Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

Stanhope Seeks Saffas

By johnboy 30 April 2010 19

It seems even the dismal failure of his housing affordability programs can’t stop Jon Stanhope’s enthusiasm to bring more people to Canberra.

Today he announces that the “Live in Canberra” program is off to South Africa to find more Canberrans.

Is he hoping to drive away the Canberrans he’s already got to make room for them?

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
19 Responses to
Stanhope Seeks Saffas
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Woody Mann-Caruso 10:36 pm 03 May 10

LOL. Yes, let’s keep on squeezing out productivity gains from a rapidly aging population with a low birth rate. Don’t worry – your super is safe. You’ll just have to keep working in the mines til you’re 105 to access it. I’m sure technology will catch up and we can just wire your brain to the steering wheel of that big truck.

PM 12:40 pm 03 May 10

Growth should be increased via productivity gains, not more people.

Woody Mann-Caruso 9:26 am 03 May 10

Sure, more Canberrans means more tax revenue, but it also means that we have to spend money on building new stuff.

Where do you think this money goes, exactly? It doesn’t vanish into the ether. When the government ‘builds new stuff’ the funding goes into our pockets as employers and consumers. Few things are better at creating infrastructure and jobs than business; it’s certainly much more efficient than any social programs the government can deliver. We even get double duty out of some of the money, because it’s recycled as taxes.

Bring on the Seth Efrikens, I say – I could go a lekker brai. Plus, it’ll be nice to have somebody who appreciates my biltong instead of screwing up their nose and saying ‘why the f*** would I eat dried raw beef?’

Skyring 3:34 am 03 May 10

We should be spending our public money on social programs and infrastructure improvements. Like health, education, public transport, roads, etc.

Sure, more Canberrans means more tax revenue, but it also means that we have to spend money on building new stuff. Each new suburb needs roads and schools and services. Fire brigades, for example, can’t be expected to respond efficiently to calls from distant suburbs. And every thousand homes means another thousand more vehicles crowding the roads.

I’ve been living in Canberra for nearly a quarter of a century, and every year the quality of life goes down, just a little bit. Parking is harder to find, travel takes longer, doctors are busier etc. etc.

Personally, I’d be kind of keen to replace some of the expensive public artwork with a tasteful display of the artist’s head on a pike and put the money saved into useful services.

And don’t get me started about the Gungahlin Drive Extension.

PM 1:51 pm 02 May 10

Tsk tsk… think of all those other countries we could be targeting instead! France, Mongolia, Peru…?

Stupid campaign. What a waste.

miz 5:51 pm 01 May 10

(Except for the junketees, of course . . .)

miz 5:51 pm 01 May 10

I thought ‘Live in Canberra’ was dead! It certainly should be – so much cost, so little benefit.

steveu 2:37 pm 01 May 10

Surely there are better things to do with our public money. This sort of shinanigans happens at the Federal level, if the local council thinks they can play these games they really need to get some help.
I really think there are more pressing issues rather than planning another junket.
I agree with Fiona too.

I-filed 11:11 am 01 May 10

NickD said :

Um, the ACT Government doesn’t control Australia’s migration policy – that’s a Commonwealth responsibility.

Doesn’t stop Stanhope from running a PR campaign in South Africa. Will watch with interest where the campaign ads are placed, target audience etc …

Trunking symbols 10:12 am 01 May 10

Talking about tourism campaigns and the like, has anybody seen the rather strange full-page ad in today’s CT (1 May) for Sydney? Above a large pic of the Opera House is a strange word – Sycity or something like that – and under the blurb is a logo of a circle with irregular parts which is presumably the new logo for Sydney. I couldn’t believe it. It reminds me of the disastrous “NSWow” campaign of a few years back. I don’t know why governments engage these marketing firms to come up with silly words and logos in the belief that “rebranding” a city or state will somehow give it a new image and make it more attractive. I would have thought that Sydney of all places would be the last place that needed to resort to this type of gimmickry, but there you go. I can only presume that somebody up the Hume has made a dreadful mistake which will presumably be corrected before too long.

altkey 8:25 am 01 May 10

I have never understood the Live In Canberra campaign (the word junket springs to mind).

Wouldn’t it be a better use of taxpayer funds to encourage those already in Canberra to Stay In Canberra instead? Improving Canberra as a place to live and work in could also have the effect of enticing migrants (overseas and interstate) to live in Canberra – would this not be a better result for all? Or am I being too simplistic?

goose 6:59 am 01 May 10

Why not bring more greeks, italians, French, Germans etc….. they adapt to society and bring valuable skills + most are willing to speak English or can speak it(better than most of us).
Time for a local Government change (even if they don’t have policy) – can’t be worse than under Stanhope.

moneypenny2612 11:11 pm 30 Apr 10

Oh. I misread the OP.

I thought Stanhope was looking for more South Australians.

“Why?”, methinks. “There are so many here already.”

NickD 10:38 pm 30 Apr 10

Um, the ACT Government doesn’t control Australia’s migration policy – that’s a Commonwealth responsibility.

BimboGeek 8:11 pm 30 Apr 10

I’m thinking about buggering off to some other place myself. They’re welcome to take over the kind of work I’ve been doing. The place is full of crazy so they’ll fit right in.

sexynotsmart 7:33 pm 30 Apr 10

Yes! Please o please Tatum Keshwar!

I-filed 7:21 pm 30 Apr 10

We should make it our business to observe the race statistics as this unfolds.

South Africa is 80 per cent black.

Mr Stanhope – just how many black South Africans could conceivably qualify for business migration d’ya reckon, given the history of Apartheid and black disadvantage?

If the racial mix differs a great deal from that, that will mean your application process is effectively racist IMO, regardless of the “face of it” “$$$ available to invest” rationale. How many of a white business person’s assets built up over more than the last very few years could conceivably have been acquired without black oppression and a massive advantage due to exploitation?

An ethical intake would take account of Black South African historical disadvantage.

Fiona 4:16 pm 30 Apr 10

Can they get rid of the hiring freeze in ACTPS first?

Wraith 3:51 pm 30 Apr 10

Oh no…………

Stanhope at his best again??

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site