You are here

Australian elites conducting invasion via immigration - See the stats

Australia's population growth has exceeded every other major developed nation over the last decade. Political & economic elites are flooding our country with immigrants for the purpose of lowering wages and increasing demand for real estate and headline GDP growth. Disgraceful. In Dick Smith’s words: We are conducting a risky experiment that has no parallel among developed nations, with a population growth rate that exceeds most developing countries. https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-risky-experiment-that-has-no-parallel-among-developed-nations-20180327-p4z6h7.html

Although extinctions are accelerating, our green spaces are disappearing, our housing is unaffordable, our traffic is choked, state governments continue to advertise for more and more immigrants. It is false advertising and it is subversive to democracy. The screenshot below is of the Victorian State Government's immigration portal, "LiveinMelbourne," where it advertises as if Victoria had no problems, as if Victorians had given it permission, for more and more people to come and live here. Do you think our government is fit to govern a democracy?

Comments

The areas in Australia where most of us live are changing so rapidly that we can see it on a day to day level. Building and road works are ubiquitous. Every day you see another house demolished and a sign up advertising generic "architecture" townhouses to be built. Yesterday I saw a huge shadow that I had never seen before covering a road cast by a new 16 sorry apartment building where previously all was low rise, no more than 2 storeys. Trees in the city are being felled like ninepins for road widening. The prospect of giant road projects dangle in front of Melbournians, promising to ease their daly struggle to get to work. These road projects come at enormous cost to the environment; compulsory acquisition of houses, loss of parkland, loss of bushland. One cannot help but be aware of it every day. It is all because of Australia's very high immigration which more than doubles what would be its population growth if it only had to cater for its own natural increase. We are paying dearly for this.

but for what? We are not getting anything for all this suffering. We don't profit, but we pay. Who profits? The people running the show for their benefit. It's easy to spot them because they are always trying to justify more immigration and they never deal with the subject of wildlife corridors.

Yes we are paying for population growth we never bought or signed up for, do not need and do not want. The current high level of population growth is detrimental to us in every way.

New Zealand Government has a conscience - not Australia.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/new-zealand-homes-not-for-sale-to-foreigners-under-new-pm_1

New Zealand homes 'not for sale' to foreigners under new PM ------BEWARE MALCOLM TURDBULL
Something went wrong, we can’t find this video

Overseas buyers will no longer be allowed to purchase existing homes in New Zealand, Prime Minister-elect Jacinda Ardern said Tuesday, as she unveiled a raft of policy deals made with her coalition partners.

Updated Updated 25 October 2017

The move to tackle soaring property prices was agreed during lengthy negotiations between the Labour Party leader and populist powerbroker Winston Peters to form a new government that also includes the Green Party.

Ardern announced plans to slash immigration and focus on regional development and job creation.

"We have agreed on banning the purchase of existing homes by foreign buyers," she said, specifying that the new rules only applied to non-residents.

"(We) also have plans around farmland and other critical infrastructure," she added.

Some choice replies to another Sydney Morning Herald growth propaganda article by Jane Fitzgerald (Property Council NSW - "Don't shy away from a bigger Sydney") at https://www.smh.com.au/national/growth-is-not-inevitable-and-we-need-more-say-20180409-p4z8mg.html

"Growth is not inevitable and we need more say"
I appreciate Jane Fitzgerald's comments on how Sydney should grow ("Don't shy away from a bigger Sydney", April 9). What I don't appreciate is the inference that this growth is inevitable. The population explosion in Sydney and Melbourne is a result of the government's determination to increase the number of immigrants to rates that many observers have noted are unsustainable. The state governments are struggling to put the requisite infrastructure in place. Perversely the major political parties refuse to engage with Australian voters about this rush to a "big Australia". Contrary to what Ms Fitzgerald states, we do need to debate about this issue. Politicians need to engage with communities, not developers, about the rising rates of migration and explicitly state what their policies are, that way, the Australian voting public can make its voice heard. The silence from Canberra on this topic is deafening. - Deborah Pelser, Killara

Fitzgerald makes it clear that the Property Council definitely does not want two things: a "debate about immigration" (population), and "another inquiry". Well, we already knew that. What we don't know, but suspect, is how much better and more liveable Sydney could be if the same planning expertise and infrastructure expenditure was directed at more manageable population targets. Without blind and endless "growth" we would have pleasant transport options, accessible playing fields and beaches, beautiful pockets of urban bushland, and fewer bitter and frustrated young people. - Norman Carter, Roseville Chase

Fitzgerald's optimism about the future planning of Sydney must be based more on hope than evidence. We have had multiple plans since the original County of Cumberland Planning Scheme in the dim distant past, but none of them has led to an efficient people-friendly environmentally sustainable city, and there is no reason to suppose that the new plan will have an outcome any different from the one we are experiencing. As for local environmental plans showing the way to a new future, these are almost invariably backward-looking unimaginative pieces of bureaucratic stodge designed to protect the status quo and fiercely resistant to any innovation. Occasionally, a "courageous" minister will override some of the more egregious development obstacles in these documents, but it's not something to be relied on. If we had a proactive Department of Planning, there might be some possibility of change, but the present somnolent organisation generates expectations only of more of the same. - Bruce Hyland, Woy Woy

Unfortunately the word "plan" is starting to send shivers down the spines of Sydneysiders. "Planning" means more chaos, costs, cranes and ever increasing traffic, noise and people. It also means dynamic and sudden change in the local environment – traffic snarls on the trip to the local shopping centre, inability to find a parking spot there, gross overdevelopment of suburban blocks featuring concrete and treeless spaces where once stood heritage bungalows and Queen Anne architecture. No amount of hype will convince some of us that a "Greater Sydney" is "just as it has always grown". We need transparent and inclusive debate on this issue. - Vanessa Tennent, Oatley

The vacuous overdevelopment of Sydney was brilliantly summed up by this one sentence in the Domain magazine about the three high-rise apartments about to engulf Epping: "A grove of trees and bespoke street furniture reinterprets the orchards that once stood in Epping" (April 7-8). The entire city is currently under "reinterpretation" where open spaces are being replaced by these dreadful, landlocked leviathans and "bespoke furniture". Make. It. Stop. - DiAnne McDonald, Narrabeen

" Unfortunately the word "plan" is starting to send shivers down the spines of Sydneysiders. "Planning" means more chaos, costs, cranes and ever increasing traffic, noise and people." writes DiAnne McDonald. The divisive and deceptive word "plan" is not actually about planning, or common-sense fore-sight into happy and sustainable cities, but overloading them! What is "plan" to them is about crowding, over-developing and deriving maximum profits from suburbs - as the economic resource of property developers. The plan is no plan- but keep filling and bemoan after that "we" are not building enough infrastructure.
True planning would be to build and pre-design infrastructure first, then open the flood gates to more people in the appropriate numbers. The govt at Federal, State and Council levels have surrendered to the property industry, and with our economy stagnating, housing and real estate has become the only one activity that's booming.

With the cost of land and rent, driving up salaries and driving profit margins down, and making us unviable competitors on the international market, what other industry but land-sales is possible. Our country is driven by a land speculating mafia.

Herald Sun Article by Rita Panahi, Let's heed public opinion on migration

IT says something about the sorry state of Australian politics that issues as crucial as immigration and population are deemed too difficult for public debate.

In the vacuum left by gutless Coalition and Labor politicians, the likes of One Nation and lobby groups such as Dick Smith’s Fair Go are weighing in.

But for how much longer will mainstream politicians ignore the will of the majority to push ahead with a “big Australia” strategy?

As it stands, the population will be boosted by up to 190,000 permanent residents this year, plus 18,750 admitted under the humanitarian program.

Add to that figure the hundreds of thousands more who come here as temporary migrants, including those on student visas, 457-skilled temporary worker visas and working holiday maker visas.

Every single one of those people adds to the congestion on the roads and the demand for housing and services such as health care.

Of course, those migrants who work make a vital economic contribution and help alleviate the impact of our ageing population, which sees the burden of the growing welfare bill carried by a shrinking percentage of taxpayers.

It is clear that some migrant groups are better than others in overcoming language barriers, finding work and assimilating — but more on that later.

One of the many advantages of being an island nation, with sound border protection policies and a relatively low birth rate, is that we can control precisely how big and how quickly to grow. What should Australia’s population be in 2030, 2050 and beyond? Do we want to grow to a nation of more than 40 million, or is the ideal population closer to 25 million?

On current estimates, the population will have grown to 37.5—41.5 million by 2050.

That’s fine for those of us who support high immigration and growth, but the reality is that we are in the minority.

A number of polls have shown a clear majority want to curb immigration. Voters having two broad concerns about our current intake: the volume and the mix.

A 2017 survey commissioned by the Australian Population Research Institute showed three in four voters believed we were “full” and did not support any further population growth.

Read more about that study here: "Betts & Birrell: Australian voters’ views on immigration policy: Full Report".

Read more of the Rita Panahi article (behind a pay wall) here:http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi/rita-panahi-lets-heed-public-opinion-on-migration/news-story/f3bcbd6dff6e81967719899ad9dadbfc