A101 wrote:

And everyone on that list had a bitch and gripe, because they did something stupid and were forced to leave or in the French case because of a losing contract in which he knew something was up, and it was the Americans who told the PM when he can let the French know of the nuc submarine deal. Macron Was shown to be lose with the truth. You actually expect it from politicians

Fair dinkum you should have heard the stuff I use to say about my bosses over the years. Not much different

Morrison’s colleagues are publicly destroying the guy. I’ve never seen any PM PUBLICLY destroyed by members of his own party whilst still in power. This is unprecedented. Just wait until the election is over and (hopefully) his fired MPs take off the gloves and fully unleash on him. I’ll be glorious to watch

A101 wrote:

Best decision Scomo made in defence he put Australia first politics second, I would have kept those cards close to my chest as well , certainly not playing politics it was to get the best capability we can, I certainly would not have trusted the ALP to keep it quite with Wong and Co

Why would Penny Wong not be trusted on National Security? What you’re implying there is disgusting.

[twoid][/twoid]

sierrakilo44 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Best decision Scomo made in defence he put Australia first politics second, I would have kept those cards close to my chest as well , certainly not playing politics it was to get the best capability we can, I certainly would not have trusted the ALP to keep it quite with Wong and Co

Why would Penny Wong not be trusted on National Security? What you’re implying there is disgusting.

Then he had the gumption to criticise me as well.

Matt Kean today was trying to say people shouldn’t vote for these teal independents otherwise it will destroy the moderate part of the liberal party. That’s not for us voters to sort out, the LNP has to clean up its own internal mess and decide if it wants to be a far right wing party of conspiracy theories and cranks, or a traditional fiscal conservative free market party. It’s interventions to try and prop up failing power plants are the stuff of Soviet times. What next, a Minister for Coal?

If voters listen to Kean, then it only says to LNP that it’s all okay, then the moderates in the party will get trampled on again, as usual.

cpd wrote:

Matt Kean today was trying to say people shouldn’t vote for these teal independents otherwise it will destroy the moderate part of the liberal party. That’s not for us voters to sort out, the LNP has to clean up its own internal mess and decide if it wants to be a far right wing party of conspiracy theories and cranks, or a traditional fiscal conservative free market party. It’s interventions to try and prop up failing power plants are the stuff of Soviet times. What next, a Minister for Coal?

If voters listen to Kean, then it only says to LNP that it’s all okay, then the moderates in the party will get trampled on again, as usual.

The LNP made that decision when they turfed out Turnbull and his moderates and installed a fundamentalist conservative in his place whilst also putting a wannabe dictator as head of the military.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

cpd wrote:

Matt Kean today was trying to say people shouldn’t vote for these teal independents otherwise it will destroy the moderate part of the liberal party. That’s not for us voters to sort out, the LNP has to clean up its own internal mess and decide if it wants to be a far right wing party of conspiracy theories and cranks, or a traditional fiscal conservative free market party. It’s interventions to try and prop up failing power plants are the stuff of Soviet times. What next, a Minister for Coal?

If voters listen to Kean, then it only says to LNP that it’s all okay, then the moderates in the party will get trampled on again, as usual.

The LNP made that decision when they turfed out Turnbull and his moderates and installed a fundamentalist conservative in his place whilst also putting a wannabe dictator as head of the military.

What you’re implying there is disgusting

He certainly is no Xi Jinping

Dutton, the guy who fearmongered about “African gangs” causing people in Melbourne to be afraid to go out at night which was ridiculed by people in Melbourne posting pictures to social media showing them going out at night.

Dutton, the guy who wants school kids to take an “oath of allegiance”

Dutton, who supports further criminalisation of cannabis

Dutton, who wants the government to decide who can and can’t marry

Dutton, who wanted white immigrants prioritised in migration

That guy?

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Dutton, the guy who fearmongered about “African gangs” causing people in Melbourne to be afraid to go out at night which was ridiculed by people in Melbourne posting pictures to social media showing them going out at night.

The actual quote was

“Dutton stoked controversy when he said some people in Melbourne were afraid to go out to dinner at night because of gang violence.”

And he is 100% correct in what he was saying thee are places in Melbourne I’d be very weary to go, even the Victorian police minister at the time said there was a problem with gang violence

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Dutton, the guy who wants school kids to take an “oath of allegiance”

What’s the problem with that?

It’s instilling a sense of pride to be Australian

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Dutton, who supports further criminalisation of cannabis

I actually agree with it, it’s is an illegal substance after all.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Dutton, who wants the government to decide who can and can’t marry

Well for it to be legal needs to be legislated by the Government, every one has differing views on that, religious or otherwise

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Dutton, who wanted white immigrants prioritised in migration

When you actually put it in the correct context when he said, I agree with him. It was in reference to white South African farmers being in farm attacks and murders.

Australia has always opened the door to people in need, it’s just a pity that some abuse the situation like the Sudanese gang problems . There rotten eggs in every mob that’s why I support sending these people back because they do not respectful chance they were given

sierrakilo44 wrote:

That guy?

That guy was right on the money in all of the above

Dutton may be “right on the money” on those who hold his narrow worldview, but even the most ardent Liberal powerbroker knows he’s electoral poison and too far right to be electable.

It’s 50/50 if he keeps his seat, and if the Coalition lose, and Frydenburg is kicked out (a likely possibility) then it is custom for the losing PM to resign the party leadership, and if Dutton survives he’ll be a prime candidate for that job.

There has never been a new opposition leader post an electoral defeat who went on the become PM in Australian history, so it doesn’t bode well for Dutton’s ambitions.

If the Coalition lose and without Frydenburg there’s really no other candidate for leader

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Dutton may be “right on the money” on those who hold his narrow worldview, but even the most ardent Liberal powerbroker knows he’s electoral poison and too far right to be electable.

It’s 50/50 if he keeps his seat, and if the Coalition lose, and Frydenburg is kicked out (a likely possibility) then it is custom for the losing PM to resign the party leadership, and if Dutton survives he’ll be a prime candidate for that job.

There has never been a new opposition leader post an electoral defeat who went on the become PM in Australian history, so it doesn’t bode well for Dutton’s ambitions.

If the Coalition lose and without Frydenburg there’s really no other candidate for leader

No one with name recognition to the wider public, but they’d have three years to work on that. I’d expect someone from Morrison’s “centre-right” faction to pop up (Alex Hawke, Ben Morton) who will be Scott-lite but a majority of the party will support them to keep Dutton out. It will be Brendan 2.0 and like Nelson they might not make it to the next election.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Dutton may be “right on the money” on those who hold his narrow worldview,

That's an interesting comment, so its a narrow point of view to actually to actually want to stop gang violence(law & order), help people settle in Australia from being persecuted ( should we stop the Afghans from entering as well?) through the offshore Humanitarian Program, enforce and deter people using illegal substance(Law & order) instill pride knowing you are part of the lucky country

So can I safely say the ALP is against all that?

sierrakilo44 wrote:

but even the most ardent Liberal powerbroker knows he’s electoral poison and too far right to be electable.

So why on earth have they endorsed him for so many years, he has been an MP for quite some time

sierrakilo44 wrote:

It’s 50/50 if he keeps his seat,

Its always a risk that you might not get the numbers, part and parcel when you nominate yourself

sierrakilo44 wrote:

and if the Coalition lose, and Frydenburg is kicked out (a likely possibility) then it is custom for the losing PM to resign the party leadership, and if Dutton survives he’ll be a prime candidate for that job.

There has never been a new opposition leader post an electoral defeat who went on the become PM in Australian history, so it doesn’t bode well for Dutton’s ambitions.

If the Coalition lose and without Frydenburg there’s really no other candidate for leader

Well that's up to the electorate and the liberals to decide in the future, anything could happen, just have to look at the last federal election, betting markets even paid out 2 days before the election when Shorten lost the unlosable election

I have to give kudo's to both mainstream parties to try and help people buy there first home, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who have property here and in the UK.

But its annoying how the ALP are complain that the Governments scheme will push up prices, yet fail to see there own scheme will also impact prices.

Only real down side I think is the ALP exposes the taxpayer to losses if people start defaulting on loans and they cannot recover costs


But least both sides are trying

A101 wrote:

I have to give kudo's to both mainstream parties to try and help people buy there first home, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who have property here and in the UK.

But its annoying how the ALP are complain that the Governments scheme will push up prices, yet fail to see there own scheme will also impact prices.

Only real down side I think is the ALP exposes the taxpayer to losses if people start defaulting on loans and they cannot recover costs


But least both sides are trying

The problem with the Coalition scheme is not only will it push up prices it’ll also raid people’s super balances when they are younger. Take out 50% when they are in their 30s and by their 60s their super will be worth half as much.

That means in they future government spending on the elderly will go up, taxes will go up, or the retirement/super access age is increased. You could be forced to work to 70/75 before getting benefits, and paying increased taxes to fund more pensions as everyone used their super to buy a house 30 years ago.

Letting young people raid their super accounts now for short term gain but long term pain only benefits the property industry and short sighted politicians wanting another 3 years.

A terrible, terrible idea.

I saw a stat that $50k at 30 would be worth $330k at 65, assuming 7% compounding annually.

Taking money out of Super is always a dicey decision as it could have long term repercussions on your quality of life in retirement. In this instance taking money from Super is lunacy as it will lead to rising house prices, and therefore largely negate any benefit for all but the first movers.

A cross-party review led by Liberal MP Jason Falinksi expressly cautioned against this approach in March, only two months ago. The only group really in support today was the Propety Council (shock) and every independent economist panned the proposal.

Morrison’s language that “it’s your savings, you’re entitled to it” is quite deceptive. He said the same in 2020 when people raided their Super but hadn’t lost any income. The Super Funds are NOT banks. They are not run like banks, they manage their portfolio differently to banks, and - crucially - have much lower ongoing liquidity than banks. Every time the government unilaterally decides that people are can access their savings early, the Super Funds have to change their investment model to keep more cash on hand to be able to pay out withdrawals. This cash earns low or zero returns, but prevents the fund from making an equivalent investment in higher returning assets. Therefore everyone is worse off in retirement, as a higher proportion of the fund was not generating target returns.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

A101 wrote:

I have to give kudo's to both mainstream parties to try and help people buy there first home, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who have property here and in the UK.
But its annoying how the ALP are complain that the Governments scheme will push up prices, yet fail to see there own scheme will also impact prices.
Only real down side I think is the ALP exposes the taxpayer to losses if people start defaulting on loans and they cannot recover costs
But least both sides are trying

The problem with the Coalition scheme is not only will it push up prices it’ll also raid people’s super balances when they are younger. Take out 50% when they are in their 30s and by their 60s their super will be worth half as much.

The ALP scheme does nothing for property prices as well, well I understand the implications of taking out money early in super, but that is also an investment for their future as owning a house at retirement will have a better quality of life than not.

You have to look at it as a Self-managed Super Fund, the only difference is you actually live in the house, The ALP scheme mean you will never have 100% equity in the house. Least with the Coalition scheme if you sell the house then those funds are being returned to your super fund along with a portion of the capital gains or if you remain in it until you retire and down size you recoup your investment with the price difference at time of sale. unlike the ALP scheme where you pay the government back along with 40% of the capital gains and with the government have the cost to implement the program its likely there will be no return of investment for the government

sierrakilo44 wrote:

That means in they future government spending on the elderly will go up, taxes will go up, or the retirement/super access age is increased. You could be forced to work to 70/75 before getting benefits, and paying increased taxes to fund more pensions as everyone used their super to buy a house 30 years ago.

You are only bringing that forward as the ALP scheme will rely on borrowed money its self, the cost to the taxpayer will be approx. 7 billion with interest payable by the government on those billions.

Irrespective the ALP will have to either increase taxes to pay for the scheme or the continued increase to Australia net debt which could have negative consequences to the official retirement age, and the government will always lose money because they are not receiving any benefits from the investment in the short term directly or indirectly,

RyanairGuru wrote:

I saw a stat that $50k at 30 would be worth $330k at 65, assuming 7% compounding annually.

Yet according to a stat by Aussie Home loans, Over the past 25 years, the median house value nationally has risen by 412%, or $459,900.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Taking money out of Super is always a dicey decision as it could have long term repercussions on your quality of life in retirement.

If you can afford not to do it I agree its best to leave money parked in your super fund, but out of the two schemes I think using super will have a better long term benefit to you than the ALP scheme as you are still 100% invested in your own equity, unlike the ALP scheme

RyanairGuru wrote:

In this instance taking money from Super is lunacy as it will lead to rising house prices, and therefore largely negate any benefit for all but the first movers.

Nothing in the ALP scheme will do to reduce pressures on the rise of house prices either all its doing is increasing the competition between 1st home buyers who are subsidised by the government and those who are 100% self-financed

RyanairGuru wrote:

A cross-party review led by Liberal MP Jason Falinksi expressly cautioned against this approach in March, only two months ago. The only group really in support today was the Propety Council (shock) and every independent economist panned the proposal.

I imagine a lot of these independent economist would be from the super funds themselves and the Unions as that’s were a majority of unions funds come from industry super funds

RyanairGuru wrote:

Morrison’s language that “it’s your savings, you’re entitled to it” is quite deceptive.

He is not wrong either, it is their money

RyanairGuru wrote:

He said the same in 2020 when people raided their Super but hadn’t lost any income. The Super Funds are NOT banks. They are not run like banks, they manage their portfolio differently to banks, and - crucially - have much lower ongoing liquidity than banks. Every time the government unilaterally decides that people are can access their savings early, the Super Funds have to change their investment model to keep more cash on hand to be able to pay out withdrawals. This cash earns low or zero returns, but prevents the fund from making an equivalent investment in higher returning assets. Therefore everyone is worse off in retirement, as a higher proportion of the fund was not generating target returns.

At the end of the day, they are not releasing 100% of the money to first home buyers only a portion, but yes I understand what you are saying. That also does not take into account people now have a small degree on how much their super fund can work for them in the level of risk, so the funds have to follow advice from the funds holder if they are taking an active interest into it.

Stats show on average that there are about 120000 1st home buyers per year, the ALP scheme is discriminatory whereas as the Coalition is not. At this time the ALP scheme is only open to 10000 people that means that on average 110000 people cannot move out of the rental cycle and instead are forced to pay either dead money on rent or increased interest payments on there property.

Also, the ALP scheme will have a negative impact on a majority of 1st home buyer’s those same buyers who will be squeezed out of the market because they have to service 100% of their debt while those lucky enough to be part of this scheme only need to service 60% of the debt, so they can afford to bid higher for the same property even though the rest of their circumstances are the same. The ALP creating inequality to our most vulnerable when they are starting out and are actually inflating the cost of homes

A101 wrote:

I have to give kudo's to both mainstream parties to try and help people buy there first home, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who have property here and in the UK.

But its annoying how the ALP are complain that the Governments scheme will push up prices, yet fail to see there own scheme will also impact prices.

Only real down side I think is the ALP exposes the taxpayer to losses if people start defaulting on loans and they cannot recover costs


But least both sides are trying

Both ideas are bad, especially the super one. I didn’t raid my super, I had to save money. But my super will serve me when I’m older.

Stop partying so much, less takeaway large extra weak soy flat lattes and smash avocado.

Under years of the same wall to wall LNP fake conservative governments loads of people have learned to become entitled, be it boomers or others.

cpd wrote:

A101 wrote:

I have to give kudo's to both mainstream parties to try and help people buy there first home, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who have property here and in the UK.

But its annoying how the ALP are complain that the Governments scheme will push up prices, yet fail to see there own scheme will also impact prices.

Only real down side I think is the ALP exposes the taxpayer to losses if people start defaulting on loans and they cannot recover costs


But least both sides are trying

Both ideas are bad, especially the super one. I didn’t raid my super, I had to save money. But my super will serve me when I’m older.

Stop partying so much, less takeaway large extra weak soy flat lattes and smash avocado.

Under years of the same wall to wall LNP fake conservative governments loads of people have learned to become entitled, be it boomers or others.

Yep I worked my ass off to get were I am no help either. But if the the government made it it a bit easier to get to that position without increasing the national debt then its up to the individual how they invest their own money. nothing to say if they were smart that they can also put some of the intrest saving from the home loan into Super even if it is only $20 a week

Federal Labor will go to the election on Saturday promising larger debt and deficits than the Coalition

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/la ... 516-p5allh

The Australian Financial Review understands debt and deficit will be larger than that of the Coalition, consistent with Labor’s rhetoric of recent months about the need to prioritise the quality of spending over quantity.

Yet they complain about the national debt under the coalition unbelievable


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQeylDdL6bc&t=3s

Right on the money again

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Take out 50% when they are in their 30s and by their 60s their super will be worth half as much.

I meant to address this earlier, no that's not the case at all.

They can move 40% or a maximum of $50000, whereas the ALP is subsidising the loan to a maximum of $380000

If you or I invested 40% in an investment property, we’d also receive 40% of the rental income. Under Labor’s plan, the government won’t. Taxpayers will therefore gift up to 40% of the rent the occupier would otherwise have paid – worth up to around $15,000 a year – forever.

https://theconversation.com/super-for-h ... are-183113


Also @RyanairGuru

The concept is similar in principle to a recommendation of the recent parliamentary inquiry into housing affordability, chaired by Liberal MP Jason Falinski, calling for super balances to be used as collateral for home loans.

This is a far bigger bigger risk than the $50000 put up via super you not only have the risk of defaulting on home loan but your Supper is put up insteand of mortgage lenders insurance, so you run the risk of no home and no super

What would you rather risk......... 40% or 100%



https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... ity/Report

I'm not a fan of the first home buyer policies of either of the major parties - apart from the fact that both will push up the value of my property. Fuelling demand without increasing supply can see only one outcome.

Plus the Coalition policy is another nail in the coffin of the super system they irrationally hate.

The challenge for Labor is that they will be inheriting the "bucket" that the Coalition cut a big hole in, with massive spending plus the egregiously stupid Stage 3 tax cuts. It will be interesting to see how Labor addresses this, given they have been the party of overall sound economic management for at least 40 years.

A101 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

I saw a stat that $50k at 30 would be worth $330k at 65, assuming 7% compounding annually.

Yet according to a stat by Aussie Home loans, Over the past 25 years, the median house value nationally has risen by 412%, or $459,900.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Taking money out of Super is always a dicey decision as it could have long term repercussions on your quality of life in retirement.

If you can afford not to do it I agree its best to leave money parked in your super fund, but out of the two schemes I think using super will have a better long term benefit to you than the ALP scheme as you are still 100% invested in your own equity, unlike the ALP scheme

RyanairGuru wrote:

In this instance taking money from Super is lunacy as it will lead to rising house prices, and therefore largely negate any benefit for all but the first movers.

Nothing in the ALP scheme will do to reduce pressures on the rise of house prices either all its doing is increasing the competition between 1st home buyers who are subsidised by the government and those who are 100% self-financed

RyanairGuru wrote:

A cross-party review led by Liberal MP Jason Falinksi expressly cautioned against this approach in March, only two months ago. The only group really in support today was the Propety Council (shock) and every independent economist panned the proposal.

I imagine a lot of these independent economist would be from the super funds themselves and the Unions as that’s were a majority of unions funds come from industry super funds

RyanairGuru wrote:

Morrison’s language that “it’s your savings, you’re entitled to it” is quite deceptive.

He is not wrong either, it is their money

RyanairGuru wrote:

He said the same in 2020 when people raided their Super but hadn’t lost any income. The Super Funds are NOT banks. They are not run like banks, they manage their portfolio differently to banks, and - crucially - have much lower ongoing liquidity than banks. Every time the government unilaterally decides that people are can access their savings early, the Super Funds have to change their investment model to keep more cash on hand to be able to pay out withdrawals. This cash earns low or zero returns, but prevents the fund from making an equivalent investment in higher returning assets. Therefore everyone is worse off in retirement, as a higher proportion of the fund was not generating target returns.

At the end of the day, they are not releasing 100% of the money to first home buyers only a portion, but yes I understand what you are saying. That also does not take into account people now have a small degree on how much their super fund can work for them in the level of risk, so the funds have to follow advice from the funds holder if they are taking an active interest into it.

Stats show on average that there are about 120000 1st home buyers per year, the ALP scheme is discriminatory whereas as the Coalition is not. At this time the ALP scheme is only open to 10000 people that means that on average 110000 people cannot move out of the rental cycle and instead are forced to pay either dead money on rent or increased interest payments on there property.

Also, the ALP scheme will have a negative impact on a majority of 1st home buyer’s those same buyers who will be squeezed out of the market because they have to service 100% of their debt while those lucky enough to be part of this scheme only need to service 60% of the debt, so they can afford to bid higher for the same property even though the rest of their circumstances are the same. The ALP creating inequality to our most vulnerable when they are starting out and are actually inflating the cost of homes

Fair points, and not disagreeing outright. I agree that Labor’s policy is also pretty poor, and both increase demand without addressing supply. Realistically both will fuel house prices.

Morrison claims that his ‘downsizer’ scheme will assist with supply, but it doesn’t, it just shuffles the deck chairs. This scheme will likely assist second time buyers, upsizing from an apartment to a family home, but then pits first home buyers against cashed up downsizers (with millions in capital growth, at least in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne) for smaller houses and apartments. If anything this will further exacerbate affordability issues for first home buyers.

An under-appreciated aspect of both policies is they they just kick the ‘deposit issue’ (the single biggest hurdle for first home buyers) down the road and still leave those who take advantage of these policies at a material disadvantage. When they sell their first home to upsize to a larger home, they have to repay the initial benefit, be it to the government or to their superannuation. Therefore they have less equity, and therefore less of a deposit, to buy a larger house. Generally speaking, second time buyers rely on the equity in their existing home for their ‘deposit’ and don’t stump up much in the way of savings. People using the proposed schemes, be it the ALP or LNP model, will need to continue saving while paying their mortgage to be in the same position.

There are two things that will help address housing affordability: supply and tax reform. However, there are a lot more mortgage holders (roughly 11 mil) than first home buyers (110,000 pa) so anything that might reduce house prices is not a vote winner.

Labor ran on a tax reform agenda in 2019, but it allowed the Liberals to run an almighty scare campaign that lost them the election. Labor are now too scared to go near the issue with a six foot poll, and it’s likely off the agenda for at least a decade. It will realistically require a future Labor government to have the balls to run a “referendum” on tax reform in their second term, as John Howard did on GST in 1998.

With regards to supply, the answer is not green field urban sprawl. Property developers love it as it’s ‘easy’ development, but it creates a myriad of other issues from transport to health and education. At the other end of the scale, the answer isn’t necessarily more high rise towers in large retail and commercial precincts as this doesn’t really help families.

New Zealand adopted a fairly radical proposal in Auckland (coupled with tax reform, they were two sides of the same coin) where the entire city was rezoned as medium density. This allows for the construction of townhouses and smaller detached houses on relatively large blocks of established housing. This allows for larger properties than apartments, without pushing people into the mortgage belt to commute for 2 hours. The below article is quite an interesting look at the Auckland model, how it could work in Canberra, and why it will almost certainly never happen in Australia.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-08/ ... /100974080

A101 wrote:

And you are Quoting a 2007 article, and it was acknowledged on the last page that you were right

Difference here is that the ALP is campaigning lowering the debt, but in actual promises they will increase the debt, just like they wanted to continue Jobkeeper support which would have increased the debt further

But it lacked your size=200 formatting!

Kent350787 wrote:

Plus the Coalition policy is another nail in the coffin of the super system they irrationally hate.

My thoughts as well, I'm very cautious on super - I need that for when I retire, hopefully to live a comfortable retirement. That's important for me.

It appears the irresponsible LNP stage 3 tax cuts might be blocked anyway, I would support them being stopped as a first election winning priority to turn around and immediately stop them - and make a big noise about doing it too. That's what I would do. I also hate these ideas that will put fuel on the housing prices fire. We need to take the heat out of that, even though investment owners will hate it - they rely on values going up, and actually I benefit from it too because my place has a pretty large value also.

Kent350787 wrote:

Labor .... will be inheriting the "bucket" that the Coalition cut a big hole in, with massive spending

That was a deliberate bomb set by the LNP probably because they knew they were on the way out and nobody will hold them accountable for it.

Kent350787 wrote:

Plus the Coalition policy is another nail in the coffin of the super system they irrationally hate.

This is something I have never understood.

We seemingly have retirement income ass-backwards in Australia. The Labor Party considers compulsory superannuation, where retirement income is basically outsourced to the private sector, as sacrosanct, while the free-market Liberals hate this policy, and would seemingly prefer that people relied on the aged pension.

Compulsory superannuation had the potential to make the aged pension almost entirely redundant, and with an ageing population that seems quite desirable. However, the various tax breaks implemented by the Howard government mean that the ‘lost’ revenue is now almost as high as the cost of the aged pension, and will likely overtake it this decade. This has created a structural deficit in a policy that was designed to completely avoid such an eventuality.

About ninety percent of the superannuation tax concessions flow to the top ten percent of income earners, effectively creating a state-sanctioned tax evasion scheme. It’s a short-term election winner, as even those who can’t afford to put more aside ‘aspire’ to do so, but permanently harms the budget position. It’s policies like this which always make me shake my head in amazement when the Liberals generally, and Howard in particular, are lauded as superior economic and fiscal managers.

RyanairGuru wrote:

This is something I have never understood.

We seemingly have retirement income ass-backwards in Australia. The Labor Party considers compulsory superannuation, where retirement income is basically outsourced to the private sector, as sacrosanct, while the free-market Liberals hate this policy, and would seemingly prefer that people relied on the aged pension.

I would say that’s more due to the fact the Liberals have been lobbied enough by the Property industry they prioritise the Property industry’s goals over anyone else’s. The Property industry has always hated the fact people have money locked away in retirement funds, they’d rather them use that money now to push house prices up even further.

And secondly because it’s Labor who brought in Superannuation, and the Liberals are now at the point they just want to slowly erode the things Labor bought in, like Medicare, the NDIS and the NBN. It’s their ideology

It’s policies like this which always make me shake my head in amazement when the Liberals generally, and Howard in particular, are lauded as superior economic and fiscal managers.

If there’s one thing the Liberals are good at it’s conning people to believe they are the “best economic managers”, even if they want to destroy people’s retirement incomes (a much greater hit than Shorten’s changes to negative gearing would have been). Decades of buying off the media help.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Fair points, and not disagreeing outright. I agree that Labor’s policy is also pretty poor, and both increase demand without addressing supply. Realistically both will fuel house prices.

I agree 100%, both are inflationary but if it gets people over the line, I’m all for it

RyanairGuru wrote:

Morrison claims that his ‘downsizer’ scheme will assist with supply, but it doesn’t, it just shuffles the deck chairs. This scheme will likely assist second time buyers, upsizing from an apartment to a family home, but then pits first home buyers against cashed up downsizers (with millions in capital growth, at least in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne) for smaller houses and apartments. If anything this will further exacerbate affordability issues for first home buyers.

Agree it’s only marginal proposition as its naturally evolving anyway, it just gives people more incentive to downsize where they can whereas before it may have an effect on the age pension or health benefits cards being cash rich not asset rich.

RyanairGuru wrote:

An under-appreciated aspect of both policies is they they just kick the ‘deposit issue’ (the single biggest hurdle for first home buyers) down the road and still leave those who take advantage of these policies at a material disadvantage. When they sell their first home to upsize to a larger home, they have to repay the initial benefit, be it to the government or to their superannuation. Therefore they have less equity, and therefore less of a deposit, to buy a larger house. Generally speaking, second time buyers rely on the equity in their existing home for their ‘deposit’ and don’t stump up much in the way of savings. People using the proposed schemes, be it the ALP or LNP model, will need to continue saving while paying their mortgage to be in the same position.

I think its more of a disadvantage in the ALP scheme as they will defiantly lose 40% of the value, of the investment price so those on that scheme will most likely not sell up, it will also most likely make it harder to bequeath as the government will want its money back plus its share of capital gains.
The Coalition scheme means putting that money back into super and depending on how long you reach retiring age there still is the option of using the super to payout any remaining debt on the loan, with the right financial planning its possible to do it with the ALP scheme as well.
I know quite a few who are using that financial planning. I think the main ticker with all this well I can’t see you be able to keep the 1st house as an investment property without having to pay the Government back, but I think its might be possible on the coalition scheme

RyanairGuru wrote:

There are two things that will help address housing affordability: supply and tax reform. However, there are a lot more mortgage holders (roughly 11 mil) than first home buyers (110,000 pa) so anything that might reduce house prices is not a vote winner.

100% agree, as that also has retirement implications, they can tinker around the edges like the are doing but its not really going to amount to much as its all about perceptions for both mainstream parties. You can see that in the media interviews style over substance

RyanairGuru wrote:

With regards to supply, the answer is not green field urban sprawl. Property developers love it as it’s ‘easy’ development, but it creates a myriad of other issues from transport to health and education. At the other end of the scale, the answer isn’t necessarily more high rise towers in large retail and commercial precincts as this doesn’t really help families.

That comes down to local government town planning, but you are right. There is still a lot of land available in the greater Sydney area but that needs to be planned before hand

RyanairGuru wrote:

New Zealand adopted a fairly radical proposal in Auckland (coupled with tax reform, they were two sides of the same coin) where the entire city was rezoned as medium density. This allows for the construction of townhouses and smaller detached houses on relatively large blocks of established housing. This allows for larger properties than apartments, without pushing people into the mortgage belt to commute for 2 hours. The below article is quite an interesting look at the Auckland model, how it could work in Canberra, and why it will almost certainly never happen in Australia.

I am not familiar with the NZ property market, but I don’t think that would work in Australia at the federal level due to the separation of powers between states and the Federal Government under the Constitution, NZ is a unitary state without a codified Constitution.

I think one has to be weary with zoning powers that can create its own inflationary pressures, I have seen areas where the local council rezoned then the property itself price went sky high just because of the potential to subdivide the block. It may work in Canberra because overall its only a relatively small area whereas Sydney is 5.26x bigger than the area of the ACT.

But it would make an interesting case study
https://mapfight.xyz/map/act/

sierrakilo44 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

This is something I have never understood.

We seemingly have retirement income ass-backwards in Australia. The Labor Party considers compulsory superannuation, where retirement income is basically outsourced to the private sector, as sacrosanct, while the free-market Liberals hate this policy, and would seemingly prefer that people relied on the aged pension.

I would say that’s more due to the fact the Liberals have been lobbied enough by the Property industry they prioritise the Property industry’s goals over anyone else’s. The Property industry has always hated the fact people have money locked away in retirement funds, they’d rather them use that money now to push house prices up even further.

If one really wanted to be that cynical one could make the argument that Bob Hawke with his affiliations with the ACTU was lobbied and pressured into the SGR and with all the union industry Super funds which rack in big bucks for the unions which then they then donate to the ALP

Not sure on the make up of Albo front bench, but the last front bench under Shorten had 40% former trade union officials

Polls are tightening. Labor’s primary vote down by 3% resulting in 51:49 2PP. This is within the margin of error.

Déjà vu vibes. We’re back in 2019.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5am44.html

Went to vote today, to find that my enrolment details hadn’t been updated despite registering before the cut-off. The polling station staff said a lot of people had the same issue, which is interesting as I haven’t heard anything from the AEC admitting any issues or warning people of this.

I therefore voted in the division of Canberra, where I used to live, which is one of the safest ALP seats in the country (17% 2PP lead). The upshot was being able to vote for David Pocock in the Senate.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Polls are tightening. Labor’s primary vote down by 3% resulting in 51:49 2PP. This is within the margin of error.

Déjà vu vibes. We’re back in 2019.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5am44.html

LNP is going to reap the rewards of its profligate and irresponsible spending when it gets in power and interest rates keep going up. Fingers crossed they win.

Maybe LNP and One Nation grand coalition… with Palmer as well?

cpd wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Polls are tightening. Labor’s primary vote down by 3% resulting in 51:49 2PP. This is within the margin of error.

Déjà vu vibes. We’re back in 2019.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5am44.html

LNP is going to reap the rewards of its profligate and irresponsible spending when it gets in power and interest rates keep going up. Fingers crossed they win.

Maybe LNP and One Nation grand coalition… with Palmer as well?

As I said in my initial post in this thread, I lean “teal”, a Turnbull Liberal for want of a better word. I don’t identify with either major party in their current guise.

On the one hand, I despair at the thought of another three years under Morrison. On the other hand, maybe it’s the least-bad option as it avoids three years of the Liberals wailing from opposition about debt, deficit, interest rates, how Labor is tanking the economy etc. If the Liberals have to sleep in the bed they made, and Labor come back with a more inspiring leader and a better agenda, that might be better than a one-term Labor government followed by a revived Liberals who have swerved even further to the right after they’re stripped of the moderates.

As it is, I agree with A101 that Labor in a minority government seems the most likely outcome. With 25% of votes already cast, probably more with postal votes that have been mailed but not received, I think that does help “bake in” an ALP advantage and also helps the teals before moderate Liberals get cold feet. The flip side is that the people who have already voted probably aren’t the undecided vote, and that could break for Morrison as it did in 2019.

The fascinating thing to watch will be if Labor can woo a couple of teal independents so they don’t have to negotiate with the Greens. People overstate the Labor-Greens alliance, and while preferences generally flow between the two, the two parties institutionally hate each other. Albanese in particular is vehemently anti-Green, always has been, as they are Greens rather than the Liberals are the party that could unseat him in Grayndler.

Edit: Labor shouldn’t necessarily be scared of minority government. Yes, the budget is littered with traps that could tarnish them, but the Palaszczuk government in Queensland formed a minority government in 2014, went on to win a majority in 2017, and then increased its majority in 2020. Yes, state governments tend to lean Labor just as the federal government tends to lean Liberal, and yes Covid played a big role in 2020, but the point I’m making is a good minority government can win a majority in its second term. Political discourse generally says that a government starts with a landslide and then slowly loses popularity, but that isn’t always the case.

This isn’t really an edit to my last post, but rather an additional thought.

The ABS releases wage growth data tomorrow. That will determine the talking points for the last three days.

If wages grew faster than 3% then the Liberals can say that the economy is humming along nicely and wage growth is largely offsetting cost of living increases, and they win the election.

If wage growth is 2.5% or lower then the ALP will hammer the message that the government is not addressing cost of living concerns, and they win the election.

As it is, economist expectations are in the 2.5-3% range so we will have to see how this washes out.

RyanairGuru wrote:

On the one hand, I despair at the thought of another three years under Morrison. On the other hand, maybe it’s the least-bad option as it avoids three years of the Liberals wailing from opposition about debt, deficit, interest rates, how Labor is tanking the economy etc. If the Liberals have to sleep in the bed they made, and Labor come back with a more inspiring leader and a better agenda, that might be better than a one-term Labor government followed by a revived Liberals who have swerved even further to the right after they’re stripped of the moderates.

They said the same in 2019.

Labor goes with Shorten and a big agenda and they lose. “Get a more relatable leader like Albo you can have a beer with and adopt a small target strategy” - they do and they still lose.

I’ve said it from the start but the media in the tank for the Coalition.

Also it seems the terrible “Super for Houses” bribe is pushing people over to vote for the Liberals, even though it’ll just push up prices and rob people of retirement money. But our society has becoming greedy, wanting more money NOW, and can’t wait for retirement. The Liberals know this, they know they can bribe people to win for another 3 years and when the bill has to be paid for a generation without Super they won’t care as they’ll all be on taxpayer funded pensions.

If we had a decent media they’d make the public aware of this. They aren’t.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

On the one hand, I despair at the thought of another three years under Morrison. On the other hand, maybe it’s the least-bad option as it avoids three years of the Liberals wailing from opposition about debt, deficit, interest rates, how Labor is tanking the economy etc. If the Liberals have to sleep in the bed they made, and Labor come back with a more inspiring leader and a better agenda, that might be better than a one-term Labor government followed by a revived Liberals who have swerved even further to the right after they’re stripped of the moderates.

They said the same in 2019.

Labor goes with Shorten and a big agenda and they lose. “Get a more relatable leader like Albo you can have a beer with and adopt a small target strategy” - they do and they still lose.

I’ve said it from the start but the media in the tank for the Coalition.

Also it seems the terrible “Super for Houses” bribe is pushing people over to vote for the Liberals, even though it’ll just push up prices and rob people of retirement money. But our society has becoming greedy, wanting more money NOW, and can’t wait for retirement. The Liberals know this, they know they can bribe people to win for another 3 years and when the bill has to be paid for a generation without Super they won’t care as they’ll all be on taxpayer funded pensions.

If we had a decent media they’d make the public aware of this. They aren’t.

I give 75% of the blame to the media and 25% to Morrison’s PR skills. Morrison never answers a question he doesn’t want to answer, but often pivots to saying something completely unrelated but still making it sound like he is addressing the issue. If he doesn’t know the answer then he word vomits statistics which makes it sound like he knows something. Yes, the media should try and hold him accountable, but he is so skilled at this that it often takes a few seconds to process what he said.

Morrison is a marketing man through and through, and unfortunately that works very much in his favour during an election campaign.

If you hear the BS from the first word he says then you aren’t the demographic he is speaking to.

With regards to Labor, I have been disappointed with Albanese. He is a thoroughly decent person, a genuine credit to the parliament and to his party. However, he has been an abysmal leader. Yes, I understand the 2019 issue, but Labor has only won federally three times since the Second World War. Whitlam, Hawke and Rudd all ran inspiring campaigns built around the core idea that the country could be better. While all three followed a tired Liberal government that was running out of steam, all three had a bold agenda that the public bought into. Albanese has toyed with that message around the edges, but his basic premise is “I’m not Morrison”. I think it’s false to say that Labor cannot win with a big agenda, they only ever have when they tried, but they do need to find a way to cut through to people. McGowan cuts through, Malinauskas does, and Andrews and Palasczuk as well to a lessor extent. Even Minns in NSW in making the NSW ALP more competitive than they’ve been in over a decade.

I don’t believe the issue is Labor, rather it’s finding the right message the resonates with people. When the bushfires have been largely forgotten by the general population, the vaccine rollout was sooo 2021, and RATs are in plentiful supply, Morrison has done just enough to detoxify his brand, as the issues that really tripped him up are sliding into the past. “I’m not Morrison” is less potent now than it was six months ago. Sadly most voters have a short attention span.

A friendly reminder not to change the font size, thanks.

RyanairGuru wrote:

I don’t believe the issue is Labor, rather it’s finding the right message the resonates with people. When the bushfires have been largely forgotten by the general population, the vaccine rollout was sooo 2021, and RATs are in plentiful supply, Morrison has done just enough to detoxify his brand, as the issues that really tripped him up are sliding into the past. “I’m not Morrison” is less potent now than it was six months ago. Sadly most voters have a short attention span.

Apart fomr Albanese not cutting through for whatever reason, Labor attempted to run a small target but posiitve campaign, whereas the Coalition knew it was on the back foot fomr the start and came out blazing with attack ads.

This attack masked the failure of their current term, so they're almost being judged as a new Government, rather than a failed third term Government.

The pivot by Morrison last week to his own "I'm not Morrison", I will change message was telling and pathetic, and I can't conmprehend why he hasn't been hammered and hammered and hammered on that total BS.

Wage growth was weaker than expected, only 0.7% for the quarter and 2.4% annually.

This morning Morrison fell back into the trap he tripped over last week, trying to explain in quite detailed terms why wage growth shouldn’t match headline inflation. While his points on this issue are somewhat rational from an economic perspective, Labor’s message that Morrison doesn’t want you to be paid more is potent and sticks because it’s a simple message while Morrison’s explanation is much more technical.

Morrison’s ‘I’ll change’ and super for homes tactics changed the narrative late last week after Labor’s message on minimum wage stuck, but he has now made the exact same mistake. For a marketing man I’m shocked he can’t see the glaring hole in his approach. Regardless, I think the poor wages growth swings things back towards a Labor majority.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Wage growth was weaker than expected, only 0.7% for the quarter and 2.4% annually.

This morning Morrison fell back into the trap he tripped over last week, trying to explain in quite detailed terms why wage growth shouldn’t match headline inflation. While his points on this issue are somewhat rational from an economic perspective, Labor’s message that Morrison doesn’t want you to be paid more is potent and sticks because it’s a simple message while Morrison’s explanation is much more technical.

Morrison’s ‘I’ll change’ and super for homes tactics changed the narrative late last week after Labor’s message on minimum wage stuck, but he has now made the exact same mistake. For a marketing man I’m shocked he can’t see the glaring hole in his approach. Regardless, I think the poor wages growth swings things back towards a Labor majority.

I don’t think that will make a difference, I think LNP have this won, the recent opinion poll also suggested they might get home to victory, although News Corp opinion writer Joe Hildebrand was at pains to point out that the poll was wrong.

A lot of people have already voted so they won’t be swayed by this.

cpd wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Wage growth was weaker than expected, only 0.7% for the quarter and 2.4% annually.

This morning Morrison fell back into the trap he tripped over last week, trying to explain in quite detailed terms why wage growth shouldn’t match headline inflation. While his points on this issue are somewhat rational from an economic perspective, Labor’s message that Morrison doesn’t want you to be paid more is potent and sticks because it’s a simple message while Morrison’s explanation is much more technical.

Morrison’s ‘I’ll change’ and super for homes tactics changed the narrative late last week after Labor’s message on minimum wage stuck, but he has now made the exact same mistake. For a marketing man I’m shocked he can’t see the glaring hole in his approach. Regardless, I think the poor wages growth swings things back towards a Labor majority.

I don’t think that will make a difference, I think LNP have this won, the recent opinion poll also suggested they might get home to victory, although News Corp opinion writer Joe Hildebrand was at pains to point out that the poll was wrong.

A lot of people have already voted so they won’t be swayed by this.

The polls show that there is still a substantial undecided vote. For the politically disinterested voter, the hip pocket wins. If Labor hammer wages, wages, wages they can peel off a decent portion of those undecideds.

As it is, the national polls are even less reliable than normal as there are so many seats that won’t be a clear ALP:LNP 2PP. In some ways this campaign has disintegrated into 8 or 10 seperate bi-elections.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Wage growth was weaker than expected, only 0.7% for the quarter and 2.4% annually.

This morning Morrison fell back into the trap he tripped over last week, trying to explain in quite detailed terms why wage growth shouldn’t match headline inflation. While his points on this issue are somewhat rational from an economic perspective, Labor’s message that Morrison doesn’t want you to be paid more is potent and sticks because it’s a simple message while Morrison’s explanation is much more technical.

Morrison’s ‘I’ll change’ and super for homes tactics changed the narrative late last week after Labor’s message on minimum wage stuck, but he has now made the exact same mistake. For a marketing man I’m shocked he can’t see the glaring hole in his approach. Regardless, I think the poor wages growth swings things back towards a Labor majority.

Its about roughly where I expected it to be, if you look at various EBA increases and and job advertisements they all seem to be falling around the 2% mark, last year the Victorian ALP gave public servant a pay cut as well from the 2% down to 1.5% but that also fell in line with the AWR for 2020/21 due to covid

But yes Albo position when he simply refers to those on the minimum wages is a misleading as any AWR increase not only increase the rate for those on the minimum wage but those on about 120 different awards and not only effects the minimum 38 hour week but also the overtime increase the statutory entitlements embedded within awards and also has an effect on superannuation earnings, it also has a compounding effect on tax implications for the business such as payroll tax. so when Albanese says its just $1 its far from the truth, but then those on the lowest of wages don't really give a crap about the rolling effect on the business they just want the extra $$

RyanairGuru wrote:

cpd wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Wage growth was weaker than expected, only 0.7% for the quarter and 2.4% annually.

This morning Morrison fell back into the trap he tripped over last week, trying to explain in quite detailed terms why wage growth shouldn’t match headline inflation. While his points on this issue are somewhat rational from an economic perspective, Labor’s message that Morrison doesn’t want you to be paid more is potent and sticks because it’s a simple message while Morrison’s explanation is much more technical.

Morrison’s ‘I’ll change’ and super for homes tactics changed the narrative late last week after Labor’s message on minimum wage stuck, but he has now made the exact same mistake. For a marketing man I’m shocked he can’t see the glaring hole in his approach. Regardless, I think the poor wages growth swings things back towards a Labor majority.

I don’t think that will make a difference, I think LNP have this won, the recent opinion poll also suggested they might get home to victory, although News Corp opinion writer Joe Hildebrand was at pains to point out that the poll was wrong.

A lot of people have already voted so they won’t be swayed by this.

The polls show that there is still a substantial undecided vote. For the politically disinterested voter, the hip pocket wins. If Labor hammer wages, wages, wages they can peel off a decent portion of those undecideds.

As it is, the national polls are even less reliable than normal as there are so many seats that won’t be a clear ALP:LNP 2PP. In some ways this campaign has disintegrated into 8 or 10 seperate bi-elections.

yes I agree 100% its certainly not a normal business as usual election campaign, its more akin to the Twilight Zone

Liberal Party supporter working on Reid campaign helped organise crowds for Chinese Premier:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5amaa.html

Not sure I trust the LNP on national security when its minions are doing this sort of stuff.

Mao has previously been identified as a Liberal member and been listed as president of the Australia Sichuan-Chongqing Chamber of Commerce. According to a newspaper report in the Sichuan Financial Daily, this organisation was established “under the advocacy of the Sichuan Province and Chongqing Municipality Government”.

Mao has been active campaigning for the Liberal Party in the seat of Reid.

Mao has also visited China on several occasions at the expense of organisations linked to China’s overseas influence operation, the United Front Work Department.

The United Front is the Chinese Communist Party’s organisational effort to use the diaspora of citizens abroad to turn opinion and policy in Beijing’s favour.

In its annual financial statement, the People’s Government of Mianzhu County said in 2015 the United Front paid for Mao’s travel to China where she met with officials from the Federation of Overseas Returned Chinese.

That's not very good.

This is going to make it interesting for the talking points in relation to wages fot both sides

48-year low 3.9pc jobless rate

https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/med ... nt-rate-39

How many are full time workers, or contractors on three month contracts (short term) that get renewed for years and years and years?

cpd wrote:

Liberal Party supporter working on Reid campaign helped organise crowds for Chinese Premier:

You are worried about someone who is supporting a liberal candidate not an actual candidate if elected would be a Member of Parliament?

cpd wrote:

Not sure I trust the LNP on national security when its minions are doing this sort of stuff.

I’d be more worried if she was say the future deputy Prime Minister who actually submits prepared speeches so as not to embarrass Xi Jinping or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)

cpd wrote:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5amaa.html

Mao has previously been identified as a Liberal member and been listed as president of the Australia Sichuan-Chongqing Chamber of Commerce. According to a newspaper report in the Sichuan Financial Daily, this organisation was established “under the advocacy of the Sichuan Province and Chongqing Municipality Government”.

Mao has been active campaigning for the Liberal Party in the seat of Reid.

Mao has also visited China on several occasions at the expense of organisations linked to China’s overseas influence operation, the United Front Work Department.

The United Front is the Chinese Communist Party’s organisational effort to use the diaspora of citizens abroad to turn opinion and policy in Beijing’s favour.

In its annual financial statement, the People’s Government of Mianzhu County said in 2015 the United Front paid for Mao’s travel to China where she met with officials from the Federation of Overseas Returned Chinese.

I can’t read the SMH as its behind a paywall, but the same story was also reported by the “Guardian”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... nese-wealt

Which goes on to say that

Jaylin Mao is the name of a businesswoman who has been previously identified as a Liberal member and is a former president of the Australia-Sichuan Chamber of Commerce.
Mao could not be contacted for comment at her listed place of work and did not reply to requests via Facebook and The Guardian has been unable to confirm that she is the person who made the posts or that she is aware of their content.

cpd wrote:

That's not very good.

Yes not very good if you do not have all the facts

A101 wrote:

cpd wrote:

Liberal Party supporter working on Reid campaign helped organise crowds for Chinese Premier:

You are worried about someone who is supporting a liberal candidate not an actual candidate if elected would be a Member of Parliament?

cpd wrote:

Not sure I trust the LNP on national security when its minions are doing this sort of stuff.

I’d be more worried if she was say the future deputy Prime Minister who actually submits prepared speeches so as not to embarrass Xi Jinping or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)

cpd wrote:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5amaa.html

Mao has previously been identified as a Liberal member and been listed as president of the Australia Sichuan-Chongqing Chamber of Commerce. According to a newspaper report in the Sichuan Financial Daily, this organisation was established “under the advocacy of the Sichuan Province and Chongqing Municipality Government”.

Mao has been active campaigning for the Liberal Party in the seat of Reid.

Mao has also visited China on several occasions at the expense of organisations linked to China’s overseas influence operation, the United Front Work Department.

The United Front is the Chinese Communist Party’s organisational effort to use the diaspora of citizens abroad to turn opinion and policy in Beijing’s favour.

In its annual financial statement, the People’s Government of Mianzhu County said in 2015 the United Front paid for Mao’s travel to China where she met with officials from the Federation of Overseas Returned Chinese.

I can’t read the SMH as its behind a paywall, but the same story was also reported by the “Guardian”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... nese-wealt

Which goes on to say that

Jaylin Mao is the name of a businesswoman who has been previously identified as a Liberal member and is a former president of the Australia-Sichuan Chamber of Commerce.
Mao could not be contacted for comment at her listed place of work and did not reply to requests via Facebook and The Guardian has been unable to confirm that she is the person who made the posts or that she is aware of their content.

cpd wrote:

That's not very good.

Yes not very good if you do not have all the facts

Open in private window, it opens any SMH article without any paywall.

And if this lady was from the Labor side, you would be crowing about it.


Then we have the Gladys Liu episode:

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11506428

cpd wrote:

How many are full time workers, or contractors on three month contracts (short term) that get renewed for years and years and years?

I supplied the ABS link, I imagine there would be a link to the statistics to see for yourself

cpd wrote:

A101 wrote:

cpd wrote:

Liberal Party supporter working on Reid campaign helped organise crowds for Chinese Premier:

You are worried about someone who is supporting a liberal candidate not an actual candidate if elected would be a Member of Parliament?

cpd wrote:

Not sure I trust the LNP on national security when its minions are doing this sort of stuff.

I’d be more worried if she was say the future deputy Prime Minister who actually submits prepared speeches so as not to embarrass Xi Jinping or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)

cpd wrote:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5amaa.html

I can’t read the SMH as its behind a paywall, but the same story was also reported by the “Guardian”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... nese-wealt

Which goes on to say that

Jaylin Mao is the name of a businesswoman who has been previously identified as a Liberal member and is a former president of the Australia-Sichuan Chamber of Commerce.
Mao could not be contacted for comment at her listed place of work and did not reply to requests via Facebook and The Guardian has been unable to confirm that she is the person who made the posts or that she is aware of their content.

cpd wrote:

That's not very good.

Yes not very good if you do not have all the facts

Open in private window, it opens any SMH article.

I didn't know that thanks

A101 wrote:

cpd wrote:

How many are full time workers, or contractors on three month contracts (short term) that get renewed for years and years and years?

I supplied the ABS link, I imagine there would be a link to the statistics to see for yourself

It doesn’t. The point is, there are lots of people who are “employed” but really their situation is not secure because they are stuck in scam three month contracts that get extended for years and years by companies who always find some excuse to do this.

The winner is only the recruitment agencies who take in heaps. No surprise who big users of these agencies are, governments…

cpd wrote:

A101 wrote:

cpd wrote:

How many are full time workers, or contractors on three month contracts (short term) that get renewed for years and years and years?

I supplied the ABS link, I imagine there would be a link to the statistics to see for yourself

It doesn’t. The point is, there are lots of people who are “employed” but really their situation is not secure because they are stuck in scam three month contracts that get extended for years and years by companies who always find some excuse to do this.

The winner is only the recruitment agencies who take in heaps. No surprise who big users of these agencies are, governments…

If people are being taken advantage of scam operators you have 3 choice, stay leave or contact the FWO

cpd wrote:

A101 wrote:

cpd wrote:

How many are full time workers, or contractors on three month contracts (short term) that get renewed for years and years and years?

I supplied the ABS link, I imagine there would be a link to the statistics to see for yourself

It doesn’t. The point is, there are lots of people who are “employed” but really their situation is not secure because they are stuck in scam three month contracts that get extended for years and years by companies who always find some excuse to do this.

The winner is only the recruitment agencies who take in heaps. No surprise who big users of these agencies are, governments…

It is embedded within the media notes of the link supplied Seasonal adjustment and trend estimates section.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labou ... nd-changes


Underemployment rate Mar-2022 6.3% Apr-2022 6.1% Monthly change-0.2 pts Yearly change (%) -1.7 pts

So yes underemployment is down from last month and down across the 12 months