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.

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.


 

Note:

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

2016 #Ausvotes: the ‘complaint box’ on immigration isn’t working

As the counting of votes in the 2 July Australian federal election approaches conclusion, we congratulate the candidates who declared their commitment to a lower rate of immigration. It was pleasing to note the increased spread of candidates and registered parties with policies to reduce immigration by one means or another.

At the foot of this post are their results as at 30 July. These results suggest that people vote to elect a government rather than devote their primary vote to a single issue – even if it’s an over-arching issue like immigration.

We tried to help by offering a non-partisan focus. We emailed our website’s REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on message to various parties and independent candidates standing on high immigration and multicultural policy related concerns but received no real feedback. From what we could observe of their platforms and concerns on-line, we found no evidence of any of them spreading the word which could so easily have informed vast numbers of similarly concerned voters across the entire political spectrum on how to help themselves by simply writing REDUCE IMMIGRATION atop ballot papers…

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party did well in the polls, and anticipates gaining three seats in the Senate. They have the advantage of having a media-created, high public profile over the last two decades. Their recent electoral revival is likely to be partly due to that factor, and partly because the electorate wanted to lodge a protest vote to express general dissatisfaction with the Coalition / Labor bipartisan status quo on a whole range of serious issues.

We also know that during the 2013 federal election campaign Pauline Hanson ignorantly and specifically rejected the RI write-on idea on the erroneous notion that it would make such votes invalid (see: https://reduceimmigration.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/setting-the-record-straight-re-origin-of-temporary-protection-visas).

This sort of know-it-all mixture of ignorance, partisan obstinacy and mismanagement has long been Hanson’s Achilles heel. There are 14 million out of 15 million voters out there to whom Hanson does not appeal. We know the majority millions of immigration sceptics are spread throughout both the major parties’ voters and the wider spectrum, and that if they knew about the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on, they’d do it.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party targeted Muslim immigration this time around because the party acknowledges nationwide concern about the socio-cultural impact of non-Western migration. By contrast, the Sustainable Australia (SA) party expressed the environmental impact and infrastructure establishment costs of high migration well, and with substantial advertising for the first time, but underplayed the socio-cultural consequences deliberately.

According to a SA party post-election email on 6 July, “Pauline Hanson and Derryn Hinch and Nick Xenophon ate our lunch. We had picked the right issue – immigration, on which to make big inroads. News Ltd research showed it was in the top three concerns for the Australian electorate going into the last week. Our whole campaign was tailored to catch this wave of community concern about the record immigration intake.”

The real problem was identified by Geoffrey Blainey in his landmark book, All for Australia (1984). It is well worth re-reading, both for its insights into the way governments and trade unions brought about a massive policy shift, and for the sense that little has changed over the intervening 32 years – except that migrant numbers and the diversity of their source countries have increased further, and the migrants are being settled more widely across Australia, not only in particular suburbs of capital city metropolitan areas. On pages 141-2 of his excellent book, Blainey asked ‘Where is the complaint box?’:

The newcomers have been told their rights and been given government money to set up their ethnic organizations, and told how to make their protests and express themselves. The old Australians in contrast are no longer sure what rights they possess. Their dissent is now concentrated on private talk and indignation expressed amongst friends … in the name of Tolerance, an intolerance has been imposed by those powerful respectable civic authorities coming from outside the affected suburbs.

An obvious channel for complaints against unpopular policy is the ballot box – but this is effective as a ‘complaint box’ only if the parties are well organised, their policies are framed with intelligence, and the vote is not split across myriad small groups. Since Blainey wrote, a variety of political parties and movements have attempted to harness the public concern sparked by Australia’s high net overseas immigration rate. A highlight was the Australians Against Further Immigration party (AAFI).

From 1990 to late 1996, AAFI contested three Federal Elections and nearly every by-election in between. It attracted lies and misrepresentation, but also the attention and staunch support Graeme Campbell, MHR, Kalgoorlie. In the first by-election AAFI contested on 11 May 1991, Menzies in Victoria, the AAFI vote was 6.8% (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menzies_by-election,_1991)- ‘…a creditable vote for a new and mildly controversial small party, its result close to a translatable quota in a double dissolution full senate election scenario…’ said Pru Goward when interviewing the AAFI Menzies by-election candidate on ABC radio the Monday after the election, and the 9 TV network’s 60 Minutes segment of June 1991 on AAFI’s Menzies result and consequent critique of high mass immigration presented by Jeff McMullen was informative, understanding, and supportive of AAFI’s stance. A AAFI candidate first out polled the Democrats at the South Australian Bonython by-election with 6.82% on 19 March 1994 and another AAFI candidate in the NSW Warringah by-election the next week, 26 March 1994 garnered 13.5%.

In 2016, the Australian electorate has, once again, largely bypassed the opportunity to vote for the candidates who want immigration reduced.

Would they have loved to write REDUCE IMMIGRATION atop their ballot papers on polling day if the mainstream media had had the honesty to discuss the utility of the write-on campaign? They sure would have. Do have a look at the meagre coverage we were able to squeeze for the RI write-on this time around:
https://reduceimmigration.wordpress.com/links/media-coverage-relating-to-the-campaign/

As regular readers of this site know, every election, anywhere, any level – local, state, federal – gives voters the opportunity to write the REDUCE IMMIGRATION message on ballot papers. This is a far better, real, available, extant, anonymous, quantifiable approach. It is already a powerful version of Professor Blainey’s ‘complaint box’.

If only each party and candidate supporting a lower rate of immigration would also promote the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on concept, then scrutineers, the media, the parties and therefore the politicians would take note of the widespread public concern and we might see improved policy action by governments.


 

Election results as at 30 July 2016

These are the candidates who stood on a ‘reduce immigration’ platform, as far as we are aware. Please contact us if we have inadvertently omitted any others.

 

Australia First

3.03%       Susan Jakobi (House of Representatives, Lalor, Vic)

2.09%       Victor Waterson (House of Representatives, McMahon, NSW)

1.46%       John Kearney (House of Representatives, Solomon, NT)

1.20%       Jim Saleam (House of Representatives, Lindsay, NSW)

0.22%       Brian McRea & Lyn Vickery (Senate team for WA)

 

Australian Liberty Alliance

6.08%       Ron Pike (House of Representatives, Farrer, NSW)

3.59%       Tony Duncan (House of Representatives, Bowman, Qld)

3.52%       John Spellman (House of Representatives, Fisher, Qld)

3.46%       Shaun Spain (House of Representatives, Forde, Qld)

2.36%       Steve Roddick (House of Representatives, Lindsay, NSW)

1.92%       Peter Kelly (House of Representatives, Bradfield, NSW)

1.88%       Rob Windred (House of Representatives, Hinkler, Qld)

1.85%       Carl Halley (House of Representatives, Macquarie, NSW)

1.80%       David Archibald (House of Representatives, Curtin, WA)

1.61%       Matt Darragh (House of Representatives, Griffith, Qld)

1.11%       Debbie Robinson & Dr Marion Hercock (Senate team for WA)

1.07%       Bernard Gaynor, Alan Biggs & Chelle Dobson (Senate team for Qld)

0.94%       Caleb Wells (House of Representatives, Longman, Qld)

0.66%       Kirralie Smith & Gary ‘Angry’ Anderson (Senate team for NSW)

0.65%       Daniel Jones (Senate candidate for Vic)

0.42%       Wanda Marsh (Senate candidate for SA)

0.33%       Tony Robinson (Senate candidate for Tas)

 

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation

20.90%     Rod Smith (House of Representatives, Wright, Qld)

19.16%     Damian Huxham (House of Representatives, Hinkler, Qld)

17.83%     Lynette Keehn (House of Representatives, Maranoa, Qld)

17.15%     Phil Baker (House of Representatives, Flynn, Qld)

15.60%     Elise Cottam (House of Representatives, Wide Bay, Qld)

15.58%     Troy Aggett (House of Representatives, Blair, Qld)

13.53%     Geoff Virgo (House of Representatives, Herbert, Qld)

13.05%     Graham Burston (House of Representatives, Paterson, NSW)

11.96%     Brenden Ball (House of Representatives, Fadden, Qld)

9.74%       Robert Pasquali (House of Representatives, Fairfax, Qld)

9.42%       Michelle Pedersen (House of Representatives, Longman, Qld)

9.14%       Pauline Hanson, Judy Smith, Fraser Anning & Malcolm Roberts (Senate team for Qld)

8.61%       Carter Edwards (House of Representatives, Dobell, NSW)

8.42%       Brad Trussell (House of Representatives, Oxley, Qld)

7.63%       Peter Rogers (House of Representatives, Leichhardt, Qld)

6.26%       Neil Smith (House of Representatives, Richmond, NSW)

4.09%       Brian Burston, Dean Mackin & Christine Bernier (Senate team for NSW)

4.02%       Peter Georgiou, Rodney Culleton & Ionna Culleton (Senate team for WA)

3.01%       Steven Burgess & Angelina Nicolis (Senate team for SA)

2.57%       Natasia Manzi & Kate McCulloch (Senate team for Tas)

1.83%       Ian Cameron & Simon Roylance (Senate team for Vic)

 

Sustainable Australia

1.05%       John Haydon & Martin Tye (Senate team for ACT)

0.69%       Chris Spike (House of Representatives, Sydney, NSW)

0.30%       Georgia Nicholls & Steven Armstrong (Senate team for Vic)

0.20%       Matt Moran & John Roles (Senate team for Qld)

0.17%       Greg Graham & William Bourke (Senate team for NSW)

 

Independents

1.18%       Diane Teasdale (House of Representatives, Murray, Vic)

0.01%       Kim Vuka (Senate candidate for Qld)

Where is #reduceimmigration in 2016 election debate? #AUSPOL #AUSVOTES

Congratulations to the British people who exercised their democratic right to express their discontent with continuing membership of the EU. While each individual will have had their own reasons for voting to Leave, it appears that mass immigration and its consequences has been a strong motivating force behind the Brexit result.

Here in Australia, the major parties contesting the federal election on 2 July 2016 have declined invitations to debate one of the biggest policy issues facing our collective future: immigration. (See: Federal election 2016: Coalition, Labor back away from health, immigration debates)

Despite this lack of engagement, we do have fresh opportunities to communicate concern about our current high levels of immigration.

This website was started to support two independent candidates (in Flinders, Victoria) who promoted the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on concept at the 2013 federal election.

Now, we are happy to see the Sustainable Australia party campaigning with its new ‘Lower Immigration’ logo. They are fielding candidates for the Senate (in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria) and for the House of Representatives (in Sydney). We encourage people in those electorates to consider supporting Sustainable Australia.

Wherever you live, and whomever you choose to vote for in the federal election on 2 July, it’s easy to add the words REDUCE IMMIGRATION in the blank space at the top of your ballot papers. For guidance, see our How to and FAQ pages.

The REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign continues! See here for recent media coverage, and visit our Select Bibliography for articles that provide a range of reasons to reduce immigration.

Please share this information with as many Australian voters as you can, in the lead-up to polling day on 2 July. Don’t forget your family, friends, colleagues, Facebook groups and other social media!

Postscript (added 28 June 2016)

A guide to party policies relating to immigration, based on a survey process, has been prepared by Sustainable Population Australia in advance of this federal election and makes interesting reading for all who care about Australia’s future.

#Budget2016 leaves #immigration targets open

This post was updated on 4 May 2016 – see the section inserted at the foot of this article.


Australia’s national budget for 2016-17 was announced this evening (3 May 2016). It claims to present an ‘economic plan’ for Australia’s future. For all the sloganeering about ‘jobs and growth’, however, the Government has failed to deliver full clarity about the size of the population that will help deliver this plan.

Net overseas migration contributes more people annually to Australia’s population than does natural increase (through births). One would therefore expect the Government to pay close attention to the size of its two immigration programs.

The Humanitarian Program targets are clear. As announced last May, 2016-17 will be the final year of a four year run of 13,750 places p.a., supplemented by the extra 12,000 places announced last September to resettle people displaced by conflicts in Syria and lraq. Future increases that were announced last year have been confirmed tonight: Australia can expect 16,250 places in 2017-18 and 18,750 places in 2018-19. But the Key Performance Indicators from last year have been scrapped, and a new Purpose for the program has been unveiled: ‘Manage the movement and stay of people to ensure a cohesive society’.

Source: Portfolio Budget Statement, p. 47,
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 3 May 2016.

Mystery surrounds the future size of the Migration Program as reported in the Portfolio Budget Statement. In this current year (2015-16), the target has been 190,000. For coming years, however, the targets are not specified. Instead of firm figures, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection is coy and opaque:

Purposes [of the program]:
Manage the movement and stay of people to ensure a cohesive society.
Manage the movement of people and goods to ensure a strong economy.

Performance criterion: Australia’s visa programs provide a strong foundation for social cohesion.
Target: The non-skilled component of the managed migration program is delivered within planning levels set by the Government for each category.

Performance criterion: Australia’s visa programs are responsive to the needs of the economy.
Targets: The skilled component of the managed migration program is delivered within planning levels set by the Government for each category.
Migration and temporary entry programs do not increase risks to the safety of the Australian community.

Source: Portfolio Budget Statement, p. 44,
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 3 May 2016.

Given the ability of previous national budgets to declare the annual Migration targets, how should we interpret this lack of specifics about ‘planning levels’?

Either the Government has not yet set its planning levels, or – with an election imminent – it is unwilling to declare them.

Could the public silence relate to what the Government has learned from its recent consultations into the two Programs? The Government has not yet released the findings of its consultation into the Humanitarian Program or its inquiry into Australia’s Migration Intake (#). Perhaps the recommendations from these two investigations are about to influence the new planning levels?

Our submissions to those inquiries (see here and here) called for reductions in each Program because high immigration threatens our economic and environmental sustainability, social cohesion and cultural integrity.

The abstract managerial jargon and obscure ‘planning levels’ used in tonight’s Budget Statement may give the Coalition parties some breathing space to set more tangible targets in the context of their election pledges. Let’s be optimistic and envisage a Coalition policy that promises to REDUCE IMMIGRATION.

What do you think of our analysis? We welcome comments on this website, and feedback via email (reduceimmigration@hotmail.com).

 


(#)   See here for the Productivity Commission’s status report on its inquiry into the migrant intake; we cannot find any similar status report from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection regarding its inquiry into the Humanitarian Program.


UPDATE (4 May 2016): Our wistful optimism last night was ill-founded. We had missed seeing a post-Budget media release from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. It reveals the Migration target for 2016-17. We are sorry to report that there are no surprises. Once again, for the fourth year in a row, the Government has set the target at 190,000. Nevertheless, it’s fascinating that the target hadn’t been agreed on in time for the printing deadline for the official Budget Papers.

We recently noted that Australia’s two immigration programs add the equivalent of Hobart’s population each year. And as Mark Moncrieff points out in his Comment, below, this high growth would deliver an extra 2 million immigrants across a decade if the targets stay constant.

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

 

We’ve lodged our comments on the #Aus #RefugeeCrisis with @DIBPAustralia. Don’t miss Sunday’s deadline!

The REDUCE IMMIGRATION team has made the following submission to the Australian Government’s consultation on the size and composition of the Humanitarian Programme for 2016-17. 

As we alerted our readers last month, the closing date for submissions is Sunday 27 March. We are grateful to those who have copied us in to their emailed submissions. There is still time, so don’t miss this opportunity to have your say!

And if you have any comments on our submission below, then please let us know.


We applaud the Australian Government for making available this opportunity to comment on the size and composition of the Humanitarian Programme for 2016-17.

Our short contribution to the consultation can be expressed in these three words:
Look at Europe.

The contemporary media provides more than ample explanation as to why these three words are important.

An older but still informative resource is the chillingly prophetic novel by Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints, 1973. (Reprinted 1995 by The Social Contract Press). Reviewed here by Denis McCormack in the mid-90s.

Our longer submission responds to your six questions:

(1)   IN YOUR VIEW, HOW MANY PLACES SHOULD AUSTRALIA ATTRIBUTE TO THE OFFSHORE COMPONENT OF ITS HUMANITARIAN PROGRAMME?

The current intake is too high.

We note that the Government has already committed to increase the size of the Programme from the current level of 13,750 places up to 16,250 places in 2017-18 and 18,750 places in 2018-19. In addition, in September 2015 it announced an extra 12,000 places to resettle people displaced by conflicts in Syria and lraq.

We propose an immediate 50% reduction in this Programme, to complement the 50% reduction to the Migration Programme that Bob Carr recommended. (See: James Robertson, ‘Bob Carr calls for Australian immigration to be cut by one half’, The Age, 17 February 2016.)

Many others over several decades have recommended a reduction in both Programmes because immigration adversely affects Australia’s environmental and economic sustainability, social cohesion and cultural integrity. Please see the extensive list of references in the Select Bibliography on our website, addressing the question, ‘Why should immigration be reduced?’

(2)   WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE THE PROPORTION SPLIT BETWEEN THE SPECIAL HUMANITARIAN PROGRAMME AND REFUGEE CATEGORIES IN THE OFFSHORE COMPONENT OF ITS HUMANITARIAN PROGRAMME?

We believe that the SHP is vulnerable to corruption and coercion and therefore recommend that it be cancelled, and that the Refugee categories be allocated 100% of the offshore component.

(3)   TO WHICH REGIONS (AFRICA, ASIA OR MIDDLE EAST) DO YOU THINK MOST PLACES SHOULD BE ALLOCATED?

Assimilation and integration into Australian society and culture has proven to be very difficult for immigrants and refugees from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, evidenced by the articles in our Select Bibliography (see above) and the most recent ethnic gang riots in Melbourne on 12-13 March 2016. We therefore recommend that preference should be given to people from the Commonwealth countries, given that they are more likely to speak English and be attuned to democratic systems of government than applicants from non-Commonwealth countries.

(4)   IN YOUR VIEW, HOW IMPORTANT IS THE WOMAN AT RISK PROGRAMME?

Not important.

(5)   SHOULD THE AVAILABLE PLACES UNDER THE COMMUNITY PROPOSAL PILOT BE INCREASED?

No, the number of places should not be increased at all. In fact, the CPP should not be continued. We believe that the CPP is a dangerous vestige of the last Labor government. It fails to take into account the feelings of the greater Australian community. The CPP is vulnerable to corruption and coercion through bodies such as churches, mosques and the refugee advocacy ‘industry’, and we therefore recommend that it be cancelled.

In the year 2000 at the Australian Demographers’ Association conference, the then Immigration Minister, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, said in his keynote address that refugees were the most expensive component of Australia’s immigration program. He costed them at $20 million per thousand per annum, back then. With inflation, increased expectations and expanded services, these costs must surely have increased substantially.

We believe that communities would be well advised to spend their resources locally rather than on refugees. We also believe that the Australian Government should maintain full control of its immigration programs and refugee selection, regardless of ad hoc community pressures.

(6)   DO YOU HAVE OTHER COMMENTS, PARTICULARLY ON THE OFFSHORE COMPONENT OF THE 2016-17 PROGRAMME?

Many politicians and prominent commentators have long suggested that Australia should push for a radical revision and update of the UN’s Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its later Protocol. (See, for example: The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention (2000).) We concur.

If reform of the Convention is not possible, then Australia should withdraw from it.


We look forward to learning the results of your consultations.

Yours faithfully,

The REDUCE IMMIGRATION team
Email:   reduceimmigration@hotmail.com
Website:   www.reduceimmigration.wordpress.com