As a property investor.. I say 'Bring it on'. Our current level of population is no good for any businesses. We need to improve the transport system.. not reduce the population.
Rudd vAbbott
- Thread starter Mush
- Start date
Yep.
And considering the ageing population, there needs to be younger people coming from somewhere. Otherwise the whole residential property market, the business sector and indeed the government as a whole is going to be in serious financial problems.
How do you define "good type"? Surely those Vietnamese asylum seekers who came over with nothing would be considered a "bad type" but their children, who contribute a lot to Australian society would be a "good type", right? So who draws the line, and where is the line drawn?
The Vietnamese who came here are hard working people. It has a lot to do with culture - I am afraid the culture of a lot of the types who are coming here is not compatible with that. My parents who came here on the generosity of Whitlam have paid back those taxpayer fees many times over in taxes etc - and that's because we work hard and don't bludge on the Government purse forever.
Agree Aaron. The Vietnamese worked very hard when they first came out. Their children work hard now.
I know they flooded the small farming communities around Adelaide in the mid to late 70's (had their young children working on the farms too - before, after school and w/e) and now many own those same farms.
Statistically, other ethnic groups remain heavily dependent on welfare 5 years after arrival.
These groups won't help an aged population and instead add to the existing bloated welfare system.
I know they flooded the small farming communities around Adelaide in the mid to late 70's (had their young children working on the farms too - before, after school and w/e) and now many own those same farms.
Statistically, other ethnic groups remain heavily dependent on welfare 5 years after arrival.
These groups won't help an aged population and instead add to the existing bloated welfare system.
It's a chicken and egg thing.
There are no jobs in the Country anymore, so why put in infrastructure,
But if they put it in, will the jobs appear?
I don't reckon they will.
Farming is becoming more automated - less humans required, manufacturing is decreasing due to costs, and cost to ship materials out there is prohibitive,
And so on.
Persians (Iranians) are pretty pro-active as well. Same with Iraqi immigrants. Lots of focus on running small businesses and building wealth that way.
Hell, I do work with a group of Ethiopians who came over here with nothing and now run a successful catering business.
It all depends on the individual.
Notice how you left out Afghan immigrants - and these are the ones who have been earmarked by the Immigration Department as being on welfare many, many years after being granted asylum.
Most refugees stuck on social welfare
•by:Simon Benson
•From:The Courier-Mail
•May 05, 201112:00AM
WAITING LINE: A new study shows most asylum seekers have failed to get a job after five years of arriving in Australia. Picture: Colin Murty Source: The Daily Telegraph
MORE than 60 per cent of refugees to Australia have failed to get a job after five years, according to a damning Federal Government report into the humanitarian settlement program.
Of these households, 83 per cent now rely on welfare payments for income.
The greatest unemployment rate was recorded among new arrivals from Iraq and Afghanistan, with fewer than one in 10 able to find full-time work and 93.7 of households receiving Centrelink payments.
The statistics are contained in a Department of Immigration and Citizenship report, which was released late last Friday under the cover of the royal wedding.
It is the first investigation into the settlement of refugees in more than a decade.
It reveals only 31 per cent of humanitarian refugees to Australian are considered "employed" after five years.
The remainder were unemployed, retired, studying full time, engaged in caring duties, doing voluntary work or trying to start a business for which they had yet to receive income.
More than 60 per cent of those without jobs had a poor command of English.
The study of more than 8500 humanitarian entrants found that of those who came from Afghanistan or Iraq, around 93 per cent relied on welfare payments including unemployment benefits, youth allowance, Austudy or the child care rebate.
Statistics for the skilled migrant intake and family migrant intake were considerably more positive with 84 per cent of skilled migrants working and a little over 50 per cent of the family migrants employed.
•by:Simon Benson
•From:The Courier-Mail
•May 05, 201112:00AM
WAITING LINE: A new study shows most asylum seekers have failed to get a job after five years of arriving in Australia. Picture: Colin Murty Source: The Daily Telegraph
MORE than 60 per cent of refugees to Australia have failed to get a job after five years, according to a damning Federal Government report into the humanitarian settlement program.
Of these households, 83 per cent now rely on welfare payments for income.
The greatest unemployment rate was recorded among new arrivals from Iraq and Afghanistan, with fewer than one in 10 able to find full-time work and 93.7 of households receiving Centrelink payments.
The statistics are contained in a Department of Immigration and Citizenship report, which was released late last Friday under the cover of the royal wedding.
It is the first investigation into the settlement of refugees in more than a decade.
It reveals only 31 per cent of humanitarian refugees to Australian are considered "employed" after five years.
The remainder were unemployed, retired, studying full time, engaged in caring duties, doing voluntary work or trying to start a business for which they had yet to receive income.
More than 60 per cent of those without jobs had a poor command of English.
The study of more than 8500 humanitarian entrants found that of those who came from Afghanistan or Iraq, around 93 per cent relied on welfare payments including unemployment benefits, youth allowance, Austudy or the child care rebate.
Statistics for the skilled migrant intake and family migrant intake were considerably more positive with 84 per cent of skilled migrants working and a little over 50 per cent of the family migrants employed.
I left out about 120 different countries.
I have no personal experience of Afghani asylum seekers. Positive or negative. I have positive with Iraqi, Persian and Ethiopian asylum seekers.
But, there is probably positive stories as well (this one is a bit old) http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s795214.htm
The issue of Afghan asylum seekers was raised by Andrew Bolt who had the 94% figure. According to the department of immigration that figure is for the first year of arrival, and is only very slightly higher than the average for all migrants. It is not welfare. It is for all benefits, including child allowance, youth allowance, education support etc.
The actual figures for Afghan engagement with the workforce is at a similar level to Greek and Italian migrants - below the Australia wide average. But, the figure is similar for asylum seekers leaving a war torn country where education is essentially not available.
It's common sense that says that asylum seekers are going to have a lower level of education and more health/mental issues than migrants. It's going to be a lot easier to migrate from say the Philippines to Australia as a skilled migrant than it is to escape persecution in a country where there is no education.
However, why a conversation about the impacts on migration gets hijacked by a group that comprise less than 0.07% of the Australian population is more than a little confusing.
It would depend on your skill set. If you were a low technology farmer you might not have much to offer the Australian work force- especially living in a city, perhaps in a community speaking the same language.
We are putting money into the wrong sectors. Pumping billions of dollars into the car industry, for example, to make cars nobody wants to buy because we equate this with some weird form of "national pride". When third world countries like India are producing cars at a bigger scale, we need to realise this is no longer an industry we can compete in.
Instead, we need to be pumping money into research and development so we can have a more high-tech manufacturing sector that actually requires some level of specialised skills and knowledge. We should also be putting money into sectors like medical and scientific research, universities and the arts. That's how a dynamic and diverse economy is developed - we're still in the dark ages with our approach. That's why the GDP of the state of California, for example, is higher than the whole of Australia. A massive portion of our workforce is concentrated in pointless sectors like retail when we can really be doing much better than that.
Why would either major party bother with such investment however, when they can just get elected on the back of hysterical slogans like "stop the boats". It's unfortunate that there aren't too many who can put forward well thought out policies and strategies for the future. In the end, we get the (low quality) government we deserve
This is from a published report WELFARE RECIPIENT PATTERNS AMONG MIGRANTS
It was done by Centre for Population and Urban Research Monash University and Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies Australian National University in July 2000
"The major finding is that, overall, the overseas born have slightly lower welfare-recipient rates than do the Australia-born for each age group."
I have attached two relevant tables.
Two points to note. This is about migrants not refugees. Study was done in year 2000.
It was done by Centre for Population and Urban Research Monash University and Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies Australian National University in July 2000
"The major finding is that, overall, the overseas born have slightly lower welfare-recipient rates than do the Australia-born for each age group."
I have attached two relevant tables.
Two points to note. This is about migrants not refugees. Study was done in year 2000.
Attachments
You do understand that the reasons for accepting refugees are vastly different that the reasons for accepting skilled migrants, right? Which is illustrated by the vastly smaller number of refugees accepted.
It's common sense that people escaping from a war torn country will have less education and less skills than someone migrating from the UK with an engineering background.
I totally agree with this.
I also believe this is partly why Alannah will win in Perth as her opponent has been largely quiet since she nominated and also didnt front up to a debate with her, i think he sent Cormann instead.
As voters we have a good idea what Alannah stands for, what does he stand for? Does anyone have any idea? Is he willing to push Abbott to fund some of our infrastructure projects? Does he consider improving public transport in WA to be a priority for the federal govt?
As voters we need to demand better from all sides of politics, in particular the side we are more naturally aligned with imo.
Last edited:
Ideo, these are refugees that have been over 5 years. Many can speak English. Many live within 5 Km from me in inner Adelaide. They can work if they wanted to doing as previous refugees and migrants have done.
As you pointed out the vast majority of migrants are very hard working, but not all these are good English speaking Engineer types.
I know quite a few ex international students and 457 visa holders who are extremely hard working who are now residents.
The Pakistani guys next door to my mother (lived there for 6 years) have worked all sorts of jobs no one will work in, like in a well known chicken factory that TT did a story on because it was so 'fowl'.
Paskistani guy #1 who has now moved out has in 6 years aquired an accounting degree, an accounting job, a PPOR and a IP - his brother and other lads still live in the house. All still doing low paying crap jobs that don't really require much English.
On the other hand nearby lives an Afghani family of 6 who have been living in Australia a few years and have never worked. Mum asked him not long ago how he was going with getting a job and he said no luck and when she asked about the wife he said a womans role is in the home.
He then went on to tell her he was going to Afghanistan to see family a couple of weeks later.
What I think is happeneing is the 'families' recieve much more in Centerlink than they could hope to earn, and Centerlink doesn't cut off payments to families who can't find work because they have no qualifications and can't speak - a word of - English.
This is where i think we need to step in and make all long term unemployed volunteer and even send them out to work where the work is.
As you pointed out the vast majority of migrants are very hard working, but not all these are good English speaking Engineer types.
I know quite a few ex international students and 457 visa holders who are extremely hard working who are now residents.
The Pakistani guys next door to my mother (lived there for 6 years) have worked all sorts of jobs no one will work in, like in a well known chicken factory that TT did a story on because it was so 'fowl'.
Paskistani guy #1 who has now moved out has in 6 years aquired an accounting degree, an accounting job, a PPOR and a IP - his brother and other lads still live in the house. All still doing low paying crap jobs that don't really require much English.
On the other hand nearby lives an Afghani family of 6 who have been living in Australia a few years and have never worked. Mum asked him not long ago how he was going with getting a job and he said no luck and when she asked about the wife he said a womans role is in the home.
He then went on to tell her he was going to Afghanistan to see family a couple of weeks later.
What I think is happeneing is the 'families' recieve much more in Centerlink than they could hope to earn, and Centerlink doesn't cut off payments to families who can't find work because they have no qualifications and can't speak - a word of - English.
This is where i think we need to step in and make all long term unemployed volunteer and even send them out to work where the work is.
Last edited:
California has more folk in it than the whole of Aus, so it wouldn't be hard to produce more than us.
They also have an enormous workforce of unskilled and illegal immigrants who - due to their circumstances and the fact that it is a "fire on the spot" State - are way more productive and hard working than most Aussies, and cost less to employ.
They also have the film industry - we don't. That produces billions per year.
They have the orange farming industry,
About a zillion Costcos and Walmarts.
And so forth.
All these industries and several others employ huge volumes of folk at minimum wage of about $6 per hour.
We can only really compete nowadays in industries where the rest of the world doesn't produce that product, because our labour costs and general running costs of business are crippling.
Just yesterday I received my water and council rates for the property I rent to run my business. The council rates have gone up over 100% due to the fire levy, and the water bill has gone up over 300%, as just two examples of cost increases out of the blue.
This will ultimately leave us with retail and/or service industry jobs, public service to a degree, a bit of manufacturing and not much else if it can be done offshore.
Even retail is fast disappearing as people become more fluent at buying online from O/S where things are cheaper in many cases, while shop fronts are copping ever-increasing running costs which can't be passed on to the customer to stay competitive.
It will be a brave Gubbmint which bring in import tarrifs on those purchases to stop the trend and flow of dollars offshore.
