"Click go the shears, boys, click, click, click,
Wide is his blow and his hands move quick,
The ringer looks around and is beaten by a blow,
And curses the old snagger with the bare-bellied joe."

— Traditional Australian folk song, "Click Go the Shears" (circa 1890s)

Rumors have recently been circulating that the construction of a bronze sculpture commemorating Daniel Andrews' tenure as Premier of Victoria has been confirmed. Additionally, there is talk of naming several major infrastructure projects after him. This has sparked significant controversy, with widespread public outcry. The debate highlights the deep division in how people perceive Andrews' leadership—some regard him as one of Victoria’s greatest premiers, while others see him as one of the most disastrous. Perhaps the most defining aspect of Andrews' long tenure was his handling of the COVID-19 crisis, during which Melbourne endured the longest cumulative lockdown of any city in the world—lasting nearly two years, albeit with some interruptions. Setting aside the COVID-19 crisis, Daniel Andrews’ legacy can be seen as a reflection of what modern Australia has become. His premiership underscores the alliance that has emerged between Australia's de facto oligarchy (major ASX-listed companies, superannuation funds, property developers etc.) and the progressive left, a dynamic most evident in Victoria.

Andrews’ tenure can be characterised by the implementation of some of the most progressive social policies in Australia—arguably among the most radical in the Western world—while simultaneously overseeing a period of aggressive predatory capitalism that hollowed out the working and middle classes. Under his leadership, Victoria became a case study in this unusual political synergy: the fusion of elite corporate interests with progressive social reforms. This stack will explore how Andrews' time in office may be remembered as one of the most damaging in Australian history, focusing on the peculiar paradox of his policies—a duality that may have left Victoria with lasting, perhaps irreversible, consequences.

His government was responsible for implementing several landmark leftist social policies, many of which were firsts in Australian history. Below is a selection—though by no means a comprehensive list—of some of these policies:

• ✔ Indigenous Flag Permanently Raised (2019) – The Aboriginal flag was permanently flown on state buildings and government offices.

• ✔ Renaming Public Spaces – Encouraged the removal of colonial names from schools, roads, and parks in favor of Indigenous names.

• ✔ Mandated Gender Quotas on Boards – Required at least 50% female representation on government boards and leadership positions.

• ✔ Government Contracts Prioritizing Women-Owned Businesses – Victorian government tenders favored female-led businesses for state-funded projects.

• ✔ Expanded Hate Speech Laws – Broadened the legal definition of racial and religious vilification to include online and social media content.

• ✔ Diversity Hiring Targets in Government Jobs – Implemented initiatives to increase employment of African, Middle Eastern, and Indigenous Australians in the public sector.

• ✔ Minority Recruitment Quotas for Victoria Police – Encouraged greater diversity in police hiring practices.

• ✔ Gendered COVID-19 Recovery Plan (2021) – Prioritized financial aid and job recovery programs for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and minority groups.

• ✔ Targeted COVID-19 Grants for "Diverse Businesses" – Introduced funding pools exclusively available to businesses owned by women, migrants, or Indigenous Australians.

To fully grasp the extent of the social progressivism under Daniel Andrews’ premiership, one must consider the number of world-first or unprecedented leftist policies implemented during his tenure. Among these was the introduction of the most progressive transgender rights laws globally, allowing individuals to change their gender on birth certificates without requiring surgery— a policy that was even extended to minors under 18. Victoria also became one of the few jurisdictions worldwide to fully decriminalize sex work, positioning itself among a small number of places that have removed nearly all legal restrictions on the industry. Perhaps more unexpectedly, Andrews’ government also introduced some of the strictest free speech limitations in the world. This included the toughest criminalization of Nazi symbols globally—surpassing even the long-standing prohibitions in Germany and Austria.

By implementing these policies, Daniel Andrews was lauded by leftist groups as a champion of marginalised communities and a strong advocate for progressive values. This is without even considering his handling of the COVID-19 crisis, which saw Victoria endure the longest and most restrictive lockdowns in the world. If one were to assess his government based solely on the social policies listed above, it might appear to resemble a socialist or even communist regime. However, the paradox of Andrews’ leadership lies in the fact that these highly progressive social reforms were paired with some of the most aggressively capitalist economic policies. This has resulted in a strange and modern phenomenon where Victoria simultaneously enforces some of the most left-leaning policies globally while also propagating an intensive stratification of wealth and decline in living standards for the average person.

Many of Daniel Andrews' policies align with the perpetuation of what could be considered Australia’s "national religion"—the housing market (or housing bubble), which some have described as the country's root evil. The scale of Australia's property crisis and its harmful effects have been extensively explored in my previous Substack piece, Untergang: Australia.

Under Andrews’ leadership, Victoria saw some of the most aggressive pro-real estate developer policies in the world, which prioritised the wealth accumulation of the elite while effectively strip-mining the working and middle classes. Key policies included:

• Massive Land Rezonings – The Andrews government rezoned vast areas, such as Fishermans Bend and Melbourne’s outer suburbs, generating enormous windfalls for property developers.

• High-Density Development with Minimal Affordability Requirements – Changes to zoning laws allowed for higher-density apartment construction, boosting land values while placing little obligation on developers to include affordable housing.

• Preservation of Investor Privileges – Despite housing affordability concerns, the government largely avoided tax reforms that could deter speculative investment in property.

• Stamp Duty Discounts for First-Home Buyers—But Perks for Investors Remained – While first-time buyers received some incentives, investors and developers continued to enjoy significant tax advantages.

• Privatisation of Public Land – In some cases, public land was handed over to private developers in exchange for a small percentage of new units being designated as "affordable housing."

• Promotion of Build-to-Rent (BTR) Developments – Andrews encouraged large-scale Build-to-Rent projects, where apartment complexes are designed for long-term rental rather than homeownership.

• Institutional Investor Dominance – The BTR model primarily benefited major institutional investors—such as superannuation funds and real estate conglomerates—over individual homebuyers.

• Tax Breaks for Developers – The government provided land tax incentives and financial benefits to developers to expand the BTR market, further entrenching corporate control over the housing sector

These policies demonstrate that the Daniel Andrews’ government bent over backwards for interests of real estate developers, effectively granting them everything they wanted. In particular, the promotion of Build-to-Rent (BTR) projects represents a significant step backward for the Australian dream of homeownership. Instead, it entrenches a system where segments of the population are relegated to a permanent renter class—functionally little different from indentured workers.

This approach has further exacerbated wealth stratification by consolidating property ownership into the hands of a select few while locking young, working Australians out of the housing market. These policies are not designed to make housing more accessible but to ensure that property prices in Australia remain at astronomical levels. The long-term consequences of this are severe, as persistently high housing costs negatively impact both economic stability and overall living standards.

Beyond real estate, the Andrews government also catered to the interests of the gambling industry. This was most evident in its decision to extend Crown Casino’s license until 2050, while simultaneously easing regulations to facilitate the expansion of other gambling operators. As a result, gambling has become one of the most lucrative and dominant industries in Australia, despite repeated concerns and opposition from public health advocates.

Perhaps the most insidious of Daniel Andrews’ policies, however, was his aggressive expansion of mass immigration under the guise of addressing a skilled worker shortage and through the often-exploited international student scheme. He formally lobbied the federal government to increase immigration, and pushed for the expansion of immigration eligibility through allowing family members of new citizens to also come to the country and become citizens also. The negative effects of mass immigration are well-documented—its impact on wages, infrastructure access, and overall living standards has been extensively discussed, including in my previous article.

While mass immigration erodes wages and living conditions for native workers, it serves as a boon for big business, which thrives on an expanded labor pool and increased consumer demand. It is no surprise, then, that the Australian oligarchy—the corporate and financial elites—fully supports and advocates for it.

Historically, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) of the 1960s would have vehemently opposed such policies, as it was committed to protecting the value of labour. Labour leaders of that era recognised mass immigration for what it truly is: a mechanism to dilute the labor market, drive down wages, and provide an ever-expanding client base for large corporations. However, by the 1970s, the ALP abandoned its labor protectionist stance in favor of multiculturalism, marking a decisive shift in its priorities.

Fast forward to today, and the modern left has almost entirely moved away from economic and labor concerns, instead prioritising identity politics. This shift allowed Daniel Andrews to effectively buy off the left with radical social policies while simultaneously appeasing his corporate overlords by continuing the systematic extraction of wealth from ordinary Australians and facilitating its transfer to the nation’s elite.

Daniel Andrews’ premiership serves as a quintessential example of modern Australian politics—a system defined by an unusual alliance between the country’s wealthiest corporate interests and the progressive left. Politicians push forward some of the most progressive social policies in the world while simultaneously ensuring that the demands of corporations and other powerful interest groups are met . Crucially, these social policies do not disrupt the ongoing extraction of wealth from Australia’s working and middle classes. Measures such as mandating Indigenous flags on government buildings or enforcing diversity quotas may be highly visible, but they come at no cost to the bottom line of big business. What they do accomplish, however, is to provide a convenient smokescreen—allowing politicians to shield themselves from accusations of being non-progressive while they facilitate greater wealth stratification and a continued decline in living standards for ordinary Australians.

In some instances, such as mass immigration, the progressive left does more than just passively enable this process—it actively supports the oligarchy in its pursuit of wealth extraction and the maintenance of the housing bubble. A striking example of this was something I recently encountered on Twitter, where the well-known Melbourne-based socialist Purplepingers posted the following:

This tweet is emblematic of what the modern Australian left has become—it adopts the popular performative language of opposing market forces, railing against capitalism, and advocating for public housing. Yet, at its core, the message is deeply congruent with the government's aims.

The government is already implementing this approach: subcontracting private development firms to construct cheap, high-density public housing that does little to disrupt the broader housing market. This approach is little more than a rehash of the 19^th century industrialist's approach of building mass worker’s barracks to facilitate a larger population and working base for big business and corporations.

It is remarkable that with all this ongoing discussion in Australia about the housing crisis the obvious solution is passed over in silence. The answer is very simple—reducing immigration would immediately ease pressure on housing demand, yet even the most progressive voices refuse to acknowledge it as an option.

This silence is particularly relevant as Australia heads into a federal election this year. Despite widespread concerns over housing affordability and declining living standards, both major political parties are poised to do little more than offer superficial rhetoric on immigration—ensuring that the ongoing erosion of living standards will continue unchecked.

Australia began as a colony whose economy was built on the back of the wool industry, with vast sheep-grazing stations and a thriving shearing trade driving early prosperity. The nation's wealth was once measured in the size of its flocks, and the image of the rugged shearer became a symbol of Australian identity—hardworking, self-reliant, and integral to the country's growth. Yet, despite the passage of time and the evolution of industries, the fundamental economic model remains the same. In 2025, it is not sheep that are being shorn, but the people themselves. Instead of wool, it is wages, savings, and financial security that are stripped away, funneled upward to an elite class that thrives on unchecked property speculation, mass immigration, and a corporate landscape designed to maximise profit at the expense of the working and middle class.