NSW Opposition leader calls for immigration cut

The worm is turning. From The Australian over the weekend:

NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley has backed Tony Abbott’s call for a closer look at immigration, including a cut to total numbers, saying that if elected he would push for the yearly intake to be decided by the state and federal governments in a proper “national population policy”.

Mr Foley’s call for a more sensible immigration policy has echoes of former Labor premier Bob Carr’s “Sydney is full” pronouncement. Mr Foley argues the federal government “reaps the benefits” of higher immigration, through increased tax revenue, but that state governments “wear the cost” in having to meet infrastructure needs.

…“From 2004 to 2008, the net migrant intake went from about 110,000 to about 300,000 and the capacity of our large cities in this country to cope is being severely tested and the test is greatest in Sydney,” Mr Foley tells The Weekend Australian.

“The migration intake has to be set, not simply by the commonwealth government alone any more, but by all Australian governments working jointly, given the burden the states bear in having to pay for the infrastructure.

“And I think we need to set the migrant intake numbers on a five-yearly basis going forward … and the discussion occurs every year between the commonwealth and the states.

“That would be very different to now and all the factors the states would bring to the table are the pressures we see in our state capital every day — which is congested roads, congested trains, congested buses, groaning under the weight of a surging population.”

Bravo. The idiotic Berejiklian Government is already sinking in the polls as it fails to cope with infrastructure strains, has only made housing affordability worse and seeks to distract the polity by building useless new stadiums:

Is it any wonder? According to the NSW Government’s own population projections, Sydney’s projected population increase over the next 20-years (i.e. 1.74 million people at 87,000 people per year) will be driven almost entirely by net overseas migration (i.e. 1.53 million or 77,000 people a year):

It would take a superb planning system to deal with this growth and ours is a paralysed joke.

Comments

  1. He also said there should be jail for wage theft. But right wing pricks online say “Howard took that power away from the states”. Is that true? If so, I can imagine. After all, the braindead left wing has won just one federal election since April 1993!

    I am afraid this immigration talk from him is just a repeat of what Bob Carr did – keep saying the right thing (“Sydney is full”) because the feds determine the immigration rate.

    The states can certainly make foreigners pay up. Ban foreigners from owning real estate here and put a rental tax on foreigners.

    Perhaps the states can use state-owned firms to “donate” money to the federal ALP to force a cut in the immigration rate. A firm like VicTrack.

    • I think there is a lot of value in the politicians making noise even if they have no real power. The arguments, myths and facts need to become mainstream. Sort of like SSM where no one person had any real power but made enough noise to make it happen.

  2. Beware that immigration numbers could be halved- but this would still be too many to cope wth!!

    • This. So there’s a small possibility, that our immigration in take reduces from a fire-hose gushing to a steady pumping.

      This isn’t the Australia I grew up in, it’s much worse. We never signed up for this.

      Our politicians should be tried for treason.

      • “Our politicians should be tried for treason.”
        Oh yes!!! And for more reasons than only immigration!

      • Can we just start hanging. I’m sure if there was a plebesite on each politicians it would be black and white who goes.

      • Sometimes I think that could happen.

        I’d like to see some new politicians talking of jailings and confiscating their families wealth.

    • You mean like bringing SOME people here who share our cultural values – not exactly but generally!

    • The best way to get the pro immigration left confused is to tell them that Australia’s immigration policy is colonialism as we are stealing the highly educated and wealthy who could improve the lives of the poor in those countries.

      • And if someone replies with “but a minute ago you were telling me about how the hordes of third-world immigrants coming in were all low-skill grunt workers barely capable of the toilet-cleaning jobs they’re filling” ?

      • Dr S, then hit back with “that’s not the case, we have immigrant surgeons, doctors and engineers driving taxis and cleaning bathrooms. Such a waste of talent, imagine all the good they could do back home in their local communities. This immigration policy is nothing but raping the third world again, first it was commodities, now its brain power.”

      • Ask the left if they’ve asked original Australians if it’s okay to invite 400k more invaders every year. The left are such a lost group of morons.

      • J Bauer

        Don’t use logic to fight the left. They can’t put together a six piece Thomas The Tank Engine jigsaw.

        It’s literally true. Research has shown, that people of the left can’t see four of the seven aspects to any given issue.

        Their brains do not work that way. So, it’s like arguing with a six year old.

      • Dr S, then hit back with “that’s not the case, we have immigrant surgeons, doctors and engineers driving taxis and cleaning bathrooms. Such a waste of talent, imagine all the good they could do back home in their local communities. This immigration policy is nothing but raping the third world again, first it was commodities, now its brain power.”

        There’s teams of westerners rampaging through third world countries snatching doctors and engineers off the streets ?

        The underlying point of third world brain drain is fair, but presenting it through a blackbirding lens is moronic. Especially since even a sane immigration policy (ie: greatly limited numbers of genuine high-value immigrants) would be even more “destructive” in that sense.

        Unless your position is along the lines of “zero immigration from third world countries because we know best what third world people need, and it’s to stay where they are”.

        You could just about count the number of people whose basis of complaining about immigrants is “they’re good people who should be helping build their homelands” on one hand.

      • drsmithy

        “Unless your position is along the lines of “zero immigration because we know best what third world people need, and it’s to stay where they are”

        Forget what’s best for them. Why do you hate Australians so much? The best we can do is look after our own kids. Imagine if the whole world just concentrated on that? Imagine if the left concentrated on that? What a noble cause.

        Realistically, us taking thousands of 3rd world people makes zero difference to them either socially, or in regard to congestion. Global population growth is 90m a year. Our intake makes no difference to global growth.

        If you want to measure it, measure it honestly. It’s increasing carbon output bringing someone from a 1 country to a 10 country. Then add the kids they’ll have in the 10 country. So a 1 carbon emitter becomes a 40.

        Well done drsmithy. Saving the world with the twisted logic of the left.

        No honesty with the left’s arguments.

      • “Unless your position is along the lines of “zero immigration from third world countries because we know best what third world people need, and it’s to stay where they are”.”

        What’s best for third world countries is irrelevant. Is running the current immigration scheme best for this country?

        The answer is no.

        I disagree with the whole “colonialism” argument though. We should only accept those with skills we as a country require, and say no to everyone else.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        What’s best for third world countries is irrelevant. Is running the current immigration scheme best for this country?

        The answer is no.

        I disagree with the whole “colonialism” argument though. We should only accept those with skills we as a country require, and say no to everyone else.

        I think you need to direct your comment to J Bauer. He’s the one arguing we should be turning back (or allowing) immigrants based on how much “good” they can do in their home countries.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      I have many Chinese customers, associates and friends who state a dislike of this “left wing” phenomenon.
      Mistrust of what is considered an agressive, ALP progressive social policy agenda, has been identified as a major obstacle to ALP success in the electorate of Ryde/Bennelong among the Chinese community.

      • So why are Labor doing it? What drives it in your view? Somehow ridiculous candidates have occupied every Labor seat. How?

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        I think it’s a combination of,
        1. A careerist leadership that wants to appear “left leaning”, by embracing postmodernist identity politics, but at the same time NOT wanting to antagonise big political lobbyists, future employers and Corporate media by putting forward agendas of greater Working class representation.
        It’s simply a path of least resistance, to personal betterment/enrichment kind of stuff,…if you really challenge Corporate plutocracy your in for a fight and many battles will be lost,…leadership fear this.

        Secondly,…I think Labor has lost its way by a Reduction in it’s membership numbers and the fact that a lot of those that do turn up, are disproportionately from a minority of the community and are primarily focused on minority centred Identity politics issues.
        True identity politics should begin with economic class consciousness and Solidarity among the 80-99%.
        Instead we have this divisive, categorisation of everyone, into competing sub groups/tribes, all angrily denouncing one and other,…meanwhile the Plutocrats are laughing at all of this,…as they consolidate their power ever more.

        The ALP should have over a Million members, demanding Democratic control of their party,…It’s the pathway to real democracy Ric,…and its all a numbers game Brother,…you should join and help force the party back on track.

        My repeated attempts to get Miguel on board keep failing,…Sigh.

        https://twitter.com/mektronik/status/972940628135854081?s=19

      • Ermington

        “meanwhile the Plutocrats are laughing at all of this”

        I agree. My dad was a member, and I’ve promised to go to a meeting. Thanks for the reply.

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        If the studies on American Republicans and Democrats can proxy for our two parties, it would mean cultural conservatism is one of the largest divides for people who identify as ALP voters – 25% would be closer to the average LNP voter on cultural issues.

        Left of centre parties will continue to struggle getting the culturally/socially conservative working-class voter and it remains to be seen if it’s possible to appease those voters without alienating many others.

  3. The worm is definitely turning! 70k is surely on the horizon now. I say this as someone that has been pro-immigration.

    Something that Leith/Gunna discussed in their recent podcast clicked for me: The problem is that there’s simply no rhyme or reason to our current migration intake. It’s not to drive our exports (we’re not exporting much of anything useful), it’s not to power our nation building infrastructure projects (we’re not building any) and it’s not to keep the trains, schools and hospitals running (it just makes all those things worse). Nope, it’s just to keep the illusion of a positive balance sheet for the Govt and to avoid the hallmarks of recession.

    I’m fine with immigration – even at current levels – if there’s a coherent plan. We could be a net exporter of renewable energy and high tech agriculture. We could be bringing in the best architects and engineers to reinvigorate our tired old cities. We could be building HSR to unlock affordable housing across the entire eastern seaboard, or a space programme to nurture the best and brightest of our kids. But to do any of that we need to have a proper conversation about what Australia wants to be. Until then we can’t afford to bring in 200k baristas every year.

    • GunnamattaMEMBER

      Thats basically where I am.

      Its the complete black of any sort of economic/social narrative which stands out like dogs cojones. We could import the entire population of China and give them a quarter acre block and it would take up a bit more than the land of Tasmania and a slice of Victoria. I figure with global warming we will be building solar powered desal plants like billyo anyway – and I strongly suspect we will end up with a sort of ‘airconditioned’ climate anyway (or mega climate engineering). There needs to be decentralization, there needs to be effective planning, there needs to be fewer restrictions on land use, and there needs to be a complete reworking of the national tax base to discourage tax avoiding speculation and replacement of that with genuine economic endeavor. But most of all there needs to be a clearly articulated policy of why a nation which basically only digs things out of the ground and grows things on top of it (employing about 4-5% of the population it has) needs to import extra people.

      If it is to build the infrastructure, to provide economies of scale or skills required for the future (and if that can be quantified and backed by data – not just glibs politician speak) then by all means do it. But the core requirement should be – will this make providing jobs for our kids (both the ‘Australians and the children of the immigrants coming in) easier? If it is simply providing them with shittier gig prospects then it should not happen.

      But it is time for the immigration lobby to account for itself.

    • So you are getting on board now. Took you long enough. And even then you qualify it and have an each way bet.

      Muppet.

      • lol, remember this one: “cutting immigration wont build more houses” – what an absolute tard

    • I’m fine with immigration – even at current levels – if there’s a coherent plan.

      There is a coherent plan, and that plan is to finish the destruction of labour’s bargaining power that was started through attacking unions and gutting IR laws. It’s been going on for the better part of forty years.

      Anything more is big-government commie socialism interfering and distorting free markets.

      I do wonder what our immigration levels would look like if the plan was to specifically target high-skill, high-value, high-productivity permanent immigrants to increase the capabilities of local industry. My guess is the numbers would be a lot lower, simply because there’s not that many suitable people in the world and, let’s face it, most of them would prefer migration to the EU or USA over Australia even if we weren’t being governed by a pack of drongos.

    • you’re employed or work with the labor party aren’t you, its ok to accept the truth now?

    • It is not possible to come up with funds to provide 400k population growth a year. It would be hundreds of billions every year. Then a couple of trillion in infrastructure deficit.

      I’m glad you’ve changed view but I smell a rat.

      You want to spend my money on infrastructure don’t you?

    • We are currently feeding around 60 million people in a good year and around 30 million in a drought year. There are serious doubts about how even this is sustainable. We have serious problems with land degradation, and our agriculture is very dependent on imported oil and phosphate. The potential impact of climate change on our agriculture isn’t well understood, but could be very bad. Desalination can make sense for rich coastal cities, but pumping the water up a gradient over enormous distances (at a humungous energy cost) to reach arid land with poor quality soil and extremely high evaporation rates makes no sense at all. Nor does competing with other countries for food on an increasingly constrained world market. Even if a bigger population had all the benefits that you claim, it still wouldn’t make sense to take the risk. Food shortages lead to collapse of societies, as we have seen in Syria.

    • You are still wrong. Renewable energy can not be exported from AUS. And with the dumbed down Aussie “degrees”, close to zero high tech products get made here – unlike Britain which makes 3 metre wide jet engines for unprecedented fuel economy.

      SpaceX is not allowed to hire foreigners and still invented reusable rockets.

      We are importing exam cheats and visa frauds directly from 3rd world villages under the guise of “skilled” immigration.

  4. Poor Gladys is basically doing almost everything right. She has the terrible job of trying to deal with the mess being created by Canberra.

    Make no mistake, Malcolm Turnbull’s lack of political awareness will not just sink the federal libs but the NSW libs also.

    Foley and Labor are a disgrace but politically he is no dummy. Unless Gladys breaks with the federal libs over this, and that would be a big thing, Labor will rule this issue at a state level.

    • I wonder what Foley will really do? Clamping immigration will really cause some economic devastation in the short term. I guess we can borrow some more money from foreigners for massive city non-productive infrastructure build.
      Maybe we’ll get away with it till later.

      • His policy suggestion is actually a good one. Since the states foot the bill but the Commonwealth decides the numbers it makes a lot of sense to have a collective decision making process to set numbers and funding for supporting infrastructure.

        Make population a matter requiring commonwealth and state agreement through COAG.
        As horrible as NSW labor is, that is actually good contribution to the debate.

  5. Liz Allen on ABC Radio saying Australian concerns on population growth about “fear of who we are”. Nothing to do overpriced housing, travel times, etc. How detached from reality are these people?

    • Mining BoganMEMBER

      She has been popping her head up anywhere she can trying to make out that the immigration debate has only come about because of the fears and insecurities of those born here.

      She hasn’t screamed racialist yet but she is inferring it with every utterance.

      • Japan can be for Japanese, Indian can be for Indians, Israel can be Jewish etc, but pipe down whitey!

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        I have a Tiananmen Square Tank Man tshirt I wear around the place. It doesn’t really garner much interest apart from the occasional look or comment.

        Except for the day I crossed paths with the two hippie chicks in the park when I was walking the dogs. Apparently I shouldn’t wear my Tank Man shirt because someone could find it offensive. Didn’t bother arguing with them because I had more important things to do. You know, like picking up dogsh!t. I still can’t work out who they were trying to defend.

    • Liz Allen. Her ‘demographic’ analysis is that we are ‘scared of who we are’;.
      What an f’ing clown. I hope she is being paid enough by whoever has bought her soul.

      Thing is, that sort of virtue signalling doesn’t cut it anymore. This cat is out of the bag.

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      Populate or Perish
      was the cry in the 50’s (White Australia)
      Fear of the Asian hordes to our north (Yellow Peril)drove us to require a powerful friend (ANZUS)
      Domino theory drove us into Korea and Vietnam. Reds under the beds fueled our support for the Cold War (anti Commo)
      Fear and Loathing ruled us.
      Then , something changed.
      Was it the Mafia man AL Gasby?
      The 1960’s West Indian cricket team ?
      Gough recognising China ?
      Something has made us do a 180 degree turn in less than 50 years
      and we are still coming to terms with it.

    • That kind of argument (playing the race card) is finally starting to wear thin and look desperate. Whatever other criticisms you might make if Bob Carr, it would be ludicrous to call him a xenophobe.

  6. Mr Foley argues the federal government “reaps the benefits” of higher immigration, through increased tax revenue, but that state governments “wear the cost” in having to meet infrastructure needs.

    “From 2004 to 2008, the net migrant intake went from about 110,000 to about 300,000 and the capacity of our large cities in this country to cope is being severely tested and the test is greatest in Sydney,” Mr Foley tells The Weekend Australian.

    “Unlike the earlier half-wit who recognised this problem but did nothing about it” Mr Foley went on “I will actually do something about this problem if elected.

    As NSW Premier I cannot control the number of immigrants entering Australia, but I can control how comfortable NSW/Sydney is for them relative to other states.

    If elected I will immediately introduce a quota-based Sydney Discount Loyalty Card, where the number of these cards issued reflects our ability to give that number of extra residents a great life. When a resident leaves NSW or dies, their card can be sold and used by a new resident.

    Cards will be issued to match our infrastructure build. For example, whenever we build a new railway station we will issue an extra say 20,000 discount cards. Everytime we add a new lane to the M2 motorway or to the harbour bridge, we might issue another 100,000 cards. If we ever build a new school or hospital we might add 200,000 cards.

    The Sydney Discount Loyalty Cards (SDLC) will work as follows:
    Current residents will be able to apply for the SDLC. The discount they achieve will be based upon factors such as how many years they:
    ** attended public school in NSW
    ** paid income tax in NSW

    *The cards will entitle the holder to a 20-80% discount on NSW govt services/taxes such as stamp duty, car registration, public transport tickets.
    To ensure govt revenue does not fall the basic cost of these services will be raised to reflect inflation (of a Sydney house) since 1970 and as such will rise by a factor of five.

    My Foley countered claims that his policy would be racialist since hundreds of thousands of Chinese could no longer move to Sydney. “This claim is completely false. As many Chinese as they like can come here. They will simply be liable to pay the non loyalty discounted price for services.” He added “From what they have been able to bid for our houses, I don’t expect these prices will stop them.”

    When asked if the policy was intended to stop the young white population from being replaced by Chinese in Sydney Mr Foley said “Not at all”. He expects this process to continue as rich Chinese buy the SDLC’s of struggling Aussies. “Chinese will still be able to flood into Sydney and displace locals” he said “The only difference will be that the Chinese money will go to young Aussies who chose to leave NSW, rather than to lazy boomer landlords, dodgy real estate spivs, and corrupt scum like Andrew Robb and Sam Dastyari.”

  7. Talking of NSW Labor, MIlton Orkopolous was in the news just the other day.

    Now there’s a reprehensible fcker.

  8. I have no problem with the NSW Labor opposition leader highlighting this issue and talking about what he will do about it when in government but shouldn’t he also be talking to the Federal Labor opposition leader about his policies also? They are the same party but seemingly with different policies?? The key here is Shorten, he needs to concur with Foley for a start. Does he?

  9. This interesting (though quite left biased) UK radio program about immigration was broadcast over the weekend. Although it deals mainly with ‘who’ rather than the economic issue of ‘numbers’, there are some interesting points which should always be used as a preface to the separate discussion about the economic consequences of an elevated/excessive rate of immigration.

    Part of the 30 minute program deals with Australia, including an interview with former immigration minister Vanstone (13 minute mark). Her quote of Mick Young, former Labor immigration minister (Whitlam years) should be – but isn’t – the basis of our immigration philosophy:

    “If you are a fan of migration, you will keep the levels at a point where it has public support because when you lose public support for it, you wont be able to have it. So you do have to take into account what the community is thinking.”

    https://monocle.com/radio/shows/the-foreign-desk/218/play/

    • “If you are a fan of migration, you will keep the levels at a point where it has public support because when you lose public support for it, you wont be able to have it. So you do have to take into account what the community is thinking.”

      Mick Young had it right.