You are here

Australians were never asked and never gave permission for today's mass immigration

Orderly immigration or Organised invasion?

Flattr this

Would someone please fill us in about this claim that Australians have agreed to what seems to many to be an organised invasion of legal immigrants for the profit of the housing, finance and infrastructure moguls?

Sheridan writes,

"Paul Kelly argues in his The March of Patriots that there is a bargain between the Australian people and their governments. The Australian people accept a big, diverse and in many respects generous immigration program, so long as it is orderly and well controlled by the government." (Population growth lobbyist, Greg Sheridan, The Australian about his 'esteemed colleague' and fellow population-growth barracker, Paul Kelly of the Australian.)

I don't know anyone who was actually asked and the subject wasn't on the menu during the elections (which were mostly conducted by the mainstream press as usual).

This article "Boatpeople paint PM into corner" by Greg Sheridan is a rich source for a researcher into population growth lobby tactics and media propaganda.

Boat people and racio-ethnicity line a distraction from oversized legal immigration

Firstly we should note that boat people are again hitting the headlines, just at the time when MP Kelvin Thomson and others are coming out criticising high legal (but undemocratic) immigration and its unmanageable and disorderly consequences.

We've been here before.

This is probably no coincidence. It is useful to take our minds off the real issues.

Sheridan's article manages to talk about immigration at length as if the only real problems associated with it might be those related to asylum seekers arriving by boat. Never does it mention the terrible human overpopulation and infrastructure expansion stretching Australia's natural systems to breaking point. The comments allowed under the article favour the racial-ethnic criticism line, which sophisticated readers might be able to work out is a way for the growth lobby to stigmatise most discussion about high immigration as motivated by racial intolerance. That is, if you only publish comments objecting to the racial or ethnic composition of Australia's immigration stream, then you can give the impression that only racist Australians object to high immigration.

In other mediums like, there is, however, plenty of evidence of political and environmental pressure in response to high legal immigration rising like a bubbling stream of magma seeking the surface. The Australian, however, gives very little exposure to comments and protests about these impacts of legal population growth, thus giving a false impression to readers.

How to tell the difference between Rudd's and Howard's policies

Apart from the fact that Kevin Rudd and John Howard look different from each other - a child could probably tell them apart physically - the average adult might already have some trouble telling their asylum-seeker policies apart. In his article, Sheridan sets about trying to establish some difference, but the words are clumsy and unconvincing:

"Rudd is absolutely right to take a tough line against illegal immigration. Those who criticise him for doing so and saying so, such as the normally sound Labor MP Michael Danby, or those who cannot bring themselves to embrace the Prime Minister's language, such as Foreign Minister Stephen Smith in a remarkably evasive and feeble performance on Lateline, merely show how much better, shrewder and braver than the Labor Party Rudd is.

There is a reason this government is so dominated by its PM."

It doesn't matter if the job is hard and the materials poor. If you repeat that Rudd is 'right to take a tough line against illegal immigration' often enough, people will begin to think that this is somehow the crucial point of Australia's population policy.

There is a gem here, though, which you might miss if you began to nod off before you got to the end of the article (and who could blame you)?

Right at the end, Sheridan writes this amazing assertion, that Rudd is

"much better, shrewder and braver than the Labor Party"

What does this tell the alert observer? Well, it sounds to me like a message to the old Liberal-National voters who worry that the ALP has got in and that dear old Howard got the boot. It's telling them, "You don't need to worry. Rudd isn't really the Labor Party. It isn't really a Labor Government as long as Rudd 'dominates' it.

Clearly the Murdoch Press is pleased with Kevin Rudd's performance to date and they don't regret the departure of Howard, although they know that some of their readers still do.

On the other hand, what should Labor sympathisers think about this?

In my opinion, they should be worried! If they weren't already. But not because of Rudd's attitude to asylum seekers. They should be worried that Rudd is overpopulating this country legally to the satisfaction of the growth lobby. As if that were not bad enough, he shows contempt for refugees by allowing a gigantic stream of legal immigrants in but almost no refugees. If that doesn't tell you that the main interest the growth lobby has in immigrants is their money, then you are not reading the signs correctly.

At the same time we can see that Mr Sheridan has become an apologist for geographically distant refugee determination detention facilities because Mr Rudd is running into problems accommodating asylum-seekers.

"There are hard truths in this debate. Let me confess my own sins. When the Howard government introduced the Pacific solution, I was virulently opposed to it. I thought it was inhumane and wouldn't work. In fact, it did work. It also became clear to me the vast majority of people intercepted were not refugees but illegal immigrants."

Mr Rudd is also running into problems accommodating Australians, so perhaps we will soon hear that a few gulags will be built to house the more unruly homeless and unemployed, not to mention those who demand democratic government, under those Howard government terrorism laws that the Rudd government also embraces.


Great article, Sheila.

You wrote:

Clearly the Murdoch Press is pleased with Kevin Rudd's performance to date and they don't regret the departure of Howard, although they know that some of their readers still do.

My own view is that the Murdoch press would have preferred that Howard win the 2007 election. Of course, they make much of their editiorials immediately prior to the election (Thursday in the Courier Mail as I recollect), after much ostensible weighing up of the relative merits of the two supposedly 'worthy candidates', calling for a vote for Mr. Rudd

Clearly, to maintain their value as propaganda organs, the Australian the Courier-Mail and other Murdoch papers have to, on occasions, tell the truth and appear to take the side of the people.

They did the latter prior to the 2007 elections.

If they had not, and had overtly supported, yet again, the lying, incompetent, and malevolent Howard Government, their ability to subsequenlty fool public opinion and to corral the Rudd Government into accepting its agenda would have been far more limited.

It seems more than likely than not that they judged that they could not save Howard's miserable hide, yet again, in 2007. In fact, to me, it seems more likely that overt support for Howard by the Murdoch Press in the 2007 elections may actually have worked against him.

So, instead they hedged their bets.

In fact, given the mountain of scandals against the Howard Government, the Murdoch press was indeed heavily biased in favour of Howard Government. As one of many examples I could give: remember the AWB scandal, in which the Howard Governmnt allowed AU$296 of bribe money to be paid to the same regime of Saddam Hussein that, in 2003, it insisted was such a mortal threat to world peace, that we were left with no choice but to immediately invade Iraq then and there? Like most Australians, I believe that Howard and Downer knew precisely what was going on all along and, therefore, belong behind bars. However the Australian, feigning astonishing gullibility, insisted that it was all the fault of the AWB bosses and that Howard and Downer had truly been kept in the dark.

Even if the Australian could possibly have accepted such a tall story, at the very least it owed to its readers to remind them, and repeatedly remind them, until election day that it was unfit to hold office. Given its role in bringing about the early election that resulted in the removal of the Whitlam Government in 1975 for alleged incompetence of a far smaller magnitude, why didn't it demand new elections then and there?

The fact that the Howard Government ever stood a chance of being re-elected after the essential truth of the AWB scandal became known is an indication of the media's, and in particular, the Murdoch media's, blatant bias in favour of John Howard that continued right up to election day in 2007. (Some may be interested in a post I wrote arguing essentially the same on an Online Opinion disscussion forum in response to the article "Judging Howard" by Chris Lewis of 7 Sep 09.)

The fact that the Australian's strategy of hedging its bets now seems to have paid off shouldn't therefore be taken as proof that they prefer Labor over the Coalition. However rotten Federal Labor in Government may be, it still appears to be subject to more constraints from their grass roots membership and trade union base, from behaving like the tyrannical feudal despots that the Coalition in Government has shown itself to be.

So, even though a Federal Labor Government may not be ideal for Murdoch, it's a damn good consolation prize.

Given a few more months of Federal Labor incompetence and trampling on its own support base, having them thrown out and replaced by the more trusty Coalition Federal Government should not pose an inordinately difficult challenge to the Murdoch Press, that is unless, we remain vigilant against it.

It's important that we do what we can to prevent the Murdoch Press orchestrating political events to suit its own agenda as it has many times in the past. However much we rightly feel revulsion at the Rudd Government we should not allow ourselves to automatically fall into line behind any future demands by the Mrudoch press for its removal.

Of course, what has to be done is to build a viable political alternative to both the Coalition and Labor. The Greens still appear, in spite of havinn almost countless opportunities handed to them on platters in recent decades, incapable of becoming that alternative. So it seems that that alternative will have to come from elsewhere.

Hi James,
Well, what you say about the Wheatboard scandal reminds me of another thing that the Murdoch press favour - privatisation - and its role in placing the Wheatboard beyond the control of government and the courts. (I am not sure what role this may or may not have played in the AWB scandal - do you know?)

Here is the article:

Justice Michael Kirby on
Why Privatisation is wrong
(reproduced below)

The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG*, went to the trouble in 2006 to warn1 Australians about the dangers of privatization removing important government functions to a position beyond the laws made to administer them fairly.

He said “The ‘commercialisation’ of the public sector means that isolating the activities and decisions of government from those of the private sector is becoming a more complicated, and sometimes, seemingly, an impossible exercise.”(p.3)

“The exercise of public power is fundamentally different in character to the making of a decision in a purely private context. Decisions are then being made on behalf of the people, typically involving the use of money raised from, and power derived from, the people. Higher standards of accountability and responsibility are therefore attached to the decisionmaker. Public power imports public accountability, including before the courts.” (p.4)

“This reduction in accountability is a result of removing control over day-to-day actions and decisions from the relevant Minister and government departments to private sector bodies whose ultimate legal responsibility is to their shareholders, rather than to the public interest more generally.” (p.6)

He goes on to describe the outcome of a series of cases involving the High Court where the law encountered problems in getting public accountability. This problem arose in NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 277. It involved officials of the Wheat Board who had refused six applications from another trader(NEAT) to export bulk wheat. The AWB had acquired through its creation by government, the power to prevent by veto bulk wheat exports from Australia. It could do this by withholding approval. The power to approve or veto exports normally belongs to a government body because it is a legal power. As such it is normally reviewable and controllable through the courts. That is, the judicial representatives of “we the public” can ensure that Australian trade is conducted fairly.

The outcome of this case was that Australians had lost the power to control the nation’s wheat exports by giving that power to this private body.

Because of this case, and others, it seems very wrong for Mr Carr, Mr Keating, the Murdoch Press and the many others we hear of to be urging Mr Iemma to privatize electricity against the will of the bulk of the NSW electorate and the NSW Labor Party.

The government has given up a great deal of control to corporations in the area of banking (through deregulation) and the banks have become too strong to effectively control. There seems every reason for Australians to disbelieve reassurances that all will be well with the corporatisation and privatization of electricity, water, ports and municipal government functions and assets.

Privatisation means transferring the powers conferred by ownership of an influential or vital asset or trade from elected government to private individuals. The only reason government gained control of them in the first place was because communities gave them that control. The communities did not ever give them the power to transfer those assets and resources. This power has been achieved without real consent. In the case of our electricity, water and savings, this means that we are (involuntarily) giving up control over resources and assets upon which our comfort and ultimately our lives depend.

Peoples form governments to protect them from this kind of situation yet our State and Federal governments are gradually removing the protections they were created to provide.

This is a bad thing and Australians have reason for grave concern.

Justice Kirby concluded, “It is no good Australia preaching good governance of other lands if it neglects the issue at home.

“I commend a reflection upon these aspects of governance to all participants in this conference concerned with the basic parameters of accountability in the deployment of public power. Public power and the use of public funds beget the need for public accountability. We should never forget or neglect this basic rule.” (p.14)

But most Australians have either forgotten or given up on this simple rule.
The speech referred to was by Justice Kirby, in the University of Canberra, Corporate Governnace ARC Research Project, Corporate Governance in the Public Sector Dinner, High Court of Australia, Canberra, 9 March 2006. The speech is downloadable from here as 53K pdf file.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

In Bill Hoffman's article, "Boat people not the issue", he mentions the $15,000 per head paid by the Tamils to get on the boat for Australia, I think this is the same number that has been quoted widely in the media.

In the article from The Australian, it says immigration agents have been asking for up to $18,000 to create a fictitious loan as evidence that student visa applicants from the subcontinent had the means to study in Australia. Looks like there is a an easier and quiter way of making it to our shores than a rickety boat. There is no mention in the article of how many student visa applicants slipped through the net using this fraud.

Bogus loans used in student visa scam

Guy Healy, Higher education writer | October 24, 2009
Article from: The Australian

FALSIFIED Indian bank and loan statements are being used to underwrite a people-smuggling operation centred on student visas, forcing the cancellation of at least 500 applications from Indian nationals....

The following is from an article, "'A Parcel of Rogues' Musical Interlude" on the blog Mild Colonial Boy, which includes an excerpt from this article.

The Corries — Such a Parcel Of Rogues in the Nation

The Corries sing a poem of Robert Burns written in 1791 to protest the Acts of Union 1707. Some Scots, such as Robert Burns, saw it as an act of betrayal by a traitorous Political Elite handing over Scotland to alien masters.

Some Readers may see parallels to the Australia of today with it’s Political Elites’ handing Australia over to the whims of foreigners through the bipartisan policies of high Immigration and Multiculturalism at the expense of traditional Australia.

Such a Parcel Of Rogues in the Nation

by Robert Burns

Fareweel to a’ our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory!
Fareweel ev’n to the Scottish name.
Sae famed in martial story!
Now Sark rins over Salway sands,
An’ Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England’s province stands --
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

What force or guile could not subdue
Thro’ many warlike ages
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitor’s wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valour’s station;
But English gold has been our bane --
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

O, would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay
Wi’ Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour
I’ll mak this declaration :-
‘We’re bought and sold for English gold’--
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!