Dick Smith to advise Hanson on immigration

By Leith van Onselen

Things just got real with Dick Smith backing Pauline Hanson’s firm stance on immigration and offering to advise One Nation on immigration policy. From The Australian:

The buy-Australia campaigner, who will meet Ms Hanson before Christmas to discuss her policy, predicts she will enjoy a Trump-like wave of support in traditionally conservative areas.

Mr Smith, told The Daily Telegraph he decided to help Ms Hanson after friends on both sides of the political spectrum had embraced her party. He said he too supported many of her policies…

“I agree with her views on immigration numbers, that is about 70,000 a year, not 200,000. But I do not agree with her views on Muslim immigration,” he said…

He said he had confronted her about claims she was a racist. “I asked her, does she think she’s superior to other races? She said no,” he said.

For those of you that may not be familiar with Dick Smith’s work on this issue, I advise you to revisit his speech from August 2014 to the National Press Club whereby, among other things, Smith argued that Australia’s rampant immigration program is eroding Australia’s standard of living by diluting Australia’s resources base, adding to congestion pressures, and reducing housing affordability. Smith also argued that endless population growth and immigration only benefits the capitalists – which get to enjoy an endless growth in their customer base – but leaves individual Australian’s living standards worse-off. A summary and video of Smith’s speech can be viewed here.

As I noted in my July review, One Nation’s immigration policy is actually very good except for one exception: it focuses too much on race, colour or creed, rather than treating immigration policy as a numbers game.  To be successful, One Nation should stick to highlighting the fact that Australia’s overall immigration intake is far too high and has overwhelmed the capacity of the economy and infrastructure to absorb them, eroding individuals’ living standards in the process.

Population policy is far too important an issue to be divided into pro- and anti-immigration corners based upon views about race and cultural supremacy. Australia is already a successful multicultural country. Instead, the whole population issue needs to be debated rationally and based upon a numbers game of what level of immigration is most likely to benefit the living standards of the existing population.

Hopefully with Dick Smith’s guidance, One Nation will drop the divisive elements of its immigration policy.

[email protected]

Comments

  1. BoomToBustMEMBER

    Good stuff, the likes od DS will hopefully smooth out One Nation and bring them significantly more voter appeal on a platform of doing the right thing for Australia.

    • Should be zero legal immigration for the next five years until our population settles.
      Could be still breeding fast so increasing base don lack of room in schools, lack of schools where whites are not low minority in better private schools. Let us see what settles in Europe.
      Fear is that at 70,000… (why 70k?) will focus on corrupt wealthy immigrants. Lobbied groups.

    • Harmer loves the ponz!

      I reckon they’re shitting themselves hearing Hanson’s got someone of his profile on board.

      • Harmer squealing about Hanson denying climate change and then back to racism. Dick says he believes in climate change, but why is she concerned about Hanson on climate change because the Liberals don’t care. Said Hanson’s not racist, said it’s a ridiculous term in respect to actual racists. Said he’s put it to her and there was nothing in her views that concerned him. Made a point that Hanson is actually about sustainability. Said people in North Sydney he knows are talking about voting Hanson. On the call in, couldn’t get the lines working to begin with (probably screening calls). Couple of people ring in saying they’ve lost respect for Dick, saying Hanson’s racist. Indian bloke rang in said he agreed totally because no one anywhere in the world talks about it, the Indian bloke was cut off in about 30 seconds.

      • Adding to what marked64 said, aside from the content, the vocal intonation of Wendy suggested to me that she already had her position to firmly paint Dick as someone who supported climate change denial & a racist agenda.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Yes, good summary 64.

      If you want to text a coment to Sydneys 702 the number is
      0467 922 702
      Wendy is reading out about a 50/50 for and against Dicks “Support” for Hanson.

      At the start of the interview Dick played up to the incorrectly asserted, daily telegraph story, saying Dick was going to stand on a western sydney seat for one Nation.
      He also incorrectly pointed out that One Nation was the only party talking about population. I find it hard to believe he is unaware of the existance of that Sustainable Australia party that many here have talked about.

      But by the end of the interview he made it quite clear that he himself wouldn’t be voting for one nation and that his primary contribution to One Nation is to help them develop an Aviation policy, a pasionate issue of Dicks, a policy that would train up Australian pilots to fly our Air routes,. .. instead of the currently inevitable, total adoption of foreign pilots in our near future,…them future foreign pilots, going to be mostly Chinese in Dicks opion.

      Dick also stated that he hoped, by one nation pushing the population issue, that one of the Major parties would pick up the issue and run with it,…obviously meaning he’d rather vote for one of them.

      Dicks enguaging in a bit of counter propaganda,…good on him.

      You could hear Wendy Halmer almost shitting herself, squirming in her little echo chamber life.

      • Yeah, I didn’t catch it all, but I got the sense he’s using this to get the issue properly into the light more than jumping in with her.

      • adelaide_economist

        He also incorrectly pointed out that One Nation was the only party talking about population. I find it hard to believe he is unaware of the existance of that Sustainable Australia party that many here have talked about.

        Indeed he would be aware, as I understand Dick was in talks with Sustainable Australia at some point just prior to the last election but didn’t end up becoming their figurehead.

        I think Dick is a very smart man and he’s worked out that Hanson has what Sustainable Australia doesn’t have and probably never will – and that’s a massive public profile.

        Reality is that if we’re to get effective change on this issue it’s going to come from something like Dick working with Pauline and not Dick trying to lift up Sustainable Australia.

        If it works (a big if), well, it’s a win-win. We might get some meaningful reform and Pauline might learn to stop getting drawn into making statements that make her rather than the issues she raises the media headline.

      • All depends how you quantify a “party”, innit.

        A micro party (arguably single issue) versus a well oiled electorally successful party….

        Probably fair enough for him to contextualise it that way, innit.

        Dick Smith, National Treasure.

      • That is very strange that Dick would say that. He endorsed Sustainable Australia on at least two occaisions including campaigning with Peter Strachan in WA and William Bourke in NSW when Sustainable Australia were named Sustainable Population Australia.

        Perhaps he meant that One Nation are the only party with Federal members which are talking about population.

        Sustainable Australia has a broad spectrum of articles several of which discuss population and/or immigration http://www.votesustainable.org.au/news?page=2.

        What is interesting is that Sustainable Australia originally started out as The Stable Population Party which platformed primarily on 0 net immigration and phasing out the baby bonus.

        Sustainable Australia actually had “Lower Immigration” on the logo for the last Federal election.

        The party found that people don’t seem to vote particularly strongly on immigration i.e. it’s not the high priority for most voters. A bit of a shame really because it illustrates that most voters do not (at least as yet) get the relationship between rapid population growth and declining conditions.

  2. Well the thing is, to a greater or lesser degree, if you get the numbers right the “race issue” works itself out. All you have to do is keep doing what’s already happening- get a mix of people from all around the world.

  3. Good move. I wonder how many people would dare call Dick Smith a racist simply because he has some common sense to this immigration pump and dump lunacy pushed by all the main polical parties. Im certain he can give Pauline some good guidance to help bulldoze these Liberal Nationals Labor and Greens morons who dont listen to the people they are supposed to represent.

  4. Rational RadicalMEMBER

    “it focuses too much on race, colour or creed”… So a little bit of focus on race, colour or creed is ok? Sorry guys, but as I detailed on a myopic MB article about Chinese hegemony, I’m still struggling with the casual diminishment of racism evident in some of your articles – as separate to your totally worthwhile debate on immigration. It severely undermines your otherwise rationalist and humanist perspectives.

    • I’m with you RarRad. My point yesterday was about this. I’m all for the debate but its very easy for immigration to become THE problem in people’s minds rather than one factor in a general environment of failure.

      • you said straight out yesterday that immigration was NOT the problem lol – troll somewhere else

      • The game is up on you Felix Frost.

        Most of us can see through your trolling garbage.

        Keep trying though …. it is fun to watch.

    • FFS Rational Radical. Is that really all you got out of the article? Are you really so thin skinned that you get offended by me writing “focuses too much” rather than only “focuses”?

      How the hell can you read my article as “the casual diminishment of racism” when the whole article is about One Nation abandoning its racial slant. Way to go hijacking the debate with trivial shite.

      • Rational RadicalMEMBER

        Not your whole article no, just that line. As H&H wrote about at length a few weeks back, language has always been power, and how you frame an argument is almost as important as your argument itself, especially in this post-truth world.

        As Felix points out, plenty of folks are looking for any and all reason to indulge their one issue myopia, and if you are the one with the microphone, best not inadvertantly become their loud speaker.

        And I’m not offended, just making a suggestion like my last one that was ignored by H&H, yet roundly agreed with by lots of your particularly long subscribing readers.

        I don’t comment much because I support 98% of what you guys write, and do so by sharing and referencing widely. But I comment when something really makes me cringe, not because of my own sensibilities, but because I picture the average non-hardcore MB reader being turned off.

      • The whole article decries One Nation playing the race card and yet you ignored that message and howled at trivia. And now somehow I have become the loud speaker for the hard right, even though the whole article attacked the hard right.

        Go figure.

      • “As Felix points out, plenty of folks are looking for any and all reason to indulge their one issue myopia, and if you are the one with the microphone, best not inadvertantly become their loud speaker.” and

        “but because I picture the average non-hardcore MB reader being turned off.”

        You don’t seem to get it RR. Did you give even a nano second’s thought to what UE replied???? I’m one of those ‘hardcore MB readers’ and frankly find some of the PC/SJW type comments about “racists” & “racism” not just tiresome but positively scary. Attempts to limit comment just because someone somewhere might think it racist………FFS are you serious??

        Your post and reply to UE are a reflection of the exact problem we face – the inability to have a long over due rational debate about the ludicrous population ponzi and everything it represents. All those sensitive little souls out there need to grow up and get their heads around some very simple concepts – people are the same no matter where you go in the world, everything else is about political manipulation to influence the division of scarce resources and wealth….

        Wake up

      • Rational RadicalMEMBER

        Hey hey folks, who’s overly sensitive? I just stated that I agree with your arguments and share and reference them widely. In fact I stated that the debate is worthwhile davidjwalsh – so who is it trying to censor comments? Who is it spitting FFS through their offended sensibilities? I made a simple observation that stating “focuses too much on race, colour and creed” implies that SOME focus is warranted. If someone writes a well reasoned argument, but is not open to clarifying a potentially misleading statement, then it’s not me trying to shut down or undermine the debate. That’s my whole F’ing point. If you folks can’t see that being careful about choice of language affects the interpretation of an important argument, than this little infighting comment chain is as far as the debate will go. VERY surprised you can’t see it.

        It’s friendly advice, not politically correct offence or blog hijacking, we need to check who’s being sensitive here. Leith and David are the kind of guys I would vote for in a pinch if they were standing for election – but how the F*K would they fare in front of a camera if they can’t clarify a very complex issue in where they stand on whether or not RACE is a valid yard stick for policy formation. Think about it guys. It’s not political correctness – it NOT BEING RACIST. It’s really important for those that are victim to it, and the rational centrists seem to be losing that crucial perspective, which is also contributing to the blindness to the debate.

        P.S. I’m not putting words in any of your mouths, so stop putting words in mine by suggesting that I “completely ignored the rest of the article” etc., I’ve just stated how much I believe the debate about immigration needs to happen – and I participate and share. Stop trying to shut dissenting views down yourselves, or become irrelevant, seriously.

      • “I made a simple observation that stating “focuses too much on race, colour and creed” implies that SOME focus is warranted.”

        No it doesn’t. If I had chosen to use the words “focuses on” instead, it would have been factually incorrect, given this isn’t actually the crutch of One Nation’s population policy. They discuss the other valid issues more prominently.

        The fact is, you have created a strawman to distract from the whole intent of the article.

      • Rational RadicalMEMBER

        Yes a fair point – but that’s a false binary. How about ‘…the one thing wrong with…. is that it supports / engenders / panders to / embraces / incites racism’. Cuz I’m sorry to burst the anti-political-correctness crowd’s bubble, but hate speech is real in this country, as are acts of violence and discrimination against people based on their race. And Hanson’s big F-OFF bumper sticker is that there are too many immigrants *from the wrong places / wrong culture / wrong values etc”, even if her policy positions are far more detailed and nuanced.

        I’m not trying to tell you what to do or say, nor am I inferring that you are intolerant or racist yourself – I’m saying perception counts for a lot. I’m attempting to hold up a mirror and and offer some friendly advice as I said before. That’s why my original quote was framed as a question. Instead of answering, I get a diatribe of ‘piss off you wowser’. I’m never bitter and twisted about this stuff, but I get so much vitriole coming back from commenters and occasionally authors. It’s just plain immature.

        Lets assume its a straw-man (which it isn’t, just a friendly bit of advice as suggested MANY times). Lets assume I’m over-reacting. Fine. But don’t pretend that I’m on some politically correct crusade because I’m giving some advice about perception of this blog (right or wrong). The standard we walk past is the standard we accept. Give a little back the other way and stop being so sensitive yourself. You guys can dish it, but rarely take it seems sometimes. There’s a lot to be said for graciousness, and I accept a lot of criticism of my own writing, which certainly contributes to the very same themes of MB. Never thought I’d get so pilloried for asking a fair question about tone. I’m focusing on a subtelty, because I agree primarily with everything else, but perhaps there’s room in 40 articles per day to explicitly describe how vile racism is, given it’s pervasiveness and pollution of the debate you profess to hold so dear.

        Also, I thought the mission of MB as stated many times in the past was to fight the cause of economic justice through the lense of macro economics. I assume that this includes the GLOBAL cause of economic justice, which goes much further than just ‘how to stop mass immigration to Australia’. In my own view, one that is clearly reviled, there is MUCH more at stake and at cause than how many people cross borders globally – given that someone’s loss is someone else’s gain from a global perspective. But I get it, it’s Australia first.

      • Yes RR, it is Australia First. Politicians should always look after their citizens first and foremost. That is the central role of governments and nation states – to look after the wellbeing of its citizens. Do you disagree?

        Of course we should also be a decent global citizen. But this shouldn’t involve running one of the world’s biggest immigration programs to the detriment of our citizens. Surely something far more moderate – like that which existed between 1946 and 2003 – would suffice. And this does not mean cutting the humanitarian intake. Hell, raise it for all I care. But only if it is associated with deep cuts overall.

    • If you want to be pedantic, a little bit of racism isn’t a big threat. Little racism does not lead to lynchings. Its no different to any other prejudice except its based on melanin instead of other factors (hygiene, health, gender, fashion etc). Why are you here waging a war against a supposed ‘little racism’ when there are serious forms of prejudice out there causing way more harm?

      It would be nice to eliminate all forms of prejudice, but energy isn’t infinite, nor is attention span, political capital or anything else required to achieve those victories. So choose your battles. Or genetically manipulate humans to no longer instinctively form tribes, prejudices, snap judgements etc.

      • Rational RadicalMEMBER

        Haha WOW, and queue the racist apologists. Same thing happened last time I tried to make a rational contribution to ensuring the relevance and “moral high ground” of the debate being led by this blog. I rest my F*ing case guys. If the authors can’t see the creeping intolerance in their own comment sections, then they really will lose the fight to get this debate heard.

      • “If the authors can’t see the creeping intolerance in their own comment sections, then they really will lose the fight to get this debate heard”.

        So you want us to sensor comments now? The last time we did that, we had a revolt and several people vowed they would not renew their memberships.

        And since when does the validity of an article rest on the comments section?

      • “So you want us to sensor comments now? The last time we did that, we had a revolt and several people vowed they would not renew their memberships.” Leith, you set the tone. There is no need to censor comments, but we are allowed to critique your lead. I’ve been reading Macrobusiness for many years now and I don’t think I’m the only one who thinks your crossing a line here in regards to tone. Why not stop being defensive and just take it on board? I’ve read and absorbed your debate about immigration and my position has shifted, I would probably support a reduction in immigration now whereas previously I wouldn’t. But not if it comes at the expense of endorsing or excusing this type of dialogue. You say you want this to become a mainstream issue, well maybe finding a way to talk about it that allows those who are worried by the racism it does provoke (and your comments section are proof of that) is the point. So maybe listening to these concerns rather than firing off angry replies?

      • Rational RadicalMEMBER

        Of course I don’t want censorship of comments, never said that in the slightest. (But it sure seems like the anti-wowsers would love to lock out the ‘pinko-lefty-greeny-touchy-feely-humanist’ types). Rather, what I’m saying – and I’ve said it many many times now…. – is that you guys set the agenda, tone, evidence base, and ultimately the record on which this blog is based. I’ve been trying to steer people to MB for a LOT of years, and have mostly been successful.

        Just a simple fact that probably represents my increasingly scorned left-leaning peer base, is that it’s getting much harder to convince people that economic justice, the broken global economic and financial order, and the sickness in our own local political economic are the main topics of debate at MB, when all the headlines for the last 6 – 12 months breathe “immigration”, “China” and “population ponzi”. Important issues for sure, but don’t lose sight of the bigger picture.

        For what it’s worth I published an article on the Brexit explaining how racism is usually the result of economic injustice, and that the European immigration crisis is naturally part of the political upheaval currently being experienced. And how it would spread to elsewhere. The article was read by 150,000 people, and scored me all kinds of criticism from liberal and left-leaning peers. I get the issue, and I also fight for it, so you can’t on evidence lump me into the straw-man argument bucket. You know that my views are far more wide-reaching than this one.

        So dismiss me all you like, I can hack it, I’m an adult. I also value having my own writing contribute to this space, and I don’t for a moment want any views to be excluded. But that is precisely why I’m shocked at how extensively I need to defend a preference for less “walking past” of the slippery slope that is more and more present amongst the site’s commentariat. I hope you boys don’t need to start picking which subscribers to lose is all, that would destroy such a crucial outlet for the debate.

      • Rational RadicalMEMBER

        I didn’t miss them. I read them all. Yes, that’s right. All of them. That’s why I feel qualified to comment. I’ll state my advice one last time for posterity.

        While I agree with your analysis and views on immigration, *I believe* that MB could do more to combat the perception that irrational, racist or ‘fear-of-the-reds’ type views increasingly form part of their platform and/or comments section. Whether or not that view is justified (or indeed the responsibility of the blog’s authors) is something that I leave to your good selves to judge. I don’t personally believe that it IS a big part, just that it is a growing perception. I simply point out that I have had increasing feedback from peers and my own readers, that the MB community is becoming more hostile and dismissive of notions like tolerance, multi-culturalism, humanitarianism, rational discourse and global economic and environmental justice, as opposed to just *national* economic and environmental justice. What part of the political compass you reflect is your own choice, but don’t forget that it IS reflected.

        It’s just an observation, that is all. Really. No thought police here. And indeed on that very point, I sure feel thought policed every time I make a suggestion, comment or question, even when I make incorrect assumptions, interpretations etc and repeatedly attempt to clarify my position. I get it wrong all the time. But it doesn’t mean not having a crack. To err is human, to disagree is human. To be a troll (not saying you) is just plain fucking worthless for everyone’s time, and that’s what I cop each and every time. Pretty sick of it really, and it’s why I don’t comment.

        Last time I took the time, trolled to kingdom come. But then a few folks were like “Why don’t you comment more often”… Cuz trolls and irrational garbage from the real thought police. That’s why.

        Therein lies my essential point. It’s a shame.

      • Well said RadRat. I got bombarded yesterday for a comment on similar lines as yours. Some were polite, most not. And Leith was defensive and dismissive and very selective about what was addressed. I went to bed saying to my partner that it was an interesting experience daring to go against the flow in a comments section, scary, unsettling and even with a non-de-plume quite unsettling. Ofcourse, the temptation is not to bother, and I wouldn’t have dipped my toes in again today except I appreciated the supportive comments I got yesterday and thought I’d return the favour.

      • @RR – We may all want the world to be different. Some may convince themselves that they’re fighting for a better world, and look down on those of us who are a little more hesitant to believe in a ‘great noble cause’.

        My comment was not meant to be an apology for racism. People who get it will ‘get it’. Clearly you’re not one of them. I don’t know why. Maybe you’re young and hormonal. Maybe you’re a zealot, I don’t know. If it helps you to understand my perspective, please name 1 hero or cause in the history of humanity that was truly noble and decent for nobility and decency’s sake. From my perspective what you did here today did not further the cause of equality, did not help to end discrimination, nor did it achieve ostracism of racists. It did the exact opposite. It validated their arguments. You drawing a direct line between what was being said, and racism, meant that you equated a phrasing with a mindset that literally hung people from trees, or gassed them, or otherwise raped and mutilated people (without remorse) because of some perceived racial difference.

        You said that words have power. That is true, it cuts both ways. When you overreact as you did today, you are not sending a message that there are degrees of difference in prejudice. You’re saying that we are all born sinners and that we are damned whether our sin is complaining about One Nation’s narrative, or literally exterminating another culture. As I pointed out- humans are very tribal, very judgemental creatures. It is not a nurture thing- dogs can easily be the same. So when you jump on a guy as you did today, you’re saying “I don’t care what your crime is, you’re guilty of racism”. Kind of makes it hard to come down on racists when literally 100% of people are. Kind of DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF ENDING DISCRIMINATION AND PREJUDICE by prejudging people’s intentions, motives, beliefs and feelings on a couple of omitted words.

        Here is a newsflash for you: Humans often omit words because language is awful for communicating big ideas. We don’t want to be writing an essay, or speaking for half a day just to communicate a simple idea. But when someone is constantly breathing down our necks about how our words are interpreted we are forced to either attain compliance (and increase noise to signal) or turn on the censors. Have a look at Brexit, Trump and One Nation. Look in a fucking mirror and ask yourself whether the censorship method is REALLY working.

    • @ Rational R
      “…
      casual diminishment of racism evident in some of your articles – as separate to your totally worthwhile debate on immigration.”

      Well summed up.
      I sense that *anything* that even touches the excess immigration is peddled without discrimination.

      Hanson “it” revolves around racism and xenophobia, immigration is just a populist approach which happens to line with core party values. MB just buys it for face professed value.

      • No Djenka. We buy it because One Nation is the only elected party to voice the immigration issue. The rest either continue to push mass immigration or ignore the issue in its entirety.

        My whole mission is to push the whole immigration issue into the mainstream and to have a rational national discussion. Do you have a problem with this?

      • @Djenka

        Just wondering if you’v thought about a couple of the issues around immigration and the Australian population

        * What’s the long term sustainable population of Australia? Factor in potential climate change impacts eg look at the long term decline in rainfall in WA of the last 40 years and try to determine if that could be replicated on te east coast

        * How do we fund the infrastructure required to support a growing population. Back filling of infrastructure is becoming prohibitively expensive. Even if we went the Asian route of say Thailand or Taiwan with massive freeways in the sky throughout the city, it’s still a lot more expensive than building it “greenfields”.

        * How do we reduce CO2 emissions while also reducing our environmental impacts on land clearing?

        Limiting our population growth is one of the easiest ways to reduce the infrastructure burden, need to clear land, need to take more fresh water from the environment of build new desal plants.

        Everyone is a little bit racist. Saying I’m in this tribe and I have a right to decide who can come is racist, but that is the founding principal of any tribe. Without it the tribe will likely no longer exist as others take what they have.

        I see far far more over racism and sexism in other countries. Australia ain’t perfect, not by a long shot, but we treat each other far far better, especially those not born here, than the majority of countries. Take a trip around the middle east, much of south america, or Asia and then see if you prefer the way aussies treat each other or how it is in one of those countries.

        I’m sick of trains so over crowded it causes a mass level of stress within the community. sames go for the slow moving parking systems call roads. I’m sick of escalating prices for energy due to increased population. i’m sick of the extra i pay on my water bill for a desal plant built to cope with population growth.

        If Dick Smith can help one nation develop a narrative around population that leaves race and religion out of the discussion, then I say who’s a clever dick and look forward to the Laberals facing political annihilation in the future.

      • @ UE

        I know you buy it because One Race One Nation is the only elected party with this voice hence my comment that you’re clutching *indiscriminately* to anything that supports your narrative about excess immigration (a narrative with which I DO agree and I stated that numerous times).
        Big difference I see is that endorsing openly racist and xenophobic party because they peddle *one single* correct policy is wrong. Seriously wrong. This cannot be taken out of party’s context.
        You ain’t daft, sure you know that “it” (also known as P. Hanson) peddles reduced immigration for completely different reason from yours. Good deed cannot be justified to come from evil.

        Do you have a problem with this?
        No need to be aggressive towards different opinion.
        It does terrible thing to one’s credibility.

      • @ Sydboy

        If you choose to buy and eat the shite sandwich “it” (also known as PHanson) sells because it is wrapped in good looking popular sentiment about excessive immigration, this is your choice.
        “It” peddles lower immigration by a coincidence because most of immigration in the last 15 years comes from the ‘wrong’ race.
        Would you feel any better if trains are overcrowded with desirable race/religion as per “it” approval?

        The core mistake is a meme that Dick can miraculously convert “it” into non-racist and non-xenophobe simply by upping the ante on *excess* immigration. The core of One Race One Nation party is “wrong” immigrants. Everything else is decoration.

    • DarkMatterMEMBER

      Rational Radical, do you realize that your poster image with the square root symbol and the Q is something of contradiction? The only numbers that have a rational square root are the small set of numbers that are the result of multiplying an integer by itself. Unless the number under the square root symbol (radicand) is an integer squared, then the result will be an irrational number. Irrational numbers do not exist – they are not computable since they involve an infinite series of adjustments that never completes.

      The only interpretation of the moniker “Rational Radical” I can see is that your views will be almost always be irrational and incomplete. Did I miss something?

      • Rational RadicalMEMBER

        Nice try smart ass. You just answered your own question. Q is represents a rational number, acting as a radicand – Being radical (anti-status quo) by using rational arguments. Let me give you an example:

        “Racism is never acceptable, because not only is it discriminatory, it is also irrational, being as it is, based on the false and unverifiable judgement that someone’s rights, capabilities, opportunities, values etc. are necessarily different based on skin colour or nationality, as opposed to different because of the individual circumstances or person. It is therefore of the utmost importance to condemn irrational racist views, such as those espoused by a certain Pauline Hanson, lest her otherwise rational policy positions on the level of immigration best suited to the needs of this country, be undermined or derailed in service to irrational people who would seek any outlet to inflict their prejudice and bigotry on people who aren’t like them.”

        Does that help?

      • RR thats a pretty good everyday definition racism – and one I suspect 99% of people reading and commenting would agree with. Would you agree with concept of ‘casual racism’? Would you agree with intesectional definitions of racism? Would you agree the lately racial catagorisation of ‘whiteness’ and ‘white privilidge’ exist – and is that ok?
        There are reasons the gloves are coming off a little as spurious race and class theories that have only politically destablising uses are thrown at reasonable people.

      • ffs he thinks he’s anti status quo too – this is the ultimate SJW, one that has transcended to become a SRW (Self Righteous Wanker) offering the world nothing more then pedantic criticisms and self righteous long winded diatribes

      • ‘Irrational numbers do not exist – they are not computable since they involve an infinite series of adjustments that never completes’

        Wait, what?

        Just because you find something difficult to deal with doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        “Q is represents a rational number, acting as a radicand”

        Well, no that doesn’t help actually. It doesn’t matter if Q is a rational number, since unless it is a square number the answer will always be irrational. 1, 2, 4 , 9, 16 …. are square and have a rational square root, all other numbers used as a radicand will result in an irrational result. The square root has been problematic for mathematicians since Pythagoras, as even back then it was proved that SQRT(2) cannot be represented by any ratio of integers, hence is irrational. The square root is the poster child for irrationality, so calling yourself Rational Radical is at best ill considered and at worst dumb.

        My point here really is that you make the pretense of being rational and intellectual, but it is just flavour over substance. Your word soup drivel of absurd slogans and petty thought crimes is more than likely as half baked and flaky as you inability to comprehend number theory. What counts is the ability to think analytically, not like a crazy ideological stormtrooper for the SJWs.

        You should edit you website “rational radical” and explain you made a mistake about the square root. And also apologise for misleading people about rational numbers.

      • A sure sign of a SRW is unnecessary CAPITALISATION of words. As if they are just so holy and devoid of irrationality and could never be wrong it’s just that people don’t understand what they are proffering.

        Racism will end when people stop talking about it.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        @Robert

        ‘Irrational numbers do not exist – they are not computable since they involve an infinite series of adjustments that never completes’

        Wait, what?

        Just because you find something difficult to deal with doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

        This has been a great problem for mathematicians and philosophers over the centuries. Take Pi for example – 3.1412 etc. There is no known value for pi because it can only be determined by an infinite series. There is an abstract concept of Pi as the ratio of a circle’s circumference to diameter, but there is no exact value. Asking whether Pi exists is similar to asking if infinity exists or possibly asking if God exists. You can say that irrational numbers exist, but we don’t know what they are and call it faith if you like.

      • They certainly exist, otherwise there would be no smooth and/ or differentiable functions.

        Transcendental numbers require no faith, and after all, pi is easily expressed via Euler’s identity.

        Just remember – metric spaces aren’t safe spaces.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        “They certainly exist, otherwise there would be no smooth and/ or differentiable functions.
        Transcendental numbers require no faith, and after all, pi is easily expressed via Euler’s identity.
        Just remember – metric spaces aren’t safe spaces.”

        Both e and pi are irrational numbers – so we don’t know either of them. That doesn’t mean that we cant have useful concepts of them. As for the smooth functions, you do realize that all that maths works quite well in computers – even though it is based on discrete points? Calculus is based on the idea of approaching infintesimally small values. Not everyone believes in infinity.

        https://njwildberger.com/2012/12/02/difficulties-with-real-numbers/

        Some of these 19th century ideas about numbers are very hard to grasp – Dedekind Cuts for example. With 64bit floating point CPUs working nicely for us, the practical use of believing in the continuum is probably diminished. Infinity is more of a faith than a hard concept.

  5. proofreadersMEMBER

    “I asked her, does she think she’s superior to other races? She said no,” he said.”

    That question should probably also be asked of other races?

    • “I asked her, does she think she’s superior to other races? She said no,” he said.”

      That’s a boldface lie. The fact Hanson so readily accept and promote false negative stereotype of pretty much all races other than Caucasian is clear evidence she think all other races are inferior.

      • I actually think Hanson’s main concern is losing her cultural identity and seeing her culture over run by other cultures. Sure it might be based on an irrational fear, but “being swamped by Asian’s” was more of a concern that the Australia she knew was changing than thinking she was superior to Asian’s. I also think her concerns about Muslim’s are founded in some hard truth’s that most won’t say out loud for fear of being labelled racist, but Islam is not a race it’s a belief system and just like Scientology we should be able to ridicule it’s silly ideas as part of a free society. Sure people can be offended by that, but I say so what? I put all religions in the same basket. What concerns me more about Islam is the extremism it attracts.

        Now I’ll admit the chances of most Australian’s being involved in a terrorism incident is extremely small, but people do have genuine fears around it and the media love to push that fear. That’s why Hanson has her appeal to those groups. Like many American’s there is a large group of Australian’s who haven’t travelled outside their own country and have a limited world view.

        Me I’ll vote for Hanson just to disrupt the system, it’s clear the Liberals won’t change anything, Labor will probably get my primary vote (if they rewind negative gearing) and The Green’s are useless… So the way I see it, Labor #1, One Nation #2. Destroy the property and population ponzi.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        I liked Dicks assertion, that affordable free standing home ownership was to him a “Sacred right” to his Australian Identity and equated that to Aboriginal Australians connection to land.

        I share this “Belief” that near universal home ownership IS part of our Australian Cultural Identity and not just for “Whites”,…. all Australians!
        My Indian, Chinese and Sri Lankan friends and clients inpaticular, say this is whats makes them want to be Australians.
        The assult on housing affordability has many different causes, but mass immigration is a major contributer.
        Its a direct assult on Australian Culture,…Proudly and rarely, a Culture that is welcoming to all who are prepared to respect it.

      • “That’s a boldface lie. The fact Hanson so readily accept and promote false negative stereotype of pretty much all races other than Caucasian is clear evidence she think all other races are inferior.”

        Wake up to yourself Kevin………you want to see full on acceptance of, and promotion of “false negative stereotype(s)” go and spend some time with non-white communities on their own territory

        Ms Hanson might not be the most articulate person in the country but at least she’s had the determination to stand up and express a legitimate view – as EP says, promoting a belief in the need to protect Australian Culture is not racist and as far as I’m concerned anyone who migrates to this country and then complains about it being racist can leave

        And as for Australians who insist on promoting this drivel, we’d all be better off is they left as well if they can’t or will not engage in a real, open debate – none of the ‘you can’t say that’ BS.

        We are supposed to support free speech in this country – remember?????

      • Believing people of one race to be superior to another is a very different issue to people of one race feeling threatened by those of another. The former is plainly unjustified, the later, well a few thousand years of human history suggests that threat can be very real (whether you believe that to be true in an Australian context is a separate issue again).

        Righteous logic suggests there is either no distinction between the above or even if there is, both are still fundamentally racist propositions. Consider for a moment our indigenous Australian’s, was there fear unfounded? Would their concerns have been immediately ridiculed and derided as baseless in fact and motivated only be racist intent? NOTE: I use this to simply illustrate a point, not draw a direct comparison to British colonisation and modern multiculturalism! My point simply is that the above distinctions are so casually lost in the catchall label of ‘racist’.

      • “none of the ‘you can’t say that’ BS.
        We are supposed to support free speech in this country – remember?????”

        No, everyone is calling out the the lies. People say “you can’t say that” because what she said is removed from the truth. And your hypocrisy is breathtaking, criticize her because she is factually incorrect is not allowed these days is it? Only one side should have free unchallenged right to free speech to you guys.

        Also just for your information, Australia does not have constitution protection guaranteeing free speach… We don’t even have a bill of rights.

      • If people want to be racist its none of your business unless it is unlawful. You might do stuff that annoys other people will you stop that because someone else thinks its wrong?????

  6. Some logic maybe coming into One Nation,
    ……has that Maximus from Gladiator feel about it, but Dick needs to darken the hair a bit

  7. I would vote for Dick. The first few times I saw him – before Wikipedia existed – I thought he looks half Chinese!

    He was threatening to contest an election due to aviation safety and CASA incompetence/corruption.

    He has also made a couple of documentaries on mass immigration. Put those documentaries on YouTube and Netflix, Dick.

    • Yeah well, now Sweden and Germany have shown they now accept sharia with child marriages being legally accepted.

      In Austria the court has overturned part of the sentence of the Iraqi man who raped a 10 year old boy at a swimming pool because the prosecution hadn’t shown that 10 year old boy HADN’T GIVEN CONSENT. can you believe the global media attention if a western man had been the perpetrator and his argument was he thought the 10 year old boy (or girl) had given their consent? To make the situation more ludicrous the man had been taken to the pool as an integration exercise to help teach him how to behave in public.

      have a read of the Casey Review from the UK. I like her suggestion to have an integration oath as part of the immigration process. If you want to live here for the long term, then show me you want to live with me and not separate to me. the worst thing we can have is colonies of varying ethnic minorities within the country. That is why Europe is having a lot of problems.

      my hope is the PC culture and SJWs that thrive within it, are now on the losing side as the tide turns. you can deny reality for awhile, but reality always asserts itself in the end.

      • Accepting western values means renouncing Sharia. However, since Sharia is at the core of Islam it equates to renouncing Islam. According to majority of muslims Sharia is a collection of God given laws and thus immutable. The conclusion is that most muslims will not integrate with western societies.

  8. 70,000 is too many!

    Even if the official figure is cut down to 35,000/year there would still be visa overstayers and people working illegally on tourist visas.

    There are visa overstayers now like Sarah from Ireland in WA – who chooses to violate Aussie law every single day.

    • ++++ Jacob

      and it’s also long overdue to have an open debate about our ‘humanitarian intake’ as well. Changes nothing in the countries of origin and imports precisely the sort of tribal and cultural conflicts that generated the refugee in the first place

    • 70,000 NOM = 370,000 perm and long term arrivals p.a.
      Freezing the pop = 150,000 perm and long term arrivals p.a.

  9. Perhaps we’re seeing a little bit of Brian Burston’s behind-the-scenes influence – if the SMH article below is anything to go by, he’s One Nation’s “moderate” Senator and seems much more interested in pursuing (or at least making sounds about pursuing) reasonable and calm policy than the rest of the tinfoil hat-wearing nutters that comprise his party. Fingers crossed Dick Smith can get them to focus on actual issues affecting Australians rather than conspiracy theories about Agenda 21 and the Rothschilds.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/brian-burston-the-gentleman-of-one-nation-is-paulines-most-loyal-soldier-20161202-gt2k1s.html

  10. Now he have a power hungry Dick turn into political Dick morphing into opportunistic in-bed-with-the-devil-to-get-to-power Dick.

    Yeah, Hanson “it” was always about excess immigration, never about the race and faith and Dick will get her right.
    /sarc

    • nah speak for yourself djenka. this shit is about race and faith as well as population growth, as well it should be. pretending that race doesnt matter (while simultaneously decrying whites as the progenitors of all the wicked in the world, which is what people like you are all about) is the biggest lie of the past 50 years.

      • upping on punctuation and syntax may help understand your thoughts better.

        I never said “whites”.
        Italians, Yugos, Greek, they’re all whites, yet less desirable immigrants. (sure, they still better stack up than middle easterns, chinese and indians).

        This is about Dick being a power hungry dick. Cannot overlook 99.9% of One Race One Nation party objectives and focus on 0.1% that happens to be right.

  11. Dear me, perhaps someone with an actual Sociology degree may be best to advise One Nation, rather than a ‘Dickky come lately’ who has problems understanding even the basics of demography. I have had a discussion with Dick about the 30% growth that is our ‘demographic momentum’ and at the end of it, he simply did not understand or chose not to.

      • Yeah a sociology degree. Wow. Does that get one at the front of the queue when applying for a job at macdonalds ?

    • pretty much anyone in that field would be too far to the left. any talk about limiting migration would be considered racist.

    • Meanwhile Australia’s population continues to march into the stratosphere.

      Tell me Willy Nilly. How could it be that every one of us is wrong – the Treasury, the Productivity Commission, various demographers, etc? How could all of us miss this phantom population decline that is coming Australia’s way?

      • Leith
        You mention Treasury. Perhaps look at their own charts?
        http://demografixfromoz.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/our-looming-death-bust-part-2.html

        I have never mentioned population decline as such, I have pointed out that our population growth rate is slowing and will continue to fall. Our natural growth is set for a rapid decline and the NOM will decrease, as it has been due to the aged voting bloc, voting against any NOM increase.

        Projected Rate of Natural Increase – http://tinyurl.com/kv3wthx
        Projected Population Growth Rate – http://tinyurl.com/lupr2sv

        All demographers I speak to understand the upcoming fall in our natural growth due to the doubling of our actual deaths and I do note that The last IGR seemed to not cover this well as the previous IGR’s did. That must be political I think.

        Productivity Commission…

        Australia’s population will both grow strongly and become older. Such slow but profound shifts in the nature of a society do not elicit the same scrutiny as immediate policy issues. The preferable time to contemplate the implications is while these near inevitable trends are still in their infancy.
        Population ageing is largely a positive outcome, primarily reflecting improved life expectancy. A female (male) born in 2012 will on average live for an estimated 94.4 (91.6) years.
        However, population growth and ageing will affect labour supply, economic output, infrastructure requirements and governments’ budgets.
        Australia’s population is projected to rise to around 38 million by 2060, or around 15 million more than the population in 2012. Sydney and Melbourne can be expected to grow by around 3 million each over this period.
        The population aged 75 or more years is expected to rise by 4 million from 2012 to 2060, increasing from about 6.4 to 14.4 per cent of the population. In 2012, there was roughly one person aged 100 years old or more to every 100 babies. By 2060, it is projected there will be around 25 such centenarians.
        Total private and public investment requirements over this 50 year period are estimated to be more than 5 times the cumulative investment made over the last half century, which reveals the importance of an efficient investment environment.
        Labour participation rates are expected to fall from around 65 to 60 per cent from 2012 to 2060, and overall labour supply per capita to contract by 5 per cent.
        Average labour productivity growth is projected to be around 1.5 per cent per annum from 2012-13, well below the high productivity period from 1988-89 to 2003-04. Real disposable income per capita is expected to grow at 1.1 per cent per annum compared with the average 2.7 per cent annual growth over the last 20 years.
        Collectively, it is projected that Australian governments will face additional pressures on their budgets equivalent to around 6 per cent of national GDP by 2060, principally reflecting the growth of expenditure on health, aged care and the Age Pension.
        Major impending economic and social changes can create the impetus for new reform approaches not currently on the policy horizon. For example:
        The design of the Age Pension and broader retirement income system might be linked to life expectancy after completion of the current transition to 67 years in 2023.
        Using some of the annual growth in the housing equity of older Australians could help ensure higher quality options for aged care services and lower fiscal costs.
        Wide ranging health care reforms could improve productivity in the sector that is the largest contributor to fiscal pressures. Even modest improvements in this area would reduce fiscal pressures significantly.”
        http://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/ageing-australia

      • The core of Willy’s argument is that there will be a dramatic rise in deaths at some point in the next decade.
        This is well illustrated in the most recent ABS Population Projections, which show that deaths will more than double by the middle of the century, and potentially triple by the end of the century

        http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/3222.0main+features52012%20(base)%20to%202101

        Note that ABS commentary states that deaths will begin to rise quicker than population in about 2022, so it is neither surprising nor inconsistent for population growth to still be running at the high levels that began during the mining boom.

      • Keep up the fight and reasoned argument UE.

        There will always be dimwits who conflate and twist your words to suit their own view of the world. Personally ….. I don’t know why you bother correcting them.

        Relative to the infrastructure in Sydney and Melbourne there are to many humans. It has nothing to do with race. Yes …. Pauline is a bit of a dill and inarticulate but she makes more sense than the mainstream parties.

        Importing more people into this country with all the problems we have is just bonkers.

        There will always be blind SJW’s. Let them dribble and bleed on.

      • hareeba
        Just to point out, I support a NOM of 36,000 and I have simply pointed out to Leith, where he needs to be careful with his language, such as ‘Population Ponzi’ when it is clear that we have been below replacement fertility since 1973 and also to consider the changed methodologies in the population growth rates. What exactly have you contributed to the debate again?

        Leith, I await your reply as you stated ‘population decline’ and I never made any mention of that at all. I also provided you with Treasury and PC links and yet no reply?

      • My city has gone from a pleasant place to live to a shambles in 10 years. Is it too much to ask to make sure it doesn’t get any worse?

  12. Allow atheists only (though only a very small number as our infrastructure etc is overwhelmed already). Anyone who thinks they have an imaginary friend has shown they are fodder for unscrupulous manipulators and can’t be trusted to act rationally. Not that I’m saying all atheists are sensible either.

    PS Dick appears to have his heart in the right place and may talk some sense into ON. If only someone could also fix their climate change denial, they’d be looking pretty good to me.

  13. By some accounts, the long term carrying capacity of the earth is 1 billion people. I would vote for zero net immigration even if the party with that policy was otherwise unlikeable. Overpopulation is the root cause of nearly all the big problems.

    • Ok then how about we control population by killing all the Muslims, or Jews, or Africans? Yes it’s a slightly distasteful policy but at least it would show people that you’re serious about overpopulation.

      • Lorax how can we have a meaningful debate if you are going to imply a connection between support of zero population growth and genocide. Come on. I am not interested in insulting you back but thats what you are asking for with such commentary.

    • Yes, I’ve seen a suggestion of 1 billion hunter-gatherers. I’ve seen one account suggest fewer than 100 million at a North American lifestyle if only using renewable resources.

      As I understand it, there’s only 11 countries free from conflict now. UNICEF recently projected another 1.8 billion births in Africa alone by 2039. It is sadly still too common that patriarchal cultures/mindsets persist with the belief that “it’s up to God how many children I have” – fortunately, most women prefer smaller families so investing efforts in raising the status of women is pivotal in aiming for the UN’s lower variant of population projections as is dispelling a lot of the damage done by largely religious institutions in relation to modern contraception.

  14. In the mean time, if Hanson can’t put this Culleton distraction behind here – by whatever means – she runs a serious risk of her party vanishing again.

    • willy nilly. You can bang on about the death bust all you want. But why do you ignore the fact that it will be swamped by immigration if current settings persist?

      I use the official projections because…. [drumroll]… they are the official projections. Otherwise I would just be making things up.

      • Leith
        Which ‘official projections’ exactly? If you are citing the ABS, then their past record on population growth is not quite a good basis for a solid argument.
        ‘swamped by immigration’ You do know that our NOM is now 33% below its 2009 peak and continues to fall, right?
        While I agree with you that the current rate is still too high, I do not exclude the factors that make up our NOM, such as our emigration, which is hitting historical highs and really does need some more media attention.
        The use of the term’ Population Ponzi’ is incorrect. ‘Immigration Ponzi’, perhaps but once again, I think in my opinion, you are happy to ignore the ABS 2006 changes to the methodology etc to suit your agenda.
        As evidenced by some already in this post, demographics is not very well understood in general and to play on an alarmist point of view, does not in my opinion, carry much weight.

    • As I understand it, we’ve actually well and truly exceeded all earlier population projections willy_nilly and the business interests continue to work hard lobbying government officials to keep things going. These interests aren’t going away any time soon and appear to be seeking alternative avenues for population growth as we speak.

      At nearly 25 million now, we should be concerned with any further population growth let alone another 10+ million by mid-century. Our current carrying capacity is probably no more than 10 million.

      There are also so many external factors to this. While our population is growing, we are also diminishing our carrying capacity and resillience. For instance, we continue to develop over farmland or land that might provide some sustenance. We have nothing by way of fuel reserves and the main channel we ship fuel in from is in a constant state of tension. Water resources are being overused, aquifers drained, species and biodiversity extinguished etc.

      In addition, and perhaps the most critical point is to realise that while our population continues to grow at a 3rd world rate, there is no chance of tackling any of our worsening issues. This is because population growth incentivises counter-productive investment which pretty much entirely centres on wasteful consumption and frivolous use of resources.

  15. Leith, Dick has Buckley’s of toning down One Nation’s immigration policy. That’s who Hanson is, that’s how she made her name, it’s her raison d’être. Very disappointing to see Dick Smith come out in support of Hanson. He’s now lost all credibility with me, and I suspect anyone on the left who would like to see a sane approach to population policy in Australia.

      • stop being a giant baby being so concerned with being seen as whatever the left thinks the word “racist” means. who cares. pauline has been doing more to fight th epopulation ponzi than anyone despite the loathesome treatment she has recieved from the globalist media, and she has been doing it since the 90s. youre just some sook sitting around lamenting that you dont want anyone to consider you racist oh no!!!!!! anonymously on the internet ,calling out someone with the guts to not care and put themselves out there.

      • Are you suggesting the Lorax has to tolerate the intolerant because they are incapable of tolerating others? If you think about it, that’s a rather silly request.

      • No mate. Pauline is a racist. It seems you are too. You can run a sensible population policy without being racist. As Leith says it should be about numbers, not the colour of your skin or your faith.

      • And how is he playing into the globalists’ frame?
        All he said that Hanson will be Hanson, regardless of who goes into advise her.
        That’s a pretty solid observation.
        He also said that due to this alliance he’s lost respect for Mr. Smith.
        He’s entitled to his opinion about that.
        Nothing at all about that comment suggests that he is playing into this globalists’ frame.

  16. Will Nilly.

    Do you believe there is not enough people on this planet?

    So what if the fertility rate is declining. What does that have to do with immigration?

    Forget the economic stance for a minute. Why do we have to keep expanding Australia’s population?

    Give all of us here one good reason.

    And maybe your focus should be on why the fertility rate is declining. Ie: Cost of living, housing and employment pressures and the uncertainty that goes with this.

    I think you have it back to front.

    • wtf does Australia’s NOM have to do with how many people there are on the planet?

      You seem to be referring to Australian conditions in your comment about TFR. Australian TFR has been close to steady since the mid-70s. The TFR that is falling is largely in developing countries, especially in Asia, although some places like Ethiopia have recently joined in.

      • The point is Robert Australia is lucky to have a relatively small population compared to the worlds population. We are lucky in that respect.

        I just don’t get the desire to increase our population for any reason.

        Sydney and Melbourne are already too congested so why add to it?

        And NOM ….. Net ? Migration?

        We should cherish our space not clog it up more.

        I want to be able to go to the beach and not be crammed in like sardines.

    • who cares anyway? automation is going to start claiming casualties in the workplace in a very big way, very soon. we’re going to be regretting bringing all of these.. erm.. “skilled” immigrants, in when that shit, which started ages ago, starts being noticed by people and the government cant sweep the problem under the rug any longer.


      • automation is going to start claiming casualties in the workplace in a very big way,

        So I guess the cat’s out of the bag – the robots ARE coming to kill us. (although, looking on the bright side,looks like we won’t need to worry about overpopulation for much longer)

    • Approx 30% of our actual population growth is our demographic momentum, more people living longer.
      I am quite confident that the globe will see peak population and then decline this century.
      Global peak population growth was in 1965 and the population growth rate has been declining since then.
      As for Australian population, as I have stated before I support a NOM of approx 36,000 which would see our population stabilise quite quickly.
      Do not confuse urbanisation issues with population growth.
      Overpopulationisamyth.com

      https://youtu.be/VvQ_G24Zwek

  17. There’s no doubt that some would rightly argue that Dick is a narcissistic hypocrite.
    Guilt is making him uncover his advocacy for future Australians.

  18. If….
    You voted ALP, then you voted for massive population growth.
    You voted LNP, then you voted for massive population growth.
    You voted One Nation, you chose to put your kids before immigrants and 457s.
    Those turds that voted ALP or LNP need to go and fuck themselves for selling out Australia’s kids.

    • There isn’t a party I can vote for that doesn’t support rapid population growth, at least not one that has a hope of winning a seat in the Reps or Senate. I refuse to vote for a party that discriminates on the basis of race or religion when determining who should be allowed to live in this country. It should be about numbers only.