ABC turns immigration and housing spruiker

By Leith van Onselen

In recent weeks, the ABC has displayed shocking bias in the immigration debate.

In late March, ABC’s The Link aired a shockingly biased segment whereby presenter Stan Grant tried to bully Dick Smith on immigration, aggressively dismissing Smith’s arguments and replacing them with a whole bunch of myths and faulty logic in support of a ‘Big Australia’.

ABC Lateline then aired a half-hour segment on housing affordability, which failed to even mention mass immigration’s key role in driving up housing demand and prices in Sydney and Melbourne, despite me cutting a monologue on this exact issue for Lateline, which the ABC left on the cutting room flaw.

And last week, ABC The Drum aired a shockingly biased segment spruiking benefits from immigration without acknowledging the various costs for the incumbent population, including for housing.

Over the weekend, we got another dose of the ABC’s bias with an article entitled Housing affordability: Blame supply for high prices, not tax breaks, says former banker, which badly misrepresented the view of former CBA chief, Ralf Norris, who argued that Australia’s housing affordability woes are primarily a demand-side problem caused by strong population growth [my emphasis]:

As crowds flock to property auctions in Sydney and Melbourne this weekend, former banker Sir Ralph Norris says blame a lack of supply for the sky-high prices likely to be achieved.

Sir Ralph said surging demand is driving home prices up in Australia’s two biggest capital cities, not generous tax policies or lax bank lending practices…

He said a shortfall of supply will continue to be a problem because of significant population growth.

“The issue is going to be around appropriate infrastructure, and also land release policies,” he told Business PM…

“Obviously negative gearing is an issue and that really comes down to government tax policies, but the fundamental issue here is one of demand,” he said…

An unbiased reading of Ralph Norris’ comments should have produced a heading like: “Housing affordability: Blame strong population growth, not tax breaks, says former banker” or “Housing affordability: Blame high immigration for high prices, not tax breaks, says former banker”. But no, the ABC instead chose to go with the supply angle, despite Norris explicitly stating that “the fundamental issue here is one of demand” caused by strong population growth.

It’s an important difference. If the housing problem has been caused by excessive population growth driving an imbalance between housing demand and supply, then the obvious solution is to slash immigration to historical norms from recent turbo-charged levels (see below charts).

However, by conveniently blaming supply, then the inferred solution is to simply ‘build more houses’.

Anyone actually looking at the data can see that the demand-supply imbalance in Sydney and Melbourne has been caused primarily by excessive immigration-fueled population growth. Both cities have been the primary destination of migrants, which has seen Melbourne add a ridiculous 1 million people (a 27% increase) over the past 12 years, whereas Sydney added 821,000 people (a 20% increase):

Moreover, because of mass immigration, Sydney’s population is projected to grow by 87,000 people per year (1,650 people each week) to 6.4 million over the next 20-years – effectively adding another Perth to the city’s population:

Whereas Melbourne’s population is projected to balloon by 97,000 people per year (1,870 people each week) over the next 35 years to more than 8 million people:

To be fair to the ABC, it is not alone in misrepresenting the housing problem: the Turnbull Government, the RBA, and numerous economists have made the same erroneous argument that a lack of supply is to blame – completely ignoring mass immigration’s preeminent role in the matter.

The fact remains that it is a direct policy choice how ‘big’ Australia becomes, not a fait accompli. And this will depend primarily on the size of the immigration program that Australia chooses to run.

As shown in the next chart, which comes from the Productivity Commission, Australia’s population will reach more than 40 million mid-century under current immigration settings, at least 13 million more than would occur under zero net overseas migration (NOM):

That’s a heck of a lot of extra people to build infrastructure and housing for versus a lower or zero NOM policy.

Given Australia’s mass immigration settings are significant demand-drivers behind Sydney’s and Melbourne’s housing woes, why not include as a solution reducing immigration to the long-run norm of 70,000 people a year? It’s not rocket science, but unfortunately the ABC and the mainstream media refuse to acknowledge the obvious for fear of being perceived as ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’.

[email protected]


  1. “…despite me cutting a monologue on this exact issue for Lateline, which the ABC left on the cutting room flaw.”

    If you spruiked your non-sensical pernicious Land Tax and long term average immigration at 70,000 per annum theories then why wouldn’t they leave you on the floor?

    Land Tax is a proven failure. Even your precious Prosper Australia researchers covertly acknowledge that Land Tax forces people into smaller and smaller no-yard homes (dog boxes) in the name of “efficiency”. That anti social Land Tax word “(economic) efficiency” you and your fellow neo-classical economic commentators love to hear.

    As for immigration, Australia needs a ZERO net population increase not a 70,000 immigrants per year target as you espouse. Australia needs to be sustainable. Not unsustainable simply because you and your cohorts like the idea of having 70,000 immigrants ever year.

    • naturaltrust,

      Do you know what level of immigration will acheive a zero rate of population increase? Would the population still be growing having regard only to the offspring of people who were born here or arrived before say 1995 .

      Do you support immigration designed to maintain the current population level or are you proposing that we allow the population to slowly decline as many other countries are, wisely, doing.

  2. Further, Leith, it is two faced of you to complain about being left on the cutting room floor when you and your cohorts at Macrobusiness and Prosper Australia leave anti Land Tax articles on the Macrobusiness floor every week!

    Not to mention your, the Grattan Institutes, and Proper Australia’s, biased elder bashing and attempts to take homes from the aged by neo-classical economic inspired heavy taxation.

    Lets have some balanced, honest and real-life reporting here, Leith; not your biased censorship.

    • naturaltrust,

      Cutting room floor? How is that I seem to find myself reading your passionate attacks on land tax with great ease?

      As we have discussed many times a tax on land that is limited to supplying the infrastructure – local and regional – that supports the value of land holdings is clearly rational and justified.

      Why shouldn’t you contribute to what gives value to your personal land monopoly unless you insist the local council and govt provide no services, including road access to your land – buy a helicopter and run it yourself.

      Such taxes are no different to local council rates or do you resent paying them as well?

      As for the issue of using land as a basis for general taxation you are on stronger grounds and reasonable people can differ on that. However, you are going to struggle in your mission whilst land values are the focus of our demented private bank monetary system and transmission system.

      If you want to really reduce calls for land tax you must start with reform of our land asset price pumping monetary model as that is what is generating the pressure.

      Reform of that will not be difficult – in a technical sense – but you will be up against the statists and straighteners on BOTH the left and the right who love the centralised economic control that a fused public/private public monetary model delivers.

      They are just fighting over which bunch of know alls get to run the world resource allocations via the decisions of central banks and their private banking sector minions/partners

      • Land Tax was the system of control introduced by William The Conqueror (also known as William The Bastard) when he took control of England.

        “At Christmas 1085, William ordered the compilation of a survey of the landholdings held by himself and by his vassals throughout the kingdom, organized by counties. It resulted in a work now known as the Domesday Book. The listing for each county gives the holdings of each landholder, grouped by owners. The listings describe the holding, who owned the land before the Conquest, its value, what the tax assessment was, and usually the number of peasants, ploughs, and any other resources the holding had.”

        William used Land Tax as a process of control.

        The Lords who he taxed ensured that the peasants they controlled paid the tax to them and they then passed the tax onto William.

        Land Tax was, and is, an insidious feudal tax. Used by an unscrupulous Landlord (William The Bastard) to manipulate and control his Lords whose Land he would take if they did not extort the tax from their serfs.

        It is the Government that becomes the de facto Landlord and taker of land if modern day people do not pay their Land Tax. Land Tax has been used to exploit people and has become a gift by various exceptions and relief to those who lobby governments to be excluded:

        Just as William the Bastard allowed his militant supporters and suppressors of the serfs to not pay Land Tax if he desired such, so do modern day governments grant exceptions to their favoured interest groups and favoured lobbyists while the ‘serfs’ must pay up.

        Giving governments the power to be more directly your Landlord (even if you think you own the land) is only one of the many problems inherent in the insidious Land Tax.

        Here is a little information from the Federal Government about why Land tax (socially and economically sensibly) was done away with at a Federal Level last century (Note that there are many more problems with Land Tax than mentioned in the following brief synopsis):

        As a form of wealth tax, land taxes became less effective over time as the productivity base of the economy diversified from being mostly agrarian at the beginning of the twentieth century, and wealth was held in more diverse forms. In addition to having no regard to other forms of wealth, land taxes were applied taking no account of net property wealth, such as the value of mortgage debt. By the middle of the twentieth century wealthy primary producers and large landholders had also been largely excluded from land tax requirements through exemptions granted to land used for primary production, restricting the application of land tax to urban property. Land tax revenue became less stable, susceptible to the fluctuations of town property markets. Land taxes were also unpopular as the federal and state taxes were not well integrated with income taxes. In 1952, land taxes were abolished at the federal level, but still operate at the state and local level, accounting for 24 per cent of state and local government revenue in 2003-04 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006).

      • naturaltrust,

        I have read that snippet of yours before and it does not address the points that I raised.

        Billy the Conqueror might very well not have used the proceeds of his Land Tax to collect the garbage, run the sewer plant, kerb and gutter the laneways to the huts of his serfs and vassals but that just makes him a bad supplier of municipal services. The relevance of evil Bill goes to the second point – which you will note was one about which I said reasonable minds might differ.

        The second bit about all the exemptions to Federal and State and tax does not distinguish between land taxes to pay for land related services and as a general means of taxation. Though it should give you much confidence that if you protest loudly enough an exemption will be carved out for your private interests.

        If you are going to cut and paste at least take the time to trim it so it directly responds specifically to the points that are made. Dont learn bad habits in the MB playground.

      • Pfh007,

        You seem to argue that people who get injured should pay their own medical bills…Opposed to Medicare?

        You also seem to argue that the unemployed should not get benefits?

        Equally you seem to argue that all roads should be toll roads.

        I disagree.

      • Pfh007. For you, I have to repeat myself each time you cut and paste the same incorrect information from your brain.

      • naturaltrust,

        I hope you can find some good “cut and paste” as a response to this.

        Do you think the magical pixies provide the resources for Medicare? Everyone who pays tax contributes to the resources of Medicare – that is why they can claim when they are injured. We extend the benefits of Medicare to the poor because we are civilised.

        When it comes to supporting the value of your private land with public resources you want to gobble but not contribute.

        Unless you are poor and the community decides you warrant free support and gives you an exemption that is nothing more than being a parasitical freeloader.

        So are you crying poor or just a leech?

      • I see, pfh007.

        You do support tolls on your home street.

        You do support taxing food with a GST.

        You possibly support a GST of 40% with no other taxes.

        Pfh007, you consistently state the same arguments and I have to consistently give you intelligent answers.

      • HadronCollision

        Good discussion you two!

        Land tax seems to me does away with the concept of private property ownership, which I thought was the basis of civil society.

        PHF *seems* to advocate land owners effectively paying a leasing fee to a level of government. Which we already do: rates. Rates pay for the garbos, water, sewerage (or a robber baron On Site Sewer Management Fee which seems to not pay for anything but still MUST BE PAID), etc. Roads pay for by a mix of council and fed and state taxes. Oh, and permanent uplift in council rates in NSW because all councils must now be fit for the future.

        Whether those uplift in rates – part of which as stated by council to be used on roads – actually get used in a meaningful fashion to remedy what are often deleterious roads, remains to be seen.

        Then there’s the matter of local pools – paid for by rates, but then as a rate payer you pay again to use the pool (have cake, will eat it too)

        The list goes on.

        Based on the demonstrated poor governance around money by all levels of government I am not inclined to give them more money in land tax for a rural holding, because I don’t trust all my land tax will be used to maintain the land value of my home at all. It’ll still be shit roads and shit services.

      • Naturaltrust,

        You should leave jumping the shark to fonzie.

        I gather you are now opposed to taxes on land AND consumption. Things you most have and do in abundance.

        Hmmm, so what does that leave to provide for common services………of course taxing labour!

        Naturaltrust only wants people who work for living to pay tax.

        No surprise there.

      • boyracerMEMBER


        “Land tax seems to me does away with the concept of private property ownership, which I thought was the basis of civil society”.

        So does that also mean that tax on labour means you are no longer a private individual?

        I’m always baffled by arguments that a tax on land is pernicious but that taxing labour is benign. Not too mention a version of land tax is already paid in the form of council rates. I fail to see the difference.

    • HadronCollision

      Hey NT – have you got some articles we can read that are anti-land tax?

      Genuinely interested in a balanced view, so keen to read.

      • Hi Hedron

        I put up about six articles for you and others to read.

        Mod: Peter, please stop polluting this thread with land tax comments. There is a separate land tax article where you can comment on that issue.

      • Apparently MB is taking them down.

        Mod: Put them in the land tax thread above. Do not pollute this one. First and last warning.

      • As you can see Hadron MB is now censoring comment. I am not allowed to reply to you.

      • Obviously you have asked me for Land Tax references and when I provided links MB took them down and threatened me.

  3. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    “Refuse to acknowledge the obvious for fear of being perceived as ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’.”

    Im politely but persistently bringing up the issue of immigration at my local Labor party branch meetings.
    I can see its a subject my fellow members are fearful to enguage in. Many seem to think that anyone wanting to discuss “problems” with Immigration or questioning the current numbers, is automaticly advocating for NO immigration at all, advocating intollerance or having a desire to return to a White Australia policy!
    Its like (to some) there is no middle ground, your either totally for, or against multiculturalism and mass immigration.

    After attempting to qualify my non racist motivies, I like to throw back at them, questions like,
    What do you think our yearly intake should be?,…more,… less or the same as it is now?
    Do you know what our yearly intake is now compared to our historical average?
    And most importantly,
    Who should decide our yearly intake?

    The topic is nervously tolerated for a short period of time and then, as soon as politely possible, passed over onto another subject.
    So far I haven’t been told to cut it out.

    Im looking forward to seeing how the subject is treated at the SEC and FEC, to which I have been elected.
    Ill keep at it as long as im allowed,…it’d be nice if some of you guys joined up and helped,…Im also “new members officer”!,…la di da.

    • Ask them if they will buy the Ford factory land next to Upfield station and build schools on it. That would be a vote winner I think – more so than spending over $60m/year to host an F1 race.

      And ask them why AUS should have a higher immigration rate than Canada.

    • and the reasons why I decided to join Sustainable Australia Party – Except for last Fed Election (voted for Sustainable Aus) I always voted Labour. Now I am a proud member of Sustainable Aus.
      EP – you may get something over the line – if you are lucky. But chances are you will waste your time and they will keep ignoring you. The party is broken.
      Even last night on QnA Penny W did not question if there is any evidence if Assad did the gassing.. She did sort of mention that Labour was against Iraq invasion implying that they sort of don’t approve of Syria being bombed by US but did not have guts to openly ask what evidence our PM has to support Trump.
      Such major party should have a muscle to question these things but they are so afraid of poles they will just follow the flow.
      And on immigration don’t even start me. I am a wog myself but I do understand that we have finite resources and we di need to reduce immigration based on this fact. Big Aus also means less Ag exports too. Just based on this, Labour can run lower immigration policy that will be welcomed by most if not all Labour members and will win Labour few millions of new votes. But no they have no guts, brains or common sense to think of such..
      I have a mate that will vote One Nation just because of immigration issue and he is not racists. He’s been Labour voter from the day he arrived in Aus.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Good on ya Nikola for getting of your arse and participating, you have my respect for doing so.
        Even if we “lose” certain battles, or even all of them, least we can say we tried.
        Solidarity Brother.

        2 people I have met through my only 1 year old membership have purchased Tommies book after watching the clip below.
        Ive sent this clip to over 20 people to explain why I think its so important for common people to retake the political process.

    • Yes EP has nailed it. It’s not that the ABC or Labor members are strong supporters of Big Australia, it’s more that they are extremely uncomfortable discussing the subject at all, and the easy option is to sing the virtues of multiculturalism, and quickly change the subject. Progressives need to be gently coaxed on this issue, not lectured, and it must framed in terms of sustainability, equity (housing affordability) and humanitarian issues.

      • really? just ask EP for how long he’s been gentle.. ONly one thing will make them change – start abandoning them don’t give them your vote unconditionally. Make them them earn it..

      • “Progressives need to be gently coaxed on this issue, not lectured…”

        How about they open their eyes and use their brains for once, instead of playing straight into the ‘growth lobby’s’ hands?

      • The ugly real truth is that the ABC & SBS will side with the Government just about ALL the time & say things to keep them happy. Their funding depends on it & they are gutless wonders -although ABC Board definitely stacked.The ABC were over the Moon when the US Bombed Syria the other day – just as Turnbutt was mouthing the same BS!

      • ‘…wilfully blind and destructive…’
        Agreed Jelmech they need to pull their head out of their morally involuted backsides. But hey they are the self appointed good guys, just ask them, if they haven’t told you by aggressively slandering you or announcing it on social media in the last ten minutes. This change for change sake is inherently good epistemology needs to be discarded for the bankrupt rubbish it is.

    • Know IdeaMEMBER

      My experience of listening to Radio National is the same. There is an ability to discuss all manner of inane subject matter (while being continually condescending and belittling to anyone who does not hold the same view) and yet a total inability to have other than a binary discussion about immigration. The closest one commentator got to the issue was that “it is a sensitive issue” and then said no more. For such supposedly intellectual giants it seems wholly incongruous that the debate cannot be had. Is this some form of cultural cringe? Or is it a secret club that everyone is part of where one of the rules is “do not discuss immigration”?

  4. I disagree with your last line. I think the ABC is sinister.

    Did Leigh Sales disclose that she owns real estate when ABC 7.30 did a segment on the bubble? No.

    And consider the line that we were frequently told about the NBN: “you will be able to work from home”. Really? I will be able to repair tyres from home? Astonishing! Or just a lie.

    Now they are lying about mass low-wage immigration.

    What did the Greens do for the homeless when they had Gillard over a barrel? Nothing!

  5. Why not also mention what PM May said (excessive immigration makes it harder for Britons to get a pay rise and harder to get a job in the first place).

    That is absolutely true in AUS with so many unemployed now – due to foreigners coming here and working for illegal wages. Even in 2008 I was working in a rubbish job for minimum wage – while foreigners were coming in and being given much better jobs!

    In 2005 I knew that 7-11 pays illegal wages. Only when ABC 4 Corners did an episode on 7-11 did dumb Shorten realise what is actually going on.

  6. yep the ABC are pure scum. they need a purge, and their most egregious big population spruikers should be hung on crucifixes along the banks of lake burley griffin as a warning to those who would consider betraying the people of this country for profit.

    • HadronCollision

      Here’s what the ABC is good for.

      Would I lie to you.
      Grand Designs.
      Newtons Law, The Code etc.

      *mic drop*

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Something along yhe lines of public flogging may be appropriate,…but crucifixion!,….thats so last millennium!

  7. The ABC is clearly for a big Australia. And not surprisingly in its program content it is engaging in a form of social engineering. A few weeks back on The Link Stan Grant went to Wagga and interviewed several locals/people who had moved to Wagga from other cities. These interviews highlighted real estate is cheaper in Wagga, quality of life is better etc. The not-so-subtle underlying message is…if you can’t afford to live in Syd/Melb, or find it too congested, then move to a regional centre like Wagga. Stan then followed this up with another episode on immigration where he interviewed Dick Smith and Stan’s bias for a big Australia was very obvious. The subtext here was there is no problem with mass immigration, move on (preferrably to places like Wagga if you can’t handle it in Syd/Melb).

    • HadronCollision

      Or maybe the real message was if you don’t like how sh$t Melbourne and Sydney are #notmycity, then fk off to the regional areas where the QoL *is* better.

  8. Ahem….

    Financialization of RE as a credit vehicle and the resultant RE as an ATM is a much more fundamental reason for RE prices… all as the result of Plaza ending the traditional market for retail banks due to the efficient allocation of capital trope. When you can create and then bundle decades of risk, off load it internationally like a confetti bomb, take price and then let others balance sheets based off the income streams hold that risk, ultimately further tightly coupling the whole market….. wellie… now how did that happen…. eh…

    Next on the list is the risk evaluation tools and incentives which enabled it all….. how did that happen… eh…

    Disheveled…. it gets tiresome hearing about how these ev’bal immigrants went back in time and set up the whole thing decades ago…

    • Indeed, undue attention is given to immigration, when the parasitic rentier class is the true root cause. Reminds me of the far right, obsessed with fighting some mythical cultural invasion, all the whilst ignoring their true enemy, the wealthy elite.

      • lol you don’t need to be far right to be anti multiculturalism. The only thing mythical is this progressive ideology for a multicultural utopia that has no historical frame of reference to fall back on.

      • @caeos Missed the point. Far right are like a raging bull; they are made to think that the muleta is the enemy, all the while being stabbed to death by the matador.

      • I imagine you cannot distinguish who is far right and who is just not sufficiently progressive in your view. The far right is a minority of those contributing to the backlash on the immigration/globalization front which you think is some minor concern.

      • That really makes no sense. Esp considering globalization well and truly has bipartisan support. Maybe you are confused about the cause?

    • Well it’s both isn’t it?

      On the one hand you have the flood of money pushing up prices.

      On the other hand you have the flood of people keeping rental vacancies near zero and allowing the dogbox economy to propagate.

      It means we get the worst of all worlds. We could have had a property boom with the existing property base… or we could have had a dogbox boom with low priced dogboxes (because it’s the margins that matter to the developers)… instead we got both.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Sure Skip,…there are greater “evils” than an immigration number, that is arguably too high and sure overly high levels of immigration are a symptom of greater problems involving corruption and distribution of POWER.
      But the Working class of this democracy are being Ravaged by the current intake,…especially the Young.

      What do you think the yearly intake should be Skip? Id really like to know.

      MBs 70k seems a little low to this
      dumb shit plumber, I think a reduction to around 100k per year is a pragmatic compromise number to test the waters.
      By it self it won’t “save us all” but here in Sydney, the negative effects and abuses are everywhere to be seen.

      • EP…

        Immigration over the last 100 years has had its ebb and flows, difference has only been under what agency do they arrive. Persoanly I can not find the corroboration for drawing a direct link from RE prices and new immigration, especially when having witnessed some families from different ethnic groups, which consist of most members having been born in Australia – buy multiple properties for short and long term investment. All whilst the family lives at one address.

        This is mirrored by my experiences and knowlage in America over the last almost 20 years.

        Which brings us back to my point, treating symptoms of the economic libertarianism aka neoliberalism during the period in question does noting to reconcile the fundamental issues. E.g. Per Friedman’s and Co’s original sin and selling out to the developer lobby, and the resulting propaganda about not only home ownership, but other things like taxation and monetary policy. Wheels were set into motion, its from that point forward that has to be firstly understood and then determine how to go about fixing things without blowing everything to smithereens.

        lmmao…. I grew up in Arizona in the 60s up to the mid 70s, we used too water lawns, then came the white’ people [evangelicals] from the mid west and east coast, RE prices never went down for like 20 years save the blip in the GFC [every thing save jumbo prime] and then went up again….. now they don’t have lawns….

        Disheveled….. the entire RE process from dirt to dust is reliant on the availability of credit… and – noone – is using savings to play the game…

        PS. as such immigration is a distraction from more fundamental aspects.

    • The immigrants aren’t evil. The elites opening the flood gates to bring them in to push up GDP and demand for services with inelastic supply responses are the evil ones.

    • skippy, yes, I understand and agree. My point is that there is no reason not to also address an extrinsic aspect.

  9. The ABC has been underhandedly supporting the Coalition for a loooooong time.

    Any leftie ediots that are just waking up to that fact now are fools….. sure Virginia Trioli likes to do a segment on feminism now and then, but look at their coverage of politics.

    It’s brilliant! Support the Coalition while everyone thinks they are left leaning. You fools…..

    • Mining BoganMEMBER

      That makes two of us who see through the dross at St Mal’s ABC.

      Not enough to change things.

    • I think you’d have to be a long way left of centre to imagine that the ABC leans towards a conservative view of anything. Admittedly, their paltry coverage of parliament on TV may not suffer the same bias, but their coverage of the culture wars (freedom of speech, feminism/gender/sexuality, Islam/Sharia/terrorism, immigration/border control, climate) and nearly all of their radio service is essentially indistinguishable from Marxist ‘progressive’ propaganda.
      Virginia Trioli is among the worst, like a female Kochy. I often feel sorry for Michael Rowlands and Paul Kennedy..

      • Bull$hit.

        Watch Trioli on the main issues (not some of the fringe issues you mentioned), and particularly when it comes to an announced Coalition policy, and it is pretty obvious.

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        The likes of Trioli and Fran Kelly used to have hiurs of fun laughing at the poor polling of Gillard/Robb. When our Tony and St Mal had/have bad polls it gets reported through gritted teeth then point out preferred PM as being the real result.

        Sales, Uhlmann and co all worship Liberal ground.

      • I found somewhere you might like to go for some Reactionary-Free, Fair & Balanced Real Journalism (TM):
        (or read Luke 6:41-42)

    • @Melbourne Guy
      Spot on – nice to know others also notice the slimy sneaky way they present False News as fact etc etc.
      SBS are no better. Both are the main propaganda tools for the ruling Party. (at the time)

    • Feminism is just traditionalism/conservatism/Toryism dialed right up and normalised into systemic apparatus e.g. law, workplaces, schools.

  10. And here in lies the problem with the ABC management, who gave the ABC the charter to champion the Left, the Greens, pro-immigration, Gay marriage and any other issue the minority can muster? To use the national broadcaster as a platform for political views is a disgrace and this is why tax payer funding should be cut and key known leftist personnel dismissed to force upon the ABC.

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      The problem started when journalists are trained at universities rather than at newspaper. The humanities department at our Uni is run like a Marxism re-education camp.

      • You mistake objectivity and a general moral compass for ‘marxist’ indoctrination (really? do you even know what Marxism is?).

        Don’t worry, all that objectivity gets snuffed out the moment they go into commercial media. Then they become the talking heads of the rentier class, the toy soldiers of Murdoch & Co.

      • @Ronin Yep this was my experience late 80’s at Swinburne. I’m female & fell out with lecturers over feminism. My view then was that students were having a contrived (feminist) perspective shoved down their throats & if you didn’t swallow whole simply shouted down, talked through or man-splained by male academic as to the ‘female’ experience. Universities in my opinion offer little in the way of education simply serving as prestigious brainwashing & manipulation that students (& parents) eagerly line up & pay through the nose for…..the rest are fed content (simple enough for a 6 year old child to understand) through newspaper, Tv, movies & social media to shape simplistic personal, social & ‘world’ views. The end result being that in Melbourne conversation is lead by footy, followed by property, how lovably stupid (thick) the missus /hubby is (or greedy cow/c$$t if divorced) while now sole parent spoon feeds baby chinos to their hyper whiny offspring at $4.00 a pop unaware that they’re in this broken (family) state talking shit about housing development, property prices & footy in company of miserable children because they’ve swallowed group think hook, line & sinker. Same in Sydney except AFL doesn’t rate ( these are anecdotal observations.) Many that married into bubble decade are now divorcing or miserable – staying together or splitting for kids dependent on windfall from property. It helps if both sides can purchase a home each so kids have their own room & please the courts. Insanity prevails. For those that are single their is Tinder – greatest social scourge designed solely to alinate men & women from each other. Tinder & other ‘dating’ apps inhabited by fake ‘too good to be true’ profiles, bitter divorcees pretending otherwise, hammering tired bodies at the gym, spending remaining savings travelling to be photographed with a sedated tiger for a trophy shot that says ‘man.’ Women stop eating & spend remaining savings on Botox, skinny jeans, hair extensions & cocaine. Most others are hocked to the eye balls in mortgage hoping they find a partner ignorant/nieave enough to think 600k in mortgage debt makes you a good catch. Oh..sorry..I’m ranting my cynical anecdotal observations. Thanks MB

      • @billygoat:
        “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Like Sport, Identity Politics is a great way to keep the plebs the fuck out of the way of those who make the real Economic decisions and wrild the real POWER.

      • pffft, that is a hallmark of the right. Whipped into a frenzy by the wealthy elite, they know only one enemy, those that are ‘unaustralian’. All the while the wealthy elite have them bent over a barrel, ploughing them from behind.

      • Yeah the leftists totally don’t fight for the establishment status quo – its the right that is confused about who the enemy is.. mmhmm.

      • You’re confusing Labor (currently a centrist party) for leftist? Any genuine left leaning person despises the current malaise of establishment politics.

      • Only real leftists lol. It is leftists that are signal boosting the establishment divide and conquer narratives that are broadcast through media, the narratives about ‘race’ and ‘gender’ for example. You’re not fooling anyone Brenton (except perhaps yourself).

  11. A great deal of hate leveled at the ABC for having a range of opinions. I regularly see Ian Verrender and Michael Janda broadsiding drivers of the housing bubble. How about some context?

    Look at the state of mainstream media that the ABC exists in… they are head and shoulders above the competition.

    • The difference between a blatantly biased media company (Newscorp for example), and the ABC is that everyone knows NC is biased.

      Meanwhile, ediots watching the ABC get distracted by seemingly left stances on fringe issues, but then lap up the bull$hit when it comes to things like major economic reforms, which if you pay attention the ABC is clearly biasd towards the Coalition on.

      Wake up.

      • Based on logic only, why would the Coalition be at war with the ABC if it was secretly their champion?

        I went to a Q & A at my local university, represented by a range of media reps, what the ABC rep shared was truly eye opening. They are under siege by the Coalition. From management shifts (downward pressure) to simply hacking at respective budgets with a chainsaw. The bloke was all but in tears. Make no mistake, the Coalition and ABC are in total war….but somehow,according to you, they’re the best of buddies? Do not mistake a desire to maintain a balance, as somehow being pro LNP.

        It is a sad day, that when big business shills are hammering the ABC from every angle, we make it our mission to pile on and kick them while they’re down. Absolute disgrace!

      • The logic is – they are sucking up to limit funding cuts.

        There will be some in the organisation that stick to their principles and values.

        There will be others that sell out.

        There’s probably some tension, but it’s clear which camp has the upper hand. Have you seen Trioli covering, e.g., negative gearing debate – “it will affect supply … push up rents ….. blah blah blah”?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Aunty is not the Coalition’s “champion”, it’s kowtowing to them in the hope of delaying its destruction.

        Ie: it’s afraid to criticise. An actual “chilling effect”, unlike the imaginary one conservatives claim results from trying to protect people from harassment and hate speech.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        “Based on logic only, why would the Coalition be at war with the ABC if it was secretly their champion?”

        The politically correct brigade who run the ABC, give the conservatives an easy to dislike, insufferable left, to howl about.
        It helps to keep the “Left” AND “Right” leaning plebs preoccupied with culture waring eachother over issues that present no real challange the the Economic status quo or threaten established POWER.

        If we are going to have a FUNCTIONAL two party democratic system, then the “Left” needs to put aside the PC culture waring shit and return to the proper pourpose of the “Left”, that being seizing greater POWER over decision making for the People,..for the working class. Thsts the kind of left we need!

        On the economic front the ABC, Labor party and the Libs, all sing from the same economic hymn sheet.
        This is a systemic democratic failure, part of a global instutional process of getting the people the fuck out of the way of the real power centres of this world and having the democratic process handed over to Proffessional Class, that serves established power.
        See Skippys new word of the week,


        But lets not throw out the baby with the bath water, I love my ABC, in spite of some of the cringe worthy insufferable lefties that run it at the moment, the same goes for my Labor party.
        The solution IMO is to not let this Proffessional class run all of our instutions, not let them run the world,… that would require a far greater rate of participation, by common people, in the political process, with a rank and file that demands better from their elected representatives and apparichiks.
        This means Getting informed, getting organised and Participating,…otherwise suck it up and stop your complaining.

      • @drsmithy there is no such thing as ‘hatespeech’.

        Of course not. That Hitler fellow was just offering some constructive criticism, is all.

    • When have Verrender or Janda explicitly discussed immigration’s impact on house prices? It’s always about other stuff, like negative gearing. Sure, these issues are important too, but the ABC has a massive blindspot when it comes to Australia mass immigration ‘Big Australia’ program.


        They have blinkers on when it comes to immigration, but the amount of bashing of the ABC, especially in this comments section, is truly disheartening. It is a bit like Trumps judgement during the election. Clinton (right or wrong) was judged by a different standard than Trump. I feel like the ABC is being treated to a flogging, whilst ignoring the farce that is the Coalitions assault on the ABC’s independence and ability to deliver objective news to the masses.

      • They have blinkers on when it comes to immigration.

        You might as well just stop right there because you’ve agreed with the premise of the article. But no, you go on to call the ABC news objective (many clearly disagree) and suggest they broadcast to the masses (ABC has consistently low ratings, except online where they undercut commercial news operations). Classic ABC luvvy talk.

      • Article = “ABC turns immigration and housing spruiker”
        I provided examples of the ABC doing the exact opposite.

        Even so, in the spirit of compromise, I go on to say that immigration is not covered….BUT, as I mention often, and you seem to willfully ignore, immigration coverage at the ABC isn’t the real issue, it is the ABC being under prolonged attack. M proceeds to ignore everything else and focus on that one comment like a beacon. The end.

        To be honest, if you really hate the ABC that much, just go back to reading commercial mainstream media, you clearly prefer it. Don’t worry, it won’t be long before the destruction of the ABC is complete and we can celebrate all the anti-immigration news on every other media platform…lol

      • The ABC being under attack is the real issue? o_O – you live in a strange reality. The ABC narrative is the mainstream narrative on so much. I don’t know what it is you see when you watch it.

      • I see you have now taken to censorship and threats to people who have contrary opinions to you Leith.

        Censoring the comments of myself and others who attempt to post factual information that is contrary to your beliefs.

        I provided 6 references on request of another poster below and you took them down so he could not see that you are biased in your reporting.

  12. The Drum, ABC online, ABC 24, 7.30, Lateline, Janda, Verrender etc etc ..not one mention of the fact that the Treasurer approved the sale of nearly 10,000 existing Australian dwellings to foreign nationals last year?

  13. So what’s new? I still like the ABC the mainstream media is unwatchable and unlistenable. Right wingers trying make out like they care about Australians who want to lower immigration gets more clownish by the day. Not to mention the sea of white on their TV trying to give the impression that it’s still 1995. Pathetic.

    The ABC should be looking into Nimbyism, but that would alienate a lot of cretinous mass immigration voting nimbys. What a pickle.

    • Not to mention the sea of white on their TV trying to give the impression that it’s still 1995. Pathetic.

      Free to air commercial TV in Australia in 2017 is whiter than Australia actually was in 1985 let alone 1995.

      • I am not saying they are sinister. I think there is something sinister about it though, something along the lines of denial and stockholm syndrome.

  14. I suspect what we are seeing is the ABC trying to satisfy its LNP paymasters while trying to maintain “freedom of the press”. So we have the likes of Uhlmann and lately Andrew Probyn becoming de facto fossil fuel supporters – Uhlmann blaming renewables for the SA blackout last September, both repeating the “when the sun doesn’t shine, wind doesn’t blow” mantra etc. And ABC cheerleading for Big Australia. Tho’ when Leigh Sales interviews LNP vs Lab she seems to give Lab a harder time. Will be interesting if Lab win the next election – will that change the ABC’s view on things, back to more lefty???

    • Will be interesting if Lab win the next election – will that change the ABC’s view on things, back to more lefty???

      Yes – in a heart beat ! They will jump for the new masters.

    • Mining BoganMEMBER

      They didn’t during the Gillard/Rudd gubmints. ABC reporting was fully behind our Tony…except for the one time when even Leigh Sales couldn’t footrub the stupidity out of him.

      No, this has been going on since little Johnny appointed Mark Scott.

  15. “the ABC has displayed shocking bias in the immigration debate.”

    Crikey. Next you’ll be accusing the ABC of being a myopic bunch of SJWs with a leftist agenda. Oh wait ….