If you can’t put a roof over your head then what’s the point of anything?

Yesterday a variety on commenters on the site pulled out dog whistles, hinted darkly of racism, alleged bias and lorded it over me for criticising the Greens and their immigration policy. One even suggested I was obsessed with it despite never having written on the subject before.

Well…you know what? I am obsessed with immigration. Do you know why? Because the economy is. And that’s what MB does.

Immigration is now the central driver of the Australian economy. It drives the housing bubble. It drives private debt. It drives wages. It drives investment patterns. It drives public spending. It drives the current account.

We are in the midst of an immigration boom the likes of which we have never seen before. Not because we have not seen larger inflows but because we have never seen such huge flows into such a weak economy. It is now a key driver of everything.

This is easy to prove:

  • house prices are mad in the immigration centres of Sydney and Melbourne driving big wealth effects;
  • real consumption per capita has not risen since 2008 so all household consumption is being driven by headcount increases;
  • domestic demand is heavily supported by dwelling construction directly resulting from immigration;
  • public investment is a desperate rear guard action to build-out crush-loaded infrastructure.

That’s three quarters of the economy right there. There is nothing else left to drive domestic demand growth. That’s it: immigration and its multipliers.

Should be good, right? Sure, if it were planned right.

But it isn’t. Indeed it is deliberately planned wrong.

Mass immigration today is not about supporting the living standards of existing residents. It is the opposite. It’s a deliberate policy to deflate their living standards so that a few chosen rent seekers – banks, retailers, consumer services, builders – can avoid any fallout in the post-mining boom adjustment. That is the process of repairing Australian competitiveness as the mining boom inflation falls away.

This immigration deflation takes three obvious forms: lower wages, higher house prices and poorer standards in public services and infrastructure.

Mass immigration is no longer a marginal policy supporting other ways to grow the economy. It has become the tail wagging the dog and is now a rabid class war aimed at workers and youth so that capital in these sectors can enjoy the out-sized returns of yesteryear’s bubble.

Now, the irony of this is that those that generally care more about the the prospects for the working classes, youth and generally more vulnerable – loosely couched as the Left – are also traditionally the strongest supporters of immigration. However, as I’m sure you see, in the immigration driven deflating economy, this same Left has morphed unwittingly into the front line shock troops for an oligarchic putsch that is herding the working classes and youth into the economic mincer.

It’s no laughing matter having your wages deflated and houses taken away. I know that millennials pretend not to care, enjoying “experiences” over “stuff”.  And that working class folks take on monster mortgages to crawl into far flung postage stamp McMansions while wealthy immigrants and greedy landed locals pluck prime property in the centre.

But take a look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, a pop psychology take the needs of the human being:

Look at the base of the pyramid: security, safety, food, water, warmth rest. Do you know what each of those variables adds up to? Two things: wages and a house.

The unholy alliance between immigration and the chardonnay Left is playing a key role in ripping those two base levels of the human pyramid away from the the most vulnerable Australians. The Left has joined and is the prime defender of an outrageous class war.

Some will counter by using my own analysis against me. They will argue that if immigration is all that is holding the economy together then the vulnerable will suffer more if it is cut. True enough in the short term. But beyond your nose that is wrong. What will happen is asset prices will deflate and the Australian dollar tumble as interest rates fall to zero. Wages will still taper but more widely and the post-mining boom deflation will be more shared across the nation. The class war will be replaced by a program of mutual sacrifice between wages and capital. The recovery will come from tradable sectors.

Others will counter that there are more pressing matters for the Greens and traditional Left  to focus on, such as addressing climate change. True enough as well. Likely, the Greens’ mass immigration policy is predicated on the notion that we need to foster global integration to deal with a global problem. Global government may be necessary.

Quite right too. Nobody is going to accuse me of not supporting the cause. I spent ten years pushing the international climate change agenda from 2000 at The Diplomat. I nearly killed myself ghost writing the second Garnaut Climate Change Review (literally ended up in hospital for two weeks), and have ceaselessly campaigned for accelerated carbon mitigation policy at MB.

But if this spirit is not leavened by the pragmatism of understanding and supporting the needs of a local population then the battle will be lost to anger, confusion and demagoguery. To put it bluntly, why should anyone give a shit about climate change if it rips the roof from his or her head?

The miracle in all of this is that youth does still care. What a marvelous generation the Millennials are. Through the miracle of education they shine with a global ethic and post-cultural identity that is as close to the perfect humanist construct in history as we’re ever likely to get. They are equipped with the values to change the world for the better.

But for the rest of us to misuse that, to spit on it and cut it loose in the world without an anchor, to shit on it from our castles as we stuff ourselves with myriad international cuisines personally delivered by some bicycling sub-altern desperate for a visa, that is fucking obscene.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)


    • We all think the title. If the government has no control over one of the most basic fundamentals of human existence then they should just f*ck off.

      • The government can’t even control health. NSW is now so crowded, you can’t even get into an a hospital in and Emergency.
        For 2 hours yesterday there were no available ambulances in NSW – The hospitals were so full they could not unload patients.

        Getting health care in an emergency is an even more basic need than a roof over your head, literally a matter of life and death.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        That’s the Negative belief , the “oligarchic putsch” want you to have about elective Government, a belief that it’s beyond repair, Impractical and unnecessary. A belief that by simply “[email protected] Government off” or massively reducing its size, we will all be so much better off,…we won’t be.
        The Solution is More Democratic accountability,…not less, the Enemy to us all is Concentrated POWER, just look at human history, it’s always the same, the More POWER in fewer hands, the shitter the outcomes for “the People” (thats us),… It’s never been any different and it never will be.

      • Markus, it’s time to start calling what the fuckers have done to us what it is. Treason.

      • @EP, I agree “no government” is not the answer. Gov could very easily send how prices tumbling down in a very big way if they really wanted to. They choose not to.

      • HadronCollision

        Markus – you are saying there were no ambulances in all of NSW, or in metro parts of Sydney. They are very different things.

      • Our dumb politicians. Not just the current set of psychopathic clowns have trashed this country. They will NEVER build the required infrastructure. We have yet to have an economic down turn which will be an interesting experience.

    • Great article H&H…I’m in. First (reasonable) pollie who starts talking about this gets my support.

  1. There is no NICE answer!

    Your campaign on immigration is admirable and was never ever going to make you popular. Perhaps some of your critics might think about that.

    • He remembers Lang saying: “Mr Keating, you’ll never be anyone until you have a reasonable stock of enemies”.

      “It is just so true … And of course having enemies worries some people; for me, it is a badge of honour. I don’t care about it – it has never worried me that a group of people would have not a bar of me”.

  2. JspitzerMEMBER

    That’s why I live in Bali and will never live in Sydney with my kids again. Sheer stupidity. Get a life. There is nothing more green than sustainability, and nothing bigger for sustainability than overpopulating. Dick Smith for PM.

    • I’m expecting a kid and just bought in Tasmania. The roof certainly comes first.
      I bought it with cash. Its close to the shops and schools. The house has FTTP and the weather is nice (I like the cold)
      Thats enough.
      What the fuck will i do in Tassy? No idea. I don’t care.
      I’ll figure it out later.

  3. population is the master switch for not just the economy, but our entire way of life and the general ‘vibe’ of entire nations. a country with 1 billion people in it is a qualitatively very different country to live in compared to a country with 20 million in it. population growth, as driven by immigration, changes everything about how we live, the towns and suburbs we nostalgically look to and grew up in and how we percieve ourselves in relation to our living environment and the people around us. emphasis on population (and thus immigration) is DUE because it is the most important issue this country, and perhaps all other nations face. it affects everybody; from the individual level up to the national level.

    we are right to talk about it all the time, and we are right to draw the obvious connections it has to all of the things we have identified as subjectively and objectively disagreeable. why are there so many intent on silencing discussion on this fundamental issue?

    • Very well said MB. It’s about soverienty and living standards. But it’s also about – and this is the real contentious part – diversity versus unity. The sacred cow of diversity must also be challenged. When excessive, as it is now, the fabric of unity in society is ripped apart. Debate must also extend to excessive multiculturalism, beyond economics,

      • Those buzzwords are merely euphemisms that are easy to sell and hard to debate because they enter the public sphere from a position of perceived moral ideal. They solve nothing, and as you rightly pointed out, hand in hand, traded for unity which is far more sensible, but less useful as a political tool.

      • I would add, harmony and cohesiveness as positive aspects of a functioning society. Where ever we see social breakdown today, there is an underlying theme of overpopulation leading to scarcity, hunger and conflict. These are the symptoms of crushing ever more people into a finite space. Australia is suffering from the effects as well.

        When Geldof raised $286 million for famine in Africa in 1985 through Band Aid, Ethiopia’s population was just hitting 40 million. Today that population has grown to over 100 million and we are again seeing children suffering malnutrition and worse. This is not caused by drought or civil war or corruption or mal-administration. These things flow from overpopulation. If Ethiopia of Sth Sudan had stabilised its population in the 1980’s it would have sailed through the current dry period.

        Trying to fix the housing issue in Australia’s two major cities by adding +100K people pa to each is just crazy.

      • sydboy007MEMBER

        Why is diversity something only “white” countries are required to import? The Japanese seem to be quite happy remaining pretty much Japanese with minimal attacks from the left.

      • SupernovaMEMBER

        Diversity is easier for “political-control”…fragment a population and have them disagreeing with each other and consensus becomes difficult. The academic-elites believe they can socially-construct but all they are doing is pushing the boundaries for their own employment sustainability whilst creating divisions within society which their political masters employ. Bluntly, it’s social-construction Vs evolution and some who understand Biology from a graduate level have a reasonable idea where this is taking us….I’m like a spectator watching this disaster unfold, and its horrible to watch!

  4. PrinceOfPersia

    Thanks H&H. I always find your commentary informative and logical. We are in a mess here in Australia and it is going to get much worst before people starting to realise the reality.

  5. It is not just shrinking wages but shrinking job opportunities (growing unemployment) due to the 457 visa rort.

    What about Aussies sleeping in their own cars:


    Channel 7 reported on this phenomena a few years ago.

    It is so perverse. People in the 3rd world can not afford a car so they buy a motorcycle. In AUS people can not afford a house so they sleep in their own car.

    This is how cheap rent should be:


  6. We seem to have entered a period that is well and truly post rational. The mainstream views on immigration do not have even the slightest hint of rational thinking. What is worse is that hardly anyone seems to notice. Dick Smith is regarded as a nut, despite saying sensible things. Bernard Salt is considered a font of wisdom. The statistics and graphs do no good at all, regardless of how many times you print them.

    Somehow, the consensus has been moved to believe that ideology surpasses reason. We should never have allowed that to happen, but somehow we did. Reversing that trend might be almost impossible.

    • We are indeed in the post-logic era where everything is called “offensive” or “racist” and a man is guilty until proven innocent!

      Where virtue signaling is the order of the day.

      Where 2 gay journalists in The Guardian cheer on mass immigration from Asia (where no nation allows gay marriage) – to the detriment of gay workers and gay unemployed alike.

      Where 18L/min shower heads are banned even though there is a colossal desalination plant just 10 km away.

      Where traditional tungsten light bulbs are banned even though a professor said LED/CFL bulbs cause depression in some people.

      • @ JadonMN

        Dont be ridiculous. There is a whole branch of electrical industry that deals with (workplace) lighting and 99% of it deals with hte quality of lighting not just lumens and luxes that emit from a light soirce.
        I do not support revert to incadescent globes that convert only a few % of the energy to light but i also do not turn blind eye to the perils of entry level led and cfl light (as prevalent today)..
        Just because your eyes and mind will adapt to bad light it does not mean that bad is not as bad.

      • CCF/LED may not cause depression, but the lighting spectrum is artificial, not a continuous black body spectrum from a glowing element.

        People should be free to choose what they want, and pay extra in power bills if they prefer the old fashioned bulbs.

      • Djenka, LED can be pretty much tailored to mimic natural light. It is the same argument as with the cold light of early phosphors in FL, not an issue. In fact the inevitable flickering frequency of FL affects more people than poor LED (unless you have a cheap driver in which case you will get flickering too, not dumb proof)

      • Taiwan has same sex marriage, but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

      • @ JasonMNan

        I do not disagree with you, mimic is the best it will ever do. Your eyes/mind will adapt but there is a hidden cost.
        But to get anything remotely acceptable it cost $. Most common household LED lights will hardly surpass CRI 80 level, venture into CRI95 (medical LED’s) and we are already talking 4-5 digit $ cost. And that is only the CRI…
        I may not call it “a depression to some” but at most it would affect the mood. See what Marcus said on glow.

    • He should be pissed. Elements of the left and right (in both the media, politics and everyday life) are very quick to howl racism when their unsustainable immigration policies and world views are challenged. It’s appears easier for some to label others a racist or populist than engage in difficult debates about sustainable economic growth and globalisation. I think many on here share h&h frsutration and dispear and the quality of debate around these issues

    • The Traveling Wilbur

      It’s a possibility. He accidentally just blamed the boomers in the past few paragraphs.

      Don’t blame him though.

    • Have you ever tried to talk to a normal person about this? They’re a bunch of mouthbreathers. It makes you pissed. I’ve given up myself.

  7. Superb H&H. Superb.

    And your last statements about the Millennials has given an ageing Gen Xer like me a little hope.

    • hareebaMEMBER


      Just watched that whole episode.

      Truly fucked what is going on. Feel like buying a gun and taking out these rich pricks out one by one.

      • Yep it borders on obscene on how rich these top 1 percenters have become. It’s crazy to think that all these multi billionaires have so much money, that they could not even spend it all even if they tried. I currently live in Cambodia which gives me a harsh reality check of the poverty that really exist in this world. They should be giving it back to society by the truck load in a way that everyone benefits rather than starting a “feel good” Foundation or occasional donation to charity that is tax deductible.

        Here is the final Part 2 of this series which also good to watch!


  8. Don’t let the dullards, disingenuous, and demagogues grind you down mate. Just keep doing what you’re doing: writing for the remaining 99% and calling it as you see it. Few people do this, but it is something that must be done: the mob will only come to its senses if someone points out that the emperor has no clothes.

  9. “We are in the midst of an immigration boom the likes of which we have never seen before.”

    It certainly looks that way when looking at nominal intake, but that doesn’t really tell the whole story. How about a chart showing immigration as a percentage of the population (perhaps rolling annual)?

    • desmodromicMEMBER

      BB, that by definition is a ponzi scheme and many of us want no part of it. If the ‘percentage of population’ is the justification of the present state of affairs then the ‘whole story’, as you put it, is more about capture and transfer of wealth than it is about the welfare of most Australians.

      • Not suggesting it’s justification, nor do I agree with continuing to run at current levels, but it’s disingenuous to suggest we are facing a boom like we have never seen before unless measured in ‘real’ terms.

        Perhaps these are the sort of ‘white lies’ needed to drive home a political agenda. Doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with the way the case is argued. For all I know the growth rate (measured against population) is at the highest levels we’ve ever seen, I haven’t run the numbers, but genuinely interested in seeing the chart. If we are at growth levels seen in the past then we can assume that the same problems now would have been observed in the past? If not, perhaps there is more to today’s story?

      • +1 BB

        It is always a good idea to see both the absolute numbers and the percentage – also to see both linear and logarithmic plots.

      • desmodromicMEMBER

        BB, I don’t interpret the emphasis as a ‘white lie’—more that the mathematics of growth isn’t part of the debate or well understood. Small increases in the rate of growth have dramatic effects on the doubling time of any population. We are about to be squeezed See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8

      • “Small increases in the rate of growth have dramatic effects on the doubling time of any population.”

        Is that what we’ve had (a small increase in the rate of population / immigration growth)? Can you post the chart? Would love to see what it looks like going back to circa 1900.

        BTW coming up with an arbitrary ‘acceptable’ level of population growth in nominal terms is no less ponzi like, it just means we are growing to infinity at a slower rate. If Australia is ‘at capacity’ we should be aiming for zero NOM.

      • To be fair having just spent a few days in Adelaide there is definitely room for a few more immigrants down here!

        Barely a crane to be seen. We should stop feeding them in Sydney and perhaps they will fly south to SA!

        Super cheap land and apartments is all that is required.

        SA is definitely cheaper but still not cheap enough.

        Though with the $AUD pumped up on the steroids of unproductive capital inflows (pumping up Sydney and Melbourne asset prices) there may not be any work for new arrivals.

        Time for SA to leave the $AUD zone (along with Tassie, WA, QLD and NT)

      • Know IdeaMEMBER

        Good point. When visiting Adelaide from Sydney I am always taken aback by the change in ethnic make up. A bit like traveling from Chatswood to Bellevue Hill.

      • A practical limit is around 20 million at current living standards, lesser is better of course, at a global scale too. Thankfully global populations will stabilise this century, so there’s no need for Australia to take on more people.
        Instead the focus should be on mitigating the effects of the too big population on the environment now, including a robust food security policy.
        This all takes long term planning PLUS a realisation by government, business and the wider community that a lower or stable population is the proper way forward.
        Which to paraphrase Captain Sean Connery, I give one chance out of three of happening…

      • HadronCollision

        Chris what is this number based on please?

        Productive capacity of economy?


        Housing density and location?

        Water availability?

        Food production capacity?

      • theres no magical or ideal number as CSIRO shows it depends on a variety of conditions, changes in environment, changes in food production methods and consumption, land use etc.
        It can even be higher, but would require a lower standard of living (including lower calorie consumption).
        The most important factor is robustness – the risks increase substantially by gaming the equation to get a higher number.
        Further, theres no valid argument to increase population for “security” reasons. 30 million, 60 million, 100 million Australians, it wont matter.

    • BB,

      So you want Gov services to go back to the level of 1900? I’d suggest the immigration rate back then would have a different impact to now based on what society expects the gov to provide.

  10. The expanded hierarchy of needs:

    It is important to note that Maslow’s (1943, 1954) five stage model has been expanded to include cognitive and aesthetic needs (Maslow, 1970a) and later transcendence needs (Maslow, 1970b).

    Changes to the original five-stage model are highlighted and include a seven-stage model and a eight-stage model, both developed during the 1960’s and 1970s.

    1. Biological and Physiological needs – air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc.

    2. Safety needs – protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, etc.

    3. Love and belongingness needs – friendship, intimacy, trust and acceptance, receiving and giving affection and love. Affiliating, being part of a group (family, friends, work).

    4. Esteem needs – self-esteem, achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility, etc.

    5. Cognitive needs – knowledge and understanding, curiosity, exploration, need for meaning and predictability.

    6. Aesthetic needs – appreciation and search for beauty, balance, form, etc.

    7. Self-Actualization needs – realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.

    8. Transcendence needs – helping others to achieve self actualization.


    Disheveled…. don’t know how one can consider the higher order when the first 3 are increasingly dysfunctional…. have more to say, but the job calls…..

      • The Traveling Wilbur

        He had additional needs: royalties, publication credits for tenure, etc. ; )

      • TTW….

        Conversely it might suggest that he had not fallen onto some Kantian pit and could not observe any more….

  11. ‘But for the rest of us to misuse that, to spit on it and cut it loose in the world without an anchor, to shit on it from our castles as we stuff ourselves with myriad international cuisines personally delivered by some bicycling sub-altern desperate for a visa, that is fucking obscene.’

    As many above have put it, this is brilliant.

  12. Tassie TomMEMBER

    Brilliant article. Well reasoned, non-emotive, unbiased, non-partisan.

    Someone once said to me “it’s hard to be green when you’re in the red”. Your third-last paragraph essentially supports this statement. So true, and should be a fundamental foundation for The Greens.

  13. Splendid article HnH! You should be proud of what you have written. It is the heartfelt sincerity of the MB views that make it a national treasure.

  14. house prices are mad in the immigration centres of Sydney and Melbourne driving big wealth effects;
    real consumption per capita has not risen since 2008 so all household consumption is being driven by headcount increases;
    domestic demand is heavily supported by dwelling construction directly resulting from immigration;
    public investment is a desperate rear guard action to build-out crush-loaded infrastructure.

    Lets dissect each of these points and see if immigration is still the big bad boogie man that your suggesting
    Can house prices inflate without immigration?
    The answer is an obvious YES even MB carries on about the high vacancy rates in both Syd/Melb, you’ve even gone as far as suggesting a vacancy tax. Immigration might add stress to an already crowded city but it is not actually necessary for price escalation….all that’s needed is the available capital and naturally the belief that House prices NEVER go down.
    Real consumption per capita has not risen since 2008
    Might have something to do with the global realization that most of our Human capital is worthless, bit like horses once the Internal combustion engine was perfected, horse power wasn’t worth the cost of the food, slaughter houses were even refusing to take horses so they were buried in ditches along the side of the road. One can only pray that our worthless human capital secures a better deal.
    domestic demand is heavily supported by dwelling construction
    Again does dwelling construction require residents, or does it simply require available capital and the sort of deluded accounts keeping that suggests an empty apartment is an asset. Poor Immigrants might rent a cheap apartment but they’re certainly not the driver of this economic madness. Rich immigrants might buy an apartment but guess what that sale represents foreign income (export income) and we didn’t even need to send them the product (house) they left it right where it always was. no change in housing stock, if it is empty than there’s one less local school aspirant.
    public investment is a desperate rear guard action to build-out crush-loaded infrastructure.
    I’d politely suggest that 30 plus years of infrastructure neglect has far more to do with our current “crush loadings” than all other causes combined. I used to live in Gladesville and remember as a kid seeing plans for an underground rail-line coming out along Victoria road from the city towards Paramatta. Guess what, I’ve long since moved away but others are still waiting for this Infrastructure. Over the years we’ve seen countless case studies (all very well funded) but no rail line not even the beginnings of a rail line. We have absolutely nothing to show for 50 plus years of “planning”…now that’s fucking pathetic by anyones standards.

    • Well said – quite a few different components have been thrown in and mixed up.

      Especially the issue of the rich migrants who push up house prices in some areas and the poor migrants who may clog up our urban infrastructure but are irrelevant in setting the house prices needs to be separated – I saw quite a few people were confused.

    • You understand maths and engineering and business CB, but your feeling for society and history is utterly absent. When a society is cohesive, it can accomplish anything. We have sold out our society and replaced it with a market.

    • Any idiot knows that MB supports a full range of reform options to address all of those problems. We’ve argued a single hand at it for seven years.

      Instead Straya has poured mass immigration all over the top of them so that it did not have to address them, which has made them much worse and inseparable.

      That’s indefensible and it’s time to stop it.

      • I guess the big difference between us is that I don’t see this structure we call Straya surviving for another 50 years in anything like the nation-state concept that we’ve grown accustomed to.
        Consider the problem of housing and feeding 9B people all with the same rights, what’s the logical population load for our continent “Straya’ assuming that these global conditions prevail?
        How can any of our selfish actions be defended if others must die elsewhere for us to simply maintain our status?
        We’re saving the planet for whom?

    • “I’d politely suggest that 30 plus years of infrastructure neglect has far more to do with our current “crush loadings” than all other causes combined.”

      Even if that’s true, then let’s fix that, instead of frantically stuffing more and more people into a system that already is at breaking point. By doing otherwise our government is deliberately acting against the interests of its citizens.

      • “Even if that’s true, then let’s fix that, instead of frantically stuffing more and more people into a system that already is at breaking point. ”

        Exactly!! Failure to do so will probably result in serious political and social problems. But given we don’t have much organic economic growth I don’t see politicians changinf direction.

    • I see the argument as BECAUSE of some of those points you raise, we therefore need to reduce the intake. We are a badly maintained Datsun 180B being driven like a new Ferrari….eventually shit gonna break.

    • You guys do understand that Immigrants are people.
      These people exist, they weren’t bred to become immigrants, they’re just people who are hoping they can escape extreme dysfunction and build a better life for themselves. These people exist whether they come to Australia or not. These people are just as human as any that walk the streets of Vaucluse or Toorak they’re just as deserving of a good life as any other human, At MB you champion to “save the world” from climate change but apparently this salvation is not for THEM, it’s just for us…..and who ever said that Aussie are loosing their religion, from what I can see no loss at all, just a religious shift to the cult of climate-change….it’s got to be the fastest growing religion ever.

      • BF you say ” they’re just people who are hoping they can escape extreme dysfunction and build a better life for themselves”
        so the idea is to spread the dysfunction and reduce the quality of life for those already here? You’re experiment won’t be complete until the whole planet is brought down to 3rd world conditions. How is that a good idea?
        Further, we are going to need some structured society maintained somewhere if we’re are going to develop the solutions that might save the planet and ultimately get us out of this mess.

      • @Pedals Yep we have a choice wrt immigration
        – we can spread their dysfunction to our land
        -we can create value by efficiently/effectively deploying these human resources

        It’s a choice, these are people that are extremely motivated to build a better life for themselves, so we can all prosper if we create the economic/political framework that rewards their hard work. Today’s framework does not deliver value to the immigrant nor does it create value for the Aussie born, it’s simply a transparent and selfish way for the rich to reward themselves by stealing the collective wealth of our nation.

      • OR
        -we can create value by efficiently/effectively deploying these human resources

        Whenever someone promotes immigration and growth it eventually comes back to 19th century economics and magic puddings.

      • The Patrician

        “just a religious shift to the cult of climate-change….it’s got to be the fastest growing religion ever”
        There it is.

      • kiwikarynMEMBER

        I just watched the movie Elysium again this weekend. This is where we are headed. The rich pack up and leave for an oasis in the sky, while the Earth is left to rot under the strain of billions of poor people that it can’t support. Why else do you think all the Billionaires like Branson and Musk are getting into space rockets? All I can say, is that I’m saving for my ticket!

      • “Why else do you think all the Billionaires like Branson and Musk are getting into space rockets?”

        Ha!! I thought Branson just liked sky and space – and founded Virgin Australia – but there may be more to it.

      • “You guys do understand that Immigrants are people.”

        Umm, yes? What an emotive question.. My partner is an immigrant, I’ve personally benefited from immigration, but it doesn’t mean I believe the current immigration settings are sustainable or healthy. I can only speak for my partner, but she has no issue with respectful debates around immigration levels. The only thing she takes expection with, and I don’t know why, is my implicit and explicit insinuations that the British are evil. I love her, but it’s true! Wait, I hope she’s not reading this..

      • “These people exist, they weren’t bred to become immigrants, they’re just people who are hoping they can escape extreme dysfunction and build a better life for themselves”

        Don’t conflate the humanitarian intake with the general “immigration program” please. They are completely different. I’d personally support a bigger humanitarian intake (say +50 or 100%) but a smaller general program (say -40 to 60%).

        I totally support the need for Aus to do its bit to help people escape poverty, famine, war, torture and persecution. I totally do not support the need for Aus to provide a second home to rich Asian education and lifestyle tourists.

      • The best way to help folks who live in a dysfunctional environment is to assist them repair it where they are. Moving people here and there around our overcrowded planet is simply painting the deckchairs on the Titanic Green and offers no solution.

      • ” -we can create value by efficiently/effectively deploying these human resources”
        We can’t even do that with the people already here so that is not going to happen.

        ” – we can spread their dysfunction to our land”

        Which mean this is the most likely result. Unfortunately, wishful thinking doesn’t count for much.

    • It’s not about immigrants. It’s about immigration. Australian kids are people too right?

      How does Australian taking in more folks to consume more impact climate change anywhere?

      We are all for the fight against climate change just not for mass immigration that lowers living standards for the vulnerable locals.

      I’ll note as well that we support ongoing immigration at 70k (even 100k) and would double the refugee intake.

      • “It’s not about immigrants, it’s about immigration”

        Agree absolutely 100%. Blackfella is conflating the two when it’s really much more simple. In the same way as a farmer does not keep adding more and more sheep to his property when the numbers have reached the point where there will be less food and water per head (if he does, trouble is around the corner) we should not be simply pouring in more and more people (not the same thing as saying we should take none at all – consistent with the MB position) when the resources are not in existence to cater without reducing everybody’s share. This is just fuel for resentment. If the real resources (jobs, infrastructure etc) can all be brought to bear quickly enough to prevent shrinking individual slices of a growing pie then fine – otherwise, make downward adjustments to how many you’re taking.

        I’m well and truly on the political left but I don’t see this as a humanitarian issue at all (our treatment of those relatively small numbers who flee here in true desperation is appalling) – this is a simple numbers game. It’s not about who people are or where they are from or the fact that they are human, it’s about asking if you can continue to provide at least as much to everybody already here while importing such numbers. If you can’t then throttle back the numbers.

      • Yep, definitely a case of a strawman – confusing people with policy. It is sadly ironic because while they correctly identify the real culprit (greed), their appeals to emotion are simultaneously providing cover for it.

        Mass immigration into the West isn’t occurring because there’s some kind of humanitarian worry about housing those poor, huddled masses (our own betrayed youth notwithstanding). It is happening because Capital can no longer rent some Pinkertons to massacre the Workers when they get uppity. So they’ve reverted to the old stand-by of bringing in millions of neo-Coolies. Government OK’s this because economists told them it’s the only way to grow. So short of hanging those responsible from lamp-posts, the better option is to take their favourite strategy away.

        Nigeria alone is expected to top 300 million by mid-century, how precisely are we responsible for this? Even Bill Gates is saying that it’s completely unsustainable.

      • kiwikarynMEMBER

        Actually developed nations taking in immigrants from poorer nations will increase their climate change footprint. After all, once they get here they will want a car, a house, a refrigerator and big screen tv, will buy food wrapped in plastic, use electricity, and generally become another rabid consumer of everything that contributes to climate change.

    • Oz is rooted, fucked nearly beyond repair CB. It’s elites are completely lawless. Do you want race riots and civil war when this debt fuelled ponzi starts to collapse?

    • Your recommendation appears to result in mutually assured destruction and wantonly wills the demise of whatever remaining quality of life is retained in Australia.

    • Relevant Stakeholder

      @BlackFella, How do you reconcile your statement:
      “Might have something to do with the global realization that most of our Human capital is worthless”

      with the following:
      “we can create value by efficiently/effectively deploying these human resources”


      “It’s a choice, these are people that are extremely motivated to build a better life for themselves, so we can all prosper if we create the economic/political framework that rewards their hard work.”

      How many immigrants will have human capital of value given the ongoing progress of technology?

  15. We’re very much on the way to Argentina economically and politically. Once mineral prices resume their slide to their long term average over the next few years, our incomes will collapse, (wages are already sliding, unheard of without a recession) and we’ll be past the half way point, and with little means to recover, so blasted or debased is our industrial infrastructure, skills and educational institutions. Our hugely expanded population will be harder and harder to maintain and large parts of our cities will start to slide slowly and steadily towards slums. Beggary and homelessness are already soaring, the symptoms of a degenerating society. We’re little more than a globalised real estate and money laundering scam with a quarry on the side that we don’t even own. This is going to rapidly turn into one deeply divided, nasty country. We should congratulate our political and business elites on this magnificent achievement.

      • Maybe they’ll consider themselves to be the South American Australians. Then they can add 11 more (cricket) world cups to their list. Probably 12 after this woman’s World Cup finishes.

  16. The Patrician

    Reduce the migration intake to 70,000 until international benchmarks in homelessness, environmental degradation, health and education are met and maintained for 12 months

  17. I so wish that this headline, and your great article, can go maintream. Keep up the good work.

    Talk about ‘zingers’ … this is the one. Smart, smart, smart work, HnH, it’s so good.

  18. Great article. But reusa will argue with your pyramid – relationships should be at the very top..

    • Reusa’s pyramid of needs has relations at every level. Oh – and a moat.. Don’t touch the “water” too…

      • Reusa’s pyramid of IPs has the appearance of magically levitating above the firmament. When you get closer you can see all of the renters and tax payers bearing its burden. What will happen if their support disappears?

    • Well I disagree. Reusa doesn’t have relationships with people, he has “relations”, particularly at the bottom.

  19. The question i have, is how to we summarize this situation for the masses in bit size chunks that can inform and move the 90% of Australians who are being fucked over. I genuinly believe that most Australians have no idea where we are at and where this is going. Maybe HH is right in that it needs to be the Millennials that lead the charge. Will our broken political system even allow change to happen…. i personally believe we need a Makron type to create a new political party that takes the middle by leveraging the best policies from both left and right and takes its economic queues from MB. Telling the masses the truth would be hard but ultimately could win the day. The Macro Business Party? 😁

    • The Sustainable Australia Party is possibly that party, but not enough people seem to know about them or their policies. And the MSM will keep it that way.

      • I am a member of SA, but their focus is too narrow to attract wide enough support. Makron went in with a broad platform that challenged the traditional parties and harnessed the masses pain. He then used issues like the ones SA pushes as the proof points. SA also play too straight a bat which sadly will never generate enough media interest. I hope SA can be said party, but at the current rate it will take decades.

  20. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    It is the acceptance of the Neoliberal consensus and the belief that it can not be meaningfully challenged, that it the cause of our Impotent, Careerist controlled, Identity politics obsessed, “Left”.
    If you want to see the current POWER structure Challenged and Changed, within our democratic framework, then you need to understand that an alternative Narrative is required to be given Oxygen.

    When was the last time you heard or saw a Major Politician of “the Left” seriously discuss Widespread Nationalisations, expansion of the Welfare state, the reintroduction of Protectionism or Massive State training initiatives for the young and unemployed through Infrastructure,Ship and Train building. The entire Australian Merchant fleet was re built at Cockatoo Island in the 1920s by the Govie.
    Now I know there are not many Socialists here,…but by simply having, more Socialist focussed Left wing parties, our Democracy is at least more likely to be able to temper the Neoliberal/Capitalist excess we see today, if not outright defeat it.
    Our Democracy is meaningless without this economic Dichotomy, without a challenge to the status quo.

    Would Menzies have been the Social Democrat he was, without a “Socialist” Labor Party to steel policy from and compete with?


    • Great link EP. The answer to your question about Menzies I think is probably. He was a boy from Japarit, his business model at the bar is the same as yours, his party was based on the CWA, and I think the views expressed in his forgotten people speech were honest ones. He looked at the middle class with middle class eyes and thought the rich and organised labour exercised power on their own behalf.

    • BrentonMEMBER

      Couldn’t agree more EP. You have really cut to the core of the problem. People talk about it being all the fault of the “Left”, but what Left are they talking about? Neither of the majors identify with the traditional Left anymore and yet both are responsible for the current mass immigration program! It’s time for the careerists to be overthrown, for the ALP to be taken back to its roots.

      Imagine a Labor that curbed immigration, re-energized and revitalized the union movement (protecting Australian workers/conditions), supported real Australian industry (not the FIRE sector); industry that provides for the Australian people, not for multi-nationals. All in conjunction with existing programs of health, education and security for all…they would be unstoppable. At present they have focused on the latter issues, but have been grossly negligent on the former.

      If seeking the true culprits, look no further than who benefits most by our current neo-liberal agenda and the ongoing oppression of Australian workers…there is no war like class war. The elite have been fighting it since day dot, it’s about bloody time we woke up and struck back.

    • The current western political system is some of the most (transparently) corrupt and rigid political systems known to man. The only way out is a revolution. Sorry to say, all the fake voting power is just a mirage, no real change will come. Things needs to be a lot worse before it gets better, that’s when the whole system will revert back to authoritarianism.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        You’re a bit all over the place there Joe.

        If it is as you say and our system is the most “corrupt and rigid political systems known to man.”
        Then we are not heading towards Authoritarianism, as you say,… but are already there!.
        There have been much worse times to live in, “the West”.

        As for calls for Revolution,…why not exhaust the possibilities for Reform First?
        With Political party memberships, at all time lows,…Reform could be brought about, easier than many people realise,…It just requires people participate.


        Revolutions can get messy.


    • @EP, you are working backwards, you are starting from the position that the current political system is flexible and adaptive to change. Something that’s not backed up by facts or reality. It is designed to give you false hope via the election process.

      It is not an absolute authoritarian government, it’s a dysfunctional oligarchy that derives absolute unquestionable legitimacy through dog pony show of voting between a turd sandwich and a douche. Sorry that’s not true democracy where people’s interest comes first.

      I’m not saying there will be a revolution, merely that true change can only come from one given the current system. The masses can be suppressed for a long time using the election process as a distraction.

      The current process is basically political version of communism. Sounds great in theory, never worked in reality. It’s about time the scientific method is brought into the political profession.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        “It’s about time the scientific method is brought into the political profession.”

        OK,…So what exactly are you suggesting?

  21. SweeperMEMBER

    Central problem is the neoliberal underlay. High immigration is incompatible with neoliberalism. Did Chifley and Calwells post war program create this much resentment? No, because both sides were committed to full employment, high wages, public housing construction, credit rationing, public infrastructure provision and the welfare state.
    You point to the 3 impacts of 1. Low wages 2. High house prices 4. Inadequate infrastructure and public services.
    Did immigrants deunionize the workforce? Did they freeze public housing provision? Did they fetish inflation over full employment? Did they unleash credit? Cut taxes for the rich? “Innoculate all future treasurers” by starting a balanced budget/fear of public debt obsession making public infrastructure provision impossible? Defund and marketise health and education? This stuff has been going on for 34 years.
    Having said that, I see no dramatic shift away from neoliberalism on the horizon so the short term solution is probably to return the numbers back to the long term average.
    But please don’t pretend immigration is the underlying issue. It may be tempting to pretend it all went haywire with Howard’s policy, but I don’t think this is the case.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      “High immigration is incompatible with neoliberalism.”

      I think Neoliberalism is driving our high rate!
      Please explain, Sweeper.


        Sweeper’s on to something here and the components need to be pulled part. Previous ‘high volume’ immigration worked better as there existed a national (gov’t) commitment to accommodate the numbers i.e Sweep’s.”full employment, high wages, public housing construction, credit rationing, public infrastructure provision and the welfare state.”

        All the above requirements are absent and it seems deliberately so. The only mission now for government is to kneel to the ‘vested’ interests Hn H describes who have no interest beyond profit per capita. If the profit per capita ratio falls ( as it inexorably must) inject more ‘capitas’ to maintain the desired ( required) output.

        From any other perspective (liveability) we’ve already entered a shambolic era and without an acute correction to the prevailing model (profit/ per capita) we’ll continue to grind lower until we’ve buried the axles and unable to move.

      • SweeperMEMBER

        Exactly as SoMP has put it above EP. In terms of immigration Chifley, Calwell and Turnbull all said/say it’s part of a “nation building” program. The sales pitch was identical, the results totally different. Why? Because the underlay is not the immigration program it’s the type of nation that is trying to be reached. The two issues have always been confused. Hanson did it in her 96 opening speech to Parliament. I have posted some examples below in response to Arben.

      • The Patrician

        +1 Ermo
        Like trying to fix a busted tap with the mains still on
        Just dumb and dangerous
        Beware the obfuscators

    • The Patrician

      “High immigration is incompatible with neoliberalism.”
      High immigration is at the heart of the neoliberal globalist business model.
      Just ask the member for Goldman Sachs

      • Indeed. Ultra-cheap labour is a pillar of neoliberalism. Either jobs are exported to cheap labour markets or the cheap labour markets are imported to the jobs via immigration.

        I don’t think Sweeper has yet grokked that Neoliberalism’s primary concern is capital. Once that is understood, policy evolution (past and future) becomes simple to explain.

      • SweeperMEMBER

        So Mediocritas, Chifley & Calwell’s large scale postwar immigration program was neoliberal?

      • Either jobs are exported to cheap labour markets or the cheap labour markets are imported to the jobs via immigration.

        And so if immigration is lowered without any change to the current level of neo-liberal control of policy, where will jobs go?

      • @StatSailor, fair point I shouldn’t have said “either…or”. That was a mistake. My meaning would be better conveyed by a logical OR

        A OR B is satisfied by:
        A true, B false
        A false, B true
        A true, B true

        Hence, reducing immigration will not stop the problem if neoliberal control is maintained. Jobs will continue being exported to cheaper labour pools.

        @Sweeper. Neoliberalism didn’t become the dominant ideology until the late 1970’s. The immigration program of Chifley and Calwell was NOT neoliberal for one simple reason: the government provided jobs for them in advance. It also paid for their travel expenses to come here and required them to stay in the job they were given for 2 years (a guarantee of job security for at least 2 years, in reality much longer). Nothing about that is neoliberal.

      • SweeperMEMBER

        What the hell. That’s exactly my point. High immigration by itself is not a neoliberal policy. It depends on the policy context. ie. the policy context – neoliberalism – is the problem. You basically restate my position and then say I’m confused. No I’m not. You guys have this arse about.

      • OK Sweeper, seems I misunderstood you. Doh!

        Just another example of human communication being so shit. My apology then.

    • The implicit idea seems to be that reducing immigration will crash the parasitic system that is feeding on it. Perhaps everyone agrees on that – the behaviour of LibLab & MSM seems to confirm it.

      A reset that could enable reform. But then what? Who’s got an alternative to the neoliberal structure? Pauline?

      • SweeperMEMBER

        From Hansons opening speech to Parliament in 96:
        This got drowned out by media reaction to the immigration comments. But what is Hanson really talking about here?
        Not immigration.
        She’s talking about the neoliberal program started by Keating.

        “Youth unemployment between the ages of 15 to 24 runs at 25 per cent and is even higher in my electorate of Oxley. Statistics, by cooking the books, say that Australia’s unemployment is at 8.6 per cent, or just under one million people. If we disregard that one hour’s work a week classifies a person as employed, then the figure is really between 1.5 million and 1.9 million unemployed. This is a crisis that recent governments have ignored because of a lack of will. We are regarded as a Third World country with First World living conditions. We have one of the highest interest rates in the world, and we owe more money per capita than any other country. All we need is a nail hole in the bottom of the boat and we’re sunk… In real dollar terms, our standard of living has dropped over the past 10 years. In the 1960s, our wages increase ran at three per cent and unemployment at two per cent. Today, not only is there no wage increase, we have gone backwards and unemployment is officially 8.6 per cent. The real figure must be close to 12 to 13 per cent…
        We have lost all our big Australian industries and icons, including Qantas when it sold 25 per cent of its shares and a controlling interest to British Airways. Now this government want to sell Telstra, a company that made a $1.2 billion profit last year and will make a $2 billion profit this year. But, first, they want to sack 54,000 employees to show better profits and share prices. Anyone with business sense knows that you do not sell off your assets especially when they are making money. I may be only ‘a fish and chip shop lady’, but some of these economists need to get their heads out of the textbooks and get a job in the real world. I would not even let one of them handle my grocery shopping”.

      • Sweeper, that is precisely why Hanson is such a great asset for the ruling class. In fact, it is better if she says nothing at all that makes any sense.

        Her idiotic racist remarks are well-known and widespread, and you can be certain that the ruling class will remind everyone of her remarks when needed.

        Now, thanks to Hanson, all the ruling class would need to do to sink SAP, or anybody else who talks some sense, is to say; “Oh, isn’t that what Pauline Hanson said?”

      • SweeperMEMBER

        Exactly Dumpling that’s exactly right. She is diverting genuine concerns towards the wrong issue. If you read her speech those 2 paragraphs are the only ones which set out real concrete measurable problems. Yet the rest of the speech is dedicated to whining about immigration.

    • The Patrician

      Hey Sweeper,
      1. What do you say is the prudent migration intake per annum?
      2. What is a prudent and sustainable population carrying capacity for Australia?

      • SweeperMEMBER

        I already said it depends on the policy context. If we stick to neoliberalism then it should go back to long term average. Or arguably less. But let’s not pretend that immigration is the central issue or that lowering numbers will be a cure all.
        You didn’t answer my question re. the tap or the mains?

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      “Having said that, I see no dramatic shift away from neoliberalism on the horizon so the short term solution is probably to return the numbers back to the long term average.
      But please don’t pretend immigration is the underlying issue.”

      Well, If one’s concerns are more immediately focused on demanding policies that directly benefit the conditions of Australian working people (off All ethnic backgrounds) NOW, then a cutting in half of our immigrant intake will do more to alleviate Downward wage pressure, Housing Affordability, Public Transport, Schools ,Hospitals and Infrastructure congestion etc etc etc than any other single policy change.

      BUT I take you point, and mostly Agree with you,… IF higher rates of Immigration can be achieved without detrimental effects to working people and their families lives, then yes, I would support a higher rate.
      But it is Clear that the high rate is being driven by Business interests hell bent on breaking Working Class Solidarity, reducing their wages and conditions and a FIRE sector thats wants the cheap and easy GDP increases that come with the high Numbers,… any Political Statements made by a Politician, that challenge this, are immediately attacked by an elitist media, of the “Left” and “Right”, as having no understanding of the realities of the Modern Global Economy.
      This will continue to happen, irrespective of whether one’s argument has been “Tarred” by the “Pauline Brush”

      The way the Politically Correct, Identity Politics “Left”, throw around the term “Racist” to shut down debate is fucking dangerous and is No different than the way the “Fascist Right” throw around the term, Traitor or Communist, to avoid discussion.
      Sections of the “Left’s” obsession with legislating speech, plays right into the hands of our future Neo Feudal Masters.


      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        It doesn’t matter which “side’ is doing It Smithy,..People with the “power” on both the left, and right want to shut down that wich they dont want to talk about.
        Its bad for democracy.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        There is a vast gulf of difference between laws about hate speech, and shutting down a news broadcaster broadcasting news you don’t like.

        And only one of them involves “legislating speech”.

        Or have you fallen into the Libertarian belief that the only kind of harm is physical harm ?

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Compared to the media in the rest of the Islamic world, they are champions, but yes they have got many faults.
        How do you rate them, in comparison to the Dominant media Company in the AngloSphere?
        Check out how they are developing, newly acquired Sky.


      • It was appalling. I don’t see much of Sky so I can’t comment on what they usually show. I am surprised that politicians do not sue as these remarks are not reasonable. I have seen excessively robust remarks about politicians on this blog and have tried to throw cold water on them without success.
        “The High Court in the Lange case further defined the conditions under which this defence can be used. It said the matter must be on a government or political issue, must not be motivated by malice (which we explain later) and publication must be reasonable. To prove reasonableness, you will have to prove:
        You had reasonable grounds for believing it was true,
        You took proper steps to check the accuracy of the material,
        Where practicable, you sought a response from the person defamed”

    • Sweeper,

      Yep, the problems we are currently experiencing with the current rate of immigration are a consequence of neoliberalism but I think we need to be more specific what we mean by that.

      There is too little investment in expanding the productive capacity of the economy. That is the difference between the post war period and now. We have more than enough resources to handle the immigration numbers but too much of our ‘investment’ is nothing of the sort. It is often just asset price speculation with private bank credit or rent seeking tax farming.

      Now if private bank credit creation (and capital inflows) were regulated to limit or at least discourage unproductive applications of it we would not be having this debate.

      The problem we have is that our current monetary model does not result in a productive allocation of scarce resources. In fact the result is almost the complete opposite.

      None of this means we NEED to have a high rate of immigration but it does mean that we cannot have one UNTIL we fix the problem that our monetary and banking model is failing to produce productive investment.

      If we can do that while preserving a special role for private trading bank credit creation that would be fine by me but I have reservations as the private banks have a very long track record of slipping a tight leash as the period 1970 to the present demonstrates.

  22. A measured and reasonable piece, alas most will not listen as Australians have chosen the path of Icarus. For those who have never seen a recession it will be a shocking but salutary experience.

  23. Nice one mate, I’m 100% onboard. At no point should anyone extrapolate your intent. Play the ball and not the man.

  24. Where is REUSA for an honest cut to the bone comment on how self entitled we are and we should just become investors to stop the ugliness.

  25. Bravo David. You are a little ray of light for me and my family. At least there is a truth speaker somewhere to help me keep a grip on our situation.

  26. Great article.
    I doubt the Coalition or ALP will do anything about immigration, as in reducing or stopping it.
    It will need a maverick party, like One Nation.
    How they get enough seats in Parliment to do that, I have no idea.
    4th Turning stuff talks about the change leaders, they dont have to be popular or well liked, they just do what has to be done.
    The current powers to be have no intention of doing what has to be done, as they are fearful of bursting the housing bubble.
    And the housing bubble is where Australia has most of its wealth stored unfortunately.

  27. I’ve always bet on housing because everyone needs it so as a long term investment path if you choose wisely you simply can’t lose. I just don’t know why so many people seem to knock property investors. To my mind we do our bit to help the housing crisis?

    But anyway on the subject of immigration I guess I’m a something of a supporter all in all. Golly if I lived in some if the places our new Australians came from I’d want to move too. I honestly get a happiness buzz when I see kids and families from all over at functions or festivals and think they’re all going to turn into great Aussies this generation or next. I love seeing a parent with a strong accent speak to their child and the child answers Aussie and then I just know the good is happening.

    I guess a country growing up (getting bigger) has growing pains just like the awkward teenager but eventually it all works out for the good.

    My outlook is be open minded look for the positives and do good. This is a great place and we can share it with others and on this note I’m pro infrastructure and wish the knockers would be so too,

      • Not really.

        Australia has a long history of fearing immigration and yet our fears have proven unsubstantiated. I always think Australia is a better place for immigration so I am cautiously supportive of it.

        I think the author has written a heartfelt piece and don’t I don’t deny him his views and will think about his points which deserve contemplation.

        I guess I did wonder if years writing about the climate have taken a toll on general outlook by making everything look gloomy but hope he sees that things have still turned out well. I guess I think humans are exceptionally creative and adaptive and that the world goes on as each new generation brings new talents.

    • As someone has said in a previous post, there is a different vibe to more recent migrants to Australia (and this was said by a migrant from a couple of decades ago).

      I get a feeling that there is now a creeping ‘tribalism’ in place. A sense of looking after yourself and your immediate family. Migrants are moving here with their parents, siblings and cousins. They may not coming all together, but over time, they have their own extended family and network from home here – so why integrate with the locals, if you have your own safe and familiar network transplanted from home?

      I have never heard of young Australians (couples or individuals) moving overseas, and then getting their folks over there, and then their siblings.

      If this tribalism continues, perhaps the next bunch of Aussies (the children of immigrants) may be less ‘Aussie’ (more socially outward looking, a little daring, and a little cheeky), and perhaps more like the cultures of their immigrants families (given they are growing up in their tribes and perhaps have less contact with wider Australia because they don’t need to).

      Just a thought.

      • I can see how something like that could be a problem but we do integration pretty well in most cases although some exceptions might exist where strong religious views are present. If we limit immigrants from highly religious (the dangerous ones) places that might help. I would think we have the right to say who comes here to live or not and also to assist and encourage integration which most people do naturally when they get to know each other but the religion aspect can be tricky.

    • Most of us don’t oppose immigration, but we do oppose the sheer volume of it. It’s just fucking everything up especially our way of life. I don’t want to live in a shitty apartment nor do I want to have to borrow $1M for a home.

      By all means allow immigration but make sure you have a plan. We have 2 cities in the top 5 of most unaffordable housing in the world… That says something is wrong..

  28. One of your gems HnH.

    As a migrant, I wholly agree with the paragraph that migration now IS the Australian economy. As a migrant, that’s why I will return home because in my opinion such an economy does not support the higher tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy.

    Also kudos for giving credit to the Millenials. I think they are awesome (except for their fixation on social interaction involving the smartphone) and older Australian cohorts could learn from their ambition and engagement.

    • macrofishMEMBER

      Ia your homeland in a much better state? I have been eyeing a move to it for a while now.

      • Depends on what is important to you and do realise that nothing will ever, ever be able to compete with what you call home, even if you find yourself thoroughly enjoying your ‘new’ country of residence. I would suggest to simply try. Migration is not as hard as it is made out to be and you can always return if it doesn’t live up to the expectations having added a valuable experience to your life. 🙂

        As a broad rule of thumb I would say anything you can organise (politics, education, infrastructure, quality of housing, etc) is usually done better over there, when it comes to things you can’t organise (space, friendliness, costumer service nature, weather, etc) Australia may have more to offer.
        It obviously depends on your own personality and style too. I.e. I find Dutchies much friendlier now compared to when I left – likely because I have changed my own approach to people having become accustomed to the Aussie approachability.

        I personally miss the quality of the public space plus the culture which embraces progressiveness in all aspects – innovation, infrastructure, economy, science, social justice.
        Dutchies are on average a much more openly happy bunch and government doesn’t mind investing in joy of life related activities. My Facebook timeline is currently plastered with photos of friends attending the many free summer (music) festivals for example.

        A fundamental difference with a huge impact on life is that on the whole Dutch politicians strive to maintain and improve the quality of life of the people. You see that in the debate about infrastructure, education, employment, cost of living, etc. The Dutch statistics bureau will always calculate the impact on spending power when parties present their plans ahead of elections and is often asked to provide similar input ahead of legislation. When there is conflict in Dutch politics is usually about how to achieve this overall goal, rather than the goal itself.

        Here in Oz such a shared notion of the purpose of government is non-existent. I get the impression that the concern of politicians is more about their own, or the party’s, position. This can be seen in the debates: Vile attacks on persons rather than policy, short term focus, a lack of research and evaluation capacity in Australian institutions and most importantly: a complete lack of favourable outcomes for the Australian Public. I feel that the people are seen as a resource more than a ‘reason d’etre’.

        Most important for us is that we have ventured into a stage of life where ‘organisation’ and a future for our kids is more important than a nice camping trip in the middle of nowhere. I see very little opportunity for my kids to build a fulfilling career/life here. In fact, I see very little opportunity for me building a fulfilling career/life here!
        Another important motivator is the fact that family life is pretty much unaffordable here. The Netherlands is cheaper in many ways – despite a hefty tax regime. Yes, there is a reinvigorated housing bubble but for owner-occupiers that is largely offset by the tax deductability of mortgage interest (being phased out long term though) and renting is a viable and affordable long-term alternative. A couple of examples of cost differences:

        Power prices
        I looked up power prices in The NL recently, out of curiosity.

        – A larger home in The NL, comparable to the average Australian home size, will cost you €2,250 annually. Note that the majority of this cost is gas as Dutchies heat their homes 24/7 during winter (via comfortable hydroheating). No hiding under blankets on the couch!
        – A kWh costs €0.123
        – One m3 of gas costs €0,305. Note that a m3 of gas roughly equals 8 kWh.

        All this is not by coincidence. It is the result of a concerted effort by government through the long-term planning of capacity, new power stations and even the design of regulatory arrangements.

        Prices of one of the large supermarket chains in The Netherlands (certainly not the cheapest). Have a browse:

        Tuition fees for:
        Primary: €0
        High School: €0
        Tertiary (Dutch universities – top-tier academic): €2,000 annually.


        Never been, but sounds like a nice place. Liked the distinction wrt ‘organization’-Straya NOT organized-one of the weak points. Though we have it in us ( for sure) I lament it will never develop as most just seek to ‘slay-it’ in the property coliseum before happily getting out. Another 20 years of deifying the property reward mechanism will destroy any hope of ‘organization’ and We will become the Rottweilers and Dobermans behind the fences.
        Oh and your bicycle life! Thumbs up to Jos Van Emden (Lotto NL) TT winner of Gyro Italia final TT.

      • @SoMPLSBoy – Considering you show an interest in our cycling life (I severley underappreciated the sense of freedom it gave me to be able to just hop on a bicycle and cycle anywhere, safely). You might find this site interesting: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/

        The site focuses on Dutch cycling infrastructure but also offers articles on Dutch Urban planning approach. You’ll find some powerful examples there to support my statements above. Highly recommended!

    • Interesting stuff in your expanded post about NL. How does the political system work there? I read this: https://www.amsterdam.info/netherlands/political-system/ and it seems very similar to our own bicameral system. I’d therefore expect it to be equally as dysfunctional in particular ways.

      Can you comment on similarities and differences? Is it first-past-the-post voting there?

      • Yes, the Dutch have a bicameral system but it is not the defining characteristic. Two other aspects are more important as an explanation of the difference in political culture as presented in my other comment:

        1 – The Netherlands uses Proportional Voting as its Electoral System. This means that in order to win a seat in parliament (Lower House) you need to get a number of votes equivalent to: voting population / seats available. This is nationwide, no district system. The result of this is that it is much, much easier for smaller parties to win seats, offering options to those who are disappointed by the current crop on offer.

        The most important result from this system is its impact on political culture. All Dutch governments are coalitions due to parliament not being dominated by two main parties. This fosters a more collaborative approach as a party in opposition now may be your coalition partner after the next elections, or even when you need one-off support to pass legislation. You will hardly ever see circus in Dutch Parliament like you do over here and debates tend to focus on content and the actual issues at hand.

        There are some drawbacks as well of course, no system is perfect. Coalition forming is currently still ongoing more than 100 days after the recent elections. This is a result of the fragmented outcome and the fact that no party will form a coalition with Geert Wilders’ PVV (and rightly so). That said, the Dutch economy is doing well at the moment so there is no real time pressure. After the last elections a Labour – Liberal coalition knocked out an Agreement/Plan a lot quicker because the economic situation demanded an active government.

        2 – Proper seperation of Legislative Branch (Parliament) and Executive Branch (Cabinet). In The Netherlands there is a clear seperation between these two powers. Members of Cabinet are never also Members of Parliament. The two have distinct roles: Parliament passes legislation, Cabinet manages the implementation and Parliament check that Cabinet does a proper job. In a way a Deming-esque PDCA cycle is built into the system.

        This has resulted in Dutch government being well equipped with research/assessment/evaluation capabilities. Eg.

        The Dutch Statistics Bureau, considered best practice by the ABS, has a very important role in providing objective input into the preparation of legislation but also checking of results afterwards.

        The Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis offers input into the legislative process and development of long-term plans. https://www.cpb.nl/en

        The Social and Economic Council “advises the Dutch Government and Parliament on key points of social and economic policy […] and functions as a platform for discussions of social and economic issues.” – https://www.ser.nl/en/

        Parliament have their own Court of Audit (De Rekenkamer – https://english.rekenkamer.nl/) measuring the success of the implementation of legislation/policies. This evaluation often also focuses on the performance of Cabinet.

        While these are the very top-tier institutions, as a result throughout the Dutch public service there are many people spending their days looking at objective drivers for policy and measuring success – i.e. keeping tabs on how things are going to ensure Parliament and Cabinet are well equipped for their Constitutional Roles.

        I am yet to encounter anyone with a similar role in the Public Sector here.

      • I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this AnonNL!

        Proportional voting is so important. I do think we need to change our lower-house election system to be more like NL. First-past-the-post doesn’t work well ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo ).

        That’s very interesting about Cabinet. It sounds like a great idea and I’d like to know a bit more if you don’t mind. Are they regular staff appointments? How are they selected / appointed? How does parliament assess the performance of the cabinet and “fire” them if they’re not doing a good job?

      • Dutch Cabinet are politicians, just like they are in Australia. They are supplied by the parties who form government. The only difference is that if someone is appointed as a (Prime-)Minister they cannot also be a member of Parliament.

        Ministers are frequently expected to face Parliament and explain their actions, results etc. Parliament fires off a significant amount of questions at a Minister. The formal requests have to be answered and departments spent a significant time preparing these answers for the Minister to provide to Parliament. See here for a list of the most recent questions: https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/kamervragen

        In addition Parliament has access to dedicated organisations which help Parliament to conduct their checks of Cabinet performance (see post above).

        If a Member of Cabinet performs poorly Parliament can pass a ‘Motie van Wantrouwen’, which basically means they no longer have confidence in the performance of the Minister. The Minister then has to leave.
        Very often these are the result of Ministers having withheld information from Parliament – considered the Ultimate Sin.

        See here for the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

        On the bicameral nature of Dutch Parliament: The Senate in the NL is not elected directly. People elect Provincial Representatives who then elect/appoint Senators. In Australia the hypothetical equivalent would be State Parliament electing/appointing federal Senators.

        The Senate can only accept or reject new legislation, it cannot amend. The traditional role of the Senate is to check new legislation from a more technical angle. Is the legislation well designed and does it fit with other legislation? The informal role of the Senate has expanded in recent years and it has become more political via the use of the threat of rejection.

  29. That Sydney/Melbourne (immigration meccas) are going nuts is just due to latte-sipping rentvestors apparently. These rentvestors must be absent in our other cities #fakenews

  30. Millenials marvellous? No. They’ve got some good qualities. For instance they are more socially liberal. But are way too susceptible to kool aid drinking.

    • Which Millennials are you interacting with?

      Maybe I’m just engaged with a different sub-group, but the Millennials I know are the most “woke” (to use one of their words) youngsters I’ve ever known. Way more clued in to economics, politics, propaganda techniques, etc than my generation was at that age (ageing GenX).

      Could be that I’m in a bubble.

      • Just ones on internet forums. Most of the ones I see in real life are seemingly of the Labor/Greens types.

        Come on m8 it’s a well known fact they are mostly latte lefties. They will support a Corbyn or a Bernie if one can be found but socialist democracy isn’t going to be that much of an improvement if it’s flooded with too many people. It could well just implode actually if too many have their hands out and not enough want to do the hard jobs that pay lots of tax.

      • That’s right, most of them are left-leaning, but so was my generation when it was young. Each generation of youngsters tends to lean left having come from a childhood environment where kids get their needs taken care of by a caring authority (parents == the state). It’s easy to project that experience out into wider society.

        We grow out of it as we get older and have to start providing for ourselves and our families.

        I’m not buying an argument that this generation of youngsters is any more left-leaning than any preceding generation. What I see (in my own bubble anyway) is actually the opposite, a surprisingly large % of youngsters that lean to the right.

        Check out what’s happening in the US Conservatives circles right now. Loads of youngsters. It’s actually becoming cool to be conservative.

      • You mean alt right? Sure. That’s kind of dead though. I doubt anyone will bother going out to vote for Trump next time if he doesn’t actually do some significantly protectionist stuff. Although they might just to spite the left and for the lulz so to speak.

      • The alt-right has abandoned Trump. His actions since taking office illustrate he is just another puppet/shill like Obama. The illuminati hand-signs/references, transgender agenda (mason’s worship a transgender entity; Michelle/Ivanka). Same shit, different week eh. Same war-mongering policy in the ME (9/11 controlled demo, WMDs, Talibans, Chemical Weapons, what’s the next boogey-man?). All laughable really. Cue the attack of brainwashed… smh

    • Being Gen Y myself (I don’t like the term ‘Millennial’), I concur. My generation is fucked, and has little interest in unfucking itself. If you don’t believe me (and Owen), go spend a bit of time on the Australia subreddit and you will understand. It’s quite an entertaining show, with all sorts of fantastic mental gymnastics and contortions, whenever issues like immigration are raised. It’s a intellectual Cirque Du Soleil…

  31. haskholdMEMBER

    One of your best pieces and with which I completely agree. I am of the Left and late last year attended a Labor sponsored forum on structural causes of poverty in Australia. To my disgust there was not one mention of the obscene growth of housing costs in the document that had been studiuosly prepared by academics! I am one of the fortunate inner city house owners who has seen my net wealth grow by over 250 per cent in the last 15 years all due to rising value of my home. That is since leaving full time employment. This is economic madness. I would be happy to see values crash just to bring some sanity back to this world and make housing affordable again. It would also make govts think more carefully about the way they splash around their stamp duty windfall on infrastructure excesses such as those that Gadys Berijeklian is addicted to.

  32. I’ll add to the cheers from the rest of the commentariat. A great and passionate piece. My subscription renewed a couple of days ago ago, and I’m happy to be contributing financially to fighting the good fight. Hopefully the word will spread, and change will eventually come democratically, because if it doesn’t then it will come eventually via other less pleasant means. The current situation and our current direction are unsustainable where people don’t have a roof to keep the rain off their heads, so one way or another, change will come.

  33. turncoatMEMBER

    …and the only mainstream politician driving this agenda is Tony Abbott. Well, seismic change in our economy might require all manner of contributors. “You fight the war with the army you’ve got” – as they say.

  34. Finely argued and articulated. It points to the lack of awareness, imagination and even basic intelligence in the Australian policy structure. At this stage only collapse can remedy it because there is no other capability to modify the settings.

  35. sydboy007MEMBER

    I think these days being called a racist has lost much of it’s punch. same as being called a nazi.

    I’ve had a few heated conversations when I’ve said I’m a racist. Now what? Can we talk about the issues I’ve raised as whether I’m a racist or not has no impact to the validity of what I’m saying.

    My fear is things will get nasty when the next recession kicks in. Hopefully the country wont be as desirable a destination and change can happen, though it might reduce the need to have the conversation this country needs to have.

    Diversity is not a strength when you faced a unified opponent.

    • “Diversity is our greatest strength” is such a bizarre statement isn’t it?
      UNITY is strength: “united we stand, divided we fall”.

      When pursuing diversity, leads to division, then we’re not getting stronger, we’re getting weaker.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Indeed. A good example is how Windows’ dominance of the desktop PC market makes it so resilient to automated malware outbreaks.

      • I just knew I’d get that response…

        Diversity is resilience, not strength. Genetic diversity is what allows mosquitos to develop resistance to insecticides, or bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics. Implicit in that is the understanding that 99.9% of the population are going to die (because they’re weak) before the resistant cohort repopulates.

        I do not refer to this as “strength”, it is resilience. Not the same thing. Strength is more the ability to rebuff an attack in the first place, not to recover after having been smashed due a weakness.

        It’s possible to be both unified and diverse at the same time, where the subjects being considered are different. In the context of racism, this would be a genetically diverse population (multi-racial), strongly unified around a code of laws and statement of rights which is NOT diverse. Hence, it doesn’t make sense to have a racist immigration policy justified by nationalism, but it DOES make sense to discriminate based on ideology where an ideology is fundamentally at odds with the nation’s laws.

        A good example is Switzerland. It’s often touted as the most successful multicultural country in the world, very diverse in that regard, but talk to Swiss people and it becomes very apparent, very fast, just how “Swiss” they all are. No diversity there.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Diversity is resilience, not strength. Genetic diversity is what allows mosquitos to develop resistance to insecticides, or bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics. Implicit in that is the understanding that 99.9% of the population are going to die (because they’re weak) before the resistant cohort repopulates.

        I do not refer to this as “strength”, it is resilience. Not the same thing. Strength is more the ability to rebuff an attack in the first place, not to recover after having been smashed due a weakness.

        By these definitions, monocultures are typically “resilient” (are smashed due to common weaknesses, but can rebuild – presumably there’s an implied “more quickly” here – from the few who survive) and multicultures are typically “strong” (can “rebuff an attack” since only a relative minority will be vulnerable to it).

        But let’s not be coy here. What you’re really trying to say is that the problem with immigration is that people are coming from the wrong countries that don’t have good old ‘Aussie values’, which means that nobody in them could possibly want the same things from life that Aussies do.

      • We’re getting bogged down in semantics. I don’t think there’s any actual dispute on the underlying concepts.

        As for your final comment. Classic drsmithy, trying to find the worst in people so that you have an enemy to feel righteous against. You’re wrong, I’m not your strawman.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        We’re getting bogged down in semantics. I don’t think there’s any actual dispute on the underlying concepts.

        Rrrright. Only how they’re actually being used to describe things…

        As for your final comment. Classic drsmithy, trying to find the worst in people so that you have an enemy to feel righteous against. You’re wrong, I’m not your strawman.

        Oh, look. Someone else claiming to live inside my head and know how I think being wrong again.

      • That’s a textbook example of psychological projection.

        If multiple people have pinned you for the same thing, is it likely that all of them are wrong?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        That’s a textbook example of psychological projection.

        If multiple people have pinned you for the same thing, is it likely that all of them are wrong?

        Yeah. Because people making bad assumptions about other people’s motivations on internet forums is pretty much unheard of.

  36. Immigration has some negative impacts. As an immigrant I’m happy to say this on behalf of everyone who wants to but is afraid of being called a racist. I took a job that a young Australian graduate could have done with a couple of years of solid mentoring. I’ve taken up an available living abode, when there’s supposed to be a shortage. I’ll end up at some point bidding up the price of a house. My car contributes to congested roads. I’m from a different culture, but I’d be hard pushed to say that this enriches your lives. Now multiply me by 200,000 every year. Immigration policy should be planned, coordinated, and have buy-in from the existing population (comprising many races). That probably means ensuring a broad spectrum of nationalities (not just 100k Chinese, Syrian or Welsh or whatever people every year), identifying genuine urgent skills shortage which can’t be solved by affected businesses (which is going to be rare), and bringing in people at a rate which does not put strain on infrastructure, resources and quality of living, and which does not change the fabric of the indigenous culture. When I go to France, I want to experience French Culture, not multi-culturalism. Awaiting a knock at the door from the Aussie speech police, as no doubt I’ve offended someone.

    • Well said Andrew. The push for immigration is often about ensuring ‘diversity’, but at the moment, we’re not seeing much ‘diversity’. A handful of nationalities coming en masse, and a trickle from elsewhere, does not sound like good ‘diversity’ to me.

  37. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    SydBoy,… its a conversation some just “Can’t” have,…Its like trying to have a detailed conversation about your favorite sex acts with a very prudish, elderly, religious conservative Virgin,…the sheer mention of the Word “Sex” will just fill them with dread.

    I support Diversity and MultiCulturalism, but not at a rate that makes Integration and a degree of assimilation difficult or impossible. No doubt there are those in my party that would consider me “Racist” for thinking “Integration and a degree of assimilation” even necessary.
    I had a Muslim customer once tell me that, when the whole world finally embraces Islam,here will be no Racism whatsoever,…he was Cool with me politely telling him,… I hope that day never comes,…we both laughed.

    Maybe the Embracing of any kind of cultural Identity at all,.. makes you a racist,…It’s all very confusing,…If you’re surrounded by Racists, but not as racist as them, are you still a Racist?,…are bullshitters who say they are not racists, but actually are,.. worse than the honest Racist?
    Are Racialists the same as Racists?
    Am I a Racist,…I dont think I am!

    I wish Calwell was still alive to clarify it all for us.

    Calwell and racism[edit]
    Calwell’s remark in Parliament in 1947 that “Two Wongs don’t make a White” is widely quoted. The remark was intended as a joke, being a reference to a Chinese resident called Wong who was wrongly threatened with deportation, and a Liberal MP, Sir Thomas White.

    Calwell later wrote:

    It is important to me, at least, to set out the facts about a remark I made in the House of Representatives on December 2, 1947, which has been so often misrepresented it has become tiresome. On that day I was asked a question by Rupert Ryan, brother-in-law of Lord Casey, on the deportation of Malayan seamen, Chinese and other people who had contravened our immigration laws. I said, amongst other things, that an error may have been made in the case of two men named Wong. The Department had served a deportation notice on one of them, but it was the wrong Wong. I then said, and I quote from Hansard: “there are many Wongs in the Chinese community, but I have to say — and I am sure that the honorable Member for Balaclava will not mind doing so — that ‘two Wongs do not make a White'”.

    It was a jocose remark, made partly at the expense of the member for Balaclava, who was at the time the Hon T W (later Sir Thomas) White. I expected that I would have been correctly reported, as I was in Hansard and that the initial letter “W” on both the names “Wong” and “White” would have been written in capitals. But when the message got to Singapore, either because of some anti-Australian Asian journalist or perhaps because some Australian pressman with a chip on his shoulder, a Labor Party hater, the name of White was deliberately altered into a definition of colour, so as to read “two Wongs don’t make a white.” The story has lasted to this day. I have often answered questions about it from young Chinese students at universities in Melbourne and Sydney. I notice whenever reference is made to it in newspapers or periodicals, or whenever the quotation is used anywhere, the Singapore abomination is generally repeated. Latterly the true version is being printed.

    There was never any intention in my mind to raise any question of colour. I have repudiated the whole story so often that I suppose there is nothing more I can do about it. But I put the facts on record in this book.[10]:109
    usly, therefore, is not a wartime evacuee. Speaking generally, I think there is some claim for him to be regarded as a resident of Australia, and I have no doubt his certificate can be extIn fact, Calwell did not refer in Parliament to two men called Wong. The full quotation is:

    The [deportation] policy which I have just mentioned relates to evacuees who came to Australia during the war. This Chinese is said to have been here for twenty years, and obvioended from time to time as it has been extended in the past. An error may have been made in his case. The gentleman’s name is Wong. There are many Wongs in the Chinese community, but I have to say — and I am sure that the Honourable Member for Balaclava will not mind me doing so — that “two Wongs do not make a White”.[11]

    In his 1978 biography of Calwell, Colm Kiernan wrote:

    Was Calwell a racist? All Australians who upheld the White Australia policy were racist in the sense that they upheld a policy which discriminated against coloured migrants… Calwell never denied the discriminatory reality of the laws: “It is true that a measure of discrimination on racial grounds is exercised in the administration of our immigration policy.” But he did not consider himself to be superior to any Asian.[12]

    Calwell also said in Parliament: “I have no racial animosity.”[13] Kiernan further says:

    Calwell had many friends among the Chinese community in Melbourne. This would have been impossible if he had been prejudiced against them. David Wang,[14] the first Chinese councillor of the City of Melbourne, has acknowledged Calwell’s support and friendship. He liked the Chinese people so much that he learnt Mandarin in which language he could converse.[15]

    Kiernan is correct to observe that until the 1950s virtually all Australians supported the White Australian policy, that Calwell’s views were entirely within the political mainstream at that time, and Calwell believed himself to be free of personal prejudice against people of other races. This is reflected by Calwell’s comments in his 1972 memoirs, Be Just and Fear Not, in which he made it clear that he maintained his view that non-European people should not be allowed to settle in Australia. He wrote:

    I am proud of my white skin, just as a Chinese is proud of his yellow skin, a Japanese of his brown skin, and the Indians of their various hues from black to coffee-coloured. Anybody who is not proud of his race is not a man at all. And any man who tries to stigmatize the Australian community as racist because they want to preserve this country for the white race is doing our nation great harm… I reject, in conscience, the idea that Australia should or ever can become a multi-racial society and survive.[16]

    Calwell’s attitude to Indigenous Australians should also be considered. In his memoirs he wrote: “If any people are homeless in Australia today, it is the Aboriginals, They are the only non-European descended people to whom we owe any debt. Some day, I hope, we will do justice to them.”[17]

  38. drsmithyMEMBER

    Yesterday a variety on commenters on the site pulled out dog whistles, hinted darkly of racism, […]

    Oh yeah, like who ? I read back through the whole discussion this morning and couldn’t see any examples of it.

    • I didn’t even think the commenters were anti immigrtation articles – I thought they just wanted a lowering of the immigration article quota.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Yeah… Still not seeing it.

        Your objective points and data on immigration are more than capable of standing on their own. They don’t need the emotive victimisation bit along with them.

        (To be clear, the following is a general commentary, not aimed solely or specifically at you.)

        This whole “whenever I talk about X people call me racist” meme is getting rather tired, especially since a) most of the time it isn’t true and b) it ignores there are a whole shitload of people out there talking about X who ARE racist. The real irony is it gets trotted out mostly by those who like to call other people precious snowflakes.

  39. Excellent writing HnH. Worth unpacking this further.. Why do we need large numbers of migrants in Sydney/Melbourne? because that’s how we keep our investment property portfolio growing.. and why do we need investment properties as a means to create wealth? because (historically) we’re not familiar with other means to create wealth (aside from selling our natural resources).. and why is that? why such a narrow view of the world? of wealth creation? of our place in the world? these are the questions that require answers and they will not be asked unless we get punched in the face.. and that has not happened yet.. nothing short of an epic economic collapse will wakes us up, brings us to question our assumptions and forces us to chart a new course..

  40. CharlieChaplin

    If you were to say such things with as much passion, eloquence and reasoned arguments while running a campaign. I would not only vote for you, but volunteer to campaign on your behalf. There are no political advocates of this position.

    • CatfishwolfMEMBER

      Oh, here’s one!!
      Finally found one of the poor lost souls.
      Was hoping it would be a more intelligent that this though. You know you have lost the argument when you pull out the “N” word. Almost not worth replying to.

  41. We have an unhealthy tertiary / vocational education sector that needs foreign students to sustain itself (foreigners who are seeking study here primarily for the purpose of a permanent residency pathway).

    To prop up this sector, the government keeps the study for residency rort going in the shape of graduate visas, study visas and pathways to PR.

    But the reason the education sector is so unhealthy is because they don’t know how to operate efficiently, they are bloated, they waste a lot of money.

    Reduce the empire building of universities and TAFEs. This will lead to less of a reliance on foreign students (and building there property portfolios) and the government will, in turn, take away the carrot of residency offered to potential foreign students.

    Some of the problem solvered.

  42. ceteris paribus

    I support your position on immigration policy on the grounds of sustainability alone.
    I don’t mind you calling out the Greens as derelict in their duty in regards to protecting sustainability.
    Though I have not commented on it, I do get a little uneasy on your comments on an adjacent but essentially different issue of politics.
    You seem to like to entice Abbott and the Liberals more generally to slash immigration as an election winner.
    My simple question is why don’t you slam both the Left and theRight parties on the immigration policy OR, alternatively entice both to slash immigration to win more votes. Only you would know if this apparent difference in approach is indicative of something deeper not being written- or is just context-based.
    My point here, of course, is not so much about immigration as such but about politics.
    And it is less about criticism, more about just my personal unease- because my preference is to the left. Care to comment?

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      “Only you would know if this apparent difference in approach is indicative of something deeper not being written”

      Maybe Not CP,…H&H could simply be so indoctrinated himself, that he does not even recognise his own bias.

      He is one of those “Professional Class” 20 percenters you know.


  43. Jumping jack flash

    Don’t forget the fact that we need immigration to support the economy snake as the boomer watermelon passes through – like some large kidney stone.

    If it were up to boomers’ children’s reproduction to support the population (and then the economy) then we’d go backwards.
    Its difficult to have children and a debt mountain. Not impossible, but difficult.
    Many choose one or the other.

    Knowing this, immigration isn’t all bad, but surely the aim is for a stable population. Not to use insane immigration policy as a coup de grace after the defeat of workchoices to – and this was always the agenda – try and force wages down.

    Bringing down wages to global averages is absolutely necessary to be globally competitive. And that’s a wonderful thing. But it doesn’t work when all your manufacturing flees overseas and everyone who’s left takes on unfathomably huge debt mountains to pretend to be “wealthy” instead of making useful stuff to sell to the world to earn real money.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      “Bringing down wages to global averages is absolutely necessary to be globally competitive”

      Pffft!,…thats what Nation State protectionism is all about,… avoiding such a race to the bottom, to protect the standards of living, of the working people who built the country/State in the first place.
      ALL of our major trading Partners, still have heavy protectionism going on,… especially China!

      “Free Trade” agreements are nothing more than legal documents, designed to subvert Nation State democracies by a Globalised Plutocracy.

      The people that advocate and premote this Free Market/Neoliberal Ideology, are as indoctrinated and brainwashed as any card carring Communist ever was. That our Democracy has been so infected with this Idelogical fills me with dread.
      Democracy is our only protection from outright totalitarianism,…those that seek to defame and deride it, are enemies to us all.
      More Democracy, not less is the answer.

      • Jumping jack flash

        Certainly, I agree about FTAs and protectionism.

        Should have added a disclaimer: “All other things being equal, keeping FTAs in place, and not destroying the dollar…”

        My point, that I didn’t make above, was that something has to give.
        We can’t have free trade, no protectionism, a high dollar, and high wages and still think that we’re going to be globally competitive.

        But a good 10 years on and it looks like that thing that gave out was our desire to be globally competitive, and manufacturing promptly fled overseas.

        We kept free trade, no protectionism, a high dollar, and high wages but replaced the means to support this excessiveness with a clever system of swapping ever-growing mountains of debt amongst each other.

      • ceteris paribus

        Thanks for the reference to the Chomsky video, EP. I like his stuff and I will put it on my watching list.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        That doco I posted, was my first introduction to him.
        A fellow cannabis abuser gave it to me on a VHS tape in my early 20s, I’ve watched it well over a dozen times,…it permanently altered my view of reality.

  44. stephenMEMBER

    Great article. MB is the only outlet properly championing the interests of Australian youth. This is important work. Keep going!

  45. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    Yes, Bravo Dave,…you really got the comentariate riled up today.
    200 Comments by a quarter past 4!,…Good work Brother. Weekend links struggles to pull that off, on its first day.

  46. Absolutely spot on, keep it up, just what we need, someone who shoots straight and cuts right through all the crap. I have four adult children and have been watching this horror story slowly go from bad to worse. We were lucky, my wife and I managed to buy a house and raise a family on a single (very basic) income. Impossible now. I couldn’t care if my house halved in price if it meant our younger generation got a chance. Once again, keep it up, we need to look at our children’s future from their viewpoint.

    • Well it got a mostly positive reception there. But I agree overall reddit, and whirlpool, whom I consider basically the gen y general consensus, are pro mass immigration, making it all pretty hopeless.

  47. the australia subreddit is packed full of ponzi creeps who yell and howl down anybody who criticises immigration and population growth. it makes you despair for my generation.

  48. It’s not the migrant intake numbers, but the quality, morality & concentration.
    2.4 million migrants in the last decade.
    75% were unskilled, with low or no productivity.
    Pathways as TR to PR grants, refugee or family rebuild citzenship grants.
    76% concentration in Sydney & Melbourne (ABS)
    Low and unskilled workforce participation, low or no taxation or economic contribution.

    Then add on the real isssue :
    2.1 million foreign guestworkers on pretext visas.
    Increasing at a rate of 5% each year !!


    Fake students, over 80% doing sham courses with no international recognition, here to work illegally, pay back the foreign agent procurer, snag a PR as well and drag in the rest of their third world burden.
    NZ backdoor (over half coming in are non NZ born, Auckland a mini bubble staging area to gain the NZ residency/SC visa to then enter Australia.
    Fake & frauded 457 – only a small fraction are skilled.
    Fake backpacker/rural visas, fee paid to labour supply agencies & farmers for visa churn racket,,
    Fake or arranged spousal & family racket,,
    Bridging visa racket,,
    Visitor visa racket,,
    Then add another 400,000 (5%) of the 8 million tourist visas of unskilled third world migrants only here to work illegally.
    Then add 65,000 overstayers.
    And you easily get to 5.5 million migrants in the last decade – the vast majority unskilled, on welfare or working cash in hand, fake ID, importing crime, vice, corruption, degradation.
    Again with the TR and tourist visa rackets a 75-80% concentration in Sydney or Melbourne.

    Both cities now a patchwork of fetid third world unassimilated migrant slums.

    This subset of 2.4 million TR / tourist illegally working migrants form a $105 billion underground economy.

    Little or no tax paid, cash in hand, fake ID.
    Only $4.5 billion comes in (declared funds)
    $36 billion goes out (-2% GDP)
    The 2.4 million TR/Visitor/Tourist illegals now occupy some 600,000 ex Australian dwellings.
    Predominantly foreign owned bunk & mattress share with foreign owners scamming the cash in hand sublet as well as negative gearing (56,000 foreign owners of 3-5 properties and 183,000 foreign born proxy PR or residents with 1-3 properties) – about 600,000 dwellings with massive cash in hand sublet income being subsided by the Australian taxpayers to run bunk and mattress share rackets.

    Along the way this TR/tourist illegal intake has :
    • Destroyed education. Dropped 10 places globally.
    • Destroyed health & community services.
    • Destroyed housing affordability. Indebted every other Australian in ‘normal non migrant housing use’ in a massive debt bubble.
    • Destroyed transport & infrastructure services.
    • Lowered productivity.
    • Aged and burdened our welfare & health care.
    • Lowered our standard of living.
    • Set back the GDP of every Australian.

    We don’t have productive contributing skilled migrants that improve Australia.

    We have our filters set to the worst and most damaging intake of any OECD nation and it’s destroying Australia and Australian’s standard of living and economic prosperity.

    We need a tightening up of the intake quality, there is no shortage of skilled genuine value add migrants wanting to come to Australia.

    We need to shut down and exit at least 1.5 million of the people here on the fake & pretext TR, Visitor & Tourist Visa scams.

    And we need a full scope Royal Commission.

  49. Australia has let population degrade our standard of living.
    Those who could make a difference have instead opted to vote for the LNP and the ALP.
    How many examples of selling out our kids’ futures do you need to see by the LNP and the ALP before you realise that we are placing foreigners’ interests ahead of our children?
    They have in effect, voted for more of the same.
    It is time to take the mantle away from those that wield the power and vote for an alternative.
    An alternative that puts the future welfare of young people ahead of the hedonistic generations that run the common politic.
    Stop voting for the ALP and the LNP, and start putting your kids future ahead of your own.

    • Maybe I’m too jaded, but I really think it makes no difference who we vote for while we have the global financial system that we do. Money markets, bond markets, equity markets, forex markets, derivatives markets, etc can all be weaponised by multinationals to break any nation with popular leaders that express “wrongthink”. Failing that, they just push for trade-sanctions, funding of opposition groups, agitation for civil war, or outright invasion.

      Seems to me that change has to come from the ground up and covertly, making our legacy financial and political systems rapidly obsolete through development of some kind of internet-enabled alternative. I have no idea how that could happen (the rapid and covert parts anyway, technically, there are plenty of ideas). There are promising sparks of activity here and there, but nothing significant yet.

  50. H&H

    I have been obsessed by high immigration and the economic consequences since the 2004 election when John Howard got hold of both the house of reps and senate and decided to push for a big Oz without seeking the views voters.

    Since what has happened is clearly undemocratic and economically bad I will never accept the changes wrought on us.

    My first reaction was to vote for Labor in 2007 but as we all know they pushed even deeper into the population Ponzi model, so now I vote first for the Sustainable Australia Party, second for One Nation and put Labor or Liberals second last (last goes to the Greens who are utterly without redemption).

    Thank you, and good luck in trying to educate people on the economic issues of high immigration.

    Unfortunately I think this will only stop once there is a major recession.

    I used to raise these issues in the Gottliebsen/Kohler blog but my posts were generally edited out and ultimately I was not willing to subscribe to their blog and read their drivel (a pity as I once used to respect Gotti), so I think you are doing a very important public service in providing the economic rationale against the population invasion foisted on our backs which serves vested interests.

    • Agree completely jkam. Well put. Would like to see more of your contributions.

  51. How come Australians don’t protest? I can never understand this….more people should be mad/angry at the type of things happening in Australia. I’m from overseas and I literally see protests over every little thing. Politicians overseas are scrutinized way more than in Australia. tbh judging by the type of citizenry, Australia is pretty much ripe for foreign takeover.

  52. “why should anyone give a shit about climate change if it rips the roof from his or her head”

    Nailed it. Truth is, people are actually tiring of the whole climate change kerfuffle.

    Charles Gave (legendary HK based investment manager) studies ‘manias’ as a hobby and has been monitoring the climate change hysteria as part of his pet project. He penned an update recently and reckons the level of engagement in climate change by the globe’s citizens has actually topped out already and based on his charts he reckons people won’t even be talking about climate change in 5 or 10yrs time.

    People are weary. At the end of the day, they just want a roof over their heads and food on the table.

    Climate change is something for comfortably off who have lots of time on their hands

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      “People are weary. At the end of the day, they just want a roof over their heads and food on the table.”

      This is why the only system that can meaningfully “address” AGW, is Socialist Democracy.
      Those that think it can be addressed by dog eat dog, Neoliberal Capitalism are living in a fantasy world.