Category Archives: Reduce immigration

06.25.16
by

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.

05.03.16
by

#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!

 

03.23.16
by

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

02.18.16
by

Tell @DIBPAustralia what you think about the Humanitarian immigration programme

The Australian Government has called for input from the Australian public on the Humanitarian Programme, including the size and composition of the Programme.

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, last September it announced an extra 12,000 places to resettle people displaced by conflicts in Syria and lraq.

Despite its commitment to high rates of growth, the Government claims that the consultation process will inform its decision-making about program planning and development. We believe that the current growth trajectory, alongside the Migration Programme of 190,000 permanent places in 2015-2016, is unsustainable for Australia. We hope that the Minister will be open to well-argued recommendations to REDUCE IMMIGRATION. Former NSW Premier Bob Carr, for example, told ABC Radio National on 16 February that ‘population growth is a cause of many of our problems and we should halve immigration immediately to combat it’.

To support the consultation process, the Government has released a Humanitarian Programme 2016-17 discussion paper that outlines how the Programme currently operates and provides information on its management, size and composition over previous years. The Programme provides permanent resettlement to those most in need, who are in desperate situation overseas, including in refugee camps and protracted humanitarian situations. Note that regional processing arrangements and Australia’s management of the illegal maritime arrival legacy caseload are not within the scope of this discussion paper or consultation.

The government seeks answers to the following questions:

  1. In your view, how many places should Australia attribute to the offshore component of its Humanitarian Programme?
  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?
  3. To which regions (Africa, Asia or Middle East) do you think most places should be allocated?
  4. In your view, how important is the Woman at Risk programme?
  5. Should the available places under the Community Proposal Pilot be increased?
  6. Do you have other comments, particularly on the offshore component of the 2016-17 Programme?

The government invites interested people and organisations to make written submissions. These should be sent by email to humanitarian.policy@border.gov.au by Sunday 27 March 2016.

Please send the REDUCE IMMIGRATION team a copy of your submission! Our email is: reduceimmigration@hotmail.com

Sources and references:

Media Release, 17 February 2016, from the Hon. Peter Dutton MP, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Departmental webpage [17 February 2016]

Discussion paper: ‘Australia’s Humanitarian Programme 2016-17’

 

02.15.16
by

Immigration brings Australia to #24million – too many, too quickly

In 1987, the United Nations Population Fund produced the ‘Population Card’, a then state-of-the-art computerised calculator. This neat digital device allows people to check the projected increase of global and national populations through to 2020.

Last year, we checked the Card and revealed that the 1987 anticipated population for Australia on 28 October 2015 was 21,828,058. This was a vast under-estimation in comparison to the official Population Clock figure for that date: 23,912,665.

Now, the Australian Bureau of Statistics alerts us to the fact that tomorrow the Population Clock will reach 24 million. Their media release on 15 February 2015 contains much interesting data concerning immigration and population growth.

The government’s current immigration programs (through the Migration Program and the Humanitarian Program) bring in more than 200,000 new residents annually. This is equivalent to adding the population of Hobart each year.

The current high rate of immigration adversely affects our environmental and economic sustainability, social cohesion and cultural integrity.  Immigration affects every level of government because it impacts every aspect of Australian life, including border control, resources, infrastructure, education, plus health, community and human services.

Concerned Australians should write the REDUCE IMMIGRATION message on ballot papers – whether for federal, state or local government elections, or for referendums – so as to reach the attention of policy-makers.

Since we started this website in mid-2013, tens of thousands of readers have visited the site and presumably have found it to be a valuable resource. Their frequent use means that this website tops the list of results when ‘Reduce Immigration’ is typed into any major search engine.  Please share the site, and its information about the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign, with family and friends.

It’s worth noting that no one has contacted us with what they consider to be a better idea than the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign, and there are many positive comments from readers on our pages and posts. Feedback on our work is always welcome!

 

01.24.16
by

This #AustraliaDay, support @RealBobKatter call for cut to mass migration

Let’s all congratulate Bob Katter, MP for the federal electorate of Kennedy in northern Queensland, for adding his voice to the legions who already want our government to REDUCE IMMIGRATION.

In a recent media release, Katter called for ‘a cut to mass migration and for visas to be limited to one-half of the jobs generated annually in Australia’.

Speaking on the steps of Parliament House in Canberra with members of the Jewish and Sikh communities, David Adler and Amar Singh, Katter launched an online petition that gives us all the chance to have our say on issues relating to the current high levels of net overseas immigration.

Mr Katter’s Change.org petition requests the Australian Government to reduce the number of people coming into Australia on ‘term visas’, namely migration visas, s457 and s417 work visas and student visas:

We request that the current level of over 600,000 visas per year be reduced to a number that is one-half of the new jobs generated annually.

This would mean a reduction in the number of “term visas” from 620,000 per year to around 100,000 per year.

Comments made online by those who’ve already signed the petition show that there is strong and thoughtful support for reduced immigration levels and for Mr Katter’s initiative.

This Tuesday, 26 January 2016, is Australia Day, so let’s celebrate by taking a moment to sign the petition, and by sending Mr Katter an email to congratulate and encourage him.

Another method for influencing policy in regard to Australia’s unsustainable high immigration is through a plebiscite, with the necessary bipartisan support. We wrote about this in August 2015. In the current absence of such a strategy, the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on offers ALL voters the best (and only) method to influence decision-makers in all jurisdictions.

During this holiday period, we urge readers to spend a few moments reading our review of some immigration issues of special relevance to Australia during the past year, and our posts on previous Australia Days: in January 2014 we celebrated the opportunities offered by the great Australian innovation of the secret ballot, while in January 2015 we reflected on the admission of a shameful truth – that mass immigration is leading to the ‘benign cultural genocide’ of traditional Australia.

 

12.30.15
by

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!