Sustainable Australia destroys mass immigration madness

Above is an incredibly good interview between Sustainable Australia adviser, Kelvin Thomson, and 2GBs Michael McLaren, on the myriad of problems caused by the mass immigration ‘Big Australia’ policy.

Michael McLaren introduces the interview as follows:

What are some of the really big issues that people around the country and around our cites are talking about? Water shortages particularly in the cities. Dam levels are heading down to 50% and falling Many are talking about record multi-billion dollar infrastructure spends, particularly by state governments that are increasingly heading towards debt; Certainly, in Sydney, many people are talking about shoddy, rapidly builtcrumbling, high-rise apartment towers, and more broadly, the green elements of our society people are talking about increasing biodiversity loss.

These diverse topics have in common unsustainable rapid population growth. These are all symptoms of that root cause, and yet, the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that Australia’s population growth is speeding up! In other words, all of those issues and more are only going to get worse.

And then Kelvin Thomson hits the ball out of the park.

If only the ABC had interviewers of this public interest standard.

Unconventional Economist

Leith van Onselen is Chief Economist at the MB Fund and MB Super. Leith has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and Goldman Sachs.

Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)

Comments

  1. “All for one and one for all, united we stand divided we fall.”

    Sustainable Australia seriously needs swallow what pride they have and start talking to One Nation, give Mr Latham a call as he attended SA meetings.

    Big Australia must be laughing how fragmented and disorganized the opposition is to their plans.

    • The problem is that minor parties play ideology and not politics. Well meaning and well informed they frequently doom themselves to obscurity by mistaking their own virtue and purity of thought as the thing that will carry them to power. They want to be liked.

      Sustainable Australia has lots of good policies but lacks the political courage to put people to the knife e.g. take on The Greens for their hypocrisy, instead believing that “over development” is a safe and acceptable drum to beat. However overdevelopment is a trailing indicator of a massive policy failing and never will be the issue that unites people. They are arguing about the outcome when the action is at the start of the problem.

      Sustainable Australia has doomed itself to be a small target party looking for a grass roots groundswell that will never come. Unless you demonstrate the courage to take the blows and stay the course few will jump on board. Small target politics means small controversy and small profile. No media outlet wants to interview someone unprepared to spell it out and stand up.

      No one with profile and credibility wants to jump on board a rowboat with one ore going in circles claiming that it will one day be an ocean liner.

      We have political parties to give people legitimacy for their cause (unless they are the major parties who give legitimacy to those with money). The more a minor party plays ‘white mouse’ the more people suspect that there is no real belief. In the reverse snowball effect they become small and smaller until they disappear having burned up those who have wasted their time.

      Sorry SA, there is no option. It is either being the lightning rod for a full and frank debate or nothing. You will cop a hell of a lot of poo in the process if you do, but there is no way to avoid this. There is no playing ‘nice guy’ as the people running the Big Australia agenda are Big Scumbags. And when you dance with a chimney sweep…

      Ditch the “overdevelopment” waffle and get going – or pack it in and go and play bingo and complain how nasty politics is.

      Too right, if you don’t have the stomach to chat to Mark L and don’t want to criticise The Fake Greens you are on a road to oblivion.

      • +1 Too right at least if the minor parties got together on this one issue, once the battle is own then can all go on their own way if they like.
        The window was missed during the recent NSW and Federal elections.
        SA has to talk to all enemies of big Australia such as ON like it or not.

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      Sustainable Australia seriously needs swallow what pride they have and start talking to One Nation, give Mr Latham a call as he attended SA meetings.

      SA shacking up with ON and Latham (good grief) would utterly destroy any possibility of them being perceived as being driven by something other than scary brown people.

    • SA currently means “Sustainable Australia”.

      Voters are dumb. They don’t like big words.

      SA should mean “Save Australia”

      If you could merge ONP and the Sustainable Australia under the new banner “Save Australia” you’d have a force.

  2. It’s a pity they aren’t going with a more lucrative party name (Reduce Immigration Party perhaps?), that will get them ballot paper recognition, given their low resources to promote themselves and the MSM angst towards them.

    But as I’ve been told by their President, William Bourke, immigration is a low level concern for voters; and this concern is already being covered by the likes of One Nation.

  3. CanuckDownUnder

    Yet in every election campaign they hide their stance on immigration to avoid being offensive, minor, or fringy. The wet lettuce leaf of Australian politics.

  4. Probably worth pointing out what other countries are doing:

    The population of Singapore in 2017 (5.61 million) was exactly the same as the population of Singapore in 2016!

    Singapore is not expected to change its immigration policy, and its population is likely to be “significantly below” 6.9 million by 2030

    real income growth at the median and 20th percentile of full-time employed citizens growing by 3.9 per cent and 4.3 per cent per annum between 2012 and 2017.

    A stable population, growing wages, and basically no theft. When was the last time Australia stopped immigration for 12 months?

    China will have a shrinking population in 2024 while India will have a growing population at the same time. Which nation has higher wages and better infrastructure? The one that has a slower population growth rate.

  5. plebngineerMEMBER

    Didn’t MB report that Jacinta wasn’t reducing immigration? Who is right?

    I’m likewise frustrated by SAP effectiveness. What’s their strategy? 1, 3, 5 year goals are what? Have they achieved any of these goals? Why is no one talking about them in the media besides an interview like this twice a year? They’re a hard sell, no one has heard of them.

    • CanuckDownUnder

      See Chase’s reply above. They are hopeless. Immigration isn’t an issue?

      Lowering immigration was their raison d’être, now they hide behind buzzword hashtags like #jobs and #growth (only half joking here). You have to search hard for lowering immigration on their website and then they spend a few paragraphs telling you they aren’t trying to offend anyone. If they came out hard on the issue the fake left media darlings in the ABC, SBS, Guardian etc would give them all sorts of free publicity erroneously calling them out on it.

      Instead they’ve painted themselves into a NIMBY Stop Overdevelopment corner trying to win over Green voters who would never vote for them since they believe them to be racists anyway. Mind blowing ineptitude all around.

  6. BigBakaMEMBER

    Look, I don’t want to sound elitist, but so long as SA is doing interviews on 2GB they are going to be seen by a large number of people as wing nut racists purely by association. I mean what the hell was that question about the nasty immigrants bringing their breeding patterns and having lots of kids!!? A bit more of an effort to put out some sensible press releases sent into major news rooms, and get some commentary into ABC or commericial news media would go a long way to making SA appear more mainstream. Or another option is to forget the Party commentary (lets face it SA didn’t get anywhere in the election) and publish some reports as a thinktank or something, to generate some media. You have some good arguements to make and there should be a sensible discussion, but 2GB is not the way to get them out. How about support of humanintarian intake while cutting formal migration, I’d like to see you try and say that on 2GB? Instead Kevin couldn’t help but mention people smuggling in relation to formal migration. Maybe work on your comms.