1.2 million houses over 5 years while planning to grant 1 million permanent visas in that same time period? While also making it easier to get work visas and massively extending the length of post-study 'reward' visas?

The unrealistic 'aspirational' goal isn't even enough to cover the damage they're causing with their irresponsible migration policies.

Edit: Added for context for those unfamiliar. People who study in Australia are 'rewarded' by being able to apply for 'temporary graduate visas'. These visas are being extended more and more over the past few years, with people able to remain up to an additional 6 years after they finish their study with no work limitations.

Inb4 they all die a tragic but poetic death

Cr Hudson acknowledged that the transport interchange on Little Bridge Street had been a problem for "a long, long time" and said that recently, some of the seating and shelters had been removed to try to address antisocial behaviour in the area.

Oh, yeah, destroying infrastructure, that will resolve society's problems. /s

I appreciate your response and your explanation, but I disagree. The dispersal of responsibility from a tenant to a private landlord has no advantage over public housing. Tenants in the current market are afraid of rocking the boat because landlords are en masse holding them over a barrel. I like your theory that dispersing the responsibility from the state to market forces will help with regulation, but fortunately, we don't need to hypothesise because, as you noted, we already live in a private market and can see how shit regulation is, and how shit it has been for a very long time.

This incentive you mention doesn't seem to be enacting any real change with regulation. Sure, over the past few months, the state governments across Australia have enacted 'progressive overhauls' on tenant rights, but almost universally, these overhauls are ignoring the actual issues and are very clearly designed to just look like they're doing something. The Federal response is even worse. On one hand, they are forced to make miniscule concessions by the Greens to make their band-aid slightly less rubbish, and on the other, they exacerbate the pressures on the housing market by slashing taxes for the rich and boosting migration.

We've already tried regulation, and it has been an abysmal failure (to everyone except landlords).

I have yet to hear an argument for private rentals where public housing would not better serve the people. I agree that the challenge is that the government is concerned about pushback from investors (with a large splash of self-interest thrown in by landlord politicians).

The HAFF is a next-to-useless bandage that does nothing to actually resolve the issues of investors massively driving up housing prices alongside irresponsible population increase. 40,000 homes spread over 5-years will not do anything when we're granting 200,000 permanent visas every year.

Really? Why reward people for taking away opportunities from others and artificially inflating property values?

Investment properties should not be a thing. AirBNB should not exist. This is what is causing the housing crisis, and providing grants to the people responsible for this mess so that they are slightly less selfish isn't going to help.

We've gone full circle. When streaming became mainstream I was on board. At one point I had 4 simultaneous streaming subscriptions; I now have 0.

These people found the breaking point and leapt right past it. I pay a fair price for video games, ebooks, music, and software. There is nowhere that offers a fair price for films and TV shows.

Removed by mod

Did you even read the comment chain you're responding to? You know, the one where I said it is 'good to show genuine scepticism'? Or the one after that, where I linked the 'unnamed' individual's alleged GitHub?

I am not the one being overly trusting here. I think it is 'likely' that this story is true. I researched it, looked at the significant amount of evidence, and I am still not 100% convinced. That is far more than what I can say for you people replying to me en masse who all assume the story must be an American plot with absolutely no evidence to back up this claim.

Ugh, I need to figure out a way to unsubscribe from replies to a post. You people are bonkers.

Hmm... To debate with a conspiracy theorist or not... Such a difficult choice.

You know what, let me try something different...

You win this debate! I concede! Although I am not an American and don't live in America, I am a stooge of the American imperialists! And yes, like the other 8.1 billion people on the planet (sans you, of course), I live on stolen land! Have mercy!

Ah, you're one of those. Nuf sed.

That's hardly the original source. The second paragraph of that article links to another source again.

It's good to show genuine scepticism to what you read, but I can't help but think yours is not particularly honest.

It is extremely clear via auditing the trail of this report that the 'crypto shill site' is negligible to the story. You would have had to go back one step in the chain, stick your fingers in your ears, then ignore everything else from that point onwards to think Coin Telegraph was actually relevant to the reporting of this story.

True or not, here you can find a clear summary, along with screenshots stamped with the seal of the Chengde PD. These screenshots, contrary to your claim, are not at all blurry, and have minimal redaction (to protect the person's privacy).

Given fairly credible and detailed screenshots of a police report, numerous reporting across a number of different websites in both Chinese and English, even a reported GitHub profile of the person in question, I think there's sufficient evidence to believe this is likely a true story.

But you do you.

deleted by creator

From the wording in the legislation, I don't see how this 'power' is any more special than Dutton's was when he granted his mate's au pair a tourist visa despite her intentions to work unlawfully.

I appreciate now, given the context of user report(s), the reason you specified you weren't deleting that person's post.

Regarding your insistence that the user was spreading misinformation however, I believe that you are splitting hairs. That user did not specify the members would be indigenous, they said it would be racist to include specific powers to a specific race in the Constitution. I already explained my viewpoint that representation is power, a view I am sure most people who support the Voice would agree with given a different context such as the one I earlier described.

if the reason for the 'misinformation' accusation is using the labels 'race' and 'racism' to describe indigenous people and singling them out respectively, then by that logic it is also 'misinformation' in other contexts too. If a shop refuses to serve someone because they are aboriginal, they're not being 'racist' because aboriginals are a 'cultural group' not a race?

Note how the following amendments do not change the validity of the argument one bit:

I love how giving specific powers abilities to make representations to government for a specific race cultural group within the constitution is anything but racism cultural groupism. Sounds almost like the textbook definition of racism cultural groupism to me but what do i know.

The word 'disingenuous' is used too often in debate I think, but I'll be honest, that is what it looks like people are being here; intentionally (edit: perhaps subconsciously would be more apt) misunderstanding the 'No' arguments and shutting them down with accusations of lies and misinformation, all so that they don't have to acknowledge that their points are valid.

How the hell do I block someone in Lemmy?

Edit: Never mind. Figured it out. Had to go to the user profile itself because the block pop up doesn't seem to work.

I honestly don't know what the point is? Every single time someone makes an argument for the 'No' side, people accuse the person of 'spreading misinformation' and claim they are 'factually incorrect'.

You mentioned your observations from reading other arguments. I had a brief look at your recent post history for an example of what you meant, and there was one that stood out to me.

Someone made a comment that the Voice would grant powers to a specific race in the Constitution and you loftily replied that you would not be deleting their post but their argument was both 'wrong' and 'misinformation'.

it is not wrong and it is not misinformation, I believe it takes a wild interpretation of the wording to conclude special parliamentary representation is not power.

As an example, people (rightfully) get angered by the major parties throwing 'conferences' where corporations can pay for access to MPs. I doubt many people here would argue these corporations are not being benefited by attending these 'conferences'.

Also, as an aside, while you did not remove that person's post, even mentioning that was an option was not appropriate IMO. How can people have a civilised discussion if they must fear having their posts removed, or being banned from contributing, when a mod or admin disagree with them?

My argument is that the people here rely on ad hominem attacks to 'support' their own arguments. Thanks for proving my point you rude twat.

• They are misinformed
• They are lying
• They can't or won't read
• They are too stupid to understand it
• They don't value democracy

Colour me impressed. I don't think I could have written such a perfect example of why I hate engaging people in dialogue on this issue. I'll leave you to your echo chamber. I'm sure you and all the other people who support a Voice will sway many people to your side with such convincing arguments.