#Budget2018 – Band-aids won’t help #AusPol fix a continuing #BigAustralia

The Australian Budget, announced on 8 May 2018, makes no change to the planned level of permanent immigration.

Here’s the official statement by the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, about this larger component of Australia’s immigration program:

In 2018-19, the portfolio will maintain 2017-18 levels (up to 190,000 places)

A number of visa categories within the program seem designed to incentivise migration to regional areas.

The other component is the humanitarian program. This appears to be unchanged as well (i.e. 16,250 places per annum),  because the Ministerial Statement does not mention any alteration:

The portfolio supports humanitarian settlement in regional Australia by working with the Department of Social Services, local and state government, community groups and service providers.

The Big Australia agenda underpinning these continuingly high levels of immigration is clear in the Ministerial Statement:

Australia’s migration program continues to support Australia’s growth—stimulating economic growth, addressing skills shortages, and contributing to diversity and multiculturalism.

Several commentators overnight have pointed out that the Budget is simply a band-aid for the adverse effects of high immigration on our environmental and economic sustainability, social cohesion and cultural integrity.

Here are some examples:

Terry McCrann, ‘Budget a good fiscal and political balance’, Herald Sun, 8 May 2018:

[Any long-term budget surplus] pivots on our high immigration-strong population growth dynamic, provided, crucially, there are jobs to be got.

Andrew Bolt, ‘Many Budget winners, but Liberals aren’t among them’, Herald Sun, 8 May 2018:

[The budget is] all paid for by a cash windfall, massive immigration and a gamble that the economy will improve faster than many economists predict.

Judith Sloan, ‘Budget 2018: optimistic forecasts crowd out an immigration fix’, The Australian, 9 May 2018:

Clearly the “wets” in the cabinet (and that is most of them) couldn’t bring themselves to reach the obvious conclusion that the migrant intake is excessive and is causing all sorts of problems, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney. The fact that there are a number of entirely inadequate and disruptive “congestion busting” measures contained in the budget indicates that the government knows the perceived, rapid loss of urban amenity is an issue in the electorate.

Peta Credlin, ‘Turnbull’s left turn pushes Shorten to extremes’, The Australian, 9 May 2018:

… the new $1bn Urban Congestion Fund … is a missed opportunity to open up a debate on Australia’s rate of immigration, one of the highest in the developed world.

Instead, Turnbull will use the fund to tell fed-up city dwellers that everything is OK when it’s clear that the majority of Australians, in poll after poll, want a population plan for the future.

In our pre-Budget post about the apparent increase in awareness about immigration, we documented some of the polls to which Credlin refers.

Now that it’s clear that the government won’t listen to published advice on the importance of reducing immigration, and intends only to patch things up with band-aids, it’s up to all of us to spread the message as best we can.

We recommend writing REDUCE IMMIGRATION in the clear blank space at the top of your ballot papers, whenever you have the opportunity to vote.

Go to our How To page for further details, and check out the FAQ page if you have any questions.


No change to Australia’s high immigration targets in #Budget2017

Peter Dutton, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, has announced Australia’s immigration targets for 2017-18. Once again, we are sorry to report that there are no surprises. For the fifth year in a row, the Government has set the Migration target at 190,000. And, as announced in 2015, the Humanitarian program has risen to 16,250 for 2017-18.

We previously noted that, combined, Australia’s two immigration programs add the equivalent of Hobart’s population each year. This is a burden on existing infrastructure and adversely affects our environmental and economic sustainability, social cohesion and cultural integrity.

Our ‘new normal’ status quo of high immigration seems not to have been found worthy of report in any of the commentary on the federal Budget during the past week. This is surprising, given the pre-Budget comments made by several ‘immigration aware’ critics (e.g. Judith Sloan at The Australian,  and Andrew Bolt, Steve Price, Tom Elliott via various channels). If you have noticed any media that’s critical of our current immigration policy folly, please do let us know.

The need to write REDUCE IMMIGRATION on ballot papers at every election opportunity is unchanged. Spread the word to your friends, colleagues and family about how to share the REDUCE IMMIGRATION message!

Update, 20 May 2017:

An article published on the same day as our above post calls out the government’s budget plans, noting that ‘Australia is sucking in too many of the wrong type of immigrant’ and observing that a more selective immigration program would protect cultural essentials and help the government reduce Australia’s national debt. See: Gary Johns, ‘Time for Turnbull to play the migration card’The Australian, 17 May 2017, p. 14.

Update, 30 May 2017:

Judith Sloan’s article in today’s Australian (‘Peter Dutton part of the cynical charade on house prices’) describes the challenge she faced in locating the updated immigration targets in the 2017-18 Budget papers. She now knows, as we discovered last year, that the figures simply aren’t included in the Budget, but instead announced via a media release!
   Sloan’s article does, however, make some excellent observations about the government’s failure to match its rhetoric on housing affordability with changes to the rate of net overseas immigration, and concludes forcefully:

So when you next hear Dutton blathering on about getting tough on refugees and 457 visa holders and the like, bear in mind that on the big issue he has simply squibbed it.

If the government really had wanted to demonstrate its determination to improve housing affordability and the related pres­sures on urban infrastructure, it would have slashed the migration program numbers, but it was clearly too hard. The vested interests have had their way.

Ritualised xenophilia takes over #AustraliaDay

The lead-up to Australia Day 2017 has seen the annual, new-normal recrudescence of largely taxpayer-funded slights to traditional and still predominantly white Australia. These insults take the form of incessant, omnipresent urging for more acceptance of multiculturalism / diversity, and the encouragement of high rates of immigration from source countries that are both culturally very different to traditional Australia and are also proving problematic.

Most of these slights are organised and orchestrated by renegade, self-loathing, predominantly white Australians among the appointed elites of government, media and elsewhere. We don’t have the time, the energy, or the stomach to report these in detail, but we can note that a moment of sanity occurred earlier this month when widespread public outrage caused an advertiser to take down a billboard that promoted Australia Day via an image of two Muslim girls wearing hijabs. This ripple in the pond was quickly settled by the elites’ crowd-funding efforts to reinstate the advertisement. Suffice it to say, the lunatics still run the asylum.

The take-over and degradation of Australia Day by the proponents of multiculturalism, diversity and high immigration has continued apace in recent decades. An overwhelming number of Government and  taxpayer-funded administrative propagandist appointees (whether as award-winners, partners, sponsors or ambassadors), state by state and nationally, are connected with the national broadcasters (the ABC and SBS), the Immigration Department, the multicultural-diversity industry, big business, the Big Australia lobby, and so on – as mentioned by Andrew Bolt last November.

Let’s reflect on some aspects of this take-over, and why the well spread and well paid, ever watching, politically correct forces have felt the need to do so.

In 1984, Australia’s pre-eminent historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey comprehensively nailed the problem. His book All for Australia surveyed the scope and costs of our immigration program, noting the directly-imported racial, ethnic and socio-cultural issues even though he didn’t dwell as much as we do today on the environmental impacts, i.e. high population growth rates are ultimately unsustainable on the world’s oldest, driest and least fertile land mass (except for Antarctica).

In The Australian of 9 March 1995, Professor Blainey wrote: ‘The prostitution of Australian citizenship took place under Bob Hawke. To read the parliamentary debates is to look in vain for any mention of what is in the interests of Australia as a whole’.

On 11 October 2000, Australia’s longest serving Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock admitted: ‘Many public policy decisions resonate over decades. Indeed, the effect of some only becomes apparent years after they have been taken’. After having been paid handsomely in Federal Parliament for over 40 years to foster, knowingly, the harmful public policies of long-term mass immigration and multiculturalism, Ruddock is now raking in from taxpayers an extra $300,000 p.a. as ‘our’ inaugural roving ‘Human Rights Envoy’. This is on top of a huge swag of superannuation entitlements for retiring from Parliament, or ‘getting out of the way’. Remember him crossing the floor against John Howard’s mild August 1988 ‘slow down Asian immigration’ comments? (Ruddock has cumulatively been paid millions over many years for helping governments to do irreparable damage to Australia, so why would anyone in their right mind think giving him this latest sinecure is a good idea?)

Today, 26 January 2017…

… watch the now ritual TV reports and footage from Australia Day citizenship ceremonies around the country – and weep.

… watch the predictable results of recent years’ subcontracting-out of the whole Australia Day farce to the elites – and

… observe the ABC’s increasingly heavy handed and proprietorial attitude to p.c. promotions of all things Australia Day, and feel your skin creep at what has become ritualized xenophilia at the expense of traditional Australia.

The REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on idea is still being steadfastly ignored by the elites and mainstream media, but it remains the only avenue we can all use in the same way on the same day to politicise the same huge cluster issue. In just two words, safely but surely, the REDUCE IMMIGRATION idea can be conveyed as a message written by voters on their ballot papers.

You may well ask why public figures and organisations that understand the negative impacts on Australia of high immigration have failed to embrace the REDUCE IMMIGRATION campaign.

Australia Day 2017 is a good time to contact folk such as Dick Smith, Andrew Bolt, Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson, and organisations such as the Sustainable Australia Party, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Greens, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation et al. Please ask them to endorse the non-partisan REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on idea, or to explain their unwillingness to do so.

If you get an answer from any of them, please let us know!


Postscript (added 24 February 2017)

Ours was not the only voice speaking out against the ritualised xenophilia of Australia Day this year. Here are a couple of articles that we’ve seen; let us know about any others that you’ve found.

Greg Sheridan, ‘If Australia Day is illegitimate, so are we’The Australian, 2 February 2017.

Sherry Sufi, ‘Australia Day lamb ad more divisive than inclusive’, Perth Now, 20 January 2017.

A bigger #Australia? – It should be up to us, not them

Hot on the heels of the Productivity Commission’s recent report, Migrant Intake into Australia, comes another study.

This time it’s from the long-time pro-higher-immigration Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA).

CEDA claims to have been ‘influential on immigration issues since 1963’ – and, unfortunately, it has been. Its recommendations in 1985 included the creation of a Bureau of Immigration Research and the implementation of a points system for skilled migration, both of which came about.

CEDA’s latest report, Migration: the economic debate, was released on 3 November 2016. The related media release announces that ‘Australia could absorb a greater migration intake’. CEDA’s modelling suggests that, if their recommendations for changes to the migration mix and numbers were followed, this ‘would allow net migration to rise to 400,000 by 2054. This compares with an earlier peak of 300,000 in 2008–09’ (Migration: the economic debate, page 96).

Peter Crone, chief economist for Coles and occasional adviser to CEDA, recently told a retailers’ conference that ‘the ace up our [i.e. Australia’s] sleeve is population growth which needs to be supported by government spending on infrastructure’ (Australian Financial Review, 29 September 2016, page 10).

We are therefore somewhat relieved that the foreword to CEDA’s report acknowledges that ‘concern over migration both domestically and internationally has been increasing’. We also note that the research has prompted some major caveats on their conclusions in favour of a bigger Australia: ‘this [increase] could only be done in conjunction with complementary policy that addresses adverse consequences of population growth such as infrastructure provision, urban congestion and environmental degradation’.

Such weasel-words have, however, been ineffectual previously. We hold no hope that the present government will address these vital issues in any more constructive a way than it has done in the past, despite Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi saying last week that Australia needs to halve its immigration intake.

As readers of this website will know, we oppose an ever-bigger Australia and we advocate a substantial lowering of net overseas immigration.

Meanwhile, here is a little good news from Melbourne, currently struggling with a population of 4.5 million people that’s growing at the rate of over 2% per annum. At the grassroots level, a meeting was held on 2 November to organise campaigns against a huge apartment block of 16 stories in North Fitzroy, an inner suburb where one- and two-storey 19th century buildings predominate. Chris Goodman, president of the 3068 Group (a local residents association), told the large gathering of concerned locals: ‘An important point to keep in mind when considering these things is that we are told Melbourne is heading for a population of ten million, and we haven’t been asked about this.’ To hear this big-picture statement at the outset of Goodman’s address was like a breath of fresh air, compared to the usual paranoia and reticence to speak frankly about this topic at such meetings.

Given that our government consistently fails to ask us about population targets and immigration policy, we remind readers of our ongoing campaign to encourage all voters in Australia to write REDUCE IMMIGRATION in the blank space atop ballot papers in local, state and federal elections and by-elections.



Commentary on the release of CEDA’s report comes from a range of voices. Here we list the coverage of which we are aware:

Thursday 3 November 2016

Jackson Gothe-Snape, Too many backpackers: new report calls for cap on working holidaymakers’, SBS News Radio

Jackson Gothe-Snape & Peggy Giakoumelos ‘Ethnic community council condemns prospect of guest workers’, SBS News Radio

Hamish Macdonald, ‘CEDA report urges rethink of Australia’s immigration policy’,  ABC Radio National – Breakfast

The Drum, ABC TV

Leith van Onselen, ‘CEDA turns population ponzi booster’Macrobusiness

Matt Wade, ‘Boost the migration intake but relieve population pressures on big cities: CEDA report’Sydney Morning Herald

Friday 4 November 2016

Government blind to public opinion on Australia’s migrant intake

Here are the top three of ten ‘key points’ found on page 2 of the Productivity Commission’s recent report, Migrant Intake into Australia.

  • Immigration policy has enduring effects on many dimensions of Australian life. Getting the policy settings right is critical to maximising community wellbeing.
  • The current immigration system has generally served the interests of the broader community well. The key question is whether current policy settings are set to deliver the best outcomes for the Australian community over the longer term.
  • Australia’s immigration policy is its de facto population policy. Decisions about immigration policy should be made within a broad context and explicitly take into account the associated economic, social and environmental impacts, including the differential impacts on state, territory and local governments. Community values and perspectives should inform the policy.

We welcome the report and agree that all ten points summarise the present situation concisely.

We are not, however, starry-eyed about any of the major political parties in Australia making substantive changes to the immigration programs – despite recent polls indicating that they should…

  • Essential Media Communications sampled popular opinion on the question ‘Would you support or oppose a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia?’ Their poll of 1000 Australians (reported on 21 September 2016)  showed 49% support for a ban, and 40% opposition.

The respondents to the Essential Media poll gave their reasons for supporting a ban as: They do not integrate into Australian society (41%); Terrorist threat (27%); and They do not share our values (22%).

Last June, our submission to the Productivity Commission made three comments relevant to the question of Muslim immigration:

  • ‘The wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s community and nation requires no justification, any more than the wish to have one’s own children and continue one’s family though them needs to be justified or rationalised.’
  • ‘In recent decades, the ethnic, racial and cultural shift in Australia’s demography has been dramatic. We recommend rebalancing the mix in favour of people of European descent.’
  • We also referred to research by Harvard University political scientist Robert Putnam who has shown that social cohesion and integration is all-important for the well-being of both immigrants and the host community. We said: ‘Unfortunately, social cohesion is eroding as racial / ethnic gang violence, and individual terrorism events, erupt in our larger cities.’

As described in the Liberal Democrats Party submission to the Productivity Commission, ‘Senator David Leyonhjelm initially sought the Migrant Intake inquiry as part of negotiations over contentious immigration legislation’, with a particular focus on economic policy.

Fortunately, the Productivity Commission’s brief extends beyond economics to include social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians. ‘Its role, expressed most simply, is to help governments make better policies, in the long term interest of the Australian community. Its processes and outputs are open to public scrutiny and are driven by concern for the wellbeing of the community as a whole’ (Migrant Intake, p. ii). For this inquiry, the Commission was ‘given an opportunity to examine the entire immigration system to identify possible improvements’ (p. 50).

We encourage our readers to read the full set of findings from the inquiry, and the associated recommendations (pp. 37-47).

By and large, the recommendations seem reasonable. They provide a basis for the Government to run the immigration system better. Although the Productivity Commission did not recommend a reduction in the number of immigrants, its report is more cautious than previous government reports since 1988 (*).

At 731 pages, this latest Migrant Intake report is deeper and more considered than the Labor government’s 88 page Sustainable Australia – Sustainable Communities: A Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia (2011) which was meant to put us all at ease with regard to the threats of Big Australia but in fact lacked any strategy for implementation. But the Productivity Commission has failed to address head-on the fact that 70 per cent of Australians are opposed to a bigger Australia.

We note the Turnbull government’s early and partial response to one of the Productivity Commission’s recommendations, #13.8, concerning parent visa applicants. A new scheme for 5-year visas is now being planned, and submissions are invited on a number of questions raised in a Discussion Paper (published 23 September 2016; closing date for submissions 31 October).

We thank the Productivity Commission for its public service in conducting the inquiry. It’s better than nothing, but immigration still needs to be reduced – and the Commission should have said so!

Bipartisan non-discriminatory policies relating to immigration and multiculturalism have tied government hands for decades and are in urgent need of review – not only in respect of Muslim migrants, but also those from Asia and the sub-continent. (New readers should visit our posts from January 2015 on some lowlights from 2014  and cultural genocide.)



Our attention has been drawn to research findings that reflect further concern in Australia about the impact of Muslim immigrants on social cohesion. Here is some of the coverage (27 September 2016) of that research:

Marry a Muslim? Six out of ten Australians ‘concerned’ (University of New South Wales)

Education the key to fighting Islamophobia: Deakin researchers (Deakin University)

New national snapshot finds 60 per cent of Australians would be concerned if a relative married a Muslim (The Age)


(*) Footnote:

Over recent decades our Federal Governments (not to mention State Governments) and their agencies / statutory authorities have produced dozens of studies, reports and recommendations on Immigration, Population, Sustainability, and Multiculturalism policy for various purposes and with differing emphases.

We think the two best and most comprehensive studies of the last 25 years were produced by the House of Representatives Standing Committee for Long Term Strategies, chaired by Barry Jones (Australia’s Population ‘Carrying Capacity’: One nation – two ecologies, 1994) and by CSIRO (Future Dilemmas: Options to 2050 for Australia’s Population, Technology, Resources and Environment, 2002).

We provide links to these and other reports on our page, Historic information about immigration policy.


A mixed bag of news for #reduceimmigration in 2015

High immigration adversely affects our environmental and economic sustainability, social cohesion and cultural integrity. A summary of the continuing need for the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign can be found in our Select Bibliography for 2015.

In the year just ending, immigration issues have created harrowing times for Europe and many other parts of the world. Here are a few items of special relevance to Australia.

The Good News…

Australia’s net overseas immigration (NOM) has reduced a little. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released (in Australian Demographic Statistics, June 2015) its preliminary estimates for the financial year 2014-15:

The preliminary estimate of net overseas migration recorded for the year ended 30 June 2015 (168,200 people) was 11.4%, or 21,600 people lower than the net overseas migration recorded for the year ended 30 June 2014 (189,800 people).

The Bad News…

  • Despite the slight fall in intake that’s reported above as Good News, the 2014-15 actual NOM figure represents 1.6 times the capacity of the Melbourne Cricket Ground, or approximately two federal electorates – that’s a lot of immigrants! And the immigration targets for Australia are still excessively high. For 2015-16, the government has provided for up to 190,000 permanent migration places and 13,750 humanitarian places, plus an additional 12,000 humanitarian places for Syrian refugees, with ongoing pressure to accept more.
  • At its AGM on 4 July 2015, Victoria First retreated from its earlier endorsement of the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign, due to a short-sighted lack of courage by its Executive. (Their only fresh idea for the future is to fold their tent, and wind up the association – with their modest residual funds being directed to the Victorian & Tasmanian branch of Sustainable Population Australia.)

A Mixed Bag…

In September, the Australian Institute for Progress released its report on a survey conducted in November 2014, Australian Attitudes to Immigration. While the sample group was, by their own admission, severely limited through ‘a significant skew towards Greens and Labor’ – ‘we miss out on many blue-collar, working-class voters’ – the research valiantly attempts to wrestle with the complex issues associated with understanding how Australians view immigration. Nevertheless, the questions they pose are interesting, and the mixed bag of responses gives food for thought. Their media release on the launch of their report suggests that it reveals ‘a nation deeply divided on issues around immigration, refugee policy and arrivals from Islamic countries’ and shows that ‘Australians are not only polarised on immigration, but they are very much “talking past” one another – using the same words to indicate radically different things’. Many respondents, for example, are so fixated on the illegal arrival of refugees (part of the Humanitarian program) that they are unable to comment rationally on the larger immigration program and picture. Every day, we see and hear such distortion of perception reflected in the media; this report epitomises the problem, but also lays a foundation for further research on complex and thorny issues.

Still Pending…

  • In November, the Productivity Commission released its draft report, Migrant Intake into Australia. Elements from our submission are reported in Box 4.2 (page 115) and Box 6.2 (page 186). As we noted at the time, the focus of the report’s recommendations is unfortunately on immigrants, not on ‘incumbent Australians’ or the environment. Public hearings on the draft report were held in December. At the Melbourne hearings, the REDUCE IMMIGRATION arguments were made persuasively by several speakers who out-numbered those from the pro-immigration lobby. Submissions and transcripts are available on the Commission’s website. We await the final report in March 2016.
  • Plebiscites are an excellent way to assess public opinion as a guide to government action. Earlier this year we canvassed the idea of a REDUCE IMMIGRATION Yes/No plebiscite not long before (then) PM Tony Abbott rightly decided the people should have a say on the (less important than immigration levels) issue of  ‘Gay Marriage’. We have made sure the PM and many others have received our communications on the REDUCE IMMIGRATION plebiscite. We hope for its eventual inclusion!

If Only…

This year, if only they had known about the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign, 7,199,273 Australian voters would have had the opportunity to send the REDUCE IMMIGRATION message through the electoral process (not counting local government polls). These were the people who lodged formal votes at the New South Wales state election (4,404,334), the Queensland state election (2,623,443), and at federal by-elections in Canning WA (89,717) and North Sydney (81,779).

If only a number of high-profile people and organisations who are on the public record as having concerns about Australia’s immigration-driven population growth had spoken up about this non-partisan campaign! For reasons not clear to us, the following have been dismissive up to now about the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign: Dick Smith, Graham Turner, Bob Carr, Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe, Ross Gittins, Andrew Bolt, Rita Panahi, Tom Elliott, William Bourke, Kelvin Thompson, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Greens, Sustainable Population Australia and the Sustainable Population Party. Feel free to pester them on this issue!

Looking Ahead…

A federal election is due at some stage in 2016. Also, the Northern Territory is expected to go to the polls on 27 August 2016 and the Australian Capital Territory on 15 October 2016. See how to participate in the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign, and check our FAQ page for further information.

We encourage all readers to spread news of the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign to friends, family, elected representatives and influential leaders.

Happy New Year!

Bigger #Australia, faster? Why? We have already overshot our @UN 1987 Population Card projections

Back in the 1980s, the United Nations Population Fund requested the 165 UN member states and observer states to submit their projections for national population growth.

The assembled data was presented through the ‘Population Card’, a then state-of-the-art computerised calculator. The size of a credit card, this neat digital device allows people to check the rapid increase of global and national populations through to 2020. It came stylishly boxed with a helpful manual in three languages.


Double-click on our photos to enlarge the images.

This intriguing device was rightly praised by John Tanton in The Social Contract in 1991. Since then, however, it seems to have disappeared from public consciousness, even on the internet. We can’t find it preserved by major libraries, nor does it appear to have become a collectable. We therefore want to share this rare gem with you.

We checked the Card today (28 October 2015). It shows Australia’s (1987 anticipated) population for today as being 21,828,058:


Today’s official population for Australia is actually 23,912,665. That’s an overshoot of 2,084,607, or 9.6% more than the UN Card’s prediction! (Check our source and calculations for yourself – obviously, the population will have increased by the time you read this post!) The long-ago forward projections on Australia’s population growth have been seriously overshot.

We know that Australia has been politically committed to increasing its population through mass immigration since WW2. The present rate of increase is 1.4% (source: Australian Bureau of Statistics).

Our Bibliography illustrates that Australia is not coping with its current rapid population expansion, 60% of which is immigration-induced.

Rapid population growth matters to Australia, but does our growth matter to the rest of the world? Not really! With much else to concern them, the rest of the world wouldn’t care one way or the other. But what about Australia’s friends in the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance, and how have their populations expanded? In alphabetical order, here are the 1987 projections for Canada, New Zealand, UK and USA, set against real-time contemporary data from each nation’s official ‘population clock’.


1987 projection for Canada today: 31,862,450
2015 official count for today: 35,851,774 (source)
This means that the Canadian overshoot is 3,989,324, or 12.5% more than the UN Card’s prediction!


1987 projection for New Zealand today: 4,063,429
2015 official count for today: 4,627,269 (source)
This means that the NZ overshoot is 563,840, or 13.9% more than the UN Card’s prediction!


1987 projection for the United Kingdom today: 58,192,236
2015 official count for today: 64,971,075 (source)
This means that the UK overshoot is 6,778,839, or 11.6% more than the UN Card’s prediction!


1987 projection for the United States of America today: 294,164,789
2015 official count for today: 322,045,200 (source)
This means that the USA overshoot is 27,880,411, or 9.5% more than the UN Card’s prediction!

Not every advanced nation has experienced the sort of growth that the Five Eyes nations have experienced. Japan, for example, has not reached its statisticians’ expectations. The Population Card predicted 139,247,705, but the reality is that Japan’s official population now is only 126,904,000 (source), and Japan still sensibly eschews mass immigration.

World population ‘league tables’ currently rank Australia at 52 in a list of 257 countries (source: Wikipedia) or 51 in a list of 200 (source: Worldometers). Are all those many countries with populations smaller than Australia’s obsessively seeking to expand through open-ended mass-migration programs? No, they aren’t.

Indeed, most countries in the world sensibly don’t do mass immigration. We need to REDUCE IMMIGRATION here. In fact, now that we see how far ahead of the projections we’ve moved, and now that we live with the consequences of high mass immigration, perhaps a complete moratorium on all immigration to Australia would be a good idea.

Voters at this weekend’s Victorian by-elections, or the federal North Sydney by-election on 5 December, should use these opportunities to write REDUCE IMMIGRATION in the blank space atop their ballot papers. (Learn more about how to do this.)


Below are the introductory pages from the explanatory manual that accompanies the UN Population Card. We can check the 1987 projections for other countries, on request.