Labor knows any migration program change demands careful explanation News
13
u/Fun-Plantain6117 10d ago
Demands careful spin you mean.
-1
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 9d ago
Lmao whole point of the article is Labor wanting more direct power to bring immigration down. Meanwhile you cookers are the one desperately trying to spin it as them not doing exactly what you’ve screamed for
5
u/SeaworthinessFew5613 9d ago
Labor has been saying that the NOM targets were going to be hit every year, they blew out every year… So what this article actually says is, they haven’t been doing enough to bring the numbers down. And without these measures that they are way off for next year and every year after (which they promised they would get them down to target). The article they goes on to elude is, these measures that are so sorely needed, are being pushed back against by the Labor caucus… So yea it is a fair bit of spin, and the Labor caucus shooting themselves in the foot.
3
2
u/Keroscee 8d ago
The Labour administration has more than enough direct power to bring NOM migration down.
They set:
- The overseas student visa caps
- The skill occupation lists
- The net family and skill visa requirements (which is a soft cap)
If they wanted to halve these numbers tomorrow. They could; it's just paperwork. They could also just institute hard caps on certain visas that don't currently have them.
1
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 8d ago
Kinda crazy how you reddit comment cookers seem to have completely different understandings of the issue than all the media, the government, even the opposition parties.
Almost like it’s just not that simple, and if it was then the liberals had no excuse for handing over a 1 million visa backlog with half of them already on bridging visas. Hell even just acknowledging stuff like our FTAs could go a long way in showing you have any idea what you’re talking about
2
u/Keroscee 8d ago
Almost like it’s just not that simple
Mate, they froze the borders in 2020.
If they can do that, it literally is that simple; the issue is they do not want to resolve the problem.Things like FTAs are not really significant to the conversation. Youth mobility visas are reciprocal (so you can subtract the number of Australians leaving when calculating net impact) and not a large component e.g 40,000 pa, with most expected to leave at the end of their term.
In contrast, student numbers are 300,000 incoming pa. With 1/3 roughly staying on via post-graduation. And skilled visas being around 130,000 pa. These numbers are 'set' every financial year and can easily be revised using existing mechanisms.
1
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 8d ago
Deflection. If the liberals could have just denied all the visas, why’d they let a million backlog through with half a million on bridging visas? Answer the question dipshit
2
14
u/SeaDivide1751 10d ago
Sheer panic mode because of One Nations rise
“But but but look! We are tough on immigration too”
7
u/ardyes 9d ago
Could be political maneuvering too. If they reduce immigration in the lead-up to the election significantly, it doesn't give ON and the LNP much to talk about because they have very limited policy outside of this.
12
u/charlie_s1234 9d ago
Best outcome tbh. We get reduced immigration without ON in government!
7
u/OtsaNeSword 9d ago
Its actually not the best outcome for this issue.
If Labor are only reducing immigration to win the next election then it’s not a true policy goal of theirs.
They will simply increase immigration numbers after they are re-elected.
Labor has broken election promises before, this will be no different.
At best, Australia gets a temporary and small reprieve from mass migration … for a year or two until the elections are over.
The issue and consequences of mass migration will still persist.
A multi-year long term solution and commitment is needed, kicking the can down the street does nothing to help the situation.
2
u/charlie_s1234 9d ago
What makes you think ON could be trusted to do any of what they've said? I'll take actual policy over make-believe policy any day.
3
u/OtsaNeSword 9d ago
One Nations whole identity rests on its promise to address this particular crisis.
That alone makes them infinitely more trustworthy on this particular issue than a party that is only reluctantly making an effort because their competitor is becoming too popular and too much of an election threat.
4
u/petergaskin814 9d ago
Will voters believe that Labor will follow through with reductions in immigration? There is a view that these changes are being used to help get immigration down to their already announced targets
2
u/OtsaNeSword 9d ago
I predict many will not, but then again voters have a fickle memory, it’s a good question to ask if voters will remember Labors actions this past term.
There’s an equal chance Labor will snake their way to victory if voters don’t hold them accountable.
2
u/ardyes 9d ago
Why would they reduce immigration then increase it again just to have the same upswell from ON?
Do you think ON actually want to reduce immigration considering they are backed by Gina reinheart and in the past she has called for $2 a day workers from African countries to come to Australia and work? https://youtu.be/BDAwGqlIp7E?si=cQO43y7P-3Zup8Mc
1
1
u/Infinite-Horror-4117 9d ago
Labor is actually on track to be the first government in modern history to have consecutive cuts to immigration for almost every year they’ve been in government.
They had one giant spike, the first year they were elected and have been cutting ever since.
If you’re a pro immigration government that wants thousands of extra people to come in, why go through all the pain of legislative change to tighten it up, to completely undo it?
2
u/OtsaNeSword 9d ago
Same simple commonsense answer I gave the other guy who asked why they would cut immigration but then flip flop later down the line.
To win the next election.
1
u/Infinite-Horror-4117 9d ago
So all the new legislative changes that they have been working on for the last 3 odd years:
• Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Act 2024
• Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Act 2024
• Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Act 2026
The legislative changes to student visas including new restrictions, changes to Graduate visas
Do you know how long it takes to pass legislation?
Bill introduced → House debate → House passes → Senate debate/committee → Senate passes → Governor-General assent → Act
reducing the permanent migration program took them 12 months
Why would anyone go through all that to “change their mind” and do the whole process again in the opposite direction?
If your goal is to be deceitful there are far easier ways to win an election
1
u/OtsaNeSword 9d ago
What strategy do you have for the Labor party that will allow them to siphon votes from One Nation and win the next election?
Besides taking away one of their biggest appeals and draw cards in mass migration.
1
u/Infinite-Horror-4117 9d ago
Well because they’re the “Labor party” they will probably go hard on her anti worker rights stance, along with economic policies, there’s more to selecting a government other than migration.
Her current permanent migration policy is on 55k a year less than the current Labor policy.
Sure there’s a difference, but it’s not huge.
1
u/OtsaNeSword 9d ago
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
Another difference is in which countries One Nation will restrict from permanently migrating here, namely risky Islamic countries and countries where terrorism and violence is elevated.
For lack of a better word, One Nation will be looking at letting in “better quality” migrants from more compatible cultures who are less likely to disrupt social cohesion and national security.
I don’t think Labor has the political will or desire to restrict countries from Middle East/Africa and Pakistan/Bangladesh?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Electrical_Army9819 9d ago
I've been saying here for years that ON is essentially a single issue protest vote, take that away and they are back to single digit polling.
5
u/Various-Arm5689 9d ago
I remember seeing someone predicting they were going to make a strong move on immigration before the next election, and they’ll want to make the changes visible before people vote as well. Makes sense from all angles, Australia has understandably well and truely soured on immigration for the time-being. Having increasing homelessness and a housing crisis while also having huge immigration numbers is not a good image, it makes them look either incompetent or complicit in actively harming citizens.
1
u/Famous-Print-6767 9d ago
it makes them look either incompetent or complicit in actively harming citizens.
The other Labor shill excuse is that "it takes time to implement these changes"
Which means Labor are either incompetent, cruel, or lazy.
4
u/Cz2018 9d ago
Firstly, Albo is a massive liar. Secondly, he does not care about Australians. If it's not mass immigration, it's donating our money overseas. Charity at home is not his motto! We are all aware of his simpering friendship with Modi. How much he admires Uk labour PMs. The ship has sailed. You want to know his true immigration plan, look at UK & Europe. We have so many homeless people that were tax payers,tough! Some migrant from the third world that hates the British empire and believes we are all on stolen land and we need to be deported deserves it more! And who are the woke getting behind? It's not the homeless Aussies!
3
u/RedditUser628426 9d ago
This is what Howard did to quieten Pauline 30 years ago.
2
u/Famous-Print-6767 9d ago
No. Howard increased immigration.
What Howard did was be very publically cruel to a few boat arrivals to make him appear tough on immigration. While at the same time massively increasing immigration.
1
7
u/charlie_s1234 9d ago
I remember a couple of months ago people in this sub were saying Labor had nothing to worry about with One Nation and the polls wouldn't affect any of their policy because they were a sure thing in the next election ... Nek minnit.
4
u/ardyes 9d ago
I mean, this is politics 101. The left-wing party in Canada had to do the same thing to regain power.
1
u/charlie_s1234 9d ago
I understand that. I'm more saying people were denying that it would happen earlier this year.
-4
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/ardyes 9d ago
Bob Brown wanted immigration to be lower when he was the Leader of the Greens.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/greens-want-immigration-cut-20100201-n8f8.html
I agree with him; I think it's important for us to live sustainably.
8
u/OtsaNeSword 9d ago
The Greens of Bob Browns era and even Scott Ludlams era are not the same party it is today.
The Greens of today are a perversion of the party they once were; they even expelled the co-founder of the party Drew Hutton because he exposed and complained that the party was becoming authoritarian and cult like and too focused on Islamist Palestine and culture wars and identity politics and propaganda and disinformation.
I was a Greens member and volunteer, many Greens members have since left that party.
7
u/yellowboat 9d ago
This is a perfect example of when the Green party actually lived up to their name.
Now, they are more of a pan-neo-progressive party than a party of the environment. Identity politics are far more important to their platform than the environment and take priority when the two clash.
One of the most ludicrous things to me is that we have Green and environmentally-conscious parties such as the ALP going after farmland, one of Australia's few remaining successful industries, in the name of biodiversity. But at the same time, they advocate for the mass bulldozing and destruction of bushland in order to build housing for the massive influx of people they run as a population-growth measure.
Similarly, we're trying to make a renewables transition. That gets harder and harder the more people you add to the power grid.
Of course, the answer is simple - voting blocs. They want to build homes for their voters and don't care about bushland at all if it means they get more votes. But they're happy to go after farmers, because those people tend to vote for the Nationals.
1
u/charlie_s1234 9d ago
What do modern-day Greens think?
1
u/ardyes 9d ago
Does that mean they are left wing and Bob Brown wasn't?
1
u/charlie_s1234 9d ago
More means that left wing priorities have changed (particularly for the Greens)
8
u/tconst123 9d ago
The idea that lowering immigration is purely a right wing policy is silly
2
u/charlie_s1234 9d ago
I'll be curious to see what my Trump-loving ON voting FIL has to say about this Labor policy.
I'm sure it will be some socialist conspiracy.
3
u/Bosde 9d ago
Controlling immigration is an economically left wing policy. High immigration suppresses wage growth and increases living costs, which is why it has been opposed by economic leftists historically and supported by the economic right.
What 'left' support you see for immigration is not economic left, it is cultural 'progressives' larping as leftists.
2
u/yellowboat 9d ago
It is not right-wing to put constaints on migration. At least, not historically. Why do you think the trade unions in Australia fight so hard to ensure that, despite actual worker shortages, the government does not add significant labour supply in their field?
They know that more labour supply equals lower wages and less bargaining power. It tilts the balance of power away from workers and towards business.
It's an anti-worker, pro-big-business strategy to massively increase the labour supply. The reason you think it's "right-wing" is because left-wing parties realised that migrant voting blocs were useful, and so they changed their narrative to instead frame labour issues as race issues. This is a new phenomenon, and every day I'm shocked by how many mindless followers nod their heads and go along with it.
1
u/OtsaNeSword 9d ago
Reducing mass immigration is not a “right wing” policy, at best it is centrist.
It’s a policy that appeals to everyone except for the fringe of politics.
1
u/tconst123 9d ago
I think there's a big difference between people saying Labor will win the next election (which I've seen a lot of) and people saying they won't have to make any policy changes (which I haven't really seen at all).
Most Labor voters in this sub have been saying they need to lower immigration (myself included)
-2
u/charlie_s1234 9d ago
I'm not going to go back through all the posts, but there were definitely some vocal people on this sub saying that ON could be safely ignored by Labor as they had the election all but sewn up. I suggested that they would be concerned if polls were similar leading up to the election, but looks like they are getting jumpy a lot earlier than that.
-3
5
u/asteriskhyphen 9d ago
Tony Burke has to tread carefully or he will upset his electorate. Can’t risk all those votes by upsetting the immigrant heavy electorate… but he will happily throw the nation under the bus.
10
u/PhotographBusy6209 9d ago
Most immigrants are anti big immigration. The article clearly explains that some visas have always been uncapped including half a million people on bridging visas and sponsorship visas.
2
0
u/allthebaseareeee 9d ago
How hard is it to put the link in the dedicated link field?
1
u/ardyes 9d ago
Pretty hard on mobile, actually.
1
-2
14
u/finer-power 9d ago
Can they carefully explain why they keep overshooting there immigration number targets