From Leith van Onselen:
Senator-elect One Nation’s Pauline Hanson dominated news headlines yesterday after she warned of “terrorism on our streets” and suburbs “swamped by Asians”, prompting righteous indignation from all manner of MSM commentators.
The below extract from The Canberra Times captures some of the shenanigans: At a fiery press conference in Brisbane on Monday, Ms Hanson claimed the major parties should respect the large number of votes One Nation pulled, and urged a return to an Australia “where we as a nation had a right to have an opinion and have a say”…… “We are a Christian country and that’s what I’m saying … [former Liberal prime minister] John Howard said we have a right to say who comes into our country and I’m saying exactly the same.”
My simple advice to Ms Hanson is that if she wants to be taken seriously in the immigration debate, then she must dump the racial overture and instead focus on the level of immigration and why it is too high.
The fact that many of us in major cities are stuck in traffic, cannot get a seat on the train, are experiencing crowded hospitals and schools, and cannot afford a home has little to do with race, but rather a high immigration intake that has overwhelmed our cities’ ability to cope with the influx.
….Ms Hanson should also highlight that the system surrounding so-called skilled and student visas has been corrupted, with widespread rorting and fraud revealed by the recent joint ABC-Fairfax investigation (see Australia’s hidden people smuggling scandal). Again, rather than focusing on race, Ms Hanson should argue to restore integrity to Australia’s visa system so that it is not overtaken by “crooks and criminals”.
…More broadly, Ms Hanson should highlight that for a major commodity exporter like Australia, which pays its way in the world by selling-off its fixed endowment of resources, ongoing high immigration can be self-defeating from an economic standpoint. That is, continually adding more people to the population year after year means less resources per capita. It also means that Australia must sell-off its fixed assets quicker just to maintain a constant standard of living (other things equal).
Again, none of this has anything to do with race – i.e. where the migrants come from – but rather that the overall immigration intake is too high and has overwhelmed the capacity of the economy and infrastructure to absorb them, eroding individuals’ living standards in the process.
There has also been no proper debate within the community about the appropriate level of immigration and no political mandate for pursuing a “Big Australia”.
…..We should not forget that an Essential Research opinion poll published in May revealed that the overwhelming majority of Australians (59%) believed “the level of immigration into Australia over the last ten years has been too high”, more than double the 28% of Australians that disagreed with that statement.
….under current policy, Australia is on track to double its population by 2050 to more than 40 million people – something most Australians oppose. Again, this comes amid virtually no discussion nor mandate for this dramatic change, nor any plan on how to cope with this growth.
As long as Ms Hanson plays the “race card”, she will be rightly ridiculed and has already lost the debate. Population policy is far too important an issue to be segregated into pro- and anti-immigration corners based upon views about race and cultural supremacy. Instead, the issue needs to be debated rationally and based upon whether or not immigration is benefiting the living standards of the existing population.
I agree. This has nothing to do with race or religion. Pauline Hanson is barking up the wrong tree. This is about numbers. I suspect the same is true of the Brexit vote. I am all in favor of skilled migration (being a migrant myself) but any newcomer should ask themselves how they can contribute to existing Australian values and culture….rather than preserve their own.
Source: How Hanson should frame the immigration debate – MacroBusiness
“We are a Christian country…” [quote of Pauline Hanson]. Well…maybe, but I don’t think so. Latest stats I could find on Wikipedia are :
Roman Catholicism (25%)
Atheism (31%)
Anglicanism (17%)
Other Christian (19%)
Buddhism (3%)
Islam (2%)
Hinduism (1%)
Other religions (1%)
Of course when it suits them, Catholics, Anglicans and ‘other Christians’ will pretend to be of the same faith, but try arguing that with George Pell, on your doorstep to a Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness. The stats put atheism as the biggest show in town, which may account for Australia’s high level of tolerance towards immigrants, since most atheists regard religions as a kind of mental illness, and treat the faithful with the compassion and tolerance as any civilised person should toward the mentally ill. And so long as they don’t incite violence, their beliefs are fine by me.
The fact is Ms Hanson is as wrong about her facts and fundamentals as she is with her solutions. In my view SHE IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, because through some bizarre quirk of Queenslander mass delusion she finds herself in a position of perceived authority, and there are plenty of lone-wolf loonies out there just waiting for someone in authority to give the OK to start killing people they don’t like. Tonight’s attack on two Vietnamese nuns may well be [my speculation only] the start of more senator-incited assaults, just so Ms Hanson can feel smug about her bigotry.
I agree. Race and religion are not the problem. Numbers (and Pauline Hanson) are.
Any discussion in the U.S. re immigration quickly gets bogged down in politics and political correctness. Glad to see it happens elsewhere also. I don’t know Australia’s situation but in the U.S. we have the same issues. Trying to look at this logically, I would say that any immigration system had to have all of the following features:
Ability to Help- immigration has not historically occurred to help the immigrant. It is supposed to help the people already resident in the country by providing a needed labor pool.
Knowledge of Immigrant- the admitting country should be able to vet the immigrant and know what they are getting.
Assimilation- the U.S. has historically done a good job while Europe has done an awful job. Don’t know anything about Australia but the groups being admitted must show an ability/willingness to assimilate into the culture.
Work Culture- in the U.S. 2% of Korean immigrants end up on welfare while 65% of Mexicans do. The immigration system has to recognize this.
Enforce Immigration Laws-countries should get the immigrants they want and need and not the ones most adept at beating the system.
Immigration should be mindful of the host country culture. Looking at the data for Australia above, I would also say that it is a christian country when 90% of the people citing a religion are christian. What would you call it otherwise? Any immigrant better be able to adjust accordingly or assimilation is impossible.
Vic, Thanks for your views.
I think assimilation is the key criteria: ability and willingness to assimilate into the culture.
Lack of direct access to welfare (e.g. work-for-the-dole) should prevent them assimilating into the wrong sub-culture.
Other than voting for ONP how do we the voting public send a loud and clear message to Canberra that immigration rates this high are definitely not ok?
I think they got the message.
Otherwise, there was a party running for the senate called Sustainable Australia who are focused on limiting immigration to more manageable numbers — like 100,000 instead of 300,000 a year.
Agreed. I think they got the message but refused to act. I suspect that they never would lower the immigration rate until we elected someone and forced the issue.
FWIW I voted for Sustainable Australia but they don’t get the same exposure or number of votes as ONP.
Agree. Most people are opposed to the excessively high rate of immigration rather immigration itself. It appears that the government are using people growth to grow the economy. This is easy and lazy. Time for a real plan with genuine long term growth.
All this talk of immigration has got me wondering am I am immigrant? I was born in WA in 1950, but 100% of my genes immigrated from Italy.
Disagree. It’s ALL about race, religion, societal values, call it what you like, and the somewhat condescending anti-racist views continually being pushed by “educated” politicians and media over the years have done little to quieten the concerns from within an Australian community descended from traditional post WW2 European-British values, across all age groups. Pauline Hanson has got it very right. The fact that she has emerged again now with an even stronger support base is proof of this, and her expression of concern, although somewhat clumsy, reflects what many many (not a typo) Australians out there are feeling. Political correctness has continually chosen to ignore these concerns. The current (past 15 yrs) wave of immigration has created insular communities who choose not to assimilate.
I was fortunate enough in my years in investment banking to work with a number of different races and religions, both as clients and colleagues. My conclusion was that we often share the same or at least very similar values, no matter whether you are Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Jewish. So it doesn’t matter much to me what race or religion you belong to as long as you uphold those same central values: work hard, save, be a good parent, be honest, and show charity towards others.
That said, every community has its charlatans, knaves, rascals, miscreants, scoundrels and hypocrites. We have to guard against them; first and foremost in our own society but also in any migrants that arrive on our shores. Without wishing to single out any one community, my experience of devout Muslims who wear their butchers robes in their business, pray five times a day and go to mosque on Fridays is that they are valuable members of society who can be trusted. On the other hand, their whisky-drinking, Armani suit wearing, Ferrari driving, philandering brethren are dangerous. The same goes for convicted drug dealers and petty criminals who claim to have converted to Islam. This is true of every society…..
My view of Pauline Hanson is that she is not dangerous but misguided.
Hanson certainly believes passionately in something, but I can’t work out what it is. I just read many of her quotes posted on an unbiased site, and I still can’t get it. She seems to be saying “I want the world to be the way it was when I was happier.” Much of what she says in not extremist, and comes across as cookie-cutter wisdom, but enough of it is to excite extremists to take unilateral action. That’s what worries me about her being in “power”.
I hope all of these comments are being posted both to Pauline Hanson and the Government elect. It is about time there is some genuine debate from Australians as a whole and not just minorities who manage to make themselves heard.
Good point. Who knows where all the wisdom of the world ends up? The mechanics of blogs elude me (the whole Internet really), and I assume only the webmaster knows how to broadcast this blog more widely. But there’s so much information saturation in the world now that even a second coming of Christ would be competing with videos of Labradors stuck in bin lids. Still, this is the most reputable blog I’ve come across, so others may pick up on it. I occasionally share some of Colin’s stuff on my Facebook page and it gets a lot of likes. But Back to Hanson, I suspect she’ll pull her head in now. She strikes me as the “Donald Trump type”, whose only ambition is to win rather than serve.
We link to the blog from the Trading Diary newsletter, but the best way to expose and promote the blog is by sharing. Thanks Frank, your efforts are appreciated.
You sound likw a condenscending ponce who believes that people will accept your views
about religion and tolerance etc.
The fact is mate they dont and wont. And if Aussie was a better place with wogs, greeks and other christian euros then middle east/african immigration does not fit these lomged for traditions. It has tried over centuries in some countries and now the EU will have to start listening to the silent majority, because GB has stunned analysts like you.
And predict? Other silent majorities ie PH will get get an even louder voice. Ignore this at if you want to keep preaching she’ll be right mate and dont you worry about it.
I like to think I am tolerant which is why I allowed your comment. Condescending? I will leave that to others to judge.
Mate, maybe we should listen to PH and get rid of all the immigrants…. it was a far better place before they arrived. Many Aboriginals would support this because it includes you, me and PH……
Hi Paj,
Thanks for your view. We don’t often get passionate opposing views here, and they are important to ensure we aren’t ignoring the spurious data points that don’t fit our currently held belief. In my view argument works better without insults, otherwise it comes across as bullying, which gets in the way of transferring understanding from one mind to another. Communication must transfer understanding, otherwise it’s just noise. I have a friend whom I love dearly, but he can’t say even the simplest sentence without three of four fuckin’s in it, which makes it hard to really know what he’s saying.
I understand condescending to mean “having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority”. Personally I don’t hear that when I read any of the words in this blog. Of course it’s hard to tell how the writer was “speaking” because when we read the written word we “hear” it in our heads with our own voice, so it gets automatically flavoured by our existing prejudices.
Face-to-face communication is better for reading emotions and intentions but even that gets tainted with ingrained appearance-bias or voice prejudices. I, for example, have an irrational bias (one I have to work on quite hard to ignore) against the Cockney accent, like for example the actor Michael Caine’s accent. He can say the wisest things and he still sounds like a skinhead to me. But that’s my shame not his. I also find it hard to take stunningly beautiful women seriously. Again that’s my imperfect control, not her fault.
The point is all communication is fraught with misunderstanding and preconceptions, which is why reasonable tolerance is the only way disparate tribes were ever able to live together to create a society without warring with each other. Everything else has been tried and it always fails – always. But now we are in a unique position of having 4000 years of written history at our fingertips to look back on to learn what works and what doesn’t. Wholesale lumping of “people” into one category has never worked.
My spouse is terrified on Muslims even though she’s never met one – not one, although she gets served by them at supermarkets all the time. But that’s different, she tells me. I worked with heaps of them in the bush and on drilling rigs, and I also taught them at Uni. Those ones were all good hard working people. It’s the only valid sample I have to form a rational opinion. My barber is also one; he’s from Iraq. He thanks Allah every day that the US removed Saddam Hussein from power (another opposing view that surprised me) but he’s the authority on that, not me. He cherishes Australian life, and runs a small business – un utterly impossible dream for him back in Iraq. He holds a razor to my neck every month or so. I’m still here.