You are here

Immigration is lowering Australian living standards down to 'Second World' New Zealand


©The Cairns Post


Q1. Why are house prices in urban Australia perpetually rising?
ANSWER:
Demand for housing exceeds supply, particularly in the capital cities. Real estate investors, the real estate industry and property developers seek to maximise their capital gain on selling housing and so seek the highest price on an open unregulated market.

Q2. Why is demand for urban housing exceeding supply in Australian cities?
ANSWER:
Population growth is outpacing the combined rate of sales of existing housing and construction of new housing in the capital cities.

Q3. Why is housing demand so strong?
ANSWERS:
Australian federal and state governments are encouraging business development in the capital cities and so employment opportunities are disproportionately higher in the capital cities. Australian federal and state governments are encouraging urban population growth at rates that exceed the housing supply in the capital cities. Since employment opportunities are disproportionately higher in the capital cities, population growth is disproportionately high in the capital cities.

Q4. Why is housing supply in capital cities not meeting demand?
ANSWER:
Housing in the capital cities is not becoming available at a rate that can keep up with population growth. Housing is not being constructed fast enough to cater for the increased demand in the capital cities. Even when mass housing construction is released, governments are not funding appropriate residential/social infrastructure - schools, public transport, emergency services, recreational facilities, etc to maintain quality of life comparable to established suburbs.

Q5. Why is Australia's population growth so high?
ANSWER:
Net immigration growth is the bulk of the population growth and this is being perpetually and recklessly encouraged by successive pendulous cycle of Lib/Lab political parties with vested interests in the short term profits of growth.

Comment:

The sheer volume of immigrants to Australia are -over-demanding housing forcing housing scarcity and price rises making housing unaffordable to Australians. Governments are encouraging urban property price increases - through excess immigration, and urban-centric economic stimulus, yet all the while neglecting social responsibility for providing urban capacity. As Sheila Newman states on CanDoBetter: "Here in Australia every state government is in the business of raising the price of land beyond the capacity of most people to pay for it, creating exorbitant rents."

Just because many foreign governments allow excessive populations, this does not mean that Australia has to accept foreigners seeking a better opportunity. Beyond Australia's humanitarian obligations to accept refugees fleeing persecution, Australia does not have to accept economic migrants. It is these economic migrants who are displacing Australians from housing, employment, education. Economic migrants are not paying their way and are draining tax revenue to the detriment of indigenous and local Australians.

Once Australia's homeless have a humanitarian safety net of food, shelter, clothing, medical care and educational opportunity, only then should Australia consider extending invitations to foreigners to share the Australian dream of owning one's own home, but then only if carrying capacity permits.

"105,000 Australians are homeless on any given night."
[Source:Homelessness Australia]

This is a national disgrace! It is as if Australia has a 'Migrant First Policy'.


Australian Per Capita Self-Reliance Cost

What is the cost to house, feed, shelter, clothe, provide medical care, educate in literacy and numeracy a person in Australia to enable that person to become independently self-reliant and at an acceptable Australian quality standard of living? From birth to say age 22 when tertiary education will prepare a person for the workforce in the 21st Century, let's say the per capita cost is $1 million. In addition, the costs of providing social infrastructure and economic opportunities to nurture and support one's stable family environment would need to be included. Let's say the per capital cost is then $1.3 million for argument sake.

It thus costs $1.3 million in Australian taxes to get each Australian-born to a minimum self-reliance standard. Many of course will require more resources and time to achieve this and those who are disadvantaged may never reach this ideal standard, so the costs will be higher.

It is with this reality in mind that Australia's social policy and immigration policy needs to be fully realised and publicly costed. The fact that this is deliberately neglected by cyclical Lib/Lab governments at all levels that Australia's living standards are rapidly approaching those of 'Second World' New Zealand.

New Zealand a 'Second World' nation you ask?
Well, the term traditionally referred to Eastern Bloc countries, but times have changed. The term more usefully refers to countries that on the basis of economic prosperity, living standards and quality of life lie between the First World (like most of Western Europe) and the Third World (like most of Africa). Some Third World countries like Malaysia are advancing, while some First World countries like New Zealand are going backwards.

"An international report has found that a sixth of New Zealand children are being raised in poverty - a higher rate than in all but three of the world's 26 rich nations.

The Innocenti Research Centre, established by the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef), says 16.3 per cent of New Zealand children in 2001 lived in homes that earned less than half the national median income.

Only Mexico, the United States and Italy had higher rates of child poverty."

[Source: 'NZ's child poverty rate one of highest', NZ Herald, Simon Collins, 2nd March 2005].


Further Reading:

Read More about the 'Second World' by author Parag Khanna in his book 'The second world: empires and influence in the new global order.'. Khanna claims this Second World comprises Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and East Asia, emerging Third World countries such as Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Libya, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

However, just as some Third World ('developing') countries are advancing, there are some presumed 'First World' (developed) countries that have allowed their economies and societies to slip below modern First World socio-economic health standards. These include New Zealand, Greece, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Russia, and Portugal. We may refer to retrograde socio-economic as 'nation backsliding'.

The measures determining a country's socio-economic health include a factor of Physical quality-of-life index (PQLI) derived from basic literacy rate, infant mortality, and life expectancy at age one, all equally weighted on a 0 to 100 scale. The measures are also a factor of Gross National Product (GNP) as a measure of comparative economic performance and the UN Human Development Index (HDI) as a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide. HDI measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development:

A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth.
Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (with one-third weight).
A decent standard of living, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) in USD.

Each year, UN member states are listed and ranked according to these measures. Those high on the list often advertise it, as a means of attracting talented immigrants (economically, individual capital) or discouraging emigration.

An alternative measure, focusing on the amount of poverty in a country, is the Human Poverty Index.

AttachmentSize
Image icon Housing unaffordability.jpg37.16 KB

Comments

Newsletter from MILES Real Estate. FOREIGN INVESTMENT - WHAT'S THE POLICY?
The Government claims that its approach is to encourage foreign investment consistent with community interests. It claims that foreign investment provides scope for higher rates of economic activity and employment, higher than could be achieved from domestic levels of savings.

However, the Government also says that is recognises community concerns about foreign ownership of Australian assets. Therefor one of its objectives is to balance these concerns against the strong economic benefits to Australia that arise from foreign investment ...........

The changes mean that foreign investors may only purchase new housing stock and temporary residents may only purchase existing housing for use while they reside in Australia (and must sell the property when their residency concludes).....

Aquisitions of certain types of property do not require notification regardlenss of the citizenship of residency status of the purchaser. These properties are:

  • new dwellings purchased from a developer where the developer has pre-approval to sell those dwellings to foreign persons and
  • an interest in a time share scheme which does not permit more than four weeks entitlement per year
    Visit FIRB for further information

    Debate continues over how foreign investment impacts our economy, how it affects housing availability and affordability.

    As a mother of two adults, both excluded from home ownership due to impossibly high prices, just how are we to be comforted by "higher rates of economic activity" and "employment"? What employment? What are the "strong economic benefits to Australia from foreign investment"?

    Vendors are happy to raise the prices, but what good is all this extra economic activity when we see rising homelessness, prices outside the average pay packet, and property being owned by foreigners when they should be passed to the next generation of Australians, and foreigners with one foot in the door to residence in already overcrowded Australia?

    We don't have to be subservient to the Economy, and defer to "higher rates of economic activity". The Economy doesn't have a life of its own, and we don't exist for the sake of economic growth, at all costs!

    The Economy should be our servant, to support our existence and our lifestyles, not become our Master, to "grow" to our disadvantage!

  • Someone I know reports a very large real estate sign displayed prominently in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne (but now removed) which said

    "MORE AND MORE PEOPLE

    NOT ENOUGH HOUSES

    HIGHER PRICES FOR SELLING YOUR HOME"

    Household water restrictions are almost certain to be eased within months after extra water was returned to rivers ahead of schedule.

    Melbourne is on stage 3 water restrictions but its water storages are at 35.5 per cent - the highest level in July for three years!

    With a targeted population for Melbourne of over 7 million by 2036, it means that water supplies will have to keep increasing along with population growth rate, and the costs for infrastructure must keep increasing too. 35.5% of capacity is hardly time to ease restrictions.

    Victoria's water storages at the end of September 2005 were at 56.9% of capacity.

    We are encouraged to "save water" but there is little incentive as the costs of infrastructure are fixed, and more consumers keep getting added to Melbourne.

    Peak-hour train services were thrown into chaos across Victoria this morning after a massive power failure near Southern Cross Station in Melbourne brought the rail system to a halt. About 400,00 passengers were caught up in the chaos during peak-hour. Yet again we are reminded about the lack of investment by our state government in rail infrastructure. Myki has an open cheque book it seems, yet having a decent maintained train on a safe piece of track is in the too hard basket.
    So we need to spend more on public transport infrastructure to support the needs of Melbourne's population explosion? The solution, add more people to give an injection of funds! That doesn't last, so the public must pay out more in taxes and fees to cover the shortfall in public funding. Population growth does not pay for itself or bring "prosperity" - quite the contrary! There are always going to be "shortages", blow-outs, and infrastructure demands as we can never "catch up" with an economy that depends on limitless population growth. The addiction cycle must be broken so we can have good and sufficient services, without rising costs.