u/snoopy05052026

Just looked at JB Hi-Fi’s full-year results and the divisional sales charts are pretty grim.

JB Hi-Fi Australia:

Q1: +6.0% total / +5.0% comps

Q2: +6.5% total / +5.0% comps

Q3: +4.0% total / +2.6% comps

Q4: +0.3% total / -0.8% comps

Full year: +4.4% / +3.2%

That’s a proper cliff from solid mid single digits to negative comps in one quarter.

The Good Guys (appliances):

Held up okay earlier in the year but completely stalled in Q4 — 0.0% total and comps. Full year only +2.7%.

Not a collapse but zero growth in the final quarter is weak.

e&s (premium kitchen/bathroom):

This one’s properly cooked:

Q1: +4.1% total / +0.7% comps

Q2: +1.8% / -1.0%

Q3: -1.4% / -4.8%

Q4: -5.2% total / -8.0% comps

Full year: -0.2% total / -3.2% comps

Straight into negative territory and accelerating downward. That’s the kind of number you see when people stop renovating and stop buying big-ticket discretionary items.

JB Australia slowing hard + Good Guys flatlining + e&s in freefall is a pretty clear signal the Aussie consumer is under real pressure. Discretionary spend is getting cut. This doesn’t look like temporary stock issues or cycling product launches it looks like households are tightening their belts.

Hard to see the RBA finding any justification to hike from here. If anything this kind of broad soft retail data points more toward the next move being a cut once they’re happy inflation is dead.

Anyone else seeing this as the start of a proper consumer recession or still thinking it’s just a soft patch?

What i found interesting in the article

“We estimate that around 28% of all 25–29 year old females and 33% of similar aged males in Australia were on temporary visas in 2025.”

Its a interesting article

The article is generally pro immigration but says its being currently mismanaged atm and writes how to improve things.

Temporary visas being one of the negatives

I know its a long read and most of reddit doesn't read past the headline but its a good analysis and probably more high quality than 90% of the articles that get posted on this sub.

​

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has escalated its stance on immigration, demanding the federal government ban migrants from countries designated as “do not travel” zones by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

DFAT currently classifies 23 nations as unsafe for travel due to severe threats including terrorism, kidnapping, and armed conflict.

“We can no longer ignore the real security risks presented to Australians from regions hostile to our interests and way of life,” said Hanson in a statement.

Pauline Hanson in Parliament House. Hilary Wardhaugh

“If the government warns Australians not to go to a country because of extreme security and terrorism risks, the federal government should not continue accepting ordinary migration from that country on a business-as-

usual basis.”

Migration has been at the forefront of national debate as One Nation leverages surging popularity to push its central policy platform, while Labor struggles to reduce net overseas migration from 245,000 in 2026-27 to its 225,000 target over the next four years.

Advertisement

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke was scheduled to deliver a speech at the National Press Club last week to provide an overview of the government’s immigration policy before cancelling at the eleventh hour to review details.

Hanson stressed that only travellers from countries with security risks related to terrorism, kidnapping, armed conflict, violent crime, civil unrest, state repression or institutional collapse should be banned.

Destinations currently rated as “do not travel” include Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Hanson argued arrivals from such countries had the potential to cause problems for Australian security, referencing the returning ISIS brides and transnational militants.

“The government cannot issue its highest security warning for an entire country about terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary detention, armed conflict and collapsed authority, then pretend those same conditions are irrelevant

to migration,” she said.

Asked about reports his government was considering an ICE-style unit to forcibly eject visa overstayers, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said: “We’ve done that [bringing migration levels down] without vilifying people, without trying to divide the community, but bringing people together in the national interest.

“My government will not do anything that breaches harmony. What we want is for Australia to be more united. It is other forces that seek to divide people for political ends.”

Agree with or disagree with the school protests today but what is everyone's thoughts on the video and basically the nsw/vic socialists running the protests today

When Racism Is Only Racism When the “Right” Person Is the Victim

The discussion around this thread is a pretty good example of how tribal Australian politics has become.

A white Australian man says he was refused something because he wasn't Chinese, and instead of the immediate reaction being “that's racist and that's not acceptable”, a significant number of people immediately started looking for reasons why he was actually the problem.

He was white, so apparently that changed the rules.

People questioned why he was upset, suggested he was lucky if this was his first experience of racism, or tried to explain away the behaviour because of the broader history of racism in Australia.

Imagine the reaction if the situation were reversed.

If a Chinese Australian was refused something because they weren't white, I doubt we'd be having a discussion about whether they were sufficiently oppressed to qualify as a victim.

That's what bothers me.

And I think this is part of a much bigger problem with Australian politics right now.

Politics has become increasingly tribal.

Instead of asking “is this behaviour right or wrong?”, people ask “which side is this person on?”

You can see this playing out across both the right and the left.

One Nation has built much of its political appeal around immigration, cultural change and resentment toward political elites. There are legitimate debates to be had about immigration levels, housing, infrastructure and social cohesion, but those debates can sometimes slide into broad generalisations about particular ethnic or cultural groups.

Then you have parts of the left, including some of the discourse surrounding the Greens, which can approach racism through a completely different form of identity politics.

There can be an assumption that racism is primarily something minorities experience, while racism directed at white Australians is somehow less significant or requires additional justification before it can be taken seriously.

That's another form of tribal thinking.

One side can end up saying:

“Our people are being threatened by them.”

The other can end up saying:

“Their people have historically been oppressed, so behaviour directed at your group needs to be understood differently.”

Different politics, but potentially the same underlying instinct: us versus them.

And once politics becomes tribal, consistency disappears.

If a white person discriminates against a Chinese person, that's racism.

If a Chinese person discriminates against a white person, that's racism.

If an Aboriginal person is discriminated against, that's racism.

If a Muslim person is discriminated against, that's racism.

The standard shouldn't depend on who is involved.

I also don't think One Nation and the Greens are equivalent. Their ideologies and political approaches are obviously very different.

The point is that both sides can use identity, race and grievance to reinforce political tribalism.

And ordinary Australians are increasingly being encouraged to see each other as members of competing racial, cultural or political groups rather than simply as individuals.

The answer isn't One Nation-style racial scapegoating.

But it also isn't a progressive version of racial essentialism where someone's race determines whether they're allowed to be considered a victim.

We should be able to say that racism against minorities is wrong and racism against white Australians is wrong without having to pick a political tribe first.

So I'm genuinely curious:

Do you think Australian politics has become more tribal when it comes to race?

Do you think the left and right apply different standards depending on who the victim is?

And perhaps most importantly, can we actually get back to a position where racism is simply wrong regardless of who is doing it or who it is directed at?

Or has identity politics become too entrenched for that?

What do you think of this (TL) language learning method ranking

​

I've noticed that people often recommend learning certain languages (TL) for the same reasons over and over. But after talking to people who actually learned them, their experience sometimes turns out to be very different from what they expected.

Which language do you think is most often taught for the wrong reasons, and what do you think people should consider instead?

I've noticed that people often recommend learning certain languages for the same reasons over and over. But after talking to people who actually learned them, their experience sometimes turns out to be very different from what they expected.

Which language do you think is most often taught for the wrong reasons, and what do you think people should consider instead?

​

🟧 ONP: 31% (+2)

🟥 ALP: 29% (-1)

🟦 L/NP: 22% (+4)

🟩 GRN: 10% (-4)

⬛️ OTH: 8% (-1)

Two-party-preferred

🟦 L/NP: 52% (+6)

🟥 ALP: 48% (-6)

ALP vs ONP

🟥 ALP: 53% (-3)

🟧 ONP: 47% (+3)

RedBridge/Accent | 27-30 Jul | n=1001 | +/- 22-26 Jun

Can there be a flair just for streaks.

Seems every second post is about streaks and it would be good to be able to filter them out.

The 2GB article is brief, but the core claim is:

It says a luxury mansion linked to Chinese billionaire Felix Lee, who reportedly attended a private fundraising dinner with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has been frozen by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) through a security claim.

The article frames this as an embarrassing development for the Prime Minister because of the previous scrutiny over the private dinner with a major donor.