Fake “Labor” Party ties itself in immigration knots

In May this year, Labor’s immigration spokesperson, Kristina Keneally, had a rare lucid moment where she recommended that Australia cut immigration and “put Australian workers first”:

Our economic recovery must help all Australians get back on their feet, and to do that we need a migration program that puts Australian workers first.

Governments of all stripes have relied on high levels of migration to boost population to fuel economic growth. Arguably, at times this has been a lazy approach. Letting lots of migrants come to Australia is an easier way to drive economic growth than increasing productivity or investing in skills and training…

“The post-COVID-19 question we must ask now is this: when we restart our migration program, do we want migrants to return to Australia in the same numbers and in the same composition as before the crisis? Our answer should be no”…

This was immediately met with condemnation by Labor’s open borders brigade, which accused Keneally of racist “dog whistling”:

Several of Senator Keneally’s colleagues privately voiced frustrations on Sunday about her decision to write an opinion piece arguing against the “lazy approach” used by governments to prop up economic growth through immigration and suggested that the overall migrant intake could be less under Labor…

One Labor MP from the Left faction, which tends to support a more-open approach to migrants and refugees, said they were concerned about being accused of “dog-whistling”.

“We don’t have a problem with the call to look at temporary migration, but we don’t have to sound like Peter Dutton while doing it,” he said…

It appears the open borders zealots within the ALP have won out, with Kristina Keneally backtracking at a furious place when challenged on Monday night’s ABC Q&A (watch from 42.40):


JARRI HAIDER

I’m a recent law graduate from the University of New South Wales. I came to Australia as an international student, and I’m now on a temporary work visa. My question is for Kristina Keneally. You recently argued in an article that Australia’s post-pandemic response to temporary migration should be to limit it as far as possible. One of your reasons was that the presence of guest workers drives down wages for Australian workers. As an elected representative of the Labor Party, shouldn’t your priority be to target the businesses that underpay their international workers, rather than wishing that those workers themselves should disappear into thin air?

KRISTINA KENEALLY

First of all, that’s not what I said. I don’t want them to disappear. I want them to be able to stay. Do you know what, under this government, they’ve capped permanent migration at 160,000 people, but they have let temporary migration soar to historically high levels. And temporary migrants, like you, don’t have access to the same rights. You can’t assert your rights in the way that Australian citizens can at work.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Senator, I’m just going to pull you up. Because I think it’s worth reminding our audience what you did actually say.

KRISTINA KENEALLY

Yeah.

HAMISH MACDONALD

You said that, “The post-COVID-19 question we must ask now is this – when we restart our migration program, do we want migrants to return to Australia…”

KRISTINA KENEALLY

“In the same size…”

HAMISH MACDONALD

“..in the same numbers and in the same composition as before?”

KRISTINA KENEALLY

Exactly.

HAMISH MACDONALD

And you said our answer should be no.

KRISTINA KENEALLY

“..should be no.” And that’s where I’m going, before you pulled me up. Because here’s the thing – when we have a country that is propped up by temporary migration, we have a group of people amongst us who are second-class. You can’t assert your same rights. You don’t get the same access to services like JobKeeper and JobSeeker. You’re cut out of all of that. And, in fact, this government has narrowed the pathways to permanency. So, in certain occupations or certain graduate programs, you’ll never get the chance to stay here. Australia is a country made great by permanent migration.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Are you sort of twisting…

KRISTINA KENEALLY

I came as a permanent migrant.

HAMISH MACDONALD

..what your original argument was?

KRISTINA KENEALLY

No, no! My argument has been…

HAMISH MACDONALD

It was widely viewed as a dog whistle on migration.

KRISTINA KENEALLY

Hamish…

HAMISH MACDONALD

And now sort of spinning it as, “This was something that was pro-migrants.”

KRISTINA KENEALLY

Hamish, this has been my argument since I’ve had the portfolio. Go back and read a speech I gave at the Curtin Institute. It was reported in the media at the time. The big hoax that this government is pulling is that they’re capping migration – permanent migration – but they’re letting temporary migration soar to historically high levels. And that’s a view of people as a disposable commodity. That’s a view that we let temporary migrants come here, we use them for their labour, and then we ship them off when times get rough, like COVID, or we never let them stay. I don’t want us to be a guest worker nation.

HAMISH MACDONALD

So, coming out of COVID, do we need to increase our migration intake?

KRISTINA KENEALLY

What we need to do is move towards greater pathways to permanency.

HAMISH MACDONALD

No, but my question is, do we need to increase our intake?

KRISTINA KENEALLY

Hamish, that’s an impossible question to answer right now.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Why?

KRISTINA KENEALLY

Because we don’t know when the borders are going to open, we don’t know what the unemployment rate’s going to be. We don’t know where the skill shortages are. That is an impossible question.

HAMISH MACDONALD

But this goes to whether you believe in population growth as part of the pathway out of this.

KRISTINA KENEALLY

Oh, population growth is definitely part of the pathway out of this. My argument is if we’re going to bring migrants back in – and, of course, I think we should, because they play an important part to building the economy – there should be pathways to permanency. There should be more… What’s your visa class? You said you were a…

JARRI HAIDER

It’s called Post Study Work Visa – it’s for graduates.

KRISTINA KENEALLY

And do you have the opportunity to stay here permanently?

JARRI HAIDER

No, I don’t.

KRISTINA KENEALLY

See, my feeling is…

HAMISH MACDONALD

And how did you interpret the senator’s article?

JARRI HAIDER

I thought the article said we need less immigrants, not more.

KRISTINA KENEALLY

No, what we need is more people like you to be able to stay. What’s going to happen to you under this government is that you’ve come here, you’ve gained skills, you’ve made connections, you might have even found someone you want to settle down and live with – I don’t know. But this government’s going to tell you you have to leave. My argument is, we’re a country built by permanent migration. Think of the Snowy Hydro team…

HAMISH MACDONALD

Kim Rubenstein, I know you want to get in.

KIM RUBENSTEIN

Well, I just think there’s an interesting return to a point which is Kristina’s point, which is a fair one about permanent residency being a more secure pathway to citizenship. But what value’s citizenship if your citizenship does not equate with any rights or connections? So, I think we… There is a profound question which COVID is amplifying…

KRISTINA KENEALLY

In this case, Kim…

KIM RUBENSTEIN

..about having to think through those issues.

KRISTINA KENEALLY

To be fair, a citizen or a permanent resident is getting JobSeeker and JobKeeper. Temporary migrant holders are not. What COVID has exposed is the vulnerable situation that temporary migrants are in and the way that we have failed to support them.

MICHAEL McCORMACK

And we have extended certain measures to ensure that those people – migrants on certain visas – were able to stay here and work. Because, obviously, there’s a lot of work with the bushfires, a lot of work in regional Australia. The Regional Australia Institute has identified 40,000 jobs available in regional Australia now. And not necessarily just in agriculture or indeed the resource sector. There are so many jobs in regional Australia, and we’re encouraging migrants to fill those jobs.

So, according to Keneally and Q&A host Hamish MacDonald, there were no problems with Australia’s pre-COVID mass immigration levels, which for 15 years ran at roughly triple the historical average:

Nor is there a problem with Australia’s cities roughly doubling in size over the next half-century on the back of these mass immigration levels, as projected by the ABS:

The only problem, according to Kristina Keneally, is that not enough people are allowed to migrate to Australia permanently. In which case, Keneally implicitly supports even stronger population growth in the post-COVID economy, given permanent migration drives Australia’s long-term population growth (since temporary migrants must eventually leave).

Nowhere in the discussion did Keneally mention the chronic strains on infrastructure, housing, the environment, or general amenity caused by mass immigration, nor the deleterious impacts on local workers competing for increasingly scarce jobs against low wage migrants.

No, Keneally instead kowtowed to an ABC ambush starring a graduate visa holder, promising to make his path to permanent residency easier under a Labor Government, rather than questioning his true motivation for studying in Australia in the first place – i.e. as a backdoor to permanent migration.

Australians have basically been given two false choices on immigration:

  • High immigration under the Coalition; or
  • Massive immigration under Labor.

Both are disastrous for Australia’s working class, especially in a time of mass unemployment. Running mass immigration into a heavily oversupplied labour market will merely lengthen Australia’s dole queue and crush wages even further, while also raising housing costs.

Somebody should sue “Labor” and demand they change their name because they no longer represent Australian workers.

Rather, Labor are the useful idiots of the wealthy elite that privatises the gains from mass immigration via cheaper labour costs and an expanded consumer base, while ordinary Australians bear the costs.

Leith van Onselen
Latest posts by Leith van Onselen (see all)

Comments

  1. I dont know what part of this exchange made me more angry. Cowardly KENEALLY for back tracking or the self righteous pompous foreigner that was planted by the ABC to ask the question and kept using “WE” when referring to Australia immigration policies. And he was a plant otherwise how would the stooge in the moderators chair have Cowardly KENEALLY’s speech on his clipboard ready to take her apart with it. When did we get to the point that foreigners feel they have the right to even comment on let alone criticize this countries immigration policies.

    • When you commoditize immigration with the expectation of citizenship in a short period of time, in exchange for essentially a financial transaction, you will attract entitled people. This is the direct result.

      We have enough entitled locals. We don’t need imported entitlement on top of that.

    • It’s very frustrating watching this. I don’t blame KK – even if she privately believes what we are saying here, it’s currently political suicide, especially in Labor. She tested the waters & found them full of woke crocodiles so jumped out. I have no doubt she was told to toe the party line or else.
      Because our major parties are just an intersection of identity politics, neoliberalism & corporate donation/bribery, there won’t ever be any room for this point of view until there is a major upheaval. This recession is going to be awful & maybe that will be enough of a catalyst for serious change.

    • @AngryMan – re the plant hypothesis. You are sort of right.

      If you join the Q and A live audience, you have to write out your question in advance and give it to the production Politburu staff. You are warned that if you are called on and you start to ask a different question, the host will just move on and it won’t get answered. They choose the questions based on what is and is not permissible to speak about on the ABC with an occasional token counterpoint. They quickly get some speaking points for the host based on the list of questions.

      You also have to show ID and give a DOB and residential address as a condition of entering.

      Democracy in action, as they say

    • It’s getting rather tired how the ABC jumps from “immigration” to “racism”. If you want to remove all the political oxygen from ON and the other racists let’s have a mature debate about immigration where the racists have no participation.

      Also no challenging to MrCormack about the composition of the planes into Australia. He tried to lay the blame all the states doors. The obvious question was why are there so few seats allocated to Australians?

  2. 10/10 Leith. Particularly about the false choice.

    Karen Kenneally was always about sleight of hand. I would only add that the other reason that is so dangerous is this is about giving access to public services and ultimately, a vote, to people who have been here all of 5 minutes and have no real connection to Australia. It would be the same if we did it elsewhere.

    People who view us as an economic opportunity will end up whiteanting us politically and we are already seeing that with both Labor and Liberal in terms of China. Douglas Murray is very good on this point.

    Of course McCormack was light touch. Wouldn’t want those slave labor farm workers drying up.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      Whiteanting us politically has been my fear for some time. I honestly don’t think people have believed me when I’ve banged on about it over the past 20 years, and now think we’re probably past the point of return (without concerted effort).

      Karen Keneally…lol.

      • I’ve scanned a few blogs in recent weeks and I seriously think the average Joe is onto this. They’ve had enough being patronised by the corrupt political classes, subjected to some warped social conditioning experiment.

        The challenge for us here in Straya is we have no way of expressing our wishes politically.

          • I should clarify these are global (anglophone countries). Spiked online, in the UK.

            Local one: cis.org.au

            Tucker Carlson (YouTube) is the best of the conservative commentators in the US. He’s articulate, charismatic and sharp as a tac. Dismantles progressive ideology with aplomb.

            But even the comments on the MSM here (that make it past spambot) are utterly disparaging if all this ponzi pumping shyte. So that’s pretty encouraging.

        • The challenge for us here in Straya is we have no way of expressing our wishes politically.

          Nonsense. Put all the independents and One Nation first when you vote, put Labor, Liberal and Greens last.
          If enough people take that simple step, that will get the message through.

    • People who view us as an economic opportunity will end up whiteanting us politically and we are already seeing that with both Labor and Liberal in terms of China.

      LOL.

      Who cares about the whiteants when others are out with chainsaws and bark chippers ?

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        There is absolutely no policy that will bring us down individually and as a country like immigration will.

        Even selling our country off we can overcome via taxes and regulation.

        You are the least honest contributor on MB.

  3. Truly a sickening episode. Keneally’s betrayal reminiscent of Gillards.

    ABC news ran a piece last night on how Straya should provide fruit picking, shearing and farm work training for the one million unemployed Australians, and not bring in temporary migrants to perform work we can and should do.

    I can’t see Strayans not ultimately rejecting mass immigration when the penny drops how bad and long this depression is going to be, and our kids have no jobs.

    The worry will be that we’ll get an ultra right anti immigrant backlash.

    The only consolation, if it can be so described, is that the whole pack of cards will collapse even faster with the resumption of mass immigration.

    Food prices soaring will be the trigger for mass unrest.

  4. RIP Australia
    This country has slowly been going to the dogs for the past decade but 2020 will be the year it really turned south.
    I thought overcrowded cities and inadequate infrastructure would be enough for a rethink. NOPE. A downturn might do it. NOPE. A global pandemic not seen since the early 1900’s? Not a chance.

    Literally nothing will kill the ImmiPonzi in Australia. It is so deeply entrenched in the minds (and wallets) of the powers that be in this country that Australia will continue to decline in liveability and economic prosperity amongst it’s citizen as more and more people compete for fewer and fewer jobs. All in a country with the economic sophistication of a third world tinpot dictatorship.

    They’re already celebrating an opening of the gates for new skilled visa’s for Engineers and other skilled occupations, obviously because there are literally ZERO talented professionals available in Australia right now, not to mention the steady stream of expats coming back from abroad. https://www.innovationaus.com/talent-grab-as-engineers-get-fast-tracked-visas/

    • Poochie the Rockin DogMEMBER

      Yup this seems about right. There is nothing we can really do, the future of this country (if an extreme event like covid is not enough) is set and it involves richer elites and mass poverty for everyone else.

  5. You’ve got to admire the ALP’s determination not to learn from Labour in the UK, the Democratic party in the USA and European convulsions.

    It’s like watching a self-harming teenager with an eating problem and a razor blade – you wince with every cut they make to their emaciated frame and lament the pointlessness of it all. Poor kid, how on earth did they get like this? What went wrong?

    How must it look from inside the ALP machine that they can’t see the inevitable social upheaval and collapse of the ALP’s political authority that results from forcing-feeding a nation with an ideological tube? They lost the workers, killed the unions and now they are pushing away the middle class who believe in nationhood and values – and a concept of ourselves that we are better than this. Much better than this.

    Keneally is not articulating a vision that the majority wants – she’s the champion of an elite, a Hillary Clinton-esk establishment figure with a matching accent who refuses to see that this model of economics, government and rhetoric will never be resuscitated. What’s needed is a much bolder vision that includes the bravery to say that “the party is over and now the hangover is going to be long and deep.” Paul Keating was wrong, just as every other PM after him was wrong. We are at the end of an era after going down the wrong track. Yet our ALP has yet to cotton on – the neoliberal and woke El Dorado is just a few more miles in the same direction.

    The ALP has not noticed that cracks in the American hegemony are appearing as the glass-jawed dragon to the north is becoming every bit the tyrant of 1950s and 60s Maoist proportions.

    Instead of real debate and political courage we have the two major parties offering pretty much the same thing, like two organ grinders with the same monkey.

  6. pfh007.comMEMBER

    You are being unfair to KK who was making a point about the specific problems of TEMPORARY migration which is the preferred neoliberal labour market disruption tool.

    “.. My argument is if we’re going to bring migrants back in – and, of course, I think we should, because they play an important part to building the economy – there should be pathways to permanency…”

    That goose Hamish and the talking point in the audience, were working flat out to obsfucate the difference between temporary and permanent immigration with an energetic play of the “you are a racist” card.

    KK supported permanent immigration but made it clear that the level of that would depend on what the country required.

    “.. Because we don’t know when the borders are going to open, we don’t know what the unemployment rate’s going to be. We don’t know where the skill shortages are. That is an impossible question…”

    Sensibly she was not going to commit to a permanent immigration number during COVID-19.

    If you are arguing that she should have said she was opposed to ANY permanent immigration, which was exactly the “gotcha” ham bone and his entitled temporary resident were hoping for, I think that is unrealistic and counter productive.

    Arguing against any immigration at all is over the top and guarantees being ignored as that includes, marriage migration, humanitarian and a bunch of other types of permanent immigration that most people support.

    Temporary immigration is the neoliberal weapon of choice to destroy local working conditions.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      What she said could easily be twisted into massively increasing overall numbers by offering ALL Right to work visa holders permanent residency.

      If the ALP want to claim to represent the interests of the Working and middle class in relation to immigration and population growth then the position of distinction should be, What percentage of population growth should come from immigration compared to natural increase.
      I would argue immigration should not represent more than one third of population growth and yet, if I am correctly informed, Immigration accounts for two thirds of our population growth. I think most Australians would agree this is too high.
      Increasing the birth rate through free Government provided child care and other incentives should be the main focus of those obsessed with a “Big Australia”
      At the moment KK is just playing a 3 shell game with the LNP with neither party giving the Australian People a choice on overall numbers.
      We got a choice on Fken [email protected] marriage!
      Where is our democratic choice on this infinitely more relevant issue to the majority of Australian voters KK and other MPs are supposed to be representing!

      • pfh007.comMEMBER

        “.. What she said could easily be twisted into massively increasing overall numbers by offering ALL Right to work visa holders permanent residency. ..”

        Considering she said nothing that could support that interpretation, I suppose I have to agree with you.

        🙂

        • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

          “ HAMISH MACDONALD

          But this goes to whether you believe in population growth as part of the pathway out of this.

          KRISTINA KENEALLY

          Oh, population growth is definitely part of the pathway out of this. My argument is if we’re going to bring migrants back in – and, of course, I think we should, because they play an important part to building the economy – there should be pathways to permanency. There should be more… What’s your visa class? You said you were a…

          JARRI HAIDER

          It’s called Post Study Work Visa – it’s for graduates.

          KRISTINA KENEALLY

          And do you have the opportunity to stay here permanently?

          JARRI HAIDER

          No, I don’t.

          KRISTINA KENEALLY

          See, my feeling is…

          HAMISH MACDONALD

          And how did you interpret the senator’s article?

          JARRI HAIDER

          I thought the article said we need less immigrants, not more.

          KRISTINA KENEALLY

          No, what we need is more people like you to be able to stay. What’s going to happen to you under this government is that you’ve come here, you’ve gained skills, you’ve made connections, you might have even found someone you want to settle down and live with – I don’t know. But this government’s going to tell you you have to leave. My argument is, we’re a country built by permanent migration”

          AND

          KRISTINA KENEALLY

          “To be fair, a citizen or a permanent resident is getting JobSeeker and JobKeeper. Temporary migrant holders are not. What COVID has exposed is the vulnerable situation that temporary migrants are in and the way that we have failed to support them.“

          She is not arguing to cut Overall numbers,…she is arguing that we have failed “temporary migrants” because they are not offered permanency and access to our welfare state!

          • pfh007.comMEMBER

            Ermo,

            Huh?

            “.. She is not arguing to cut Overall numbers,…she is arguing that we have failed “temporary migrants” because they are not offered permanency and access to our welfare state!..”

            Even you are having trouble twisting her words into a massive increase in overall numbers!

            My point remains.

            Arguing against ANY permanent immigration is an extremist position that will have almost zero support from anywhere left of far right.

            Arguing for extremely limited work rights for some temporary residents is achievable and that is what KK is arguing for while being attacked by the woke left and the unreasonable.

            As to how much permanent immigration is appropriate post COVID-19 is impossible to say and that is what KK said.

            At the moment immigration permanent and temporary is effectively zero so you can’t get much lower than that.

            I hope you are getting the branches on board and sending the woke ALP left to the Greens where they will be much happier.

          • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

            Her words allow her and the ALP To jack up the Permanent intake by exactly the same numbers that they reduce temporary work migration if they want to without being accused of lying.
            There was No commitment what so ever to a reduced rate of Overall immigration, only a reduction in temporary visa numbers with work rights.

            Also I Did not advocating for no immigration.
            I clearly stated above that our population growth (IMHO) should not be no more than 30% Of our population growth.
            I believe the majority of Australians want to see this kind of reduction not just now but over the long term.
            KK clearly isn’t going their and instead Engages In the same game of Sophistry the ALP and LNP have been playing for decades.
            Her position is little better than Abbott’s Stop the boats bait and switch.
            How about some fken Democratic choice on the matter.

          • I clearly stated above that our population growth (IMHO) should not be no more than 30% Of our population growth.

            Is there a rationale behind 30% as an amount ? Eg: historical rate ?

          • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

            Well it’s currently (up till Covid) 60% and that has been causing Well documented problems for infrastructure, services , housing affordability and wage growth.
            The working class have been clear losers from our currents high rate of immigration (one of the highest per capita in the world)
            I think cutting the rate in half to 30% of population growth is a good place to start and see what happens.
            I believe millions of Australians would agree with me
            Including most indigenous Australians.
            Do they deserve a say on the matter.

            https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/Population Paper FINAL.pdf

          • Well it’s currently (up till Covid) 60% and that has been causing Well documented problems for infrastructure, services , housing affordability and wage growth.
            The working class have been clear losers from our currents high rate of immigration (one of the highest per capita in the world)
            I think cutting the rate in half to 30% of population growth is a good place to start and see what happens.

            Right, but you’re conflating two things.

            Population growth.
            Makeup of the growth.

            You started off talking about the makeup (30% immigrant), but then you switched to just overall population growth.

            Keeping the rate of population growth the same and only changing the makeup from 60% immigrant to 30% immigrant, won’t change any of the issues caused by population growth.

            Precision is important, otherwise what you say may not result in to what you meant.

            Including most indigenous Australians.
            Do they deserve a say on the matter.

            Sure. Do you think they deserve more of a say than “non-indigenous” Australians ? Because it’s what you’re implying by singling them out.

        • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

          I would also ask Smithy, What happened to the Greens Zero population growth policy for Australia?
          Why did they trade in bio diversity for Big Australia?

          • I would also ask Smithy, What happened to the Greens Zero population growth policy for Australia?

            We both know the answer to that: https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greens-change-their-immigration-policy

            Why did they trade in bio diversity for Big Australia?

            Most of the environmental issues in Australia are independent of our population. Land clearing and habitat destruction driven by residential expansion is insignificant compared to that for industry and agriculture (and would be smaller still down the Greens preferred path of increasing density via infill).

          • drsmithy is being disingenuous. The most effective action that you can take against climate change is to have one less child

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

            There is a link to the original paper in Environmental Research Letters. Having one less child is 25 times more effective than the next best action, going without a car. This isn’t even counting other impacts on the environment from a bigger population. We already have the silver medal in vertebrate extinctions. A lot of the damage due to mining and agriculture in sparsely populated areas is due to the need for more and more foreign exchange to pay for the imports needed by the bigger population. Just go through your house and count up everything imported, now multiply it by all the households in Australia, now double it, now triple it…

            Our own fertility rate is not a problem. It has been slightly below replacement level since 1976. But we don’t have to overpopulate, since our government can do it for us. Migrants from poorer countries massively increase their consumption on coming to Australia, so that they each have almost the same impact as another Australian baby. This article claims that Chinese migrants in Melbourne increased their carbon footprint by 2.4 times

            https://www.swinburne.edu.au/news/2018/11/chinese-migrants-follow-australians-giant-ecological-footprints/

            We are taking migrants from much poorer places than China, and the migrants’ children will consume like anyone else in our population. Further high population growth will more than cancel out any other actions that we take to protect the environment.

            This is why the Greens are a fake environmental party and deserve to be put last with the ALP and LNP. drsmithy will tell you that the damage would occur anyway because of global demand, but if that is true, then there is no point in doing anything, because it will just be blocked or canceled out by our elite.

          • drsmithy is being disingenuous.

            LOL. Now there’s some weapons-grade irony.

            The most effective action that you can take against climate change is to have one less child

            Nothing at an individual choice level can have meaningful impact on climate change.

            No (realistic) population-based approach can address climate change on a useful timeframe, if at all. Even if the whole world somehow chose to only have one child for a decade.

            Migrants from poorer countries massively increase their consumption on coming to Australia, so that they each have almost the same impact as another Australian baby. This article claims that Chinese migrants in Melbourne increased their carbon footprint by 2.4 times

            https://www.swinburne.edu.au/news/2018/11/chinese-migrants-follow-australians-giant-ecological-footprints/

            Based on the rate of growth of the mainland Chinese middle class and the increase in consumption by the China-born middle class now living in Australia, the ecological footprint of China’s population of 1.4 billion can be expected to more than double over the next 10 to 20 years.

            Any Chinese increasing their emissions by moving to Australia (and there was an article on MB only a few weeks ago about how most immigrants are middle- to upper-class anyway and already have that level of consumption) isn’t even a rounding error compared to the ‘more than doubled ecological footprint of 1.4 billion Chinese’.

            drsmithy will tell you that the damage would occur anyway because of global demand, but if that is true, then there is no point in doing anything, because it will just be blocked or canceled out by our elite.

            No, the point is that even stopping (let alone just reducing, as most here ostensibly advocate) immigration will do little to nothing to address environmental damage which is largely driven by external factors, so the obsession with it could be better spent elsewhere.

            Like, say, actually trying to regulate or stop the things that are actually doing damage.

            And if your argument is ‘any attempts at change will be ignored by the elite’, then any argument against immigration is even more pointless.

          • “ Most of the environmental issues in Australia are independent of our population”. The correct language is ‘can be’ and there is a big gulf between what actually happens with extreme population growth policies and what can happen.

            It would arguably be more honest to link support for neoliberal extreme growth to genuine environmental and social/physical infrastructure reform.

          • drsmithy,

            When your toddler floods the bathroom, the first thing that you do is turn off the tap, to stop the water from also flooding the rest of the house. You then clean up the mess and try to think about how to stop the problem from recurring. Surely you have seen the equation I = PAT, where impact on the environment is proportional to the population, the average affluence of that population, and the “dirtiness” of the technology used to produce that level of affluence. Action has to be taken on all three fronts. You are always trying to switch the discussion from the environment in general to climate change alone and the time that we have to do anything about it. Look at the Stockholm Resilience Center planetary boundaries. There is plenty wrong on both the global and the local level besides climate change. The weight that we need to give to the different aspects of PAT differs with the problem, but a party that wants to pussyfoot on population should get out of the way and make room for a real environmental party.

            China was just an example. Are you claiming that most migrants from poor countries are middle or upper class and consuming the same as in their home countries? Why would they want to come here then, when they could have hot and cold running servants at home? Even if you were correct and their consumption didn’t go up, their children would ensure that we have a bigger high-consuming population.

            If our elite won’t stop population growth, they won’t do anything about climate change, extinctions, land degradation, or proper water management either, apart from window dressing. The obvious cure is to vote their henchmen in the major parties out. They can then blink, as they did in the US after World War I, or try to keep the lid on with torture and disappearances.

          • When your toddler floods the bathroom, the first thing that you do is turn off the tap, to stop the water from also flooding the rest of the house.

            This is a bad analogy.

            Surely you have seen the equation I = PAT, where impact on the environment is proportional to the population, the average affluence of that population, and the “dirtiness” of the technology used to produce that level of affluence. Action has to be taken on all three fronts.

            I have never suggested otherwise.

            My point is that “A” and “T” are a lot more relevant and easier to address, than “P”, *especially* on a global scale, and in useful timeframes.

            You are always trying to switch the discussion from the environment in general to climate change alone and the time that we have to do anything about it.

            No, *you* changed the subject to climate change.

            I started in this thread talking about land clearing and habitat destruction.

            I seem to recall you trying this bait-and-switch in the past, as well.

            China was just an example. Are you claiming that most migrants from poor countries are middle or upper class and consuming the same as in their home countries?

            That was certainly the gist of the article here a few weeks back.

            But the larger point is on a global scale it’s just noise compared to China, India, the USA and Europe.

            If our elite won’t stop population growth, they won’t do anything about climate change, extinctions, land degradation, or proper water management either, apart from window dressing. The obvious cure is to vote their henchmen in the major parties out. They can then blink, as they did in the US after World War I, or try to keep the lid on with torture and disappearances.

            Sure. And your approach is to support the people who prioritise Population as the most important (or only) factor (or are pretending they do), whereas mine is to support the people who prioritise Affluence (ie: consumption) and Technology as the most important factors.

            Neither group has a great deal of political influence in the grand scheme of things, but the latter group has at least an order of magnitude more than the former, and in at least one regard – Technology – is swimming mostly with the tide rather than against it.

      • Australian fertility rates are the most democratic indication of what the people of a nation desire for their population and destiny. It is a right more fundamental than a vote. But this does not suit the elite, hence we are overruled by economists acting as population engineers who need a greater flow of livestock and profit. Fundamentally it is morally wrong to overrule the collective reproductive ambitions of a people. Australians want a sustainable population and policy makers need to deal with it – not the other way around. This has become a brutal population tyranny.

      • blindjusticeMEMBER

        If we want a higher birth rate among Australians then the answer is not subsidized nor free childcare. The unintended consequence is higher house prices etc. To have more kids people need to work less. Birth rates decreased as female workforce participation increased. Either male participation needs to decrease or part time work needs to be distributed among both parents. I`ve heard plenty of people say that they don’t see the point in having kids for someone else to raise them.

        Free/low cost childcare pits people who otherwise would have more children against full time dual incomes. Impossible with todays house prices. The ‘efficiency’ of having one parent full time at home or both part time at home increases the more kids one has. So competition from dual incomes for accommodation/general life costs will mean these families will be rare. So we end up with a limit of 1/2 kids a family. No problem with that, isn’t it more environmentally friendly? But I`m making this argument on the assumption that a higher population is the aim here………….

      • pfh007.comMEMBER

        I was cooking dinner and only half listening and I was able to work out that she was getting savaged by the brain dead “woke” for criticising temporary resident work rights.

        Much to the amusement of the LNP dude who is keen for more cheap sweat shop labour (Aka international students and working ‘holiday’ makers) for his farmer buddies.

        Do I think the ALP will reduce temporary work visas or permanent immigration in the very unlikely event they win a Federal Election?

        Nope – because the ALP support crew is packed to the gills with hacks who love cheap labour as much as the LNP.

      • She was so scared of being seen as a racialist her ability to be clear and reason with facts to differentiate between the two was lost

        It’s important, because as soon as there’s a sniff of “rac1sm” in there:
        * The media and a conga line of right-wing hypocrites will go nuclear
        * She loses a sizeable chunk of people who think rac1sm is bad, which will be a demographic dominated by the yoof – ie: future voters.

        • Of course there is a sniff of racism. Questioning immigration is like refusing to take a knee in America. You are racist for raising the question. Debate over.
          No need for asterisks, the Green brigade have masterfully inextricably linked even a question with primary facile evidence of evil intent.
          Then they fret about why people go and vote the wrong way.

        • It’s a terrible indictment on all of us** that someone – with a reasonable grasp of simple facts and a command of the English language (no weasel words) – is unable to articulate that
          – some immigration is fine, not arguing about that
          – why loads of permanent and temp is bad for
          — wages
          –amenity
          — cost of living
          etc

          It’s really not hard but our politicians twist themselves inside out in some fantastical and maniacal contortions to avoid “RACIALIST”.

          She should have jumped all over that student’s sense of entitlement then on Hamish and scolded him for playing funny b$ggers.

          ** except MBers of course

          • It’s a terrible indictment on all of us […]

            It’s the result of knowing that a grand army of people are thirsty for the slightest slip-up, poor phrasing or juicy out-of-context quote that can be used to derive outrage and undermine the larger point, because their purpose is, mostly, to derive outrage, undermine the larger and destroy any possibility of sensible debate.

            She should have jumped all over that student’s sense of entitlement then on Hamish and scolded him for playing funny b$ggers.

            Not quite sure where the “entitlement” comes from. If you’re running an immigration programme purporting to encourage skilled immigration via a student path, then someone following the incentives and rules going down that path is hardly “entitled”.

        • You omitted mentioning progressive hypocrites. The progressive hypocrites that habour an angelic, messianic self-conception of themselves that love to demonize others that criticise them and convince themselves that they are rational yogis on a mountain top above everyone else and incapable of foul behaviour and poor judgement that others are capable of.

    • Arguing against any immigration at all is over the top and guarantees being ignored as that includes, marriage migration, humanitarian and a bunch of other types of permanent immigration that most people support.

      You seem to have forgotten what forum you’re posting on. 😀

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        Hardly anyone agrees with your brand of humanitarian leading to open borders. I doubt the country will be stupid enough to trust Labor and Greens with immigration again.

        Dumb politics. Dumb politicians. Dumb left voters.

        • Huh?

          Immigration of all shapes and sizes has been LNP policy for the last 20 years.

          The terrible Greens and the self immolating ALP cannot claim much glory for the Big Australia push since 2000.

          Mr Howard explained the connection between being rough on boat arrivals to his desire to run a Big Australia immigration program as follows.

          “Every country does have the right to decide the composition, the manner, and the timing of the flow of people. And that’s something the Australian people support…

          One of the reasons why it is so important to maintain that policy is that the more people think our borders are being controlled, the more supportive they are in the long-term of higher levels of immigration.

          Australia needs a high level of immigration. I’m a high immigration man. I practiced that in Government. And one of the ways that you maintain public support for that is to communicate to the Australian people a capacity to control our borders and decide who and what people and when they come to this country”

          https://theglass-pyramid.com/2017/11/04/just-say-when-what-does-sydney-is-full-mean/

      • drsmithy,

        “..You seem to have forgotten what forum you’re posting on..”

        I have become quite accustomed to being simultaneously – libertarian, woke, right wing, left wing, austrian, hyper inflationist, monetarist and anarchist.

        I put it down to my flexible yet rapidly ageing joints.

        🙂

  7. Temporary migration becomes permanent migration very easily and that’s the issue. There’s a raft of visas you can apply for from a simple tourist visa and that sets those wheels in motion and then you have a whole bunch of problems down the track.

    Throw in the AAT debacle and migrant lobby groups wanting chain migration and it’s a mess. Callinan High Court review pointed this out succinctly.

    I agree with your main point Ermo. People including myself and my wife are trying to have to negotiate the house price and child conundrum caused by the high debt and migration scam we have going in this country. Further, no one also seems to be prepared to ask the question about how much migration we actually need. I don’t think it’s a controversial topic at all to broach when framing it with the lens of global overpopulation and environmental issues but the wokesters and business community have done a great job of gatekeeping that argument until recently.

  8. “but the wokesters and business community have done a great job of gatekeeping that argument”

    Been like for 40 years. Sustainable Population/ZPG have lobbied every year for open discussion on an optimum populatiin policy. Labeled racist by the Greens and woke left, irrelevant by the right.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      Sustainable Australia are too weak/meek to be in politics.

      They’re smart but lack the necessary aggression to sell their story.

      Their core mantra should be ……”LNP, Labor and MSM are in a collusive relationship to take your country and hand it to the elite”.

      They’ve taken the greatest leap to enter politics, but aren’t having a crack.

      • Not aggression – money, backing, powerful connections and brokers and even then, impossible to break down the all-powerful MSM-imposed wall of silence. Hanson is given airtime only as a figure to deride and so serves as a warning to all who would dare speak against immigration.

        Its a dirty, dirty world. We’ll pay the price soon in spades.

        • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

          I entirely agree, so they have to ramp it up, so they will be heard with….”LNP, Labor and MSM are in a collusive relationship to take your country and hand it to the elite”.

          I well know the impediments but they’ve been around for decades (I was a founding member) and have achieved nothing. I’ve watched Hansons demeanour and message radically change, and think she’s only allowed to continue with MSM in her present form.

          It’s time to ramp it up, or fold.

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            So yourselves and Hanson reach the same rallying point through different approaches? Her dragging the far right, SAP through a more measured stance. Politics is weird.

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            Yes politics is weird. We all know LNP, Labor and MSM goal is wealth and power. I guess Hanson is the same now and they all play the game to achieve it.

            If SAs goal is lower immigration then get moving, get aggressive, get heard. Start pointing the finger at the corruption, the inconsistent outcomes and messages, the elites killing it, workers copping it, the environment, housing etc etc eyc.

            It’s there for the taking and SA are already there in the bear pit. They’ve already committed themselves. Time to get effective.

  9. I want to go back to the time when the government:

    owned and ran the best airline in the world;
    owned the Commonwealth bank, which put a floor on the ratfuckery which has ensued since it was sold for pennies;
    owned the airports, sure they weren’t flash, but you could park long term for free;
    owned all the roads and 20c got you across the bridge;
    delivered competent, caring welfare and jobs help via Social Security;

    Labor has not delivered for workers my entire adult life. Everyone remembers a better Australia

    • GunnamattaMEMBER

      Everyone remembers a better Australia

      Too right…….A generations worth of outsourcing public services, privatising public assets, tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporates, defenestrating Australian exporting and import competing jobs through crazy FTAs, a bloated AUD, and insane energy costs, the financialising of education, and the embedding of housing speculation as our economic growth model…..

      …….all papered over by flooding the economy with immigration (mainly unskilled, and generally not ‘investing’ in Australia) to underpin GDP has made Australia a poorer and smaller country to live in for its own people.

      • Thank you, Gunna. The immigration, debt fueled ponzi has also made us one of the most expensive countries around. As we’ve needed ever bigger salaries to afford the large mortgages, our labour costs are now some of the highest in the world. This underpins everything and I hear it regularly from people I meet that things are just too expensive here, whether its accommodation, booze, food, smokes, transport costs.

        You would think there might be a conversation now about how we might start to rebuild a better Australia after covid has put a big load of light on what we have become. You know, some ideas about putting people to work in stuff that we no longer do, like manufacturing, renewable energy, restoring degraded environments… But no, it’s all about how we might press the play button again, and how we must do it soon. If I could move somewhere better, I would

        • “If I could move somewhere better I would”.
          For a lot of temporary migrants/international students in Australia from F****stab Australia is the country that they would try to move if they can.
          By the way, if you could, what countries do you consider would fit into that category of countries you would wish to move?
          Just curious

  10. GunnamattaMEMBER

    Can I remind people of what I wrote here

    The ‘Population Ponzi’ – Employment, Migrants, Incomes and Manufacturing & Australia’s lost Economic narrative
    https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/06/the-population-ponzi-employment-migrants-incomes-and-manufacturing-australias-lost-economic-narrative/

    particularly the last couple of paras…..

    How about a bit of honesty with the Australian public?

    Australians aren’t that ill disposed towards migrants, and nobody in their right mind thinks that ending immigration per se is going to be anything but a painful experience. While I don’t doubt that plenty of recent migrants here have experienced something they would associate with racism, as someone who has lived much of his adult life overseas I don’t think Australians are particularly racist and are probably less racist than many other societies – including those from where most of our migrants come from. Racism may drive questions about immigration, but the lived economic experience drives more. And it’s time for our politicians and policymakers to start addressing the lived economic experience of Australians, and tailoring Australia’s immigration volumes to that experience. Somewhere in our political system needs to identify the shortcomings of the lived experience and map out a growth strategy which alleviates those issues and incorporates immigration meaningfully. And until that political entity arises, the credibility of our politicians, policymakers and ‘elites’ will continue to erode.

    Now that the economy is in free fall, we are no longer defending ‘growth’. We need to go out and create it again. And if we want heavy levels of immigration we should be pretty clearly mapping out – with hard data – what sort of immigrants we need and how they will fit into the growth narrative, as well as measuring how we are progressing against that narrative. And if we aren’t measuring up, we shouldn’t be taking the migrants in the numbers we have been. If we do, all we are doing is selling a pup to ourselves and the migrants we encourage to join us.

    The thing that amazes me in the response to COVID and discussion about whether to lockdown longer or open up, is that nobody wants to discuss Australia’s long term economic game plan, and where we are heading with all this.

    Returning to flooding the economy with migrants (albeit through no fault of theirs) is doing pretty much nothing for the fortunes of the average punter on the streets in Australia, and until both sides are talking about the longer term economic game plan then neither side is credible

    • If we have another horrific summer of fires this year or in the next 3 years outta going to be very interesting. Esp as how it might start to relate to the push pull factors of migrants coming here. Those fires horrified many overseas. Combine that work a brutal recession and Aussie society possibly becoming a lot more feral, Esp in Melbourne, a migrant mecca, and we could be in for done interesting permutations to the migration chain our betters hadn’t bargained on. China will certainly play the Straya is racist card.

      I may or may not be being hopeful here but there are some truly ugly possibilities brewing

    • Yep they are guaranteeing that every Aussie will demand that the $1B we spend every year on the ABC be redirected to something worthwhile like immigrant welfare (at least that’s what I hear when the ABC makes these pro Immigration arguments).

  11. Permanent residents also work for $10/hour.

    She is like Michael Daley.

    September 2018

    Mr Daley can be seen telling an audience at a pub in the Blue Mountains that a “transformation” was under way in Sydney and young workers were being replaced by Asian immigrants.

    who are they being replaced with? They are being replaced by young people from typically Asia with PhD

    Mar 2019

    Michael Daley caught out by contradictory Asian migration …

    shortly after becoming leader, in which he praised Chinese immigration.

    Refugee does Labor:

    15 November 2019

    unacceptable statement by Labor Party. You exiled me to Manus and you have supported this exile policy for years. I don’t need you to welcome resttlement for me in a third country.

    In my view anyone who supports this barbaric policy is criminal

    https://7news.com.au/politics/immigration-policy/behrouz-boochani-lashes-out-at-the-labor-partys-kristina-keneally-over-ridiculous-statement-c-559203

  12. Totes BeWokeMEMBER

    If all Australians watched QandA, The Project and read SMH and knew what Labor stand for there’d be far fewer Labor MPs.

    IMO it’d be damaging to Labor in marginal seats to push Labor’s policies of…”only Labor will extend welfare to temporary migrants”….”only Labor will increase immigration”.

  13. Arthur Schopenhauer

    Another week, another medium/high density Town Planning application objection. In 6 months we’ll be in VCAT yet again, having taken 2 weeks to prepare the case.

    The only economic sense for this development is money laundering. Labor State Member and Labor Federal Member, and the r#p& of our suburbs continue.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      They don’t have to be to cause maximum damage.

      By just being in the duopoly and agreeing to massive immigration, LNP don’t have to change.

      Labor have to be wiped out for immigration to change to more resemble what Australians want.

    • Jumping jack flash

      Labor is once again reinforcing that they are Libs Lite.

      And who would ever vote for Libs Lite when the real Libs are right there?

      But what else can they do? Both parties operate in the same political landscape that was flattened back in the 90’s by Keating and Howard. Government has no jurisdiction to enact change since they sold off all their power, and instead of trying to regain it, they continue selling it off at any opportunity.

      Now all they can do is make sure their people have enough debt. The Libs have that covered and the voting public trusts them to provide enough essential debt from the banks, since they are known as the “bank whisperers”.

      Labor is simply irrelevant.

  14. Man I’m putting on too much weight off the back of eating way way too much popcorn.

    Maybe I should switch to only leftist tears only diet for a while. But is it keto, or would there be too much soy in it?

  15. I caught that segment and it made me sick – the self entitlement from the graduate who expected to automatically become a permanent citizen after graduating and then KK sucking up to the graduate.
    Where are the politicians that put Australia’s interests first?

  16. Jumping jack flash

    “In which case, Keneally implicitly supports even stronger population growth in the post-COVID economy, given permanent migration drives Australia’s long-term population growth (since temporary migrants must eventually leave).”

    Flipped, then doubled down when pressured. We need more leaders like that, for sure.

  17. Just caught the replay of Q&A. Jarri Haider can be the first to be deported. Been here 5 minutes on a full fee Law degree (daddy will be quite wealthy) and turned fully woke. We don’t need more lawyers. We don’t have to be lectured to by the likes of him. OUT!

  18. The current political system is broken – opposition getting fat, lazy and ineffectual, content to go with the status quo while internal corruption remains endemic. Sometimes I feel that nothing short of a revolution will change things. Exile the political class and purge their lobbyists: HRH, Innes Bollox, fake demography professor–a few heads on pikes would shake things up. The Codpiece and Mr IQ can join them.

    For better or worse we aren’t a culture that resorts to violence and complacency is in our blood so I’d be surprised to see this happen in my lifetime. However, If cancel culture can dissuade advertisers from mainstream media with boycotts, why can’t those pushing the pro-immigration Ponzi agenda be similarly targeted? Imagine if there was a campaign to get Liz Allen sacked from the ANU or Bollox prevented from airing his views on Sky/AFR etc.

Leave a reply

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