DEAR News Of The Area,
A CONVERSATION with an Uber driver on my way to Brisbane Airport got me thinking about where Australia is heading.
We talked about youth crime, housing, cost-of-living pressures and immigration. I came away wondering whether our political debate focuses too much on who to blame and not enough on what needs fixing.
Australia should have a serious discussion about how much migration our housing, hospitals, schools and infrastructure can sustainably support.
But migrants did not design Australia’s immigration system. Governments did.
If migration exceeds our capacity, governments should be accountable for planning properly. We should debate immigration policy without turning immigrants themselves into scapegoats.
We also need a balanced conversation about crime, particularly serious and repeat youth offending. Rehabilitation matters. Young offenders need education, counselling, family intervention, training and pathways into employment. But rehabilitation and accountability are not mutually exclusive. Serious offending should have meaningful consequences, and victims should never feel like an afterthought.
Housing requires the same practical thinking. Helping young Australians buy a home is worthwhile, but getting someone through the front door is only half the equation. Can they afford to stay there once mortgage repayments, rates, insurance, electricity, groceries and transport are added together? Home ownership should create financial security, not financial imprisonment.
Australia needs to go back to the drawing board – not to the political left or right, but to practical solutions.
Migration should match housing, infrastructure, services and genuine skills requirements. Young people should have opportunities and rehabilitation while remaining accountable for serious offending. Young Australians should have a realistic opportunity to build a life without being buried beneath unsustainable debt.
Modern Australia has been profoundly shaped by generations of migrants. That does not put immigration policy beyond criticism. It means we should criticise policy without blaming people who followed the rules.
Perhaps the question is not simply, “Who should we keep out?”
It should be: “What kind of Australia are we building for the generations we leave behind?”
Regards,
Olusegun Ramon (Ray Ramon),
Raymond Terrace.
You can help your local paper.
Make a small once-off, or (if you can) a regular donation.
We are an independent family owned business and our newspapers are free to collect and our news stories are free online.
Help support us into the future.
