The impact of Immigration

[facthunter]

 it would be different if he was seizing deposited money. Nev

[onetrack]

13 hours ago, old man emu said:

But how does a seller deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash into a bank account. Here in NSW deposits of $10,000+ in cash must be documented. I remember having to do so when I was a cop and was depositing seized drug money at my local bank into the holding account that the police had.

As I said, there's currently no requirement for real estate agents, solicitors or conveyancers in the real estate business to meet the reporting requirements under AUSTRAC money laundering laws.

 

However, typical of Govts shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted - all of the above people will be obliged to fall into line with everyone else under the cash money reporting requirements, starting 1st July 2026.

 

QUOTE:

 

"Tranche 2 reporting entities are businesses in "gatekeeper" professions - specifically real estate professionals, lawyers, accountants, conveyancers, and trust/company service providers - that will be required to comply with Australia's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) Act. These new obligations take effect from 1 July 2026, requiring them to register, conduct due diligence, and report suspicious activities to AUSTRAC."

[randomx]

On 28/04/2026 at 10:18 AM, Marty_d said:

No. It doesn't. There are a heap of factors that go into house prices including supply, number of tradies, planning rules, land zoning, capital gains discounts, short term holiday houses (Airbnb), etc.

Again - looking for a simple solution to a complex problem.

 

Contradicting it all right there mate.

That's all why we don't need another 21/2 mill in migration.

What do you THINK, that's done to all those other troubles.

But anywayyyy, whatever.

As l said somewhere, just look at the massive improvement in Canada's situation, go on go study that and others too, since they cut immigration.

And as l said before to, then just look at troubles countries all over the world are having, us included , bc of mass immigration.

You don't have to argue away here does nothing mate- zilch, that's why l don't waste my time on it.

Go look at the facts, it's "very" simple stuff man.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 29 by randomx

[facthunter]

I suggest our rate of immigration is about right. The reserve Bank wants more unemployment than we Have. We might even want more  workers..  Nev

[randomx]

Yeah think she's about as bright as Albo n sidekick that one. Fancy putting rates up right now and they reckon 2mre to come.

We have the second highest debt to wage in the world, 2nd highest housing and montages,l think 2nd in costs of living too, now fuel and through to everything else from that plus more rate rises. 

Think a lot of people round here have had their houses 30-40yrs, have no teen kids, early 20s, and nothing to worry about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[old man emu]

As ironic as it seems in a country with the land area of Australia, but unlimited immigration can lead to over-population. I don't mean that it could lead to the population densities seen in countries like India and China. I mean that in localised areas such as our metropolitan areas. I mean that it could lead to the inability of an area to support that population.

 

The first thing I think of is water supply. I see the growth of residential areas in the Sydney Metropolitan Area, and I see the possibilities for water supply for those areas. The major storage facility is Warragamba Dam. Our climate is one of somewhat irregular rainfall. I have seen this dam overflow, and I have also seen its water level drop a great deal. Already the height of the dam wall has been raised above its original design height. There are no other sites for dams because any dam would hold back water flow into Warragamba. 

 

The water supply problem exists all along the east coast and the inland. The 48 States of the USA, which cover the same area as Australia, can support their populations because the land has abundant water throughout. Similarly for Europe. This continent has been inhabited for 50,000+ years. Why wouldn't it have produced a similar population size to other places? Simply beause the lack of water meant that the inhabitants did not have any time after attending to mere survival to develop the civilisations the developed elsewhere.

 

It immigration continues unabated, Australia will not be able to provide the essential need for survival - water. If that happens, we have over-population.

[onetrack]

Perth would have only reached two-thirds of its current population level is we had to rely on groundwater and rainfall for water. We ran short of adequate amounts of drinking water around 15 years ago.

As a result, two desalination plants have been installed, utilising our plentiful natural gas supply and a cleverly designed membrane, and those two desalination plants now supply around 35% to 40% of the drinking water for Perth.

There are many country towns in W.A. facing a similar problem, and during drought periods, water has had to be trucked into some towns in W.A. that ran out of drinking water supplies. 

We live on the edge on this planet, at the best of times. Natural disasters such as extended droughts, massive storms, and earthquakes, have often decimated population centres.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Just catching up on this thread. Apart from some misstated knowledge of the First Nations' which I will deal with later, there are three main threads of negative impact immigration. The first is the impact on the housing market and how it pushes up prices. The recent developments of tax changes have already seemed to knock that one on the head, but it is too early to determine if that is the case, and I will explain why in a second.

 

But, as a rough and ready set of numbers, I got Google to give me the following in a table:

 

So, what does it compare (all sourced from ABS data):

• Each year from 2000 to 2025 EOFY.
• The net migration into Australia
• The natural increase in the population (non-immigrants)
• Net dwelling additions to Australia - that means number of new dwellings built minus the number of those demolished. 
• The average number of people per immigrant household
• The average number of people per non-immigrant household
• The new immigrant homes needed based on the number of immigrants divided by the average household size
• The new homes needed for non immigrant families
• The surplus or deficit of new dwellings built minus the sum of immigrant and non-immigrant houses required.

This is rough and ready by any measure. For example, we don't take into account the number of bedrooms per new dwelling. But on this measure, only 6 of the 26 years there was a deficity in the number of new dwellings constructed versus the estimated new homes required across both the immigrant and non immgrant dwellings required. The biggest deficit was 77k homes in 2022-23, immediately after Covid. Pre-Covid, the biggest deficit was 7.5K. The biggest surplus was 142,500 dwellings in a year! With the exception of 2024-25, which ad a small surplus of 2,700 most years of surplus were well into the 10s of thousands.

 

This is especially important because of the compounding effect. Every year, immigrants come, and then the next year some/many will have a baby or 2. That baby further increases the population. That is reflected in the domestic and not immigrant size and skews the figures at is is deemed one domestic person in the household of domestic population.. and increases the number of dwellings required according to the stats. 

 

These are two examples of statistical error, but the numbers of surpluses involved for the amount of years would indicate that the issue of immigration on housing in de minimis; or marginal at best. There goes that claim that immigration has a big impact on the housing costs. 

 

The second, on crime, it is hard to get stats. The reason why is because an immigrant is considered someone who is born overseas, and with young kids committing crimes, many may well be born in Australia and considered part of the domestic population. In addition, the ABS does not publish statistics by ethnic origin. So the best I could come up with is this from AI:

 

It's not much, but it points to a debunking of the myths. My anecdotal observations in the UK is that crime, with the exception of hate crime, is linked more to socio-economic issues than specific ethinic backgrounds. But like Australia, the UK statistics Office doesn't publish such information, at least according to Google. 

 

The third is the dilution of Aussie culture ("traditional Australian"). This is a little too subjective for me; the behaviour of Aussies differs on socio-economic and location. Just look at Melbourne Football club members, for example. And if you think Aussies are laid back, well, they weren't compared to their UK cousins, at least pre Covid, that is for sure. But, that was my impression. And, they certainly don't or didn't swear anywhere near that of the Brit, nor did they drink anywhere near as much, either (NT excepted, I guess).. Again, that was my observation, which may be different to yours. But I get the feeling Aussies have this view of themselves as somehow unique.. My travels have busted that myth to me. 

 

However, I do get that people who have a vastly different culture and physical appearance can come across as not integrating with the local culture. There is a difference between people coming here and doing well, and people coming here, doing well, and integrating. But that does not mean they have to not wear what they want (Australia is about freedom of choice, right). Nor does it mean they need to fit into everything a "traditional Aussie" would do.. 

 

Many years ago, if you didn't smoke, you weren't Australian.. Despite the tobacco wars, there has been a big shift in attitudes to smoking, drinking, and I think those with massive muscly cars are considered either bogans or correcting for other deficiencies.  I doubt much of this is the result of immigration., yet our cultural values have changed. Even marital rape is now illegal all over Australia since 1996 (though it was progressively made illegal from 1976).

 

Think about it.. Marital rape was acceptable in modern Australia. Sometimes, it is good to have a cultural change. 

 

 

 

Edited July 6 by Jerry_Atrick

[pmccarthy]

I disliked Yank Tanks for most of my life, and admired small British sports cars. But in recent years I have grown to admire the muscle cars. I will probably never own one, but somehow wish I had bought a GTHO or an XU1 back in the day. Am I turning into a bogan?

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Poppycock Jerry.

 

Traditional Aussies out here in rural Australia are peaceful and law abiding, that's something all new immigrants can learn regarding integration, they won't learn in the idiot major cities.

 

New immigrants should live a stint in the bush before they live in a city. Civilized camps could be constructed to house them in suitable locations. They'd get an education on Aussie values, manners, assisting the elderly without hesitation, friendliness, community co-operation and awareness, respect for wildlife, helping out in bush fire emergencies if any, ready to road assist for vehicle breakdowns, sharing information to bring neighbors up to speed on anything you think they need to know about, respect for other's property and privacy.

 

I'm tied of reading that Aussies commit more crime than immigrants - the books are cooked to favor the far-left narrative. Do you have a mind of your own? The larger the town or city, the more crime there is, never mind who commits it, it needs to be stamped out. We could start with home invasions, then drug dealing, then arson. Why is it that the big cities keep tolerating these crimes? Is it to keep the police employed, or to give politicians something to condemn in front of TV cameras, silently saying "vote for me and my party"?

[facthunter]

I don't see Marital rape law and Muscle cars as useful /relevant determinants.  More women in Australia are killed by People known to them than has ever been the case. Some of this is Custody disputes and economic stress and lack of safe accommodation  alternatives.  Muscle cars are pretty Invisible where I drive . Modded cars are given a Hard time by the Police. Loving to extremes of some Weird evil handling gas guzzler has never been at the top of the crime  statistics. Fast E bikes and Juvenile Car thefts are the Issue. There are essentially NO cheap Houses in the Capital cities. You are Paying for Position and access there. A lot of Properties are Overcapitalised and many are empty on Purpose, by owner choice. Churches etc still get Tax exempt status. No one is building cheap accommodation. The Value of the Land dictates that. Nev

[facthunter]

I stint in the Bush can be a wild ride when you unwillingly Infringe unwritten code and buy something some red Necked Local Yokel has had his eye on hoping Old Harry will die and he can get it Cheap. Blood is thicker than water. The Village idiot is the Local fix all. You are a Blow in forever. Only in a city can you maintain your privacy and circulate at Places  WHERE you CHOOSE who you want to Meet from the Vast Number of Offerings you can easily access and Join. Jazz, Special interest associations etc.Nev

[octave]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

New immigrants should live a stint in the bush before they live in a city. Civilized camps could be constructed to house them in suitable locations. They'd get an education on Aussie values, manners, assisting the elderly without hesitation, friendliness, community co-operation and awareness, respect for wildlife, helping out in bush fire emergencies if any, ready to road assist for vehicle breakdowns, sharing information to bring neighbors up to speed on anything you think they need to know about, respect for other's property and privacy.

GON could it be that you have not mixed with people from other cultures very much?   I have, for most of my working life, worked with people from many countries.  These people were highly educated and great people.    I certainly have been helped by strangers from another country.  

 

My in-laws, who are now in their 90s and pretty frail, have some wonderful neighbours from Pakistan.  These people are and have always been the kindest and most generous people you could ever meet.  When we visit my in-laws (they live interstate) and go for lunch, their neighbours will often cook some food and send it over.  When the woman comes over she will give my father in law a bug hug and ask "how are you Baba"? Baba means father, grandfather or respected older man. 

My in-laws house is getting pretty run down and their neighbour often comes in and fixes things.

Here is a post from my father- in- laws FB page

 

 

The thing is in any culture are nationality there is a range of characteristics.   My doctor is Malaysian but this is the least notable thing about him. 

My son's partner is: Kind

                                  Extremely humourous

                                  Scarily intelligent

                                  Succesfull

The fact that she is Chinese is interesting but mostly irrelevant to us.

 

Is it wrong to assess people from my dealings with them rather than resorting to dumb stereotypes?

Edited July 7 by octave

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Poppycock Jerry.

That is your opinion.. can you present stats from reliable sources to back that up... Otherwise that is the big flaw in democracy - people with only an opinion who can't be arsed to find out the reality get to determine who runs the country. 

 

2 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

I'm tied of reading that Aussies commit more crime than immigrants - the books are cooked to favor the far-left narrative.

So, what evidence do you have the books are cooked.. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative - your belief system - doesn't mean it is wrong or the books are cooked. Back to the "oh the left.. whatever" argument.. no basis apart from an attempt to disparage. Well, if being left is finding the facts, I am proudly left... You're just tired of being presented facts that don't correlate to your beliefs. Sorry for you, but facts don't give a stuff what you think. Or maybe your typo is a Freudian slip - you are tied up by the fact?

 

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

I don't see Marital rape law and Muscle cars as useful /relevant determinants.  More women in Australia are killed by People known to them than has ever been the case.

I am not sure what the first sentence means.. It was an illustration of how a culture can change over time. And sometimes, the "traditional Aussie" in what I am guessing is GON's stereotype isn't nice, but is becoming nicer. 

 

But, also you shouldn't believe everything you read in the press, either. The number of women homicides are slightly down ion 2024-25 over the prevuous year - both in the absolute and intimate partner (domestic violence) categories, but the longer term trend has been downwards:

And I doubt this is altogether to do with migration as well, but a shift in culture - to be honest, although it would be great to see it at zero, it is an, in general positive shift over time. Another plus for a shifting cultural values, although recent spikes are cause for concern, they have settled down.

 

Edited July 7 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

Here's something that is not considered in the immigration debate. Money that leaves the local economy through transfers by immigrants to families in their country of origin. In this video, (which I admit I have not fact checked, or found the original source) it is claimed that in one year $38 billion dollars left the local economy through transfer to "the old country".

 

First thing I need to say that this money was, hopefully, money available after wages and salaries of the senders had been taxed under the PAYE method. So the sender had the right do do with the money anything he desired. Secondly, this money would have been sent digitally since it is illegal to take a large number of banknotes out of the country.

 

So what's wrong with this? Basically it means that the local economy lost the use of that amount of credit. For a start, if it had been spent here, local businesses would have benefitted from the increase  in their line of trade. Increase local business and you increase demand for goods and services and create employment. Also, 10% would have gone back to Treaasury as GST. 

 

Does this transfer of money actually occur? I had contact with Phillipino carers working after Mum when she was alive. The were sending money back 'home' to support family. There are a lot of Chinese workers in the construction industry, and what about trolley boys and Uber drivers? 

 

 

[facthunter]

Foreign investors get Au$'s as dividends too and what about the  fossil fuel we buy and the Chinese stuff we import?. Tourists and foreign students bring money IN.  Not much need to send money back to China.  Nev

[old man emu]

41 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Foreign investors get Au$'s as dividends too and what about the  fossil fuel we buy and the Chinese stuff we import?.

Those are what we expect from international trade. They are not related to the immigration question.

 

42 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Tourists and foreign students bring money IN.

True. They do. Those people leave money in the local economy by spending They are not the ones sending money 'back home'.

 

The ones who send the money back home are the ones who are working here because the amount of money they can earn is far greater than what they can earn in their country of origin. Instead of spending what money is left over after what it costs to live (food, rent, transport, entertainment, goods and services) some is sent out of the country. Have you ever heard of a native born Australian sending money on a regular basis? (OK I don't count contributions to Save the Children etc.)

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Actually, I know many Aussies who lived in the UK because they could earn more here and regularly send money to Aus mostly to buy a house. Most have moved back to Aus

Edited 8 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

I'm just trying to put context and balance in to the story which is just there to get people worked up and think Poorlean is the Answer.  We still have triple "A" credit ratings and a Lower debt to Economic activity than Most  of the rest of the best economies in the World. under the stress and chaos of Covid and Later Trump and the ME chaos. Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

For every billion sent in the form of remittance, a billion less should be sent in the form of Foreign Aid. 

[facthunter]

If you aid people where they are, there will be less needing to escape to Here.. Nev

[old man emu]

43 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

For every billion sent in the form of remittance, a billion less should be sent in the form of Foreign Aid. 

 

17 minutes ago, facthunter said:

If you aid people where they are, there will be less needing to escape to Here.. Nev

What you are forgetting is that the money being sent overseas has already been taxed here, and it is the property of the person sending it. The owner can do whatever he wishes with his property. Just think how much money gamblers send into the coffers of bookmakers. 

 

My reason for posting that information was simply to point to something that we have never thought about. Is the practice good or bad? It is good in that it must make lives better in the destination country. It is bad because it diminishes the amount of money available to support Australia's local small businesses.

[facthunter]

The Federal gov't also give overseas Aid. Gambling has a far worse effect. .. Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

My reason for posting that information was simply to point to something that we have never thought about. Is the practice good or bad?

I've thought about it many times. It's a bad practice because the overseas beneficiaries of the money inadvertently acquire a distorted sense of their own value and worth. They'll always expect a handout and think it's their human right, perhaps traveling for family reunions here in OZ. Or for trickle donations to foreign terrorist organizations.

 

Australia is $2Trillion in debt at present (Fed and States), how are we going to pay that off? - that's another important question. We need to keep as much money here as possible to build the economy. Halving the amount of remittance sent overseas would be a good move. Govt's can put a lower cap on it. Hanson would, that's why she's there. The major parties won't, they're too internationalist, looking after everyone except Australia.

 

   

[rgmwa]

Money spent by the government on overseas aid is not a handout, it's a hand up. It typically goes to health, education and development in poorer countries as well as direct food aid in times of famine. As for people who send some of their money back to their families to help them out, it's their money. They earned it, they work here, pay taxes and also support our economy so they are doing their bit for this country as well.

Saying that foreign aid recipients expect a handout as their human right and acquire a distorted sense of their own value and worth because they benefit from the aid is nonsense in my opinion. Trump got rid of USAID, which cost the US a relative pittance in cash but a huge amount in international goodwill. People in recipient countries died as a result. Was that a good outcome? in any case, Australia only ranks 25th out of 32 donor nations measured as a proportion of each country's national income, so you can hardly say that we are an overly generous nation.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by rgmwa