As the latest opinion poll shows Labor and Liberals neck and neck and support for the Prime Minister tumbling, TheRealists believe that the only hope for Labor to win this election is for Gillard to campaign strongly on seeking the sympathy vote.  The Labor campaign machine, known for keeping both eyes on the polling figures, will also be aware of a sound starting to build, that being the Abbott Express which has only just pulled out of the station.

The sympathy vote became a viable option after a number of factors that were known to be potential hazards for the PM on the campaign train, or known unknowns, combined with some factors that were not even on TheRealists radar (unknown unknowns), to deliver an almost fatal blow to the PMs chances of ever being elected by the Australian people.

The known unknowns include Gillard’s use of spin and drone attacks.  Whilst the Spin-O-Meter has been steady this week after almost breaking the dial in the first week of the campaign, the drone attacks seem to be steadily taking their toll, with voters already starting to tune off whenever Gillard opens her mouth.

The biggest factor of the known unknowns however is the asylum bogeyman.  As the third boat of the campaign arrives in Australian waters, it has today been reported that The federal government has sought advice on whether people-smugglers are using the election campaign to sell boat passage to Australia.  Surely not a good look for Gillard and the Labor government three weeks out from the polls.

The unknown unknowns has been the media focus on the slain Kevn Rudd as well as the entry into the campaign of the now infamous Labor leaker.

The focus on Kevin ‘the snake’ Rudd has been sucking oxygen away from the Gillard campaign, and in a bizarre twist the SMH is today reporting that Labor has asked Kevin Rudd to campaign for the party outside his own seat, despite Rudd being described as unmanly, like a snake by former Labor leader Mark Latham.

But it is the leaker that has captured the nation’s imagination.  More intriguing than an Agatha Christie mystery, it’s only the leaker and Laurie Oakes that know the identity of the person that seems hell-bent on bringing the Gillard campaign crashing down around her, with revelations that Gillard opposed the paid parental leave scheme as well as increases to aged pensions.

With an election campaign in disarray, disunity in the ranks and the growing rumble of the Abbott Express heading her way, TheRealists predict that Gillard will switch tactics and now actively seek the sympathy vote.  It’s a desperate measure, but desperate leaders in desperate times require desperate actions.  It will then be a waiting game to see what the Australian public thinks of this new tactic.

This election campaign has seen more of a focus on the issues of immigration, population and asylum seekers than any other election in recent times.  Whilst it’s heartening to see these subjects being discussed, there has been little discussion around the related topic of social cohesion.

Australians are concerned about the total number of people migrating to Australian, but they’re also concerned about social cohesion and how well some immigrants manage, or are willing to, accept the Australian way of life.

Julia Gillard said during the campaign that she would like to bring in “the right kind of migrant”.  Whilst Gillard should be applauded for making such a statement, unfortunately for the general public this statement is just spin as the government currently does not have, and does not propose to have any mechanism for bringing in “the right kind of migrant”.

The world is currently seeing levels of migration that are unprecedented in human history.  Some of these people are fleeing persecution; others are simply looking for a better way of life.  With such large people flows, Australia should have a policy of choosing people that are going make a positive contribution to our society.

This is a point made by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an African immigrant to the West who has rejected her Islamic upbringing.  With her first hand experience of living in two very different cultures, she is now committed to warning people of the dangers of allowing unfettered migration from societies and cultures that are not compatible with Western democracy.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is currently in Australia.  She was recently interviewed on the ABC’s Lateline program and spoke freely about subjects that most Australians politicians fear to mention.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been voted by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, she has written two books Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.

Highlights of her interview on Lateline are below.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks on these subjects with an honesty, clarity and purpose that would be refreshing to see in one of our political leaders.

Leigh Sales: In Nomad you write that a lot of well meaning people in the West have trouble accepting that all human beings are equal but all cultures and religions are not.  Elaborate on that for us.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I took notice of this when I was a member of the Labor party in The Netherlands and I would talk about the position of Muslim women in The Netherlands, and so many of the enlightened liberal people around me would respond by saying ‘but we’ve got to respect their culture’.  And when we talked the specifics of what is was that we had to respect it boiled down to forced marriages, honour killings, female genital mutilation…we would ignore all of this, do nothing about it and the only rationalisation that these people could give me, and these were people in power, was to say ‘but we’ve got to respect their culture’.  And I thought yeah, cultures are not equal, it’s individual human beings that are equal.

Leigh Sales: The argument that I’ve heard your critics make in response to that is that, well all cultures and societies are flawed and have their problems.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: That’s true, all cultures are flawed, but what I’ve learnt in the last 18 years when I came to the West is Western flaws – the white man’s flaws -  his sexism, his racism, his prejudices have been criticised, and radically changed.  The white man is no longer as racist as he was 50 years ago or 100 years ago.  But men of colour, and I’m not talking only about men who are Muslim, but I’m talking about Chinese, Indians, men of colour, are excused from that same critical scrutiny of cultures, their customs, their habits, their religious principals.  And so again it boils down to; yes all cultures are flawed, but if we want to aspire to a society, whether it’s on a national level or on the global level of individual rights and respect for human rights then we have to criticise these other cultures just as much as the white man’s culture was criticised.

Leigh Sales: You also argue in your book that there’s no such thing as a moderate Muslim, what do you mean by that?

What I mean by that is that I try to separate Islam from Muslims.  Muslims as individuals – each and every research show that people who identify themselves as Muslim don’t know very much about what’s in the Koran, they don’t know very much about what the prophet Mohammed said, they’ve only been taught ‘you’ve got to obey the Koran and what the prophet Mohammed said and they’re both infallible, the book is infallible, the prophet is infallible – the founder of Islam’.  And increasingly the agents of radical Islam take advantage of that.

But if you scrutinise Islam as a model philosophy – I’m not talking about the religious dimension of prayer and fasting-  I’m talking more about the political dimension, Sharia law, the concept of Jihad and the social laws that govern the relationship between men and women, you see that…there aren’t very different flavours to it, there is really one big flavour, and everywhere where Sharia law is introduced you see the same violations of human rights and the subjection of women.

Leigh Sales: We’re currently having a debate in Australia about appropriate levels of immigration and also how asylum seekers should be processed.  How should countries decide who to allow in?

I think we just completely and radically have to change the way we look at immigration given the new context.  We use the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention this is completely outdated.  We use human rights treaties which were established also for the period between 1945 and 1989 and after 1989 the world has changed.  Just to give you an example there were about one million refuges in 1951.  Today the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports 40 million people who are refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced.

That scale calls for a complete revamping of immigration policies…the relationship should be, also given the advent of radical Islam that liberal democratic countries like Australia should establish a new relationship with immigrants.

Who is good for our country and who is going to contribute to Australia and in exchange we’ll provide them with the opportunity to live in a peaceful prosperous society where they can build a life for themselves.  If they say no to that then I think it would be justified to say such a person cannot stay and not be a part of this society and can be returned.  That is more honest it’s more practical and it becomes a two way contribution.  One person gets an opportunity to a good life, and a society gets an immigrant that is useful for that society.

Leigh Sales: If an immigrant said well, I don’t like those terms, it doesn’t necessarily make them any less of a refugee if they were seeking asylum.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Well, yes, but that is the harsh reality.  If there are 40 million people and we already have established that Australia or The Netherlands or the United States can’t take in all 40 million of them, we have to make choices and unfortunately for that person that wants to reject the values of the country he or she wants to seek protection, and even become an insurgent and reject democracy, cause harm, then that person just has to go, drop to the latter part of the 40 million, and it’s better to give an opportunity to someone that really will make something of his life, will not harm other people, and is just going to contribute to society.

Leigh Sales: Do you think that that should include very specific targets in terms of numbers that are coming in, regions and countries from where people come?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: That would be the realistic thing to do.  It is inevitable to think that way unless you think we can take in all 40 million.

The latest opinion poll shows the Coalition closing the gap on Labor with Abbott almost halving Gillard’s lead as preferred prime minister after just one week of the election campaign.

It seems that the proposal of a “citizens’ assembly” has worked well for Gillard in cranking up the Spin-O-Meter and people are beginning to see Tony Abbott as a genuine alternative to the Prime Minister.

With opinion polls thus far predicting an easy Gillard victory, TheRealists question whether the polls were providing an accurate reading of the electorate.  A commonly held opinion heard by your writer from swinging voters is that no way would they vote Labor, and when asked about the polls, a commonly held opinion seems to be “I don’t get it”.

What is known is that the bookmakers have the Coalition at $4.10 to win the election with Labor at $1.22.  This seems like extremely good value for the Coalition, which can only improve its standing in the remaining four weeks of the campaign as people take stock of how the two leaders compare.

It was spin verses substance in the great debate which saw Tony Abbott taking the spoils in what will probably be the only debate in the election campaign.  Whilst many people thought Abbott would falter, it turned out that he was more than capable against some admittedly weak opposition.

Highlights of the debate for those that were taken out in the opening drone attack by Gillard are listed below:

• Early in the debate Gillard got personal and said “Sometimes Tony I think you are a little naive about these questions.  It may be an endearing trait but a bit naive.”  She then put on her best play-school voice and said “People smugglers are evil people”.  Yes, and they live at the bottom of the garden and if you’re naughty these evil people will come and take you away!

• On a point that will irk all true Liberal supporters, Gillard claimed “We’ve delivered tax cuts three years in a row”.  Whilst technically true, they are the Howard/Costello tax cuts you’re taking credit for!  When these tax cuts were announced by the Howard/Costello government in 2007 a senior Labor party official was quoted as saying “”We’ll have to f . . . king wear it” and copy the Liberals.  Everyone loves tax cuts, but people don’t appreciate Labor figures taking credit for such sensible policy.

• On climate change, Gillard showed some of her best spin of the night, saying “I’m going to lead, lead to get a community consensus to find that ultimate way forward”.  Ah…right…You’re going to show your strong leadership by getting 150 randoms off the street, calling them a “citizens’ assembly” and asking them what we should do.  This is like shooting goldfish in a barrel.

• Abbott saved the best until last, saying “This election will determine whether the Prime Minister is to be elected by the people or by the power brokers…whether the national government should be run as a mates machine like the Labor governments in NSW and Queensland”.  Looking into the camera he then said “It’s about whether the public can trust the Labor party, when not even Kevin Rudd could”.

Abbott then went on and asked Gillard for a 2nd and 3rd debate which will have the Gillard camp running for the hills whilst carefully avoiding the evil people smugglers along the way.

Immediately after the debate the leading story on the SMH website was “Gillard wins tight debate”.  Obviously one of the inmates at Fairfax headquarters was too busy texting their friends about who was going to win Masterchef than bunkering down and watching the real main course being served up.  If they would have been paying attention they would have seen Abbott dishing it out to Gillard and then taking her to the cleaners.

The election campaign to date has been almost too much to bear, bringing TheRealists out of the wilderness and back into commenting on the political scene in Australia.

Perhaps it was the absolute ineptitude of the Rudd/Gillard government that did it, perhaps it was the excitement around the rise to power of the first female prime minister. More likely it was wanting to express frustration at the inane way that the campaign has played out so far.

TheRealists have identified three key factors that are making this one of the least enjoyable federal election campaigns in recent history:

• Drone Attacks

Initially employed by the Americans against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Julia Gillard has made the art or drone attacks her own.  Able to seemingly drone on for hours to an unsuspecting public, her use of the drone attack technique leaves her open to the next point, the spin-O-meter

• Spin-O-Meter

Kevin Rudd set an Australian record for popularity decline because of his spin.  Not to be outdone by the man she replaced, Julia Gillard is cranking up the spin to levels Kevin Rudd could only dream of.  Can Julia Gillard achieve the same type of decline in popularity in only eight weeks of being Prime Minister that took Kevin Rudd 140 weeks to achieve?

• Iron to Jelly Factor

Mr people skills runs the risk of being caught out by the spin-O-meter himself, however, unlike Gillard who falsely pretends to endorse policies supported by TheRealists, Abbott will be trying to spin away from sensible policies that he  truly believes in, in what some might call ‘reverse spin’.  Whilst not as severe as Gillard’s Spin-O-meter, Australians would prefer the man of iron to tell it like it is.

These factors are combining to turn what is supposed to be a golden time for lovers of the art of politics into a time of disillusion and despair .

On polling day the people of Australia will deliver their verdict on how they rate the drone attacks, spin-O-meter and iron to jelly factors but there are two further issues waiting in the wings that could trump all these:

• Press bias against Abbott

Abbott will find it hard to convince the public of the merits of his policies when most of the media commentators would rather display their ‘progressive’ credentials rather than support sensible policies proposed by Abbott.

• The Asylum Bogeyman

Perhaps the biggest trump card in the pack.  As predicted here by TheRealists, illegal immigrants started flooding to Australia when Labor eased the asylum seeker rules.  Look for more boats to head this way during the election campaign as people scramble to get to Australia on the good ship Prosperity before Abbott tells these cashed up opportunists to get in line and get in a queue.

So stay tuned during the campaign for unique analysis of how each party is faring, with special emphasis on the population and immigration non-debate, which has recently sent Gillard’s Spin-O-Meter to dizzying heights.

This will be my final post for the foreseeable future.

TheRealists started as an idea back in 2002 when I was living in the UK.  I had gone from living in a relatively calm and peaceful Australia, to living in a country that was experiencing race riots and where the issue of race always seemed to be simmering away under the surface waiting to explode.

Since leaving the UK there has been more race riots, the 7 July bombings in London and now the British National Party is gaining parliamentary seats.

I didn’t want Australia to follow the same path as the UK, so when I returned from the UK in 2003 I created TheRealists.  I had grand visions of replicating in Australia what www.migrationwatchuk.com had done in the UK.  Above all else I wanted to warn Australian’s of the dangers of blindly following the same path that the UK had followed.

For the first few years the information on TheRealists was static, and only contained basic statistics.  About 18 months ago I was motivated to start blog posting by someone who believed in me and my cause.

Alas, I have found that I don’t have either the resources or the motivation to emulate what migrationwatchuk.com has done, at least not on my own.

I truly believe that Australia needs more focus on what I have tried to focus on with this website.  Having said that I am heartened that some of the issues raised on this site, in particular our high levels of immigration, have recently been more widely discussed in mainstream media.

If anyone or any group would like to see TheRealists or some such incarnation live on, feel free to contact me at info-at-therealists.com.au.

It’s sad to be writing this final post.  Perhaps I will be back, in one form or another.  Thank you for all your comments and words of encouragement.

TheRealists

I’m always confused when discussing immigration when someone says “Well, the Aboriginals were here first”.

My first reaction to this statement is to think ‘What does the fact that Aboriginals came here 40,000 years ago got to do with a debate about modern day immigration?  Should I retort back that we were here 2nd?’

Facile statements such “the Aboriginals were here first” are often used to shut down legitimate debate, but what planet are the people living on that say these kind of things?  The argument just doesn’t make sense.

Do these people presume that the opinion of people whose ancestral ties to this country date back generations should count more than the opinion of people who have settled here more recently?

Well, I have a little story for you.  People’s opinions in Australia aren’t given more weight because they might have longer ties to Australia than another person.  The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, wasn’t born in Australia; yet her opponents don’t run around saying ‘we were here first’.  Why the hell then say “Well, the Aboriginals were here first”?

Secondly, are these people arrogant enough to presume that Aboriginals naturally support continued mass immigration?  Do they presume that Aboriginals naturally support ever increasing numbers of people coming to this country?  The person making the statement will often say that we ‘invaded’ Australia.  Think about that for a second.

If we invaded Australia then I say STOP THE INVASION ALREADY!

How the hell is it in the Aboriginal people’s interest to continue this ‘invasion’ that began 200 years ago with ever increasing numbers of people?

Saying that the Aboriginals were here first is one of my pet least-liked statements.  It’s usually said by someone who purports to have aboriginal causes close to their heart.  They should get real and think about what they’re saying.

Professor Tim Flannery, 2007 Australian of the year and one of Australia’s best known scientists, has spoken out against both high immigration and the need for multiculturalism.  Whilst Flannery’s views on Australia’s population are well known, it’s refreshing to hear a person that is held in such esteem also tackle the sensitive topic of multiculturalism. Professor Flannery made the comments whilst participating in a debate with the topic of Is Our Rate of Immigration Too High?

Flannery opened the debate for the affirmative, and was quick to pull out arguments that regular readers will be familiar with.

After some opening words he told the audience that business, government and the bureaucracy will all favour high immigration for differing reasons.  He stated that just because these interest groups support high immigration, doesn’t mean it’s in the interest of ordinary Australians to pursue high population growth.

Later in the debate he said that Australians were the heaviest carbon users in the world, meaning that people that come to this country from almost anywhere in the world will result in an increase in global carbon emissions.  He stated that our population growth made it much more difficult to fulfil our international obligations on greenhouse emissions. Flannery went on to say that we were engaged in high immigration “without a single consideration for these environmental issues”.  In emphasising that point he noted how Ross Garnaut when reporting on Australia’s emissions trading scheme “just took our rate of population growth for granted, it wasn’t even questioned that we might vary it, and yet it’s clearly within our gift to vary it.”

Towards the end of his allotted time Flannery anticipated that his opponents would argue that high immigration “has been good for this country because its fostered multiculturalism and therefore a tolerance for human beings of many different kinds from around the planet.”  Flannery rejected this argument, saying “That is truly an argument from the 80s or earlier.”

Expanding on this thought, Flannery said that “There was a time when travel was so limited, when trade and people’s experience of others overseas was so limited and where there was no Internet that we actually needed a program like that to foster mutual tolerance.  Those days are well and truly gone.”  He later said that “The argument that we need a massive immigration program to promote tolerance between people just has no, has no legs”

Flannery also talked about the ageing of the population, and noted that during the baby boom of the 50s people weren’t concerned about how we were going to care for all these helpless babies.  Our society grew wealthier as time went by and we managed, just like we could with the ageing of the population.  Referring to the idea that immigration is a solution to this population ageing, he expressed his concerns, saying “It doesn’t seem to have a natural end.  Should we seek to grow our population forever to avoid the inevitable situation of an ageing population?”

Tim Flannery is a sometimes controversial figure.  His outspoken persona has led him to make predictions regarding the environment that have not always eventuated.  He’s also no stranger to controversy, and has even been quoted as saying that he supports sustainable whaling.

While there isn’t any senior politician willing to stand up and argue that our rate of immigration should be drastically cut it’s good to have people like Tim Flannery arguing the good cause, regardless of how unpopular or non PC it is.

The past week has seen a lot of reporting on Australia’s high levels of immigration and population growth.  The reports were sparked by the release of the latest Intergenerational Report.

Headlines such as Australia ‘sleepwalking’ into population disaster have questioned the perceived wisdom that an ever-increasing population is a good thing.  It’s heartening to see a federal politician express his concern that the current high immigration levels will result in “Declining housing affordability, traffic congestion, over-crowded concrete jungles.”

The treasurer, however, seems oblivious to any of these concerns, as well as the concerns raised by TheRealists.  Instead of listening to the concerns of Australian citizens, the treasurer has opened a new front on the population debate, arguing that high levels of immigration are required to reduce the ageing of the population.

When the latest Intergenerational Report predicted that Australia’s population will rise to 35 million in 40 years’ time the treasurer, when referring to the economic consequences said “It is arguably one of two of our greatest economic challenges along with climate change.”

This statement shows the enormity of the task people have when arguing that immigration is too high.  The treasurer didn’t say that ‘Obviously immigration is too high and is already causing overcrowding in our cities and forcing up house prices’.  He didn’t say ‘Obviously our population is ageing so we must boost productivity so that we can support our ageing population into the future’.  You won’t hear words like that coming from the treasurer.

Instead, the treasurer just accepted that the only solution to an ageing population is to maintain record levels of immigration.  By referring to it in the same breath as climate change the treasurer hopes to gain consensus that this is a challenge that must be faced, that we must cater for more and more people arriving in this great country every year.

But does the evidence stack up?  Is immigration the best way to counter population ageing?

The short answer is, no, not really.  Immigration is indeed part of the solution, but not at the record high levels we have currently.

The problem with using immigration to reduce population ageing is that migrants age too.  You end up bringing more and more people, in the many hundreds of thousands of people each year into the country indefinitely.

There have been previous studies carried out into this very question.  The conclusions of The Impact of Immigration on the Ageing of Australia’s Population produced in 1999 were as follows (emphasis added):

“This level [80,000] of annual net migration also makes a worthwhile and efficient contribution to the retardation of population ageing. Levels of annual net migration above 80,000 become increasingly ineffective and inefficient in the retardation of ageing.  Those who wish to argue for a higher level of immigration must base their argument on the benefits of a larger population, not upon the illusory ‘younging power’ of high immigration.

The effects upon ageing of a younger immigrant intake or higher migrant fertility are very small. Furthermore, implementation of either measure would be problematic. They are not realistic options.”

The paper says ‘They are not realistic options’…that was 1999.  Now it’s 2009 and the ‘not realistic options’ are reality with Net Overseas Migration over 200,000 per year.

In an embarrassment for the treasurer, the treasury website also states that immigration cannot stop the ageing of the population.  The Treasury website states the following in the Australia’s Demographic Challenges section (emphasis added):

“But increased migration cannot prevent our population from ageing. This is because migrants who come to Australia will age along with the rest of the population. To maintain Australia’s existing age structure through immigration would require increases in immigration every year — and the increases would need to become progressively larger and larger to take account of the ageing of the migrants themselves. While there are undoubted benefits in maintaining net overseas migration, migration cannot stop the ageing of our population.”

Perhaps by increasing the font size as well the treasure may pay attention.

Fortunately, as opposed to politicians, there are some sensible people in the community who make it their business to know a lot about population and demographics.

Professor Bob Birrell of the Monash University Centre for Population and Urban Research has been quoted in The Australian as saying (emphasis added):

“”The government seems to have bought the argument that business in Australia needs a high amount of labour force growth to keep it going in the future. The rest of us are going to have to bear the consequences of that.  The government doesn’t seem prepared to explore how we need to make social adjustments; rather, they are relying on the prop of bringing in more people of younger ages to essentially put all the older people to bed.”

The government should listen to the advice of specialists in this area as well as the advice that it has published on its own websites.  Population ageing is a challenge, but the solution is not to bring ever-increasing numbers of people to Australia.

The answer lies in things that are occurring already.  Already people are working longer and delaying retirement, meaning they place less of a burden upon society.  In the same way, the minimum age for the aged pension is being increased.  Compulsory superannuation has been in effect since 1993 and will reduce the burden of an ageing population in the medium to long term.

Our wealth as a nation continues to grow, and will grow into the future, meaning we will have enough resources to support the increased number of elderly people.  And to top it all off the fertility rate has been increasing recently, from 1.79 to 1.93 in the past two years.

The treasurer this week launched the Australian Institute for Population Ageing Research.  It is supposed to “examine the impacts of the ageing population on the economy, society and environment.”

I’ll give him some advice for free.  Maintain and implement policies that will build wealth.  Reduce the levels of immigration.  With these policies Australia will cope just fine over the next 50 years, and will be a much better society for it.

A colleague leaves work because the previous night he drank a bottle of spirits by himself.  A friend tells me that on some weekends she doesn’t talk to a single person.  I occasionally wander around the city at night, the bright lights and bustle of the city all around me, feeling isolated amongst the humanity.

This theme of isolation and loneliness is expressed in How my neighbourhood was lost to the multiculture.  In the article the author talks about the area where he grew up in the sixties, and how he sees that same area now:

“I’m struck by the sense that this place no longer provides my identifiable roots, that now I am simply one of many who happen to live here, with no greater claim to it sentimentally or historically than the next man.”

I see similar sentiments (or the result of such sentiments) everywhere I look in modern society.  I see people searching for more out or life, people wanting a greater sense of connection and involvement.  I see people wandering through life in a malaise, not knowing where they belong or what their purpose in this world is.

Overseas trips are taken; restaurants are visited; the latest fad is taken up with enthusiasm.  They provide short relief from the desire for more meaning and a sense of belonging.

In our modern multicultural society, diversity and a constant need to celebrate differences adds to the isolation that many people feel.  Diversity is given precedence ahead of a sense of community and a sense of belonging.  It replaces a common culture that would otherwise act as a glue that binds us together.

Research carried out by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and published in his book Bowling Alone shows that in non-ethnically diverse areas 70-80% of people trust their neighbours a lot.  The figure is 30% in ethnically diverse areas.

It’s hard to see how one can feel part of a community where most people don’t have a lot of trust in each other.

His studies also show that in ethnically diverse areas people give less to charity, they volunteer less, have fewer close friends, and are less happy.

A recent University of Tasmania Study shows that loneliness is increasing in Australia, with one third of Australians in prime of life experiencing loneliness as a serious problem at times.  Our politicians are also aware of the increasing levels of loneliness in our society.  Lindsay Tanner described it by saying ‘There is a loneliness crisis out there.’

What is telling is that out of the 2,500 words that Lindsay Tanner gave on ‘The Loneliness Crisis’, not one of them mentioned diversity or multiculturalism as a factor in loneliness. Yet it seems difficult to see how the crisis of loneliness can be overcome when we are constantly told to take more of the medicine that is making us sick.

Better education and a greater understanding of the of the myriad problems that multiculturalism causes in communities is needed if politicians are going to start seeing multiculturalism as a policy that has cons as well as pros.

I do believe loneliness is a challenge that our society must face.  It’s often hidden and not talked about.  But it’s out there and it’s real.  And we should be looking at all the factors that are contributing to its increase.