Gittins: “Lower immigration would reduce a lot of our economic problems”

By Leith van Onselen

Seeing as Fairfax’s Ross Gittins refuses to re-enter the immigration debate, hence giving free rein to his ‘open borders’ extremist colleagues Peter Martin and Jessica Irvine, I thought I’d write a post on Ross’ behalf collating his past writings on the issue.

Back in May 2010, Gittins gave the below seminal speech, entitled Does the economy depend on population growth?, which neatly set out why he believed that never-ending population growth via mass immigration is deleterious to Australian living standards:

I’ll start by stating upfront where I’m coming from on population: I believe we should do what we can to limit the growth of our population, and do that by focusing largely on immigration…

What are my reasons for favouring limiting immigration to limit our population growth? It’s mainly my concern about the damaging ecological effects of population growth, as much from a global perspective as from a local Australian perspective. But this concern is augmented by my belief that economic growth (ie increase in material standard of living, as conventionally measured by the real growth in GDP per person) does nothing to increase subjective wellbeing (happiness) in developed countries. If so, why pay a social or environmental price to pursue it?..

For a rigorous economic analysis it’s not good enough to simply assume that bigger is better. Why exactly is it better? The conventional answer is that bigger is better if it brings us a higher material standard of living – if it makes us more prosperous. But for this to happen – not necessarily for each individual, but on average, and for the community as a whole – the economy must grow faster than the population grows ie there must be an increase in real GDP per person.But there’s a third layer: even if increased population does lead to higher GDP per person, who shares in that increase? Conventional economics is about self-interest, so for immigration to be justified economically it has to be shown that the pre-existing population benefits from the decision to increase the population. If instead all the benefit went to the immigrants, then the immigration program would be merely an act of charity…

The most recent official attempt to answer those questions came in a report prepared by the Productivity Commission in 2006, Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth. Now, the Productivity Commission is a body of impeccable credentials in economic orthodoxy, it’s one of the leading advocates for economic growth and you’d expect it to be very favourably disposed to the belief that immigration makes us better off materially. Which makes its findings all the more significant…

The proposition the PC modelled was the effect of a 50 pc increase in the level of skilled migration over the 20 years to 2024-25. It found that this did cause real GDP to be 4.6 per cent bigger than otherwise in 20 years time. And, yes, this did lead to an increase in real income per person, but the increase was pathetically small: 20 years later real income per person would be 0.7 per cent higher, or $380 a year. The PC found that ‘the distribution of these benefits varies across the population, with gains mostly accrued to the skilled migrants and capital owners. The incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case’.

The PC concludes that ‘factors other than migration and population growth are more important to growth in productivity and living standards’. Indeed, growth in income per person from technological progress and other sources of productivity growth, and long-term demographic changes, could be expected to be about 1.5 pc per year, or more than $14,000 a year by 2024-25.

So that’s an end point of $380 a year from immigration versus $14,000 a year from technological advance. On this evidence, a rational economic rationalist would have little enthusiasm for population growth. From my perspective, it leaves me confident my opposition to immigration-fed population growth on ecological grounds would not come at any great cost in terms of our material standard of living (or our happiness, for that matter)…

I doubt that it [the modelling] takes sufficient account of the effect of the extra pressures migration creates for the public sector: the extra public infrastructure needed to meet the needs of the bigger population and the greater demands on the budget for services provided to immigrants and their families. This implies a need for higher taxation – paid by the original residents, not just the immigrants. And any delay or foul-up in providing the extra housing, roads, public transport, utilities, schools and hospitals etc could have significant negative effects on road congestion and other aspects of our amenity.

Even more significant, conventional economic analysis abstracts from the effect of economic activity on the natural environment, essentially assuming the environment to be a free good…

In August 2010, Gittins returned with an article published in Fairfax arguing against a “Big Australia”, again on the grounds that it will harm Australia’s natural environment and erode living standards:

The original bipartisanship was a kind of conspiracy. The nation’s business, economic and political elite has always believed in economic growth and, with it, population growth, meaning it has always believed in high immigration…

We can’t continue treating the economy like it exists in splendid isolation from the natural environment. And even when you ignore the environmental consequences, the proposition that population growth makes us better off materially isn’t as self-evident as most business people, economists and politicians want us to accept. Business people like high immigration because it gives them an ever-growing market to sell to and profit from. But what’s convenient for business is not necessarily good for the economy.

Since self-interest is no crime in conventional economics, the advocates of immigration need to answer the question: what’s in it for us? A bigger population undoubtedly leads to a bigger economy (as measured by the nation’s production of goods and services, which is also the nation’s income), but it leaves people better off in narrow material terms only if it leads to higher national income per person.

So does it? The most recent study by the Productivity Commission found an increase in skilled migration led to only a minor increase in income per person, far less than could be gained from measures to increase the productivity of the workforce.

What’s more, it found the gains actually went to the immigrants, leaving the original inhabitants a fraction worse off…

Why doesn’t immigration lead to higher living standards? To shortcut the explanation, because each extra immigrant family requires more capital investment to put them at the same standard as the rest of us: homes to live in, machines to work with, hospitals and schools, public transport and so forth.

Little of that extra physical capital and infrastructure is paid for by the immigrants themselves. The rest is paid for by businesses and, particularly, governments. When the infrastructure is provided, taxes and public debt levels rise. When it isn’t provided, the result is declining standards, rising house prices, overcrowding and congestion.

I suspect the punters’ heightened resentment of immigration arises from governments’ failure to keep up with the housing, transport and other infrastructure needs of the much higher numbers of immigrants in recent years…

In 2011, Gittins appeared on SBS Insight complaining that Australia’s temporary visa system is robbing youth of job opportunities:

And in March 2015, Gittins complained that mass immigration is destroying Australia’s productivity and ergo lowering living standards:

No discussion of our present and future productivity performance is adequate without assessment of the role being played by our policy of high immigration. But all we get is the throwaway line that “there is some evidence that” high levels of migration increase productivity because our focus on skilled migration raises the workforce’s average skill level and because “migrants can be highly motivated”.This is true and quite dishonest at the same time. It minutely examines the dog in the room while studiously ignoring the elephant. What economists know but try not to think about – and never ever mention in front of the children – is that immigration carries a huge threat to our productivity.

The unthinkable truth is that unless we invest in enough additional housing, business equipment and public infrastructure to accommodate the extra workers and their families, this lack of “capital widening” reduces our physical capital per person and so reduces our productivity.

Think of it: the very report announcing that our population is projected to grow by 16 million to 40 million over the next 40 years doesn’t say a word about the huge increase in infrastructure spending this will require if our productivity isn’t to fall, nor discuss how its cost should be shared between present and future taxpayers.

To which he followed-up in July 2015 explaining how “population growth can make us worse-off”:

Just about every economist, politician and business person is a great believer in a high rate of immigration and a Big Australia. But few of them think about the consequences of that attitude – which does a lot to explain our economic problems…

It shows even our economists have turned off their brains on the question of immigration and lost their way between means and ends. Now they believe in growth for its own sake, not for any benefits it may bring us.

Of course, slower growth in the population means slower growth in the size of the economy. But what of it? What do we lose?

The economic rationale for economic growth is that it raises our material standard of living. But this happens only if GDP grows faster than the population grows. So it doesn’t follow that slower GDP growth caused by slower population growth leaves us worse off materially.

That would be true only if slower population growth caused slower growth in GDP per person. I suspect many people unconsciously assume it does, but where’s the evidence?…

Politicians are always boasting about record government spending on this or that, but never make allowance for population growth in making such claims. (Why would they when often they don’t even allow for the effect of inflation?)

As for the claim that slower population growth will make it harder to reduce the budget deficit, it reveals just how unthinking we’ve become on immigration. It’s true enough that slower growth in the workforce means slower growth in tax collections.

But is that all there is to it? What about the other side of the budget? Aren’t we assuming a bigger population is costless? Skilled immigrants and their dependents never use the health system? They don’t have kids needing to be educated? They don’t add to traffic congestion, wear and tear on roads and 100 other taxpayer-provided services? Since there’s often a delay while they find jobs, who’s to say budgets, federal and state, wouldn’t be better off with fewer immigrants?

But what’s strangest about the economic elite’s unthinking commitment to high immigration is the way they wring their hands over our weak productivity growth and all the “reform” we should be making to fix it, without it crossing their minds that the prime suspect is rapid population growth.

It’s simple: when you increase the population while leaving our stock of household, business and public capital unchanged, you “dilute” that capital. You have less capital per person, meaning you’ve automatically reduced the productivity of labour.

So you have to do a lot more investing in housing, business structures and equipment and all manner of public infrastructure – a lot more “capital widening” – just to stop labour productivity falling…

Lower immigration would help reduce a lot of our economic problems – not to mention our environmental problems (but who cares about them?).

As far as I am aware, this was the final entry by Ross Gittins regarding Australia’s mass immigration program. Over the past two years, Gittins has gone silent just as the debate nationally has heated up. Why?

It’s not like the concerns have disappeared. To the contrary, population pressures in Melbourne and Sydney are greater than ever, causing all manner of problems from gridlocked roads and crush-loaded public transport to housing affordability.

The Australian economy’s per capita performance has also deteriorated, masked at the aggregate level by rampant population growth:

I can only speculate that Ross Gittins has been gagged by the Fairfax propagandists. After all, his employer benefits directly from the ponzi via its inflationary impact on the housing market (benefiting Domain), as well as its positive impact on readership (more people means more eyeballs and sales).

Or perhaps this is just Paulinephobia by Gittins: the fear of association with One Nation?

Either way, Ross Gittins needs to re-enter the debate to restore some balance to Fairfax and stand-up for the ordinary Australians that are being thrown under the bus by the ‘Big Australia’ folly.

C’mon Ross, your country needs you!

[email protected]

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)


  1. If mass immigration is good for newspaper readership, then why has Daily Mail UK been against mass immigration for years?

    And how has Mr Tom Elliott been allowed to rant against mass immigration for years on 3AW radio?

    Heck, the NSW equivalent gave air time to SAP. And SAP was given air time by Tom on the day of the SAP Vic division launch!

      • The other thing is, if you increase the population, you get more newspapers (Guardian AU, Huffington Post AU, Daily Mail AU), so each newspaper is no better off.

        GM has pulled out of the EU car market and the India car market – despite India buying more cars than ever. Population growth does not guarantee profit growth but competition growth!

        I honestly thought that Coles and Safeway would not want mass immigration because that would mean an end to their duopoly.

  2. Leith, I’ll write a reply from the globalists:
    ‘Australia enjoys ill gotten wealth. Australia is wealthy due to white privilege and exploitation. Only when all people around the world earn the same amount will equality be achieved. Therefore we must continue to flood the West with immigrants until our living standards are the same as developing countries.

    How else are we to achieve a true global socialist utopia?

    Your continued reference to the nation state is racist. The nation state is the source of all nationalism and nationalism is the enemy of communism. We must destroy all borders. All national cultures will be destroyed. Only then, with the destruction of the nation state. will white privilege be erased and all people will be able to live in harmony under pure socialism.’

    I really don’t think many people understand how radical the borderless world agenda is. They see your arguments wanting to protect Australian workers as nothing more than racism. Of course, anyone with half a brain could point these people to Venezuela or worse…but these people don’t have half a brain.

    • When we are talking about “communists” it should be clear that we are talking about their ideological descendants. They rarely describe themselves as communist these days though sometimes they may slip Marxist into their product description. Marxist is sufficiently vague and most people think it just means caring for people in a progressive way. In a way it does.

      The important point is that they remain committed to the project of 20th century modernism …the search for the universal. Global this, brotherhood of man that, scientific management etc, oodles of rationality.

      When we talk about their open borders common ground with modern radical capitalism, there is good reason for that common ground as radical neoliberal capitalism shares many of the same elements on its vision statement.

      If you talk to people in the ALP, LNP and Greens why they seem so comfortable with so much of what is considered neoliberalism or economic rationalism you will find that they truly believe it is about making the world more productive, rational and increasing the sum of human happiness. They can see how it might help what most pollies love. Grand government that solves everyone’s problems.

      Public private partnerships like modern central banking – managing and driving the economy from the centre with private debt using the ‘interest rate lever’ is just one example.

      Both sides believe they are doing God’s work and often in the same secular, spiritless and non-religious sense.

      Both sides are very different from the post modernists, real liberals AND the conservatives even though politically for practical reasons they can be found in the same room from time to time.

      To make matters even more confusing, many of the groups who after the Second World War thought it important to oppose both the left and right versions of the change the world brigade, found their arguments and themes being hijacked by those they oppose.

      Everyone ‘sounds’ like a hippy these days and talks of freedom, localism, self determination and self actualisation ..don’t be fooled by that as often they do not mean it.

      Thus why you will find essentially corporatist fascism clothing itself in grand talk about ‘freedom’ and the ideological grand kids of ‘communism’ /Stalinism/ Maoism doing much the same.

      They both want to make you free and for your own good.

      They have a common enemy too!

      Anyone across the political spectrum who is skeptical of their “one size suits all” project of global perfectionism.

      We need to take both versions of this modernist mania very very seriously as they love guns and bombs and systems of control and are not afraid to use them to make the world a better place.

      • I must have been distracted by your late 1980s campaign to nationalise the banks.

        When the wall came down all that happened is one team of world controllers decided to change strategies.

        Now they are back in the game and getting ready to rumble.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        Which wall? The one between left and right or the one where Germany is still occupied by the US but no longer Russia – those dastardly election meddlers..

      • Well now you are aware you should be able to see that it isn’t credible to blame the left for the status quo, itself a product of the vacuum created when the left exited stage right and left the show entirely in the hands of neoliberals whose antecedents are the Austrians, fake libertarian money crankists and other sorts considered fruit loops in the 50s and 60s.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        But your favourite modern politician ever, Hillary, called her cause a left wing progressive touchey feely inclusive common man’s saviour. And you lapped it up. As she collected $1.5B from billionaires and bankers…

      • Not my favourite I just didn’t like Trump. How’s Trump working out for you btw? Swamp almost drained?

      • Sweeper,

        You need to be clear who you are talking about. You sound like you are wistful for a particular brand of authoritarian.

        When your team lost (or switched sides to be more accurate) all we were left with were the capitalist variant and now we are watching the different Head Office international capitalist brands and their proxy governments get ready to slug it out.

        Despite what your fellow travellers like to argue there are plenty of ‘real lefties’ who don’t buy into the big gummint shtick.

        Skepticism about the modernist wet dream of central systems of control and authority is not the same as being a big L gun totting Libertarian. As you and your mate are so quick to point out they are often front organisations for card carrying corporatists with great connections to mainstream politics.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        Lefties never could wrap their minds around seeing all those people flee the MMT socialist workers paradise for the decadent corrupt money crankery of the West…

      • This whole “teh left did it” meme went rotten 30 seconds after it was packaged. Yet you still serve it up. What a mix up of means and ends. You confuse a program of economic justice or in the communist cases class emancipation with the use of state power towards those ends. For the genuine left the question was never “what does the state own”, question was “who owns the state”.

        Size of government is kind of academic when you are happy for property developers and bankers ** to own the state.

        ** provided they don’t issue 1c of liabilities which serve as means of exchange denominated in the States money.

      • Sweeper,

        “…For the genuine left…”

        You mean the ones I am talking about?

        Or are you talking about your open borders comrades ?

      • What binds everyone together is the common desire to prevent the plebs from voting against what these turds believe is their right to tell you what to do.

      • Sweeper,

        Of course your private banking buddies love open borders as well. That was the point I was making. Open borders etc etc are an essential part of the grand modernist vision splendid. There will be no pluralism – at least not outside the management levels.

        If it makes you feel any better I do think they ‘the Barclay Boys’ are running the show and your open borders comrades are what might be considered ‘useful idiots’

      • @pfh007: out of interest, have you ever read The Rational Optimist? ( ).

        If not, then I recommend it as it’s indirectly fascinating, providing quite a deep view into the mindset of a typical neoliberal driver. The whole book ends up being one long example of confirmation bias ( ), and it’s quite difficult to resist the message being sold unless you come pre-programmed with a strong set of bullshit detectors. (You’ll be safe).

        One such preparation is to bear in mind that the author, Matt Ridley, was a chairman at Northern Rock in the lead-up to the financial crisis:

      • Mediocritas,

        Thanks I will give it a read with an open mind…though the reference to Northern Rock does set a few bells ringing.

    • @007 couldn’t have put it better, myself. the only thing I’d add is that I imagine if you got them in private, most of our politicians would say that we have to get our wages down to the global average level, meaning they are driving that. And arguably they have a point. But the obfuscation around that in Australia means that the laziest path is taken instead of the fairest.

    • reusachtigeMEMBER

      If communism is about living with a bunch of hippies having free and open relations then I’m all for it!

  3. It doesn’t help economic problems. It will expose them. But we won’t be living cheek to jowl.

  4. Feels like these issues are being ignored by our pathetic leaders, no action taken on foreign donations, nothing on dual citizenship, media may cover these topics for a while then that’s it. This countries f#cked, maybe we will start seeing rioting in the street, I know I look at Chinese/Indian people differently now, sad really!

    • Yep I know what you mean. I look at the Indians in my IT department and now think “you’re ruining my kids’ future”

      • I look at the mostly white people that vote for it and say that to myself. They probably think I’m a commie. Heh heh. Well I am voting Green this time for their removal of negative gearing policy.

        Rowan Dean last night on Paul Murray said something against the 200k immigration level. So I guess it will slowly creep into the cuckservative narrative. I just do not trust them though. Not a bit!

  5. You’re asking a lot from a noted flip flopper, see his mining boom cheerleading to cursing its existence the moment it ended.

    I don’t think he cares what he’s saying, he just likes the continued relevance of having a platform and he’s got a core group of airhead fairfax readers who lap up what he’s saying. You only have to see his comments always being full of boot lickers.

    • This. He’s got his Papa Smurf thing going for him and he’s going to retire soon I would think. Why should he stick his neck out for a bunch of ingrate gen ys, and no doubt his bosses will come down on him like a tonne of bricks.

      I don’t like how we ask of 70 odd year olds to save us, ala Gittens and Dick Smith. Don’t you guys find it embarrassing? An admission of grave spinelessness? The younger generations should be putting up their own fight but overall they are so monumentally cretinous and overall what we get is largely deserved. There’s just too many imbeciles immediately switching their minds off or shutting down debate because of PC. Just complete dunces who should not have one iota of influence on politics but yet they have the majority of it.

      • They’re not spineless, they’re blinded by PC propagandists & respectful deference to their ‘wise’ elders…… To do well at the game, first you have to know how to play it. Till they see the reality they’re repetitively robotic useful idiots, as were previously disinterested generations at that age.

      • Only in the lower house. I’ll only have 4 options. Liberal, Labor, Green and some Christian party. In the senate it will be Sustainable Australia Party.

        PC infects all mainstream parties even the Liberals even though they often like to pretend otherwise. So it’s hopeless at the lower house level.

      • Oh please Colin I really think people should take at least some responsibility for their own brains even if they are ‘only’ 18.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        In that case why don’t you mention the donkey option? It’s better than voting for donkeys

      • Look more closely and you will find plenty of 30-40 year olds who are standing up on this issue. People like Dr Cameron Murray, William Bourke and younger voices like Bindi Irwin too.
        Amongst the group of SAP members I see a lot of mature Australians of every ethnicity and there are many who are younger than 40 on the register. Young people with small children are worried about the future their kids will inherit. We seem to have past peak prosperity, so that for the first time, over the past 10-20 years, young Australians are not confidently looking forward to a life that is better than their parents and grandparents.

      • ‘Oh Please” Is that meant to be some patronising control drama?
        As I said they’re not spineless, most take responsibility for what they can, or what they believe they understand! A lot of it will come from their parents world view at the age you chose. Then SJW’s at UNI will wreck their heads. What you think, & what actually happens at different life stages are entirely different things. The whole machine is designed so most don’t even really see the cracks in the fabric they were born into! Expecting kids to understand politics & see through complex manipulation at 18? I’ve got 30yo people asking me what’s going on – they feel powerless. Politics understandably, just ain’t sexy, particularly when there’s booze & the opposite sex to chase. Get into the real world.

      • Sorry Colin. The concept of more people plus much the same stuff to go around = less for each person must be more challenging to comprehend than what I thought.

      • People know something’s up Owen & they’re not happy. But they’re constantly told from ‘authorities’ that all’s well & population growth is the only way….. blah, blah. They’re busily trying to keep food on the table which is full time – not much time to think too hard, so they outsource it, like everything else in their lives. They’re PC’d, propagandized & guilted to pieces. Those schemes & megaphones are louder than peoples critical thinking skills & the Aussie cringe has been exploited to new levels. To you it’s a simple equation, but it takes work to get there, particularly if you’re relying on traditional sources for guidance. I know 50yo’s who can’t see through it, they’re too busy & their heads need a detox before they can even get a glimmer. Fear, guilt & Aussie cringe are a weak combination that are exploited & kept alive from birth by TPTB. If you can find a way through that you’ve got the penetration to ameliorate their cataracts. Expect a lot of mindless resistance along the way!

        Skip put Century of Self up ages ago – – If you haven’t watched it, I’d highly recommend it.

  6. It doesn’t really help things by labelling Peter Martin and Jessica Irvine as ‘extremists’. They might be misguided but they’re clearly not extremists.

    • migtronixMEMBER

      I think their position is extreme – big oz for the sake of big Oz for the sake of big GDP
      We’ve all had enough of that bullsh#t

      • Big GDP: Someone should tell them that’s akin to increasing the size of a penis, by adding tic-tac penises to it. Doesn’t actually increase the size of *your own* penis, but collectively – it wraps around Australia, twice.

        Hmm… Gross Domestic Penis – anyone?

    • The ‘sustainables’ are learning to fight fire with fire.

      Enormous intellects like Dick Smith, David Attenborough, Prof Ian Lowe, Dr Catherine Betts and others who have brains the size of a planet, along with the other mere mortals, are tired of being called racists, nativists or whatever, we are turning the tables to call out extreme views from dogma driven ideologues that threaten the survival of our society and even our species. A grow and hope mentality in a finite environment that is exhibited by the cornucopians is really a very extreme and foolish view.

    • To actively promote the idea that endless growth in a finite space is not only possible but desirable, is extreme.

      • She was lucky it was just a doe & not an aggressive 7ft boomer or she might’ve learned what a territorial flogging was.

    • blacktwin997MEMBER

      Ino i sincerely hope that this incident marks the symbolic start of a grassroots racism movement against our Chinese overlords as well as their toadying treasonous sycophants e.g. Dastyari, Robb, Asbestos Bishop, Fucking Wong et al

      • These are the only boomers willing do to something about it! Grass roots action indeed … on a golf course no less!

        Boom boom! 🙂

        thank you – thank you! I’m here all week! Do try the buffet!

  7. I’d say this dilemma stems from the fact that Australian’s only have choice within a very narrow framework of otherwise “correct” decisions.
    If we continue to make the “correct” decisions we remain free or at least free to call ourselves free. If we actually start to believe in the absolute freedom of our sovereign nation then we’ll quickly find out that our decisions are wrong with that one change we’ll scratch through the thin veneer that is is freedom.
    Like it or not Australian political, Economic, social and Immigration decisions need to slot neatly into a broader global decision matrix. If we can’t figure that out without external assistance then it’s highly likely that we’ll find ourselves replaced as the stewards of this land. The change over will be about as unceremonious as the firing of the Mooch…it’ll be just something that needs to be done, trust me the world will get over it quickly.

  8. I wonder how much of the current drama around University sexual harassment cases is being caused by overcrowding and international students?

    • I wonder how much of it is true. I’m only a few years out and never had harassment of any kind. Flirtations and flings, yeah sure. Sex happens. I did see that most complaints followed social events and we all remember those (or often not due to alcohol and buzz). Not getting excited about this one.

    • Belligerent Blue Jay

      I wonder how much of it is a ‘solution’, a political power grab, looking for a problem that uses an activist methodology that relies upon self reporting data (lol) exactly the same shenanigans that have been going on overseas, US for example.

  9. I’m totally on board with reducing immigration, and that (record) high levels of the last decade or so have seen us go backwards on many fronts. And support MB in its efforts (and yes, I need to pony up, and will).

    But I dont think Fairfax is more supportive of high immigration, or at least not the journalists as opposed to some of the editors, compared to News – and I read them both:

    E.g. article by Josh Gordon October last year

    and a recent series of articles by Royce Millar, Ben Schneiders, Clay Lucas (and others, sorry don’t have time to look them all up)

    Sure, Fairfax has some boosters, Michael Pascoe, Jessica Irvine (recent), Editor-in-chief Alex Lavelle (recent, and I hope I’ve got that right). But News has the biggest booster of them all, Bernard Salt, along with David Uren.

    • migtronixMEMBER

      Big Australia means Big Media, like the Laberal party the same oligarchy runs both camps…

  10. The dopey left run around wringing their hands about our increasingly degraded environment and refuse to accept that the growing number of human inhabitants of that environment has anything to do with it.

      • Even StevenMEMBER

        How dare you deny those less fortunate a chance at happiness in this sun-blessed country? Putting controls on immigration is RACIST. And if not that, then at least SELFISH. You are a bad person.