Clearly, immigration is not the major core issue. Rather it is the standard of living that seems to be out of balance by to days expectations. I note that this must be the major issue for any political election campaign. This is what needs to be look at and addressed first and foremost.

I had look at the 'fact, figure and suggestions for the future' in reference to the web-site. xxx.bsl.ogr.au. and have notice an upsurge of Australian people living on-below-just above the poverty line. I note, the graph provided to demonstrate exactly how much poverty exists here in the 21 century. Further one would agree the reflection of poverty in this country is totally mind boggling.
Just image for one minute if a political party took this issue as the major core issue? Made those figures public notice for all to be aware of. I would declare it would be a huge victory.

SONYA 2, neither immigration or other population pressure causes poverty. You need to look at the nature of capitalism to understand poverty amidst plenty. In a richly-endowed nation like Australia, there need be no poverty under a social system in which production was owned by the producers and geared to social need (and fun) rather than privately owned and geared to private profit.

No politician has the guts to identify capitalism as the source of such problems - the easy way is to blame the foreigners.

Ozzie, I'm sure you are aware that Australians Against Further Immigration was set up in the late 1980s and stood in elections - and was decisively rejected by the people for nearly two decades. Their rise occured at the same time as Pauline Hanson, who also argued against immigration levels (specifically against Asian levels, but also in general on environmental grounds). Hanson received huge publicity and, at her peak, her group received a million votes (a minority).

The Greens had an attitude similar to the above in that they too opposed the levels of immigration.

However, none of the above has been endorsed to govern by the Australian people, the great majority of whom voted against them in support of two parties that did indeed have a bipartisan approach to immigration.

The current political use of population as an issue is just old fashioned rightwing populism, designed to excuse Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum's absence of vision and policy for a bigger and better future.

Byork,
I remember hearing of people being assualted and having urine thrown on them just for attending speeches by Pauline Hanson to hear what she had to say. Just for trying to listen for what someone had to say. I hardly think that's giving someone a fair go.

Now we see both major political parties adopting policies more in line with what Pauline said. Why is this? It's because the polls are telling them that's what people want. That's what is going to get them votes.

I have seen it happen many times that someone when spoken to on an individual basis will feel safe enough to express their true concerns. However in a crowd, very few people would have the guts to say they supported Pauline's views.
Anyway the tide is now slowly begining to turn. I will give it about 10 years and you yourself Byork will find that you are the one who will be scared to express such views as you do now.

Ozzie, I remember that violence too - and was appalled by it. There was irony in the way those suppressing others called them 'fascists'. But, in the voting booth, people were and are free to vote as they choose. And at best, One Nation captured about 8% of the vote. The specific anti-immigration group of 'eco-nationalists', the AAFI, fared much worse whenever they contested an election.

Neither party will adopt a zero net intake or advocate such. Labor is pandering to the Green vote, the Greens being Tweedle-Dummer to their Tweedle Dee. The Liberals, Tweedle-Dum, will support an intake similar to that of Labor in power.

The public have never, and will not, vote into power any party that advocates zero net intake or anything close to it. They may, however, in the course of an election campaign, be persuaded that unacceptably crowded public transport is the fault of migrants rather than of hopelessly incompetent governments. And they may even momentarily prefer to blame immigration before waking up to the fact that you reduce crowding on trains by increasing the number of trains. And you pay for the extra trains by wealth that comes from growth - and that needs people.

Byork,

When a party is shouted down, demonized and people are to scared to run as local members for that party due to violence and intimidation it is hardly a fair go. People were never allowed to hear what she had to say. Would any sensible person want to be bashed in the street because they wanted to run as a local member.
Considering all this 8% is not bad. Remember 8% does not mean 92% were against it. It just means 8% believed in her views strong enough to give their 1st vote to her. (I think the primary vote for the Libs is around 40% , correct me if I'm wrong). Many others may well have believed in what she said, however thought she did not have enough other policies to run a country. Most I think never actually heard what she had to say, but heard it 2nd hand from her opponents. The current policies of both parties today are a reflection of people's views about immigration and multiculturalism expressed through a desire to reduce population.

Also when you say never, that's usually a very silly thing to say. Better to say you feel it would be highly unlikely.

PAULINE HANSON -
An excellent book to read is G Melleuish - Politics and cultural wars - the Packaging of Australia. UNSW press.

In short, it describes the Howard era and what Pauline Hanson was all about. Look basically Hanson spoke out on issues that Howard believe in, right down to his boots, as Menzies did. Hanson really did not have the financial backing nor did she have the educated finesse needed in the business of Politics. She lacked the skills and the (small party) expertise needed to address the public. The elite Mr. Howard did. She came across to harsh, didn't know how the work the media, have no sense of the political domain. Her come back was 'please explain'. This has stuck in most people head. Hanson, with her, 'please explain' sounded just like someone drilling their spouse over, not putting the bins out, or spending too much money or ??

It has been noted, Hanson blurpt out exactly what was in most peoples minds and lips. The trouble was we were not ready for a (red headed) female with limited backing. Funny how Julia Gillard has made it.