Despite ScoMo's promise to reduce immigration, the latest federal budget estimates that net overseas migration (NOM) will stay in excess of 270,000 p.a. in 2019 and again in 2020.

See here:

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/04/budget-exposes-coalitions-fake-immigration-cut

A Coalition con job to be sure.

For those who want a more sensible immigration policy, what voting options do we have?

Labor and the Greens love hyper immigration as much as the Libs-Nats.

One Nation wants zero-net immigration but they are a circus.

That leaves Sustainable Australia, endorsed by Dick Smith, on the centre-left. On the right, Australian Conservatives.

Sustainable Australia advocates lower immigration from its record level back to the long term average of 70,000 p.a.. See here: https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/policies

Australian Conservatives wants to halve the immigration intake. Here's a recent video of AC calling out Canberra's "Population Ponzi scheme": https://www.conservatives.org.au/the_population_ponzi_scheme_brazier

Polls show a solid majority of Australians want immigration scaled back.

Polls show a solid majority of Australians want immigration scaled back.
Bozec,
I am a migrant & I would like to see Immigration handled by the Govt instead of immigration lawyers/agents. A person applying to migrate to Australia should not have to forfeit thousands of Dollars which in many cases is a lifetime savings, when the application is rejected.
The criteria should not be simply affordability, it should be character based & of course work qualifications. A lot of decent people get knocked back & can't afford a second application fee.
It doesn't take an Einstein to work out that the ability to pay would be a deciding factor in study visa approvals. Uni courses start at around $15,000 for English thence up & up $50,000 & more depending on the subject studied. Migrating to Australia is now an industry whereas years ago it was to get people into the country to help build the Nation.

Bozec I agree but too want to see both sides address the madness that constant growth needs more migrants
It may very well be true but it also puts us on a bus that must crash
Overpopulation is not something that the future holds, it is here now
Moving the population ,not controlling it, is insane
Foreign aid by all means useful controlled by other than criminal leaders of captured countries but we must not forget any country that can not feed clothe and house its own is overpopulated

Belly,
I couldn't agree more ! I have long said foreign aid should be in the form of commodities manufactured in Australia by australian workers. Not just sending millions which don't filter down to those who need help.
We could literally have a whole industry based on manufacturing foreign aid materials where both sides benefit. Tools, portable housing, water filtration, food, power generation etc could all be manufactured here, creating many jobs. Link that with a non-military National Service & a better society will be around the corner.

The 'reduction' is a joke. But, mass immigration is the only thing hiding poor eonomic growth. GDP looks good overall; per person it is crap, and we are all getting poorer. We still have .75 million unemployed. Neither Liberal nor Labor will give up their Big Australia nonsense. There are no conservative options. Small parties and one-trick activists are useless, even dangerous.

Do not cast a formal vote for anyone: it only encourages more of the same.

If the Liberal party dealt with the problem of mass immigration, it probably would not be facing oblivion at the fast approaching election.

It could confound Labor and cut immigration to at least the historical level of 70,000 if zero is to frightening for it.

Most Australians want immigration cut, particularly as we have now reached a population of 25 million 30 years before it was predicted, without the necessary infrastructure.

I agree completely. Every single new immigrant makes each & every existing citizen just a little less wealthy. I hate it.

In particular housing & infrastructure costs generated by immigrants fall on all of us, it has cost us a fortune over recent years.

The problem is employment. We only have mining, agriculture, building & government left.

The big 2 grocery chains are doing their best to eliminate small crop farming, & large scale becomes continually more mechanised, requiring little labour today.

Mining is great, good money, but employs not all that many, in mostly undesirable places to live.

Government is a dead loss. Unproductive & each new bureaucrat costs us even more than an immigrant. This leaves us only building, & some building product manufacture left to keep up direct employment, & the other service industries that absorb the rest of the work force.

To reduce immigration threatens the whole stack of cards. Pull the building card from the stack, & governments are terrified the whole stack will collapse. They might even be right in this, although other economies seem to survive with steady populations, & no continual building boom.

Is there another answer? Tell us if you have one.

it has cost us a fortune over recent years.
Hasbeen,
The money wasn't spent on migrants, it was thrown at those who by-passed the Immigration system. And, don't forget, the bureaucrats who don't actually do anything would have taken out a fair slice of the cake as well.
I found a lot of migrants are actually way more protective & patriotic about this country than those who take it all for granted as a birth right !

Hasbeen: "In particular housing & infrastructure costs generated by immigrants fall on all of us, it has cost us a fortune over recent years."

A 2013 report by the Productivity Commission warned that total private and public investment requirements needed to keep up with projected population growth over the next half century were estimated to be more than 5-times the cumulative investment made over the last half century.

The PC has also found that the costs of this additional infrastructure will inevitably be borne by the existing Australian community either through user-pays fees or general taxation.

All the economic evidence indicates that the economic gains of immigration accrue to the owners of capital (big biz) and the migrants themselves. The average Aussie doesn't benefit.

Sustainable Australia demolishes some of the pro-high immigration myths here: https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/sustainable_population_immigration_australia

MYTH: Australia can stave off ageing by importing younger immigrants

FACT: Any attempt to stave off ageing via immigration is an unsustainable pyramid scheme. The Productivity Commission stated clearly that immigration cannot make any significant or lasting impact on population ageing: “Substantial increases in the level of migration would have only modest effects on population ageing and the impacts would be temporary, since immigrants themselves age”.

MYTH: Immigration resolves skills shortages.

FACT: Immigration creates three skills shortages for every one that it resolves, fuelling a vicious circle of skills shortages. Note, according to Roy Morgan Research, there are over 2 million Australians either unemployed or underemployed (over 1 million, or 10%, in each category). They deserve better education and skills training.

MYTH: Australia needs to grow its population in order to grow prosperity.

FACT: Productivity and workforce participation are the important factors. Smaller stable populations generally have far higher per capita wealth than larger, growing populations. According to the IMF, 7 of the top 10 per capita wealth nations have populations under 10 million.

MYTH: Population growth can be solved simply by planning more infrastructure.

FACT: Australia’s major cities have already been planned and built on certain densities. Population growth now leads to increasingly complex and unaffordable infrastructure 'retro-fitting' requirements such as desalination plants and road and rail tunnels, and land buy backs to build schools, hospitals, etc, which have far greater per capita costs than traditional infrastructure like dams and normal roads. We have reached diseconomies of scale, meaning new complex infrastructure is increasingly unaffordable for state governments.

MYTH: We can simply move people to the regions.

FACT: 'Decentralisation' schemes have cost governments billions over the years, for slim returns. Why? There are more than enough people in our over-crowded major cities to re-populate the regions, if only there were the jobs, water and infrastructure. No credible policy will stop 90 per cent of immigrants initially or eventually settling in the capital cities, for these reasons and family reunion preferences.

ttbn: "There are no conservative options."

What about Cory Bernardi and the Australian Conservatives?

"Do not cast a formal vote for anyone: it only encourages more of the same."

I disagree. Casting an informal vote only helps the major parties carry on with the status quo and means less chance of dissenting voices in parliament

All the arguments against high immigration and increasing population have been discussed time and time again. The politicians have taken no notice in the past; they are taking no notice now; they will take notice in the future. If they ignore people like Dick Smith, they are certainly not going to bother with keyboard warriors.

Only a huge number of informal votes at the coming election will make them think. We are really stupid if we keep voting for the same people who have proved that they a mutts and will continue to be mutts. No voting intil we get decent people worth voting for.

What about Cory Bernardi and the Australian Conservatives?
Bozec,
Well, at least they even promise the right things, instead of just promising willy nilly especially like Labor is doing presently.
I agree, the Aust Conservatives should be made the watchdog of Australian Govt's. the Democrats tried that but that silly woman just turned them into scrapyard mongrels & now look at them. Greens are yet to follow.
I think the best outcome at this stage would be an LNP Govt closely & intensely watched over it & the opposition by the Aust Conservatives.
The country is just entering the black so it would be rather irresponsible by the voters to jeopardise that !

ttbn, the only thing that would make them think is if the Lib-Nat-Lab-Greens stranglehold was finally broken.

Even if large chunks of the population cast informal votes in protest, the biggest parties are still going to form government in their own right by virtue of simply being the biggest parties and holding the most seats. It won't put any pressure on them to change their policies.

The most important thing is to fill the senate with cross benchers other than greens, who are really Labor rubber stamps, so who ever wins government is hand tied by needing cross bencher votes, for anything.

There are enough anti immigration candidates to get some worry about supply, if we do it right the right cross benchers. I can't see any other way to inject some listening ability into our pollies.

To Bozec- Good posts all. Thanks for your effort.

I agree with Hasbeen. The only way is to elect enough minor parties to make the major parties take notice and reject their no debate stance on immigration.

Indy, if you think electors are not irresponsible enough to elect Labor then watch them at election time. They will fall for the fake promises again. Just like they fell for the 'equality' thing in the SSM vote when getting anal sex approval was the real goal, which they succeeded. Hard to believe that Aussies gave their approval for anal sex and rimming.

We need more voted for minor parties to combat the majors who are in the pockets of big business on immigration.

I want the 'Full 2030 Sales Brochure'

From now on anyone that mentions '2030' should be required to show the entire global 2030 plan.

If you can't tell me what you have planned for 2030 in its entirely then I consider you a traitor and no friend of real democracy.
- That you are just using democracy's flaws to advance an alternative agenda -

Democracy means we the citizens of each individual nation decide our future;
Not politicians who pander to a UN global collective ideology against the wishes of the nations citizens.
Not an agenda to destroy the the sovereignty of individual nations with mass immigration;
Nor take ownership of the nation from the people and placing it in the hands of unelected foreign bureaucrats.

I'm sick of hearing about democracy;
And I'm sick of being told about this '2030' agenda.
These too ideas are not aligned with each other.

I want the full 2030 sales brochure.

Hasbeen said we need to increase the anti-immigration senate vote. At this stage I'm willing to endorse any candidate that has a track record against high immigration including One Nation. Given that the Liberal Party has a high proportion of Conservatives in their ranks I think that they are a better bet for the lower house despite their history of immigration policy under Howard in the nineties.

Fraser Anning as I understand is trying to form a party so people can vote anti-immigration "above the line" rather than the "below the line" treatment that independents get.

Sadly most voters vote above the line- this tends to favour parties rather than independents.

http://aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_Vote/Voting_Senate.htm

I suggest that the voting public prepare their vote by checking online for candidates before going to the voting location.

At the last election I was able to get a sample ballot sheet on both of the electoral houses in my electorate and mark them out with my preferences beforehand.

In voting as you all surely are aware the lower the number on the ballot sheet the higher the vote. So "1" is the highest number or highest number depending on how you look at it- numerically or politically.

Never apply your preferences based only on any parties "how to vote sheets"- there are complex reasons why they are written and are probably not in your interest. Eg. Liberal Party preferencing Labor over One Nation for perception over policy.

I vote below the line and mark all the boxes (there were over 60 on the senate). I mark the top 20 candidates- then the bottom 20 candidates - then fill in the middle. I check the policies on the web for unknown candidates.

For my top 20 "friendly" preferences I usually put the ones listed at the top of the party with the lowest number (unless something in their profile indicates otherwise). For those bottom 20 candidates I put them in reverse order so the more experienced "enemy" candidates get an even lower ranking than their own junior "enemy" candidates (unless something in their profile indicates otherwise).

I expect to see the election announced by the 15/04/2019 in less than two weeks time.

More immigrants the better - especially millionaires with much needed skills.

Good for economic growth.
_________________________________________________________

Hi Canem Malum

I'm guessing ScoMo, on Sunday 7 April, will announce the Election for May 11 or 18.

Bringing millionaires into a country doesn't make the country richer it just makes the country more vulnerable to opportunists.

I've heard it said that in India Tax is sort of voluntary- there is a lot of corruption- at one stage 50% of government spending was said to be lost to corruption. Perhaps the Australian Immigration regime turns a blind eye to this sort of illegal behavior because it happens in another juresdiction. It appears that the Australian Immigration is facilitating money laundering by allowing black money into Australia.

I'm not sure that unscrupulous law breaking opportunists are a good basis for a healthy nation.

I remember recently that an Ethnic Indian purchased the Whyalla Steel Works in South Australia. I'm concerned that this will have a big impact on the community. Yes there is a short term benefit for the seller of the Steel Works but I'm not convinced on balance that there is a benefit in the medium term.

I think one of the reasons for the failure of the Steel Works is perhaps red tape- something that an Ethnic Indian can circumvent by hiring Ethnic Indians and using perhaps black money to refinance the operation.

It's an easy thing to bring in liberal free market foreign investment for Australian Companies and financially beneficial for the sellers who leave the community but not for the communities which potentially see a large change in the ethnic structure of those remaining in the community.

There seems to be a common trait of extreme liberal free market business people that move into a community set up an ambush and then the community is faced with the fallout of the ambush. The communities have a right to stability but it seems that they have no power to stop the unstable influences. There doesn't seem to be a balance between the rights of the long term occupants of the community and the business investors.

If the business instigators were British Australian's perhaps the impact would be less- despite the injustice.
Perhaps even Ayn Rand would condemn many of the practices of these businesses

I don't think that Australia can compete directly with large nations such as China and India. We need strategic partnerships with the US and the UK in high value goods. Perhaps Australia's economy is only keeping recession away by selling land to foreigners and low value added minerals. We need to be more self sufficient.

Canem Malum being more self sufficient is a pretty big call today.

In 1970 I set up local production of solid brass chrome plated water saving items for a local company. These had been imported from the US for some time.

In 1996 I organised production of new versions of these items to our design in Taiwan. We had been making them here but found we could get them from Taiwan, [probably made in china], finished chrome plated, in a box with our name on it, with our instructions included, delivered into our store, for just under a third of what the raw material brass cost us in Oz.

I hated doing it, but it was that or be put out of business by competitors who did.

That brass was probably made from our copper & zinc exported to China. How the hell can their brass be so much cheaper than ours?

We were once saved by shipping costs, but today with container shipping it is now so cheap, it offers us no buffer at all.

Hasbeen said- How the hell can their brass be so much cheaper than ours?

Answer- A combination of cheaper labour and higher volume and perhaps lower standards and perhaps government subsidies.

They also have leaner flatter operations similar to startups- which could be more of a factor.

Transport costs on high value items I guess are a smaller fraction of the per unit cost especially when they are being sent by ship.

They probably even get their raw materials for a better price than you could get them.

3D printing was seen as a way of addressing some issues- such as those to do with short runs.

But Hasbeen- I'm sure you have a much greater experience of these things than myself.

In the end you have to balance your trade to survive- Sometimes that means that your nation can't afford certain products. This contradicts the principle of free trade and tariff free trading principles.

I agree that individual companies are constrained by the competition.

Their are some strategies that can be used to create value without increasing costs too much. For example in hard times the purchase of durable goods increases. Durable goods last much longer than standard goods so despite the increased cost it's better value over the longer term. Another way in which value can be increased is by reducing the number of unused product features.

Anyway I'm sure you did everything you could think of to keep the manufacturing in Australia. And I'm sure you were well experienced and qualified to do the job.

The supplying companies probably screwed you to the wall for the raw materials. Perhaps your company could have started a small copper or zinc metal recycling company so you could be a price setter rather than a price taker.

I hope that I haven't offended you in my suggestions Hasbeen.

Immigration is Nature's way of preventing in-breeding !
The Gene pool is so contaminated that only immigration can save us.

To Hasbeen- Copper does fluctuate in price though. Some companies manage this risk using futures or long term contracts.

From the Australian Population Research Institute:

"The TAPRI national survey of 2029 Australian voters was run in October/November 2018.

It found that half or more of Australian voters reject the progressive agenda of continual population growth and ever-growing diversity. This is the agenda embraced by Australia’s cultural and political elites and by most graduates.

The survey shows that 50% of voters want immigration to be reduced, 72% say Australia does not need more people, 63% want Australia’s manufacturing industry protected by tariffs, 60% favour turning back all boats carrying asylum seekers, 56% think Australia is in danger of losing its culture and identity, and 47% support a partial ban on Muslim immigration.

A much greater share of non-graduates reject the progressive agenda than do graduates.

This pattern is also found among Brexit voters in the UK and Trump voters in the US.

Some theorists argue that this is because non-graduates are more likely to have been ‘left behind’ in an economic sense. A few others, such as Eric Kaufmann in White Shift, argue that this is not the main cause. Rather, most dissenters feel threatened by huge recent increases in migrants from non-western cultural backgrounds.

They also resent the way in which the graduate class denigrates their concerns. The TAPRI results affirm the cultural thesis."

http://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Tapri-survey-2018-final-report-April.pdf

You won't hear a thing about immigration from Liberal and Labor during the tedious election campaign that has started.

Bozec good to see you are still around
Population growth is the reason for so much we see as problems
Yet both sides,the current version of capitalism, needs it?
Weird
Surely we are rushing towards that lemming leap, we can not avoid the truth growth can never go on forever
Capitalism is the only system that works but in time we must modify it or it too will fail
Population growth most end

I suspect that Graduate support is related to the benefits that universities get due to the Education Industry. They are benefiting accomplices and traitors in the destruction of Australia and the western world.

CM what background is yours?
I think many of this places posters are second, third, or even first generation migrants
And for the most part think much like you, about others following their footsteps
Why?

Belly said- I think many of this places posters are second, third, or even first generation migrants. And for the most part think much like you, about others following their footsteps.

Answer- I would hope that the electorate would recognize that Liberalism (both Left and Right) isn't the acclaimed panacea of myth. I believe this is true even for most migrants. At some stage I would like to be able to create opportunities perhaps for all ethnic groups to return to their ancestral homes in peace. I'm sure given the prevalence of cheap air travel they will visit time to time. In significant cases the reasons for migration have changed from 1. fleeing war or the aftermath of war to 2. fleeing extremely massive population growth and the inevitable poverty. In the case of 1. it is seen as perhaps outside of the individual control but 2. it is perhaps seen that the individual is complicit in their own misery and is therefore less worthy of support. At the end of the day resources are limited if there are more people then their share of the resources is less. Especially in a desert country. Also there appears to be more of a commonality of beliefs between traditional European cultures some more than others- over current migration patterns- so they are seen as being less of a threat to Traditional Australian culture.

CM while I am both confronted by your comment, and sad for you I understand you will never get your wish
Too doubt you understand the implications of that view, rather sad
We, the world as a whole, can never ever again be one nation one people
I am reminded of Hitler
Sad but informative CM

Hi Belly, I'm still here. :)

"I think many of this places posters are second, third, or even first generation migrants. And for the most part think much like you, about others following their footsteps."

I don't think you can compare previous waves to immigration to the current influx. This wave is far bigger, far more diverse and seemingly unending. The post-war European wave was smaller, the migrants had similar Western cultural backgrounds to the existing Australian population and, importantly, they were actually encouraged to assimilate and become new Australians. Immigration also slowed down in the 1970s, giving Australian society time to digest the new arrivals.

Economically, we had a manufacturing sector back then. In theory, more people was meant to grow the size of the domestic market and produce economies of scale in the manufacturing sector. Nowadays manufacturing is gone and Australia just imports everything, meaning more people = more imports and a larger current account deficit.

With automation sets to further erode demand for labour, it doesn't seem particularly wise for Australia to deliberately keep adding people at such an extreme rate.

I think economist Michael Reddell nicely sums up how dumb Canberra's current Big Australia policy is:

“In a country with an export base almost entirely dependent on a fixed stock of natural resources – farm products, mineral products, tourism – and actually with foreign trade shares of GDP among the very lowest in the OECD, it is bordering on the insane to be actively importing lots and lots more people (as successive Australian governments have been doing in the last 15 years or so). It is a quite different matter in countries – like most advanced OECD countries now – that are trading the fruit of ideas, or that are tightly bound into sophisticated manufacturing supply chains. But this is Australia – one of the most remote countries on that planet which (like New Zealand) has failed over decades to develop many outward-oriented industries that don’t depend largely on natural resources (or immigration subsidies around export education). The fruit of the (vast) natural resources is, to a first approximation, just spread more thinly…

Truly astonishing in fact, in the specific circumstances of Australia. The enthusiasm of Australian governments for high immigration to Australia is just as wrongheaded – and more culpable – as that of The Economist’s editorial writers. All sorts of daft ideas have had their day over history. This one – at least in modern Australia – seems based more on belief and ideology than any serious evidence that Australians themselves might actually be benefiting from the immigration.”

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/10/no-economist-australia-not-even-close-best-economy/

To Bozec- Good post and very informative article. Thanks.

__

Posted by Belly, Saturday, 13 April 2019 6:51:33 AM

CM while I am both confronted by your comment, and sad for you I understand you will never get your wish
Too doubt you understand the implications of that view, rather sad
We, the world as a whole, can never ever again be one nation one people
I am reminded of Hitler
Sad but informative CM

Answer- Thanks for your "Ad Hitlerum" feedback

Bozec and CM willing to be a bit brave, it takes bravery to say what you think not what others want to hear
See I know, believe it is true, you and sections of this country fear or dislike Muslim and, remember being honest, black Africans
And yes, honest remember, some are very much contributing to that being the view of some Australians
EG lard heads in Victoria who in the end harm their community as much as ours
Now tell me how do we become a white Australia?
Do we deport those you fear/dislike
Do we even contemplate that final solution hate crime [words leave alone the actions]
We can however get all on both sides involved in fixing this mess
How about the single thing that separates us the most?
Separatism itself, can we not ban the Burka but ask those few using it, and they do, to shout up yours, to not wear it?
Many small steps,no PC involved, to talk about a better future may just work

Sorry Belly but why are you imputing such motives to me? I think it's pretty offensive and intellectually dishonest to put words in my mouth like that.

I've dealt with you respectfully and in good faith throughout our conversations. It's a real pity that you've decided to start casting aspersions.

Poor form.

Belly, I'm not going to be engaging with you any more as I don't intend to deal with someone who employs slander and imputes false motives as a form of argument against others.

You've just destroyed any credibility you might have had in my eyes.