DOES HARRY EXERCISE ULTIMATE POWER OVER MALCOLM ON THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE? OR IS IT TREASURY?
HARRY … could he have been the instigator of the Property Ponzi? The high immigration? Cough … cough …
QUOTES FROM HT:
From One Plus One with Jane Hutcheon when she enquired if Harry had a hand in the way the Sydney landscape has changed:
“Well, since I am not a modest person I say I had the biggest hand in it because I devoted myself to Sydney. I did a little bit in Queensland, but absolutely I am Sydney!”
When Harry was asked about the oversupply of apartments: the AFR he responded:
“then I will bring in more migrants”
Perhaps Harry is not alone but it appears there is lobbying pressure which could be largely to blame for the lack of political action regarding Chinese property buyers; July AFR:
“The problem with Australians is they are very slow. They ask their lawyer, they ask their financial adviser, they ask their family, they ask everybody. The Chinese don’t ask anybody, they come off the plane, buy their unit and go.”
SMH: CENTRE HOLDS IN IMMIGRATION DEBATE
‘WE’VE seen the Turnbull government defer to Abbott and those of his conservative colleagues on a range of issues. The annual immigration ceiling is set each year in the federal budget, which is being drawn up now for May 8 budget night. Is Turnbull about to appease Abbott and the right once again?
The answer is no.
In fact, it hasn’t been announced but the annual immigration figure for next financial year has already been decided. And it’s not changing.
One reason is the Treasury has imposed a secret budget rule that is designed deliberately to make a big cut difficult. The Treasury has a long-standing set of rules, never published, that govern the way the budget is put together.
They’re called the “budget process operating rules”.
One of the rules applies to immigration. On the assumption that every new skilled immigrant will get a job, earn an income and pay tax, every place in the program is assumed to add revenue to the federal budget.
If an immigration minister wants to cut the intake, he or she must offset the notional lost revenue. And the minister has to find the money elsewhere in his or her own portfolio.
Treasurer Scott Morrison gave an example of the size of this effect when he said that the Abbott proposal to cut the ceiling by 80,000 people would cost the budget $5 billion over four years. So under the Treasury rule, if Peter Dutton were to make such a cut he’d have to find savings of $5 billion elsewhere in his portfolio.
An official in the Prime Minister’s Department said that the rules were designed “to stop dramatic cuts” so that “people can’t go from an intake of 200,000 to 100,000”, which is pretty close to what Abbott is calling for, a cut from 190,000 to 110,000 a year.
A cabinet minister described the rule as “as a strange formula”. “If a minister wants to cut the program they have to find offsets,” the minister said. “It’s weird science, essentially it means you can’t cut the intake. …. Dutton simultaneously has told his department to put greater emphasis on the integrity of applications to minimise fraud. The rejection rate has risen; the intake has fallen. The net result is that the department estimates that this year’s intake will be about 170,000 – 20,000 short of the ceiling.’
WHAT is this ceiling of 190,000 migrants per annum? There were some 260,000 migrants arriving in Australia in 2017! 1.4 Million Visa holders across Australia … largely settled in Sydney and Melbourne.
FROM MACRO BUSINESS …
Most of the migrant intake increases population for Sydney and Melbourne which has fuelled the demand for housing!
What of the costs of:
-catching up with infrastructure of: schools, hospitals, roads, rail, bus, power
-overpriced housing, worsening congestion, and a degraded environment
HOW MANY $BILLIONS?