Australian news and politics.

[kiro kompiro]

Your RBA quote from 2015 actually supports the more nuanced view, not a simplistic "immigration is the sole cause" argument.

Yes, high immigration increases housing demand — no serious person denies that. Adding the population equivalent of Canberra in a single year obviously pressures rents and prices, especially when concentrated in Sydney and Melbourne. The RBA was clear....

Strong population growth underpinned by immigration, combined with smaller households, pushed underlying demand ahead of supply. But that's exactly why my point holds: immigration is a contributing factor that exposes and worsens deeper supply-side failures. If Australia had maintained responsive housing construction, planning reforms, and infrastructure investment over the past decade-plus, this level of migration wouldn't have produced the same crisis. The severity of today's shortages — chronically low completions relative to need, zoning bottlenecks, slow approvals, and infrastructure lags shows the supply system has been broken for years, not just overwhelmed recently.

The 2015 RBA piece itself framed it as a mismatch or periods where population changes aren't met by dwelling supply adjustments lead to big price swings. We've had that mismatch. Blaming immigration alone ignores how inelastic supply turns normal demand growth into a crisis. Ignoring supply failures while running very high migration creates the vicious circle.

The mature policy question isn't "immigration or housing?" It's whether we can coordinate migration intakes with actual housing delivery and infrastructure so they don't keep getting out of sync. Business lobbies love the flexible labour supply, but that doesn't magically build homes. We need both realistic migration settings and serious supply reform. Anything less is performative politics, not solutions.

The important phrase is underpinned by immigration. Record immigration (aka "strong immigration" in the article) is the thing that rising house prices are built on. Hence underpinned by.

It doesn't matter that interests rates were low, it doesn't matter if construction supply was better, if there is no demand. House prices would drop. Construction costs would drop. Infrastructure costs would drop.

As for the argument that "supply didn't meet demand", its a nonsense argument because you could say the same thing as the population approached infinity even though there is no infinite capacity to build or provide suitable land. Just keep building more un til we hit 300 million. What's the problem?

The problem is Victoria is up to its eyeballs in debt from building infrastructure to cope with population growth and is jacking up State taxes to stop from going bankrupt. GDP per capita is going backwards. No-one's quality of life is better because of record "strong" immigration.

The population growth- as you point out- needs to be in sync with the capacity to build. So why isn't it?

There is no synchronization because there never has been a population policy. We have never as a nation discussed what is the desirable population target and why.

Without that policy-if we don't know how many people we are building for- how can we know how much to build, when and where?

 

[Toebash]

Yes, antisemitism and Israel criticism are conceptually distinct: fair policy critique (like any nation) is legitimate. But in practice, much of this "criticism" crosses into antisemitism via double standards....

For example, denying Jewish self-determination, Nazi analogies, blood libels, collective Jewish blame, and eliminationist calls "from the river to the sea"....

Data shows surges in incidents tied to such rhetoric, not the pure debate theory. Consistent standards often expose the overlap.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, I'm just miffed that someone thinks Labor politicians have engaged in any of the antisemitic behaviour you listed. I'd be very happy to reconsider my position if I'm provided evidence to the contrary.

 

[SocceroosFan84]

Who? What did they say?

Having to be dragged kicking and screaming into a response to Bondi for a start.

They emboldened those who hate this country and our way of life.

It's well known the Jewish community blames them for what happened in Bondi last December.

 

[Football us life]

The important phrase is underpinned by immigration. Record immigration (aka "strong immigration" in the article) is the thing that rising house prices are built on. Hence underpinned by.

It doesn't matter that interests rates were low, it doesn't matter if construction supply was better, if there is no demand. House prices would drop. Construction costs would drop. Infrastructure costs would drop.

As for the argument that "supply didn't meet demand", its a nonsense argument because you could say the same thing as the population approached infinity even though there is no infinite capacity to build or provide suitable land. Just keep building more un til we hit 300 million. What's the problem?

The problem is Victoria is up to its eyeballs in debt from building infrastructure to cope with population growth and is jacking up State taxes to stop from going bankrupt. GDP per capita is going backwards. No-one's quality of life is better because of record "strong" immigration.

The population growth- as you point out- needs to be in sync with the capacity to build. So why isn't it?

There is no synchronization because there never has been a population policy. We have never as a nation discussed what is the desirable population target and why.

Without that policy-if we don't know how many people we are building for- how can we know how much to build, when and where?

Here's my prediction.....

House prices will fall by ~5% over the next 12 months and then plateau out for a bit.

The Government will then inject around 600,000 new migrants into the population over the next 24 months which will be followed by house prices rising by 25% in the 24.months after that!

 

[Toebash]

Having to be dragged kicking and screaming into a response to Bondi for a start.

They emboldened those who hate this country and our way of life.

It's well known the Jewish community blames them for what happened in Bondi last December.

I think reasonable minds can differ on whether the speed and breadth of the response was appropriate, but it's a pretty wild (and, dare I say, wilfully inflammatory) accusation to say that antisemitism was the motivating factor. I've just seen no evidence of that at all, and the only people who seem to espouse that view are either Jewish people (whose sensitivity can be excused in the circumstances) or people who already disliked the Labor government before Bondi happened.

 

[Football us life]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, I'm just miffed that someone thinks Labor politicians have engaged in any of the antisemitic behaviour you listed. I'd be very happy to reconsider my position if I'm provided evidence to the contrary.

I think it exists in the fringes of the Australian (hard)left...

Because I get the feeling antisemitism has risen, manifesting in conflating Jewish people with Israeli policy...

“Zionist” is now a slur, endorsement of all this Hamas rhetoric and incidents like synagogue attacks or campus harassment post-Oct 7. Of course publicly Labor has condemned and expelled in some cases, but critics say response lags.

Albanese and particularly Penny Wong have been quite responsive but you can't stop it completely.

 

[erogenouszone]

It's amusing that all of those people expected Israel to do nothing after October 7. Literally as soon as the attack happened the attacks on Israel in general commenced immediately much like certain people blamed America in general for 9/11. America certainly didn't do nothing after 9/11 and nor did Israel. There will never, ever be a Palestinian state now, the "two state" solution is finished forever.

 

[SocceroosFan84]

It's amusing that all of those people expected Israel to do nothing after October 7. Literally as soon as the attack happened the attacks on Israel in general commenced immediately much like certain people blamed America in general for 9/11. America certainly didn't do nothing after 9/11 and nor did Israel. There will never, ever be a Palestinian state now, the "two state" solution is finished forever.

It's because the far left & far right are hardline anti-Semites and there are definitely an element of it in the Labor party given their absolutely pathetic response to Bondi.

 

[Football us life]

It's amusing that all of those people expected Israel to do nothing after October 7. Literally as soon as the attack happened the attacks on Israel in general commenced immediately much like certain people blamed America in general for 9/11. America certainly didn't do nothing after 9/11 and nor did Israel. There will never, ever be a Palestinian state now, the "two state" solution is finished forever.

Yep...no realistic chance in the current environment

The two-state solution is effectively dead for now. Polls show low support from both sides. Plus hugecamounts of Hamas rejectionism, PA weakness, mutual distrust post-Oct. 7 and Israeli security demands make a viable Palestinian state improbable.
International rhetoric persists of course, but ground realities favour the current status quo or worse alternatives. No partner, no pathway forward anytime soon!!

 

[zimbos05]

That's exactly why Australia has no official population policy, and not even a debate about whether there even should be one. Its the result of a fear that it will stoke racism.

It doesn't work.

What doesn't work? Migration? I wouldn't say it's the result of a fear, because it is actually happening. Cases of racism have risen and continue to do so. Racism is the rhetoric of One Nation, and it is rampant. Can't go on social media anymore without seeing racism rampant. Just the other day, there was a report about bot farms in Indonesia representing One Nation putting out posts that only serve to stoke the racial and cultural tensions. I'm always willing to hear the discussion and case for this idea that migration doesn't work, but often the key talking points around migration are with regards to people of colour only. That migration only doesn't work when it is people of colour. White migration is fine. It also uses arguments that are inherently false like, "migrants get welfare" which isn't possible for temporary migrants, and even permanent migrants have to go through a lengthy process just to get on any form of centrelink. Facts and figures provided on migration are also skewed. They don't tell the full picture that some of the migrants are returning Aussies, or family members, or people arriving on sponsorships from companies that have hired them in places like mining, education, engineering etc.

It makes people angry because they can see the outcomes for themselves every single day: competition for housing, road congestion, hospital waiting lists, schools over-crowding, public transport over-crowding.

Yet the grievances all falls on deaf ears.

That's how you end up with One Nation and Trump winning elections.

Again, the data suggests that migration is not the sole cause of this. Lack of supply, lack of government investment, investment properties, privatisation, duopolies, negative gearing, CGT discount, private health are but a few of the reasons those issues exist. All the evidence suggests this, and has been provided on this forum as well.

Grievances are not falling on deaf ears, because it's a false argument that migration is the sole cause of the issue. Victoria still has migration, yet it's housing prices dropped because of the change in their housing and tax structure. Housing prices have also dropped -albeit not significantly - in Sydney and Brisbane due to the latest policies in the budget. Migration hasn't stopped, so why did the prices drop?

You end up with One Nation and Trump winning elections because people don't fully understand the politics. I fully understand why people are angry. Don't get me wrong. I am too. I am absolute pissed off that my wage is stagnant but expenses have risen, and the thought of owning a house is almost impossible. But I don't blame migration for this. I look at mining companies that have paid $0 in income tax on $8bn profit like Santos. Or on Gina Rinehart who funds One Nation to the tune of millions, yet fails to pay her fair share of tax. Or Colesworth, who report significant profits year on year, yet struggle to pay their staff a liveable wage. How they also fuel inflation by buying out land that competitors are looking at, then never use that land, resulting in a lack of competition. We would have had Kaufland if Colesworth did not drive them out. What about how they have been found guilty of price fixing? Or the fact that government forces australians to take out a Private Health Insurance policy or pay a 1% tax, and for every year above 35 without private health, there is a 2% premium for every year you don't have it. What about Netflix earning $1bn in revenue, yet having paid $0 in tax. What about the estimated 15,000 homes currently sitting empty in a city like Brisbane owned by investors, yet the government refuses to implement a vacancy levy.

We are so consumed with our busy lives that we just listen to what we hear on the radio and tv and believe it to be true. There is not a single thing that Pauline Hanson has done that benefits the Aussie battler. If people understood this more, she'd have no votes at all. She constantly votes against improving workers rights. She voted consistently against affordable housing. She voted consistently against increasing the minimum wage. She has just spoken about wanting to get rid of maternity leave. How on earth does that help anyone or fix any of the issues?

In times of difficulty, we all look for reasons and people to blame. We've taken American politics and war cries and made it something of relevance here. It's not true though. You yourself are evidence of this. Data and evidence provided explaining why Migration is not the sole cause of our issues, yet you still keep harping on about it like it is the sole reason. I'm always willing to sit with people from all sides and understand the concerns. I think we should be listening to the other side and understanding why they are frustrated and angry. It is a little annoying when people refuse to acknowledge data and evidence, or use selective data for confirmation bias.

 

[kiro kompiro]

Here's my prediction.....

House prices will fall by ~5% over the next 12 months and then plateau out for a bit.

What doesn't work?

Trying to suppress discussion on population and immigration numbers because it may stoke racism.

Migration? I wouldn't say it's the result of a fear, because it is actually happening. Cases of racism have risen and continue to do so. Racism is the rhetoric of One Nation, and it is rampant. Can't go on social media anymore without seeing racism rampant. Just the other day, there was a report about bot farms in Indonesia representing One Nation putting out posts that only serve to stoke the racial and cultural tensions. I'm always willing to hear the discussion and case for this idea that migration doesn't work, but often the key talking points around migration are with regards to people of colour only. That migration only doesn't work when it is people of colour.

That could just as well because of the high number of Indian and Chinese immigrants. Its actually fact that the immigrants in the highest immigration years are people of color. Of course there are racists amongst the critics, but there are many others for whom this is detrimental economically and socially. There are also people who wish their nation to conserve their language, customs and cultures. Nothing wrong with that, in fact its universal thin, even from the immigrants themselves!

White migration is fine. It also uses arguments that are inherently false like, "migrants get welfare" which isn't possible for temporary migrants, and even permanent migrants have to go through a lengthy process just to get on any form of centrelink. Facts and figures provided on migration are also skewed. They don't tell the full picture that some of the migrants are returning Aussies, or family members, or people arriving on sponsorships from companies that have hired them in places like mining, education, engineering etc.

They're a minority- India, China the UK and NZ are our top sources of immigration.

Again, the data suggests that migration is not the sole cause of this. Lack of supply, lack of government investment, investment properties, privatisation, duopolies, negative gearing, CGT discount, private health are but a few of the reasons those issues exist. All the evidence suggests this, and has been provided on this forum as well.

Who says its the its the sole cause? Interest rates were important as well. Immigration has certainly been the driving cause of it though because without the demand through population growth what does it matter what the interest rates if there is no-one wanting to buy?

Grievances are not falling on deaf ears, because it's a false argument that migration is the sole cause of the issue. Victoria still has migration, yet it's housing prices dropped because of the change in their housing and tax structure. Housing prices have also dropped -albeit not significantly - in Sydney and Brisbane due to the latest policies in the budget. Migration hasn't stopped, so why did the prices drop?

Migration has dropped by nearly 200,000 people from two years ago. It dropped again this year. The other factor is interest rate rises. Hence price drops.

You end up with One Nation and Trump winning elections because people don't fully understand the politics. I fully understand why people are angry. Don't get me wrong. I am too. I am absolute pissed off that my wage is stagnant but expenses have risen, and the thought of owning a house is almost impossible. But I don't blame migration for this. I look at mining companies that have paid $0 in income tax on $8bn profit like Santos. Or on Gina Rinehart who funds One Nation to the tune of millions, yet fails to pay her fair share of tax.

There is no such thing as "fair share of tax". There is only the legal amount. BTW Billionaire Holmes a Court and other high worth individuals funds the Teals- we don't even know what their income and taxes are.

Or Colesworth, who report significant profits year on year, yet struggle to pay their staff a liveable wage. How they also fuel inflation by buying out land that competitors are looking at, then never use that land, resulting in a lack of competition. We would have had Kaufland if Colesworth did not drive them out. What about how they have been found guilty of price fixing? Or the fact that government forces australians to take out a Private Health Insurance policy or pay a 1% tax, and for every year above 35 without private health, there is a 2% premium for every year you don't have it. What about Netflix earning $1bn in revenue, yet having paid $0 in tax. What about the estimated 15,000 homes currently sitting empty in a city like Brisbane owned by investors, yet the government refuses to implement a vacancy levy.

No argument, especially the supermarkets and PHI Surcharge.

We are so consumed with our busy lives that we just listen to what we hear on the radio and tv and believe it to be true. There is not a single thing that Pauline Hanson has done that benefits the Aussie battler. If people understood this more, she'd have no votes at all. She constantly votes against improving workers rights. She voted consistently against affordable housing. She voted consistently against increasing the minimum wage. She has just spoken about wanting to get rid of maternity leave. How on earth does that help anyone or fix any of the issues?

Its what happens when the Duopoly don' t listen to people's grievances. People turn to someone that does. That's democracy.

In times of difficulty, we all look for reasons and people to blame. We've taken American politics and war cries and made it something of relevance here. It's not true though. You yourself are evidence of this. Data and evidence provided explaining why Migration is not the sole cause of our issues, yet you still keep harping on about it like it is the sole reason. I'm always willing to sit with people from all sides and understand the concerns. I think we should be listening to the other side and understanding why they are frustrated and angry. It is a little annoying when people refuse to acknowledge data and evidence, or use selective data for confirmation bias.

If you go back to earlier posts I blamed RBA Phillip Lowe and the government and their disastrous monetary policies as factors.

However the demand was lit by record immigration. Its undeniable. You can't reach the population target the government set decades earlier than projected and argue otherwise. It makes no sense.

 

[patjennings]

However the demand was lit by record immigration. Its undeniable. You can't reach the population target the government set decades earlier than projected and argue otherwise. It makes no sense.

A cause - but I don't even think it is the major one.

In the 2021 Census, there were over a million unoccupied private dwellings in Australia on census night. That was close to 10% of the national housing stock at the time.

Now there can be good reasons. People on holidays. Renos, holiday homes etc. REal estate churn and deceased estates.

The question comes if these are investment properties that receive CGT discounts and can be used to claim negative gearing then why are they allowed access to these. Surely the reason for these concessions was to add to the nation's housing stock.

I'd change it to you can only get the benefit pro-rata for the the number of days an investment property is occupied. Reward those providing new stock and force the rest to either rent it out at a reasonable rent or lose the benefit.

 

[zimbos05]

Trying to suppress discussion on population and immigration numbers because it may stoke racism.

No one is trying to suppress discussion. They are simply stating that migration is not the only cause of the problems to suggest is it is is false. We can't fix the issues by just stopping migration. There are multiple facets to address, so the constant harping on about migration -when disproved - starts to edge towards simple racism.

That could just as well because of the high number of Indian and Chinese immigrants. Its actually fact that the immigrants in the highest immigration years are people of color. Of course there are racists amongst the critics, but there are many others for whom this is detrimental economically and socially.

I get that. Do you think people of colour are not struggling as well? Some of us have been in this country for decades. We've got 3/4 generations of Australians in our family trees. However, this is the crux of it. When Hanson - and many people today - say "stop migration", she does not mean it in its entirety. She only means the people of colour. That is systemic racism. That is literally White Australia Policy. If you want to ban migration, fine, then make sure you are as critical of the white migrants who come to this country.

There are also people who wish their nation to conserve their language, customs and cultures. Nothing wrong with that, in fact its universal thin, even from the immigrants themselves!

How is the language not preserved? Are people refusing to speak english? is English banned anywhere? What about customs and cultures? Are any Aussie customs and cultures banned in this country? What are Aussie customs and Cultures?

They're a minority- India, China the UK and NZ are our top sources of immigration.

Whites are a minority, yet NZ and Uk are in the top 4?

Who says its the its the sole cause? Interest rates were important as well. Immigration has certainly been the driving cause of it though because without the demand through population growth what does it matter what the interest rates if there is no-one wanting to buy?

Many who make the argument for migration don't consider the other factors. It's all we ever hear from Hanson, Rinehart, LNP, Murdoch press, Nine, 7, people on this forum and elsewhere...migration migration migration. When presented with evidence to the contrary, it's ignored. Multiple economists disproved that interest rate hikes were the cause of migration. One example, Colesworth continue to raise prices - unfairly- and people still need groceries. RBA saw spending and tried to curb it by raising prices, but people still need to eat.

Migration has dropped by nearly 200,000 people from two years ago. It dropped again this year. The other factor is interest rate rises. Hence price drops.

There is no such thing as "fair share of tax". There is only the legal amount. BTW Billionaire Holmes a Court and other high worth individuals funds the Teals- we don't even know what their income and taxes are.

There is such a thing as a fair share. If I pay tax, and a multi billion dollar corporation pays none, then it's not a fair share. That does not pass the pub test for me. The worker paying, and the company not.

No argument, especially the supermarkets and PHI Surcharge.

Should we not be more upset about this stuff and making just as a big a noise? Where is Hanson fighting these things? She isn't because she keeps voting for it.

Its what happens when the Duopoly don' t listen to people's grievances. People turn to someone that does. That's democracy.

I fully get that. I have studied and taught history for years. You are not wrong. It's happened throughout history. People have every right to be aggrieved and I will never begrudge a persons right to be upset and angry. Like I said, I will stand up to blatant racism and people with ill intent. One of the people I know who I get on very well with is a One Nation supporter. They also love Trump. They are migrants to this country and have worked so hard to get what they have. Admire that, but disagree on a lot of things. We still get on very well because we disagree cordially and work towards a common greater good. We would never let our political affiliations get in the way of injustice. Just the other day I saw them call out someone calling another person a of colour a monkey. I never thought I'd see it. A One Nation supporter calling out racism. So I fully agree that some people who do support ON are not racist. They are aggrieved and angry with the status quo and are looking for answer. I just don't think they'll get the answers they want in ON. I'm not advocating for Labor or LNP. They are useless. However, what I do say is that we must be more vocal with our members of parliament and the senate. How many of us actually write to them or visit their offices and air our grievances? How many of us actually take action in terms of how we shop, boycott, spend our money, and be more cognisant of sending messages to the political elite.

If you go back to earlier posts I blamed RBA Phillip Lowe and the government and their disastrous monetary policies as factors.

However the demand was lit by record immigration. Its undeniable. You can't reach the population target the government set decades earlier than projected and argue otherwise. It makes no sense.

We can go on about migration numbers, but we'll go in a loop. COVID affected those numbers. We know that many of the migration numbers are things like returning citizens, family members, and sponsored workers. Things you can't stop or avoid. It's easy to conflate numbers. However, I think the Govt is trying to address these things. Migration numbers are dropping. We've got new tax policies that is already creating house prices to drop, and investor demand to wane. You can't function as a country as big as Australia without population growth. Without it, everything gets more expensive, and the cost of living gets worse. We became too complacent with voting in governments that cared very little for the people, and gave that sycophant Scott Morrison far too much time in power to fuck so many things up.

Again, I understand the grievances, but if anyone can look at Hanson and her clear voting record - which shows disdain for every day aussies - and think she is the answer, you're kidding yourself.

 

[kiro kompiro]

A cause - but I don't even think it is the major one.

In the 2021 Census, there were over a million unoccupied private dwellings in Australia on census night. That was close to 10% of the national housing stock at the time.

Now there can be good reasons. People on holidays. Renos, holiday homes etc. REal estate churn and deceased estates.

The question comes if these are investment properties that receive CGT discounts and can be used to claim negative gearing then why are they allowed access to these. Surely the reason for these concessions was to add to the nation's housing stock.

I'd change it to you can only get the benefit pro-rata for the the number of days an investment property is occupied. Reward those providing new stock and force the rest to either rent it out at a reasonable rent or lose the benefit.

For NG that's exactly what happens.

Capital gain tax is tax on the increase in value and applies to all assets in the same way.

It is fully taxed if kept for less than one year. You pay tax on inflation plus tax on the real gain. Its a punishing tax.

Tax is payable on 50% of the gain only if held more than 12 months. The discount is to recognize the gain occurs over multiple tax years, but is calculated as if all the gain occurred totally in the year it was sold, plus an allowance for an inflation plus an allowance for the gain pushing the owner in to the highest tax bracket for that one year.

Labor just changed the CGT rules: There is no discount beyond an allowance for inflation. You pay tax at whatever maginal rate your gain pushes you in for that one year, or 30%, which ever is the greater. This is horrible as even low income earners who sell a small share portolio pay 30% of the gain to the government, one of the highest in the world.

 

[patjennings]

For NG that's exactly what happens.

Capital gain tax is tax on the increase in value and applies to all assets in the same way.

It is fully taxed if kept for less than one year. You pay tax on inflation plus tax on the real gain. Its a punishing tax.

Tax is payable on 50% of the gain only if held more than 12 months. The discount is to recognize the gain occurs over multiple tax years, but is calculated as if all the gain occurred totally in the year it was sold, plus an allowance for an inflation plus an allowance for the gain pushing the owner in to the highest tax bracket for that one year.

Labor just changed the CGT rules: There is no discount beyond an allowance for inflation. You pay tax at whatever maginal rate your gain pushes you in for that one year, or 30%, which ever is the greater. This is horrible as even low income earners who sell a small share portolio pay 30% of the gain to the government, one of the highest in the world.

You missed my point - investors, who you are encouraging to invest to provide housing stock are investing for the capital gain and negative gearing, not to increase housing stock if it is vacant.

 

[kiro kompiro]

You missed my point - investors, who you are encouraging to invest to provide housing stock are investing for the capital gain and negative gearing, not to increase housing stock if it is vacant.

Firstly there is nothing special about NG or the CGT treatment that housing receives over other assets. In fact it is exactly the same as that of a collectable, a painting or shares.

Secondly if an investment house is empty, there is NO negative gearing because its illegal to claim expenses for an investment house that is not available for rent.

Under new laws, NG only applies to new builds, as you say, to encourage new housing stock.

That will be interesting: to be profitable, the NG strategy requires the capital gain to offset the losses and leave a profit . But the new CGT laws may reduce the net capital gain, and as the property is "new" only once, at sale time it may not be as attractive for investors to buy as there is no NG possible on it, so capital gains is reduced a second time. I forsee rents skyrocketting.

 

[HonestSpursFan]

Christ. Can the UN focus on calling out the countries where LGBTIQ people are still thrown in jail rather than pandering us about it?

Mind you I agree with their recommendations but they’re not for the federal government. These are state issues and I’m sure state Premiers would act on them (conversion therapy is already illegal for example).

Government rejects all UN recommendations on LGBTQIA+ rights

The Albanese government has accepted the lowest number of recommendations made by the UN Human Rights Council in 20 years, with none protecting the LGBTQIA+ community.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SocceroosFan84]

Christ. Can the UN focus on calling out the countries where LGBTIQ people are still thrown in jail rather than pandering us about it?

Mind you I agree with their recommendations but they’re not for the federal government. These are state issues and I’m sure state Premiers would act on them (conversion therapy is already illegal for example).

Government rejects all UN recommendations on LGBTQIA+ rights

The Albanese government has accepted the lowest number of recommendations made by the UN Human Rights Council in 20 years, with none protecting the LGBTQIA+ community.

www.abc.net.au

The UN has been a joke organisation for years.

It lost all credibility when it allowed Russia & China onto the Security Council and has Hamas members on the UNHRC

 

[HonestSpursFan]

The UN has been a joke organisation for years.

It lost all credibility when it allowed Russia & China onto the Security Council and has Hamas members on the UNHRC

Well, the Soviet Union joined in 1945 and China in 1971 (when Taiwan was disgracefully kicked out). But yeah, it’s disgraceful. The UN clearly only cares about Western-aligned countries (e.g. Israel). Why can they accept Palestine but not Taiwan as a UN member? Both are countries and unlike Palestine, Taiwan has a functioning democratic government.

Statistically, the UN has passed 173 resolutions condemning Israel. While I don’t deny that Israel is doing the wrong thing, that’s more than double the 80 resolutions condemning other countries. It’s clearly biased against Israel. Funnily enough Israel is the most queer-friendly place in the Middle East, whereas most Arab countries still criminalise homosexuality.

 

[Football us life]

Well, the Soviet Union joined in 1945 and China in 1971 (when Taiwan was disgracefully kicked out). But yeah, it’s disgraceful. The UN clearly only cares about Western-aligned countries (e.g. Israel). Why can they accept Palestine but not Taiwan as a UN member? Both are countries and unlike Palestine, Taiwan has a functioning democratic government.

Statistically, the UN has passed 173 resolutions condemning Israel. While I don’t deny that Israel is doing the wrong thing, that’s more than double the 80 resolutions condemning other countries. It’s clearly biased against Israel. Funnily enough Israel is the most queer-friendly place in the Middle East, whereas most Arab countries still criminalise homosexuality.

The UN is a club for all countries, not a global government. To keep everyone at the table, it avoids forcing its members to change their local laws. (ie Muslim countries that have made homosexuality illegal). While it promotes human rights, it lacks the power to punish every nation. Because it relies on voting, it often focuses on geo-political conflicts—like the Israel-Palestine issue rather than internal social laws.

Many, including myself see this as a failure of moral clarity. If the UN is supposed to uphold international law.and human rights, it should not treat a government that targets LGBTQI civilians as criminals because of their sexuality.....

This selectivity captures the core frustration many have with the UN – the belief that the organisation operates on political expediency rather than moral principle. When the enforcement of universal rights becomes a matter of "which country can we get a majority vote against today," it undermines the credibility of the entire human rights regime for many observers.

"The UN has been a joke organisation for years....."

Statements like the above capture a central tension in global politics....

The gap between the United Nations as an idealistic vision of international cooperation and its reality as a political forum for 190+ sovereign states.

Whether the UN is viewed as a "joke" or a flawed necessity often depends on whether one expects it to be a global moral arbiter or a practical, if imperfect place for nations to manage their competing interests.

I tend to think that the UN's structural failings – paralysis, bias, and the inclusion of bad actors make it fundamentally broken and incapable of serving its original purpose.

Things need to change!