Budget delivers population explosion, crashing environment, and widening inequality

In his first or October Budget, Jim Chalmers published an already-huge 235,000 net-migration target for 2022-23. Knowing full well, he'd surf way over the top.

He offered boutique climate and environment measures. Which only dented the surface of fossil fuels forever, laissez-faire logging and land clearing, plus overpopulation by design.

He also offered a desultory Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF). Carefully designed, to nip at the margins of the burgeoning housing and rental crisis.

Post-October, his 235,000 whoopsie-d into 300,000, then 350,000. Maybe even 400,000. Smashing Kevin Rudd's federation record. Chalmers fed this to his media chooks. They never blinked.

He even claimed that our population was trending smaller and older. The media loved that one.

Our summer environmental "debate" was totally dominated, as you would expect these days, by the United Nations climate manifesto.

Fun for preening politicians. Of less certain reward, to Australia's crashing habitat (hullo, southwest hotspot or wet tropics) and species (hi, alpine vertebrates or unmapped flora).

Thus, the carbon-credits whitewash segued into ineffectual climate legislation segued into a gestural net zero authority .

What of housing? The "debate" generally accepted that the escalating housing crisis had very little to do with the excess demand engendered by the biblical population drive.

Political donors and "stakeholders" did a marvellous job, cranking out their supply-side fibs. Just to rub it in, the government invented one of its own. Namely, that voters themselves had exacerbated the crisis, by selfishly shrinking their COVID-era households.

Now, after seven months, a second Chalmers Budget crowns the hallowed Treasury traditions. While creating a few of its own.

Traditionally, the Australian Budget leans heavily on immigration and population for "growth". This is never mentioned in the Treasurer's victory speech. Instead, the rigid population plan is squirrelled into an Appendix A, with no justification or explanation.

Obediently, Chalmers travels, these timeworn tracks.

Yet also, by his own hand, he's got 1.5% economic growth going up against 1.7% population growth. Genius, it's another per-capita recession, for disenfranchised punters. But also, his Appendix A pushes the long-term net-migration envelope, out to an epochal 260,000.

That's nearly as high, as Josh Frydenberg once dared, in 2019. About 45,000 higher, than the Big Australia years of 2005-2020. And, most importantly, well over three times the historic average.

How does our tame media convey, this historic betrayal of voters? For the most part, it barely registers. For honest reporting of what's going on, you'd be better off with the UK Daily Mail .

Then have a look at Our ABC , parroting governmental immigration propaganda, to the Opposition itself. But it's gold to The Guardian , for this spectacular double-barrelled fib:

The [immigration] forecast for 2024-25 is 260,000, broadly in line with the long-term historical average of 235,000.

In the environmental department, the Treasury window-dressing is similar to that of last October. I'm thrilled, that parks and natural heritage are getting more loot. Though this can't reverse the steady environmental decline. Oh, and look over here , at our purported "net zero industries" and "renewable energy superpower".

On the (in)equality desk, it's also one step forward, then two steps back. In upside-down Australia, your obligatory first step, is that all-time immigration surge. Especially burdening Sydney and Melbourne. In 2022, national population grew by nearly half a million.

Only after that necessary act of "nation building", can one begin to ease, the pressures on hapless renters. The HAFF for "building more homes" is now styled as a National Housing Accord. More money for social housing.

Once again, this barely scratches the sides, of our population-driven housing and rental crisis. For truthful Budget reporting of that aspect, I would recommend bad old Rupert Murdoch .

Never mind, look over there , peoples. We're broadening opportunity by "advancing gender equality". Excellent, but not quite the same, as reducing inequality generally.

Now for the obvious confession. There isn't really a Treasury equality desk.

They eschew the solid findings, that the 1970s were a high-water mark for equality. Though some proclaim the fall of neo-liberalism, Treasury is doggedly trickling down the wealth. As their rising tide lifts all boats.

But wait. Chalmers has taken on the approved OECD answer, to fend off those sorts of ticklish questions. Last October, he unveiled his own wellbeing framework, aka Measuring What Matters . Citizens, you have a couple of weeks yet, to respond to this year's Consultation Pack .

Yep, the Pack is like the Budget. Thus far, it baldly omits, or plays right down, critical measures of population, environment, and (in)equality. More like, Refusing to Measure What Matters.

Meanwhile, the Budget continues to omit population growth, from its fundamental table of Major Economic Parameters . That's plainly ridiculous.

As regards the environment, surely our global responsibilities begin at home . We're not doing the world much of a favour, via the sustained assault on our own fragile continent.

To Justin Trudeau or Time Magazine , Albanese comes across as a valiant reformer. Yet he's setting the worst environmental example, to the rest of the world. Both its richer and poorer nations.

It's great, that his Budget is temporarily "back in black". For now, at least, unemployment is still low. We still have our considerable freedoms. Plus, military-grade assault weapons are almost never deployed, at our malls and our schools.

Still, voters can never trust Albanese and Chalmers, around population and (in)equality. Their habitual gaslighting since 2019 is an embedded feature and not an unexpected bug.

Though you make that mild observation, at the risk of being shown the racist or the radical card.