Racism Rob returns!

Rob Burgess is back and you’re a racist again:

Rapid population growth is bringing Australia to a ‘make-or-break’ moment, but not in the way many people think.

The ABC’s two-part exploration of the issues on Monday evening, on Four Corners and Q&A, featured plenty of voices suggesting that what’s about to ‘break’ is the Australian way of life, the natural environment, social cohesion and our standard of living.

Those arguments, being made by the likes of entrepreneur Dick Smith and former foreign minister Bob Carr, are finding fertile political ground with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives and former PM Tony Abbott.

Expert opinion, however, suggests something else can ‘break’ instead – our habit of responding to population growth by building vast tracts of dysfunctional suburbs.

Non-partisan think-tank the Grattan Institute argued last week that the mismatch between people and homes can be fixed if “state governments … fix planning rules to allow more homes to be built in inner and middle-ring suburbs of our largest cities”.

The population debate isn’t just about the number of people and homes, but the types of homes, where they are, and how well connected they are.

Australian cities have been getting that equation wrong for decades, partly because middle-ring suburbs tend to be in planning lockdown, forcing developers to leapfrog over them and build endless miles of outer suburbs.

Federal opposition housing spokesman Senator Doug Cameron says those middle-ring suburbs hold the key to getting the population into the right dwellings, in the right place.

“Most of the new jobs are being created within a 10km radius of the CBD, especially in Sydney and Melbourne,” he told The New Daily on Monday.

“That’s fine if you’re an executive or high-skilled worker on high pay.

“But the workers servicing the needs of those industries find it impossible to rent or own a home close to that 10km band.

“In Sydney we’re seeing people travelling 70km each way from those outer suburbs, when the public transport system is a mess and the roads are at capacity.”

The Grattan report suggests the middle-ring suburbs can be developed if state and local governments issue blanket or “code-assessed” planning approvals over large areas.

However, Senator Cameron warns that “letting the market rip” would not solve the problem.

He says “co-ordinated infrastructure and housing” is the answer but “decades of culture” will have to be overturned for people to see the benefits of a wider range of housing types.

The race card is so 2017.

Infrastructure Australia already explained why this is rubbish. No matter which development path Sydney and Melbourne take, living standards will fall with rising congestion, as well as reduced access to everything that makes an Australian city worth living in. And that assumes we’re competent planners which we aren’t:

Why should middle suburbs accept lower living standards just so that Racism Rob can access a more convenient Pad Thai?


  1. What about tax payer expense, when you live in a country and work in the same place for basically a life time your taxes are enough to cover the load with things such as schools roads etc.

    But when you dump loads of immigrants on to those same services you end up with less and most likely more taxes. This only gets worse over time

    Even if you could address the above issues, for example forcing immigrants to pay an upfront buy in cost for what they will use that you have paid for and what will be needed in future those services like roads just can’t pop up out of thin air, they take years in some cases.

    Oz is at a point that even if money, people, social issues aren’t an issue just the requirement of putting enough services in place to meet demand is impossible. The country needs to catch up to over supply, people in this case and that can only be done by first a reduction in immigration asap

    • Bingo! The ‘other’ ponzi: welfare is more than handouts to the unemployed. It includes state pension, subsidised healthcare (from cradle to grave), education, subsidised childcare — the list is endless — and new immigrants can access most of this from the get-go.

      Bottom line: most people born in this country end up taking OUT more than they put IN over a lifetime, so you can just imagine what the ‘net’ contribution of the average immigrant will look like when the figures are totted up. Like most Western countries, Straya is headed slowly toward bankruptcy on account of unsustainable welfare systems — the good news, however, is that all the policy-makers responsible for this mess will either be deep into retirement or pushing up daisies by the time it goes kaboom so won’t have to face the music.

      • most people born in this country end up taking OUT more than they put IN over a lifetime
        Hitler paid more in tax than he took out in welfare payments. Your point?

      • @ The Claw. It pains me to have to spell it out to you, but every time you expect to get paid out more than you put in you are in the presence of a ponzi scheme. Period.

        As an example, I was reading of a fellow who was a senior city councillor in the U.S. (now retired) whose net contributions into his retirement scheme over his professional life amounted to around $446,000 but over his retirement he can expect to be paid c.$6,500,000. It’s what’s known a ‘final salary’ scheme and is basically a ponzi scheme as early retirees should be okay but future retirees can expect to have their retirement benefits, er, ‘restructured’ in the future. If you passed 5th grade maths the above should be pretty simple to digest.

  2. Any opposition to the immigration Ponzi will have these idiots hooting “Racist”.

    Normal people don’t care though, because the accusation is simply divorced from reality. When Bob Carr and Tony Abbott and Peta Credlin are all singing from the same hymnbook, you know that the times, they are a’changin’.

    And as for the idea of “better planning” solving everything…pshaw….we haven’t managed to do that in the last 100 years, so only a delusional lunatic would think that it would suddenly start happening today.

  3. Senator Cameron warns that “letting the market rip” would not solve the problem.

    Funny how the braindead ALP is ok with letting the market determine how dumbed down government-funded “degrees” get and letting the market get away with wage theft.

  4. There is some serious momentum forming now, we need to get some pollies speaking out that aren’t easily dismissed (Abbott, Bernadi, Hanson). We need to get at the ALP to start getting on top in this debate, politically it will be a goldmine for them. After Batman we need to get reasonable Labor members to start talking population!!

      • Yep. Bob Carr speaks some golden lines: “any idiot can say build more infrastructure as if nobody had thought of it before”! And “would it be utterly sinful if AUS took 5 years to let in a million illegal-wage immigrants instead of the current 3 years”.

        Pure gold, Bob.

    • you are right, Alex, serious momentum is forming. Australians are beginning to realize that children will soon grow up in high rise ‘dog boxes’ without experiencing some nature, back yard exercises, physical games, gardens, barbecues or a range of pet keeping opportunities. Adults will have less choice about where they will live, on a block of land or in a high rise mini-apartment over a railway line, and will become more and more units of production going to and from work and leaving and returning to eat processed food in their secluded apartments. They will have fewer and fewer opportunities to experience the outside world as their mortgage or rent will demand much of their income. Migration and Land Taxes will keep prices high and and ‘homes’ condensed. This process is already underway.

    • @Afund that’s actually quite a cool shack, better than my house in the Inner West (with all the cockroaches).

      @Ric – The Green’s are virtue signaling morons. If they cared about the Environment they would be against mass immigration to a country like Australia where we have 1 of the highest co2 emissions per capita in the world.

    • Idiots, liars or both. As I understand it, a TFR of 2.1 is necessary for population sustainment. This allows for replacement of the parents, plus the 0.1 accommodates those in the population who die without breeding. A TFR of two babies per women will result in a declining population. How is that “high” fertility?

    • It would be high for Australian women, given it was recorded once in the last 40 years, and the average over that time frame was 1.8.
      Or to put it another way, it’s the high variant, because it’s very hard to imagine that it would be as high as that for more than a couple of years in a row any time over the next fifty years.

      Currently TFR = 1.79, down from boom highs as the cost of housing and raising children has increased faster than wages.

      Also note that with long term TFR likely to be about 1.8, steady state population requires immigration at around 15% of births (to make up the difference between TFR 1.8 and 2.1)

      • If the fertility rate in 2008 was 2.02, why are we targetting 1.8?

        Are we expected to roll over and accept this as policy failure?

        News has to be given to the Baby Boomers: they won’t be grand parents.

      • What do you mean targeting?
        We’re a developed country – 1.8 is pretty much as good as it gets, – the 2.02 in 2008 was a statistical anomaly that only happened with favourable economic conditions combined with a catch up year due to people having babies later. The long term average of 1.8 is really all we can expect. Even the baby bonus didn’t do much to change that (although it may have stopped us falling below 1.7, seeing as the low point was 1.73 in 2001, and 1.75 in 2003 the year prior to its introduction).

        Bottom line is though many have now tried, no country who’s seen their TFR fall consistently below replacement has been able to get it back above replacement again.

      • 2008 wasn’t a statistical fluke, TFR has declined since then, and this needs to be faced.

        Northern Europe have experienced TFR increases from previous lows, driven by policy.

        Israel managed to increase their TFR remarkably.

        Australia, New Zealand, Canada – it’s policy that’s driving the falling fertility rate.

  5. I watched the 4 Corners episode and was struck by how all/most of the interviewees spoke about the certainty of high immigration.
    The certainty of the populace’s need to adapt and fit in with this agenda.
    I was really dissappointed that the program didn’t spend any time asking interviewees why they feel high immigration is certain. When it is not. It’s just another shitty policy.

    • Exactly! The argument is always framed as if excessive immigration is an uncontrollable and inevitable act of dog that somehow magically happened, and we now all just have to live with it, and adopt measures to cope with it. Like everybody living in dogbox high rise incinerator apartments and paying tolls to drive a car on a road.

      In fact, unlike birth rates, immigration is a factor that is entirely under the control of the gummint of the day. They could declare a reasonable and sustainable rate of immigration tomorrow perfectly legally and the whole thing would go away.

      Now that the conversation is happening in the MSM, this is the next step…start making the point again and again that excessive immigration is not inevitable, it’s under government control, and the government has to do something about it or they very shortly won’t be the government any more.

      • Yup. It really grinds my gears when the boosters say stuff like “we will have to get used to living in high rise apartments” Like hell I will. We are turning this country into the very thing that the immigrants are trying to escape from! I don’t give a toss if they have ruined their own country. I have no damn responsibility to them so they can stay in their own overpopulated sh1thole.

  6. No major party will jump on this bandwagon because both parties benefit from the (money for nothing) banking system which is an insatiable ponzi scheme and needs to be fed (either directly or indirectly) a constant stream of new borrowers – in this case immigrants.

    They don’t give a shit about the social consequences of such a system – you only have to walk down the street to see the disgraceful state of the homelessness which didn’t seem to exist a few years ago

  7. Jake GittesMEMBER

    Burgess’s faith in experts is typical but not politically astute. This issue has got momentum and it has enough respected voices that it is not ON or some other cranky ill-informed opinion.

  8. Regarding the 4Corners and Q&A show last night, apart from a few mousey squeaks from Flannery, did anyone hear any mention of ecological sustainability, carrying capacity, exponential growth, limits to agricultural production, limits to water supply?
    Bob Car came close, and he was the star of the show. I am just amazed at how most of the people assumed that we can keep on growing indefinitely so long as we plan properly. Ha ha ha ha haaaaarrgh.

  9. Can anyone explain why a country that runs a CAD should favour high immigration? If each australian consumes more imports than contributes to exports then increasing population only brings forward the day of reckoning when that is paid off via lower living standards. This seems to always be missed in the debate.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now