https://www.rba.gov.au/media-releases/2026/mr-26-12.html
Yay for retirees, savers and people in secure jobs that are resistant to high borrowing costs.
Nay for mortgage holders and people in jobs that are more affected by high interest rates.
RBA Hikes Cash Rate from 4.1% to 4.35%
scalebearer on 05/05/2026 - 14:46
Last edited 05/05/2026 - 14:46
Last edited 05/05/2026 - 14:46
Related Stores
Comments
Australia voted for the ALP and Greens what did you expect LMAO
socialism = the rich get richer the middle class die and the poor stay dependant on the government for crumbs of a hand out
34% voted for the ALP.
The majority preferred something else.
People voted for to preferenced the ALP over the LNP
The Greens and ALP are essentially are an ultra far left coalition and 12% voted for the Greens as their primary
that with the fact the teals/other socialist parties preference the ALP you essentially got 55% of the vote
for the record i hate the far left but people voted for it in the last election i find it funny the are moaning they are struggling now but it is a 1st hand lesson on why socialism doesnt work.
for the record i hate the far left but people voted for it in the last election i find it funny the are moaning they are struggling now
Perhaps you can elaborate on how things would be any better under literally any other government
1st hand lesson on why socialism doesnt work.
Cut up your medicare card please and post a photo
Cut up your medicare card please and post a photo
Medicare is a product of capitalism not socialism
Universal health actually started from back in the day rich people found it better for them to give health care to poor to stop them from getting sick as diseases wouldnt spread to them and them sick
So they forked out extra to help care for the sick to ultimately heallth themselves it was cheaper and safer
Matter of fact most healthcare is very capitalist supported as it is cheaper or finacially better for the wider economy to treat people before they get too sick or die
Perhaps you can elaborate on how things would be any better under literally any other government
Standard of living has meaningfully dropped by around 25% under this government more then any other in history per capita Australians are poorer today then under Morrisions govt and thats not even counting the highinflation we have been hit by. So, legit hasAustralians under would be better under any other government we have had in history
I actually struggle to see how they could do a worse job - economically we have gone
@Checkmate3023: this genuinely has to be the most copium induced post i have ever seen, period.
before anyone takes this bot/muppet at face value let me define a couple things and also provide the australian case.
Capitalism: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. "
Socialism "Any of various theories or systems of social organisation in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralised government that often plans and controls the economy. "
Capitalism = Private (think private owned hospitals and businesses)
Socialism = Public (think public hospitals and publicly owned transport)
(Socialism is also closely tied (in principle) to the idea of a commonwealth (and if i am not mistaken the Byzantine's commonwealth was the first to implement free healthcare for all stemming from their christian beliefs!! so Christianity = socialism!!))
Anyways, so, the Australian healthcare system comprises of many things but keeping it short public and private hospitals - socialistic and capitalistic hospitals. The fundamental truth is that public hospital are due to the implementation of socialism. Even if you do not have a Medicare card the idea that Australia has public hospitals is fundamentally an implementation of socialistic policies.
As public hospitals charge for their use, just like any other private hospital, does not make them capitalistic. Publicly owned businesses can have a profit motive and seek to make profit (though it is not the single cause/thing they stride for). Continuing, your Medicare is a publicly owned healthcare insurance scheme. It is a form of welfare, and welfare is a socialistic policy/idea (it can be implemented in a fundamentally capitalistic country/economy however it is in no way a capitalistic idea (in capitalism your goal is to do stuff to make profit, hence, from a capitalistic POV welfare is just handouts as you did no work and made profit (breaking the idea of a work-profit motive))).
Thus, public hospitals and Medicare are both inherently socialistic.
From a socialistic POV, welfare (giving money to people who need it) is a form of investment as you give to the people in the hopes the people give back some day down the line. I.e. not a handout.
You're confusion regarding better value = capitalism is inherent wrong and that's why we have so many ideologies and economic systems etc - because no one system fits all and no one system provide the best value across everything.
And the idea that rich people were someone selfish enough to exist in their own class but kind enough to provide healthcare is stupid. When allowed, rich people kill the poor, they don't help them. Monopoly is the inherent pinnacle/ideal place for someone to exist at in capitalism and its easy to be the monopoly when everyone else is dead. And again I return you to the idea of a commonwealth and how it links to socialism.
Also at the moment we have a Treasurer with a Ph.D in economics (you can read the book he wrote), so I trust him enough to know what the job entails. Our last Treasury I can't remember what he had but it must've been drug induced psychosis as look at the bloody inflation numbers he managed so I reckon, and most of Australia reckons, we would have been worse off with Scotty from Marketing.
Anyways, there is so much to unpack here but whatever education you received in capitalism vs socialism needs to be re-evaluated asap.
Standard of living has meaningfully dropped by around 25% under this government more then any other in history per capita
What metrics do you use to measure the standard of living? How much has Australia deviated from the rest of the world in those metrics?
@Checkmate3023: Nominal GDP per capita at the time of the last election was ~65k (USD). Are you claiming our current GDP per capita is 49k (USD) per capita? Would love for you to cite your sources.
Strange how you're apparently so in the know re economics, yet you don't know the proper usage of "then" and "than".
Strange how you're apparently so in the know re econmics, yet you don't know the proper usage of "then" and "than".
Might suprise but English and Econmics are two different subjects also this is the internet no one cares and for the record
"than".
This is incorrect grammer - but once again it is the internet no one cares like no one at all
is 49k (USD) per capita? Would love for you to cite your sources.
"Some analysts project a potential recovery in GDP per capita by the end of 2026, with forecasts pointing toward $62,803 USD (roughly $75,648 AUD based on 2026 IMF projections)"
Source
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/national-accounts/…In 2017 GPD per capita was In 2017, Australia's GDP per capita was approximately 72,381 AUD
Source https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/national-accounts/…
Since that time Australia has seen roughly 35-40% inflation accumulatively - So we have less money per-person now and its buying power has drop substantially its hard to use any Data 2018-2022 because COVID shut the world down
For if we use the 2017 Per cap GDP 75k and say 35 % inflation you roughtl you get ~48k if we go with the 40% inflation depends on if you want to use CPI or inflation we are sitting around 44k
Even if you take out the 25% of COVID inflation between 2018-2022 we are still left with a buying power of around 64k thus since this government has taken over there is no metric where you can say Australians are 'better off' would you not agree?
Now add into the fact we also have a shit load of 'bracket' creep and the numbers are even worse….
This is incorrect grammer - but once again it is the internet no one cares like no one at all
Using the words then and than incorrectly is not incorrect grammAr.
Incorrect grammar relates to broken structural rules, while improper usage of a word involves incorrect vocabulary choices.
Might suprise but English and Econmics are two different subjects
Fundamental mathematics skills are essential for analysing economic models, data and trends.
So, we know that, among other things, you suck at both Maths and English, how is it that you have a "Higher level of educational achievement than 99% of other OzB users"?
@chrisadelaide: Go through the thread and look at all the other things he just wildly makes up and attempts to pass off as fact.
I usually don't care about errors, typos, mistakes etc (not perfect myself and I presume that there would be members for whom English is not their first language), but when you make claims such as that, well…. you're just asking to be mocked.
Same as when people do correct errors only to make one themselves in the same post. That cracks me up.
Might suprise but English and Econmics are two different subjects also this is the internet no one cares and for the record
Directly correlates with your intelligence
Since that time Australia has seen roughly 35-40% inflation accumulatively
Wrong - also easily verifiable
You're legitimately just pulling figures out of your ass. Stop talking on things you clearly have zero clue about champ.
You're legitimately just pulling figures out of your ass. Stop talking on things you clearly have zero clue about champ.
see i hit ya with 'facts' and you get triggered thus you have lost the argument.
learn to lose i gotta feeling you're going to take a fair few Ls in life - you simply got the wrong mentality
i do wish you well but i wont be replying to you again Champ
see i hit ya with 'facts'
You:
Since that time Australia has seen roughly 35-40% inflation accumulatively
Wrong
Standard of living has meaningfully dropped by around 25% under this government more then any other in history per capita (Gdp per capita)
Wrong
you get triggered thus you have lost the argument.
There is no "argument"; you're not that bright. Someone of your calibre (see: uneducated, probably of a lowsocioeconomic class) could never "trigger" me. Can't say I've seen anyone over the age of 21 use that phrase.
learn to lose i gotta feeling you're going to take a fair few Ls in life
Just based on this interaction alone I can guarantee my life is better than yours. Hope you feel better soon little guy.
There is no "argument"; you're not that bright.
Credit where credit is due, he seems to be doing better at using spell check. This is the first time I have seen him spell the word argument correctly, so he is improving.
Lmao
Dont believe me USA doesnt have Universial healthcare and the Americans spend twice what we do on healthcare in our GPD spend on healthcare is around 10% the US spends around 18% - not having universial healthcare is actually inefficient and more expensive have nothing to do with 'socialism' as i said before the origin of Univerisal health care had NOTHING to do with socialism and everything to do with wealthy people finding the cheap solution to health care issues
From a sheer capitalist POV medicare or universial health care is a capitalist ideal as it is financially the most effective way of distrubiting care to a nation
Did the hike it or just raise it?
cant wait for the cheap houses and cheap cars
Not going to happen, high immigration = high demand = high prices and inflation
AI and job losses has entered the chat
tbh AI job losses in aus cost too much, redundancy is a real thing here.
in the US and other places, you can be fired with barely any payout@Wiadro: That means it will still happen, just at a slightly slower/ delayed pace… Also redundancies aren't that great here unless you are in a government/EBA job.
A heap of long serving (I'm talking 15-25+ year) employees were let go recently at my workplace in a "restructure" and they got between 12-16 weeks pay.
job losses in aus cost too much, redundancy is a real thing here.
AH Beard Mattresses enters the chat
40% are boomers with multiple properties outright and average $2m in cash.
Interest rate hike is just making them richer.
The idea is to make upper and lower class societies like in the 3rd world asian countries.Immigration ≠ demand. This is a huge misrepresentation that so many people are literally betting the house on. 1000 people in a Ferrari dealership does not magically increase the prices.
Real demand is not raw population, but bank credit. Banks are going to be much tighter on lending (already started), not just due to the current and forecasted rate rises but global liquidity is tightening at the same time which funds a lot of bank mortgage lending. Banks are raising fixed rates outside of RBA rises and that will become more common as well as raising rates even if RBA holds.
All of the major housing busts all said this silly "supply/demand!" about their own local imbalance but as soon as banks dried up this mythical demand disappeared
Immigration ≠ demand.
Net migration under Albo's first 4 years has already nearly exceeded the previous 9 years of LNP.
So if we double the population tomorrow, you think we're not going to see demand for housing, food, vehicles, furniture, homewares, clothing, government services, use of roads and public transport, electricity, fuel, etc (i.e. everything people need/want) go up? Do they just live in the open and eat air and travel around naked with bare feet?
@tenpercent: I should rephrase. High immigration, by itself, will not make house prices continue up forever as a mythical source of demand.
It has definitely been catastrophic policy, absolutely adds immense demand to infrastructure, and certainly contributes to rental demand and overall less slices of pie of everything else for Australians. Not arguing that in the slightest. Rents will continue to rise with immigration but even after years of record high immigration, property yields are still ass and bleed money for most people so it's not like people will be attracted/significant investor demand without significant cap gains.
But as a function of house prices people should not think "high immigration = house prices will keep going up". It's not pop increase, it's pop increase + liquidity.
property yields are still ass and bleed money for most people so it's not like people will be attracted/significant investor demand without significant cap gains.
People are attracted to it as an investment because of the relatively (versus every other option) easy access to credit that property affords (debt recycling is a thing) and they perceive it as a safe long-term investment.
Also most are attracted to owning property as a PPoR, not as investors, because of the security and peace of mind aspects of owning your own house versus renting. You can modify the place at will (subject to council approvals for major works), you get something in return for your money other than a transient place to reside, you're investing in your retirement (no rent in retirement), you don't have some tard real estate agent visiting every 6 months to sticky beak around your home, etc.
It's not pop increase, it's pop increase + liquidity.
Assuming the population increase isn't comprised largely of the infirm then population increase is what leads to the increase in credit. More working aged or soon to be working aged people to pledge their future labour against loans.
High immigration, by itself, will not make house prices continue up forever as a mythical source of demand.
If supply does increase to match demand, then prices will rise. This is simple economics.
Net migration under Albo's first 4 years has already nearly exceeded the previous 9 years of LNP.
Not even close if you take into account negative covid figures, which - as you know /s - you should if you're comparing apples with apples. On current trends Labor's six years will equate with LNPs nine, but again - as you know - there has been a covid catchup, and on top of that major skills shortages to overcome as a result of decades of she'll-be-right attitudes from both LNP and Labor governments.
Not even close
Very close.
+1.27M net overseas migration already under Albo (excluding this financial year… so it's almost certainly been exceeded already)
+1.52M net overseas migration under the three previous PMs combined
and on top of that major skills shortages to overcome as a result of decades of she'll-be-right attitudes from both LNP and Labor governments.
Around a third of permanent migration visas go to people who aren't skilled. Dead weight.
Over twice as many student visas are granted than skilled migrant visas.
https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/migr…We've had government lists of in demand and skill shortage occupations for decades. We've had millions upon millions upon millions of net arrivals in that time. Obviously doing the same thing over and over isn't working. The lists even include such important and desperately needed occupations like photographers, tv journalists and farriers. How about we limit it to medical professionals and construction workers until the housing catches up?
@tenpercent: I downloaded the Bureau of Stats figures from 2004-5 to2024-5.
LNP 1.938M - including a weighted average for the 2020-21 covid negative net migration which you clearly have no clue about statistically.
Lab 1.273M - which as you know /s is distorted by the post covid whipshaw effectCurrent projections suggest it will be two years before Albanese's numbers match the LNP.
All fairly moot apart from the fact that you've once again attempted to mislead readers, likely because of your own ignorant propensity for gilding the lily and oversimplifying highly complex issues. That same ignorance labels "unskilled" immigrants (who are actually low skilled, or often highly skilled but working below their abilities) doing jobs Australians won't/can't, as "dead weight". Tell your "dead weight" theory to farmers, retailers, hospitality providers, warehousing and delivery services, aged care providers etc etc. This might interest you given the byline, although I very much doubt you'll like the content: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/07/australia-stuffed-f…
Over twice as many student visas are granted than skilled migrant visas.
Care to guess why that may be? Here's a clue - there are multiple reasons.
Do you know what the current policy is wrt student visas?Your argument is simplistic, headline driven twaddle (deja vu all over again). It takes decades for housing and infrastructure policies to wash through state systems. That is one of, if not THE primary driver/root cause of current housing problems.
@R4: And what solutions do they actually have to any of these long term issues? Nothing wrong with protest voting but promoting ignorance isn't going to help this country solve any of its problems.
@Igaf: I'm undecided yet whether I will support PHON - they are a bit of a one trick pony and a bit weird. On the other hand our supposed 'competent' uniparty has fkd us over for a lot of this century and got us into a real mess on immigration, energy policy, government spending, taxation, low productivity etc and certainly seem unable/unwilling to sort any of this out. The rise of PHON is no different to what's happening across the West - just look at what happened in the UK this week. My biggest election issues are immigration - too much off it and the wrong types of migrants and energy policy - this engineering-free belief that renewables are the only way forward for us. I will basically support the party that takes a wrecking ball to migration and energy. Saying that, just the fact that PHON is so obviously on the rise means that the uniparty will have to change their policies or get smashed at the next election. 2028 is going to be an interesting year!
I will basically support the party that takes a wrecking ball to migration and energy.
So really only ON.
There is also Gerard Rennick's People First Party. Rennick is a very smart man and seems a man of integrity, but he doesn't have a lot of support yet. A pity because his policies make a lot of sense.means that the uniparty will have to change their policies or get smashed at the next election.
The ALP/LNP uniparty will certainly change their policies to suit public opinion, attract voters and get elected.
But then if they get elected they will change them after the elections to suit their ideology (see ALP repeatedly promising no change to superannuation, capital gains and negative gearing before the last elections). No integrity.@R4: You live in alternative world then? Neither the Liberals nor Labor believe that renewables are the only way forward. The current oil squeeze might have taught you a lesson, but apprently not.
I think you grossly over-estimate One Notion's popularity. Given the infighting within the LNP it's little wonder that conservatives are looking for alternatives like Teals and Oranges, which may currently be the party of choice for protest but apart from denying climate change, dog whistling racists, and promoting some vague back of the envelope immigration reduction number - which isn't supported by business or agriculture - what are they actually offering? Expensive coal and nuclear energy? Ignoring global warming and its obvious effects? Becoming yet another sycophant for American colonialism?
The good thing about the current shift is that Albanese will have to rethink his steady as you go mantra. Australians have made it clear that they support action, such as changes to negative gearing and CGT, but even there Labor is apparently going to allow existing arrangements to continue when they break Albo's election promise in this week's budget. There is also very strong, and growing, majority support (60-70% across the spectrum) for a real tax on gas exports, which the gutless/tone deaf Albanese continues to fob off. His super majority wasn't based on primary votes and he might be in for a big shock if he thinks that the LNP's demise will guarantee his return in 2028.
Immigrants always rent for at least a few years.
Hence immigrants dont put pressure on property prices.
Its more like the state and federal governments first home owner schemes that ALWAYS push up prices.
As do lower interest rates that make property more affordable for everyone.
But now we are on a long term uptrend in interest rates (with up/down fluctuations along the way) so dont expect prices to boom like they have over the last 20 years.Immigrants always rent for at least a few years.
Hence immigrants dont put pressure on property prices.Of course renting puts pressure on property prices… you think a huge rental demand doesn't increase the amount investors are willing to spend?
Immigrants always rent for at least a few years.
Hence immigrants dont put pressure on property prices.So high rental demand doesn't result in low occupancy rates? Or do the low occupancy rates not result in icreased rent? Or is it the increased rental yeilds don't attract property investors? Or is it the extra demand from property investors that doesn't push up house prices.
There are many factors which result in higher property prices. Not just one thing.
cheap houses and cheap cars
how cheap we talking?
depends on the desperation of the sellers
Don't hold your breath.
@tenpercent: I think someone needs to do a welfare check on @Wiadro.
He may have held his breatht too long and passed out.
never happening …next I swear if interest rates went up to 50% house prices stillwouldnt go down, you'll just get the portellis of the world buying every house on the street
I want to sell but the bank won't let me. Tells me I need to keep paying…
14th rate rise under Albo!
Scrap NDIS
Not scrap, but condense it by half at least. You dont need a carer that takes you to get your nails done.
Do you think disabled people should be trapped in their houses indefinitely?
Imagine a paraplegic with tremors in their hands, who do you propose should cut their nails?
I'd much rather give a haircut to the aged pension first, hard to think of a worse rort than someone who owns a million dollar asset getting government handouts.
I know of a carer that took an autistic relative to the shops for lunch.
Pretty expensive lunch tbh. It was like a $280 kfc meal to the taxpayer.
It’s rorted. For example, cases where carers aren’t actually providing support and instead split the payments with participants (e.g. 50/50).
For example, cases where carers aren’t actually providing support and instead split the payments with participants (e.g. 50/50).
Jokes on the carers doing that then, eh? Generating tax obligations on money they're not even receiving.
Even worse if it's temporary visa holders who have limits imposed on the number of hours they can work each week.
Even worse if it's temporary visa holders who have limits imposed on the number of hours they can work each week.
They're not
drivingworking they'retravellingsubcontracting.@tenpercent: I think there are quite a few on student visas who work as support workers for NDIS or aged care services and other PAYG employees.
I would imagine that we have temporary visa holders engaged in many types of employment/employment sectors.
Not all temporary visas are backpackers exploring the world, not only international students, but also skilled graduates or workers (482, 485) and a few others.
Basically anybody not here illegally, permanent resident or citizen are some kind of temporary visa holder.
Also carer taking participant’s sister/mum to IKEA
It was like a $280 kfc meal
What's the disability? Morbid obesity?
@cloudy: C'mon that's a lot to spend @ KFC for a lunch. For 2 people. Who's eating $140+ of KFC in one sitting?
I haven't had KFC in a while, but I'm pretty sure they haven't put the prices up THAT much.@tenpercent: I don't think the $280 was for the KFC. I think they were saying the lunch trip took four hours, so the carer was payed 4 x $70 = $280, to take the participant to lunch at KFC where they did pay for their own KFC though.
How will that help? More specifically, how will that help people like me?
I mean, there's a stupid pointless inflationary war going on so…
At any rate, this lefty is more annoyed at the stupid Vic government for once again hanging out Vic public schools out to dry and sinking money to health. They just can't quite grasp that high quality education is one of the foundations of good health, so you don't need to sink money into hospitals. At least alternate it a bit. But they've got their balls in a vice by the private education crowd and aren't even hiding it anymore.
Vic government for once again hanging out Vic public schools out to dry and sinking money to health.
28pc pay rise: Victorian Labor’s massive offer for teachers
Did they withdraw this offer?
But they've got their balls in a vice by the private education crowd and aren't even hiding it anymore.
If that pay rise eventuates, that's pay rises specifically for public school teachers. None of that is for private school teachers.
They just can't quite grasp that high quality education is one of the foundations of good health, so you don't need to sink money into hospitals. At least alternate it a bit.
Claims that Education was allocated $19 billion over the next two years.
Did this end up not happening?
Millions more people in just a few years ==> Massive and sustained increase in demand for all goods and services ==> Prices go up (i.e. Inflation) ==> Interest rates go up
If you want something different, vote differently. ALP and LNP did this to Australia.
vote differently
for who, they all run the same race.
You can vote to Independent, Green or One Nation. Each of them have some good policy, and they are not sponsor by the same billionaire except One Nation.
LOL GREENS.
yeah they would just destroy australia@Wiadro: I am not saying that Green is perfect. Green also have some good policy like Dental in Medicare, Abolish Negative Gearing.
Uni-Party rely on us to be divided on the political line instead of policy. They know that Green voters will preferred Labour and One Nation voters Liberal. So, at then end of the day our votes will flow to Uni Party which sponsor by the same billionaire. And, nothing will change.
We need to choose Independent, Green and One Nation as a preference before the uni-party.
They know that Green voters will preferred Labour and One Nation voters Liberal. So, at then end of the day our votes will flow to Uni Party which sponsor by the same billionaire. And, nothing will change.
No. YOU decide where your vote flows if your first/second/third/etc preference gets knocked out of the race. At least in federal elections and most states.
I recommend putting ALP and LNP (and Teals) last on the lower house ticket. If your seat has an ALP member they go absolute last and LNP second last. If your seat has an LNP member then they go absolute last and ALP second last.
This does a few things:- You deny both ALP and LNP funding from the AEC which is based on first preferences as long as the candidate achieves a minimum of 5% of first preferences.
- You give the alternatives a chance and in the best case your preferred candidate wins.
- If the alternatives don't win, hopefully you direct some AEC funding towards them for the next election (assuming they gain at least 5% of the first preferences).
- If the alternatives don't win, you at least make the seat more marginal. The big parties have statisticians or at least hire firms to analyse polling results and they will see that more and more people are willing to oust them. If enough people start voting differently, even if the alternatives don't win, the duopoly will have to at least pull back on some of their worst policies and/or start doing more for your electorate.
We need to choose Independent, Green and One Nation as a preference before the uni-party.
Im sorry but the Greens are the worst - you have ignored how they are ultra soft on crime, are racist to white Australians (im not white), want unchecked migration, want to take weapons off the police, are against any energy policy with involved FF, and hate the military and its veterans in addition to hating on farmers and mining- If the Greens were in power we would would of ran out of Fuel and food in the recent shortage they are the worst possible party to vote for….id take ALP or LNP over them
As for Independants and One Nation that is a different story depending on who you are and what you believe you might support them but the Greens are trash
Anyone who supported 'The Voice' has lost me forever - there was no way that wasnt the most racist disgusting referrendum aimed at wasting money and dividing our country
@Checkmate3023: Some states have implemented their own voice to parliament and Vic even signed a treaty. And look at that the word keeps spinning.
The worst thing to happen as of recent global elections is the Epstein Class' smoke and mirrors war pushed by their latest puppet, Trump!
The voice referendum was purely about ensuring that any indigenous focused committee or council (or whatever the proper term is) can't get put in one term and kicked out in the next term (see Paul Keating to John Howard era). It's a bigger waste to build something up quickly and tear it down quickly, further you pay money with no result… So fiscally the voice made sense, added bonus that indigenous communities feel heard and aren't disillusioned with voting and government.
But seeing as you're so far gone and will just reply back with nothing of substance, I'll see you at the next election where a majority of the population elects to preference a reasonable and normal government over some lunatics
You must be the change you wish to see.
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.ask what you can do for your country.
rort it with NDIS
Millions and billions of new people. Gazillions even! And they're all staying here forever and never leaving!!!
/s
Actually net migration accounts for people leaving too.
I'm just alluding to the fact that you're exaggerating the numbers. Last few year = last 3 years so from end 2023 to estimate end 2026 increase of 1.3 million, and if you include end of 2022 then 2.1 million.
Population (in millions) year ending
2019 = 25.5
2020 = 25.7
2021= 25.7
2022 = 26
2023 = 26.8
2024 = 27.4
2025 = 27.7
2026 ~ 28.1And for some more context courtesy of gemini AI so proceed with caution:
+————————+——————————-+———————————————————————————-+
| Decade | Avg. Ann. Growth % | Defining Context |
+————————+——————————-+———————————————————————————-+
| 1940s (post-45)| ~2.0% | Massive post-war immigration push & early Baby Boom. |
| 1950s | 2.3% | The peak of the Baby Boom and European migration. |
| 1960s | 2.0% | Continued steady growth; end of White Australia Policy|
| 1970s | 1.3% | Introduction of the Pill and the 1975 recession. |
| 1980s | 1.5% | Economic reforms; increase in migration from Asia. |
| 1990s | 1.1% | The "slow" decade; lower migration and birth rates. |
| 2000s | 1.5% | Mining Boom begins; skilled migration is key driver. |
| 2010s | 1.6% | High growth sustained until end of the decade. |
| 2020s (to '26) | ~1.5% | Includes 2021 crash (0.1%) & 2023 record surge (2.4%) |
+————————+——————————-+———————————————————————————-+So looking at the decades past and present nothing too out the blue.
@Some Random Guy: Sorry, what precisely am I supposedly exaggerating?
You seem to be misrepresenting or misunderstanding the situation by showing population and population growth numbers. Which in decades past comprised a much more significant amount of natural growth (ie. births minus deaths). 300k new babies tend to have less of an immediate impact on net housing demand and overall inflation than 300k net overseas migrant arrivals.
@tenpercent: You're implying that babies don't need housing?
Like a family immigrating or a couple making babies is going to need the same amount of housing and people who came here alone rarely have the money to live alone (ie share housing or getting a unit or apartment).
So either or houses need to be built; babies made here or elsewhere.
@Some Random Guy: Yes a family immigrating is going to need approximately the same amount of housing as a family here. But the family here was already here. They don't suddenly need an additional home just because they make a baby. The local family making babies presumably already lives in a dwelling. There's generally no net new demand. When the child is a little older they may want a larger house with another bedroom, but that will free up the first house they lived in. The net demand at that point is +1 bedroom (not +1 entire dwelling). The real impact of babies born here on demand for housing generally doesn't materialise for at least 18 years after their birth, although normally much longer these days. But that's plenty of time for new housing supply to catch up, if necessary (assuming there's more babies born 18 years ago than oldies dying today). On the other hand, the imporation of a new family compresses that 18 years of supply and demand adjustment into just a moment; the moment they step off the plane. At that moment an entire new dwelling is required instantaneously to house the new number of family units in the country.
Must be a pretty good place if that many people want to come here.
If only you would leave, which would lead to less demand and lower inflation. Problem solved.
I'm just 1 person and I have been here for many decades.
In the 2023 financial year 538,000 net migrants arrived.
In the 2024 financial year 429,000 net migrants arrived.
In the 2025 financial year 306,000 people arrived.
This year, 2026 financial year, we are on track for another 300,000 net migrant arrivals.This year net migration under the first 4 years of Albanese is on track to surpass the previous 9 years of Morrison, Turnbull and Abbott combined.
We need people to do the work. The latest batch of local kids are lazy and entitled. Most of them will end up as lifelong renters with the hard working immigrants as their landlords.
Thank you Albo and Jim. Absolutely every part of this rate rise is on them. They keep spending money, increase energy costs which flows into everything. It will keep going until these losers are out of government.
If we had the other party, we would all be paying extra to see GP.
lol that is what you are worried about. $40 extra once in a while. Ill take that over 3 rate rises, high energy bills, high labor cost etc.
I would not. I would welcome three rate rise and make health care more affordable.
My family would agree the same. My son, who is still a toddler, would likely agree the same when he grows up.
Our blood is mixed with this Aussieland. And we do NOT want Americanisation!
I would blame scomo for throwing money at everyone during covid. But human memory doesn’t go back that far.
It does, people just prefer wilful ignorance. They all know, they all remember, it's just not their team.
Seems that includes you. Labor supported ALL the liberals spending legislation AND WANTED TO SPEND AN ADDITIONAL $50 BILLION. And it seems you also have forgotten that the spending was required because the predominantly LABOR state premiers locked their states down ( world record lockdown in Victoria) that required federal government spending otherwise the entire country would have collapsed.
The rich will just get richer….