Random News Stories

[Skids]

It already has....

An 11-year-old Perth boy who became one of the youngest people in Australia to go on trial for murder has slipped through the cracks again, becoming homeless and going on a crime spree just months after being released on supervised parole.


https://www.watoday.com.au/national/wes ... 52j90.html


Australia's youngest killer, a 13-year-old who abducted a toddler from her bed on the Central Coast and stabbed her because her parents were "always telling him to keep off their grass", was jailed for 20 years yesterday.



https://www.smh.com.au/national/boy-get ... dflaz.html

[David]

becoming homeless and going on a crime spree just months after being released on supervised parole.

Clearly jail is the only answer. Not better funding for crisis services or fostering for at-risk youth. Just lock ‘em all up!

The fact that this kid had already spent time in jail under older policies that allowed young kids to be locked up is a bigger indictment of the current system than you guys realise. It demonstrates the exact opposite point.

(Also, might want to check the date on that second story )

[think positive]

Or 9 and 10 year olds, for that matter. The primary school kids’ reign of terror will have begun!

You laugh but my daughter, a teacher in a school of hard knocks is just waiting for a couple of her kids to be on the news, a prep kid took a knife to school a few weeks back . 6 years old and armed!

Where. Are. The. Parents?

[stui magpie]

The parents are usually the problem. There's no qualification requirement for having a child, any 2 idiots (well, 1 male idiot and 1 female idiot) can do it, and clearly many do.

[pietillidie]

You might have covered this elsewhere, but I just picked it up in my reading. I won't comment as I literally haven't had time to follow it. This is probably the most out of sorts I've been with Aussie info ever, partly because of sickness meaning I've had no energy and had to limit myself, not because I'm not interested. (Not to mention the politcal madness here is burdensome in its own right).

The article looks paywalled, but it's free to sign up. But this bit is probably enough as you'll know the rest.

SYDNEY, May 9 (Reuters) - Australia's Labor government boasted the first budget surplus in 15 years on Tuesday, as strong jobs growth and bumper mining profits swelled its coffers, but it will quickly be swallowed up by spending on everything from health to energy and defence.

In his second budget since winning power in May last year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers also announced billions in cost-of-living relief aimed at lowering power bills and consumer prices in a helping hand to the Reserve Bank of Australia's (RBA) fight against inflation.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 023-05-09/

[Skids]

Or 9 and 10 year olds, for that matter. The primary school kids’ reign of terror will have begun!

You laugh but my daughter, a teacher in a school of hard knocks is just waiting for a couple of her kids to be on the news, a prep kid took a knife to school a few weeks back . 6 years old and armed!

Where. Are. The. Parents?

Yep, same where Kelly works. There's been multiple attacks on teachers and other students by kids as young as 6 (when they show up).

The 6yo Kelly was supposed to have this year has been to school on 4 occasions... this is after his 'mother' gave great speeches about her wanting to get him an education so he doesn't "turn out ike me". Then she went on a rant about how the government should buy her a new fridge.

The principal visited the house after the kid hadn't shown up after a few weeks, she was abused and threatened by a drunken mob.... at 9am!

[stui magpie]

You might have covered this elsewhere, but I just picked it up in my reading. I won't comment as I literally haven't had time to follow it. This is probably the most out of sorts I've been with Aussie info ever, partly because of sickness meaning I've had no energy and had to limit myself, not because I'm not interested. (Not to mention the politcal madness here is burdensome in its own right).

The article looks paywalled, but it's free to sign up. But this bit is probably enough as you'll know the rest.

SYDNEY, May 9 (Reuters) - Australia's Labor government boasted the first budget surplus in 15 years on Tuesday, as strong jobs growth and bumper mining profits swelled its coffers, but it will quickly be swallowed up by spending on everything from health to energy and defence.

In his second budget since winning power in May last year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers also announced billions in cost-of-living relief aimed at lowering power bills and consumer prices in a helping hand to the Reserve Bank of Australia's (RBA) fight against inflation.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 023-05-09/

Try reading the ABC, it's not paywalled.

I personally haven't gone over it in detail but I understand it's a largely inoffensive budget that delivers a little cost of living pressure without upsetting anyone (except maybe LPG companies).
He's forecast a small surplus this year, then back to deficits for the next 4. IF he does scrape a surplus he's be only the 3rd Federal Treasurer to deliver a surplus, ever. The other 2 being Keating and Costello.

[David]

Would be interested in your take if you do get the chance to inspect further, PTID. My impression is that it's a deeply disappointing budget that offers little to people most in need.

[stui magpie]

I'm not sure what you were expecting David. Covid punched a whole in most budgets and rising interest rates just exacerbates that. I'm sure Albo and Chalmers would love to go on a spending spree but they literally can't. I read somewhere that described it as a budget that tried not to upset anyone.

Interestingly I saw some grabs of Shorten which sounds like he's preparing people for making it harder to get on the NDIS. So save money that way rather than tightening up supply chains.

[David]

I doubt they’re inclined on a spending spree, to be honest, but even if their hands are tied in many ways, who asked for a surplus?

Inclined to agree with this take:

https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/05/10/la ... issonance/

That’s the real missed opportunity of this budget. It is cautious, steady and politically canny. In that respect, it’s quite conservative. But the challenges facing Australia’s society and economy are deep and complex. Australia’s economy has low growth, low productivity, high profits and falling real wages. Corporate power is so concentrated in key industries that it is distorting the broader economy. We also have a very dirty economy that needs to decarbonise quickly.

Chalmers’ budget dodges many of these questions. Housing is the paradigm example. We’re not building enough dwellings for our growing population. Worse, the budget papers forecast a collapse in housing investment. Labor’s plans for addressing crippling housing insecurity are modest: a top-up for Commonwealth rent assistance, $67 million to extend the housing and homelessness agreement for a single year, plus a thought bubble about “build to rent” developments. The cost of $2.7 billion for very marginal improvements to the rate of rent assistance simply shows the scale of the affordability crisis.

Similar criticisms could be made about Labor’s approach to inequality. As the housing market so graphically illustrates, Australia’s income and wealth inequality continues to widen. Even though real wages are forecast to grow again next year, the fall in living standards for poorer Australians has been precipitate. The stage three tax cuts will be a disaster for income inequality, and a few extra dollars a fortnight for jobseekers aren’t going to redress this.

[stui magpie]

^

That reminds me, I heard a grab from Dutton ( who has largely supported the budget) about the proposed new Immigration targets. Off the top of my head, he said that while he broadly supported bringing in new migrants, with the current housing situation, where are they going to live? Fair point I thought.

I'm on a few Facebook groups up in Toc and I see people all the time asking for help with somewhere to live, by the names usually migrants, as they've got work up there but need somewhere to live. A room, a caravan, anything.

Sounds like a catch 22 situation. Bringing in more skilled migrants is a good thing, but they aren't going to help the housing situation.

Further to that, I just saw a grab on the news that Albo has some $10Billion plan for affordable housing, but the Lib/Nats are intent on blocking it because it's too much and the Greens are going to block it because it's not enough.

[pietillidie]

Another thing I spotted the other day was on the ALP granting coal mining licences. I can't find the article, but I thought everyone had moved on.

Is that true?

[stui magpie]

^

You know how to use Google?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65541621

yes, it is.

[pietillidie]

^

That reminds me, I heard a grab from Dutton ( who has largely supported the budget) about the proposed new Immigration targets. Off the top of my head, he said that while he broadly supported bringing in new migrants, with the current housing situation, where are they going to live? Fair point I thought.

Even that's been proven wrong, though.

The reason is because in aggregate, housing, services and infrastructure are products of budget allocation and housing supply policy (zoning, planning, new build support policy, etc.), not population.

Basically, you get x% supply of housing, services and infrastructure at the given policy settings. Add or subtract immigrants, that x% doesn't change because it's independent of population, so housing, services and infrastructure just go up or down with immigration.

In time, the problem can actually worsen because reducing immigration reduces investment attractiveness, lowering investment which lowers productivity and government revenue. X% is then at risk of becoming x% minus if the budget and policy priorities change for the worse, which is much easier politically than changing them for the better.

Sure, you might see people sent to the wrong areas, producing local backlogs, but that's even mostly false because drop immigration to zero, it still exists because investment, jobs and housing supply are uneven.

So, it's a local optical illusion that tricks people into thinking immigration is the cause when other policy was the cause all along.

[pietillidie]

^

You know how to use Google?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65541621

yes, it is.

You do get that I'm asking for insight, not a link? Insight and information aren't the same thing. You did the earlier when you suggested I read the ABC, as if I thought it had been shut down! It would surely be much worse if I weighed in on something I'd not followed closely