Yes, the immigration word was mentioned on Q&A tonight!

David Suzuki was the sole panellist on the ABC TV program, Q&A, tonight. Here are our tweets to the conversation:


Our comments won’t stop just because the election’s over

It may be a while before Australian voters can once again write the REDUCE IMMIGRATION slogan on ballot papers, but that won’t stop us sharing our thoughts on immigration issues.

Here are our tweets this morning to the ABC’s Insiders program, and Channel 10’s The Bolt Report:

Convincing support for our ‘REDUCE IMMIGRATION’ campaign

It’s Day One after the federal election, and the first session of vote-counting in the Flinders electorate last night shows that voters appreciated the clarity of our message about the need to reduce immigration.

Preliminary figures reveal that our two independent candidates, Paul Madigan and Denis McCormack, have attracted a combined 1.13% of the first-preference vote. This compares very well with voting in Flinders for the candidates of registered political parties: – we equalled the Family First vote (1.13%) and trounced the Australian Christians (0.53%) and the Rise Up Australia Party (0.47%).

Our preliminary 1.13% can also be compared with the vote achieved by Stable Population Party candidates. In Victoria they contested two lower house electorates where their results were 0.18% (Melbourne) and 0.38% (Melbourne Ports). (We note that the SPP seems to have resisted discussion of immigration during the campaign.)

We congratulate Mr Madigan and Mr McCormack on their energetic campaigning and their positive results.

We thank those people in Flinders who supported our candidates directly by giving them a first-preference vote.

We also thank all Australians who helped to promote our write-on campaign and who remembered to add the slogan REDUCE IMMIGRATION in a suitable blank space on their ballot papers.

Figures for the number of write-on slogans may take some time to emerge, but we will update readers via this website and Twitter whenever we have fresh news.

Any reader who is serving as a scrutineer is welcome to contact us with information about what they observe as votes are being counted.

Over coming days and weeks, we expect to:

  • provide further analysis and commentary on the 2013 election, and
  • refresh this website so that the focus is on future campaigning to REDUCE IMMIGRATION and to promote the write-on slogan.

Please follow our posts and send us your suggestions by email, tweets, or as comments on the website.

AEC removes any doubt about write-on messages

The World Today is a ‘news hour’ program that is broadcast on weekdays by ABC Radio National and Local Radio stations across Australia. Today’s program (5 September 2013) included a segment, How to not waste your vote come election day, featuring an interview with Steve Kennedy, Director of Operations with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in Victoria.

In the course of the interview, Mr Kennedy said: “Writing a slogan [on a ballot paper] does not in itself render a vote informal.”

Mr Kennedy also stated: “…as long as the boxes are numbered, that’s still formal, even if they write a slogan. The only time it renders it informal is if they write across the candidate’s name or across the boxes and we can’t make out the numbers.”

“Every election we get different slogans,” he said, and referred to examples such as ‘No Franklin Dam’ and ‘No Tampa’.

Read the full transcript and listen to the segment online via the ABC website, or listen via this MP3 file: 

With Mr Kennedy’s statement today, the AEC has reconfirmed its advice that you can write extra words on a ballot paper, and that your formal vote will still be valid despite extra markings, so long as you don’t obscure your numbered squares and providing that you do not include markings that reveal your identity.

This removes any doubt about whether ‘write-on’ messages might cause a vote to be assessed as informal. It is clear that messages can be added to the blank areas of ballot papers.

Therefore, voters can be confident that writing REDUCE IMMIGRATION in the blank space at the top of a ballot paper will not invalidate an otherwise formal vote.

Spread the word!

Setting the record straight re: origin of Temporary Protection Visas

One method by which Australia could reduce immigration would be by reinstating the Temporary Protection Visas (TPV) that were in place from 1999 (under the Howard government) until scrapped by the first Rudd government in 2008.

The Liberal-National Coalition has announced that, if elected to government on 7 September, they would reinstate a TPV system for asylum seekers.

Pauline Hanson, now a Senate candidate for One Nation in New South Wales, spoke at a dinner event in Hahndorf in the Adelaide Hills on 30 August 2013. During the evening she reiterated her frequent claim that Howard had copied her TPV policy.

This is not strictly accurate. We present here a timeline showing that One Nation adopted the TPV concept from Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI).

Denis McCormack, as a co-founder of AAFI and its media spokesman, first defined the TPV concept in a statement made to ABC local radio on Refugee Day, 24 June 1994. Here is the 2 pm edited news version of Mr McCormack’s suggestion, followed by an extemporised negative editorial comment from afternoon host Jon Faine. (In those days the station was known at 3LO; now it’s 774.)  Click on the arrow below to listen to the audio file:

The other two AAFI co-founders and principal office bearers (nationally) rang Mr McCormack immediately to say that they had heard the broadcast, loved the idea, and would instantly adopt it as AAFI policy.

In 1996, Graeme Campbell’s new Australia First party also adopted the TPV policy, some months before Hanson’s maiden speech (10 September 1996).

It wasn’t until early 1998, when the other two AAFI co-founders joined Hanson’s One Nation party as immigration policy gurus (and as leaders of the Victorian branch, and as future candidates for One Nation), that the TPV concept was grafted on to the rest of One Nation’s immigration policy (already largely derived from AAFI policy).

In 1999, when journalists condemned Howard’s TPV system for copying “Hanson’s policy,” Mr McCormack alerted them to the 1994 initiation of the concept, well before Hanson or Howard.

As far as he knows, none of the individuals to whom Mr McCormack played the 1994 audio has repeated the error – but plenty of their ignorant colleagues in the media and academia have, and still do – as does Hanson …

Hanson’s readiness to diverge from the facts is confirmed by something else she said from the podium at the Hahndorf dinner on 30 August. At question time, Evonne Moore, a dinner guest, distributed copies of our REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign leaflet and presented a full explanation to the gathering …

… to which the determinedly ignorant Ms Hanson responded in words close to: “I wouldn’t recommend people do that because it will invalidate your vote.”

… to which Evonne patiently bounced up on her feet again and countered Hanson’s misleading advice with a re-explanation of the write-on concept, urging the audience to read both sides of the leaflet – and act on it!

We encourage our readers to tell family and friends to do the same on Saturday.

A view of multiculturalism from an Indigenous leader

Respected Indigenous leader Gularrwuy Yunupingu is good mates with Tony Abbott, as was recently demonstrated very publicly when they discussed land rights at the Garma Festival.

They are also linked by their criticisms of multiculturalism which has long been a government-enforced (and costly) consequence of high immigration.

We recently posted the text of Abbott’s 1990 essay, ‘The real issue is the changing face of our society’. Back in 1996, Gularrwuy Yunupingu expressed similar views.

The following paragraphs come from Note 1 to Denis McCormack’s article, ‘An Epistle to Traditional Australia’, published in The Social Contract (Spring 2006).

Most Aborigines and we Yobborigines who take the time to contemplate “what if” realize that some colonial power or other was going to arrive here eventually, and that between the best and worst intentions, unhappy stuff happens on frontier fringes of expanding empires no matter which one, when, or where. If we examine the fate of other indigenous peoples who were caught up in other empires, by and between other races at other times, we know why we thank our lucky stars that the British settled Australia. “Where most Asians are concerned, the survival of Aboriginal people has never had any priority,” said Prof Wang Gu Wu, Vice Chancellor of Hong Kong University, past- President of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in The Canberra Times 8 July 1992.

Gularrwuy Yunupingu, past Australian of the Year, and Aboriginal Community Leader in Australia’s Northern Territory warned of timidity in the face of multiculturalism over ten years ago in The Australian, 6 Jan 1996: “There’s too many outside immigrants…. People who are Aboriginal and who are Australian-born have the main rights. Those cultures should be dominant instead of Australia being multicultural. It’s an insult to say multicultural. You’re trying to hide behind other cultural groups. This is Australia it should have a culture of its own. Why do we have to hide it among the Chinamen, the Arabs and the Jews? We love outside stuff too much…”

Amen, brother Yunupingu!

We find this common-sense from yesteryear to be quite refreshing!

Our tweets at a Citizens’ Agenda meeting tonight

Two members of the REDUCE IMMIGRATION team attended a Citizens’ Agenda meeting at the Wheeler Centre in Melbourne this evening, 4 September 2013. (The Age reported on the event on 5 September.)

Six of the Melbourne electorate’s ten candidates were on the panel. They responded to three questions posed by local people and attracting the most votes on the OurSay website for the electorate.

We contributed by tweeting throughout the program, and by asking a question during the (very limited) open question time.

When forced by one of us at question time to discuss immigration figures, the Stable Population Party candidate clearly stated their sensible 80,000 net immigration policy.

Here is a listing of our tweets: