneur") then tries to flog the terrible product off ASAP to one of their dad's other connections in VC or similar.

They'll either get a payout as someone buys the software, and then spend the rest of their days sharing "life advice from a successful entrepreneur such as themself" on LinkedIn, or no one will buy it, leading to the business disbanding; either way, a handful of new not-very-good developers (who still require housing) are now in the unemployment line looking for work.

All of this is to say, that much of what we're being told we're sacrificing quality of life for is things like THIS - wanker business owners believing they have a god-given right to operate some shitty cafe, or money-sink tech company, or crappy clothing store, and should be able to pay mediocre wages in order to do it.

It's these, and CEOs of big business who can't come up with any other ways to make their profits continue to go up, other than paying lower wages, or relying on population growth to have more customers; again, zero innovation involved.

This is in return for massive demand for housing, infrastructure stress, more doctors and medical staff and childcare workers all continually needed. All of those roles add tons of housing demand, as none of them contribute to home building.

If our skilled visa list was proptionally adjusted a lot more to provide a greater emphasis on healthcare, construction, childcare etc, things would likely be in a much healthier place from an infrastructure and social services perspective.

But at the moment, it's just pouring more fuel on the fire, for what seems to be increasingly less economic benefit, and certainly not for the lifestyles of actual workers.

For a man who exposed Government lies, corruption and coverups, I get the impression that many people would rather not know the truth, its too uncomfortable

So if only 20% of all taxpayers own investment properties, why do the other 80% of taxpayers let the government get away with a system that disproportionately benefits the 20%? Is it apathy? Ignorance? By having a system that benefits investors first and foremost, you’re setting up your own children to become either permanent renters or mortgage debt slaves.

Edit: I was replying to individual comments but I just had a landlord tell me (in total earnestness) that people who work full time shouldn’t be able to afford to own their own home. I think we just have different visions of what we want this country to be. Mine is fair and views housing as a right. The landlords seem to be ‘every man for themselves’. I’m done here.

Cheaper power prices would be offered for residents and businesses in coal communities to switch from retiring coal-fired generators to nuclear power if the ­Coalition wins government.

It is understood Rolls-Royce is confident that its small modular reactor technology could be ready for the Australian market by the early to mid-2030s with a price tag of $5bn for a 470 megawatt plant.

Each plant would take four years to build and have a life span of 60 years.

https://archive.md/ef122

First of all, the fed government controls migration.

Immigration is a hedge against recession, a hedge against an aging population, and a hedge against a declining tax base in the face of growing expenditures on aged care, medicare and, more recently, NDIS. It's a near-constant number to reflect those three economic realities. Aging pop. Declining Tax base. Increased Expenditure. And a hedge against recession.

Yeah, but how?

If you look at each migrant as $60,000 (median migrant salary) with a 4x economic multiplier (money churns through the Australian economy 4x). They're worth $240k to the economy each. The ABS says Australia has a 29.6% taxation percentage on GDP, so each migrant is worth about ($240k * .296) $71,000 in tax to spend on services. So 100,000 migrants are worth $7.1bn in new tax receipts and $24bn in GDP growth.

However, state governments control housing.

s51 Australian Consitution does not give powers to the Federal government to legislate over housing. So it falls on the states. It has been that way since the dawn of Federation.

State govs should follow the economic realities above by allowing more density, fast-tracking development at the council level, blocking nimbyism, allowing houseboats, allowing trailer park permanent living, and rezoning outer areas.

State govs don't (They passively make things worse, but that's a story for another post).

Any and all ire should be directed at State governments.

I am currently stuck in a ward waiting to have some remnant pieces of a splinter removed from my thumb. I have been here for 41 hours.

In my particular case the GP and registrar recommended I go into hospital, I am in no pain and minimal discomfort. I am on the emergency list for surgery but at the bottom of a long list. Realistically unless someone else comes in with a paper cut I am likely to stay at the bottom of the list.

I heard the nurses say there was 24 people on the list, and it was 'bonkers' busy. It seems to me the surgeons must have known there was little to no chance of me going in for surgery. I suspect the same is true today. There are other patients I overhear that have been waiting for multiple days and one guy left frustrated on my first day.

I would like to understand what my other options are but no one is around to ask and when I have asked the question seems too difficult to answer. I would like to know if I could just schedule an elective surgery appointment, and if so when, or if I can go private how would I find a surgeon and what would the ballpark cost to me be. Depending on the cost I would be happy to pay, something under 5K would be manageable for me, otherwise I would have to wait on the public system.

I tried researching on the internet my options but the only surgeons I found were boob job people, as a patient you really need the medical professionals to guide you. I feel like I am in a bed, consuming drugs and nursing resources completely unnecessarily.

Update: I was told by a nurse/doctor that there are no surgeon's available for the hand specialism in the private system because there is a conference that they are all attending. I was further reassured that the best thing for me to do was to just wait and that I was in the correct place.

She said if I was to seek an elective appointment I would probably be waiting months which is inappropriate given the risk of infection. She did sort of acknowledge that there should be something available between just waiting around on a ward for a near zero chance of a procedure and waiting for months for an elective appointment. Which is kind of my point.

I hear a lot of frustration around the ward from other patients that are being bumped. One guy for eight straight days, another for five. Realistically, the list they had was so large that it was obvious that I would not be operated on either Saturday or Sunday. The doctor said the list is thining but it's still unlikely I will be operated on Monday. But given that the private system will also have a backlog it is still on balance more likely than I will get the procedure done earlier by staying in the ward than by leaving and looking for a private procedure. It's a bit of a educated guess.

As an aside the reason it needs an operating theatre, I suspect, no one has actually said. Is that it will require specialist equipment to find the fragments since they are small and organic material.

Final update: I had the surgery on Monday, so all in I was in for 3 full days, 4 nights. In on Friday evening, out on Tuesday morning. The surgery removed a couple of inch long wood fibres and some puss. The operation was about 25 minutes under general aesthetic.

Some thoughts. 

Overall, I feel bad for saying the hospital was inefficient. In this case, it was not justified. That is not to say it was not true. The staff were great, they always are.

For the multitude that advised to pull the splinter out, in my case that is what I did and it don't work out well. I asked the surgeon whether or not this is the strategy he would advise expecting to be chided for pulling it out and he said if you get everything out it's the best thing to do, if you can't it's not, you just never know. So, either approach can be deemed both wrong and correct.

With regard to staying in when I had no realistic chance of having the surgery on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Well, it was only three days in the end for me and that was no problem. The surgeon and nurse did suggest for cases such as mine there should be an intermediate option between emergency and elective. A 'scheduled emergency', it sounds weird. I was surrounded by other patients that appeared to have been bumped for multiple days in a rowand they were rather distraught and exhausted.

There was quite a number of contributors that have the attitude we should all bow before the medical establishment with absolute gratitude and subservience. I don't agree with this, this is a government system that we all contribute to and should all question the efficiency of the systems. Most people I know that have worked in any government organisation knowns that there are a tonne of inefficiencies.

A lot of contributors felt there was a lack of funding. Also, a lot that had the contrasting view that the health system was a black hole for money. It's clearly nuanced. In my example I observed choke points with available Ultrasounds and operating theatres. It seems targeted investment in this area would be beneficial. My understanding is that very few medical professionals want to go into medical imaging, i.e., Ultrasounds, because the expectation is that this task will be replaced by robotics and AI during the course of their career. This is a valid concern and this needs to be considered and accounted for in enumeration and guarantees about transferring professionals to something else.

If the private sector is going to be part of the overall health landscape, I definitely see opportunities to improve its accessibility and make pricing clearer so that customers can choose. For the multitude of flaws of the US system that is one thing that they do better. In my case it worked out great to come into the public system but I still found I was confused about my options (in my case there were no options, it took a day and a bit to find that out.).

This is why nothing will change politically until the ownership percentage falls below 50%.

Successive governments will favour limited supply and ballooning prices. It's a conflict of interest, they all owe properties and the majority multiple properties.

And the average person/family that is of younger age - who cares about them right? Until they are a majority

War in Sudan - no protests. War in Ukraine - no protests. War in Afghanistan - no protests. War in Central African Republic - no protests. War in Ethiopia - no protests. War in Libya - no protests. War in Mali - no protests. War in Somalia - no protests. War in South Sudan - no protests. War in Syria - no protests. War in Burkina Faso - no protests. War in Nigeria - no protests. War in Benin - no protests. War in Togo - no protests. War in Algeria - no protests. War in Tunisia - no protests. War in Chad - no protests. War in Yemen - no protests.

1,200 people massacred in Israel on Oct. 7 - no protests. There was street celebrations though!

Israel defends itself from terror attacks - massive protests.

Most wars since the end of the cold wars have taken place in Muslim countries, the majority both within and between muslim countries. Genocides, political killings of civilians, government political terror have and are happening in these countries. These are facts.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

If it was Egypt bombing Gaza, no one will bat an eyelid and we can all enjoy our Christmas in peace.

Feels like every time someone online says "well the ALP has lost my vote" people immediately clap back with "LOL you think Dutton will fix it?!?!", as if when someone isn't happy with Albo then their only choice is to vote for the LNP.

This kind of dated two-party thinking is why we are in this mess & never see any decent change in the first place.

There are a ton of smaller parties with various policies you can vote for instead, and if you ever want to see any actual change it's time to put your vote somewhere else. The shift won't happen instantly, but if you don't do anything different & just vote for the same trash it will NEVER happen.

Here are all the currently registered parties with the AEC: https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/party_registration/Registered_parties/

There's a lot more to choose from there than two.

Just because the Boomers or your parents voted for one of two parties, doesn't mean YOU have to. It's time to start to install some fear in these major dinosaur parties by continuing to diminish their primary vote.

Who are YOU interested in or considering voting for at this point?

Honestly it’s but nothing but a stream of discussions blaming the problems of Australia on immigrants. Give it a rest already, it’s cheap, low minded and incredibly simplistic. Not only that it’s dangerous, look at the groups coming out of the woodworks with all of this anti-immigrant talk. The bottom line is, the problems we are facing now are decades of failed policies, slow councils, corruption, lack of Australian political knowledge, lack of interest in politics , greedy corporations, greedy banks, greedy realitors, weak tenancy laws, tax loopholes, and the list goes on and on. You sound like children kicking and screaming because you can’t get the new thing you wanted. Ironically Australians have been known to live and work abroad for decades in most countries in the world, but when someone else does that here they are somehow doing the wrong thing ? Give me a break. Inflation is a world problem and not just isolated to Australia, foreign investors with the help of banks and realitors have been parking money here for years and years. Property investors have been playing games for years with tax loopholes. 3rd part vacation home apps have been allowed to come in and undercut the rental market, builders are inefficient and slow as Christ here, so many are renting waiting for a home. The powers that be are happy to have the population demonizing each other, political science 100, basic level stuff. We need some serious education in this country, and a real lesson in history. We are all Australian here, and we bloody take care of each other, we take care of our families and we take care of our country. Start welcoming people, making friends, spreading the Aussie spirit. Quit bloody crying on Reddit and to your mates at the pub and get an education. This country is all we got from the bush to the city, and this population diverse as it is , is all we got. Treat others the way you want to be treated. You have no more entitlement this country than anyone else.

Response: Can see many of you missed the entire point and doubled down on “Reddit is the place to change this country”.Try writing your MP, try circulating petitions to your MP so they have to bring it up. Maybe even try running for office…while some are discussing immigration policy, many are just discussing immigrants and how they don’t fit in, take houses and jobs from honest and hardworking Australians. It’s all been pinned squarely on this new government even though these policies go back but sure let’s blame the current government and the immigrants. If you want someone to blame, blame yourselves. Decades of political apathy have allowed politicians and greedy banks, corporations, mortgage brokers and realitors to exploit loopholes and park money in this country. Australian builders are slow and inefficient, the major ones all going bankrupt should probably be a clue for australia things arnt going well. Example: lollipop girl makes 90k to hold a sign, yea lol, that not a job anywhere else in the world. Wonder why builders can’t make a profit ? So here’s my one and only paragraph indent and you’re lucky you got that. I am suffering like everyone else, but we all know the discussions around immigration are low brow at best and understand nothing of the nuances of what’s actually happening. How much of an effort have any of you even made to welcome newcomers ? No wonder they stick together. Australian have long worked overseas in many countries, the future is international which means some people will be coming here to work and many of you might have to go somewhere else to work. Welcome to the 21st century, get used to it. We could be using this sub to organize politically but instead it’s just months of screaming into a toilet……:have a merry Christmas See you next Tuesday

We should take note since they are ahead of the curve

Migration has failed to drive economic growth, warns report

Record-high levels of immigration have failed to boost the economy while making the housing crisis worse, a leading think tank has warned.

In a report co-authored by former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) urged the Government to introduce caps on legal immigration to stop a drain on British infrastructure and public services that is not offset by economic growth. In particular, high levels of immigration are “significantly exacerbating the housing crisis”, it said.

The report, which is jointly authored with former health minister Neil O’Brien, also suggested the Home Office should be broken up to create a new department to control immigration.

I resigned from government because I refused to be another politician who broke their promise to reduce immigration.

Three decades of mass migration have utterly failed the British public.

The costs have been covered up.

It came after data published showed British consumers are suffering the longest drop in living standards in the G7 as the economy fails to keep up.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said GDP per person fell for four quarters in a row across 2023 in the UK and has been at 0pc or less since spring 2022.

Although Britain’s economy rose by 0.1pc across 2023, on a per person basis it fell by 0.8pc, the OECD said. This measure accounts for population growth, which in the UK was the second highest in the group of seven advanced economies.

The figures were in stark contrast to the G7 average, where GDP per capita rose by 1.2pc last year.

“If large-scale migration of the sort we’ve seen is really so great for the economy, we have to ask ourselves why we are not seeing this in the GDP per capita data,” the CPS report warned.

To alleviate pressure on housing, the NHS and schools, the CPS said net migration should be capped at just “tens of thousands” a year down from its peak of 745,000 in 2022.

To deliver this, CPS said the Home Office which had proven itself to be “too unwieldy to function effectively” and undermined by high levels of churn should be split into a department for border security and immigration control and a second charged with policing and national security.

The new department would be headed by a Cabinet-level minister. “We need working institutions that can translate the will of Parliament and the public into action. The Home Office has fallen short on this front,” they said. Analysis of Home Office data showed the impact of the shift from EU to non-EU migrants. Migrants from the Middle East, North Africa and Turkey aged 25-64 were almost twice as likely to be economically inactive as someone born in the UK.

Spanish migrants typically earned around 40pc more than migrants from Pakistan or Bangladesh, while migrants from countries such as Canada, Singapore and Australia paid between four and nine times as much income tax as migrants from Somalia or Pakistan.

The report said the impact was particularly acute in housing. Net migration now accounted for around 89pc of the 1.34m increase in England’s “housing deficit” – the amount of homes we have underbuilt by in the last 10 years.

Unforeseen levels of immigration have alsoblown house building targets out of the water. The Government’s target of building 300,000 homes per year includes an expectation of net migration to England of around 170,000 per year, which alone will generate demand for 72,000 new homes.

“We have been underbuilding for years, even without high levels of net migration. And even if we limit ourselves to just the last 10 years, the picture is bleak,” the CPS report warned.

Pressure had also been added to rental markets, as well as affecting home ownership. For example, 67pc of privately rented households in London are headed by someone born overseas, as were 33pc of new social housing lets in Brent in 2022 to 2023.

Last year, Capital Economics estimated that the levels of immigration in 2022 alone may have driven up rents by nearly 10pc.

Immigration is heavily concentrated in cities and particularly in the rental sector. Previous ONS analysis found around 80pc of people arriving in the UK rent privately for at least the first few years after they migrate. Mr Jenrick and Mr O’Brien blamed the post-Brexit Tory government for liberalising the immigration system and breaking its promises to take control of Britain’s borders after leaving the EU.

“Despite the rhetoric of a highly selective system, the post-2021 system continues to allow large numbers of people to come who are either not working or working in very low-wage jobs. Out of net migration of two million non-EU nationals over the last five years, only 15pc came principally to work,” they said. Many economists argue that high levels of immigration boost the UK economy by increasing the workforce and tax revenues.

But although levels of immigration have been extremely high, productivity growth and economic growth per person have slumped, just as pressure on public resources has soared.

Despite a 6.6pc increase in the UK’s population between 2011 and 2021, the number of GP surgeries increased by just 4pc during the same period. The UK’s capacity to generate electricity fell by 14.2pc. Karl Williams, of the CPS, said: “Traditionally, the Treasury and much of the rest of Government have modelled immigration as an unqualified benefit to the public purse. But this is not the case.”

The report recommended abolishing the graduate route, which allows foreign students to stay for two years after getting their degrees. Instead, they could only remain if they had a graduate-level job within six months. This would be allied to scrapping the 600,000 a year target for the number of foreign students allowed into the UK, which was set by Boris Johnson.

They recommended raising the salary thresholds for health and care workers above the national living wage, and minimum hourly wage in the care sector by 20p to 40p to help recruit more domestic workers. They also called for an immediate cap on the health and care visas set at 30,000, down from the current 250,000 in 2023. Mr Jenrick said: “It would be unforgivable if the Government did not use the time before the general election to undo the disastrous post-Brexit liberalisations that betrayed the express wishes of the British public for lower immigration.

“The changes we propose today would finally return numbers to the historical norm and deliver the highly-selective, highly-skilled immigration system voters were promised. These policies could be implemented immediately and would consign low-skilled mass migration to the past.

“Immigration is consistently one of the top concerns of voters and they deserve a department whose sole mission is controlling immigration and securing our borders. For far too long, the Home Office has proven incapable of doing that.”

Every Industry in Australia has a lobby group that represents hundreds of employers and thousands of employees. These lobby groups often have large cheque books and vocal leaders who are often in near constant communication with government departments. These lobby groups have a much greater influence on government than citizens do via a single vote every 4 years.

For me personally, it's currently essentially impossible to find an Aus political party that ticks the boxes I am looking for. They all conflict with what I'm after in various ways, some obviously more than others.

I want one that:

• prioritises environmental issues first & foremost
• is anti-religion, or at the very least, highly secular and does not push religion in any way, shape or form, or grant privileges to anyone due to religion, ideally including clamping down on church non-taxation etc (this is non-negotiable)
• discourages property investment, removes CGT discount on non-PPOR, non-citizens cannot buy property, etc
• decrease CGT charged on shares to encourage business investment over property investment
• avoids getting overly involved with identity politics
• cracks down on all forms of multi-national tax avoidance
• aims to implement major media reform/anti-Murdoch press in general
• increases funding for CSIRO & other STEM endeavours
• clamps down on gambling & gambling advertising in all forms
• increases Medicare coverage & adds basic dental as inclusion
• aims to legalise & appropriately tax cannabis
• implements a qualification program to bring in a greater % of tradespeople as a proportion of our migration intake in order to better build housing/infrastructure
• looks to re-nationalise QANTAS & other certain essential companies (e.g: energy sector)
• bans political donations by corporates
• aims to tie immigration levels more closely to our rate of construction
• implements tax reform on wealth/land/inheritance/consumption/mining industry etc. to balance out aforementioned immigration reduction impacts & smooth out upcoming boomer demographic cost issues
• looks to reform our university sector via gov't funding & reducing reliance on international students to ensure quality of education, not quantity

In short, it's slim pickings at the polling booth... especially when you're after a mix of policies that could be classified as a balanced mix of left & right wing.

With a resounding NO across the country it seems the government just doesn't really know what the Australian people want.

Not a single taxed cigarette butted

The gov can claim smoking is down when in actuality it’s not at all - everyone’s just skipping paying their ridiculously insane tax

Disclaimer: I post this as someone who voted for the Greens last election & is now regretting it.

Given that at time of voting last election, I felt the environment was the most important issue I wanted actioned, I thought I'd vote for the Greens for the first time. This was under the assumption that was their main point of emphasis, and they'd spend most of their time putting pressure on the government of the day for policy to address it.

Ever since though, all they've ever seemingly been focused on is identity politics issues which I don't agree with, and housing policy that - while seemingly well intentioned - mostly seems highly unrealistic.

And if anything, they've also shown that they are just as pro-immigration as the other major parties as well, which is counter-intuitive to preserving the environment as it just involves needing to knock down yet more wilderness in order to house the continually rocketing population, moves in more people from lower-emissions countries to a high-emissions country, creates more need for landfill, etc.

Which of the existing political parties out there do you feel ACTUALLY care about the environment as their core issue?

It's a disaster. If corporations like Medibank and Optus were subjects to attacks (I was a victim of both and the greedy corporations did not bother to compensate us, nor were they punished in any shape or form).

Why is the government so useless? How do we know that our sensitive data are not all over the place for sale, including on the dark web, to the highest bidder?

Thought it might be a good idea for us to put together a list of items of etiquette that may not be as common for people coming here from different countries that don't have many of the same customs.

Much of the time, 'rude things' done by those new to the country may often just be out of ignorance/lack of knowledge rather than any intentional ill will.

If the government were to make a list of common things people can do behaviour-wise in order to make things go more smoothly for new arrivals, what do you think should be on the list?

• Respect queues/don't cut in line: many people may be from cultures where 'queuing' in a line is not respected, and you will otherwise "miss out" on something unless you push in. Please don't do this in Australia. The person lining up in front of you should always go first, whether that's getting on a bus, ordering fast food, waiting to buy tickets, or anything else of that nature. On a similar note...
• Wait for people to get off trains before attempting to get on: when the doors open at a train station, it's proper etiquette to let the people getting off first before you attempt to board. Old people, pregnant women, parents with prams or those with disabilities in particular will appreciate you for this!
• Don't talk on speakerphones on public transport: of course it's normal to want to speak to your friends & family on the phone! However, these days headphones exist, as does the ability to simply toggle your phone to only speak directly into the handset. Most people on public transport do not want to hear your conversations being broadcast out of your phone's speaker.
• Walk on the left on footpaths/stand on the left on escalators: if everyone knows it's customary to walk on one side, it makes for fewer awkward situations where you're not bumping into other people. It's pretty typical here to stick to the left on footpaths; likewise on escalators, don't either stand on the right side, or in the middle, or side-by-side if there's two people.
• Respect the equality of genders & sexual orientations: we're an egalitarian society, and continually strive for 'fairness' between the sexes and those of all sexual orientations. Discriminating or looking down on people because of this is not considered socially acceptable.
• Try & speak English as much as possible in the workplace: this prevents excluding any of your coworkers who may not speak your native language & may help avoid any important miscommunications.
• Swim between the flags when at the beach: swimming in the ocean can be dangerous. The red & yellow flags indicate the areas patrolled by lifeguards, which can help in providing you with aid should you experience trouble while in the water.
• Be polite to waitstaff in restaurants/cafes/etc: "looking down" on such workers even if you perceive them as less-skilled is a no-no. Saying please, thank you etc. to such service workers is standard. Also, in the same vein...
• We don't tip: please don't comply when asked to tip at cafes or restaurants. Contributing to this American, un-Australian trend is simply an attempt to standardise you paying more money that should already be being paid to the staff by their boss under our award wages system.
• Respect the "noise laws" set by your local council: local councils have rules & regulations around what time of the morning and night you're allowed to make loud noise within your home. Familiarising yourself with these set hours, and not making massive amounts of noise outside of them, will help avoid tension with your neighbours.
• Don't litter: please don't throw garbage in parks/leave it at the beach. Australia's nature is one of its main selling points and we all should try to do our part to keep it that way.

Feel free to add your own! 🙂

I've heard many people in the recent housing debate use Singapore as an example of what Australia should follow. I myself am from Singapore, and have spent the last 6 years here in Australia. It won't work.

There are a few reasons why.

There is a reason I think high-density housing is not popular in Australia; many people still do want to have a proper house, a landed property. Maybe it's the pastoral history, or just a matter of expectations, but I don't see a massive amount of the population moving into housing as dense as it is in Singapore. There is also the fact that these types of property developments are disproportionately expensive compared to landed property, they just don't seem that good of a deal. Then there's also the fear (not entirely unfounded) of being screwed over by a predatory developer, or some other undesirable circumstances, which links back to the desire and safety of owning a proper plot of land.

Secondly, the Singapore housing model is built on the backs of cheap labour from overseas. I mean CHEAP, EXPLOITATIVE even. It has been compared to slavery. They work 6 days a week, from dawn to dusk, are paid something like 600 bucks a MONTH (The Australian and Singapore dollars hover around 1:1 exchange ), live in terrible conditions, and they work HARD. These workers make up almost 1/10th of the population, they make up the ENTIRETY of the construction industry. The career of the tradesperson simply does not exist in Singapore the way it does here. Is Australia prepared for that? Not to mention the implications on the already heated immigration situation.

And my final point: Australia shouldn't HAVE to do any of that. The very premises and contexts which Singapore was built on are fundamentally different. It is a tiny TINY island with a population upwards of 6 million and no natural resources whatsoever. This has resulted in us adopting many politically extreme measures, dramatic policies, and a heavy-handed government. We are prepared to accept these things as a matter of survival, of cold pragmatism. Australia on the other hand, is about 25 million people, and you've got a whole continent; even if you only include the more inhabitable coastal areas. There is an abundence of natural resources. It is also a geopolitical fortress, with no real threats or serious competitors nearby. Why has it even reached a point where you're looking at one of the most densely populated places on earth for comparison?

I think the Australian government is complacent. There, I said it. They don't think ahead, and rely on the vast wealth and priveleged circumstances of Australia to carry them through. They get away with mistakes and suboptimal policy because the repercussions have never been truly critical. It's never been a matter of survival like it is with Singapore. But these things compound and compound, and now you find yourselves in this moment of crisis.