NSW Government immigration cut greeted with propaganda spew

MB has already won the immigration debate. At current levels it is a policy of:

  • massive dis-economies of scale;
  • dilutes the nation’s resource endowment;
  • does nothing to fix an aging population;
  • drives up house prices;
  • drives down wages;
  • crush-loads Sydney and Melbourne dramatically lowering public amenity and living standards, and
  • there are no solutions to fix it in our haplessly broken political economy. Indeed, the political economy is its ultimate victim as community anger delivers political party fragmentation rendering reasoned solutions ever less likely.

It is a policy that lends succor to the dumbest and most corrupt of our politicians via the promotion of headline growth numbers over falling per capita numbers. It is a ravening class war on working people and youth. We know all of this because we have just run a 15 year empirical experiment of extreme immigration levels and the results are lived out every single day.

These are the facts. Now that the policy has no leg to stand on, the so-called debate has degenerated into pure propaganda instead.

First up, PM Property Council won’t have a bar of the NSW Government’s immigration cut, at the AFR:

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said NSW had requested more than 5000 additional migrants in the current planning year and population growth should not be used as a “leave pass” for dealing with infrastructure pressures.

“Well, I’ll take it from those comments from Gladys Berejiklian that she will now like those assigned to states like South Australia and other places, and we can do that,” Mr Morrison said.

“Our current permanent immigration levels are running just a little over 160,000. That was the level of permanent immigration that was running at the time of the conclusion of the Howard government.”

That is hardly the point. NSW asked for early Howard years cuts. This is pure bait and switch.

Victoria’s Daniel Andrews piled on at The Australian:

“With the greatest respect to Premier (Gladys) Berejiklian, I think she is pretty desperately looking for something to get away from this Everest fiasco,’’ Mr Andrews said.

“Population policy and immigration policy is determined by the national government as it should be. I don’t intend to start issuing Victorian passports.

“Our response to population growth is to build more schools, more hospitals, better roads, more public transport, and we have done that in unprecedented terms.’’

Mr Guy said although Melbourne was at “busting point’,’ the solution was creating jobs and other incentives for people to live elsewhere in the state rather than halving Australia’s immigration.

Victoria has been the worst impacted by over-immigration. Yet Andrews can say this for a few reasons:

  • VIC is a snowflake state, the most progressive in Australia (sorry SA);
  • the opposition is unelectable, and
  • Melbourne began the great crush-loading with a larger infrastructure surplus than Sydney.

In short, it takes a near catastrophe for Victoria to elect the Liberals and we are not there just yet. In the meantime, Labor is free to continue destroying the place.

Meanwhile, open propagandists at The Guardian have literally torn up their journalistic credentials:

But an analysis of migration figures by Guardian Australia shows that while net overseas migration has grown in NSW, the bulk of the increase has come from international students who inject billions of dollars into the state’s economy.

And permanent migration figures are on par with the end of the Howard era – after almost doubling during his 11 years in power.

You have to love it when social policy loons become economic dries in league with their worst enemies overnight. These numbers are a bad joke. It is the permanent migrant intake that builds the base of population. Leith already destroyed the above rubbish:

It is true that most migrants enter Australia as temporary residents. But this is irrelevant. Many then convert to permanent residency, thus extending their stay in Australia indefinitely and adding to Australia’s population base over time – both directly and indirectly as they have children (counted as natural increase).

Indeed, the Productivity Commission has noted that “temporary migration is an established pathway to permanent migration” and that “around half of all permanent visa grants went to people already in Australia on a temporary visa”.

So, without the ability to convert to permanent residency once in Australia, these temporary migrants would be required to leave, thereby preventing Australia’s population from increasing via immigration, since migrant outflows would roughly match inflows over time.

Therefore, it is the permanent migrant intake that is the primary driver of Australia’s population increase since, unlike temporary migrants who must ultimately leave, these migrants remain in the country permanently and also have children (counted as natural increase), thereby continually adding to Australia’s population base.

Indeed, the 2016 Census revealed that Australia’s population increased by a whopping 1.9 million people (+8.8%) in the five years to 2016, driven by a 1.3 million increase in people born overseas (i.e. new migrants):

As we know, 86% of these migrants (1.11 million) settled in Australia’s cities, primarily Sydney and Melbourne, versus just 14% (187,000) that settled in Australia’s regional areas.

Sure, temporary migrants also boomed, and many would be captured in the above Census figures. But they increased by a relatively modest 382,000 over the past five years:

The Guardian should note that the early Howard years set the permanent migrant intake at 90k. Not that it cares. The truth is lost in its war on the “haters” (that is, Australians outside of its office). It is using classic “partial analysis” which looks only at the direct and narrow impacts of a policy change rather than the wider implications over time. Lower immigration will lower house prices and the Australian dollar and Sydneysiders will still see an abundance of students and tourists plus other rising tradable sectors in place of infrastructure retrofitting. In short, its visitor numbers will be just fine the city will no longer be crush-loaded because they will also leave.

Self-declared immigration propagandist, Greg Jericho, takes on “migrants to the bush” and adds to the farce:

If you want migrants to settle in certain places, jobs and infrastructure need to be in place.

Please explain why EXACTLY the same argument does not apply to Sydney and Melbourne.

Finally, proving once again that The Guardian is nothing more than a closed ideological bucket shop preening a monstrously hypocritical bourgeoisie:

I mean, FFS.

Comments

  1. GunnamattaMEMBER

    Well said,

    The quality of public discourse on the subject of immigration volumes is an utter disgrace.

    Australia had an annual Net Overseas Migration intake of more than 150k per year only 4 times in 106 years up until 2006.

    It has run at an average of more than 200k per year for the 12 years since, and in some years has run at more than 300k.

    This has never been put to the Australian people and no economic basis for it has ever been coherently made

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Yes so much obfuscation and Sly double talk,…all this “We need em in the Bush” Schtick is fooling nobody.
      They want more workers in the Bush, then they need to offer more money, end of Fking story.
      Where these Pr!cks are getting wedged is house price rises are now unsustainable without massive immigration OR a period of rapid wage/price spiraling upwards, neturalising the debt burden and increase our export competitiveness and easing our trade imbalance through a resulting lower dollar,….exactly what bailed out all those “Struggling” Boomers who’s mortgage burdens became laughably small by the time the kids were heading of to high school.

      It can only be one or the other,….we all know what Business would prefer,…how about you guys,…which one would you vote for?

      Put another way do we want better job opportunities for our kids and more affordable housing,…or more affordable iPads, tee shirts and rub and tug trips to Thailand

      • They are not actually biased. They are the peak propaganda outlet (locally) for our progressive cult state. They are actually priests.

        Think about it this way – there have been heaps of theocracies in the past. Each of them, had a state approved priesthood. During their existence, none of their priests actually thought of him/her self as a a cult leader. They all thought they were doing the right thing for the good of the people.

        Now, we think of these same schmoes as cultists within a theocracy. If it makes you feel happier, this is also why the progressive cult is hostile to old school labor (like workers rights etc) – from their point of view, its a rival cult. As an aside, global warming is their end of the world doomsday belief.

      • davidjwalshMEMBER

        Looking forward to it Leith …

        @ T ….. that’s it …… Prof Peterson has explained this very well in his videos – rethink the ‘progressives’ as beholden to a ‘religious’ cult and what we see playing out around us becomes a great deal more understandable …

      • Destroy the f67ckers.

        What a blatant biased excuse for jounalism. I mean they come out with this garbage one day after Gladys talks up slowing immigration. Cants.

    • Mr SquiggleMEMBER

      Disgraceful bias on the part of the ABC. The article says Australia has fifth highest population growth, using World Bank data and the two of the countries ahead of us are Israel and LUXEMBOURG???? Iceland is another hotbed of rampant reproduction and open borders that is above us in population growth. And so, all of them combine to make Dick’s claims ‘untrue’
      What about using the G20 as a proxy for the developed world, like many other Economists.
      Whatever happened to the ‘mostly true’ conclusion?
      Basically, they just can’t bring themselves to admit Dick Smith is right. They just hate him since he started advising Pauline Hanson’s One Nation

  2. The neolib globalists are not going to give in so easily. They’ll spew forever. The damage they inflict is for their own gain, not the country and they have the power. On Victoria, Guy, would do little for infra, so IMO he’s gone and every Victorian knows it. All he’d have to do to win is to speak out and actually push back at the Feds, who are the ones with the power to reduce immigration to give so breathing space. As it is now in my area, there are times of the day when it’s just not worth trying to travel by car. My bike is well used even without this. At the peak times the drives are as mad a hell, so even a bike is a risky venture.

    • More people means more bidders and more debt. Yet you continue to claim there’s no link. Why do you think Sydney’s and Melbourne’s house prices have skyrocketed over the past 10 years, while immigration has run hot, whereas the other markets haven’t? Pretty basic stuff.

      • – Yes, but then these immigrants also need CREDIT to buy a property.
        – Edwin Almeida (interviewed by Martin North) says that he still has to meet the 1st immigrant with AUD 300.000 or AUD 400.000 in his backpocket entering the country (Australia).

    • I understand why you say this, but really dangerous too. Notwithstanding the pernicious effects of extreme levels of immigration, when this policy failure hits home, and it’s building, the reactionary effects can then target immigrants as perpetrators rather than participants in the same game.

      • Yes, that’s the government’s fault for running an immigration program that’s triple the historical average. Sustainable immigration is good. Turbo-charged immigration is bad. In order to protect the multicultural consensus, immigration needs to be moderated and digestible.

      • A great chunk of immigrants agree to work here for illegal wages. Some buy houses illegally. Many cheat on the English exam to come here. They are not saints.

      • Careful Jacob. They’re here because our elected representatives asked them to come. Picket your MP not the migrant. Listen to Hareeba – this is already dangerous territory.

      • Have to agree with Jacob on this. Yes the government is too blame, but the migrants are no saints as well. The 7-11 workers were in on the underpayment racket, knowing they weren’t meant to be working more than 20 hours per week on their student visas, but went with the underpayment as long as their false pay slips saying they only worked 20 hours per week. Up to 50% applications from India for visas are found to be fraudulent, and these are the applications that get found out. How many are going through without proper checks, despite the fraudulent application details? How many are abusing Medicare with shared cards going around? Indians are mostly from a culture where they see it as their right to get whatever they want, by whatever means, because their higher status under their caste system says they are better people. Their is no sense of equality in the Hindu mindset, it truly is, get as much as you can, because you’re worth it.

      • Chase/Hunter: yes, agree with all that. But of course they would for a better life.
        My point is that these effects are by design from decisions of our elected representative. The behaviours you describe are part of the collateral damage that were known in the population growth quest, decisions not made by you or me, but political decisions by Governments.

  3. To those who argue otherwise, the ONLY reason house prices in many countries around the world have increased well above inflation and earnings/wages is cheap and available credit. Ofcourse more people means more debt slaves but more people in and of itself does not increase prices. If money becomes more expensive (I.e. Higher Interest rates) and/or loans harder to get, and wages dont quadriple, they can import all of China, house prices will not increase by the same percentages we have seen last 30 odd years. not including the corrupt Chinese/Russians et al with their suitcases full of cash…..
    Watch the stock markets for real indicator of credit market tightening

  4. – I don’t agree with the notion that immigration drives up property prices. It doesn’t. It’s the amount of credit that pushes up property prices.

    • No one thing alone drives up property prices, it’s a combination of many parts, all acting in concert over time and during a particular period of time

      Numbers of people, available credit, low interest rates, possible fraud, tax incentives, supply and demand, foreign buyers, sentiment, relatively stable economy, other booming economies ……. there’s probably a few more …… all hit at the same time …… perfect storm style

    • Have you ever been to an auction? Even the presence of ONE extra bidder can push the price of a property up enormously. I saw it with my own eyes when my (retired) parents sold their townhouse in an average middle-class eastern suburb of Melbourne in 2017 – the last two bidders between them ran the price up by $200,000, which is huge on a place that was expected to fetch $850k. Yes the availability of credit is one thing but so many of these buyers from overseas seem to have unlimited access to cash and/or credit…..

  5. Scomo recently gave us a population maths lesson whereby he noted that for each 10 increase in our population, 4 were temporaries, 4 were natural increase and only 2 were permanent migrants – so where’s the problem? You rightly gave him a caning for this disgraceful subterfuge. Nevertheless you seem to seem to suggest that the permanent immigration program is the main culprit. Unless we have a semantic issue I fail to see how this can be, and like Scomo’s rubbish, deflects attention away from the totality of the problem. The temporary migrant program, specifically the long-term temporaries (here for 12 or more months), seems to be a bigger problem. From ABS migration statistics, over the past 10 years there were approximately 2.58m incoming long-term temporaries, 1.15m outgoing long-term temporaries for a net gain of 1.43m. The net gain from the permanent program was less than half this at 0.74m and the net gain from ‘other’ was 0.1m. The fact that the incoming and outgoing temporaries do not net to about zero, is as you’ve pointed out, due to the granting of permanent residency. It appears that more than half the so-called long-term temporaries gained permanency. If this had not happened then the past 10 years total of net overseas migration would have been nearly halved without even touching the permanent program.

    • Hi John. Totally agree with all you say.

      “The Immigration Program” is a woefully incomplete and late count of just Permanent Residence (PR) visa grants. It does not count our real, annual increase in population due to immigration. Nowadays this increase is largely from Temporary Visa holders arriving in ever greater numbers and not leaving. The distinction between Temporary and Permanent visa holder is indeed a false one. They all need somewhere to live, most have work rights etc.. And in net terms they don’t go home – as you say their main outflow above the churn is eventually to PR – to be included years late in The Program.

      The Program (some PR grants) is only used by those wanting to understate – or who don’t understand – the real scale of immigration.

      Public ignorance, confusion and outright deception would be better overcome if we all just used ABS NOM.

    • Indian and Chinese migrants tend to have extended families living in one house. It is not uncommon to have 3 sets of adults couples living in the one house (a younger couple with both of their parents living with them). So you have 3 sets of couples pooling their money together versus locals looking to buy, that are often just one set of couples looking at buying. Prices are pushed up as a result.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Ill be voting for Labor in the Up coming State election as I know and like the candidate and think she’s got a Good heart,…(even if she is in the wrong faction) and I want my former High school (Marsden High) saved snd not just because I want to send my kids there.
      The Libs intend to close it.

      But federally ive got the $hits at Shorten for the TTP 11 sign up and his factions stance on immigration is to Pro business lobbyists (same as the libs) so im thinking SAP or similar,…but Im a big believer in the wealfare State, so I dont want my preference going to the libs,…who does the SAP preference last,…Labor or Liberal?

  6. This article is ok until the last bit.

    Where it concludes the 2.431 million TR migrants living here ‘aren’t an issue’ (in housing, jobs, congestion) as ‘they go back’ or until they ‘become a PR’

    I don’t get the logic.
    Now we need to slash the PR intake. Agreed.

    But how does that fix the 2.431 million TR impact which is increasing at rates of up to 8% each year?

    There is 2.431 million of the TR now. Well over million more a decade ago.
    PLUS another 440k mostly third world tourist visitors working illegally (5% of the 8.8 million tourist arrivals according to the ABF (now DHA) parliamentary report.

    That’s 2.9 million migrant guestworkers.
    Onshore.
    Occupying housing.
    Stealing jobs.

    It doesn’t matter if half or all of them ‘go back, because more come in.
    Like 2.8 million mice in the pantry. If 1 million left and 1.1 million come in, then ‘the mice’ impact got worse.

    Do they ‘go back’?

    The 650,000 NZ, with 230,000 now non NZ born don’t go back. The NZ born do (some)
    But with the non NZ born SCV its a 95% one way permanent stay flow into Australia.
    With another 190,000 non nz born third world unskilled stacked up in NZ to also come in.

    The 641,000 foreign students are long stay.
    4 up to 9 years is not uncommon, until they get a PR.

    Just because they changed their visa category from secondary to primary, or visitor then international student then post grad student etc doesn’t mean they ‘went back’.

    The skilled visas / sponsored visas are the same – long stay 2-3 years plus same visa churn, until they get a PR or churn back to stay as a student etc.

    The 360,000 bridging & protection etc visas are long stay / often up to 3 years category A to E before they get granted a stay or exited. Come in as Malay tourist then overstay then make up some excuse, then another 3 years with work rights rorting the appeals system.
    Never going back until cat E & forcibly deported.

    The working holiday – do 2 rounds then tourist then student or sponsored. Work illegally. 5 years.

    And so on.
    The visitors are also long stay, multiple & repeat stay.

    The tourists working illegally then try to extend on visitor or bridging or protection rackets.
    Then we have 65,000 Overstayers who are long stay:)

    So any analysis of the visa granted/end of that grant is very misleading & doesn’t mean ‘they left’ or didn’t just stay or come back on a different one.

    All the time they are here these 2.8 million migrant guestworkers:
    Work illegally / some 1.6 million or more in visa breach
    Cash in hand fake ID no tax.
    Occupy housing / some 600,000 dwellings at least (if you use 5 or more per dwelling), usually private shared accommodation code for foreign owned migrant only sublet bunk & mattress share.
    They drive cars – some 400,000 at least.
    They use & actually dominate city public transport.
    They earn some $133 billion (at $48k average each) ad $75 billion of that is illegal cash fake Id no tax.
    They pay some $24 billion in rent but only $11 billion or legal occupancy declared.
    They send back over $8 billion in agent procurer debt repayments and remittances.

    Collectively & in combined impact – ‘they don’t go back’.
    And this total TR & illegal tourist working impact has grown at rates of 8% YtY.

    2.9 million onshore migrant guestworkers is 1 million more than the entire last decades PR intake of 1.91 Million.
    It’s 18 years of PR intake.
    Living in what is 10 years worth of modest low cost affordable housing supply. Now foreign owned & migrant guestworker occupied.

    Taking up at least 2.5 million jobs (most are adult) and 1.5 million of those jobs illegally.

    The 2.431 million TR + 440k illegally working tourists as a subset are 87% concentrated in Sydney & Melbourne. (2.5 million)

    🔹1.4 million in Sydney – 1 in every 4 people.
    🔹1.1 million in Melbourne, 1 in every 5 people.

    Yes, cut back on the PR.
    But that does nothing to solve the immediate problem.

    The very first priority is to exit at least 1.5 million of the TR and illegally working tourist / visitors.

    ➡️ And it’s pretty simple & most will self exit.

    Remove all foreign student & partner work rights.
    Just like most other countries.
    That’s 600,000 of the 641,000 students gone.

    No skilled visas. No case with 1.3 million unemployed.
    That’s 150,000 gone.

    All bridging visas reviewed in 30 days, 95% exited.
    That’s 160,000 gone.

    No work rights for non nz born SCV, no work rights in Australia for a Non NZ born on a SCV. It’s that simple.
    That’s 230,000 third world unskilled who came in via the NZ back door – >going back to NZ, plus stopping the other 200,000 similar from getting in.

    1 round backpacker, English speaking only, no visa churn or visa for 3 years. 60,000 gone.

    Massive crackdown in factories, homes & farms on visitors & tourists working illegally.
    500,000 gone.

    That’s 1.65 million that can be immediately exited,
    They are all here on pretext visas, many are in visa breach & they don’t vote.

    The new migrant PR / Citizens, 800,000 of whom are now adult Citizens do vote.
    In all the marginal city seats that decide the government…. and they would endorse and overwhelmingly vote for this.

    They get affordable housing,
    They get jobs,
    They get improved wages.
    They have an Improved standard of living.
    And they get less squalor & congestion.

    And most Australian born would as well.
    Less tax burden. Cities emptied out.
    Stupid and misguided infrastructure projects shut down.

    Australia overall?
    Our GDP goes down, but our GDP per capita goes up.
    Wages go up.
    Housing affordable again.
    Education restored from prostituting itself as a migrant guestworker visa alibi.
    Cost of living goes down.
    Youth & mature age employment restored.
    Homelessness now housed in the now empty migrant guestworkers dwellings.
    One quarter less traffic in many city areas.
    Trains & buses restored to normal loading.

    That’s what the effect would be.

Leave a reply

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