The Australian resources boom of recent years and the tax paid on income generated thereby has done more than just allow JWH to provide electoral pork in the form of tax cuts without having to put the budget into deficit (not to mention throwing himself possibly the world’s biggest retirement party in the form of APEC week).
The pile of surplus funds in the State Treasury of NSW has also allowed the rising cost of government offices renting prime corporate real estate to go largely unexamined.
THE sharply tightening rental market in Sydney’s central business district means that taxpayers are faced with paying millions of dollars in escalating rents so senior government officials can continue to enjoy spectacular harbour views from their offices.
Where else are inefficient government practises being masked by the current boom in tax receipts? What are the best strategies to pursue to ensure that tax surpluses left over after electoral porkbarrelling at least go to infrastructure projects rather than just status symbols?
“The pile of surplus funds in the State Treasury of NSW has also allowed the rising cost of government offices renting prime corporate real estate to go largely unexamined.”
It’s happening federally, Tigtog, as well as at NSW state level.
In Canberra over the last few years, there has been a noticeable increase in occupation of prime shopping/commercial office space by federal public service departments.
Apart from the silliness of diluting a supposed business district with big, flashy, non-commercial public service shopfronts, I do not see how paying the rent on these expensive sites on the wrong side of Lake Burley-Griffin can possibly be an efficient use of tax dollars.
Move it all to Parramatta (Belconnen). Downsize. Disintegrate the States. End subsidising the infrastructure around these Government centres. Cut taxes!
What makes it worse is that much of this prized real estate would have been wholly owned by Government at some stage, but would have been flogged off and rented back at generous terms sometime in the 1990s.
Have a heart!
Cardigans employed in the Public Service have no chance at all of buying a kennel with harbour views these days.
At least now they can gaze at a millionaire’s outlook during business hours.
Tax cuts are not electoral pork. Taxes are an imposition on those who pay them by governments in order to fund the governments’ economic, social, etc programs. If the tax take from a booming economy is such that the government has more money than it needs to fund its programs it is the responsible course to reduce taxes. It is not electoral pork even if doing so is electorally popular.
Reduce taxes and leave it to private enterprise to build and pay for infrastrucure projects.
Even Adam Smith listed as one of the acceptable functions of government the provision of infrastructure. Private enterprise doesn’t do it, just as it underinvests in skills and training, because of the free rider effect. Or if it does do it, the infrastructure is private not public. There’s a reason why legislation prohibits companies from building private railways, for instance, except where they’re opened up to their competitors.
I reckon the cardies should have access to harbour views. Indeed it is a right of the risk averse conceptualists that keep the economy humming to many perks and a 30 hour week.
Well, some people might get their jollies from hatin’ on the public servants but…
I love the public service. I am a proud servant of the public, what more could one hope to aspire?
It’s also obvious that the Federal Government would rather get it’s police etc from the states after the states have paid for their training too.
Mark,
The welfare state is the biggest example of the free rider effect in action. I’d rather have people free riding on private investments than free riding on government excess. Although I’ll readily accept that infrastructure investment along with education investments represents a reasonable supply-side approach towards building greater prosperity.
If you compare the 2007 federal tax revenues with those from 1996 then after adjusting for population and inflation our federal government is now 34% more expensive. Both the Coalition and the ALP pitch the high price of their offering as a virtue. The budget forward estimates proclaim their intention to become even more expensive in future. Only the LDP is advocating a product that is less expensive.
Tax cuts may starve a few pigs but far more importantly they will enable the private sector and civil society. Tax cuts will strengthen our communities, strengthen household budgets, improve incentives and lower the interhousehold trade barrier.
Regards,
Terje.
And the evidence for this is? The McMarket’s proven ability to develop communities?
How exactly would tax cuts do this? Unless by “strengthen our communities” you mean “put more plasma TVs into our communities”, or perhaps “put more new cars into our communities”.
Budget surpluses only exist because governments - both state and federal - aren’t spending money on the things they should be spending money on. We need a few billion into heavy rail and health in Melbourne, for example. A reduction in the imposition of fees for university students would be nice too. Pay for them by removing all subsidies for private education - cost neutral! Build infrastructure, buy property (that certainly saves on rent in the long run - just ask any homeowner), increase education and training, fund innovative research, get the tens of thousands of homeless people in Australia into accommodation. Do anything except cut taxes for high income earners, which is this government’s preference. No-one on a six figure salary deserves a tax cut to buy a second plasma TV in place of the genuine needs of our society.
To go back on topic - there are no strategies to ensure we spend on infrastructure instead of dodgy tax cuts. The Liberals will present tax cuts as part of their re-election spendathon, and Labor’s not going to oppose them. We’re screwed, because we elect idiots. Post the election, I guess we’ll see what the Rudd government chooses to do, and what a potentially hostile, conservative Senate allows.
If they’re targeted at one group at the expense of others (in extra taxes, tax cuts missed out on or services denied) in order to gain electoral advantage, then they’re as much pork as spending pork (however defined).
Yeah they are too easy a target. There is a certain kind of radical lefty sociological scholarship which seems to get off more on bagging out teh bureaucrats than the capitalists.
“The pile of surplus funds in the State Treasury of NSW has also allowed the rising cost of government offices renting prime corporate real estate to go largely unexamined.”
Typhoon in a teacup personified. The offices in question are, quite specifically, the Premier’s department and the Ministerial offices in Governor Macquarie Tower - the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with housing “the public service” per se, the vast bulk of which operates from well outside the Sydney CBD. .
The tower is close to Parliament (proximity thereto is an obvious requirement) and the occupants do indeed enjoy the sort of harbour views that Sydney realtors salivate over. We could, of course, house the Cabinet out the back of a panelbeater’s yard in Tempe and I look forward to Barry O’Farrell moving out there when the Coalition next wins office - in 2036.
Ha ha ha ha ha @ Geoff.
Yeah I think we should leave these stories about teh bad bureaucrats wasting our hard earned tax payer dollars to Today Tonight and the tabloids. They reek of resentful Last Manish beat up. Some crucial public service buildings have to be in the CBD - for a start it’s the only place that is universally easy to access by public transport.
Hey! I’m an easy target too you know!
This is a common phenomenon as best I can make out. In Darwin it is pretty much standard business for whole departments to up and move as soon as a newer building gets built. Usually costing $millions per go.
Like anywhere it’s a cosy arrangement. Politicians and their shinybums like the views, developers like the guaranteed government pork.
Based on the distribution of public servants by residence, I’d say that 70% of the NT Government could be moved to cheap industrial estates in Palmerston (a satellite city of Darwin) or perhaps on the airport for a pretty decent savings. I imagine it’s more or less the same elsewhere in the country, indeed the world.
“Even Adam Smith listed as one of the acceptable functions of government the provision of infrastructure.”
Acceptable? Yes. Necessary? No. Opitmal? No.
Tax cuts give money back to individuals. What makes community groups work, individuals pooling resources together, or begging off the AC?
Did we get a link from Catallaxy or something? Or are the LDP crew sick of playing in the sandpit with Birdy or reading Rafe’s 50 000 word posts on Mises or Hutt?
Tell me how Adam Smith proposed roads would be built, Mark. Citing references, if you please.
Goodness Mark, I’d always thought that you were in thrall to Marx and Freud, but it turns out that all along Adam Smith has been your guru. There is hope yet.
Exactly, which is why the article I quoted referred to “senior government officials”.
I don’t think anyone objects to senior government officials having offices in the CBD close to Parliament House - it does make sense for them to be located nearby. That doesn’t mean they require prime offices with harbour views - those exact same tower blocks have plenty of space on their lower floors as well at a much lower rate.
GregM, I’m very far from being in thrall to Freud. Maybe Marx a little! But Weber much more so. Smith is well worth a read. Few of those who incense his memory bother, preferring the distilled version of neoclassical dogma. Pity, really.
tigtog, since your complaint seems to be about a few senior public servants living off the taxpayers’ teat in a way that’s not required, what assurances can you give us that you are not, in one way or another, living off the taxpayers’ teat in a way that we don’t require?
What’s the point of the question, GregM? Any citizen has the right to criticise government actions. This strikes me as pointless and mean-spirited personalisation. The fact that some (but not all) of my income comes from work for universities which receive a minority of their funding from the federal government means I have no right to say anything? There’s no logic in it whatsoever.
I think the Premier’s department should have the aura of prestige. I think the relative expense can’t be that much for the top public department in the state of 4 million. We have a world famous harbour, I think the very highest levels of government in the state should be able to see it. I think saying otherwise plays into the collapse in prestige value (and sometimes open derision) of the public relative to the corporate world. Why not establish it in a dump heap?
That was the very point I was making about tigtog’s post. Thanks for picking it up.
“I don’t think anyone objects to senior government officials having offices in the CBD close to Parliament House - it does make sense for them to be located nearby. That doesn’t mean they require prime offices with harbour views - those exact same tower blocks have plenty of space on their lower floors as well at a much lower rate.”
Oh, for God’s sake. Let’s quickly pass legislation ensuring that no-one working for anyone holding Ministerial office in NSW can occupy office space above the 5th - maybe the 4th? - floor in Governor Macquarie Tower. And absolutely no glimpse of the harbour! Let’s ensure that no overseas dignitary visiting the Premier gets even the hint of a sea view for fear that they will think that we’ve got our spending priorities all wrong.
I have to tell you this one - I participated in a workshop on L47 of whatever building you have (MLC tower? it was part of State and Regional Development) last week.
The room had continuous windows looking from Pyrmont all the way around to Bondi Junction. The view was fabulous.
At the end of the workshop, all the (interstate) visitors lined up to take photos of the panorama. I’m sure if they’d been charged, they would have paid.
Oh yes, most of them were from Melbourne.
Geoff Honnor, I’m open to the position that the govt should occupy some premium real estate for the purpose of impressing overseas dignitaries.
It’s just such a shame that they decided to sell the Lands Department building, for example, to a hotel developer way back when. Plenty of other govt buildings in similiar close to the harbour locations were sold off as well. If they’d just kept one of them and redeveloped it themselves they could have had the prestige suites at the top to impress those needing impressing, and rented out the rest to cover the cost.
It’s the inefficiency that galls me. There’s a whole history of stupid decisions that have been made along the years here, and the State’s taxpayers have to foot a bill which could have been self-financing. It’s one very visible example of many similiar wrongheaded decisions.
“Where else are inefficient government practises being masked by the current boom in tax receipts? ”
How about the 1.7 million people on Newstart who would prefer to have a real job instead of working for the dole or having a 15 hour per week subsidised “make work” token job? Michael Pascoe in Crikey keeps reminding us that the immigration targets for all types of migrants this financial year will be about 300,000.
In effect some of our working classes are being replaced by overseas workers many of whom are from low wage countries and who are therefore prepared to work for less money.In the case of some 457 visa holders they not only have poorly paid jobs but life threatening and dangerous working conditions as well.
If the 1.7 million people on Newstart suddenly found jobs I estimate that Centrelink could save about $25 billion each year.In other words Ratty is indirectly subsidising the wages bill of his employer classes to this amount.You could not do this unless you had big resources revenue in your kitty to spare.
I’m with David and Geoff here. While yes it’s true goverments of all stripes do sweetheart deals with CBD property developers, yer main public sector investor schmoozing centres have to show off your assets and convey a certain “you need us, not vice versa” vibe.
Incidentally the view from the Victorian Premier’s office (fifth floor of a five story sixties building) is over the lush Treasury Gardens to one of the world’s greatest ampitheatres - the MCG, while the Invest Victoria Centre takes up the entire top floor of the ANZ tower at Collins Place with floor to ceiling flush windows commanding views for 20 kilometres in all directions. True, not much of a harbour to look at but you should see the wine list.
And the discreet brothel recommendations.
In short, if regional goverments don’t put on the Ritz in this globalised world, potential multinational investors will assume that they’re just not serious about making genuinely enticing tax break and red tape snipping offers. Yes it’s not right but that’s how it works now. Business kabuki.
Well that one is easily solved Dany. Simply cease coughing up the $25 billion annually and see how fast they all find jobs. Coz there are jobs aplenty, and employers screaming for staff, anyone, to fill vacant positions.
Anybody looking for work, and not finding any, must have lost their guide dog.
Mark B is being disingenious, questioning any economic policy or idea that a pro free enterprise person puts forward if one of the first economic theorists didn’t believe in it or think of it.
That’s just bloody medieval to the scientific method.
It’s true that it’s all to easy to bag public sector employees… so let’s do that.
I work in the outer suburbs of Melbourne and come into town for meetings with the public sector. The views, while not quite Sydney Harbour, are breathtaking and must be worth a mint. I do wonder why they need to be at the top of tall CBD buildings.
Alister,
You say that the surpluses exist because state and federal governments are not spending what they should on public services etc. However in spite of good health and low unemployment in real per capita terms they have never been spending more on health and welfare. There have been mammoth real increases in all major areas of government spending. If you don’t like this more expensive product it seems odd to call for an even further more expensive version. Judging the quality of government goods by how expensive they are seems overly simplisitic and somewhat perverse in my view.
Surpluses exist because the private sector is growing. However the private sector is growing without in general raising prices. Why can’t the government sector keep a lid on the cost of government? After allowing for inflation and population the real per capita cost of federal government has risen 34% since 1996. Is the product 34% better?
Regards,
Terje.
SATP.
You’ve been to the early opener again.When I said “If the 1.7 million people on Newstart suddenly found jobs” I meant real jobs in the pre Mad Monk sense of the word.Your favourite Ratty government already deems that these people have “jobs” because they work more than one hour per week but they still need Newstart to survive because most of them are effectively working for the dole.
In the past you have written these people off as not being suitable to be employed by you because they are not card carrying members of the Liberal Party.
Which particular jobs do you think they could find and for how much money or would you just give them board and keep?
Dany I have no favourite governments whatsoever.
Please post a link to where I state people are not suitable to be employed unless they are card carrying members of the Liberal Party.
You won’t be able to as this is a lie by you.
Perhaps you aren’t worth bothering with, as there are some other deliberate falsehoods & misleaders in your above post. Either that or you don’t understand your topic and are rambling on regardless, which is quite common on this site.
In most of the country employers of all stripes are screaming for staff. The idle have learned to not state they don’t have a job, because for certain someone within earshot will be a desperate employer and tell them they “start tomorrow”.
In fact Dany, don’t worry about it, your last paragraph is delivered with your chin out, I am in trouble already on this site for responding to trolls.
Walking away from an argument you’re going to lose, satp? I was a professional employment consultant in the private sector for many years, and the reason why some people are still unemployed is because they are unemployable. Employers only want people who are fit, willing to work unpaid overtime and prepared to tug the forelock while signing their AWA (gratuitous hyperbole for effect).
If you are a single mum, have a disability, low level of education (some people are not capable of higher training), indigenous or from a lower socio-economic background, you may be unable to find work because no-one wants to employ you. You then spend all your time going from fruitless interview to fruitless interview at the behest of Centrelink until your self-esteem is at an all-time low. It’s then that the addiction to Oprah kicks in. Then employers or government ministers go on Today Tonight or a Current Affair and complain about dole bludgers and demonise the most vulnerable members of our society.
No argument Crass. It is naughty to argue.
I agree with you, the bulk of the unemployed are unemployable. I have stated this often enough.
Crass is correct to an extent. He/She could also have added that nobody wants to employ you if you live in a remote aboriginal community where unemployment is sometimes more than 50%. However if the minimum wage were abolished the market would clear pretty quickly in all these cases. It is sad that we effectively criminalise the employment of low skilled people.
The LDP approach in this regard is to abolish minimum wage laws and provide a benchmark income level using a negative income tax (sometimes called a social wage). The market would clear, people would retain an incentive to increase their private sector income (ie it does away with high EMTRs) and they would continue to be an income safety net. And there would be no chasing the unemployed with a stick since such a system is all about carrot (for employer and employee).
SATP
“steve at the pub on 31 May 2007 at 11:18 pm
Dead right Dan le Roux! Nobody even gets a job interview with me until they are able to provide rock solid proof they are a member of the Liberal Party.”
This was a post called”The Jobs Network and Conflicts of Interest”
Sorry I am not always successful at linking but have look yourself Satp to refresh your memory. Boose starting to get to the old brain cells mate?
Crass,
I think things have changed a bit since you were an employment consultant. Nowadays there are people with very good degrees or other tertiary skills who have been unemployed for more than a year in some parts of Western Sydney.
My obsevation has been that these people have been displaced by overseas workers by outsourcing eg some computer programers and with other technical specialities replaced by 457 people usually because they are, in the eyes of employers too old or in need of retraining and any meaningful training of course is avoided under Ratty’s regime.
Dany, I note you do not provide a link, anyone reading that thread will see why you didn’t provide a link. Grow up.
The preceding comments in that thread will enlighten you somewhat.
But then, accuracy and honesty ain’t your strong points.
Ah yes Dany the troll. I remember you now.
That comment you mention was indeed made by me, as a facetious response to a trolling remark you made earlier on that thread. Dishonest of you to represent it any other way.
Your comment ID is in my “block” bin now. Should have put you in it at the time.
Well said Crass. And it’s even worse. Employers also want people who will contribute to the success of their business, who are not high maintenance nutters, who are prepared to be team players and whom they can have some confidence will turn up to work when they’re expected to and actually work as they have signed up to do.
Employers are bastards. But we all know that here already.
And so GregM if there are not enough non high maintenance nutters employers should feel perfectly free to apply for 457 visa holders and other skilled imported workers all of whom happen to be much cheaper anyway?
Now I understand, we need workers who will devote their lives to unmitigated boss worship and surrender any ambition they have to make a life all for sacrosanct destiny of employers.
People including high maintenance nutters and overpaid CEOs all need an income and we all live here.Ratty is unpopular because he is denying the ordinary asperations of people to earn a living and to make a life. On one side workers are squeezed by Workchoices and on the other the importation of guest worker labour really is taking their jobs.
This system is sustainable if you term it what it is - feudalism.
Satp, why dont you link it then?
So become an employer and become a better one.
Bastardry cannot be legislated out of existence, in its various forms!
No but you can legislate to mitigate bastardry for a better, happier society.
Balls, the kulaks simply slaughter their pigs before bastard busting comrades get to confiscate them.
Well yes, as you have put it that way. You don’t deserve a free ride just because you were born in this country. There are too many good people in this world who are doing without and who deserve a chance.
But I agree with David when he says:
Greg M, whoever you are copying with the
seems to be unaware of the legal requirement to pay 457 visa holders the same or more than an Australian would command for the same job, and that there is a minimum salary requirement (constantly changing) of $41,500 per annum?
It is a difficult enough experience to sponsor a 457 visa as it is, the extra expense, over and above what it would cost to hire an Australian, and the grief dished out by DIMIA (or DIC as it is now) to the employer mean that Australians have to be pretty hopeless before one would consider hiring 457’s INSTEAD of an ozzi.
However in many jobs this is not an option, as there just are NOT enough Australians, and 457 is the only hope of getting positions filled.
SATP, I’m not up with the technicalities of the 457 visa. My point is that I’d rather give a job to someone , wherever they are from, who wants to have the chance to work and make money than see them excluded from that chance to protect some high maintenance Australian parasite who doesn’t want to work but wants a free ride.
But then I thought that we’d got over the White Australia policy in 1973.
GregM, a very valid point you have. The protected Australian labour market has thrown up the same inefficiency and apathy to be found from rent seekers anywhere.
The point I was clumsily attempting to make was the one you put so much more eloquently.
When one has high maintenance nutters whose opinion of the job is such that they are insulted to be there, the appeal of a 457′er becomes quite strong. Someone who actually wants the job, turns up to work EVERY day, wants to contribute to the success of the business and doesn’t throw a tantrum and walk out when the w-o-r-k has to be done.
Why should citizens of Australia not have a protected labour market?
Is the country under some sort of international obligation to make our labour market laissez faire or is that we simply have lower the wages and working conditions because of the greed of our employing classes epitomised and enforced by Ratty’s mob?
It is true that there is a minimum rate of pay for s457 workers but Ratty’s lot do not police the conditions.Condoleeza Rice even complained that 457s were slavery a while back until they shut her up.
Hopefully with a change of the federal political regime questions of character and personality can be directed at employers for a change to check out if there are any overpaid meglamaniac nutters ruining the lives of ordinary citizens through the application of Workchoices and the use of 457s to lower conditions.
Is the country under some sort of international obligation to make our labour market laissez faire or is that we simply have lower the wages and working conditions because of the greed of our employing classes epitomised and enforced by Ratty’s mob?
Dany, it’s all quite simple don’t cher know.
We are a prosperous, urbanised nation enjoying a high standard of living. Our citizens are well off because we can afford food, clothes, medical treatment and education. (Housing, weeelllll…. not so much.)
In order to continue as a prosperous nation, according to Friedmanite dogma, we must compete!
And that means lowering all our wages until we can compete with the Indian and Chinese workers.
Oh, wait, there’s something wrong somewhere…
Indeed there is, Helen. It’s in the second sentence. In order to compete we must be more productive than Indian and Chinese workers. This involves a mix of capital and labour. It does not require lowering of wages. Indeed the result of higher productivity is higher wages. To illustrate the point a single Australian worker on a hundred grand a year driving a $20 million dump-truck in a Western Australian mine will move a hell of a lot more ore than a thousand Chinese labourers on a dollar a day in a mine moving ore with wheelbarrows.
Here endeth the economics lesson of the day.
Helen,
I am still smarting from the last time you and PatrickG or PatrickM or whatever his name was decided I was racist because I said there were (conspicuously) too many people in Sydney and it was making renting very expensive.
“And that means lowering all our wages until we can compete with the Indian and Chinese workers.”
If you are not being sarcastic here the problem is that if all wages are lowered some will be more lowered than others ie the piggies will not lower their wages to compete because they are the special employing class.
Could you be more adventurous with your assertions and let us know whether you think Australian workers are working for their own lives or for the greater glory of their employers?
Andrew Charlton calls the desire to lower Australian wages making us more competitive with Asia the ‘race to the bottom’ in his book Ozonomics. I think he’s spot on. He suggests investment in training and education, to raise productivity and wages. This is fine, but menial tasks must still be performed. Enter the 457 visas? These just need to be policed like any civilised society should.
kymbos,
457 visas are notionally for skilled labour and not for menial tasks.Dr Haneef was here on a 457 visa for example.
There is pressure on Ratty’s lot to include fairly unskilled skills in future 457 visa intakes. Occupations such as truck driving and nursing home bedpan staff for instance and there is a corresponding pressure to decrease the lowest wage below the approx.$41,000/year.
Not policing 457 wages and conditions increases the attractiveness of these visas which helps the real estate lobbiers and the employers.You are right to say “These just need to be policed like any civilised society should” but you do not specify a tense other than the infinitive.They need to have been policed in the past under Ratty and they need to be policed in the future.
That’s fine, there’s a lot Howard should have done and should do in the future (like lose in Bennelong and never be heard of again). There’s a question, however, of what do we do with unskilled work when an economy develops further.
Is it exploitation to bring in less skilled workers from overseas and pay them cheaply, when Australians are reluctant to do the work? Or is it worse to deny them what is to them a great opportunity? If we have a sensible minimum wage with conditions, this is surely better than buying cheap imported products made by workers with far worse conditions. Is it wrong to prevent foreign workers ‘undercutting’ our labour?
I would imagine there is room for productivity growth, investment in education and training, and less skilled immigration (perhaps through an expanded refugee program) in a modern economy like ours.
457 visas are only for skilled staff, and only for certain skills. a 457 visa will not be issued for menial jobs.
There is a push to change this, particularly from large scale employers in areas where unskilled labour is very short.
Unskilled Australians either all have jobs, or will not move to areas where there are an abundance of unskilled jobs, so multinational corporations are lobbying to have the 457 rules changed.
It is my experience that 457 visas are over-policed by DIMIA/DIC. Overpoliced to the point of ridiculousness. Even after the employee has absconded (a breach of visa conditions) the department will harass the employer to “comply” (with what?) and fail to deport the ex-employee who has breached their visa conditions.
I do not know of anybody who is considering (or actually) employing overseas staff (say on a 457 visa) whose motivation is to get cheaper staff.
They seek actual staff. Either they cannot get staff (more common than you would think) or they cannot get reliable, motivated, non-disgruntled or competent staff.
But whatever their reason, in my experience none are even thinking of paying less than they would pay Australians. Most are quite happy to wear the higher costs (a 457 visa holder costs about 20% more than hiring an Australian) simply to get committed staff.
kymbos,
You are making the same assumptions as Satp ie there are many Australians who are reluctant to work, the usual mantra of the greedy employers who want cheap labour while there is a compliant government.The 1.7 million on Newstart are for the most part working at something menial for which they do not get paid over and above their dole money.If these people were not working at something menial they would be classified as unemployed and the official unemployment rate would be about 15% or more.
There is thus a veritable army of Australian people who are capable of doing menial tasks but it is cheaper for the Rattites to get someone from a low wage country to do the work, brought here as skilled 457 visa holders and placed in less than ideal accomodation and doing menial tasks vaguely related to their nominated skills and paid less than the minimum with the knowledge that to whinge about it is to be sent home.The SMH had some good stuff on this phenomenon last week which reported on poor accomodation,death inducing working conditions and a reluctance on the part of the employer to show evidence of paid wages.It was no acccident that Condoleeza Rice called it slavery .
Much as I hate to admit it, SATP is correct. DIAC does indeed police or monitor 457 visas, and sometimes that policing is over rigorous.
Indeed penalties for rogue employers have recently been increased.
Also 457 visas are for skilled workers, unless the employer is located in a regional area and an exception can be sought, but is not automatically granted.
Like any system, the 457 visa stream is open to abuse, but that abuse is in my experience, minimal.
The real problem that we face in this country is the lack of skilled workers. Another legacy of the Howard government.
SATP is correct on the issue of 457s.
The fact that some employers aren’t flexible, creative or open-minded enough to employ the chronically unemployed is quite separate to the 457 issue.
Then they can’t work out the correct rate of pay anyhow.
I’m not really interested in discussions about whether ‘all’ unemployed people are dole-bludgers, or whether this particular visa is a ‘rort’ by greedy business. I understand that current policies could hide some unemployment, but I think it’s fair to say the economy has produced a large number of jobs in recent years, and many of them full time. This is a good thing.
Some areas of the economy are close to if not at full capacity. I was in WA last year and they are obviously keen for more workers.
If we have a situation whereby discouraged workers are concurrently dropping out of the employment market because there is no chance of employment, this is clearly a bad outcome in an economic climate like ours. I missed most of the above discussion, but is there some evidence as to the extent of this effect? I would be surprised if it was more than the historical average.
David: The fact that many of the chronically unemployed aren’t open minded enough, creative enough, or motivated enough to simply turn up each day and perform the tasks which the employer is paying for is EVERYTHING to do with why they are chronically unemployed.
kymbos,
Discouraged workers cannot just “drop out” of employment unless they have a source of income which is not from working.If they stop seeking work then they cannot get the dole.Who are you talking about apart from people supported by their spouses?
There may be areas in WA or wherever Satp is where there is a need for more workers but it is not necessarily the case in Western Sydney.
Are you sure that there has been an increase in full time work “in recent years”?
The last comment from Satp is typical of some employers who first like to demonise workers so that they can feel justified in offering less than optimal working conditions.You should be interested in getting to the bottom of who is a dole bludger or who is a greedy employer if you have a real interest in the discussion.
SATP, yeah I know that is a problem.
I do, however, think there are some people - perhaps outside the right age, disabled, not very bright or with a large gap in their resume due to some kind of personal trauma - who might make great employees but can’t get jobs. I think *some* employers need to get more creative about who they employ, and the federal Liberal government has said much the same thing.
Well, today’s employment figures are out:
4.3% unemployment
“Full time employment increased by 29,100 to 7.542 million and part-time employment was up 2,700 to 2.971 million”
I have been as surprised as most labour market observers that this government’s IR policies have coincided with as much full-time employment growth, but they’re the facts. This is the result of a long period of economic growth.
As for estimates of ‘discouraged workers’, this is reflected in the labour market participation rate. Where this declines, it reflects more people ‘outside’ the labour market. I’m sure there is data exploring this effect. Again, I’d be surprised if this is much worse than historical averages but I don’t have the data.
Labour stats aren’t perfect, but the methodology stays the same for comparative analysis.
The LDP approach to the issue of labour immigration is two fold.
1. Negotiate bilateral Free Immigration Agreements (FIA) with nations that have comparable levels of economic development (eg Singapore, Netherlands, Ireland etc). We already have a bilateral FIA with New Zealand.
2. Slow the flow from other nations by changing a substantial entry fee (an immigration tariff) and do away with all the other red tape (except health and security checks).
Both routes would allow new permanent residents to join Australia. The process for gaining citizenship would involve a longer wait.
If somebody wants to save a poor family from Somalia and the government would not let them in on humanitarian grounds then activist could put their energy into raising funds to pay the entry fee.
Personally I think the LDP approach is supperior to 457s.
kymbos,
How many of the new full time jobs went to Australians?
How many of the new part time jobs went to dependents of new migrants and 457 holders?
I don’t think the ABS releases any racial/immigration status information in their employment figures. This discussion is getting weird, which is probably why most rational contributers have moved on. I think I’ll join them.
Dany, what are you really asking? How many went to Australian citizens? How many want to people not holding 457 visas? The ABS doesn’t really break it down that way (at least, not as far as I can tell). 30,000 full-time jobs were created in August. The grand total of 457 visas granted in 2005-06 was 70,000 (a rate of 5,800 per month). So that gives you an idea of the scale of the 457 program. A majority of August’s 30,000 new full-time jobs clearly haven’t gone to 457 visa holders. You’re probably looking at an upper bound of 10,000. So let’s just assume the “worst”: in August we created 20,000 full-time jobs for the true-blue dinky-di non-migrant Aussies you seem to hold so dear.
Cheers
BBB
BBB,
You are not counting the people who accompany 457 visa holders as dependents or spouses and the jobs they get. You are also not counting the jobs taken by other skilled migration intake people and their dependents and spouses.I think the rate of skilled migration is higher than the 457 rate.
My overall point in this discussion is that here is a tendency under this government to import labour rather than develop it or train it here because it is cheaper so to do and that this increases the number of people who are effectively unemployed and effectively uncounted as such.
kymbos,
For you wierd=too hard.
Kymbos, this thread isn’t any weirder than many on this site.
Though it certainly has digressed from the topic of the original post.
Though data isn’t kept, it would be interesting to see how many vacant jobs go to dependants of 457′ers.
Theoretically these dependants would have the same chance of being hired as Australians. A large enough random sample should show them being hired at the same per capita rate as Australians.
Presumably Australians are getting out of bed just as early as the dependants of 457′ers, and looking for just as many jobs?
David: There is an old saying: “A fair days work for a fair days pay”
Under the current Australian system those who are unable to put in a fair days work are still legally entitled to a fair days pay.
Which does not help the employment prospects of those who fall into the “high maintenance” category. There is a floor price in labour in Australia (minimum wage), and anybody whose work output value falls below that floor price is unfortunately going have a very hard time finding a job.
Staff are hired to get a job done, (to lift some of the load). Why would an employer hire someone who is only going to create more burden?
In the current employment climate many, if not most, employers are prepared to take almost anybody.
Thus those without a job are either unemployable, or unwilling to move to where there is a job. (This is a statement of fact, not a political opinion.)
BBB,
You erred a bit with the full time figures for August - it was 31,000 total new jobs and 21,000 full time jobs the remaining 10,000 being part time jobs.
You’re smart so why not with this new information find out average monthly skilled migrant intake and add it to your average 457 monthly intake and then see what is left over for migrant,457 dependents/spouses and make an assessment of the jobs available for local unemployed people. You could use the Satp criteron which assumes that Australians and those (dependents/spouses)attached to the migrant labour(skilled and 457) have equal chances of being successful in competing for jobs.
Dany, I was relying on this statement from the ABS: “[Employment] increased by 31,900 to 10,513,300. Full-time employment increased by 29,100 to 7,541,900 and part-time employment increased by 2,700 to 2,971,400.”
I’m happy to admit I rounded 29,100 to 30,000, though.
BBB