It’s time to halve immigration

It’s time to halve immigration. The present super fast rate is too high for the economy, too high for our politics, too high for Australian social fabric and too high for our strategic outlook:

This is not a turn away from a commitment to multi-culturalism, it’s not a race or ethnic based argument at all. On the contrary. It’s the pragmatic acknowledgment that the current high speed pace of immigration has moved beyond Australia’s ability to cope and thus itself threatens those values.

MB has long described the pressures immigration is bringing to bear on the economy. It is deflating wages as it helps turn “skills shortages” into mass under-employment, is raising asset prices, killing productivity via infrastructure choking and keeping the currency higher than it would otherwise be. The post-boom Australian adjustment needs the first but not the last four. That mix is a problem. Using high immigration as a macro lever to repair competitiveness is loading up the least fortunate with the burden of adjustment while the well-off make little or no sacrifice at all.  It is a form of class and inter-generational warfare.

The resulting social pressures have so far only arrived mostly in theory. We have not suffered from the European-style terror attacks that appear to be accelerating. Local Islamic communities remain well-integrated and law-abiding (pardon me for being so patronising). But it’s impossible to miss the groundswell of Islamophobia in some communities, captured most obviously by the propaganda of One Nation:

This cannot be ignored lest it become a self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict. Yet neither can it be dealt with on its own terms. Our politicians have hitherto tended to only play around the edges of race politics but the intensity of division in politics today is such that it could be institutionalised by segregationist immigration policies. That would be disastrous to Australian social fabric.

Finally, Australian social change is no longer running in tandem with its strategic outlook. We are are still wedded to an Anglospheric security apparatus but immigration is taking the nation elsewhere, via Domainfax over the weekend:

University student Tony Chang had suspected for months that he was being secretly monitored, but it was a panicked phone call from a family member in China that confirmed his fears.

It was June 2015 and Chang’s parents had just been approached by state security agents in Shenyang in north-eastern China and invited to a meeting at a tea house. It would not be a cordial catch-up.

As Chang later detailed in a sworn statement to Australian immigration authorities, three agents warned his parents about their son’s involvement in the Chinese democracy movement in Australia. The agents “pressed the point that my parents must ask me to stop what I am taking part in and keep a low profile,” the statement said.

From a Brisbane share house littered with books and unwashed plates, the Queensland University of Technology student told a Fairfax Media-Four Corners investigation that the agents had intelligence about his plans to participate in a protest in Brisbane on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, and also during the Dalai Lama’s visit to Australia.
Chang’s activities in Brisbane meant that his terrified father in China feared that he too was being “watched and tracked”.

His father, a cautious, apolitical man, had already spent years worrying about his unruly son. In 2008, when Chang was 14, he was arrested for hanging Taiwan independence banners on street poles in Shenyang. His family was forced to call on Communist Party contacts to ensure Chang was released after several hours of questioning.

After Chang was questioned again in 2014 for dissident activities, he decided it was no longer safe to remain in China. He applied for an Australian student visa.

The June 2015 approach to his parents back in China was the second time in two months that security agents had warned Chang’s family to rein in his anti-communist activism in Australia. These threats helped convince the Australian government to grant Chang a protection visa.

Chang’s treatment as a teen is typical of the way the party-state deals with dissidents inside China. But the monitoring of the student in Brisbane and his decision to speak out about the threats to his parents in Shenyang, despite the risk it poses to them, provides a rare insight into something much less well known: the opaque campaign of control and influence being waged by the Chinese Communist Party inside Australia.

Part of this campaign involves attempts to influence Australian politicians via political donors closely aligned with the Communist Party – something that causes serious concern to Australia’s security agency, ASIO.

But the one million ethnic Chinese living in Australia are also targets of the Communist Party’s influence operations.

On university campuses, in the Chinese-language media and in some community groups, the party is mounting an influence-and-control operation among its diaspora that is far greater in scale and, at its worst, much nastier, than any other nation deploys.

Mass immigration is a strange amalgam of a Left ideology that condemns any cut back as racist and a Right ideology that knows of no other way to grow the economy. Both notions are obviously wrong and share another larger failure. Neither is a part of any discernible long term plan that manages the key variables in Australia’s national interest. Where does mass immigration fit with the long term plan for Australia beyond vague notions of the “more the merrier”? It is aging Australia faster than otherwise. It is lowering living standards, especially for working classes. It has helped turn “skill shortages” into mass under-employment. It is threatening social rupture. And it is undermining the strategic outlook.

It’s time to halve the intake to give the nation time to absorb and adapt to change, as well as figure out where the intake best fits long term national goals.

David Llewellyn-Smith

David Llewellyn-Smith is Chief Strategist at the MB Fund and MB Super. David is the founding publisher and editor of MacroBusiness and was the founding publisher and global economy editor of The Diplomat, the Asia Pacific’s leading geo-politics and economics portal.

He is also a former gold trader and economic commentator at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the ABC and Business Spectator. He is the co-author of The Great Crash of 2008 with Ross Garnaut and was the editor of the second Garnaut Climate Change Review.

Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

  1. GunnamattaMEMBER

    ……..as well as figure out where the intake best fits long term national goals.

    And that, in a nutshell, is where Australian politicians think it all becomes too hard.

    Frankly, I couldn’t give a shit if we decided to run migration at 500k per annum or cut it back to 5 people per annum – if only someone is prepared to be accountable and upfront about what is in it for us as a people, what the costs are for us as a people, and what the economic implications are for the economy we hand over to our kids……

    But Australian politicians aren’t prepared to do that – I see both the Torynuffs and the ALParatchiks as equally culpable in this. They aren’t prepared to look us (the Australian people) in the eye and state ‘we need more migrants so we have economies of scale for products we produce, or the skills and industries which will be in demand tomorrow’ along with something quantifying how many we need and why, and what the reporting measures of that need are – Maybe something like………

    We need an annual immigration intake of 70 thousand people per annum over the next five years, focused (10% – or 15 or whatever – of total migration per year) on (eg) IT and STEM skills provided:-
    – The national GDP grows at more than 3% per annum,
    – That no more than 10% of those immigrants live within 150 klm of Sydney, Canberra or Melbourne,
    – That the Australian IT development and industries using the STEM skills expand in relation to other sectors of the Australian economy by 2% per annum,
    – That those individuals are paying tax in Australia
    That one half of those immigrating are employed in export competing or import replacing sectors of the economy

    If we can sustain that demand for skills migration then we can have an additional 10% (or 15 or 20 or whatever) for genuine political refugees who would otherwise be facing persecution by authorities in their homelands.

    Provided that the economy is growing and generating the need for skills not currently available in Australia we can have family reunion immigration running at 25% (or 15 or 30 or whatever) of the total migration intake provided:-

    – The individuals are sustaining their life in Australia through endeavours undertaken in Australia.
    – The individuals are sustaining their life in Australia off the earnings of offshore endeavours which are accounted for by both Australian and the relevant foreign taxation authorities
    – That any individuals immigrating to Australia who are over the age of 40 are responsible for their own health insurance in Australia
    – That those migrating to Australia do not reside (and have no entitlement to live for ten years) in any locales where residential real estate prices have increased by more than 10% per annum in any of the previous three years.

    Instead of some genuine barometers of what is economically good for us as a nation we get fed large dollops of utter bullshit. Bullshit of every conceivable variety – mainly to protect the bullshit of a large menagerie of vested interests……..

    Of course there is the utter bullshit from the Hanson end of the spectrum to the effect that each and every Moslem is somehow a threat because the terrorists du jour are Islamic – without going anywhere near identifying that we have had an armed presence in the parts of the world where genuine refugees come from, generating genuine refugee circumstances, and when did we last ask ourselves about the Saudi regime and what it funds, and why we support it? – and have had for generations. That is also before we get to the factoid that Islamic immigration to Australia is pretty small and that the Islamic community here is roughly 2% of us.

    Then there is the one section of the migrant community our politicians do want to talk about – refugees. People who want to rock up on boats uninvited (and only on boats – if they fly in with a visa and happen to overstay then does anybody ever really look for them?) Who we currently shunt to fucking expensive prison camps in PNG and Nauru. These guys make up less than 2% of the people coming to Australia each year. A certain part of me cant help but wonder if the sheer endurance and desperation of some (not all) of these people is maybe something we want in the national mix.

    Then there is the not inconsiderable bullshit sprayed about regarding 457 visas (or special skills needs visas). They were originally designed to cater for skills that Australia didnt have. Somehow we have arrived at a national consensus of trashing our education sectors (indeed running them as loss leader items for the population Ponzi requirement) to the extent that we don’t look at what we have done to meet demand for whatever skills we are importing – is it so unAustralian to run courses for in demand skills? Could there not be a case for telling anyone importing 457s that they can have one 457 for every Australian they are training to exactly the same level they are importing for? We have a system where nobody needs to justify anything anymore they just need to state they have the demand. And that’s before we get to the medical world where a very nice closed shop fronted by Australia’s most powerful union (the AMA) which accredits training volumes, keeps labour costs just where the closed shop wants them and uses migrant doctors as the release valve on public demand (while hammering them for accreditation/skills recognition costs)

    Then there are the dirty little lurks like those poor domino’s Pizza guys or the 7/11 crowd, or every other petrol station we ever wade into. Almost as though we have attached a system of immigration leeches to ourselves who we allow to control the immigration into Australia through an almost mafia like system – the restaurant workers threatened with deportation if they complain about their pay, the sex workers, the fruit pickers, the crowds dodgily scammed through some form of education visa when they are just here to be exploited by people who only want cheap labour – and know the cheapest and most compliant labour will be from offshore and threatenable with a visa revocation. We, Australia, as a nation, have cultivated this ugliness in our world.

    Of course, as the Domainfax piece alludes fairly clearly – and as the 4 Corners piece tonight will make similarly clear – we import a significant security threat with our lack of questions about some Chinese. On the one hand we import the threat because we openly welcome the beneficiaries of corruption that the Chinese want back, but on the other because we aren’t prepared to stand up and openly state that we have sovereign rights in our nation (same as the Chinese do there) and that anyone with connection to a foreign security service, or undertaking activities which are essentially to the benefit of foreign security services will be booted. Our pusillanimity – from politicians taking up board seats on joint ventures controlled by a foreign government, to politicians who put their hand out for financial support, to academics who front for soft power organisations, and journalists who know but never acknowledge what they know – just welcomes that risk in, as well as the ‘values’ and ‘behaviours’ that go with that.

    But beyond that – our simple refusal to state clearly the ‘why’ and ‘how many per annum’ and ‘over what period’ and ‘where they can live’ of immigration…….. if the Australia is captive to a mindset that says private debt is taken out by responsible adults and doesn’t need worrying about then its counterpart is the mindset that seemingly tells us we bring in migrants and don’t worry about what they do or why they do it – they must by definition almost, be productive….. is cruelling Australia’s economic future: The future of those currently immigrating to Australia, and those who have generations worth of ancestry here. And the vast bulk of those who come to (and want to come to) Australia, are those who want it to work – who want a better future for their kids and want to do something productive and want to contribute. What I am talking about is not anti immigration (I was at an Australian citizenship ceremony with my wife last week and count plenty of migrants as close friends), it is about making immigration work.

    All we have done so far is develop an economy which digs things out of the ground or grows them on top of it using about 5% of the people here (and a relatively unskilled 5% at that) and imported more people to divide that bequest between. If we aren’t developing an economy which uses the other 95% and increases skills being used to generate wealth then surely we have to ask why we would run immigration at high levels.

    What we get from both sides of politics and indeed every player in the political spectrum – with the exception of Sustainable Australia, maybe – is a collection of motherhood statements and exhortations, which cultivate a sense that questioning immigration volumes is somehow racist, and that unquestioned high levels of immigration is only ever a good thing.

    In the 106 years between Federation and 2006 Australian had Net Overseas Migration of more than 150k per annum on only 4 occasions. Since 2006 it has run at more than that every year, and for 4 years it has run at double that.

    It is first and foremost a political problem – a simple lack of preparedness on the part of our politicians to baldly state some facts and address the issues they imply. It is simply weak. Being honest with ourselves, is the first step to being honest with the people we would like to migrate here about what they can do for us and what we can do for them – what we can all do which is in the interests of each other. It isn’t a question about race or values or religions. It isn’t even a question about numbers. It is a question about economic logic and our preparedness to be accountable for ourselves as a nation for what we hand over to future Australians.

    • Great rant Gunnamatta! My battery is charged up until at least Wednesday now!

    • Nicely expressed … so how do we get you on 4 Corners?

      Just one point about the Chinese and their spies working in Australia. We too have spies in most of our strategically important countries. They might be operating in a narrower manner (e.g. not targeting our citizens to the same extent, but focusing on information and building local contacts), but they are there, sometimes with the knowledge and sometimes without the knowledge of the host country.

    • That’s all well and good, Gunna, but just to be controversial I think the alleged need for IT/ STEM graduates is overrated.

      To be REALLY controlversial, you could argue that we should run our science based immigration the way every US university does- the main working level is postoc which is 2-3 year contracts and then you’re out.

      Australia imports (or repatriates) far too many second rate scientists who get on tenure and gum up the works. Given there’s no full time work anywhere anyway, you could give people 5 year contracts (be generous, commitment to Australia is a big deal) and then hold on to the top 20% after that time- just like the unis do.

      That probably applies to private industry too.

      But the idea that we need to open the floodgates to thousand of second rate STEM graduates is as much a bad idea as for any other profession.

      • GunnamattaMEMBER

        I personally dont have a problem with that. I was just using IT STEM as an example, and as someone who has been wheeled in to clean up the mess when science/tech types go whacko and cant be shunted I buy your ‘gum the works’ sentiment.

    • thanks for taking the time to post that Gunna…….now all we have to do is see if, as a population, we are capable of rising from our national stupor and demand our political class take the obvious steps

      Don’t know about you’all – I’m not holding my breath

    • Great article and great rant. One aspect that you haven’t considered is the effect on the environment from simply having more people. This isn’t just from the direct impact of the larger population, but also because the ways that Australia earns export income tend to be environmentally damaging, and there will have to be more such activities to pay for the imports that will be needed by the extra people. The Australian Conservation Foundation nominated human population growth in Australia as a key threatening process under the Environmental Protection Act back in 2010. Their submission is well worth reading and explains exactly how this works

      http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/87ef6ac7-da62-4a45-90ec-0d473863f3e6/files/nomination-human-population-growth.pdf

    • Costs and economic implications – this is all that matters hey?

      I understand why this blog focuses on the economic side, but demographic ETHNICITY matters. Anyone that ignores this is IMO incredibly naive and rather clueless about human nature.

      Demographics are destiny – what will you be handing your kids? Will it be Australia? Will it be something else and will that be better?

      “In addition, Kaufmann said, University of Laval professor Patrice Dion has worked with Statistics Canada officials to develop projections that suggest Canada as a whole, at the current rate of immigration, will be almost 80 per cent non-white in less than a century.”

      Australia’s NOM compares to Canada how again?

      The migrants in this country – did they come to change it or be a part of it? I would suggest most are aligned with however you wish to define ‘Australia’ and are happy about that.What about in 40, 80, 100, 200 years? High immigration WILL change that alignment – will the migrants here appreciate that change? Will the new alignment be better?

      Do people think there is just some magic force that creates our culture and that it will remain regardless of demographic breakdown? Multiculturalism – where it is heading – it is nothing but an experiment – its all presumed via a progressive ideology – it does not have a historical frame of reference to fall back on – history tells me it wont pan out like whatever it is people envision.

      Economists understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Immigration should not be a balance sheet question.

      • I agree Cas, the notion of multiculturalism comes from or out of the Civil Rights movement in the US in the 60’s – it reached its zenith with the 1965 change to the immigration act. Then the concept made its way everywhere else…even places where homogenous cultures had built successful societies and political economies.

        We now sit with the impending doom of the demographic tide coming. There will be 4 billion people in Africa in 30 years – if trend continues they will most likely all want to emigrate in some form. When I was born less than 400 million.

        LVO states above “not questioning our commitment to Multiculturalism”. I know why- he must because we (euro defendants)have all been conditioned to caveat any questions around ethnicity or be called racists.

        But I question it unreservedly- why must we be committed to Multiculturalism? Why the self loathing of ones own culture? Only countries with western majorities have to be multicultural, everyone else is exempt. Not too be alarmist – but I’ve been to Sweden and it is palpable. I’ve also been to Zimbabwe and Zambia and South Africa (before and after 94) and I can tell you – being a minority is going to be a mind fuck for progressives.

        If you don’t think it’s coming…sit at Flinders street station or any tram going down St Kilda road, visit any school north west of the Yarra, and think again.

    • Ultimately the test for population size should be, what size leads to the most resilient and sustainable community. If an ever increasing population leads to a weaker economy with poor social and environmental outcomes, then a larger population is not to be encouraged. Really, if the added consumption that comes with an expanding population is going to kill the environment, which sustains all life, then this is the path for a lunatic.

  2. we all know this (though halving doesnt go anywhere near far enough in my view). no one is listening. we need to actually take our message outside of the echo chamber here.

    • On Facebook, Sustainable Australia Party has 20,331 likes.

      Compared to:

      Australian Liberty Alliance with 36,203 likes.
      Family First with 54,362 likes.

      I reckon SAP should leave QLD to Pauline and focus on Vic, NSW, WA. They have launched a Tasmania division – but how much immigration does Tasmania get?

      • yep i like the sustainabilty party dont get me wrong theyre top blokes but i dont think they’re enough. we need an ANTI POPULATION FRONT, one nation, sustainability and just anybody else who wants immigration to be cut. there’d be a lot of incompatible and eclectic voices under that top but we can worry about the rest of policy (and the motivations for that policy) later. stopping this madness should be our number one priority and we need all the help we can get.

      • dick smith has the right idea, back any and every horse thats advocating for less immigration. i follow both one nation and sustainability on facebook, support both. would go to the meetings of both if they had them in dubbo.

  3. Coincidentally I watched a documentary on the Hillsborough disaster tonight on ESPN. Australia (well Sydney at least) is feeling a bit like that – trying to cram more and more people into a limited space with no contingencies.

  4. Rob Burgess is a nutter. He may call it “policy failure” but the ALP refuse to build enough schools. The schools are overcrowded. Not just in the inner city but even 18 km away!

    Peter Martin calls it “prosperity”!

    Not to mention, a great chunk of the “skilled” immigrants in AUS are on illegal wages – thus paying no income tax at all! But using taxpayer funded services like trains and roads. And denying Aussies like me a job – be it driving a truck or operating a boom gate.

    Of course, no globalist can explain why AUS should have a much higher immigration rate than Canada and England.

  5. Population growth is what keeps the property bubble going. No property owning politician is going to cut back.

    Instead, I expect the opposite: If the economy sputters, more immigrants will be let in.

  6. Guys is there any hint other than one nation that they will cut – major parties aren’t saying anything

    • ErmingtonPlumbing

      They both fear starting a race to the bottom on numbers, that will piss of the business comunity and outrage the always ready to strike, identity politics brigade.

      At my branch meetings, I’m persistantly calling for the number to be lowered to 120k/year and see what happens,… if the libs go lower, we can stand our ground and say that their number is to low and will cause a, to greater shock to the economy. If they go higher then we can claim our number is more supportive of youth employment, wage growth, and sustainability.

      The apparachicks of both Parties want to avoid having this subject debated in the public arena at all,…but this debate has been put off for to long and the public now realise that our country’s high rate is affecting their standard of living, all without any democratic debate or consultation whatsoever.

  7. reusachtigeMEMBER

    Australia is quite boring and needs much more population so as to increase its vibrancy!

    • GunnamattaMEMBER

      Couldnt we teach ourselves to be more vibrant?

      Theres an awful lot of real estate speculators about – so that should be vibrant……and if their cloacas all start puckering at the same time i would have thought there would be a rhythm to it.

    • If you’re looking to increase your vibrancy, you’ll be much better buying yourself a vibrator than importing 400,000 people a year…

      I mean – hell – you could get a shipment of these, for the Sydney and Melbourne areas, turn them on at the same time for added vibrancy.

      • blacktwin997MEMBER

        Only if we import more coloured ones than white ones, otherwise we’ll be racistly vibrant which, as well we all know, is just not on.

  8. What happened to those Crown employees that were arrested, are they still behind bars?

  9. ‘Mass immigration is a strange amalgam of a Left ideology that condemns any cut back as racist and a Right ideology that knows of no other way to grow the economy.’

    That’s it in a nutshell.

    Reusa, don’t they pass around the vibrators at the good looking PI parties?

    • Spin the vibrator? 😀 Now that’s a crowd pleaser warm-up game at Reusa’s swingin’ parties…

  10. Leftists screeching about their suburbs turning into a McApartment infest dystopia one minute then the next calling everyone who doesn’t want mass immigration Hitler. Tea and bickie boomer morons wilfully oblivious. Their old 70s houses worth 1.5m. They must be brilliant.

    With this sort of cretinism going on there’s no hope. May as well look into becoming a slumlord. Where’s the next to go boom? The goldy is my guess.

    • Simón Bolívar

      Why is any of that exclusively leftist ?

      Pretty sure right wing conservatives are the ones throwing the door open, throwing up developments all over the place, screaming at anyone who dares do one in Toorak, and lauding themselves for being the worst of the worst rent seekers.

      Your blinkers are on so tight its cutting the circulation to your head.

      • At least people on the left try to inject some quality into immigration. As noted by cancelling hair dressing and cake making PRs. The right just welcome the low skilled to supress wages.

    • eyes on the ground @ Goldy here. Went to auction last week in Burleigh Waters, passed in with zero bids, less than 10 present & vendor bid $700k (4 bedder on water) – no response. Auction ended within 2 minutes. It’s just desperate RE agents trying to make desperate commissions. Bank has also lowered the valuation on my house (by $100k last week).

  11. Imagine an Australia where skilled people were the countries main asset.
    Imagine an Australia where Chinese merchants lined up ten abreast to purchase goods made possible by superior Aussie Technology.
    Now imagine the political, social and economic settings that would deliver just such a wondrous country.
    Is this country protectionist?
    Is this country inward or outward looking?
    Is this country preoccupied with what they own today OR with what their increased global wealth will enable them to acquire?

    I’m not against controls on Immigration but I’m dead against the delusional thinking that all will be OK if we just restrict Immigration. How does Immigration reduce our chances of becoming such a wondrous country? Even a cursory look at the facts shows that Immigrants and their offspring are over represented in the Import / Export industries. They are our Globalists, they’re the green-shoots on which such a globally prosperous country could be built.
    Or we could take the knee-jerk response and just blame the most recent arrival for our woes, the fruit of seeds sown a generation ago.
    It’s pathetic watching Whitey mismanage my country.

    My country, ’tis of thee,
    Sweet land of liberty,
    Of thee I sing;
    Land where my fathers died,

    Opps wrong words :
    Advance Australia Fair ….yeah that’s what I meant to say.

    • How does Immigration reduce our chances of becoming such a wondrous country?

      The current immigration model just streams all of those people into the big cities. Big cities no longer perform the function that they used to in past centuries. We no longer need people in one place to be productive. Most people in the big cities just live in sky kennels and have no purpose other than being consumers. Parasites.

      We actually don’t know what will be the best way to organise society in the future, but parasitic mega cities is probably not the best. Opening the floodgates to satisfy a broken economic delusion with growth as progress looks like a mistake.

      If you are stuck in a hole, stop digging.

      • Maybe a big part of our problem is the economic, political and monetary settings which encourage all Australians to focus inwardly rather than outwardly.
        I realize that modern economic theory suggests that our Exchange rate is the only lever that we should expect to adjust the distribution of our focus (inward vs outward) yet it is exactly this lever that is jammed against the limits by the flow of unproductive capital. I think it’s about time the RBA acknowledged the unintended consequences of allowing unrestrained/unproductive capital flows, I suspect a solution to the Capital flow problem would in and of itself restore us to a balanced position on Inward/outward focus making Immigration adjustments completely unnecessary.

      • Just to clarify my position.
        I believe that it is these unproductive capital flows which enable the growth of our megacities. If we can remove this excess capital from the equation than we will make our cities economically unattractive to new migrants. As it is today you’re a fool if you choose to live anywhere but in Sydney/ Melbourne because house ownership in either of these cities comes with a guaranteed $100K/year wealth increase for doing absolutely nothing…it’s the rest of Australia that’ll be picking up the tab.
        Economic Migrants might be many things but for the most part they’re not stupid, if your countries wealth distribution system has an obvious flaw than they’ll be quick to recognize and exploit this flaw, but is it their fault that your systems has this flaw?
        Will the flaw be fixed by reducing Immigration, seem to me the flaw that I’m referring to has absolutely nothing to do with Immigration, making it a very brave call to assume that reduced immigration will fix the problem.

      • Economic Migrants might be many things but for the most part they’re not stupid, if your countries wealth distribution system has an obvious flaw than they’ll be quick to recognize and exploit this flaw, but is it their fault that your systems has this flaw?

        Why do we want to import people who intend to exploit our weaknesses?

        So, if I forget to lock my back door and someone comes in and steals the TV, it is my own fault? They are not at fault since I didn’t lock the door. OK.

        Overall I can’t follow your rambling magic pudding economic argument, so perhaps you need to elaborate.

    • Heh. And the dude she bribed died in a “weightlifting accident”. Yeah, right.

    • blacktwin997MEMBER

      And make sure that they’re multicoloured trains too, because you know, racism.

      Everybody loves a vibrant multicultural packed train!

      • Blacktwin997.

        Funny comment.

        You may have seen a few months ago in Melbourne some ‘female’ looking figures were installed at traffic light pedestrian crossings. Unfuckingbelievable. PC BS.

        Mate of mine commented ….”what about some transgender figures” …. we don’t want to have anyone offended or marginalised.

        I was an ex cricketer. For the past 10 years ‘batsmen’ have been called ‘batters’. Really pisses me off.

        Why don’t the feminist PC mafia lobby for the abolition of the word ‘human’?

      • blacktwin997MEMBER

        Straight up hareeba, it’s fucking ridiculous and your mate is right. I’m sure this whole PC clusterfuck is gleefully supported by the big end of town mostly to keep people docile so that the business lobby can continue to pack people in to reap the financial rewards and screw us over without anyone raising complaint.
        The PC BS SJW progressive crowd have even cowed most all the political caste, virtually none of those numpty chucklefucks dare so much as raise the matter even tangentially from an infrastructure/sustainability angle – it’s like they’re not aware how much instant traction they’d get for articulating what many ordinary Australians are feeling. Honestly if politicians grew some balls and decency, they’d have more engagement than they knew what to do with. I love the idea of SAP but they’re almost too kind and measured for their own good. This topic needs some polarising attention drawn to it. Like stagmal says an Anti Population Front or something else candid and concise, preferably with an acronym other than ‘WTF’ or ‘NFI’.

    • I wasn’t going to say anything but since you asked: IMO all these threads requesting a reduction in immigration seem completely out of step with economic reality. Why would any government plunge head first into guaranteed recession? You may make fun of my love for trains but after housing, infrastructure is all we will have left.

      • Nothing against trains or necessary infrastructure. But we need to catch up in that respect while immigration is reduced.

        Reducing your opposition to such on a fear of causing recession only confirms the folly of the population ponzi. Living standards are declining for everyone while on this path. I don’t see any benefits to such a policy. Our economy obviously needs another direction if pumping the population is the only way we can maintain economic activity.

        You obviously believe two wrongs make a right.

        You are all on your own Kipron. I suppose you don’t believe in global warming either?

      • And another thing Kipron …. there are plenty of other industries besides real estate and infrastructure we could develop and expand to broaden our economy. Silly comment.

      • ^
        Hareeba, why did you even single me out in the first place? I’m very flattered, but I’m already taken. :p

  12. I agree! But let me stay! 🙂 I’m a rich, well educated Kiwi who loves Australia. I want to keep Australia the wonderful country it is, not change it. But I recognise that every country must maintain immigration policies that benefit the country. If the policy does not benefit your country, do NOT do it! That is really what the immigration conversation should be about. It’s not a charity. You have to decide what immigration is beneficial (because of course immigration CAN be beneficial to a country). Don’t let the leftist-globalist governments tell you what is beneficial. It’s fair to ask, “How does immigration benefit my economy?” “How does immigration preserve the country’s values and the country’s security?” Those are reasonable, intelligent questions to ask. It’s not healthy to close the doors of a country entirely; but do NOT let the globalists convince you that their view of immigration is the only view. It’s important to have a free and open discussion. It’s YOUR country after all! Not theirs!

    • Sean.

      The only people benefiting from excessive migration are the banks, property developers and some retail.

      How have you benefited? I personally haven’t with all the fucking traffic and ridiculous real estate ponzi.

      Why is it not healthy to shut our doors for the time being to migration? Some refugees sure. But I see no good reason that Australia’s population should increase at all. Dick Smith to the moon.

      It won’t be long before we have no Koalas left. I am not necessarily connecting this to migration levels but it all ties into the never ending growth mindset. There is enough humans in this country.

      • Well, I would say NO REFUGEES. If we are feeling charitable, our charity can take other forms, such as relief work abroad, or supporting infrastructure building in their homeland. Maybe even stop bombing them? What a concept! But there is no “benefit” to a country to accept refugees. That is charity, and I would argue charity can take other forms.

        As for the real estate ponzi, I could not agree with you more. All immigration doesn’t have to be about real estate though. That was a terrible mistake Australia has made, along with other countries like New Zealand and Canada. But the fact is, economically, you DO want SOME immigration. Selectively. Why wouldn’t you want the next physicist who harnesses zero point energy, or the entrepreneur who starts the next Foster’s Beer? That benefits the country, and all Australians.

        If you do not allow SOME immigration, you do guarantee losing competitiveness and you risk stagnation. It’s your country to decide who immigrates. Choose the best, the brightest, the kindest, even the prettiest. Why not? You only have everything to gain.

      • Why wouldn’t you want the next physicist who harnesses zero point energy, or the entrepreneur who starts the next Foster’s Beer?

        Junk physics and alcoholic cordial? Is that the best we can hope for?

  13. The growth lobby is destroying this country and will not stop until it’s bursting at the seams. Scratch that, will not stop…ever.

  14. Not sure where to offer this self evident observation whilst watching 4 corners, but Sam Dastyari is a complete f#cking moron …

  15. Not sure where to offer this self evident observation whilst watching 4 corners, but Andrew Robb is a complete f#cking c#tnt…