Prev
Next

Debating population is not racist or bigoted

Scott Morrison

by Scott Morrison

04 May 05:50am

Must Reads

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart - this is a caption

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart

134

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone - this is a caption

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

161

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?

163

Filed under: Big Australia, Immigration, Politics, Population, Race

75 comments

Last week Gordon Brown called one of his voters a bigot. Her crime, voicing her concerns about immigration policy in the UK. Brown was condemned for an act of outrageous insensitivity and dutifully marched back to her home for a 45 minute apology.

Talking about immigration is not easy in western democracies. There is an elite consensus that seeks to deny the conversation. Apparently, we’re not mature enough to have this discussion without our raw, untamed racial prejudices overwhelming our capacity for reason and having their way.

To protect us all from our dark side, the self appointed elite apply the tags of racism, bigotry and dog whistling to anyone who cares to discuss the topic. After all, it’s for our own good.

These are strong terms that have been used cheaply in the media and the political left to deny legitimate policy discussion. Their misuse diminishes their impact, blunting their effectiveness to decry the real face of racism when it appears.

As Gordon Brown found out, using these terms to demonise people for expressing a genuine concern is insulting. It is also insulting to the millions of others who may not share precisely the same views as the lady he encountered that day, but they do harbour similar concerns.

Last year Kevin Rudd was less discrete than Gordon Brown when it came to insulting people who held different views to his own.

In the ETS debate Kevin Rudd chose to demonise anyone who didn’t share his view on climate change as being unconcerned about their own children. I’m not sure where that leaves him now.

It was difficult for those who didn’t share his view to determine what was more disturbing, his proposal for a great big new tax or his arrogant moralising and lecturing of Australian families.

We are seeing the same thing again when it comes to the debate about population policy.

For months now I have been making the obvious point that Australia’s population growth rate at 2.1% per annum, with a net overseas migration of 300,000, is unsustainable. For the past 40 years we have been growing on average at 1.4%, and even Kevin Rudd’s Big Australia projection of 36 million by 2050, requires only 180,000 net overseas migration per year.

Raising such issues is apparently racist dog whistling according to my political opponents and some in the media. But race simple doesn’t enter into it. The Coalition has always championed a non discriminatory immigration policy.

This is in stark contrast to the Rudd Government’s recent decision to refuse assessment of asylum seekers based on their nationality and reserve for those the harshest detention facility on the mainland. This policy has proved as ineffective as it is discriminatory.

While there is no shortage of those prepared to criticise the Coalition for our policies in this area, we have always advocated that everyone gets the same treatment, regardless of their race, nationality or religion. Labor cannot say the same.

The population debate is a rational discussion about whether our services, infrastructure and environment can cope with current rates of growth, where failure will see a loss of living standards for Australians, not to mention the environmental consequences.

The only ones bringing race to the table are those either trying to stop the debate or hijack the debate.

I have argued in the Coalition Policy Directions Statement released last week that we need to put some guard rails on population growth. These guard rails would take the form of growth bands set for the short, medium and longer term.

Each year, migration intakes would be set to ensure our overall level of population growth stayed within these bands.

The bands would be based on the independent and credible advice of a reconstituted Productivity and Sustainability Commission and what they consider is sustainable population growth.

This approach would inject some science and rationality to the planning process that does not currently exist. It will also serve to depoliticize these questions over the longer term.

The benchmarks for what constitutes a sustainable growth path would be liveability, environmental sustainability, economic productivity and national security. We have also made it clear that skills would be the top priority for a migration programme run by the Coalition.

Again, these are not issues of race, religion or nationality. It is a simple a debate about carrying capacity, process and planning.

Some have tried to argue that because we remain in favour of natural increase policies that this is somehow discriminatory to our migrant population. Policies favouring natural increase do not distinguish between race, ethnicity or religion. It is the simple process of the population reproducing itself.

A migration programme has a secondary function to natural increase in relation to population growth. It’s purpose is to supplement our natural population growth to achieve whatever objective we consider important.

There is no implied right within the UN Charter of Human Rights or elsewhere to permanent residency in Australia. The decision on our annual migration intake is a sovereign one, to be taken in our national interests.

If we choose to increase or decrease our migration intake, these decisions apply equally to all, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion, based on the rules we set down.

Gordon Brown’s candid comment on the views of one his own supporters betrays Labor’s hypocrisy on immigration. It highlights the contradiction both here and in the UK between the elite who run their Party, and those they claim to represent. In private they demonise and ridicule the socially conservative views of many ‘workers’ and those on lower incomes,  while claiming champion status in public.

For example, consider the union leaders who decry the Coalition for our position on immigration and asylum seekers as xenophobic and racist, yet run emotion driven campaigns demonising business and skilled migrants for accessing 457 visas in the workplace, as taking Aussie jobs.

There are just not enough sides of the street for these guys to walk on.

Most commented

353Lay off the tatts and have a debate about the real issues
304Dog ownership laws a load of total bullpit
286Why do our universities teach shonky "magic"?
232I'm Labor, I'm pro-life and I'm no political hypocrite
226Is an act of crime ever too trivial for investigation?
225Home births are prone to many complications
213Blame no one – and everyone – for the Oz Day debacle
185A fair day's pay for a fair day's play

75 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • T.Chong says:

      06:59am | 04/05/10

      Scotty is correct. No harm discussing either subject,rationally and objectively, without the bigotry,its just that too many people hoist their dislike of other nationalities, particularly those from Islamic cultures into the debate, as being “unAustralian”, or “not sharing our values/beliefs” etc
      How many will say “i’m not a racist, but…,” ?

      Reply

    • Joan says:

      08:42am | 04/05/10

      Sharing Values and beliefs is important in any relationship - starts with personal eg marriage partner and more broadly in society. A cohesive , stable relationship or society can only exist in a group of similar minded people, friction will always exists with extreme differences.

    • stephen says:

      10:04am | 04/05/10

      But you don’t really want to marry someone exactly like yourself. The differences will make it interesting, and you grow together.
      Same with societies I think. Handling differences, and learning to compromise and share, will mature us. Anyway, we all seem to want the same things : house, car, partner and financial stability. A good functioning economy, which Labor is now maintaining, will lay the foundation for further social cohesion.

    • Nathan says:

      12:11pm | 04/05/10

      Joan and Stephen are both right, T. Chong is a troll. The sort of immigration we need is under the strict condition that it MUST be positive. The chardonnay quaffin, wealthy ‘socialists’ of this world believe (quite wrongly) that ALL immigration is positive. Moreover, that the more different the foreign culture, the better. This viewpoint is to suggest that our culture is somehow deficient, and all foreign cultures are therfore virtuous. As they have had the ascendancy with immigration policy for some time, we have seen that factually, their viewpoint is false. Sprinvale is where knives are stored in abdomens, Flemmington is a warzone and Lakemba seems to be Jihad HQ.

      East-asian and western european immigrants have done the best job at integrating to become part of the Australian cultural whole. The western europeans have done the best, but they’ve also been at it the longest. Look at any League or AFL team; there are plenty of Greek and Italian names, but sadly not many Trans, Nguyens or Chongs. According to the football-ometer of integration, there’s work to be done yet. In my mind immigration for will have succeeded when they drive something other than camrys and civics, and play our sports; basically, when we all share common customs and rituals, be they sporting or artistic.

      If integration is not the aim, we will have division and fracturing of society just like in Britain, and that’s NOT a good thing. On top of all of that, the government says we aren’t allowed to have any more water or electricity, so why bring in more people?

    • Jon says:

      12:15pm | 04/05/10

      It seems to me that there is a political elite in Australia whose mantra is that Social Cohesion means racism. Which is irrational when you realise the world is spending billions trying to get the same sort Social Cohesion in Iraq and Afghanistan. That we are able to have a country with Social Cohesion is good thing and from the current state of the world not easy to obtain or maintain. I would have thought that Social Cohesion was a far better option then civil war of social fragmentation.

    • Jack Thomas says:

      04:44pm | 04/05/10

      Yawn TC. Is it necessary for you to add to the painful people you talk about (“I’m not racist but..”) by being one of them?

      To quote TC, I’m not biased and unfairly judgemental but…

      Still, at least you didn’t use the usual Neo Socialist “dog whistle” reference to anything which differs from your opinion.

      I still laugh at the Neo Socialists all crying about mandatory detention of illegal entrants to our country, then whingeing about the country not being able to deal with the population growth they are promoting.

      Kind of like them all glowing about Kevin saying we are facing “the greatest moral challenge of our time” then throwing the ETS in the bin.

      Hypocrits, every one.

    • maureen says:

      02:42am | 05/05/10

      Yes Scott is correct. Well said.

      But what about a bit of policy flesh on those bare bones. Will he and his party give a solemn undertaking not to give an amensty to illegal immigrants during their term/s in office. Will be call on the Rudd Government to so the same during the next election campaign. Nice wedge I would have thought.

      Its likely, now he had bedded down free health care, that Obama will buy the immigrant and hispanic vote by trying to give an amnesty to illegal immigrants. Could Rudd be silly and arrogant enough to follow him? Could he? Brown opposed it, Cameron opposed it but Clegg (fool that he is) is proposing one. 

      Come on Scott. Get to work.

    • Kia says:

      09:19pm | 05/05/10

      Keep it up Tee Chong you making an utter fool of yourself. Yes you are a racist yourself

    • bill says:

      08:35am | 04/05/10

      Good work Scot. This is on message for me. Im sick of having the term racist or zenophobe bandied about to suppress debate on the population issue. It effectively takes away the voice of the people giving all decisionmaking to the elites.

      Reply

    • Russell says:

      08:36am | 04/05/10

      The debate should indeed be about infrastructure and our ability to plan for the future. What I don’t understand is that Scott, his Liberal Party, Dick Smith, Bob Carr et al have now joined with the Greens and held up the white flag. They’re saying “we can’t do it, we won’t do it”.

      The notion that we are incapable handling the future, that our only solution is “less of us” is a dismal thought. It’s not a view Liberal politicians usually take to elections, and not one shared by their voters and big business backers. I wonder if Scott will continue with it?

      Reply

    • fii says:

      09:14am | 04/05/10

      Russell it needs to a discussion on much more than infrastructure.  Just look at what is happening in the UK due to mass immigration. It is about social cohesion, crime and much much more. We have European examples of how things are starting to unravel - Australia will be no different if left unchecked.

      We don’t have to have a big Australia. We don’t have to build high rise high density eyesores. We don’t need to feel guilty because we want to maintain quality of life, safety and affordability for current Australians.

      I would like to see zero immigration for at least 5 years. There should be a moratorium until our transport, health and housing systems are improved. If this is not achieved then no more immigration.

    • persephone says:

      09:49am | 04/05/10

      fii

      There was an interesting article in ‘The Australian’ recently, pointing out that NSW has effectively halted immigration over the last ten years.

      http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/what_if_we_raise_the_plank/

      This is one of the factors that has lead NSW to drop behind other states. Without growth, it doesn’t have the money to spend to keep transport, health and housing up to scratch. Not having that money to invest - combined with a decline in private spending, as a stable population doesn’t need more houses - means no building industry, which means a drop in employment, which means a drift of population elsewhere.

    • Mark says:

      10:05am | 04/05/10

      It was a good article pers.

      Also let us also not forget more than a decade of a media cycle loving Labor government with really poor management skills that spent money frivolously with zero accountability.

      See the parallel in the federal sphere.

      It ain’t rocket surgery.

      That is why NSW is stuffed.

    • tyu says:

      11:10am | 04/05/10

      fii - Great point about how multiculturalism has destroyed European properity. But an even more relevant example is the South Western United States. American politicians are basically legislating this region of the US away in the name of diversity as we speak. The SW region of the US is already 35% Hispanic and will soon be the majority. Then, we’ll see this area align itself with the Mexican govt rather than the US govt. And we’ll have a clear example of the consequences of mass immigration, and there’s no reason why Australia won’t follow this path.

    • James1 says:

      01:32pm | 04/05/10

      tyu, fii would have a great point, if only is was supported by any kind of data.  It is not.  There is not even any correlation, let alone causation implied in the data.

      What you are talking about in the SW US is an ongoing historical process.  In fact, most of the area was once part of Mexico, so it could even be said that things are reverting to their pre-northern European migration status, and thus the historical status quo, and certainly the status quo ante bellum (the war I refer to was between the US and Mexico).  Thus, it could be argued, the current immigration issue there is simply attempted to redress another historical immigration issue.  It was once Mexican, Americans stole it and migrated there and made it American, and it is now reverting (according to you) to Mexico.  What’s the big deal?

    • Robbie says:

      07:13pm | 04/05/10

      Bring in as many immigrants as we can handle,any colour any religion,but please more worker bees and less drone-bees.We are running out of honey.

    • Jack Thomas says:

      10:08pm | 04/05/10

      So a clear failure of Labor policies in NSW then ey perse?

      Errr…

      You sound as desperate as your boss Kevin, about time to jump off the sinking ship while you’ve got the chance perse.

      By the way, if you think NSW is stuffed because of a lack of immigration then you are really off kilter.

      How about successive Labor governments stuffing the planning and development of NSW, through either ex Labor mate Richo style backhanders or complete nimbyism. Then you’ve got the highest taxing State in Australia, desperately killing its golden geese of private companies as it tries to prop up a poorly funded (and lack of planning) infrastructure and hospital systems.

      Take your pick you Labor stooge.

      We faced the same thing here when Kennett came in after years of rust belt governance by Labor under Kirner.

    • maureen says:

      07:22am | 06/05/10

      Persepone your comments are nonsense. Maybe NSW fell behind because of its previous deluge of immigration. Mass immigration to Sydney drove house prices so high that skilled workers avoided it, people left to go to Queensland because the crowded lifestyle became intolerable, crime, drugs and street gangs, often highest in immigrant areas, made large parts of the city unsafe, and degraded. The immigration fed housing bubble had to burst.

      Your solution: more of the same!

      You need to do some serious thinking.

    • Hay, NSW townie says:

      09:11am | 04/05/10

      Offer significient Corporate tax break incentives for business to operate beyond 250km from cities over 250000 population and reintroduce zone tax rebates to people working in them earning over $35000 pa with a primary address there and have zero stamp duty on house sales there.

      There is a lot of existing underutilised infrastructure out in these rural communities, these incentives would be a good start in re-populating rural Australia west of the Great Divide….and subsequently take population pressure off Australia’s current urban areas.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      09:54am | 04/05/10

      Hay, I’m a decentralist by nature and have studied the subject intensely.

      This is one of the areas where our Constitution gets in the way. It prohibits the allocation of benefits/raising of taxes being varied according to geography.

      This is actually to protect country areas - our founding fathers feared that the extra costs involved in country living would encourage governments to impose higher taxes on country people. As these things work both ways, it applies to expenditure as well.

      There are ways around these restrictions, but it gets very complicated.

      The best way to repopulate country areas is to grow the cities. My local town, for example, was clearly dying in the early 90s, when Victoria’s population was falling. Now, when Victoria’s population is booming, country towns like mine are also growing dramatically.

    • acker says:

      10:44am | 04/05/10

      @persephone ..firstly I am talking about towns beyond 250km from large cities rather than Victorian towns with exeception to Mildura, Ouyen, Robinvale, Horsham, Portland and Swan Hill that tend to be in close clusters like St Arnaud, Donald, Wedderburn, Charlton and Wycheproof and for the most part within 250 km of Melbourne or Geelong
      ..secondly cities produce zero primary resources agricultural or mining so other than imports the rest of what the cities consume comes from rural Australia, which leads to the benefits for rural Australia in policy such as those introduced by the National party in West Australia led by Brendan Grylls which returns 25% of state royalties are returned to regional areas.
      ...thirdly cities have population and congestion problems which according to recent surveys appear to be upsetting urban voters Australia is ranked the 17th most Urbanized nation in the World (89%) and ranked 233rd in population density (2.9 people per km2)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

      In the Hay shire we have a population density of 0.32 people per km2

      http://www.hay.nsw.gov.au/AboutHayShire/AboutHayShire/tabid/64/Default.aspx

      If city growth is growing your town it sounds very much like you are living in an urban hinterland within 250km of a city with other 250000 people.

      So we are obviously not comparing apples with apples here and your response to my post is realy not that relevant in relation to it.

    • persephone says:

      11:44am | 04/05/10

      Nope, acker - over 3 hrs to capital, 1 hr to regional city (less than 80,000) local town pop 4000.

      Booming pops in city creates outward pressure on housing: to simplify - if X commutes 1 hr to capital, someone- Y- working in X’s town is priced out of that market, so Y commutes from 30 mins further out, and so on.

      Our population is booming not because our town has more jobs or more industries, but because people are commuting from here to the regional town.

      Anyway, there are studies on this, if I could be bothered looking for them.

      I’m all for encouraging the growth of industry and the decentralisation of offices (does it matter where you’re located if all your business is done by phone or email?).

    • acker says:

      12:36pm | 04/05/10

      @persephone..that regional city sounds handy Ballarat or Bendigo I pressume..But considering your only talking about what you think rather than laying down anything factual at this stage, your only realy giving this subject your lipservice.

    • iansand says:

      09:22am | 04/05/10

      Mr Morrison - Your problem is that, from the Coalition side, debate about population appears to be in lockstep with demonisation of boat people.  The latter is not rational and it affects perception of the rationality of debate about population size.  You have to decouple concerns about the source of immigrants from concerns about their origins.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      10:01am | 04/05/10

      Ooops.  That should have been “You have to decouple concerns about the source of immigrants from concerns about their numbers.”

      Note to self - do not take phone calls in mid post.

    • John says:

      11:25am | 04/05/10

      Well said Iansand. I would regard the Coalition as more credible on this issue if not for their recent step in this direction, which is just pandering to people’s ignorance for a cheap poll victory.
      That said, I’m starting to see Scott Morrison’s point on the matter. I’m not a fan of conservative political parties as a rule, but the reality is of our two major parties in this country we have one openly conservative party and one left-leaning party that relies heavily on the vote of a conservative-leaning working class. In such situations you get what we’re seeing now from Labour - half-arsed conservative policies aimed at appeasing the ignorant masses without any clear logic behind the reasons for the policies in the first place. When the conservatives introduce policy, at least they think they’re doing the right thing, so even if I don’t agree with the underlying political philosophy I can see the logic in their decisions.
      Tough time to be a voter in Australia. I think I’ll give my vote to the Australian Sex Party instead.

    • James1 says:

      01:35pm | 04/05/10

      It makes it hard for people like Mr Morrison to argue what they do, when you get people responding by saying that he is right, and also that we should start discriminating on the basis of religion or culture.  It kind of undermines the message he is trying to get across.  Thus, it is not only the left that makes this debate difficult, but the bigots as well, as they keep bringing their religious and cultural bigotry into it.

    • Simmo says:

      11:46am | 04/05/10

      Why is it that as soon as population debate pops up everyone immediately jumps on the immigration bandwaggon without thinking about lowering our birthrate. Is everyone to afraid to bring up to problem of people having too many kids? I’d like too see both birthrate and immigration dropped considerably to combat overpopulation.

      Reply

    • MelD says:

      04:31pm | 04/05/10

      Simmo,  there was an article in the news last week or so that stated that the highest percent of our population growth is immigration, therefore slow down immigration, we are not China, if people want to have more than 1 child they should be allowed to.

    • James says:

      11:47am | 04/05/10

      Well when we debate population rationally it will be a first.  The “left” and the “right” use all issues to score points off each other.  Population policy is way too important to be left to pollys as is climate change, they simply don’t have the skill set, this is evident by the way they score points off each other rather than talk anything approaching sense, they have been doing so for months without quoting a single scientific paper which analyses what population we should aim for.

      Frankly, a bunch of lawyers (possibly the most useless profession yet invented somewhere below real estate agent) making a decision about things that have an effect on my future makes me shudder.

      Reply

    • Margaret says:

      12:17pm | 04/05/10

      Most people want to come here because they are fleeing the bad things happening in their own countries and envy us our stable lifestyle. Whether their reasons are philosophical or economic doesn’t make any difference.

      The problem is that we are unble to reasonably sustain the existing population which is centred in the capital cities. The lack of spending on proper infrastructure across the whole of Australia, the power given to local councils to decide what is built where in their communities regardless of the practicality of these structures, the neglect of cities and towns outside the major cities and the failure to encourage businesses to relocate to the area their workforce comes from is ony the tip of the iceberg.

      A common set of values means that the tensions a lack of cohesion causes all communities should also be considered. We offer too much to new arrivals, wherever they come from, that our own citizens are not gven. This breeds discontent. After all, its our citizens who are footing the bill.  In the past people had to earn their way without the benefit of handouts. We can’t keep doing this because there is only so much to go around. While we are a multiracial country, we are have a national core values that our forefathers worked for and died for. They cannot be disregarded because it is the politcally correct thing to do. To disregard their building of this country is wrong.

      We need skilled people to fill the gaps in our employment areas but we also need to be able to house them and provide the services required for them and their families. It shouldn’t be a political matter but one which we need to discuss and decide as a nation rather than allow it to be the political football it has become.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      12:18pm | 04/05/10

      I think Politicians and Business Leaders look at the population with the simple view that more people means more money. Australia can set a large a target as we want, but will that figure be sustainable? Drinking water, good quality agricultural land and other resources are finite and we are already clsoe to reaching capacity. With a large population comes a greater drain on our resources and this needsto be considered. Just look at the Murray-Darling Basin- our bread bowl.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      01:21pm | 04/05/10

      “The Coalition has always championed a non discriminatory immigration policy.”

      Has it?  I seem to remember a little thing called the racially selective migration program from before 1970, which I also recall had the full support of the Menzies Coalition government.  Always is a long time, and neither major party in this country can make that claim, Scott.  To say “always” is an outright lie.

      Reply

    • H of SA says:

      02:00pm | 04/05/10

      Busted. Nice one James - either he doesn’t know his own parties history - or he has just published an outright lie to us.

    • Yas says:

      01:25pm | 04/05/10

      Scott, you insult our intelligence shamelessly. Hanging out for too long in your electorate is affecting the way you formulate your argument. what works on the WASP Sutherland shire types will not fly with swinging voters (who tend to be well informed). 
      Using the example of of Brown being caught in a PRIVATE conversation, giving his own PRIVATE views on what one particular (and, let’s be honest, bigoted) so-called supporter said does not support your ridiculous argument at all (at no point did you even quote what her so that we could judge whether or not her contribution was in fact an unbiased and innocent attempt at real debate). I wait for the day when you will be caught unawares sharing your own private views with those in you immediate vicinity only to have it blown totally out of proportion;  i’d love for there to be a hidden mike where ever you are now should you be reading this comment and muttering to your self “idiot-left-wing…”

      “For example, consider the union leaders who decry the Coalition for our position on immigration and asylum seekers as xenophobic and racist, yet run emotion driven campaigns demonising business and skilled migrants for accessing 457 visas in the workplace, as taking Aussie jobs.” 
      Please point us to the emotion driven campaigns (whose existence i am not denying as we are all aware of the talent(money) unions have for making noise about anything that remotely threatens them) we have an unemployment rate of under %6, one of the lowest in the world, some of the highest incomes in the developed world as well as a skills shortage. Unless we’re rednecks of either red or blue persuasion (in which case nothing you say would change our vote anyway) the 457 visas are not keeping us up at night.

      I came to this country 13 years ago as a refugee from a culturally “incompatible” war torn and fundamentalist government (i waited with my family for ten years to be allowed in). Now, just over a decade later, my taxes PAY YOUR SALARY. 
      No one is saying that debating population and immigration is racist or bigoted (unless your arguments are, a la P.Hanson and the Brown supporter). What is not right is using the plight of desperate people for political gain and fear mongering (Children over board, anyone? ). it is also important to note that ultimately, no matter how closed and formidable our borders maybe, the world’s population will increase independent of what we may or may not do; as global citizens living on one of the largest chunks of land in the world we should have a discussion which is less insulated and about “keeping beaches less crowded” but more about how we will deal with this inevitable increase.

      It’s important to note that in the fifties and sixties, most Australians would have held the view that the country could never be capable of supporting 20 million people in four or five decades time; but it did happen without the island collapsing into the ocean under all the pressure.

      I voted Labor in the last election because as a refugee who has experienced the Howard style of “humanitarian” handling and wanted a change. I also wanted public schools to get a fairer go as that was something else that suffered under twelve years of Howard rule, not to mention the general lack of investment in infrastructure, oh and that pesky war in Iraq i was lied to about and where my taxes where squandered to kill innocent people and create more refugees to be handled in a Howard “humanitarian” manner again with a Children Over Board fiasco.

      Having said that, on the days where i seriously contemplate swinging, Abbott tends to say things like climate change is “a load of crap”,  sending dole bludgers into the mines or “a great big tax on everything” as an answer to everything.
      I would have Voted for Turnbull though, in a heartbeat…  just coz his verbal filter worked better, and i really don’t want a GWBush-esque fool globe trotting around the world in my name while groveling to the pope (or any other head of state)

      Just saying smile

      Reply

    • MelD says:

      04:35pm | 04/05/10

      Yas - great you went through the red tape and came in the correct way, those children never would have been overboard if they had come through the proper channels. I have no problem with immigration, it’s the boat people that think they can bypass the legal system and quarrantine and just come to this country and *snap* go right on the dole

    • Margaret says:

      10:37pm | 04/05/10

      Yas, however badly you feel you were treated, I’m sure it was better than what you had. Otherwise why come here. As for your criticism of Tony Abbott, you show your prejudice too openly. He doesn’t globetrot around the world, our revered leader does that. And he doesn’t grovel to anyone.  You came here for a new life. Get one!

    • Mike says:

      06:46am | 06/05/10

      “...giving his own PRIVATE views on what one particular (and, let’s be honest, bigoted) so-called supporter”

      But see, here you betray your own bias. A Prime Minister, running for office again in just days, (well today now) is not out of line in dismissing the woman’s views? The same shared by millions of her fellow citizens (far more thna just the racist extreme right), that completely gives away just what so many people over there have been saying, that Labor doesn’t care.

      But to you it’s not acceptable to hold views that to many people are perfectly reasonable so there’s a simple dismissal of the whole thing in that the woman is supposedly bigoted. This is why you get nowhere in discussing the argument with the left. Fortunately there are enough “rednecks, racists and bigots” out there who vote who can make a difference. And sooner or later they’ll get annoyed enough that they will.

    • Anne71 says:

      01:49pm | 04/05/10

      Excellent article. I too believe we need to have some serious debate on immigration in this country, regardless of where those immigrants come from. How does that make me racist? It would definitely be racist if we said we’re going to stop all immigration except from white, English-speaking countries, but so far I haven’t heard anyone suggest that. Most of us are just concerned that we don’t have the infrastructure and facilities to support the population we have, yet alone even more people in the future - and that includes those who will be born here, not just coming in from overseas. I foresee serious social problems over the next 50 years if the Government, regardless of which party it might be, doesn’t have the gumption to stand up and make the tough decisions which are necessary on this subject - and tell the naysayers to pull their respective heads in.

      Reply

    • Crash says:

      04:13pm | 04/05/10

      ‘It would definitely be racist if we said we’re going to stop all immigration except from white, English-speaking countries, but so far I haven’t heard anyone suggest that. ‘

      This is exactly what is demonstrated by the Coalitions constant demonization of boat people whilst remaining totally silent about the fact that the majority of our illegal immigrants are ‘white’ visa overstayers who arrive on planes

    • Fred says:

      11:35pm | 04/05/10

      Me1D -
      An asylum seeker is not the same as a migrant!
      Migrants have to go through a highly controlled formal selection process to immigrate and become permanent residents . You misunderstand what asylum seeking is and the international laws which protect a person who is fleeing life threatening persecution. In the case of the Hazara and Tamil asylum seekers who make up most of the two thousand people detained on Christmas Island,  their individual persecution as members of persecuted minorities in their country of birth gives them the right to cross ANY border to claim protection. It is only after they are assessed and meet the criteria in the Refugees Convention that they are confirmed to be refugees, and therefore can not be sent back to the place of their persecution. Australia under Labor resettles such refugees, but the Liberal Howard Government tried desperately to get other countries to resettle the Tampa refugees processed on Nauru - without success. A pity Howard did not “do” a Malcolm Fraser and simply settle more Indochinese people to deal with the crisis of refugees in our region at that time. Australia only benefited from that generosity. ..

    • H of SA says:

      01:58pm | 04/05/10

      I don’t know if I count as an elite or not Mr. Morrison, but I don’t call what you do dog whistling because I think you need protection from yourself.

      I say what you are doing is dog whistling precisely because you know what your doing. Your smart enough to know just how disgusting your tactics are.

      Did you know I have changed votes at every election and voted Liberal at the recent election in SA?

      But you guys clearly aren’t interested in the votes of Aussies who are against racism. Just say it Scott, you want the one nation vote.

      This is so sad, your not some unaware red neck. Your a smart guy with the capacity for self reflection - and it hasn’t stopped you from consciously choosing to appeal to the dark angels of our nature

      Reply

    • Eleanor says:

      02:12pm | 04/05/10

      I’m all for conversation, debate and discussion on immigration. What I’m not for, though, is those stupid, hackneyed and racist slogans that keep rearing their ugly heads in the debate, such as ‘F*** OFF WE’RE FULL!’, ‘SPEAK ENGLISH OR P*** OFF’ and ‘WE GREW HERE, YOU FLEW HERE!’ Racism is not equal to wishing to control population growth.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      02:49pm | 04/05/10

      What’s wrong with telling people they have to speak English?
      It should be a requirement of all permanent residents.

    • Betelnut says:

      02:18pm | 04/05/10

      How can we take you seriously Scott, when you send such conflicting messages?

      (1) You regularly and delberately conflate the issues of “Border Control” and “Population” for political gain, when they are not in any way linked.

      (2) You regularly complain about being called out for “dog whistling”, yet can you give us your full and frank account of the politics surrounding the Haneef, Children Overboard, Lindsey pamphlets, Andrews somali comments episodes etc. etc..  Let’s face it, the conservative side of politics has a lot of form in this area.  If you are planning to leave this type of politicing behind from now on, that is indeed great news, but most of us will wait to see the pudding.

      (3) You castigate Rudd for pursuing a “big australia”, when you know full well that this was a projection from the Intergenerational report (set up by PC by the way) and not a stated governement policy goal. Next you say that 36million is “too many”, but then fail to tell us how many is not too many.

      (4) Then you say you will have bands that are decided by the productivity commission.  What will be your policy response if they specify a sustainable population target above the “too many” you have already flagged?.  Is it still too many now??

      (5) You have in the past and continue to encourage people to reproduce more, ala the Baby bonus, FTB etc, despite the obvious population pressures you currently decry.

      How about YOU show some mature leadership in this area, Scott, drop the party-political BS and make some positive contributions to the discussion on population sustainability in Australia.  All of us would welcome such a move. Or are we forever to be subjected to the lightweight, immature, small-minded and populist rantings of our two major political parties.

      Reply

    • Ellis says:

      04:12pm | 04/05/10

      Dear Beatle Nutter,
      Why do you, personally, need leadership? Why not simply rely on your own gravitas, your own progressive, high minded, mature, rational and heavily lefty policy predisposition. You are far too wrapped up in desperately trying to score political points against Scott Morrison with your passe referrals to Mo Han., Ch Ov., Lin.pamphlets blah, blah, blah.
      Why not open your mind and look at the population and immigration experiences of other countries and what they do - what their reactions are when they reach breaking point, as we surely will too if our wanton immigration policies remain as they are. Do I hear you throwing another hissy fit and shrieking “Racism!!”. Take a good look at Denmark and see what they are now doing about Muslim immigration. They have taken a realistic view of what is happening, what those ‘immigrants’ are trying to achieve, they have looked into the pit and they are not only horrified, but scared about what they see. How about you take an even more serious look and read Geert Wilders (a Dane) speech to the British Parliament. That, my dear Beatle Nutter is what you will have to look forward to unless you ditch your faux principals, your cultivated ‘progressiveness’, your sarcastic condemnation of Scott Morrison and serious debate. Enjoy!!

    • Betelnut says:

      05:19pm | 04/05/10

      Dear Ellis,

      Thanks for the kind words.  I am, in fact, not in need of personal guidance from any of the bufoons that pass for the poltical leadership of this country.  However, as they are elected to serve the interests of ALL Australians, not just the party paithful, I make no qualms in requesting a higher standard of public discourse and mature and thoughtful policy responses to the challenges this county faces in the future.

      Although regretfully, I missed my first “hissy fit”, I will try to make up for it with this one now…

      So you are against futhur muslim immigration to Australia.  That is fine, but it is a somewhat xenophobic view to hold (though probably not racism per se).  So you are xenophobic, that is also fine with me, but we probably won’t be best of friends. I am however, permanently perplexed as to why people such as yourself, who advocate collectively discriminating against people for ethnic/cultural reasons, bristle and froth at the mouth when people label your views as xenophobic/racist etc.  It is simple, by definition, they are. 

      Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you feel ashamed when people call you a xenophobic/racist???  Why do you care???

      Finally, and although I am loathe to stoop to wiki, this passage caught my eye and may be of interest….

      “Denmark, with a mixed market capitalist economy and a large welfare state,[4] ranks as having the world’s highest level of income equality. Denmark has the best business climate in the world, according to the U.S. business magazine Forbes.[5] From 2006 to 2008, surveys[6] ranked Denmark as “the happiest place in the world,” based on standards of health, welfare, and education. The 2009 Global Peace Index survey ranks Denmark as the second most peaceful country in the world, after New Zealand.[7] Denmark was ranked as the least corrupt country in the world in the 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index,[8] sharing a top position with Sweden and New Zealand.”

      Come to think of it, sounds like the ideal place to chill for a while and put my “faux principals (sic)” up .

      Best Wishes

      B

    • James1 says:

      05:56pm | 04/05/10

      Geert Wilders is Dutch.

    • N says:

      02:03pm | 05/05/10

      James1 - he is talking aboyt Denmark, not the Netherlands

    • Get used ot it says:

      03:20pm | 04/05/10

      We will become a bigger Australia, like it or not. Capping population too much or completely will see a surgance of illegal immigration. The downside to this is that we can’t gauge the incoming population to plan for it or keep up with it.

      Highrises and the like are inevitable. Get used to it.

      Reply

    • Fred says:

      04:04pm | 04/05/10

      I nearly slipped off my keyboard! The Coalition has a non discriminatory

      Reply

    • Yury says:

      04:19pm | 04/05/10

      Well discussion is fine, but only if you have some knowledge of the topic - where the hell you got 300 thousand migrants annually? Word on the street? Too many asians out there? The fact is - this figure actually is a lie.

      http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/pdf/report-on-migration-program-2008-09.pdf - Department of immigration statistics - 2008/2009: 171,000, year before that - 158,000.

      Probably some sneaky PR advisor figured out to include in “migration” all temporary visitors, like students and so on, and you keep feeding the fears of the public with bullsh**t numbers.

      I got even better idea for you then - count as a migrant everyone coming back from holidays. You might have over a million of “annual migrants”! That would be a point discuss, wouldn’t it…

      So, Mr. Morrison, before “making obvious point for months” about “unsustainability” it wouldn’t hurt to have a reality check (at least once).

      Debating migration is not bigoted, you article is.

      Reply

    • maureen says:

      02:09am | 05/05/10

      This is seriously misleading for one very simple reason. It contradicts the clear statements of the Immigration Minister himself. For example,he openly conceded on the public record on 3 July 2009, Radio National, ‘The Immigration Two step’ that ‘very soon, over half of those who permanently migrate here’ will come from the over 350,000 temporary workers or students here on 457 or student visas.

      When they bring their sons, daughters, aged parents, grandparents, uncles etc, through the family reunion program of about 60,000 that will probably be many more than 350,000.

      It is precisely because many will bring their aged parents and grandparents that there is no way that they can solve our ‘ageing problem’. So found the expert House of Lord Commitee which investigated this question and disproved that immigration wil solve the UK aged problem. House of Lord Select Commitee on Economic Affairs 2007-8 ‘The Economic Impact of Immigration Vol1 p6.  There are similar studies for Canda and US if you care to find them.

      Second, many temporary workers denied permanency will simply become illegal and await weak Governments to give an amnesty as per the US which now has approx 11m and the UK with over 650,000.  Obama will probably try to buy the hispanic vote and get some illusory GDP boost by giving an amnesty.

      You need to do some research, as does George Megaleonis and the Australian.

      Will you concede your mistake I wonder? Or try to make some meaningless academic distinction to save face?

    • Yury says:

      02:59pm | 06/05/10

      Dear Maureen,

      It is always a good idea to go out there and check the fact, not rely on someone’s digestion of it.

      You actually misinterpreting Minister’s words - he is talking about the source of future permanent migrants, who in his opinion would be coming from the pool of those who has already worked or studied in Australia. You doing similar logical substitution as “36 mln” projection being treated as “goal of government policy”.

      As for the “they will bring this and that…via family reunion” - well they already “brought” them, and statistics includes all these people as Family stream. And guess what - we still have under 180,000 migrants !!!

      Now to 350,000 of 457 and students - they build for you, dig for you and subsidise tuition of your kids at Uni with their fees. About them overstaying - DIAC reports well over 99% comliance with visa conditions, so virtually no one overstays. Yet another myth busted.

      So, to summarize -
      1) “Australian” is not an essence of wisdom (and I don’t need George Megalogenis to do research for me)
      2) Politicians lie and mislead to ignite whatever public opinion they think is good for upcoming election (surprise!)
      3) I’m afraid there no mistake I need to concede.

      I’m pretty sure however that you wouldn’t let the facts stand in the way of good debate, would you?

      Cheers

    • Yury says:

      03:51pm | 06/05/10

      Finally some more food for brain -
      http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/statistical-info/oad/totalmovs/totmov.htm
      Difference between all arrivals and departures is about 260,000. Multiple travels are counted every time the border is crossed. So we have the actual balance of less than 240,000-250,000 .

      It was a year of GFC mind you, so more Aussies returned than usually, and fewer left. And it was not balanced by an increase in migration, because 457 was slashed in numbers, and skilled stream takes 1-2 years for decision.
      Thus in a regular year the balance would be even less.

      Also, on the 457 workers overstaying - did you know that over 90% of them are professionals, associated professionals and managers? IT, finance, law, engineering, science etc. And you think someone with international experience who yesterday earned over 70-150K will suddenly burn his passport and go fruitpicking in the bush without medical insurance? Stop kidding yourselves!

      300+ thousand migrants a year simply do not exist.

    • maureen says:

      01:50pm | 10/05/10

      As expected a pointless distinction. No Yury you are wrong and have not read it. The essential point is that some people (you for one) are suggesting that the figures concerning the number of people from another country present in Australia and likely to stay are highly inflated. The Minister made a clear and open admission that a very large pool of temporary migrants are expected to stay permently under the Rudd Government in future. This will add substantially to our population through family reunion.

      You set a very low threshold of what a skilled immigrant is. There are many unemployed people in that category here looking for work. I don’t need anyone to support me or my family in future and doubt Australia does.

      You do not and cannot know how many will stay illegally and how many will come in future years under reunion.

      I doubt the DIAC figures you give but the past is not always an accurate prediction of the future. I know through the media of about 6,000 people who have breached their temporary work visa conditions and have appealed on a technical argument. One has won. Many may stay under that precedent. Can you refute that?

      I await another set of artificial and self-serving distinctions. 

      I never said the Rudd Government specifically committed to a 36million target. He would never have such courage. Instead Rudd gave broad support to a much larger Australia but backed off when he realised it was unpopular.

      Insults are not argument.

    • Yury says:

      06:36pm | 10/05/10

      Dear Maureen,
      I applaud your skill in casting the arguments which you can’t object as “pointless” and making anything academic to be “meaningless” from the start – that is a good attitude to enter into discussion and have a balanced debate. Gives you an unbeatable leg-up, doesn’t it? Seems like there is just two types of opinions –yours, and the wrong ones?

      Now, to the point again – yes you’re quite right, I am suggesting that the figures in the media are inflated. I even went on to demonstrate you how exactly, with official government data. You choose however to take misleading Minister’s remark as a basis for your arguments.

      Regarding your perception about future dangers of overstayers and family reunions – I’m quite perplexed how easy you base your assumptions on sketchy media reports and at the same time refuse to base projections on official statistics. Speaking of family reunions you, and the Minister, are actually spot on – it is about 50-60 thousand a year. It happens already and they already included in the headcount of 160-170 thousand annual intake.

      Coming to 6,000 breaches of visa conditions (which from the bulk of 350,000 temporary migrants is less than 2%) would most likely be violations of work limitations (20 hours a week) for students or backpackers. Hardly a hit to economy. As for serious violations, like staying forever illegally – check DIAC reports: over 99% visa compliance.

      Finally – you are again correct about self-serving. I am one of those scary migrants, crawling into this beautiful country and causing all your troubles. That’s why I have working knowledge of DIAC machinery.

      Regarding the insults, I don’t see where I offended you or anyone else. On the contrary it is quite a pleasure to have a conversation with you. I hope that people, like you, might actually be surprised how little they know about those very same issues they have strong and passionate opinions about.

      For example, Skilled Migration – for starters, I do not set the threshold, government does. And the threshold is actually quite high. To clear it you need to be young, healthy, have good English, have a skilled occupation confirmed by Australian authorities, work experience, police clearances and so on and so forth. List goes on, if curious – http://www.immi.gov.au. Upon arrival all Skilled Migrants are ineligible for almost all welfare for two years. I repeat – for TWO years. So frankly, when people say of useless non-English speaking migrants from poor countries who have an easy ride – explain me how do you think they live here with extended families with no source of income whatsoever? Using solar energy? Thus all comments to this article about migrants coming here to jump on Centrelink “gravy train” are nothing more but ignorance. Reality is – that would be impossible.

      When you tell me about “many” skilled migrants who are unemployed: do you know at least one unemployed fresh migrant? I have a vast social network of skilled migrants, yet I don’t know anyone currently out of work. The only couple I know of who failed to find a job in the midst of GFC packed and went back home for the reasons quoted above – no helping hand from the government (as it should be, so the system is fair).

      Bringing parents is a completely different story. Waiting lists is about 15 years or more, so if you migrate as adult most likely your folks would be dead by the time you decide to, apply and finally can bring them. Waiting list may be bypassed, but at the cost of 37,000 per head with limited rights and access to welfare in return, so this status would be quite shaky. I heard only of one couple from my circles who brought their parents here, and they live in Oz since mid-90’s.

      So you can see that there is a huge gap between public perception of how Immigration program works and the reality. Unscrupulous media, misleading officials and provocative people like Scott Morrison do not help to close this gap. They prefer good old pre-election beat-up.

      I can continue endlessly, but I’m afraid the scope of our debate already exceeds the limits of comment pages and demands a beer or barbeque, or QA studio of ABC.

      Cheers,
      Yury

    • Fred says:

      05:00pm | 04/05/10

      I nearly slipped off my keyboard!
      Scott, the Coalition USED to have a bipartisan immigration policy and still discriminates actively against asylum seekers - because you’ve forgotten about the UN Charter of Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol.
      Let me explain.  Yes, the annual immigration program , its size and composition is determined by Cabinet each year. It is a decision made in the national interest, and it is our sovereign right as a nation state to do so.

      As part of that annual migration program we CHOSE to settle 6000 selected refugees (refugees as defined in the Convention) and another
      7 750 humanitarian entrants, usually the family of former refugees who sponsor or “propose” them for family reunion immigration. That is a total of 13 750 people in a total program of around 300 000 pa.  That certainly is a large migrant intake and a relatively small refugee intake.

      Permanent and temporary visas grew rapidly in number under the Howard Government, but refugee and humanitarian visa numbers were as good as static. Hold on to the idea that the Australian Government CHOOSES to settle refugees. It is a good thing for a global good citizen to do, but we do not have to do so.

      It is a different story when it comes to asylum seekers however.  Australia   ( Bob Menzies, no less)  signed the Convention and Protocol and we are bound - obligated- by international law to protect asylum seekers who cross our borders. That means no turning back the boats with asylum seekers into Indonesian waters. Yes,  Downer admitted about five boats were turned around under Operation Relex, and that is a breach of the international law. That condemned those asylum seekers to being illegal migrants in Indonesia ( has not signed the UN Refugees Convention) and subject to arrest, imprisonment and deportation. As many were Afghans and Iraqis, the probability is very high that they were refugees just like the ones who made it to Australia and are now Australian citizens. Australia did not protect them, let alone process them and confirm them to be refugees and would need resettlement.

      Dear Scott, get the (too many)  lawyers in your party to look again at the Refugee Convention and understand that asylum seekers are not the same as selected refugees with a quota in the annual migration program, and that their right in international law is to be protected, to have their universal human rights respected and to be treated with dignity. It is a different ball park, and you need to develop an asylum seeker policy and   5 000 more visas for asylum seekers proven to be refugees is no big deal in the bigger scheme of things. They are good workers, good citizens.

      Non discriminatory coalition policy? Don’t start me on the disgusting systemic discrimination against boat arrivals granted only three year Temporary Protection Visas when they actually were refugees from the moment they fled the persecution. How can you promise to bring back this evil policy which deliberately, knowingly, kept children separated from their fathers, wives from husbands for three and up to seven years? Those 6 000 or so Iraqis and 5 000 or so Hazara who were on TPVs have been punished and traumatised IN Australia by an inhumane discriminating Coalition Government.

      I hope they exercise their democratic right to vote and send you a message: most asylum seekers desperate enough to come by boat are refugees and most Australians have made them welcome. Be generous, give them a fair go. Develop an asylum seeker policy and program – and promise to take the fully assessed refugees on the UNHCR books in Jakarta.  You would look more compassionate than Rudd!
      .

      Reply

    • Marilyn says:

      09:10pm | 04/05/10

      Asylum seekers are not migrants and while Scott has now read the charter of human rights it appears he has not read the refugee convention which makes it legally binding for all signatory countries to offer residence to all refugees in their territory.

      I love the crocodile tears though about harsh detention as if Woomera and stuff never happened.

      Now the moron senate are going to pass a bill that essentially says anyone who gives a refugee a ride to save their lives is a criminal worse than the mass murderers they escape from.

      The law states anyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution.

      Full stop, - and it is not racist to talk about migration but it is racist to punish people for seeking asylum which we do.

      Reply

    • Brett L says:

      09:54pm | 04/05/10

      What is bigotry? Isn’t it someone who is strongly partial to their own race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion etc. And rejects others that are different? Is that why Auburn, Springvale, Richmond and Moorooka are the way they are? I mean why don’t immigrants move to Noosa, or Byron Bay, or Double Bay? Why do I get evil looks walking through Lakemba? Why do I get disgusted looks when I go into a gay bar with my wife?  And what would happen if I wore a turbin into a Mosque?  We need more population to keep up with the World. But we need a cohesive like minded society.  Multiculturalism is a form of Bigotry.

      Reply

    • alex jones was right says:

      02:12am | 05/05/10

      Once upon a time, immigration policies ensured that immigrants arriving on our shores were not only free of disease, but had marketable skills and would not impose an economic burden on the country. Immigrants were expected to accept Australian culture and speak the language.

      Now the exact opposite is the case.

      “An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide,” wrote the famed British historian Arnold Toynbee. Australia — through its immigration and economic policies — is well on its way to committing suicide.

      This is no mistake.
      It was planned that way.
      It is called divide and conquer.

      “The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy,” writes historical scholar Seymour Lipset.

      Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon have all faced crises of national existence as minorities have pushed for autonomy and independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. France confronts recurring problems with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans, and most recently a growing Muslim minority that has resulted in violence.

      Globalism is the religion of the New World order.

      In order for it to work, borders and nation sovereignty must be eradicated. “Globalization is defined by cross-border connectivity, including porous borders, which serve to expedite flows of goods while at the same time increase the level of immigration – both legal and illegal,” explains Paul A. Harris, Assistant Professor of Public Administration, International Studies and Philosophy at Augusta State University.

      Former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm explains how the process of how this is destroying America. “Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country,” he says. “History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.

      The most effective weapon in this process of destruction, Lamm explains, is multiculturalism — the demand that all arriving people retain their culture at the expense of the prevailing culture. “Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together,” writes Benjamin Schwarz.

      “In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another,” writes Louis Beam. “The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state…. The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today.”

      It is not coincidental the immigration issue has reached a breaking point at the same time as much of the world is wracked by economic crisis.

      In response to this manufactured crisis, the elite through their appointed minions have called for “global governance” (world government) and a “unified global approach” to economic and social issues. Immigration is part of the effort to merge nations into a union designed by the bankers.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      12:14pm | 11/05/10

      So a conspiracy of international bankers and communists is using migration to take over the world?  If you believe this rant, then I bet you also believe that the trails left by jets are really gases that the “internationalist cabal” (often a thin cover for “the Jews” used by anti-Semites) release to keep us stupid…

    • Fred says:

      03:34pm | 05/05/10

      Scott Morrison you absolutely drive me crazy.  If this woman was simply “voicing her concerns about immigration policy in the UK” then yes, Gordon Brown would have been completely in the wrong for calling her a bigot.  Unfortunately, she wasn’t ‘simply voicing her concerns about immigration’, she specifically said that there are too many “middle easterners” coming in to the country.  A HUGE difference to speaking about immigration policy.

      Reply

    • Russ says:

      06:15pm | 05/05/10

      Yes, we should be able to talk sensibly about immigration without introducing race or religion into it.  So does that mean you now disagree with Ray Hadley that we are importing murderers into the country when we allow refugees in?  Or is that your idea of the way to have a sensible debate?

      Reply

    • Kia says:

      09:21pm | 05/05/10

      People should leave Australia with the population as it is now if its not functioning the economy or filling up spaces in the working sector then we will bring in more new fresh faces :D

      Reply

    • maureen says:

      08:42pm | 10/05/10

      Again Yury seems either unable to grasp the common sense argument I am making or is unwilling to. Yury has not ,and cannot, refute the essential argument, which is that each years’ intake cannot be considered in isolation because each intake sets up what is in essence a small chain of immigration (both legal and illegal) through the family reunion program, fake (or genuine) marriages, sometimes fake future sponsorships. If Yury has no personal experience of such things then he probably does not mix with the immigrant communities that I have.

      Accordingly choosing one years’ permanent migration intake by DIAC numbers alone is misleading as to future numbers and liabilities consequent on that years’ intake, and will always produce a misleadingly underestimated figure. Simple common sense.  Cameron made the same point I think in the UK debates and it has never been seriously refuted.

      In any event the sheer numbers of temporary workers and students present at any time affect the load imposed on public services and infrastructture such as housing, health, transport etc. which is a concern to very many people.

      Yury you did not read what I said. I was talking of unemployed Australians. Youth unemployment is a serious problem here with very high rates. This is exacerbated by mass immigration, which tends to drive down wages rates and soak up unskilled work which is a pathway out of unemployment for many and which supports many domestic students.

      The myth that Australia’s immigration program was ever based primarily on skills have been exploded by recent media exposure and Government enquiries. The things you suggest such as work experience, English langauge and confirmed work have been the subject of serious fraud - exposed recently. It was a convenient way for the Rudd Government to boost GDP but appear responsible. Many were shoddy courses based on teaching english, hairdressing, cookery. I am suprised than anyone would seek to defend it.

      The Government’s recent changes to the scheme are an official concession that it was unworkable and of little benefit. Read the official Government reports. Even Gillard openly made concessions.

      All the skills Yury mentions are capable of being supported by the current Australian population without mass immigration given Government support, political will and a little time. 

      Yury has not even tried to refute the House of Commons findings about the almost completely negligible financial benefit in solving the ‘ageing’ problem of even the skilled migration program. Or similar reports in the US or Canada. The weight of evidence and expert opinion is against Yury there so he has simply ignored it. 

      Yes I have worked for many years for the Commonwealth and know well how misleading and self-serving DIAC figues can be. DIAC serves the interests of the Government of the day. That is why I don’t trust them unless I have the methodology and actual figures before me and can question how they are compiled. 

      As to student visas cancelled read: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/legal-glitch-wipes-out-6000-student-visas/story-e6frgcjx-1225838873103. I never suggested any widespread financial loss. Merely an illustration of the intent and determination of some students to stay, supporting the argument that many will try to stay on illegally.

      Two years is not a long time to wait for the generous welfare that permanent status provides being free health, schooling, welfare support and sometimes free or subsidised housing. This can be worth sometimes hundreds of thousands over a lifetime.  The fact that there is such a high number wishing to come attests to this. 

      Yury you called Scott’s article bigoted because he didn’t agree with you - in the context of an article about Bigotgate. Many would view that as a personal insult. Why not simply have the decency to apologise as Brown did?

      By the way I actually support a reasonble level of skilled immigration and an expanded refugee program provided it is not based on permanent migration. I have enjoyed debating with you too, but please no more use of bigot.

      Reply

    • Yury says:

      10:52pm | 10/05/10

      Well, Maureen

      You too quick to doubt my grasp, and too reluctant to consider the faults in your own logic. Regarding your essential argument I stand on my position - Minister’s words, Scott’s article and multiple comments like yours are mixing apples and oranges: temporary and permanent migration.

      You keep speculating that this huge bulk of temporary entrants will inevitably become permanent. However in your own words - you “do not and cannot know” how many will decide to stay.

      Finally, what is the problem with family influx? Are you seriously suggesting that your fellow citizens (they are by the time they start bringing family) be denied the right to marry whoever they want, or care about their parents? Your main assumption is that you doing everyone a charitable favour by letting them in. Not true, you profiteering as well. So expect people to want something in return.

      The sheer number of people who temporarily here, which seems to alarm you a lot, is carefully controlled for workers on 457, and is purely a business decision when it comes to students - export of education is a highly profitable business. So please, be consistent and do not mix everything in one heap. Don’t worry - those who will stay would always be rationed and squeezed within the margins set by DIAC.

      Again on the welfare - two years may not be a long time to wait, but estimate realistically the cost of living in Australia for two years, without a job, having welfare as your remote goal. It is something like 100K a year for a small family. You saying someone in third world with 100K stashed will come here to slowly eat this money away, live in misery for two years and finally then register with Centrelink?

      Examples with cancelled student visas and fraudulent institutions or work sponsors - well it is very different issue, an issue of proper management and law enforcement. By the way, it is the first time I here that English language credentials were a subject of fraud exposed - DIAC accepts pretty much only IELTS certificates and in some cases TOEFL (organisations that are exetremely well run and internationally respected).

      Proper management is a problem with occupation lists as well - frankly I cannot imagine Indian or Chinese lobby pushing hairdressing and cookery into “in demand” lists. So I assume at some stage there either was a critical need for these occupations, or your own educational lobby wanted badly to sell pseudo-education products to overseas students. In any case migrants are hardly the ones to blame for that.

      And just to be clear - I acknowledge that the decision on the nature, volume and rules of Immigration program is solely an Australian sovereign decision. Heck, you might close it completely, though I doubt it would ever happen. There is a need in skilled migration here. There is a lack of engineers and doctors, qualified tradies etc. So industry would not let the program dry out. I don’t know what the reason is - but it’s a pity Australia could not even foster enough barbers and pastry chefs through last decade…

      Anyway as I said - it is your decision, what I object however is that suited to current political climate, very short-term, people like Scott Morrison mislead the public and create this paranoya about hordes of hungry migrants, who nowadays seem to be scapegoats for everything from housing shortage to crime.

      I’m willing to admit that I ignored your comments regarding House of Commons, Canada, UK etc merely because I do not know the situation from within (but I assume neither do you honestly). I considered it was not really relevant to Australian debate. Could be my mistake, be it as it is.

      Finally, I may withdraw “bigoted” if you like, if you agree that Scott’s words - “... net overseas migration of 300,000” is a stretch, if not a deliberate lie. Thus I will replace “bigoted” with “not completely honest or at least poorly informed, biased and lacking balance”. If that’s not too offensive.

      And sustainability is separate issue as well. Ask your government where taxes go instead of infrustructure. When I here about “population growth overcrowds cities and strains our infrastructure” it makes me laugh. Well, duh!.. What did you expect? Remain in 1870’s borders of Melbourne?

      It is like suggesting chopping your child’s legs off because he/she grew out of old pants and “straining” them. May be we should look into development, rather than restricting natural growth?

      Again, was nice to have this exchange, I have a feeling that we agreed to disagree. I just hope that you will acknowledge my point - I’m all for the better handling of Immigration, just let’s do it based on facts, not prejudice.

      Thanks,
      Yury

    • maureen says:

      09:29pm | 10/05/10

      Sadly, I have no more time to devote to Yury so will anticipate his response and give my final summation. I imagine he will continue to say that Scott is wrong to use the net overseas migration figure. That figure (about 300,000)although imperfect does incorporate some element of the movement in an out, and the net result of those movements, and therefore needs to be understood with caution. Agreed. It tends to overestimate for some of the reasons Yury gives. See http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 and read explanations.

      Using the historic figure for skilled migration which Yury gives can also mislead and but tends to underestimate for the reasons I have given.

      Using a past figure does not account for the number of those here temporarily but likely to stay permanently, and those that will appear in the family reunion program as a consequence in future.

      All in all I think any reasonable person would be entitled to give credence to the express statements of the Immigration Minister about the Government’s future intention with respect to future permanent migrant outcome of those here temporarily. Read the transcript of the ‘Immigration Two Step’ in detail and you will see what I mean.

      A gentleman would apologise to Scott for saying ‘Unscrupulous media, misleading officials and provocative people like Scott Morrison ‘. I will leave others to judge.

      I doubt Yury will attempt to refute the House of Commons report which gives a true highly expert picture of the economic benefits of mass immigration which are very modest if there are any at all. If he does I doubt very much if he will succeed.

      Case closed.  Thank you Yury.

      Reply

    • maureen says:

      10:12pm | 10/05/10

      Couldn’t resist one last quote for Yury from the Immigration Minister himself:

      “.Mares: Because another key difference is that in the permanent migration scheme, you set a number of really you say Australia will take 100,000, 110,000 permanent skilled migrants. The temporary scheme is completely uncapped. ...Minister: But it’s true that there’s half a million people in the country at any one time on temporary visas who have work rights. So to pretend that the announcement of a permanent program of 100,00 or 110,000, 120,000 is the key determinant of what’s happening in terms of employment migration in this country of course is a nonsense. But I’ve made that point publicly a number of times, but I haven’t yet educated the Australian public or the Australian media to that understanding.”

      That’s why Yury’s figures are seriously misleading. Knockout punch?

      Immigration Two Step,  Radio National, 3 July 2009.

      Reply

    • Yury says:

      11:54pm | 10/05/10

      Just read the article Maureen referred me to - “The immigration two-step” on ABC.

      As I suspected Maureen cherry-picked one quote out of context. The talk is mainly about 457 program and pathways from temporary to permanent residence. However it says little about annual intake or the prognosis of what it should be.

      What it does though is recognise that besides Skilled Independent migrants and their families there are about several hundred thousand people who have work rights, but who are in temporary status - students, backpackers and temporary workers.

      The point is - they all in labour market, but their number, even if it is half a million, is not the number of people by which Australian population grows annually due to migration. It is like local primary school - every year you enrol like 100 kids, but about the same number leaves the school.

      So that talk was not “immigration intake” discussion, it was a labour market discussion.

      As for the credence to actions of this Ministry - you would be surprised how inconsistent and covert the immigraton reform was in last year. And how the system overhaul announced in February with lots of media noise is still lacks any clarity as of today.

      Regarding apologies to Mr. Morrison - I would be more than happy to apologise for some harshness (though all I said remains true in essense) - immediately when Mr. Morrisson will admit his numbers are wrong.

      Some people get upset by projected 55% increase in population over 40 years. Yet Mr. Morrison casually distorts the number of migrants by 70% for the sake of good argument? Come on! Let’s all be honest here.

      Case closed now.

      Thanks Maureen

      Reply

    • maureen says:

      02:51am | 11/05/10

      This man never gives up! Gets up after a knock down punch! have to admire the courage!

      Yury I was almost convinced you were beginning to realise how you have gone wrong but you instead resort to personal abuse once again (you withdrew bigot but replaced deliberate lie and ask me to agree). Why? Good manners are worth learning.

      No Scott’s figures for net migration were accurate. It was your interpretation of their meaning and his motive for using that figure that was not.

      Your arguments seem to me to be getting weaker, more emotive and less focussed.

      As expected you cannot refute the House of Lords Reports or any similar expert report. They are highly relevant to the debate here since the problems are very similar, as are are our economies and Government systems. They give the lie to the idea that even entirely skilled mass immigration will solve our ageing or other economic problems. This contradicts your essential point that immigration is an enormous economic benefit and we need mass immigration to solve our problems for us.

      There are similar Australian reports. Do some research. Nice try to slip away though, as expected.

      Your constant attempts to personlise things are failing. I don’t oppose genuine family reunion. I am compassionate. I am also aware of how many sham marriages there are.

      Many people live on much less than 100K in two years, even here. Especially if they can work illegally in the meantime. 

      I strongly oppose taking skilled workers from other countries, especially poor ones, and thereby making their problems worse. I would like to see a system of direct equivalent monetary contribution to any developing country equal to the long term value of the skilled person who comes and stays here. Paid for by a tax on the companies exploying them or the richest companies here.

      Only the most inept economist would believe the $15bn Access Economics report used by AEI to spruke the overseas student industry. It has been refuted by Bob Birrell and others. Actually read it, its full of gaping holes. I think even you might agree with that.

      I am not mixing things up - you are. You just don’t want to admit defeat. Read the Deegan report and think. Go to the Immigration Two Step and read all the material. http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2008/457-integrity-review-report.pdf

      Deegan and others’ essential point is that there is a large continuous intake of temporary 457 and student visa holders and other temps with work rights (at one stage about 500,000), a capped permanent program, and therefore a huge ongoing future problem. Her only recommendation is that the problem should be put off into the never never by allowing temporary workers to extend their visas up to 8 years. No doubt she hopes times will change and the permanent visa numbers can be lifted without too much potitical pain. After that time the injustice of sending them home once they have had children etc would be such that no Government would want to. It is upon this that I base my reasoned view that many will eventually stay. Not fair to anyone really.

      My articles have been a corrective to your strong opening statement that the net migration figure was a massive overestimate. This you have dismally failed to prove.

      The fact that you do not know about something does not mean it does not exist. About the SMH investigation about cheating on english tests see eg http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/05/08/1115491048581.html or Google it. Easy really - professional exam sitters taking the tests.

      I can teach you nothing Yury. Perhaps you have closed your mind?

      Reply

    • maureen says:

      09:23am | 11/05/10

      Yury. The most important flaw in your whole argument is that you have suggested that the debate about the impact of immigration on Australia should be considered only by looking at ‘migration program’ results in one single year. This is wrong and produces and artificially low figure. You argued that ‘net overseas migration’ was highly misleading and commenced your insults.

      Choosing a single year produces difficulties, but assuming that methodology you would need to look at the impact by also considering the natural growth in population in that year. Using 2008-2009 that would be 451,900. Comprising births minus deaths and those coming and leaving permanently (12 months or longer). ‘Net overseas migration’ in that year was 297,400. The figure Scott used. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0.
      The ‘migration program’ result in 2009 was 171,318 at 30 June 2009. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/pdf/report-on-migration-program-2008-09.pdf.
       
      But to get the number of ‘permanent migrants’ in that year you would need to add the humanitarian program and NZ settlers. See the breakdown here Yury. See.  http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/3416.0Main Features22009?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3416.0&issue=2009#=&view;=

      I said 300,000 plus for year 2009 could be indicative and would be more accurate than your figure, which would be highly misleading.

      Why because, if you choose one year and wish to look at the continuing broad impact of that year of people coming in you would have to account not only for those who were granted permanent migrant status in that year, but all those who were brought in that year as temporary workers (457 visas, students with the right to work, working holiday makers) but who would later be granted permanent status in future years plus all their offspring, plus all those they bring in under the family reunion program in later years and all their offspring and so on. You would need to account for the normal affects of exponential population growth consequent on that intake. You would also need to account for all those brought in through the humanitarian program and NZ settlers and their offspring, later reunions etc.
      You would also need to account for those entering illegally, and illegal overstayers etc.
      Accordingly, the number of people who stay permanently consequent on one year’s intake of people from overseas (‘intake’ defined to include Yury’s migration program, plus humanitarian, pluz NZ, plus temporary workers later granted permanency, plus any consequent reunions, plus their offspring) would be much higher than Yury’s figures. Much higher.
      This is the more realistic way to understand the impact of people coming from overseas on our population – the ‘chain of immigration’ concept. It is a concept well known to anyone with experise in this matter. And that really is all I can do for you Yury.

      Reply

    • Yury says:

      11:58am | 11/05/10

      O’k Maureen,

      First of all - regarding the style and manners. I called the article (not Scott himself) “bigoted” on the basis that it quoted the figure in a manner I deemed incorrect and self-serivng as you say. I supported my point of view with facts and explanations. If you think that objective criticism of an analytical article becomes personal insult to an author, well, then it would be damn hard to have any debates. For instance - if I think that “Avatar” is boring junk doesn’t mean I don’t respect James Cameron. Do you feel the difference? In a very same way as I did, you didn’t restrain yourself in virtually all posts - doubting my “grasp” of facts, “ability to understand” you and pre-emtive strikes introducing my arguments as “meaningless” or “pointless”. Heck, I’m surpised my English hasn’t come under scrutiny (good thing debate is written, otherwise I feel at least the accent would be frowned upon). It was fine with me though, I don’t mind.

      And yet you very right - manners are worth learning, but according to your own standards you too (as all of us indeed) may benefit from learning some.

      “Failed miserably” and stuff like that - say it often enough and you might truly persuade yourself that you won the argument. There is a saying where I come from though, which describes well the flaws of this style of debate - ‘no matter how many times you say “sugar”, it won’t make you feel the sweetness’.

      “Knockout punch”...Please! You contradicted yourself in that very paragraph. My summary of the that ABC interview was exactly what Minister said in your quote. In your own post he speaks that primary immigration program per se is 100-120 thousand. It doesn’t though reflect how many foreigners are in the country’s labour market - very true, and if you care to read what I said you’ll see I do not deny it. Never argued it.

      Finally back to the initial argument, I kept it about the intake of migrants to this country. You branched in every possible direction to other countries, to issues of temporary entrants with work rights, poor management of technical process of immigration, frauds, humanitarian, NZ and whatnot. Then you draw the bottom line that I somehow lose focus. Ironic, isn’t it?

      Your last post however finally gave me some material to check. I even willing to go as far as acknowledge that my stamp of “bigoted” on Scotts’s article was unfair - seems he actually had a source for his numbers. My fault. I was in the wrong.

      Although I still insist that his interpretation and prognosis of unsastainability is far from accurate. All your arguments about NZ-elanders, refugees, students and temorary workers are correct - but they do not change the fact that ...
      EVERY YEAR THIS COUNTRY ISSUES NO MORE THAN 180,000 OF PERMANENT RESIDENT VISAS.
      So forgive me if I fail to see how the PERMANENT population may increase due to that migration for 300,000 in the same year.

      I do not argue about chain of migration. It would be denying the obvious. What I’m trying to tell you is: you doing almost lifetime projections forward, and trying to account for its effects and squeeze it into current balance books. You reluctunt however to look backwards and admit that of those 180,000 of today’s migrants big share is a product of this chain, their coming was “seeded” a long time ago.

      So I don’t see where the panic about migration comes from, if you perfectly well restricting the volume of all streams of migration, including family.

      And that is all I really can do for you Maureen.

      PS - it seems like we are the only ones left standing, and it is hard and slow to communicate on comment page. Feel free to answer me to yury_kr@tpg.com.au, if you want of course. There are some things you said that actually left me wondering what’s your position on Skilled Migration? You said you “for the reasonable level” of it, “provided it’s not based on permanent migration”. What does that mean exactly? You don’t mind Gastarbeiters but God forbid letting them naturalize? Then in fact you are strongly against skilled migration and must admit it to yourself.

      Reply

    • maureen says:

      01:30pm | 13/05/10

      Yury - This is getting a bit like that monty python sketch with John Cleese - his arms and legs hacked off he stands up and says, ‘come on then its just a flesh wound! Is that all you have got?’

      Yury I have plenty more. Yury here’s another hard punch. Remember this blog - the punch. 

      Do your math. You now concede that each years’ intake produces an ongoing chain of immigration. As a result your argument that Australia’s permanent population could not be increased by 300,000 as a result of one year’s migrant intake is demolished. Your attempt to insist that the population impact is more like 100,000-150,00 is in tatters. You now agree to 180,000.

      Do the match - 180,000 permanent migrants will be expected to each have one child (2.1 per couple is the current average). That’s180 K plus 180k =360 K. But there’s more. Each may bring in another person through family reunion thats 360k plus 180K= 540k.  Yes 540K or 540,000.

      Factor in that not all will have children, some will die, and some will leave, some won’t bring anyone in - offset this by the fact that first generation immigrants have higher birth rates considerably above 2.1, each child born to an immigrant may also have a child within the life of the first immigrant and some will bring in more than one, even you can see that 300,000 population impact of one years intake is very conservative assumption.

      That figure easily accounts for any past ‘seeded’ temporary migrants. That’s why the upper ABS figure for Australian population is 42.5m by 2056.

      http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/15population.htm

      I have now proved you completely wrong Yury. I branched out in order to disprove your claim that immigrants are an enormous economic asset. They are not.

      Yury - hiding behind the fact that you called Scott’s argument, not Scott himself, bigoted is nonsense. A bigot is someone who is unreasonably obstinate and wedded to an opinion or someone who is intolerant towards others. It is a word with a very strong implication of racism. You knew that or should have.

      You should never have used bigot in order to achieve an advantage that your arguments alone did not justify. You should apologise properly and stop hiding behind semantics. Be a gentleman.

      I am not anti skilled migration. In fact, skilled migration is essential to my brilliant plan to reform Australia’s immigration policy!

      I would import 20,000 Indian, Chinese and African politicians (they can drive taxis in the meantime), then I would oblige all our policians here to radically reform our immigration and refugee policies, take a 30% wage cut and work for 30% more sitting days.

      If they refused I would replace them with the imported politicians who I would place in heavily subsidised housing next door to each polician (say Vaucluse, Toorak etc, North Adelaide etc)  I would then billet refugees in their houses for a period of three months.

      Hey presto - instant immigration reform! And no more lecturing by Hanson Young.

      Reply

    • Yury says:

      06:36pm | 13/05/10

      By the way, you’ve told my weakness was to draw attention to one particular year. There you gave it yourself: almost quarter-century trend.

      Anything horrible happened to this country because of it so far?

      Your last two year increase in NOM, which apparently worries you a great deal is not immigrants intake (which consistently remains below 180K as far as we can dig the data), but your fellow Australians coming back to shelter from GFC. They’ll have a break and leave again - and trend would be the same again.

      New permanent migrants have NOTHING to do with it.
      As I said from the beginning.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 05:55PM

Ugh. RT @Colvinius: Lord Monckton urging mining owners to buy up papers & TV stations for political influence http://t.co/xRUgErn5

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:32PM

@JohnHillMP it's a spectacular part of the world

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:31PM

RT @JohnHillMP: “@ToryShepherd: Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/rPrvB4sL” Welcome to my electorate. #enjoy!

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:09PM

Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/faYa2ZWq

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

by Laurie Oakes

92

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

Julia Gillard and her advisers believe they can see a narrow path to victory for Labor at the next federal…

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

by Mark Kenny

64

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

As key moments go, it ranked with Gough Whitlam’s dramatic dismissal speech branding Malcolm Fraser…

Working women need to escape the grog bog

by Wendy Tuohy

25

Working women need to escape the grog bog

Can you hear a faint sort of teeth-grindy sound? No it’s not the rats in the roof gnawing the wires…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Other stuff to be angry about today (with video)

DOB says:

For the last 2 summers my local beach - which is a kid's beach really (but it has a nice cafe - thats my excuse) - has been overrun by jetskis. So when I go off for an idyllic morning of sun and sand I might as well just go down to an industrial plant and soak up the noise and fumes. My area is a bit… [read more]

From: Match of the century!

Pete says:

Since when has Australia been a land full of whinging, whiney and just plain annoying people. Seriously, we have to take a long hard look at ourselves and notice that we have it pretty damn good and that instead of whinging about every single article ever written we could perhaps be happy and enjoy things.… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

147 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed