A vote for the Greens is a vote for a ‘Big Australia’

We truly are living in Bizarro World when the self-proclaimed defenders of the environment and social justice – The Greens – champion the very policy (mass immigration-driven population growth) that is most destructive to Australia’s natural environment, causes mass disenfranchisement among the working class, as well as robs developing nations of their talent. And all of this simply to favour a corporate clique of banks, the property lobby and retailers.

For 15 years, the Greens stood by silently or cheered while Australia’s immigration program was more than doubled and Australia’s population ballooned from 20 million to 25 million:

Worse, the Greens in 2016 announced a plan to massively increase Australia’s humanitarian migrant intake without providing offsets to Australia’s then permanent migrant intake of 200,000 – a move that would see Australia’s population increase to a massive 43 million by 2060.

Hence, rather than pushing back against the population ponzi and a Big Australia, the modern Greens have a platform for an even bigger enviro-sucking Australia!

Throughout the pandemic, we have witnessed Greens senator and immigration spokesperson, Nick McKim, continually lobby to ramp-up immigration.

Last year, McKim called for travel restrictions to be lifted for temporary migrants so that they could return to Australia on the same terms as citizens:

Greens Senator Nick McKim has written to Acting Immigration Minister Alan Tudge urging him to allow temporary visa holders to be permitted to return to Australia “under the same conditions required of a permanent resident or citizen”.

“Many of these people hold subclass 457,482, or 489 skilled visas, and have worked hard and payed taxes in Australia for many years,” Senator McKim wrote.

He said others were on bridging visas and were unable to renew them overseas, raising the prospect that they would never be allowed to ever return.

McKim also called for temporary visa holders to be paid income support and be given access to Medicare:

“The federal government has the resources to help and direct responsibility for Australia’s visa system.”

“People who hold temporary visas need proper income support and access to Medicare, both of which are federal responsibilities.”

Last week, McKim announced the Greens would introduce legislation to the Senate next month extending or restoring the visas of approved migrants stuck overseas. He also called for greater pathways to permanent residency to alleviate ‘skills shortages’ for business:

The party’s immigration spokesman, Nick McKim, told the Financial Review that the measure, which would also apply to other visa categories, would help ease the national skills shortage.

“Many people with skilled visas have got jobs waiting for them in Australia. They’ve applied successfully for jobs. They have employers who want them and desperately need them, yet they are stuck overseas unable to make it Australia to take up their jobs,” said Senator McKim…

“We know through direct contact in my office that many people who hold temporary visas, including skilled visas, are reconsidering coming to Australia and exploring options to go to other countries, including Canada and European countries,” he said.

“The risk is that we will ultimately miss out on people coming to Australia who can make a great positive contribution to our society and our economy because we have ignored them and marginalised them for 18 months.”

Let’s get real: there is nothing more destructive to Australia’s natural environment than population growth. Yet the Greens are the biggest supporters of mass immigration and a ‘Big Australia’.

The other irony is that mass immigration overwhelmingly favours corporations over ordinary Australians and recent migrants, as explained by former Treasury secretary and NAB chairman, Ken Henry:

Research NAB carried out earlier in the year showed that among our customers there’s not wholesale support for a larger Australia. For many, the prospect of a higher Australian population means more stress in the ability to buy a house, to live where you want to live, to get to work with a reasonable commute time. And many in the community are also concerned about our ability, as a nation, to maintain norms of Australian social and economic inclusion, and to continue to provide access to high quality services in areas such as healthcare and education…

But what is the business perspective? The same NAB research showed that most of our business customers would strongly prefer a larger population, which supports better business growth.

Former Greens leader, Bob Brown, made a similar point:

“It’s no good in complaining about the world’s environmental problems if you vote for the people that want to put their foot on the accelerator of a growth economy.”

Given most corporations and wealthy families are also headed by white males, the Greens’ support of mass immigration directly plays into their hands and perpetuates the racism and disadvantage that the Greens supposedly lament. As noted by Crispin Hull:

The top end which benefits from high immigration has a much larger portion of white males in it than the rest of Australia.

The big corporations and their shareholders are dominated by wealthy white males. So you might well argue that the high immigration that favours them and helps keep them in a position of privilege perpetuates racism while hitting hard everyone else – including almost all recent immigrants from non-English-speaking countries – as they struggle to find and pay for health, education, transport and energy.

In summary, the identity politics obsessed Greens are the useful idiots of blood-sucking capitalism via their extreme support for environmental and worker destroying mass immigration.

Someone should sue them to get the name back.

Unconventional Economist

Comments

  1. Against the odds, Alex Hawke’s immigration officials are delivering superb results for the immigration industry. Number of offshore migrants landed in 2020-21 = 46,000. Number of citizens and PRs stranded offshore = 45,000.

  2. Greens want zero-emissions energy, but are a party founded in opposition to a hydroelectric project.
    Greens say “the science is settled” on global warming, but refuse to accept the science of nuclear energy.
    Greens want money spent on roads to be redirected to public transport, but want subsidies to encourage the uptake of private electric vehicles.
    Greens complain about overpopulation damaging Australia’s environment, but want open borders.
    If it wasn’t for double standards, Greens wouldn’t have any standards at all.
    “Everything woke turns to shyte” – President Trump

  3. if it’s a clash between a mass immigration ‘brown man’ social engineered Australia and the environment … the ‘greens party’ will always choose the ‘brown man’ social engineering ideology.
    however they can keep a low profile on their ‘brown man’ ideology because the treacherous labor party, the ‘workers party’, are doing the social engineering heavy lifting for them, they have the same ideology
    and of course we have the treacherous colalition, they’ll allow anyone in to feed their neoliberal ideology, which means an overwhelming intake of ‘brown man’ bodies.
    next election don’t vote or vote one nation or sustainable Australia parties.

  4. Ee Zed Eff Kaye Ay

    It is not about environmental matters, the Greens equate more voters with more votes for them. The ‘stranded’ visas holders will come home because of them get their PR with the hope they vote Greens. Never underestimate self interest.

  5. The BystanderMEMBER

    >The top end which benefits from high immigration has a much larger portion of white males in it than the rest of Australia

    But those are the GOOD white males, you know, the ones who force mandatory diversity training and race/gender quotas on the low-ranking workers in order to make a better society. You know, a society where the 99% who get their wages stolen and conditions destroyed appropriately represent Census demographics. Or are tilted in favour of non-white males, because the only way to make amends for historic wrongs is to ruin an innocent person’s career prospects now.

    And the GOOD white males deserve big bonuses and big speaker’s fees and Good Weekend profiles, because they’ve selflessly done all the hard work making sure that, if you’re being f***ed over by a big corporation, it’s not because you’re a minority or a woman… /s

  6. I think that you are misrepresenting the Greens on this. McKim is calling for those who already have visas and who are stuck overseas to have their visas extended.
    There is a lot more to The Greens immigration policy than you declare and to me it looks a lot more complete and comprehensive than either of the major parties policies.
    It specifically says that immigration policies should not be used to surpress wages.
    https://greens.org.au/policies/immigration-and-refugees
    I recall that in the last election MB got behind the Sustainable Australia party. Part of the pitch was to differentiate themselves from The Greens on immigration because that’s where they hope some of their votes will come from.
    Another election must be close because MB are back on that anti Greens immigration platform again.
    At the very least MB should be transparent and declare their political interest and not misrepresent.

    • Rubbish. The Greens have never opposed the mass immigration ponzi. McKim continually argues for easier migrant access alongside a large boost in the humanitarian intake and elderly parent visas without offsets.
      My criticisms are 100% valid. They are a fake environmental party.

      Heck, earlier this month, in their dissenting report to the Senate select committee on temporary migration, the Greens argued for permanent residency to be handed out like tic tacs and for chain migration.

      The Greens’ actual actions in parliament always supports stronger immigration and a bigger Australia.

      • The Greens have never opposed the mass immigration ponzi.
        That is not the case UE.
        The Greens under the leadership of Bob Brown had a population policy tied to the carrying capacity of the environment.
        From memory, the figure was 20 milion.
        This changed in the late 1990’s, to the backing of the Big Australia project.
        There was friction between the environmental greens and the Socialist NSW wing.
        I remember this . It is the reason I left the Greens.
        I support an increase in refugee intake, after all our war making since the Vietnam debacle , has created millions of refugees, and we are morally obliged to help them. But, there should be an equal reduction in migrants numbers to balance overall intake.

    • Nonsense. See William Rees’ World Population Day presentation where he discusses the relative contributions of population growth (PG) and growth in ecological footprint per capita (EG) since 1960. Rees is a Canadian scientist who was involved in developing ecological footprint calculations.

      High Income Countries:PG 35%, EF 20%
      Upper Middle Income Countries (China for example): PG 120%, EF 89%
      Lower Middle Income Countries (India for example): PG 206%, EF 40%
      Low Income Countries (mostly in SubSaharan-Africa) PG 287%, EF 0%

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3nCFwhV-9E

      This makes the relative contributions to overshoot very clear. Leith is 100% correct. Any so-called environmental organisation or political party that won’t seriously address population growth is a fake organisation or party and guilty of false and misleading advertising. Nor is it all about births, Moving people from poor countries to rich ones can have close to the same impact as an equivalent number of births in the rich country due to the much larger ecological footprint per capita.

      • So true – the “Greens” here in Australia really ought to read up a little on ecology! your link would be a perfect place to start!

    • It’s a partisan position. You’ve only got to look at these caricatures of thought to realise that:

      Let’s get real: there is nothing more destructive to Australia’s natural environment than population growth.

      Given most corporations and wealthy families are also headed by white males, the Greens’ support of mass immigration directly plays into their hands and perpetuates the racism and disadvantage that the Greens supposedly lament.

  7. “We truly are living in Bizarro World when the self-proclaimed defenders of the environment and social justice – The Greens – champion the very policy (mass immigration-driven population growth)”

    Maybe bizzarro, maybe a bit of thought lurking behind bizzarro. Could their strategy be, they’re simply focusing on the policies that will generate donor cash from wealthy ‘big-Australia’ corporations and individuals? Of course, their right-leaning policy shift will cannibalise many of their current voters, but maybe they’re hoping to off-set the losses with LNP preferences and new immigrants. Particularly immigrants of the refugee variety. The vast majority of regular, major donors are rooters’ for lotza people – as well as being major rooters of Australia and the quality of life for the majority of citizens. The Green Rooters Party?

    • Career politicians DGAF about fundamental party values when they’re eyeing that consultancy job and that beautiful pension.

  8. I think every political party name should expire after 6-8 years.

    Think about the huge benefits this would bring to democracy.

  9. As a younger voting man I respected the lobbying and chaining to bulldozer style campaigning of the greens. They stood for something I still support as an adult. Unfortunately, as the world changed around us they left their core tenancy and focused on the humanitarian side of politics. In reality, to be green means to vote for a small global population, low ecological footprint and policies which regenerate the damage caused by human expansion. Unfortunately I could not tell you the last positive environmental impact they have made as a party and consequently in good conscience they have become unelectable.

  10. Trudeau’s crazy mass immigration policy was laid bare in the Toronto Sun the other day. No doubt will be part of Labor and the Green’s policy next.

  11. Even StevenMEMBER

    Greens are so foolish and contradictory they don’t even enter my peripheral view. Unless they were to radically reform they will never get my vote.