The Art of the Deal, Albo Edition: Why Australia Gets the Shit End of the Stick

Narendra Modi came to Australia looking like a man who had read the contract.

Anthony Albanese looked like a man who had been told there would be cameras.

That is the first thing Australians noticed. Not the official language about friendship, strategic alignment and people-to-people links. The optics. Modi arrived as the leader of India. Albanese appeared as the event coordinator. Modi stood before a stadium packed with people singing India's anthem and celebrating India's prime minister on Australian soil. Albanese stood beside him smiling, clapping and looking grateful that somebody had finally organised a crowd that was not there to boo him.

You could call it diplomacy.

You could also call it hiring your own applause.

The official summit produced a broad agenda involving uranium, defence, security, education, investment, trade and deeper institutional connections between Australia and India. Australia already has an economic agreement with India, a Migration and Mobility Partnership Arrangement, post-study work concessions for eligible Indian graduates, and a government strategy built around increasing economic and population movement between the two countries. The updated India economic strategy even refers to an Australian ambition of reaching 1.2 million Indian arrivals by 2035, generating more than $9 billion annually.

Good for India.

The question is whether it is good for Australia at the same scale, speed and structure.

That question is treated like bad manners. The moment anyone raises housing, infrastructure, integration or labour-market pressure, somebody produces a hardworking Indian doctor as if one good doctor settles national population policy forever. Nobody is denying the doctor. Nobody is denying the engineer, nurse, shopkeeper, driver, entrepreneur or family who came here, worked hard and built a life.

That is not the argument.

A good doctor does not make bad population planning disappear.

Australia's leaders keep using the contribution of individuals as a moral shield for the consequences of volume. They point to the successful migrant and refuse to discuss the overloaded rental inspection. They praise skills while ignoring the universities using migration pathways as a business model. They celebrate labour supply while refusing to ask why Australia cannot train, retain and properly pay enough of its own workers. They call it growth because the aggregate number rises, even when the lived experience goes backwards.

GDP up. Population up. Rent up. Congestion up.

Apparently, that is progress now.

Modi did not invent that Australian weakness. He simply understands how to use it.

India has one of the largest diasporas on Earth. The Indian government's own figures recorded more than 34 million non-resident Indians and people of Indian origin overseas as of January 2025, including nearly 1.9 million Indian students. India also received an estimated US$129 billion in remittances during 2024, the highest total in the world. India's Ministry of External Affairs openly maintains institutions dedicated to connecting overseas Indians with the "motherland", and describes the diaspora as contributing to Indian growth through remittances, investment and influence.

That is not sinister by itself. It is strategy.

India understands that people can be national assets even after they leave. They send money home. They create business links. They build political influence. They become cultural and diplomatic bridges. Modi did not create the global Indian diaspora, but he has been very good at treating it as an extension of Indian power.

This is where the metaphor of Modi as a human exporter comes from, though it needs to be said plainly: nobody is alleging coercion. This is not about trafficking in any legal or literal sense. The framing is aimed at the system, not the individual migrants.

Modi is the world's most successful human exporter.

Getting something from this? The List sends the next essay first, free, Sunday mornings.

He does not solve India's population challenge entirely inside India. He expands India's human footprint outside India, then maintains political, cultural and economic ties with the people who leave. Other countries provide the housing, roads, hospitals, universities and social settlement. India receives remittances, networks, influence and a global constituency.

That is the deal.

Australia gives India uranium, investment access, trade pathways, mobility agreements and diplomatic prestige. Modi gives Australia more demand.

More students. More workers. More families. More pressure on housing.

Then Albanese stands there grinning like he got the better end of it.

Modi is not the fool in this story. Modi is doing his job. He represents India. He negotiates for India. He appears to understand that energy, industry, population, diaspora and national influence are connected. India plans to expand its nuclear capacity while Australia prepares to sell it uranium, even though Australian federal law still blocks approval of domestic nuclear power plants. India receives fuel for its industrial future. Australia receives another argument about why using the same technology at home is impossible.

That is the Art of the Deal, Albo Edition.

Sell the customer the matches.

Ban yourself from lighting a fire.

This does not mean uranium exports are giveaways. They are commercial sales. It does not mean every investment in India is taxpayer-funded charity. AustralianSuper's investment decisions are commercial decisions made by a member-owned fund, not personal cheques signed by Albanese. Precision matters because exaggeration gives the government somewhere to hide.

The criticism is stronger when it is accurate.

Australia has capital. Australia has resources. Australia has land. Australia has expertise. Australia has one of the most strategically valuable positions in the Indo-Pacific.

Yet our national imagination seems to activate only when building somebody else's future.

That is why the comparison with Gina Rinehart lands. Whatever Australians think of Gina personally, she understands productive capital. Her proposal to attract major technology and space investment into Australia was based on a simple idea: use Australian advantages to attract infrastructure, technology, employment and industrial capability here.

Build it here. Own some of it here. Develop the skills here. Create the supply chain here.

Albanese's model too often feels like the reverse. Export the commodity. Export the capital. Import the finished product. Import the population pressure. Announce a partnership. Smile for the photograph.

Gina knows how to make money.

Albanese knows how to take money, move money and call the movement an achievement.

That is the difference between a builder's mentality and a franchise manager's mentality. One asks, "What can Australia create from this?" The other asks, "What agreement can Australia sign?"

Australia used to build things. Now it builds announcements.

The Modi spectacle also exposed the political layer. Victoria's Indian population has grown rapidly and is increasingly important across metropolitan growth corridors. Labor has every right to engage Indian-Australian communities, just as it should engage every Australian community. But the stadium event showed how easily diplomacy, migration, diaspora identity and electoral theatre can blur into one another.

That does not mean Indian Australians vote as one bloc. They do not. They have different religions, classes, regions, professions, values and political preferences. But political parties do not need total ownership of a community. They need an advantage in enough seats.

That is where the welcome mat starts looking like a voting map.

Labor's political genius, if you can call it that, is treating the same migration system as an economic lever, an education business model, a housing demand machine and an electoral cultivation program. Universities receive enrolments. Employers receive labour. Property owners receive demand. Political parties receive communities to court.

Who receives the cost?

The renter in Parramatta. The family inspecting a two-bedroom unit in Rhodes with forty other people. The nurse stuck in traffic. The young couple delaying children because the deposit keeps moving further away. The Australian who is told the economy is growing while every part of their personal economy is shrinking.

The headline economy grows while the street carries the load. Population demand enters a housing system already designed to reward scarcity. People eventually stop feeling like citizens and start feeling like tenants in their own country.

That is why the anthem scene mattered.

Thirty thousand people singing India's anthem in Melbourne is not automatically threatening. People do not erase their heritage when they move countries. Nor should they. But when the Australian prime minister appears more emotionally invested in celebrating another country's national pride than defending Australia's own cultural confidence, people notice the imbalance.

Indian pride is celebrated as community.

Australian pride is often interrogated as extremism.

An Indian prime minister can rally his diaspora in Melbourne.

An Australian who asks for slower migration is told to watch their language.

That contradiction cannot last forever.

Real assimilation does not demand cultural amnesia. It asks for loyalty, gratitude and participation in a common civic project. It says you can love where you came from, but you also respect and contribute to the country that gave you a home. That should not be controversial.

Gratitude builds nations.

Permanent guilt divides them.

The public anger around Modi's visit is therefore not really about Modi. It is about comparison. Australians watched one leader confidently pursue his country's interests and another leader appear embarrassed to pursue ours.

Modi believes India deserves energy security. Albanese tells Australians to accept expensive fragility.

Modi believes Indians abroad remain connected to India. Albanese struggles to explain what cultural obligations come with becoming Australian.

Modi uses diaspora as influence. Albanese uses diaspora as applause.

Modi came to negotiate. Albo came to be seen negotiating.

One was playing chess. The other was taking selfies beside the board.

This is Australia as Franchisee in its purest form. Canberra no longer behaves like the owner of an extraordinary continent. It behaves like the local manager of a global system, moving resources, capital and people according to somebody else's idea of efficiency. The benefits become international and institutional. The costs become local and personal.

A government media release calls it mobility. A landlord calls it demand. A university calls it enrolment. A corporation calls it labour flexibility. A politician calls it diversity.

The renter calls Mum and says the application failed again.

That is the feedback trap.

And that is why Australia keeps getting the shit end of the stick. Not because India is uniquely evil. Not because Indians are uniquely responsible. India is doing what serious countries do. It is using every resource available, including its diaspora, to increase Indian prosperity and influence.

The scandal is not that Modi fights for India.

The scandal is that Albanese does not appear to fight as hard for Australia.

Modi leaves with stronger access to our resources, markets and institutions. Albanese leaves with applause from a crowd assembled around someone else's national story.

Then Australians go home to record rents, weak infrastructure and another lecture about how lucky they are.