Fake Greens howl racism at 457 visa cut

By Leith van Onselen

I was just listening to ABC Radio and heard The Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young bang on about how the Turnbull Government’s 457 visa reforms and any cuts to immigration are ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’. Unfortunately, I don’t have the transcript, but the below Tweets from Hanson-Young gives you the gist of her view:

Seriously, what hope is there of having a rational debate about immigration settings when politicians like Hanson-Young howl ‘racism’ whenever the issue arises?

If Hanson-Young had bothered to examine the facts pertaining to 457 visas, she would have identified four major problems with the system that need fundamental reform, namely:

  1. There are way too many occupations on the skills shortages list.
  2. Those working under the skill level 1 (so-called “Managers and Professionals”) and skill level 2 (so-called “Associate Professionals”)  are not subject to any labour market testing to determine whether an Australian can do the job first. Hence, nearly 80% of total 457 visa holders are not currently subject to labour market testing.
  3. Where labour market testing is required it can be overcome by putting an ad on Facebook or other social media and that is enough to show that you’ve tested the labour market – basically a farce.
  4. The 457 visa system is not sufficiently responsive either to higher levels of unemployment, or to labour market changes in specific skilled occupations.

These shortcomings have been expertly identified by Dr Joanna Howe, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Adelaide (see here and here) as well as in the recent Senate report entitled A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders.

To its credit, the Turnbull Government’s replacement of the 457 visa system overcomes many of these problems by:

  1. Implementing a new two-year temporary visa system that has no path to permanent residency, as well as a four-year scheme for highly skilled positions where there is a proven labour shortage;
  2. Cutting the range of jobs that foreign workers can apply for by more than 200 occupations;
  3. Mandatory labour market testing for all visas issued under the new scheme;
  4. Mandatory English language proficiency; and
  5. Higher minimum market salary rate so that local workers are not undercut.

But somehow, these changes are ‘racist’ according to Hanson-Young. Go figure.

More broadly, one would have thought that a political party that calls itself “The Greens”, and supposedly cares about the Australian environment and its more vulnerable classes, would seek to lower Australia’s mass immigration-driven population growth?

After all, the latest federal government State of the Environment report, released last month, revealed that Australia’s natural environment is being placed under acute strain as Australia’s population grows out of control. This comes on top of growing concerns about the deleterious impacts mass immigration is having on living standards in the big cities, such as packed trains, worsening traffic congestion and deteriorating housing affordability.

Prior to 1998, when The Greens were a genuine environmental party, they ran a stable population policy with “zero net migration”. Sadly, they performed a complete 180 degree shift and changed to a policy of opposing cuts to immigration. Since that time, Australia’s population has surged by nearly 30%, mostly via immigration, without a whimper of opposition from The Greens.

To make matters worse, the Greens’ are now lobbying for Australia to increase its immigration intake by another 50,000 people a year, from already turbo-charged levels, without any corresponding offsets!

The fact of the matter is that there are few better policy solutions to protect Australia’s environment and living standards than limiting population growth and abandoning plans for a ‘Big Australia’, which necessarily means significantly cutting immigration.

However, instead of living up to their name, and advocating for a smaller population trajectory on behalf of Australia’s environment and living standards, The Greens have chosen to howl ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ in response to sensible changes to Australia’s immigration program.

[email protected]

Leith van Onselen
Latest posts by Leith van Onselen (see all)

Comments

  1. I didn’t hear the audio, but the content of those tweets do not agree with your ” how the Turnbull Government’s 457 visa reforms and any cuts to immigration are ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’” assessement. In fact, they seem to be making the same point many posters were on MB from yesterday, which was ‘little real change, just trying to bring ON voters back into the fold’.

    • As I said, I don’t have the radio transcript – just heard it in the background (playing in the Kitchen). But they were howling racism, as they did in the Tweet with “racist dog whistle”.

      • Do you seriously think Turnbull’s action is NOT a short-term brain-fart driven by ON’s rising popularity ?

        Come on mate, you’re looking for an axe to grind. She may well have been “howling racism” on the radio, but those tweets certainly aren’t. They’re pointing out that Turnbull is virtue signalling to ON voters.

        • “Do you seriously think Turnbull’s action is NOT a short-term brain-fart driven by ON’s rising popularity ?”

          Who cares? It’s good policy. The Greens should support it but argue to go even further, rather than playing the race card. They are totally useless on the immigration issue. If The Greens got their way, we’d have an even bigger Australia than the one we’d get under current immigration settings. They are complete hypocrites.

      • Who cares?

        Anyone who wants sustainable solutions with a long-term outlook on producing the best outcome for the country.

        Politically expedient solutions are exactly that – politically expedient.

        The Greens should support it but argue to go even further, rather than playing the race card.

        They probably will. Eg: https://twitter.com/AdamBandt/status/854204797125222400

        It seems “playing the race card” is another term that’s reached the point of uselessness.

        If The Greens got their way, we’d have an even bigger Australia than the one we’d get under current immigration settings.

        If the Greens got their way we’d probably already have done what this “reform” is proposing to do. They have been raising concerns with skilled immigration for a while.

        How much do you want to bet in real terms these changes are basically insignificant ? I’ve got a fiddy here.

        • Yeah right. The Greens want to boost Australia’s immigration intake by another 50,000 and howl ‘racism’ (or remain deafly silent) whenever immigration is discussed.

          If they genuinely care about the environment, it’s time they make a stand.

      • I wish to write in support of LVO’s unremitting campaign for common sense in immigration and 457 visa policy. Common sense although named common is in short supply in this debate but it has been exhibited against all odds by LVO. I, for one, had no idea of the powerful forces which are for mass immigration and deterioration of the amenity of Australian cities for present populations. That his arguments are labelled racist just shows the hollowness of the pro mass immigration proponents.

      • @Douglas: I agree 100%. There are few things so clear cut as the harm that high levels of immigration are doing to this country. Turnbull’s move doesn’t go nearly far enough, but it is unquestionably one in the right direction.

      • Mark, the definition of a refugee and observable reality has changed somewhat since the 50’s. Increasing the supposed refugee intake (as determined by UNHCR flawed incentives) will have no impact on refugee numbers , and ironically will further degrade local populace quality of life and add outsized costs. There are better more durable solutions.
        Increasing the refugee quota is inconsequential to the surge in numbers globally but very consequential to those having to absorb in many cases pastoral nomads ….permanently, even when the need for refuge has passed.

      • RF the issue is whether in the current argument that LVO inserting a proposal to increase the the refugee numbers is a blatant misrepresentation of the issues. Leith on many occasions has accepted the need to increase refugee numbers and I agree that the Greens stance on population is stupid, but this is below the belt stuff to mis refugees and immigration as LVO has a vast array of supporting facts he does not need to misrepresent in this manner.
        RF you are doing the same thing here, I have stated that I support the Greens and I take it from your misrepresentation of a short clear statement your a One Nation supporter.

    • If Hanson-Young had bothered to examine the facts pertaining to 457 visas, she would have identified one major problem, she was voted in by the people of Australia to serve the best interests of the people of Australia, not the best interests of foreign immigrants, or put another way, not the best interests of people from other countries.

    • I take it you are worried you might have to pay some of your staff real wages ?

      Fair enough. Any changes which means less profit for you by having to pay living wages to ordinary Australians is clearly racist.

      .FFS – do you know how obvious your shit is ?

      • Er, is that supposed to be aimed at me ?

        I don’t pay any staff, champ, I’m just another worker bee.

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      +1
      Agree those tweets call out rascist dog whistle and that Tumbriil is trying to neutralise PHON.
      Have not heard the interview.

    • Unfortunately the Greens can’t be trusted. Not in an environment where people think they are a genius for letting in a bazillion immigrants overnight. If this country had any character these people wouldn’t even have the right to speak.

    • C’mon drsmithy, I know you’re a Greens supporter but surely you can see past your ideological blinkers on this one?

      And at what point is calling ‘dog whistle’ on something, not just a ‘dog whistle’ itself?

      Let’s see the Greens’ policy and evaluate it against the Liberals on merit. Oh what’s that, they don’t have one?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        What ideological blinkers ?

        The Greens have recognised problems with, and been advocating for changes to, the skilled immigration program (and the things that ostensibly drive it, like lack of locals with skills) for years.

        http://greens.org.au/policies/immigration-refugees
        4. A review of the family, skilled and business migration streams to prioritise family reunion and meeting skills shortages.
        5. Skilled migration programs that do not substitute for training or undermine wages and conditions in Australia.

        Turnbull’s spontaneous 457 removaloverhaul is a comically transparent attempt to try and pull back some of the drift to ON. Guaranteed there’ll be bugger all change in practical terms.

      • Fantastically detailed and practical Greens policies.
        Like

        I have some policies:
        1. Review world conflict with a view to establishing world peace.
        2. Review and assess economic inequality and determine to create economic equality and opportunity for all.

        This policy development thing is a snap.

    • Agree – the second tweet sums it up perfectly.
      ‘…Turnbull’s announcement to scrap 457s sounds more like dog whistle than genuine policy…’

      All talk and no trousers.

    • Actually, it’s a major improvement. Mandatory Labour market testing, cutting the skilled occupations list by more that 200, and removing pathways to residency is a significant shift.

      Still a long way to go, however.

      • 1. There is already mandatory labour market testing under the existing 457
        2. Of the 600 jobs listed under the existing 457 many were little used and listed for removal anyway (i.e. goat herders etc)
        3. Pathways to residency will still exist in the new 457

        • “1. There is already mandatory labour market testing under the existing 457”

          Wrong. Only for circa 20% of 457 visas (Skill levels 1 & 2 are exempt).

          “2. Of the 600 jobs listed under the existing 457 many were little used and listed for removal anyway (i.e. goat herders etc)”

          Sure, more needs to be done. But cutting 200-plus is an improvement.

          “3. Pathways to residency will still exist in the new 457”.

          Not for the two-year visas. Plus, the 4-year visa holders will have to wait longer to qualify.

          Face facts, it’s an improvement on the current system. Let the policy bidding war with Labor begin.

      • Face facts, it all means nothing unless Turnbull clearly and categorically states that he will significantly reduce the migration intake….which he hasn’t

        • It’s a start, Pat, and game-on. The holy consensus around immigration is broken.

          You can bet your arse that I will be lobbying even harder now to cut the permanent intake. Reform is inevitable now.

      • @Anyone upset by Turnbull’s decision: I will come and herd your goats for free if you are worried about no longer being able to get 457’s to do this for you.

      • Caeser only crossed a small river in northern Italy with his army, but it was a statement and there was no turning back…

        It’s not the numbers impacted that is important…it’s the LNP beginning to exploit the political mileage on the issue of immigration…they have crossed the Rubicon…

      • Turnbull’s move looks more like Chamberlain style appeasement than like Caesar style taking control of the situation.
        The best that can be hoped that after his move flops, and everything crashes down around him, someone better will come along to clean up the mess.

    • Moreover, this is the thin end of the wedge. It is is now legitimate policy to cut immigration. OF course they’ll try to fake it at first then when that doesn’t work they will do the real thing.

      • Precisely, and this is the critical point. Sure, Turnbull’s 458 visa amount to relatively minor tightening. But the more important point is that immigration is now on the mainstream political agenda. What’s the bet we’ll see the MSM repackaging and then regurgitating some of the fine analysis done by MB over the years, in the next few days or so?

        Though I do love the folks commenting above; great entertainment. They’re like people standing at the base of a giant dam saying ‘eh, it’s just a small crack’. I’m also really looking forward to the unholy alliance of the virtue-signalling, insufferable left and exploitative businesses that rely on foreign indentured labour. It’s a match made in heaven, I’m sure they’ll become fast friends.

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      It’s hard to know whether it’s a sham right now, as the details won’t come out until 2018. The short term visa has no path to PR. The medium term visa still has a path to PR, but the requirement has been extended to 3 years from 2. If the medium visa is just as easy to get as 457 right now, then it’s all moot, however we simply don’t know until 2018. India is already howling.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-19/india-says-457-visa-scrapping-could-affect-trade-negotiations/8452098

      Whether the new policy will be enforced depends on Shorten hopping on the ‘Australian Workers First’ bus or the ‘Everyone is a Racist’ bus.

    • Yes it is a claytons reform, the reform you have when you dont want to reform.
      Im sure turdshit has been getting phone calls from all sorts of “business” groups worried about not getting cheap labor.
      And of course its not just the 457 getting exploited.
      The threat of losing your job to a 457 has been threat enough to keep pay rise demands to a minimum.

      However the good that may come out of this claytons reform is a bidding war with opposition coming to the next election.
      Turdshit has done this.
      Now maybe shortenbread needs to try to wedge him or out do him with something harsher.

      The best thing about breaking the seal on this issue is of course that opposition politics needs to outdoor the other which may lead to something that is real reform.

  2. sydboy007MEMBER

    Could I ask Mizz Young as to the racism and xenophobia shown in her own party. Currently the entire senate team looks like they have not a single “minority” in there. Surely Mizz Young would be willing to give up her spot in the senate to help promote a more diverse Greens Party????

      • sydboy007MEMBER

        yet white is the only skin colour that is not only OK to disparage in public, but often those doing it are praised and held up as courageous. Just check out Moldy Locks and her description of being punched though she dindunothin, and then compare it to the video evidence and the fact she’d gone to berkley to collect 100 nazi scalps.

        try this video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ywsSInVMF8 skip to about 23 seconds in

        The guy isn’t actually a Democrat Senate nominee, and the DNC says the video has been edited to remove the “outrage” his comments caused. What I found just as despicable was the laughter in the crowd, over male youth suicide, so I’m not sure how sincere the outrage was, and plenty of those at the forum seemed to sympathise with his views.

        “I saw a thing and that said a lot of men white men were committing suicide and i almost thought yeah great and then I thought about it some more and maybe you shouldn’t say that in public.” Imagine if he had said this about gay men, or black women or transgenders, or pretty much any other identity, the twitterverse would have gone into meltdown, but it’s publicly acceptable to denigrate white men for purely being white men.

        In the last couple of weeks there was an article I saw via the SMH where the writer (in NZ iirc) was calling for white men to be disenfranchised from voting, just you know for a generation, so all the evils they cause in the world could be remedied by non whites and women. It was sort of like reparations for slavery and colonisation and everything else only whites did in the past. You know, like there were no black slave owners.

      • sydboy007MEMBER

        as to the media, maybe follow the Uk with BAME (Black Asian Migrant Ethnic) jobs at the ABC.

        #freekekistan

      • Yeah typical, there doesn’t seem to be any going back but we can give the leftists a dose of their own medicine.

  3. scootytootyMEMBER

    Of course there will be a corresponding cut to ease the increase in immigration. It will be Australia’s youth trying to get the hell out of this country.

    • +++ many

      She is the ‘racist’, anti Skip. She needs to explain how all her fucktard ideas fit together into one coherent policy for the betterment of the current Australian resident of any persuasion…..

  4. It really doesn’t matter as the devil is in the detail and it is pretty certain that we have another “hydro-electric” announcement on our hands where the detail is that there is no detail. All hot air. In principle it is a good idea, implementation as always will be the issue.

  5. Does anyone outside the ABC give a shit what she thinks? She is a genuine A-grade moron. It is scary that people of her appalling lack of intellect can have an influence on this country. As we know she isn’t the only one, though the ABC seems to think she has something worthwhile to say; it can’t report her mindless diatribe fast enough. God help this country.

  6. Lets be politically correct here; Sarah and her band of dicknuckles are not stupid or deranged, delusional or incompetent but “INTELLECTUALLY, MENTALLY AND OPERATIONALLY CHALLENGED”

  7. From Domainfax: “Labor has released an analysis that shows just 8.6 per cent of foreign workers currently on a 457 visa are working in jobs that would be excluded under the new visa system.”
    So we need to see more detail from the LNP following this announcement, and some hard-core action to reduce 457 visas, not just tinkering around the edges. Otherwise, the dog whistle accusation holds true.
    Agree with LvO re the Greens being hypocrites when it comes to immigration and looking after the environment. Puts Greens last!

    • The policy bidding has started, Brian. Now Labor will need to up the ante and out-bid the Coalition.

      You also fail to recognise that all temporary “skilled” foreign workers will now be subject to labour market testing (versus circa 20% currently).

      Still a long way to go, however, but the signs are positive.

      • I think we all fail to recognise that 457 visa holders were eligle for permanent residency after between 12-24 months.

        So when people like Sarah Hanson-Young scream about only 95,000 people being on 457 visas, she completely fails to acknowledge the accumulative 950,000 workers who are here based on 457 visas – all in the work force.

        Nor the 200 low skilled migrants – adding another 2 million over ten years.

        Basically 30% of the workforce.

        So yeah – good one Sarah.

      • @Graham,

        457 Visas were issued at the rate of about 45k per year since 2009, which is as far back as DIBP reports go..
        You get to 900k if every single last person to get one since 1996 is still alive and still here, but that’s just silly, and empirically false (a heap went home to the UK and Ireland around 2012 for a start).

        In the meantime, no one is talking about changes to the number of PR visas available, so there will be no change to the number of permanent settlers, and from an NOM perspective the only effect will be the gradual lowering of the stock of people here on grandfathered 457 visas, presumably over the next 4 years.

      • @Graham Maybe you should keep the moron accusations to yourself when Robert has just politely pointed out your utter stupidity. And you sounded so confident too.

      • Robert

        monthly visas were topping 100k applications in 2009 – right through to 2016 Prior to that they were falling away to 50k

        So, ummm – BULLSHIT.

        Sorry, did you say a couple of Irish people went home during the greatest mining construction boom in our history ? Bullshit.

        ….stats please.

        Rest of your post completely missed the point.

        You are wrong. You have cherry picked data and you are wrong.

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-23/fact-check-457-workers/7232258

      • @markob

        Oops. Thanks for your input – you were great – everyone said so. Here’s a participation certificate.


      • monthly visas were topping 100k applications in 2009

        You’ve just linked to an article showing the highest quarterly grants was 35k, with the comment above, and I’m the one who’s wrong?

        Based on
        http://data.gov.au/dataset/visa-temporary-work-skilled
        it looks like my comment was perfectly correct for primary visa holders – I get 502k primary visa grants in 11.5 years, 43k pa, which isn’t bad since I opened up four or five reports at random and lost interest when the visa granted figure was so often the same.

        The total for the primary and secondary visas is about 1.1 million over the 11.5 years, giving you a little fat, but really still making it essential that everyone who ever gets a visa stays in Australia and doesn’t die for your figure of the current stock of current and former holders to be true.

        The comment about Irish returning home was because I knew several who’d worked alongside me return at around that time. It’s a little bit beside the point, which is essentially that for your figures to be correct, virtually 100% of anyone who ever receives a 457 visa has to remain in Australia, and not a single visa grant can be to someone who has already had one, such as occurs when they get a job with a new employer.

      • So dude, which member of parliament would you like to stick your dick in? More of a Barnaby type I’m guessing. You have to look at him too but failed to mention his looks in your previous comment about him, so I’ll take that to mean he fits your criteria. Good luck with that.

  8. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbulls-visa-changes-would-affect-just-8-per-cent-of-current-457-holders-20170418-gvnfer.html

    “Discussing the changes to the foreign worker visa program, Mr Turnbull said Immigration Minister Peter Dutton was the nation’s “chief recruiter” and the new system woudl allow Australia to get the best and brightest recruits from overseas. Under Labor, net migration peaked at an unsustainable 315,000 migrants a year. It’s now less than 200,000. We are back in control of our borders.”

    Is that the first mention of overall migration intake issues in the main stream press????? Sure, it was delivered along with a deliberate lie around being in control of borders but still….

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      Dutton is definitly number 2 man in the govt.these days.
      Tumbril’s champion to take down the Abbottalypse.
      I wonder wether SCo Mo will redefect to the Far Rite Nut Jobs .
      Golly this is entertaining.

    • Up til now I have been sceptical that this change will amount to a reduction in people coming to Australia.
      But when I read that Dutton has been promoted to ‘Chief Recruiter’ I think ‘negative NOM here we come’.

  9. How i have missed the shrill hysterical tones of this woman.
    The shrieking whining harpy of Australian politics.
    She would seem more credible if she just let a man do the talking.

    • Thank GaiaGod we don’t have to listen to Christine Milne lecturing us anymore… if it pleases SH-Y, send all the ISIS refugees to SA and close the interstate borders so the crow-eating illuminati can enjoy their cultural enrichment unperturbed by racist white trash Aussies.

  10. just flicked her a message that reduced immigration takes pressure off the environment and that should be considered by the greens otherwise Malcolm is only trying to save his job..
    she may experience light bulb moment reading it..

  11. Why is anyone supporting “Guest Workers” anyway?

    The idea of a extracting labour from a floating class of 2nd class citizens that we dispatch when no longer required has always reeked of the extremes of cynical neoliberal ‘rationality’.

    All of the so called rorts and dysfunction of “457s” derive directly from the inherently dodgy conceptual foundations of the Guest Worker program.

    Give them whatever name you like but there is something fundamentally wrong with inviting people to work in Australia without offering them PR or preferably citizenship.

    The only exception to this might be working holiday workers under tight restrictions.

    If we want/need labour or skills we should be offering them a clear and certain pathway to citizenship. In fact we should be making it a condition that they accept PR and will take citizenship at the first opportunity.

    If we want people to feel a commitment to the interests of the community in which they live we should not be excluding them.

    Same goes for students – their entitlement to work should be strictly restricted by reference to whether they will be granted PR on successful completion of their studies.

    If they are studying something that we have enough people doing then the purpose of their study should be made clear – to take their skills to countries that need them more than we do.

    Holding out a dodgy carrot ‘vague sniffs Guest Worker status” to induce people to study – if we do not mean it – is no way to conduct ourselves

    We can do better than squabble over the details of how we conduct a shonky Guest Worker program. Talk about a brilliant way to destroy a common sense of community and shared purpose.

    Having said all that it hard to know what skills we really need when we have built an economy largely dependent on rent seeking, financial speculation, foreign debt and unproductive activity from sea to shining sea.

    • Wouldn’t the neoliberal thing to do be leaving the comparatively skilled migrant in their own country to lift the standard of living in that originating country, rather cherry picking the best performers from those developing economies? The thinking being that a higher standard of living, SOONER, in the emerging country represents a better discounted affect on Australia’s standard of living through increased goods and services that can now be sold to the emerging country.
      Seems to me throwing neoliberal tags all about the shop doesn’t reflect the time dependent worth of neoliberal theory.

      • Travis,

        No, there is too much ‘hive mind’ in your description. Neoliberalism is much simpler than that – deregulate capital and whatever will be will be.

        The freedom to acquire labour from whatever source you can at the lowest possible cost with as few strings as possible is all that the neoliberal is interested in. That describes the 457 program perfectly and explains why it is jam packed full of rorts – the rorts are just a refinement of the underlying concept – cheap no strings attached labour.

        Constructing an economy in a developing country is not an objective of neoliberalism – if it happens it happens.

        Profits for finance capital is the objective.

        The way the neoliberal theory of development works is that Guest Workers send remittances home and that trickles some income down and if you are lucky that trickle conceals into capital formation but if it doesn’t because offshore companies can dump markets and prevent it then that is just tough.

        We have become so used to enjoying the profits of the Guest Worker program that we willingly accept a bunch of euphemisms to soften its edges.

    • + many. I loathe this change in Australia, where has the ‘we are all people worthy of respect regardless of our origins because we are all here now and the system is designed to make us commit to this society and working to improve it’ gone? Immigration numbers should actually separate to this issue.

  12. MT: Australian jobs for Australians, blaming Labour for excessive infux of 457s.
    Shorten: Australian gas for Australians (on the telly a few mins ago), blaming LNP for selling off our gas to the detriment of locals.
    It is on – punch and counter-punch.

  13. Tassie TomMEMBER

    Sarah Hanson-Young is the Federal Greens spokesperson for five portfolios: Finance & Trade; Arts; Education; Youth; and Water & Murray Darling Basin.

    Arguably “Water & Murray Darling Basin” is her only environmental portfolio, and also arguably the Murray Darling Basin is the most important sector of Mainland Australia’s environment. The water that spills over the banks of the rivers and flows overland and soaks into the floodplains provides the vast majority of Inland Australia’s quality biodiverse ecosystems. Outside of these floodplains, sure there are important arid ecosystems, but inland Australia is pretty much an ecological desert. Every 2 megalitres of water extracted per annum from any part of the basin pretty much equates to one hectare of redgum or coolabah forest that is no longer watered and dies off, or a hectare of the Macquarie Marshes or Yantabulla Wetlands etc that dries up for good.

    On Sarah Hanson-Young’s website’s http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps.org.au newsfeed she has posted 114 articles in the last 12 months. Of these 114 articles, 5 are relevant to her portfolio of “Water & Murray Darling Basin”.

    Five.

  14. Hanson-Young, along with Abbott should just fuck off and leave the debate to rational human beings.

  15. She’s a bogan SJW. These idiots where if you strip away their SJW exterior you have another painfully bland suburban bogan looking at you with their dopey bovine eyes. Need a more catchy derogatory name for them. There’s another one they have on The Project, and you see them all throughout suburbia these days. They can’t stand how dull and mediocre they are so they go for the SJW culture.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Sorry – What does SJW stand for?

        “This person isn’t a selfish arsehole like me so I’m going to shut down the conversation and virtue signal my identity politics by labelling them an SJW.”

      • Ha ha. DrSmithy is an SJW. Granted he doesn’t seem to be bogan, but he might look like one.

        Wanting to have the country your forefathers worked their guts out to build over a couple of hundred years makes you a selfish arsehole. How about that! But because it’s only dumb luck that I was born to them it means I’m not entitled to it. How about we stretch that theory to animals and insects too. Plankton? Plankton welfare, pay for it by taxing maccas.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        “Sorry – What does SJW stand for?”

        It’s the mating call of the conservative culture warrior. The next step is crying about identity politics of the left while pushing white identity politics at every opportunity. See performance artists such as Bolt, Latham, etc. as examples.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        DrSmithy is an SJW.

        Indeed I am. Because those are the Australian values I was raised with. A fair go. A decent wage. Opportunity for all. No classes. Not being defined by your postcode. Not treating people like shit just because they’ve got the wrong imaginary friend. Not treating people like heroes just because they’ve got the right imaginary friend. Egalitarianism.

        Wanting to have the country your forefathers worked their guts out to build over a couple of hundred years makes you a selfish arsehole.

        No, abusing people who give a shit about someone else other than themselves makes you a selfish areshole.

      • Well that’s all well and good but it’s clearly gone overboard into extremely quixotic territory and Stalinist like resistance to critique. Seems to be being toned down a bit with Brexit and Trump but I’d say it’s still there.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Well that’s all well and good but it’s clearly gone overboard into extremely quixotic territory and Stalinist like resistance to critique.

        LOL. Word soup not to taste today ? Had to spit some of it out ?

      • Funny, I don’t remember post-structuralist nonsense being an ‘Australian value’… Then again, given our favourite national pastime seems to be all things related to property, I’m not sure anything would surprise me at this point.

      • @Tassie Tom

        To give you a straight(ish) answer, an SJW (social justice warrior) is a heavily left-leaning internet archetype that subscribes to post-modernist, post-structuralist schools of thought (although most have probably never encountered these terms). ‘Academic’ departments of the aforementioned ilk believe that objective truth does not exist, and what is ‘true’ depends entirely on the individual’s experience of the world.

        They dispute pretty much any form of binary categorisation (like male and female) and contend that gender is a social construct, despite rather convincing biological evidence to the contrary. In response to this, a few of these “gender/women’s studies” departments have made some entirely not ironic attempts to establish academic fields like “feminist physics” and “feminist biology”. Of course, their contention that there is no such thing as objective facts allows them to do these sorts of thing while keeping a straight face.

        These slowly metastasising cancers in the body of academia somehow were allowed to leak out into the internet; choosing tumblr as their base of operations for some inexplicable reason. I suppose it was a smart move, given 14 year old girls are rather insecure and unsure about their identities. These newly enlightened 14 year old sages run around referring to themselves (and specifically, their ‘socially constructed gender’) using all manner of nonsense terms like “I’m a pan-unicorn, bi-elvish nightkin”.

        drsmithy, it would seem, follows in the footsteps of this long and proud tradition of gender-confused, 14 year old girls.

      • @Tassie Tom

        To give you a straight(ish) answer, an SJW (social justice warrior) is a heavily left-leaning internet archetype that subscribes to post-modernist, post-structuralist schools of thought (although most have probably never encountered these terms). ‘Academic’ departments of the aforementioned ilk believe that objective truth does not exist, and what is ‘true’ depends entirely on the individual’s experience of the world. They have a stated preference for equality and inclusiveness, which is why they have established ‘safe-spaces’ in pretty much every western university that only permit entry to a few select minorities (and if you’re male or straight, you’re shit out of luck).

        They dispute pretty much any form of binary categorisation (like male and female) and contend that gender is a social construct, despite rather convincing biological evidence to the contrary. In response to this, a few of these “gender/women’s studies” departments have made some entirely not ironic attempts to establish academic fields like “feminist physics” and “feminist biology”. Of course, their contention that there is no such thing as objective facts allows them to this sort of thing while keeping a straight face.

        These slowly metastasising cancers in the body of academia somehow were allowed to leak out into the internet; choosing tumblr as their base of operations for some inexplicable reason. I suppose it was a smart move, given 14 year old girls are rather insecure and unsure about their identities. These newly enlightened 14 year old sages run around referring to themselves (and specifically, their ‘socially constructed gender’) using all manner of nonsense terms like “I’m a pan-unicorn, bi-elvish nightkin”.

        drsmithy, it would seem, follows in the footsteps of this long and proud tradition of gender-confused, 14 year old girls.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Funny, I don’t remember post-structuralist nonsense being an ‘Australian value’…

        Well, maybe it’s time to revisit your assumptions then.

        To give you a straight(ish) answer, an SJW (social justice warrior) is a heavily left-leaning internet archetype that subscribes to post-modernist, post-structuralist schools of thought (although most have probably never encountered these terms). ‘Academic’ departments of the aforementioned ilk believe that objective truth does not exist, and what is ‘true’ depends entirely on the individual’s experience of the world.

        The easiest place to find this sort of thought is in conservative media, talking about topics they don’t like. For example, climate change. You may have heard it referred to in this context as “balance”, where everything is just someone’s opinion, and consequently balanced out by an opposing opinion (since there is no objective truth, all opinions are of equal value). Thus, one guy claiming climate change is a multinational, multigenerational conspiracy is as “true” as a highly qualified scientist stating it’s happening and is primarily caused by human activity.

        They dispute pretty much any form of binary categorisation (like male and female) and contend that gender is a social construct, despite rather convincing biological evidence to the contrary.

        http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ambiguous-genitalia/basics/definition/con-20026345

        drsmithy, it would seem, follows in the footsteps of this long and proud tradition of gender-confused, 14 year old girls.

        Thanks for helping illustrate my point to Tassie Tom.

      • Lol lol lol lol lol lol smithy. You know it’s true. You just don’t know what quixotic means. We can’t save the world and trying to by bombarding ourselves with too many immigrants is madness.

      • What point was that exactly? I’m can’t seem to find it in your replies to Tom. I don’t have much patience for ‘false balance’ when it’s a more or less settled scientific fact, as climate change is. And that’s completely consistent with my view that post-modernism/structuralism is a bunch of nonsense, with no sound intellectual basis. I don’t agree with the notion that there’s no such thing as objective truth. It’s a very convenient view to hold however, given it allows you to shift the goalposts around pretty much at will.

        Honestly, I would have thought the ‘false balance’ even-time journalism would have presented more of a philosophical problem for you. I may be wrong about this, and perhaps you don’t hold these kinds of views, as ‘SJWs’ have a bit of a bigger tent nowadays. Do you agree that there is such thing as objective truth? Or, maybe with the less extreme form: that there are sometimes facts and circumstances we can safely feel 99% certain of? Honestly, I gotta say, your argument against the fact that almost every human on the planet has either a penis or vagina is hilariously feeble (not to mention pointless). Here’s the first sentence from your link:

        Ambiguous genitalia is a rare condition in which an infant’s external genitals don’t appear to be clearly either male or female.

        The fact that there is a consistent biological difference between men and women seems uncontroversial to me. I’m curious, why does it bother you?

        The face that sexual dimorphism is a near-universal phenomena in humans does not suggest that one gender is better than the other. Nor does it imply that there is anything wrong with a man loving another man, or a woman loving another woman, if that is what makes them both happy. It’s simply a statement of blindingly obvious fact.

        One last question, if you’d indulge me. Making a bit of a leap here, I’m assuming you believe ‘gender’ is a social construction (and, by extension, so is sexuality). If that is the case, do you agree with the contention that homosexuality is a conscious, socially informed choice, rather than an innate preference?

        [For the record, I personally don’t believe it’s a choice, but that stems from my view that gender and sexuality are largely artefacts of biology.]

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        What point was that exactly?

        “[…] I’m going to shut down the conversation and virtue signal my identity politics by labelling them an SJW.”

        Do you agree that there is such thing as objective truth? Or, maybe with the less extreme form: there are sometimes facts and circumstances that we can safely feel 99% sure about?

        What do you mean by “objective truth” ? Quantifiable facts which are measurable and based in hard physical reality (eg: gravity makes things accelerate at 9.8m/s^2) ? Scientific Theories that are as yet unchallenged (eg: Evolution) ? Ephemeral concepts that are based in consensus of thought and ideas (eg: “murder is wrong”) ?

        You are interchanging terms that can mean very different things in context. Quite deliberately, I expect.

        The fact that there is a fairly consistent biological difference between men and women seems pretty uncontroversial to me. I’m curious, why does it bother you?

        Have you stopped beating your wife yet ?

        It doesn’t matter how rare it is. You asserted – with a liberal helping of hubris – that physical gender is “binary”. Binary means ones or zeros. No twos. It would take literally only one example of ambiguous physical gender *in history* to render your position untenable, and in reality it’s something like half a percent of all births. That means there’s more people on the planet disproving your assertion than in the entire USA.

        Just because sexual dimorphism is a near-universal phenomena in humans does is no way suggest that one gender is better than the other. Nor does it imply that there is anything wrong with a man loving another man, or a woman loving another woman, if that is what makes them both happy. It’s simply a statement of blindingly obvious fact.

        It’s *not* a statement of fact, let alone a “blindingly obvious” one. It is the exact opposite of a statement of fact.

        (Always entertaining when people try to dress up their bigotry in sciencey sounding words to make them sound more authoritative. Let me guess, you’re a believer in “human biodiversity” as well ?)

        One last question, if you’d indulge me. Making a bit of a leap here, I assuming you believe ‘gender’ is a social construction (and, by extension, so is sexuality). If that is the case, do you agree with the contention that homosexuality is a conscious, socially informed choice, rather than an innate preference?

        Your problem is that, like most conservatives, you can’t handle shades of grey and uncertainty. Everything must be one thing or the other. No possibility of nuance or compromise. Black or white. Gay or straight. Goodies or baddies. Right or wrong. Choice or destiny.

        It shouldn’t take anyone prepared to engage in a bit of honest contemplation long to conclude that gender and sexuality are separate concepts and that gender has a component of social construction. If you’re struggling, start at why the phrase “girly man” is funny and work your way through bisexuality to women who spent large portions of their lives successfully masquerading as men.

        The answer to the question of “nature or nurture?” is “yes”, and that shouldn’t bother anyone, because it just doesn’t matter. Whether homosexuality is a choice or a destiny should be irrelevant to everyone except academics and stoned teenagers.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        We can’t save the world and trying to by bombarding ourselves with too many immigrants is madness.

        The neoliberals aren’t running high immigration to save the world, they’re doing it to increase their profits.

      • Well if you are so confident in your Greens DrSmithy you need to tell them to sell themselves better. Seriously consider using 3 word slogans and all that sort of thing, be precisely clear about how many immigrants and refugees they want to import per year.

        That’s what your average person responds to. Their salesmanship and marketing stinks, the site just looks like a boring university project. Put some ads on TV too.

        But that would require actual action and real work. Something they are clearly not intent on doing.

      • Ok drsmithy. Scroll up a bit a read the words you yourself posted. I did not label you an SJW. You did. But please, don’t let the objective facts get in the way here. Please do go on. In fact, the only person who seems to be throwing labels around here is you. You’ve labelled me a climate change denier (wrong) and a conservative (wrong). What is a conservative, in your weird little world? Is it just anyone who has an opinion different to yours? Next up I suppose you’ll be labelling me a ‘reactionary’, which seems to be the current SJW word of the day.

        And nice artful dodge there of my question. It seems to be a favoured debating tactic of people like you to turn around and try to claim an issue is ‘not worth the time discussing’. I assume that it’s this lack of noteworthiness that causes everyone in your ‘tolerant and broad-minded’ clique to start suddenly having conniptions when someone like Brandis gets up in the Senate and says that homosexuality is a choice? Strange reaction to such a non-issue. I’d hate to see what you folks are like when someone dares to commit a thought crime on some issue you actually deem noteworthy.

        Well, I think that’s enough for me; it’s been a laugh and a half. I’m afraid I must depart your weird, bizzaro universe and head back to reality. Farewell!

      • Scroll up a bit a read the words you yourself posted. I did not label you an SJW. You did. But please, don’t let the objective facts get in the way here.

        LOL.

        Actually “Owen” did. But, y’know, don’t let the – [snort] – “objective facts” get in the way here.

        Then, of course, you just ran with it. So much so that you posted your version twice !

        You’ve labelled me a climate change denier (wrong) […]

        Where ?

        […] and a conservative (wrong). What is a conservative, in your weird little world?

        Someone who bases their political identity on opposing “progressives”.

        And nice artful dodge there of my question.

        You mean your false dichotomy fallacy? It was answered appropriately.

        It seems to be a favoured debating tactic of people like you to turn around and try to claim an issue is ‘not worth the time discussing’.

        I can’t see anywhere I said that. I did say it _should_ be irrelevant to anyone except academics (who, obviously, should have an academic curiosity about its origins) and stoned teenagers trying to have “deep” conversations with each other about the nature and meaning of life. Whether someone’s sexual partners are the same gender as them should matter as much to their legal status as whether their sexual partners have the same skin colour as them or are the same religion – ie: not at all.

        I assume that it’s this lack of noteworthiness that causes everyone in your ‘tolerant and broad-minded’ clique to start suddenly having conniptions when someone like Brandis gets up in the Senate and says that homosexuality is a choice? Strange reaction to such a non-issue.

        No, champ. The “conniptions” come because he advocates discrimination against those people. When the most senior representative of the law in the country expresses that sort of opinion, it is most certainly not a “non-issue”.

        I’d hate to see what you folks are like when someone dares to commit a thought crime on some issue you actually deem noteworthy.

        Supporting the systemic legal discrimination against people based on the gender of their sexual partners is a “thought crime” ? What’s classed as a “real crime” in your book ?

  16. As several have pointed out before, LNP (or Lab) will only reduce immigration (in whatever form, temp or permanent etc) if it does not throw the economy into recession. The massive NOM over the past several years is designed to continue those positive GDP prints.

    • just caught 30secs of Bill Shorten press conference reply and if I grasped it correctly he maintains Turnbull didn’t go hard enough. It came across that Labour was keen to smash it even further than what the Libs did.

      • Ol’ Billy-boy ain’t the sharpest knife in the draw. But I’m guessing after the 4th or 5th union secretary shows up at his house (the last few with baseball bats) to educate him on the tenets on unionism, he’ll be outbidding do-mostly-nothing like a Chinese speculator at a Sydney house auction. The man may be dumb as a brick, but he’s at least cluey enough to know on which side his bread is buttered.

  17. People agreeing with the Greens in that the policy doesn’t go far enough: Don’t forget that in trying to get everything with the renewable energy target the Greens finally ended up with nothing when the electorate punished Labor in the next election.

    I think it was around 2008 or so.

    Short memory…

  18. Hi X (media personality),

    Regarding 457 changes by Turnbull, this has not gone anywhere near enough.
    Have a look closely at the list in the firing line. Do you see occupations like nurses on there? Many 457s come in as supposed engineers and simply end up doing back-hoe or dozen work, displacing locals form jobs.

    When Turnbull says he wants to put Australians first, why didn’t the Libs or ALP put Australians first 5-10 years ago?

    This is disingenuous at best and smells of populism, and will not even make an indent to the damage already done by the rort that is 457s.

    457s are a main reason why wage growth has remained stagnant now for well over a decade.

    With rising cost of living pressure, to point the finger at locals for supposedly not wishing to do low paid jobs is shallow. You simply cannot survive.

    I wish someone in the media would clearly articulate the real reasons why we have the problems we face in this country without taking the narrow populist and lazy approach. Which often comes from the confines of an ivory tower or insular existence.

    Pardon my cynicism but Australis in 2017 takes the blue ribbon in lack of vision, outsourcing and offshoring all that is good, and feeding our youth every reason to feel cynical about their own prospects in a growingly backward nation.

    We need more people with guts, less sheep, less self-centred individuals.

    Maybe the passing of the boomers will lead us to that place.

    • +1
      This path was chosen. The horse has bolted and we have England and Europe as role models to mass 3rd world immigration.
      It made the right happy – their donors got low wages.
      It made the left happy – they got to bleat about multiculturalism and identity politics.
      The rest got rich on houses and having menial jobs done by 3rd worlders.

  19. If we are now using the term” virtue signalling” to apply to the right, can we use “loon pond” to talk about the Greens?

  20. Mark, yes LVO conflated refugee numbers in the greens position. The issue of population immigration includes refugees – and, ill stand by the fact that the refugee system is a rabid, industrial scale effort to resettle populations globally in only a few G7 countries when all evidence suggests this is not a durable solution. I would further stress that this refugee system is gamed by the organisations and NGO’s that benefit from it the most. I disagree with both LVO and yourself that virtue signalling we will keep our humanitarian programme if we can cut our immigration programme is Accurate.

    Lastly, your insinuation that I am a one nation supporter is the last stand of the likes of yourself – by implication I am therefor a racist, inhuman, demonising, cretin. Dirt off why should this be? Secondly I am a paid up member of the greens and thirdly you showcase Your ignorance of a matter that for too long has escaped attention. The Folks who wrote the UN convention in 51 which mandates our acceptance and definition of refugees where born in the 1890’s – the world has changed and new prescriptions that are both humane
    And reaistic are needed…

    I forgot momentarily that a comrade may not utter any disagreement to the party for fear of being labelled a one nation supporter…forgive my excercise of lucid, reality based free speech.