Bill Shorten recommits to Big Australia albatross

By Leith van Onselen

Back in 2013, Labor opposition leader Bill Shorten argued that Australia’s immigration intake should be increased from already turbo-charged levels:

Australia should increase its immigration levels, Labor leadership hopeful Bill Shorten has declared, saying the next arrival could “be the next Albert Einstein or a good taxpayer”…

Speaking about immigration more broadly, Mr Shorten said Labor needed to re-state its support. Apart from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, everyone came to Australia by boat or plane, he said.

“I do believe the immigration levels can go up,” Mr Shorten said…

“Immigration has been a plus for us and we should be certainly as a party being seen to be pro-immigration and pro increasing it, making sure people go to wherever it is sustainable for infrastructure and support, but we are an immigrant country and we shouldn’t ever hide from our destiny.”

And last month, Bill Shorten labelled those calling for a sensible and sustainable immigration intake “political extremists”:

Shorten said that “political extremists” are telling Australians “that cutting migration will clear-up traffic and make housing cheaper”.

“It will make our internet faster, our schools better and our weather sunnier,” he said. “And citizens who feel like they’re not getting a fair go are told to blame minorities, to demonise difference”…

Shorten said that migrant[s]… are “an irreplaceable part of who we are … the counter-argument to that dishonesty [and] living proof of the benefits of migration”.

Last night, Shorten gave a pathetically weak interview on ABC’s Lateline whereby he completely ducked answering whether Australia’s permanent migration intake should be tightened:

DAVID LIPSON: This is all part of a broader plan, it seems, from the Turnbull Government to crack down somewhat on migration, to tighten up some of the laws. Do we need more checks and balances, do you think, for migrants who want to become Australian citizens?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, I think the real issue here is: we’re an immigration nation and permanent migration has been a net plus for this country. But of course, people who come here should adhere to Australian laws and Australian values.

I think, though, that what’s happened here is: Mr Turnbull is just trying to save his own job.

See, for Labor this is not a new issue. We said before the last election there were rorts in the visa system. We said before the last election more needed to be done on apprenticeships. Now, we’ve seen nothing done on those last elections since the last election.

The only thing which Malcolm Turnbull is worried about keeping his unhappy backbench from rolling him. It’s a very divided Government.

So, like the Turnbull Government, Bill Shorten won’t even contemplate cutting Australia’s permanent migrant intake, which has more than doubled since the turn of the century:

Because according to Shorten, cutting immigration back to historical norms would be “politically extreme”.

Here’s a question for Shorten: does he consider progressive and multicultural Canadians “politically extreme”? After all, Canada has run far lower rates of immigration than Australia over the past decade:

In fact, had Australia simply decreased its immigration intake to match the rate of Canada over the past ten years, there would be 1.3 million fewer people in Australia – equivalent to three Canberras!

Bill Shorten seems completely oblivious to the situation on the ground in Australia’s two biggest cities. Housing affordability is woeful. Infrastructure is under immense strain. Traffic congestion is a constant problem and public transport is packed to the brim. Blind Freddy – but clearly not Bill Shorten – can see that packing Sydney and Melbourne with extra 80,000 to 100,000-plus people every year – primarily via mass immigration – is a fundamental cause of these problems.

So far, there has been no proper debate within the community about the appropriate level of immigration and no political mandate for pursuing a “Big Australia”. And as long as Australians’ concerns are ignored, extremist elements like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation will continue to grow. We have seen this already with Brexit as well as with the rise of Donald Trump.

If Bill Shorten had any political nous, he would guarantee himself a ticket to the Lodge by announcing policies to curb Australia’s mass immigration program and safeguard living standards by taking pressure of jobs, housing, infrastructure, and the environment. But by failing to confront the immigration issue, he has left the door ajar for the Coalition to announce policies of its own, wedge Labor, and potentially steal victory from the jaws of defeat.

[email protected]

Comments

      • Doesn’t follow.

        For example, immigrants who are already legally settled in the US are typically some of the strongest proponents of CUTTING immigration. It’s like “I’m inside now, raise the drawbridge!”

  1. Jake GittesMEMBER

    If “the next Albert Einstein” did come here he’d have no chance in tech, engineering or science, he’d be making flat whites.

    • … or it could be the next Charles Manson. Shorten has lost me, I was going to put them above the LNP because of their reasonable NG/CGT changes, but someone who has no idea of what the last 10 years of high immigration has done to Melbourne is obviously either an idiot or being disingenuous.

      • He is both.

        Turncoat is a fake. Shorten is a total fake.

        Hey EP …. you bang on about not being apathetic and those wishing to make a difference should join the Labor Party …. but why would anyone in their right mind want to join Shorten and his deluded cronies?

        At least the Liberal’s don’t pretend to be anything but opportunistic scum.

        Labor stand for nothing. As hopeless as the Greens.

        Sustainable Party the way to go …. but no one other than MB subscribers has heard of them.

        Hey LVO is it possible SP can get an interview on the 7.30 report? Sales might be open to it now.

        Sustainable Party has to raise its profile.

    • Einstein and Elon Musk are brilliant at physics.

      So get foreigners to do a physics test…and only let the great ones in.

      Simple.

    • Why the fk would the next Einstein pick Australia? The land where innovation goes to die.

  2. Arguably, the most important thing we can do to unwind the economic devastation government (using Malcolm’s and Bill’s ideas) is causing in the real estate market is to set an Australian ZERO net population increase target.

    ZERO population growth allows government to plan for better social environments, higher standards of living and decentralization.

    ZERO population growth allows for replacing living environments such that people can live happier lives, with desired services available, and the natural flora and fauna environment can be preserved or enhanced where it is lacking.

    ZERO population growth reduces the demand for property at the margin and creates a downward pressure on prices insofar as the price of marginal properties declines until the prices meet demand. It is true to say that if the population of Australia were one, only you, the price of real estate would be very low, arguably, the price of real estate will increase roughly in proportion to the increase in the population if all else remains equal. There will, of course, be some increased demand and increased prices in some areas due to the propensity of some people to live in those areas if the population wanting to live in those areas exceeds the available properties and the previous price.

    ZERO population growth allows for a fall in property prices to a level that allows for increased business activity due to lower real estate prices.

    ZERO population growth has more benefits than those listed above.

    It is necessary to reduce population growth to ZERO or less to create sufficient downward pressure on prices under current conditions (especially regarding high levels of private borrowing) to make property more affordable, as many other supportive variables, such as low interest rates, are stretched to or near their limit.

    We can expect ZERO population growth to be assisted by other variables to reduce real estate prices over time if government will take action to, for example, discontinue negative gearing.

  3. TailorTrashMEMBER

    Whenever I hear Bill being interviewed on the Telly I am reminded of that immortal Clive James phrase ….” expresso drongo ” ….
    ..maybe Bowen or Albo might get the courage to move on him and come up with some changes in policies to boot ……I’d hate to think the LNP can widow dress themselves back into contention .

    • Albo is in the left faction so he’s a card carrying pro-immigration.

      Bowen is the sensible one so maybe he could bring the party around.

  4. More sensible option:

    As you know, immigration is a very sensitive topic. Why not set a policy that is visionary and unbiased? I.e. tie immigration number with unemployment number. I.e. unemployment is high reduce immigration. Unemployment is low, increase immigration?

    • No! Why do we need immigrants? Really, what are they for? (Refugees are a different matter – we should take more of them.) It’s just an excuse for laziness. If we have skill gaps we should bloody well fill them ourselves. It’s called planning and/or training. If Australians “won’t do that job” I think you’ll find there will be plenty of local applicants if the pay is raised. Why should we allow lazy people (ie. so called job creators) to evade market forces (for labour) by driving down the standards of living of their fellow citizens?

      • Well, we’ve let our TAFEs and unis run down to such an extent that it will take 20 years to put them right again, and business has become so completely allergic to training and developing its own people (partly because training people up means allowing a little fat in employee schedules) that they wouldn’t know where to begin. So as of right now, we actually are dependent on immigrants to top up skilled workers.
        The pay thing is a different matter – if you need to pay third world wages to stay in business in a first country you deserve to go out of business – but how will saying that effect the future chances of a sitting PM or serious contender for the job?
        That doesn’t mean continuing in the same vein is a good idea, but it does mean that like an alco who drinks a bottle of vodka a day just to avoid DTs, strict medical supervision is required to work out how to end the addiction.
        The number of SkillStream Permanent visas is set at about 50% of the number of Australian kids who successfully complete year 12 – 5% would be a more reasonable number. But until government has a viable plan to get those school leavers into skilled work, including how they’re going to be trained and educated, that kind of deep cut can’t be made without unpredictable consequences.

      • Why are refugees a different matter?
        And why should we take more of them?
        I’m really interested to know why you think this…not being sarcastic.

      • @Robert, agree with you mate. Well made points. But we have to make a start somewhere. There’s no way out of this mess without temporary pain of some sort.

        @Rf, we take on refugees as an act of global good citizenship. If we really are the awesome, big-hearted nation we think we are, then we are duty bound to do this.

      • @Mcpaddy. Respectfully…that’s inaccurate and has some moral grandstanding to boot.
        We accept refugees not based on good global citizenship, but because of a convention written after WW2 to atone and manage mass displacement in europe. The 1967 protocol removerd the European geographical remit. So we take refugees bases on a convention determined by 10 old European men who were born in he 1890’s. The quota system reflects this forced approach.

        As for the “we should” because we think we are awesome and big hearted and it’s our moral duty.
        Few of our top trading partners or source of immigrants to our and European countries have this moral duty, neither do wealthy gulf states or Latin American states with both cultural and geographic depth. Is this moral relativism at work? Also, the definition of a refugee needs serious updating – because it includes virtually all 8 billion people on earth. The UNHCR defines and allocates who is and who isn’t. This is why a Somali clans man from the dir or amurjaran gets status and a free immigration ticket whereas a Zimbabwean white farmer does not – despite both meeting the criteria.

        Furthermore:
        – there are 80m supposed refugees with this velocity increasing annually beyond the capacity of any G7 host country to accept. It’s pointless and even taking 1 million per year isn’t resolving anything
        – evidence and research shows that keeping refugees within the bounds of their conflict zones is far better than moving them at enormous cost 10,000 Kim’s away – then add the enormous cost of integration, welfare, crime prevention, education, social housing and conflict with host communities (mainly first responders or shopkeepers)
        – the whole concept of seeking “refuge” implies that this is a temporary protection. As it stands it’s permanent – Sudanese refugees commenced in the 1980’s under their designation – so it never ends and has been ongoing for 30 years, despite the PCA signed to facilitate their return. The case of Somalia is even worse.
        – you will note that we have taken a once off number of Syrian refugees from an epic scale war zone or 19,000 over and above our annual quota. Further proving that the system is gamed to shift people to G7 countries and cannibalise those with the most need.
        – go research who organises refugee camps, finds NGO’s, facilitates travel and benefits from this farce of a programme – you’ll see the staggering amounts at stake to those that facilitate the movement and definition of refugees

        I also have a solution for those, like you who advocate the moral obligation angle. I mean this sincerely – no malice or sanctimony intended. We should pull out of this UN agreement and ACCEPT NO MORE supposed Refugees, the convention made by those long dead, in response to an event long passed and instead do this:

        – increase foreign aid budget by 1000% from the 80mil now
        – set aside a huge parcel of land in NT/WA and in one global, moral, great hearted, realistic gesture cede an environment the size of two or three France’s for 80mil of these refugees to settle. As many are from environments similar we can locked basic infrastructure and basic services and they can be given parcels of land to incept a new economy. Obviously there will be many takers because refugees live in fear of certain death or persecution to get refugee status. Everyone will know how big hearted we are, and we will have done something of breathtaking vision
        – lastly, for those like yourself and others who have this absolute moral duty toward refugees we can incept a new visa class whereby you personally accept a refugee or number of and sign surety and are legally obligated to care, educate, and be responsible for them for a period of 10 years. They live with you according to your norms for as long as and until they are self sustaining. The bonus of this is that the community is not on the hook for anyone else’s belief or ideals, and you show personal responsibility for your beliefs.

        Then once the need for refuge passes they return home. Everyone is happy, all obligations not moral and realistic are served.

      • Not going to spend a lot of time engaging with somebody who starts with “Respectfully”, immediately misconstrues my simple point (where did I refer to the legal basis on which we are forced to take refugees?) and descends pretty quickly into thinly veiled sarcastic contempt. Obviously something personal at stake here for you Rf and therefore not much hope of a fruitful discussion, sorry.

      • I agree with your other sentiments and how you articulate your comments.
        The specific refo statement – my point was made. I clearly prefaced my points – I don’t do thinly or veiled. Merely wanted to understand why you said what you did. As to my motivation…make no assumption is a good rule.
        All good – You have every right not to engage, no apology needed.

    • Or how about this for ‘skilled immigration’: employers who bring people in on do-nothing’s new 458 visa must pay, at minimum, 150% market wages to the people they bring in. If there’s a genuine skills shortage, that means demand for that kind of labour is high while supply is low. So this shouldn’t be any impost on all those honest businesses out there who use this program to fill all those skilled vacancies they have.

  5. So, no electoral need for Turnbull to reduce PR visas, so no change to NOM in the offing, so show’s over, we can all go home.

  6. Just when I was starting to think I would vote for one of the two major parties at the next election, it’s starting to look like it will be a minor party vote for me, in both houses. Labor was looking good with it’s proposals for negative gearing reform, but this is pathetic. And the coalition’s changes aren’t nearly enough either.

  7. Increasing the supply of labour through high immigration forcing wages and living standards lower, Labour has no right to pretend to represent ‘workers’ anymore.

  8. Just another scumbag working against the interests of the countrys citizens. There’s a name for that….

  9. Shortens office told a friend of mine that we are accepting more migrants now than we did for the 1945 to 2000 period because our population is bigger now. So in other words, the more our population grows through migration, the more migrants we will accept.

  10. There you go…show’s over
    You can pack the Kabuki mask away for next time, Malcolm
    Gullible numpties decieved
    Population growth rolls on unabated
    The migration agents and debt peddlers win again
    Business as usual
    House prices to the moon

    • This issue will be won yard by yard, not in a single shot. Can’t you see that the tide is turning against Big Australia? At least both sides have acknowledged the problems, which is a far cry from 12 months ago. Progress is being made. It’s only a matter of time until the immigration intake is cut.

      • +1. Thin edge of the wedge. They’ll go reluctantly, but in due course they will go.

        I recall Dent describing the immigration phenomena beautifully in one of his books (about 10 years ago). It’s amazing how accurate his forecast on this has become (pity about his Dow 40K call!). Once the natives get restless all immigration bets are off.

      • Problem is now if at the next election people vote ALP not LNP because, for example, they don’t trust the party room to keep Abbott away from the captain’s chair, or don’t trust them to prevent the next rat with a gold tooth that shows up from mining underneath the Great Barrier Reef or whatever, it will be seen as an endorsement of Big Australia.

        And, alternatively, if MT wins the next election from here, it will be seen as an endorsement for doing no more than he’s already proposed. Either way, Shorten’s response means an election cycle could easily go by with nothing further on the immigration front.

      • “At least both sides have acknowledged the problems”
        FFS Leith link to one statement made in the last three days by either Turnbull or Shorten that acknowledges that our excessive migration intake is the problem.
        I admire the work you have done on the damage of excessive population growth over a longtime but overstating the progress does you no favours.

      • FFS Pat. Are you so blind that you cannot recognise progress when it is staring you in the face? 12 months ago there is no way that either party would have attacked the visa system. Now both major parties are making moves. Sure, it’s early days, but the tide is clearly turning.

        You are so bloody frustrating. Unless we get 100% reform in everything right now, then everything is useless. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Enjoy the little wins when they come. Otherwise, what’s the point?

      • I expect you are right.

        But…the number of immigrants must be cut to ZERO net population growth to prevent ongoing economic indulgence sickness.

      • Zero commitment to any reduction in the migration intake from both sides, Leith. ZERO

      • The narrative from HnH suggested that Shorten would be forced to make a statement in favour of a more substantial cut to immigration (in the sense of ‘having more substance’), and the MSM would move to a more nuanced debated on migration. If so, Bill didn’t get the memo, and seems to have reverted to a more a entrenched Big Australia position, while the MSM is busily running stories on how universities and the hospitality sector are in danger of falling over now.
        So, yeah, it seems reasonable to be disappointed, and feel to that if a cut to NOM is closer than it was last Thursday, it’s further than it was lunch time yesterday.

      • Oh Dear
        The most likely causes of the collective political blindness over population are:
        a) Labor is run by building unions;
        b) Libs taking donations from developers;
        c) Pollies heavily into RE. Big Syd/Mel essential. No-one is seriously planning growth outside of the profit zones. Wagga where?

        Game over.unless ON is able to scare the crap out of them…

  11. Sustainable Party has to inform and educate moron mainstream public that although your property values are rising it is happening via an open immigration ‘tap’ that is then lowering every fucken one’s quality of life.

    This needs to be told with the backdrop as to why the major parties and the individual politicians encourage and allow this as they all have their noses in the trough and don’t care about the average person or family. Let alone the ecology and environment.

    While slowly there is more awareness of this situation people will always vote via their self interest and greed. But if they are educated as to the ramifications and cost of this they can be swayed.

  12. Are we at MB living in a bubble, or has Bill Shorten totally misread the electorate and just committed political suicide.
    Watch the PMs numbers rise.

    • Unless the only comments being moderated out of ANY article involving immigration are those in support of it, then yes we are. But, a year ago you couldn’t mutter a word against it in any MSM without the comment being pulled. Now they’re the only ones published! People are sick of the negative externalities.

    • I don’t know if Shorten is misreading it, or just doing the bidding of donors etc, but I think the MSM represents a minority on this issue, so maybe it’s a case of trying to dodge bad press.

      I think it would be vote winner saying we need to reduce the intake to allow infrastructure etc. to catch up, companies shouldn’t be allowed to dodge their obligations to employ and train Australians rather than cheap out by using 457s.

  13. Welllllll that’s that, my interest in Bill Shorten is officially 0.
    A man who can’t do simple mathematics and look at sustainability, quality of life, is clearly an idiot.

    What a shame, they’re all idiots.

  14. Sent to NSW teachers federation

    Bill Shorten recommits to Big Australia
    I am almost 59 years old,I have been a union member since 16 and a half. I will pull the pin shortly if the ALP are not brought to heal over this bullshit policy.

    The clock is ticking and its got 30 days until I become a freeloader on the federation.

    ALP needs a new leader not this fucktard !

    TD

    • Sally McManus may be the key to get Labor changes to 457 visa etc. up and running! I think she has got the Government worried not just One Nation.

  15. Vote Pauline Hanson whether you agree with her or not. Time to set this place ablaze. The major parties are all the same shit just different smells …..

  16. Dont really know what you are all talking about

    He really said nothing of any substance in his interview last night, just attacked malcolm turnbull

    Good small-target strategy really – will still get the ethnics and idiot leftists voting for him (rather than greens), but at the same time hasn’t really offended any “racist” labor voters

  17. The question now is, who do we vote for??

    I can’t split the two majors on immigration rhetoric
    Of the two minors (greens & ON) – ON wants to decrease immigration, Greens are hopeless and want to increase it with the likely result of turning us into Sweden.

    I refuse to vote for NXT
    How does Bernadi sit on this?

  18. If there’s going to be someone to lead a charge on reducing net migration, I have to say I much prefer Turnbull to the divisive Abbott, if Labor aren’t going to get on board.

  19. Do-nuthin Malcom – except for the banks
    Scab Bill – Immigrant labour flooding our borders driving wages & living standards down

  20. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again.

    The moment Kevin Rudd’s poll numbers seriously started tanking was when he went on the 7:30 report and said “I believe in a Big Australia”. And we know that Gillard campained on a “sustainable Australia” lie to try and defuse this issue.

    Maybe Bill Shorten thinks the poll numbers are with him on this but I suspect he’s wrong. I’m really at a loss to see why Shorten is such a passionate defender of a John Howard policy. And I’m a bit cynical of Turnbull’s recent 457 pronouncements given that we’ve just had an uptick in immigration.

    What I fear is that we’ll have the mother of all recessions with unemployment to match, and we’ll still never getting around to havng an intelligent discussion of this or any other issue.

  21. “the next arrival could “be the next Albert Einstein or a good taxpayer” Bill said
    Forgot to say: or a property buyer

  22. I keep saying it. Leftists are not salvageable when it comes to immigration. Then they wonder why people desperately take a shot with Trump and Pauline. On this issue they are as demented and stubborn as the fundy Christians they like to take shots at all the time.

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      Then they wonder why people desperately take a shot with Trump and Pauline.

      When they could be voting for SAP ? Yes, yes we do.

      But then we realise, those people have been convinced that “political correctness” is a bigger threat to them than being jobless, hungry and without access to healthcare or education (“coincidentally”, by the same people who are profiting from fighting full employment policies, undermining welfare and destroying or selling off publicly funded services and assets).

      • Well I don’t know why people won’t give SAP a vote. Let’s just put it down to little to no exposure on TV.

        It’s fair to say political correctness has resulted in a lot of homelessness and joblessness, in a country that piles on the immigrants to make housing cost a fortune and to fill the jobs more easily and put downward pressure on wages. It is almost always the left that screams racist at the top of their lungs to completely and utterly stop debate on it. This mentality has well and truly taken over the internet too.

        That’s why it’s quite laughable to see those hippies in Melbourne sleeping homeless in front of the train station when no doubt there’s a few apartment towers a short walk away owned by rich Chinese and probably almost completely empty or filled to the brim with students living 10 to a 2 bed.

        An insane situation that makes people resort to desperate actions.

        It’s very noticable that people are scared to even mention SAP, you yourself didn’t even mention them by their full name. It is the left that has created the Orwellian environment where it can not be discussed.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Well I don’t know why people won’t give SAP a vote.

        Cuz they’re not dog-whistling racists and their policy platform is 99.9% identical to the Greens.

        Also because while the ostensible “two sides” might not be able to agree on much, one thing they definitely can agree on is that they want to keep a two-party system of electoral dictatorship. No third (/fourth/fifth) parties can be allowed to gain significant power, that might end up leading to a more people power, and if things really get out of control, real democracy.

        It’s fair to say political correctness has resulted in a lot of homelessness and joblessness in a country that piles on the immigrants to make housing cost a fortune and to fill the jobs more easily and put downward pressure on wages.

        No, it’s not, because those are the policies of the neoliberal right, whose only interest in “political correctness” is fearmongering about it as a distraction tactic.

        If immigration were being run according to “political correctness”, “leftist” mythos, we’d have been letting in 100k refugees every year for the last decade rather than locking them up in concentration camps.

        It is almost always the left that screams racist at the top of their lungs to completely and utterly stop debate on it. This mentality has well and truly taken over the internet too.

        That’s because the “discussion” about immigration is nearly always centred on racist themes. Hanson, for example.

        You need to search long and hard to find anyone having a rational and dispassionate discussion about immigration.

        It’s very noticable that people are scared to even mention SAP, you yourself didn’t even mention them by their full name.

        FMD you’re a child.

        Yes, I wrote SAP. I used to write SPP instead of Stable Population Party before they changed their name, as well. Sometimes I even write LNP even though I’m talking about the Federal Coalition. Not because I have the slightest fear in using their full name but because it’s quicker, easier and still obvious.

        It is the left that has created the Orwellian environment where it can not be discussed.

        LOL. Of course. Just like they’re responsible for your wife’s bad cooking and your dog farting, right ?

    • ‘On this issue they are as demented and stubborn as the fundy Christians they like to take shots at all the time.’
      Agreed, however it’s not just this issue. Stare into the abyss long enough…
      ‘It is the left that has created the Orwellian environment where it can not be discussed.’
      Spot on.

  23. This is worrying from Labor. If they go with policies that higher property prices are bad, reduce neg gearing/reduce cpat gains discount, reduce population ponzi I think they are a shoe in for the next election. If they start going down this road, it would be difficult for them.

    • No, they’ll go with the negative gearing policy and that will probably get them in, but they’ll also go for the Big Australia to make up for it because house prices are not allowed to fall.

      • Maybe. But reducing population is gathering heaps of steam, look at the big increases of One Nation and other populist leaders around the world. By the time the next election roles around this will be an even bigger vote swinger

  24. Let’s face it, there are *very* few people in politics or the media that are able to broach the emotionally charged issue of immigration without sounding racist. Malcom is one those rare people, whereas I suspect Bill is not.

    In the space of 2 days, MT has thatched over some mighty big holes in 457’s and Citizenship. What’s more, he’s done it in a statesmanlike manner that avoids negative emotional arguments. He’s absolutely trounced Labor on this and I suspect they will have no come back for it.

    • +1. Labor objecting to good policy just because they are in opposition is getting silly and they are losing votes over it.

    • mild colonialMEMBER

      Sheesh, that’s positive. While I’m grateful the ice has been broken on the topic I don’t see that MT has actually changed anything, materially.

    • To paraphrase the great Sir Ronald Belford Scott, I think we can say that wet patch on the seat at MT’s last presser wasn’t coca cola.

    • We all know you are a population ponzi slut Kipron.

      Turnbull may have sold you but like the immigration sycophant you are that is no surprise.

      I have some second hand toilet paper that you maybe interested in. You can use it to wipe your nose after your Turnbull love in.

      • Be careful with your name calling, hareeba. Im part of the majority you want to win over.

        FYI I’m mostly ambivalent about immigration and have tried to stay out of the debate on here in recent weeks. However some of the comments on here are very, very offensive and I can assure you it does your argument no favours.

        You would do well to channel Leith and focus on the facts rather than mud-slinging.

  25. FiftiesFibroShack

    The aim at the moment is to ease anxiety around Muslim immigration (see “Australia values”). They all know support for immigration changes radically when the issue of Muslim immigration is removed. The ALP will follow the LNP fairly closely on this.

    • Well, yes, another 50 Manus Islands won’t change emotions around Muslim immigration any more effectively than publicising the fact that Muslims are stuff all of the population, and the number of Hindus is growing faster than the number of Muslims.

  26. We need a Royal Commission into the migrant and visa racket.
    A full scope public debate.

    In the meantime we need an immediate freeze on all migration and special Commission of Enquiry to inspect & validate and report the facts of every temporary tourist and migrant PR or citizenship grant in the last decade.

    Then we will have factual information about the economic and social impact to assist a full public exposure and debate.
    And then we will see the scale of the massive migrant PR/Citizenship & the temporary & tourist visa fraud.