Huge Crowd

Morrison to Tackle Population Explosion

Big business and other vested interests who want to see Australia continue on its path of rapid population growth won’t like it.

Counterintuitively, neither will the Greens. Despite their supposed concerns over Australia’s environment and emission reductions, the Greens are some of the strongest supporters of increasing Australia’s migration intake.

Fortunately, Scott Morrison is beginning to see the light of day on the issue. He is now considering cutting immigration numbers in order to avoid overflow in Australia’s largest cities.

Morrison supports cutting immigration numbers

Morrison says community sentiment were in support of slashing numbers in Melbourne and Sydney.

The Prime Minister said in Sydney at the Bradfield Lecture on Monday night:

The roads are clogged, the buses and trains are full. The schools are taking no more enrolments. I hear what you are saying. I hear you loud and clear.

We have become, especially in Sydney and Melbourne, a victim of our success.

The Sydney story on population is not just a migration story. It’s also a quality of life story.’

Changes could see Australia’s current immigration cap of 190,000 be slashed to 30,000.

Can Australia handle more migrants?

According to AAP, the Prime Minister has asked territory and state leaders to bring their population plans to be reviewed in December at the next Council of Australian Governments meeting.

Population Minister, Alan Tudge said that the territories and states will be asked by government the amount of people able to fit in their cities.

Mr Tudge predicts that Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory will want more migrants.

He said on ABC TV this Tuesday ‘It’s not a one-size fits all’.

We want to support the aspirations and the capacity of each of those states to grow so we can support the growth in some of the smaller states.

But we might ease the pressure on the growth in Melbourne and Sydney, who are really struggling with the very rapid growth, most of which is driven by migration.’

But Chris Pyne, Leader of the House had said yesterday that polls shouldn’t be able to decide population policy.

He told Sky News:

We don’t need to put a handbrake on population growth.

We need to manage our population growth sensibly in a country which quite frankly can take a lot more than 25 million people.’

So if we don’t need to put a hard cap on immigration numbers, then how many more should we take in Mr Pyne? If Australia can handle a lot more than 25 million, should we let in 100 million?

Australia is already struggling with infrastructure and housing the 25 million that reside here, so really it’s not a question of how many we can take, but more how many we should take.

PS: Tired of seeing your wages, investments and interest gains all sapped by tax? Had enough of job-creating companies being driven overseas by Australia’s heavy tax burden? Then you should read our free new research report, ‘What you could do to stop Australia’s Tax Freedom Day from blowing out even further in 2018’. You can download that report free, here.

The Australian Tribune Editorial

The Australian Tribune Editorial

The Australian Tribune is an unorthodox news service. Your Australian Tribune editorial team deliver the unfiltered stories that could impact your daily life — political and economic stories you’re unlikely to get anywhere else. And we’re not afraid to step on some toes to do it. We are honest, conservative and never dull. We are an independent service, meaning we don’t answer to shareholders or outside advertisers. This helps avoid conflicts of interest that inhibit mainstream sources, which keeps our voice independent. The Australian Tribune is owned and operated by Port Phillip Publishing.
Comments: 3

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

  1. Australia doesn’t need any immigration at all. If we don’t have people with skills that are needed train them. after all those with skills we need have been trained somewhere. For the tens of thousands who won’t work & get a free ride on the tax payer, in some cases for three generations now, put them in the army, flat feet & all. If pollies think immigration will save the economy as they think housing can we are screwed. There are too many nationalities in Australia now for the long term stability of the country. There is some forced emigration that needs to happen before any more come in.

  2. Mr Pyne is very ill informed or he is incapable to process information concerning the immigration in general, let alone to ask him, what is his optimal or reasoned number of “millions “. “People should not have a say”, regarding immigration he says. The man is a sore to his office. Is he not supposed to be just a mouthpiece to the people that have installed him to the office? Does he listen and promote the wishes of his constituents? Ah, silly question…
    Vested interests: When a few years ago the boss of Harvey Norman was on radio talking about the subject said, ” flying over Indonesia, I am looking down the country of over 200 million people. Than over Australia, all I saw was empty expanses…” More people, er, shoppers. Let’s leave out the builders. Why would they care if the streets are nontrafficable for the parked cars, idling in a traffic jam or the disappearance of the parks and playgrounds. When you give the planing to the interest groups, you are quickly left with only the memories of what your street, your suburb, your city used to be like…

  3. Chris Pyne needs a science lesson. He is right that ‘We don’t need to put a handbrake on population growth.” We need to use an axe and stop it altogether.

    Australia as a continent, has a carrying capacity of around 16 million tops. We need to lose population, not inflate it.

    Look at the rising health costs because the quality of the fruits and vegetables production companies grow (I can’t call it farming) is seriously affecting our nutrition. We are still getting fatter, diabetic and our health deteriorates annually. Gout is a new addition to the diseases described as metabolic syndrome (along with obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension). High blood levels of uric acid reflect too much bad sugar (fructose and sucrose) in the diet. Desperate groups try vegan diets, paleo, keto vegetarian whatever but all as a knee-jerk to just how bad they feel eating the rubbish our politicians allow to be passed off as food.

    We have the worst rate of species extinction of any developed country in the world. We entertain idiot developers ruining our biodiversity and actually give the power over our own survival as a species to politicians!! No political group is really committed to reversing Climate Change and even the Greens are more concerned with Alphabet people than the future of all Australians. Thinking voters have nowhere and no intelligent representatives to whom to turn.

    We even still embrace lunatic religions that have Man’s dominion over Nature as a core belief and ignore the knowledge, experience and resourcefulness of the World’s longest living culture presuming a society with a few generations of slavery by a global elite is better than 65,000 years of enduring Ice Ages and other massive environmental impacts.

    It is time to use what we have and live up to the label as the Clever Country.

    Let’s remove the environment from any political portfolio. Stop development that is not in already in damaged landscapes (farmland, mined areas, existing urban development etc) and protect wilderness and bushland as though our lives depend on it. Because they do. Fix global warming. Embrace 4th generation nuclear power and ban coal as a commodity and power source.

    Time to abandon the present system of government. Move to the blockchain as a means to gather consensus from the wisdom of the crowds underpinned with good science and predictive modelling. Australians should vote on issues of common good, allocate the public service and private sector organisations to see the mandates underway and monitor progress in the light of on-going goals and checkpoints.

    It might take a few decades to phase out the Westminster system but we need a method of social management that is incorruptible, transparent, by the people and for them, not for career politicians and their developer and union cronies.