Only the conservative media seems capable of a population debate

By Leith van Onselen

Why is it that only the conservative (“Right”) side of the media and politics seems capable of having a debate on Australia’s future population?

Over the past year, we have seen conservative commentators like Judith Sloan, Terry McCrann, Adam Creighton, Andrew Bolt, and Mark Latham, Quadrant Magazine, as well as federal politicians like Cory Bernardi, Pauline Hanson, and Tony Abbott all question the merits of Australia’s 200,000 strong permanent migration program, which is the primary driver of Australia’s population growth and the projected ‘Big Australia’ of 40 million people mid-century.

I have also been asked to commentate on this issue by the conservative side of the media, including the Bolt Report,, and Radio 2GB, but have been ignored entirely by the left-leaning media.

Meanwhile, the bulk of the Left-leaning mainstream media continues to pump out endless propaganda on why never-ending mass immigration is both necessary and beneficial from the likes of Fairfax’s Peter Martin, Jessica Irvine and Michael Pascoe, The New Daily’s Rob Burgess, The Guardian’s Tom Westlandlake, as well as numerous commentators at The ABC. Only, Fairfax’s Ross Gittins has voiced strong concerns over mass immigration and a ‘Big Australia’ from the left.

This week has delivered yet another example of the left/right divide over the whole immigration/population debate. While left-leaning media commentators continued to ignore the issue entirely, commentators over at the Murdoch-owned Sky News have attacked the issue with gusto.

Here’s  Jones & Co on Tuesday night:

Here’s Mark Latham:

“The historic rate [of immigration] used to be 70,000 through the 20th Century. It’s now gone up to nearly three times that level. So, of course you get uncontrolled urban sprawl, massive expenses for infrastructure – costs that are heavy on the Budget, and you get competition in the labour market that’s keeping wages low and the population pressure causes the housing affordability crisis. You’ve got massive demand for housing in Sydney and Melbourne, and limited supply, so the prices go up”…

“The elites that support Big Australia all live in areas that are unaffected by the sprawl and the congestion. I sat in a minute traffic jam travelling south from Leppington trying to get to Camden. This is away from the city towards the edge of the city this morning. 40 minutes because the roads are shot to pieces and the volume of houses being built in South-West Sydney is extraordinary. I’ve lived out there for 50 years and I’ve never seen congestion like it”.

And here’s Peta Credlin:

“You know why they do it?.. It’s done because putting a high immigration forecast into the Budget numbers pumps primes the forward estimates because it gives you an artificial growth number. So every treasurer who says going in to being treasurer that they want to drop the immigration number gets mugged by the reality of the Treasury forecast that says unless you put in these unrealistic and unsustainable increases in immigration, year on year on year, your growth numbers will fall away, and if your growth numbers fall away it affects your broader Budget. So, it’s done for Budget trickery and the problem is, the people are coming. They are coming into big cities like Sydney and Melbourne… And it’s unsustainable growth. But it will not stop until it’s called out”.

On the same night, Paul Murray Live also attacked the issue:

Here’s Paul Murray:

“You want to talk about a political issue that is not discussed by major parties? Not discussed by big media? It’s about population… This is the big issue…  Today, it literally took 90 minutes to get from my place to pick up my daughter at childcare…  This stuff matters. Every time they build a road, they have to get a private company to do it. The private company doesn’t build a four lane road, they build a two lane road and then they put a damn toll on top of it.  And then they just add more people, and more people, and more people, and more people. And if you blow up about it, you’re a racist.

This is not on. How can we continue to have the same policy of Big Australia? Well, we have it to make sure that the Budget keeps growing and the country always keeps growing economically. As Dick Smith says about a Big Australia, it’s a Ponzi scheme. You need as many people as possible paying tax now for all of the benefits that are at the back end for other people. Somebody should confront this, but again, if you talk about it you are racist”…

Sadly, it seems that only the conservatives in Australia are capable of having a mature discussion on the whole immigration/population issue. The Fake Left, by contrast, are missing in action, pushing endless propaganda in favour of mass immigration and abandoning the working classes, youth and environment that they purport to represent.

The Left would do well to take a leaf out of Bernie Sanders playbook and rethink their advocacy of ‘open borders’, which is playing directly into the hands of the capitalist elites that they supposedly oppose.

[email protected]


  1. Imagine how much different the country might be today if only Peta Credlin had some influence in Australian politics she could have used to raise her concerns about immigration and population before now…

    I love the way the architects of this shitstorm are suddenly the heroes.

    • migtronixMEMBER

      Yup. This is all fantasy, the only reason these people are saying this is they hate Turnbull.

      Cretinlin will spinning an open borders line as soon as her dog is back in the kennel.

      • HadronCollision

        This. Anyone living in fantasy land thinking this is because these elite clowns give a flying flick of the fast donut is kidding themselves.

        Like Mig said, it’s because Turnbull.

      • Hey at least it’s being discussed now in the media. Think back 12-24 months it wasn’t even being said…

    • ErmingtonPlumbing

      Yes at Mig & Smithy,
      There Poll numbers (NLP) are suffering and know they have to pull a rabbit out of the hat, to have any chance of holding power.
      They (NLP) may cut “some” Numbers, for a time,…but the Wage suppressing “Business” visa numbers will never be reduced under them.

      My main concern is that Labor pollsters, spindoctors and leadership decide to turn this into a polarised and partisan, Us verses Them “battle”,… like this ridiculous obsession with Gay Marriage (by both sides!)
      It’s Simple path of least resistance, political Game Play, not true representation.

      Simply turning up on Election day once every few years, is not enough.
      The Ars*holes in charge need to be held accountable by their own memberships.
      Please help.

      If joining Labor is just to untenable, then get of your arse, join SAP and participate.


        “”BILL Shorten has declared himself a supporter of a “big Australia” population policy, setting down one of the markers he will adopt if he wins the next election.

        Mr Shorten, who celebrates one year as Labor leader today, said immigration had been a great economic driver and he expected Australia’s population to grow at a faster rate than the world average.

        “I don’t favour that bumper sticker which says ‘Go away, we’re full’,” he said in an interview with The Australian.

        But the Opposition Leader would “not put a number” on what Australia’s population should be.”” – October 2014

      • ErmingtonPlumbing

        “”BILL Shorten has declared himself a supporter of a “big Australia” population policy, ”

        You articulate One of the main reasons why I’m encouraging all here to join the ALP,…only 53,000 people needed to double the membership of the Party and Demand Labor return, to its Traditional mission of Representing the interests of Working people!

        How many people would be needed to put a stop to the Labor/NLP political dominance at the ballot box?

        How many millions?

    • When Credlin was working for her boss, the great failure, neither she nor he did anything about the ponzi (dispite footnote’s arm waving about it) so this sudden ‘concern’ just smells to me of the typical opportunism that the wing nuts typically practice.

      • And blaming Treasury. Get a grip. Treasury advises. You decide. But at least we’re getting the real picture out in the open now.

      • Exactly! The ruling inner circle are fully aware of what is going on and it looks like once out of power (or deposed) you start raising it, with a white-ant motive.

        As for Treasury advises and you decide … I think the decision was made by politicians long ago to juice the numbers … and both parties sat atop of this decision. It is the magic sauce in the budget and no one is game enough to take it out.

      • The Treasury has supported mass immigration since the early 2000s when Ken Henry wheeled-out his three P’s framework (the third P being increasing population growth via immigration). I know because I worked there.

      • Of course it is opportunistic. They are all opportunistic. Look at some of the Labor members and their flip flopping on SSM.
        Either side is happy to propose a policy and then subsequently vote against their own proposal because the other side adopted it and put it up as legislation. They are nothing but opportunists whose sole focus is attaining the trappings of office or the lucrative roles that follow post-politics. The rest is subordinate.
        I don’t think Credlin is blaming Treasury as much as pointing out that each Treasurer receives a range of figures and forecasts from Treasury and none can resist the siren song of positive growth figures that implicitly accompany a high immigration rate. Opportunists all.

      • The Treasury model for the economy is just rubbish. Ken Henry was the epitome of that rubbish. Treasury policy is Debt to the Moon!! Selling out future generations is no concern of Treasury. It should be cleaned out – every last person working there. Same for the RBA.

      • I agree JC 2610, the politicians know exactly what is going on, they just ignore the truth whilst in office, then denounce this policy when out of office.
        Another great example who be Jo Hockey who critisised Negative Gearing when stepping down as Treasurer

      • Strangely, when Dick Smith spoke with Tony Abbott when he was in opposition, about lowering population growth,Tony agreed that it was an issue but said that he could not bring the right wing of the Party along with him on that topic and felt that if he said anything, he would be tarred by the media as a racist. So it was left untouched!

    • lol… its like a storm isn’t it. if you were every wondering what trading feels like. this is it. when will the story break? if you can pick the break point (in the aggregate narrative), you get rich. but being wrong about the timing of the story breaking is being wrong period, and the markets do not forgive.

    • My manager at work (who is an Irish immigrant) feels very uncomfortable when I discuss immigration in this country. He seems to think housing affordability is not being impacted by mass immigration, he thinks it’s loose credit (which is true) but he has a blind eye to the population ponzi and I can tell it makes him very uncomfortable to talk about it.

      I still do it haha.

      • @Gavin
        Similar here with colleagues and today a person just arrived with wife and 3 teenage children to nurse at our new prison. All ex UK and a few colleagues all at the same time. Not enough nurses in OZ to do this job. None one 457’s like to talk about immigration, nor do the ‘students’ arriving with their wives, children and parents and moving into old AV Jennings special triple fronted brick veneers in West Melbourne – aah multicultural. Just why do we have to embrace people from other coutries – give them jobs and homes many Australians could work and live in. I’m so over PC nonsense. I tell them its a crush, oppressive and destroying the quality of life. I wish for them all to click their heels together 3 times – theres no place like home and LEAVE OZ!

  2. This just makes it all the more important to get dialogue going with Labor et al as the wing nuts are likely to be out after the next election and unless we want to start all over again on the ponzi we have to start now with Labor.

    So forget the wing nuts, forget the LNP focus on convincing Labor, no whining because whining won’t change Labor’s stance instead build bridges and dialogue.

    • i wouldn’t write off the LNP just yet, not if shorten keeps calling anyone concerned about out of control immigration a political extremist and 4 brain cell morons like jenny leong even exist

      • I actually think Labor can still lose if they back a BIG Australia agenda, I certainly won’t vote for them, even if they say they will scrap negative gearing. Because I feel that mass immigration is a bigger problem for housing affordability.

    • I’ve never voted LNP, but if they had an epiphany, or just prioritised remaining in government, and said they would substantially reduce immigration there is a chance they would win. The depth of feeling on the issue is palpable.

  3. The left wing used to talk sense on immigration!

    a decade ago…they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers

    In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.”

    It not only shrinks wages but makes underemployment absurdly high by letting 40 year old males with PhDs come here and work in IT for $2000/month and letting exam cheats from villages drive trucks here for $10/hour!

    • Also the Left don’t advocate open borders, they’re just silent on it, technically in the greens because consensus hasn’t been reached. Labor- oh are they Left?

    • In other news today…. There are 22 uni graduates for each advertised graduate position. Why? Because businesses don’t need uni graduates when they can import cheap labour.
      Hence a waste of time to go to uni.
      Given that the government won’t stop the visa racket, it means universities in this country have become obsolete. No use training people and giving them loans to study for jobs that don’t exist for them.
      Yes, shut them all down.
      (Sorry, that was a bit cynical)

      • Unis are also the first time, in many cases, that young people are exposed / locked into debt of any significance. This opens their eyes to what can be achieved by going into debt, and gets them started at a very young age on the debt wheel, with optional upgrades at every milestone of their life. HELP is currently a government scheme, but I reckon their must be some hard core lobbying going on to privatise this.

      • Hence a waste of time to go to uni.

        Not entirely, a degree lets you get past that first cut by HR of the thousand applications they receive for a part-time secretary job.

  4. Yeah … we can see it building but what is going to make it pop? Berijiklian’s recent comments shows the contempt these pricks have for the electorate and the deteriorating standard of living this ponzi is causing. NSW Labour says nothing in response. How do WE stop it?

    • Why not make it personal? The LNP, ALP, and Greens are all equally bad on this issue, so take Pauline Hanson’s advice and just keep putting the sitting member last. Mass migration is such a potent multiplier of most of our other problems that I, at least, don’t care what any of them have to say about anything else. Make your electorate change sides like the ball in a game of table tennis. The candidates will soon learn that the business elite can give them money, but they can’t force you to vote for them. They will soon put pressure on their party to put a stop to the Ponzi.

  5. The liberals are in, and they’re supposed to be the party for the right wingers/ conservatives, why doesn’t Malcolm lower these levels with the stroke of his pen? These commentators should be screeching at the liberals rather than requesting to debate with the left.

    • And this is probably the role of One Nation. If ON does not implode before the next election, they will form part of the coalition and potentially make this one of their non-negotiables.

    • We should see the same levels hysteria from these commentators aimed at the Liberals for this issue, just like what they subjected Labor to for the Mining Tax / Carbon Tax.

    • Mind you, it is the Left that Malcolm Turnbull (emulating John Key in NZ) is selling out to, perhaps from an anxiety to be liked by the beautiful people and the talking heads that determine what “virtue” is these days.

    • Because, as I wrote in another post that seems to be lost in the aether, it’s actually the neoliberal right who are the architects and builders of this catastrophe.

      Credlin all but ran Government for years.

      And Latham ? Well, Latham’s cosied up to the Liberal Democrats, whose immigration policy basically reads like a formalisation of everything that is wrong with the current system:
      * Negotiate Free Immigration Agreements (FIAs) with compatible countries to allow unrestricted movement of citizens between those countries.
      * Replace the current points-based quota system with a tariff system where immigrants pay for the right to become a permanent resident (PR) in Australia.
      * Adopt a liberal approach to temporary residency for workers and tourists.

      The Liberal Democratic Party believes the free movement of people, within and between countries, generally contributes to greater prosperity.

      It believes immigrants contribute a net social and economic benefit to Australia and advocates expanding opportunities to live, study and work in Australia while carefully guarding access to welfare and citizenship.

      The LDP also supports “Free Immigration Agreements” with certain countries similar to the existing agreement with New Zealand.

      Both should be pilloried for gross hypocrisy.

  6. The current migrant intake (Citizenship / PR 2 million in the last decade, plus currently 2.1 million TR and 400k illegally working tourists) has increased the costs of living, destroyed housing affordability, created a homeless crisis, lowered wages, destroyed apprenticeships & youth investment, casualized job tenure, created unemployment.
    It has completely destroyed education (dropped 10 places globally) as it sold itself off to the visa rackets, ignited vast migrant labour underground & vice rackets, tens of billions in criminal money laundering, and then all the social impacts of congestion / public infrastructure costs and other impacts to living standards & quality of life.

    If the debate was about migrant intake being high skill in need, bonded, location bound & no welfare or health care until taxation paid as a migrant intake – then we are starting to get to parity in what most OECD countries & even China, much of South East Asia & India do today.

    On the Temporary Visas – follow China or the other OECD countries – high level post grad education only , shorter term visas, audited and constantly checked proof of funds, total removal of work rights for the majority of Temporary visa holders (excepting only genuine skilled 457/458 or NZ born in SCV), proof location controls, enforcement of visa conditions and no discounts or concessions in taxation.
    Just like China, India & most of the OECD.
    Residential Housing – citizen & PR only with enforcement to stamp out proxy & foreign criminal syndicate slum share racketeering.

    That would make for a more sensible debate.

    It’s not about Australia being racist or elitist.
    It’s about the morality, intent and the economic & social contribution of the migrant intake & foreign investment.

    And asking – “why don’t we have a standards of quality & control in sovereign/citizen protection ~ similar to the migrant & investment countries of origin” like for example China, India, South East Asia, the Middle East, or what the U.K., Canada, Japan, Korea or others have in place today ?

  7. Leith, you left out Quadrant Magazine, “always in the news”. And the epicentre of Australian conservatism.

  8. No They are not able to have population debate.
    It’s just an accident that on this issue right wing ideology coincides with some economic theory.

  9. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you discuss immigration in anything but positive terms, you’re automatically a racist, and thus you’re now so far to the right you make Hitler look warm and cuddly.

  10. Here is an environmental journalist trying to justify why he refuses to talk about population


    The answer seems pretty clear.

    Female empowerment and education are powerful effective contraceptives but working to those goals in developing countries means exporting ‘western’ ideas about female empowerment and education. So if we are going to try to spread those ideas to people better not say it is because they tend to lead to people breeding less.

    This is a huge problem for the cultural relativist who thinks all cultures are awesome even those that sound like ours 100 years ago.

    His point about wealthy people just does not make sense. Attracting people from low resource intensity economies to high ones will increase resource consumption. Even more so if resources in that high resource society are distributed equitably.

    The best solution is to export:

    1. Ideas about female education and empowerment even if a bunch of culturally vibrant old misogynist men don’t like it.

    2. Export / give away capital in the form of renewable energy and energy efficient transport systems to reduce resource consumption in developing economies.

    3. Ideas about monetary reform that encourages productive investment over speculation and consumption

    4. Truckloads of television and electronic gadgets as they are awesome contraceptives.

    • Here is another article in a similar vein to the VOX one.,9816

      It has a touch of the Tom Westland global welfare function thinking

      These are the kind of arguments that are being made in the salons of the high minded folks.

      Addressing them head on is essential because as the first article made clear they are determined to conceal their reasoning and any real debate. Though of course they do want a debate about why we should not have a debate.

      But that does require smoking them out.

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      Just returned from my U3A Friday Forum meeting, where in general discussion a woman gave us a 5 minute harangue on affordble housing.I was sitting next to her and when she finished I told her of my shed reno that created a very livable space for a small monetary outlay.
      “You should join my group .” she said.
      “If you want affordable housing ,” I replied , “Cut immigration. levels”
      A look of baffled horror overcame her, “You can’t do that .” she said.
      I got on with my day.

  11. Does anyone actually believe that any of these people care about the working class standard of living?
    So why might they be blaming immigrants then..

    • Politicians right across the spectrum are largely sales people who sell you what they think you want.

      If a growing group of pollies are talking about the impact of high rates of immigration/population growth it is because they believe those impacts are of importance to a chunk of the voter market.

      While some of those pollies might include other policies in their offering that appeal to other chunks of voters or overlapping chunks is beside the point.

      Smart politicians try to find the combination of policies that appeal to the biggest market share possible.

      The progressive side of politics is ignoring the growing impacts of population growth largely because their pollies don’t think it is having an impact (they live in the inner burbs well serviced with hot and cold transport and services) and even if it did they don’t want to provide policies to address it for other reasons…see above. They are so lazy they don’t even want to address the issues that have run down productive investment – getting a post career gig in FIRE is so important. Just ask Anna Bligh among many.

      They prefer to insist there is no impact and abuse anyone who says there is one.

      Ultimately the ballot box will resolve this as if there is an issue and it is important to people they WILL vote for politicians who offer policies to address it.

      I would have thought the issue is clearly real judging from the growing rejection of high rates of immigration (not immigration) in comments made across the main stream media.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        “Ultimately the ballot box will resolve this as if there is an issue and it is important to people they WILL vote for politicians who offer policies to address it.”


      • Pauline seems to be making a few easy bucks out of it and immigration / sustainability appear to be the new black.

        Naturally all those proletariat asset owners are torn between no room on the roads and watching their paper wealth shoot upwards. Though they can swing like biatches from their verandas with baseball bats. So there is that.

      • Or maybe they are trying to shift blame from the real culprit – neoliberalism. All those people (incl. Latham) are ardent neoliberals.

      • The economy is soooo distorted. Dropping the immigration rate IS going to hurt – particularly Sydney and Melbourne. The whole debt injection/ building boom directed into these two cities is going to take a real hit. The resulting cascade could become an avalanche. Remember the sand pile.
        I’m not too sure how people are THEN going to vote. They sure won’t vote for more immigration but what will they vote for?

      • Sweeper,

        Open borders is a neoliberal core belief.

        The global welfare function progressives are into open borders too and ironically often use neoliberal open border economic talking points to justify their position.

        That video with Bernie Sanders above illustrates this very well. Bernie explicitly rejects the interviewers claim that open borders is a progressive thing. He says it’s a Koch bros idea.

        Keep in mind there is a real difference between a conservative and a neoliberal on economics.

        True conservatives are not keen on the radical economic ideas of neoliberalism or the far left for that matter.

      • Or maybe they are trying to shift blame from the real culprit – neoliberalism. All those people (incl. Latham) are ardent neoliberals.


        You kind of have to admire not just the shamelessness, but the efficacy of the neoliberal machine. There haven’t been any serious lefties anywhere near power for decades, but somehow the massive immigration problem is all their fault.

      • So Chifley and Calwell were neoliberals 007?
        Smithy, its straight out of Murdoch & Daily Mail playbook in the UK. So obvious yet so effective.

      • Sweeper,

        You knowledge of ALP history is so woeful.

        Neither Chifley nor Calwell nor Menizies for that matter were open border unlimited immigration enthusiasts. Their position was not so different to mine.. If you want immigration to increase the rate of population growth – for whatever reason – it needs to be supported by a vast amount of productive investment.

        Why don’t you get off the Colourbond fence and give us the Sweeper’s views on:

        * an appropriate rate of population growth (unless you are a full open borders hero)
        * whether it can be achieved solely by policy supported increased local reproduction or if immigration has a role – if so how much
        * what other economic policies are required to ensure that the rate of population growth is supported by sufficient productive investment.

        If you were paying attention you would notice that all the serious neoliberals in Australia – your mates in FIRE particularly – are still red hot on a Big Australia and stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of the NSW #FakeGreens on the subject.

        As I noted above there is a difference between a conservative and a neoliberal.

        It is not at all surprising that conservatives can be opposed to high rates of immigration while neoliberals support high rates.

        Just like old school conservatives opposed both Iraq Wars but neo-conservatives (aka trots that got jobs but still wanted to bend the world to their egos) were dead keen on remaking societies with plane loads of TNT and bullets.

      • “You knowledge of ALP history is so woeful.”


        “If you were paying attention you would notice that all the serious neoliberals in Australia – your mates in FIRE particularly – are still red hot on a Big Australia and stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of the NSW #FakeGreens on the subject”.

        That’s just Pascoeish style journalism. Says nothing takes the debate nowhere. Constantly talking about my mates in the FIRE sector is ridiculous. You know it’s not true. I’ve advocated nationalisation and criminal penalties for management. You on the other hand have advocated that a small ever shrinking proportion of *some* banks liabilities not be allowed to be denominated in the State’s money. Why don’t you poll a few bank execs and see which option they’d prefer.

        Like your banking dramas, you have a real problem in logic identifying the active from the passive.
        Neo-liberalism is a system/ideology created, maintained and collectively shaping the lives of human beings. Adjusting the qty of human beings living under a system has zero bearing on the system itself.

        And btw despite being an enthusiastic supporter of high population Calwell understood this. Unlike you:

        “Immigration is, at best, only the counterpart of the most important phase of population building, natural increase. Any immigration policy, therefore, must be intimately related to those phases of Government policy that are directed towards stimulating the birth-rate and lowering the infant mortality rate in Australia itself. It must, further, be related to the whole social service programme of creating greater economic security and a higher standard of living, as an inducement to young Australian couples to have larger families. In this connexion, the work of the new department must and will be closely integrated with the work of the Department of Social Services, the Department of Health, and the Department of Labour and National Service.

        On the other side of the picture, the department will approach its problem from the basisthat it is economically unsound to bring migrants to the country until there is continuous employment for them, and secondly, proper housing and other social amenities to help them to fit themselves quickly into the Australian way of life. In its turn, employment potential depends not merely on production, but on the development of new and expanded markets for Australian products. In this way, therefore, immigration policy is closely interwoven with the work of the new Housing Department, the Secondary Industries Commission, the Rural Industries Commission, and the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. It is only by giving it its proper setting in the whole national economy that the question can be brought into a right perspective. ”

        However much immigration is welcomed in principle, we cannot expect Australians to be very keen about it unless there are jobs for all. There will, for instance, be a natural desire to make sure that every demobilized serviceman gets a job before any immigrants come in. The establishment of new industries will, however, require skilled labour to start them. We can usefully, therefore, think of immigration in terms of bringing out the man and the job together. The idea is prevalent that Australia needs immigrants primarily for the land. Actually, the British or other European farmer and agricultural worker finds it difficult to adjust himself to Australian conditions on the land. Except in well-settled districts, the environment is quite different from anything he is likely to have experienced at home. The non-industrial settler would, to my mind, find his best scope in and around the country towns. Nothing would benefit Australia more than an increase in the number of towns of about 50,000 inhabitants. It is the old story of having a large enough domestic market. A centre of population has to reach a certain size before it can support local institutions and professional and com- munity services, which- of themselves create employment.

        In conclusion, I assure the House that we are approaching the problems associated with immigration with a full realization of their importance and their difficulties, but with a recognition that this question is something essential to our national welfare and something that is above all sectional interest. The accomplishment of our immigration policy will require the support of every political party in the House and of every public organization in the community. We cannot afford to fail. There is so much dependent on the success of our population policy that failure will spell national disaster.”

        This was a time when people could think clearly. And didn’t think property developers had the answer to housing affordability, or one class of bank liabilities had the capacity to destroy society. But now we’ve got social media I guess.

      • Sweeper,

        Nice quote from Calwell.

        Liked this one as well for different reasons.

        “…Neo-liberalism is a system/ideology created, maintained and collectively shaping the lives of human beings. Adjusting the qty of human beings living under a system has zero bearing on the system itself….”

        You need to make your mind up Sweeps. Now you seem to be arguing that neoliberals are not pushing for a Big Australia because they can be happy little neoliberal vegemites with 24M as much as 50M.

        The things you will argue just to support your claim that some unpleasant people are arguing against immigration BECAUSE they are neoliberals. Why not just go with the easy explanation, that they are rat bag opportunists who have stumbled on a policy that actually might appeal to a few people.

        I have never suggested you don’t want some rough justice for a few bank execs. That seems to be Skippy and your go to solution for all the problems of the banking sector.

        That is called diverting attention by identifying the problems as a few bad apples. An old technique but a good one. Throw a couple under the bus and drive onwards.

        I know you like to toss nationalisation of the banks into the mix, perhaps because it sounds good, but an eager ALP historian like you would know why Bank Nationalisation failed in 1949. It sounds to me like you are demanding something that was and remains doomed to failure because something that will never happen suits your FIRE mates just fine. Did you ever read that link I gave you from the Chifley Institute discussing what happened in 1949. If not you should. Her it is again

        Why do I reach such a conclusion? Because you insist on nationalisation of the private organisations banks but kick and scream at the thought of simply nationalising public money. I could understand you supporting the later and insisting we need to do the former as well but calling for the former but rejecting the later does not make sense because the former by definition includes the latter.

        Nationalising public money is the easiest option because it can be achieved in stages – by restricting private bank credit creation while expanding public credit creation (if you prefer to call it that) – or at one time.

    • “Does anyone actually believe that any of these people care about the working class standard of living?
      So why might they be blaming immigrants then..”

      Bernie Sanders

      • Unfortunately Bernie is a Magic Pudding man. Note these clowns all seem to believe in the Magic Pudding and probably when it is all boiled down Bernie is no worse.

    • ErmingtonPlumbing

      Yes agree with 007,…nice Calwell Quote, Sweeper.
      Where did you find that one?

      Oops, you posted a link,…sorry🙄

  12. The meme that there is no cost to unending population growth, and mass immigration which is often explained that technology will provide the solution, but how can it if the sea and lands are poisoned.

    For those who say this is not the case just believe what MSM swill tells them and don’t open their eyes. It’s sickening what’s happening, but none of the main parties will tackle it. They know nothing of sustainability, or sound economic management.

    • +1 The aggressive childlike naivety of the open borders left is its worst enemy.
      Trapped by its own virtue signalling.
      Bernie Sanders called it.
      Useful idiots for the Koch brothers.

  13. To put Hanson in as a person having a mature conversation is a joke. Hanson’s prime concern is race, if the cause of high immigration was because of a large influx of whites from the UK, she wouldn’t be interested. The problem for her is she doesn’t like Indians or Chinese.

    And no, I don’t support the present rate of immigrattion.

    • ErmingtonPlumbing

      I agree, she is a Racist who doesn’t like “Brown people”.
      But in a Multicultural Society, do we expect people not to show any preference for people of there own Culture?
      Is showing any preference Racist? And if so does that mean people creating their own little Cultural enclaves are all Racists?
      Can one have a Cultural preference without being a Racist?

      “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]

      Wow!,..”Anybody who is not proud of his race is not a man at all”
      A commonly put forward argument when discussing “non white people” But a white man saying that,…OMG!!!
      I just involuntaryly shat myself!!!

      • Relevant StakeholderMEMBER

        C’mon mate, don’t you know that nationality, culture, religion, history, tradition, and morals are all an illusion created by the elite!

        If you put any stock in them you are a stupid bogan voting against your class interests!

        The only real thing in this world is money and what it can buy you!

      • EP,

        Sorry, but that is just a bullshit argument. No one is claiming you cannot be proud of your cultural heritage, it’s when you believe that your culture is superior to all others that you have an issue. Hanson, as bloody DUMB as she is, thinks SHE is superior to all those she dislikes.

        I would also say wanting any immigration that was to take place to have a gradual change on our culture would be fair. I doubt Hanson and others like her want anything other than anglos.

        To answer your question about cultural preference my response would depend on what you mean by “prefer” and why, as it’s a can of worms. I’ve met people who just cannot stand people of colour, something inside them is shaken by it. When you believe that somehow you are better than them, yes, you’re racist.

        Why would you prefer people of your own culture exclusively? Unless you’re hiding something inside you’d rather not mention!

  14. We humans are a tribal emotional lot really. Facts don’t persuade people to ditch their tribe (i.e the left or right) and instead make them more wedded to their idea. It’s human really.

    As someone on neither camp I don’t care who says it; I just care they say the right thing. Whether it’s Sarah Hanson Young or Pauline Hanson or whoever don’t play the man. We care too much about who says it rather than analysing what they say to see whether it has merit.

    When you can shut a debate down just by saying “that’s what one nation suppprts so your racist” or “your just a greeny enemy of progress” you know it isn’t factual but tribal and that at the end of the day we really aren’t that intelligent.

    • As someone on neither camp I don’t care who says it; I just care they say the right thing. Whether it’s Sarah Hanson Young or Pauline Hanson or whoever don’t play the man. We care too much about who says it rather than analysing what they say to see whether it has merit.

      I take interest in WHY they say it.

      Someone who forgot their house keys and a burglar are both after the same result when they turn the doorknob.

  15. No surprises that the left in Australia have the virtue signalling lever stuck in the ON position. They were prepared to have thousands die at sea for their virtue, so is anyone surprised?