Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » “Next up: Go back to suburbia you stinking racist bogan”

“Next up: Go back to suburbia you stinking racist bogan”

A well written piece at the Punch raised a wry smile here at Chez Hall this morning. It was by David Penberthy and it well hits its mark, in the form of SBS’s much acclaimed (by the Latte sippers) program “Go back to where you came from”

click for source

Our frothy lipped friends are just so keen to attribute concerns about irregular immigration arrivals to the most base motives and to suggest that the”great unwashed” (bogans) are just innately racist bigots that they can’t see that those who live in the suburbs are living with and doing fine with people from all sorts of different backgrounds.

Anyway read the piece and if you don’t think it worthy of the same sort of wry smile that it gave me then you too must have that terrible addiction to coffee make with hot milk…

Cheers Comrades

cue a piece at Pure Play-school on this one by our learned friend!

82 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    Penberthy makes the same mistake that *some* bloggers do (you know, the one you referred to) by shooting the messenger. The SBS crew were not out to prove that western Sydneyites are “racists bogans”. They were out to make a rather groundbreaking doco in my opinion and, to that end, they certainly succeeded. He also contradicts himself by claiming that it’s only boat people that “Ken” et al would object to but then adding that they’re sick of the congestion and ever expanding population. If “Sydney is full” (and I don’t dispute that) the problem is not being caused by the small number of refugees arriving by boat and being admitted as citizens. It’s got more to do with Aussies sticking to the two major capitals instead looking out to the wider regions. Good to see that NSW is now offering a $7,000 incentive to ANYONE who moves out. It still doesn’t go far enough.

  2. Jilly says:

    Why should Aussies relocate to the country or bush. Ray has pushed this in a few blog topics now. Let the “small number” of refugees live in the 2 main cities and move the aussies out. No thankyou.

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    I’m not suggesting that Aussies be “moved out” and replaced with refugees or immigrants. I’m merely pointing out that that is a clear option for those unhappy with their suburban existence. If you don’t like your neighbourhood why stay there? Although I do advocate regional relocation as a solution to the overcrowding of the cities and the need to populate the regions, which is am entirely different issue.

  4. GD says:

    No Ray, you are being disingenuous with that comment. Everytime I have written about or complained about the over-populating of Sydney’s West with immigrants and refugees your repeated answer has been to move out, to another suburb, town and even country. It’s clear that you do not agree with anyone who disagrees with the government’s immigration and refugee programs.

    Move out? Really? Have I no say in this, or is it just ‘lofty towers’ Ray and the ‘ivory towers’ pollies who determine who should live in Australia?

  5. Sax says:

    A problem never gets fixed whilst ever you continue to run away from it ?

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    GD, my suggestion that if you don’t like your current environs you could always move out was just a practical solution for you. It still is. The point you have always missed is that no one has a right to say who may live in their suburb and who may not and just bleating about ‘the Lebos of Lakemba’ (or whatever suburb you reside in) like you do won’t solve anything. King Canute couldn’t stop the tide and neither can you. I’ve also said that I have lived in areas that I would not care to live in now. Things & places change, GD, and no, the reality is you don’t have a say in who moves into your area. This is Australia, if you don’t like the people who have moved into your part of it there are choices you can make. And that is not a defence of the type of immigrants & refugees we admit, it’s just saying that the only part of your suburb you can prevent ‘undesirables’ from occupying is documented in the titles office – ie. that part of land contained within the lines drawn around your lot of land.

  7. Sax says:

    the reality is you don’t have a say in who moves into your area. This is Australia, if you don’t like the people who have moved into your part of it there are choices you can make.

    We do have a choice as to who moves into our neighbourhoods Ray. I think you know it well ?

    The simple term for it funnily enough is an election !

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    The election only gives you a choice as to who governs the country, Sax. Even under the Liberals they still allowed refugees in and you still had no control over where they eventually settled.

  9. Sax says:

    I am sure you have heard of State, or Council elections ?

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes. And your point is …. ?

  11. Sax says:

    I thought you had partaken of the process of trying to get into local council Ray ?

    Under that premise, you would have to know the planning rules, regulations, as well as “carrots” used by councils to get immigrants, to settle in their areas, and to keep the so called riff raff out. They do that by subsidisation of rates, building of services for those they want in their areas. Why do you think there is so much drama about the muslums wanting to build temples ? Why do immigrants, and using Melbourne as an example, move into such cities such as Nunawading, Bayswater, Richmond, Dandenong et al ? That’s what they were set up for. From there, once settled, then they move to where they want to go.

    Local and state governments, think that they are neutral, and they want to appear to be so, but after the riots especially in western Sydney and the like, they are concerned. So, they try to influence who moves into their areas, by the local rates and charges, local land costs and so on. How do they influence land prices ? Simply, by holding back DA’s for new estates, demanding expensive additions to increase the price range of these new blocks, strict building codes, and occupation regulations and limits and so on.
    Things like u/ground power compulsory, parks, building restrictions as to design and size of house and so on, increase the prices of individual blocks of land, therefore limiting who can afford to build there. It’s all history. Happened before, especially in Melbourne. The first inclux of Vietnamese refugees in the seventies, is archived, and how it works.
    We all have experienced how different, even neighbouring, councils vary their building DA requirements. Relatively easy in one, and bloody near impossible in the next.

    Just a few examples of how they do it Ray ?

    As a contestant in local council elections, I know that you know that.

    I also know that, by you entering that process numerouse times, that you yourself, want a say in how your local community develops in the future, so your questions are showing that you are just being your usual confrontational self again ?
    Chin up mate, perhaps you will get me on the next one ?
    😉

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    The planning laws were used to house immigrants (and others on the lower socio-economic scale) in high rise commission blocks built in the 60s & 70s in inner city areas like Prahran, Richmond and St Kilda. Not any more.

  13. GD says:

    So what planning laws are in place now in Sydney and Melbourne, Ray. Or do the pollies merely chuck a group of immigrants/refugees into a suburb and hope for the best?

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    The pollies don’t “chuck” immigrants/refugees into any particular suburbs. I’d suggest they gravitate to the outer suburbs where land & rents are cheaper. That’s got nothing to do with planning laws, it’s because there’s more land available in the outlying areas.

  15. GD says:

    Not quite true, Ray. Refugees are placed in accomodation, accomodation paid by the government, through third party community groups such as churches. Craigy’ll love that. They are sent to less affluent parts of capital cities, and also to regional areas. Whether they are being ‘dumped’, you’d have to ask the locals about that.

    Having visited a number of refugee homes*, both families and groups of young people, I can attest they are indeed well-looked after by the government, they don’t have to worry about paying rent to a landlord, and they receive as much in welfare as an aged pensioner, which is much more than an unemployed citizen receives. This does hinge on the fact that they live where they are told.

    *I can explain that by email, not here.

  16. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes GD, there’s no doubt they are placed in the more affordable areas by those 3rd party groups. Sax claimed the State Govt & councils use planning laws to either attract or deter them, which isn’t the case. My point was that you can’t decide who may or may not live in your suburb, whereas he claimed we could by the way we vote at elections. My email is alpineopinion @ gmail .com

  17. Craigy says:

    “Craigy’ll love that”

    I don’t have any problem with church groups or non-church groups running welfare organisations GD. I am also on record as saying they should be tax exempt. This is very different to giving tax exemption to the religious work of a church, especially the Catholics, who have shown contempt for the general population and our laws, their sick form of ‘moral leadership’ should receive no support from the public in the form of tax exemption.

    Oh and GD, isn’t it great that New York has stopped the discrimination against people who want to marry? It’s good to see some governments standing up to the fundies and wingnuts that love to tell us how to live (while doing what they like themselves).

    “Having visited a number of refugee homes”

    GD, from the tone of your comments I gather you were trying to sell them insurance or a second-hand car perhaps.

    What is it with wingnuts and secrecy? What are they so afraid of?

  18. damage says:

    “……contempt for the general population and our laws, their sick form of ‘moral leadership’ ………………”

    Just in Australia

    Centacare, Caritas Australia, Jesuit Refugee Service, St Vincent de Paul Society, Youth Off The Streets

    Catholic Health Australia is the largest non-government provider grouping of health, community and aged care services in Australia. These do not operate for profit and range across the full spectrum of health services, representing about 10% of the health sector and employing 35,000 people.

    Sectarian bigotry has an ugly face Craigy.

  19. Ray Dixon says:

    No, Craigy, I reckon GD was scouting the refugees to discover the next big thing in music. Or football. Plenty of potential among Africans in particular to become singers or AFL players. The man’s an opportunist.

  20. Craigy says:

    Have had some contact professionally with St Vincent de Paul and the Jesuit’s and they are very good people doing much needed work. They have my full support damage. I imagine the other groups you mention are doing a good job as well.

    I didn’t know that apposing those that cover-up child abuse was bigotry damage….. If it is then I’m a bigot.

    Ray and GD, what about singing AFL players!! Could make Essendon Vs St Kilda more like an episode of Glee!!

    They could do a karaoke version of ‘we are the champions’ after the grand final. The possibilities are endless!

    GD, you’re onto something, all strength to your arm.

  21. damage says:

    “They have my full support ………………” No Craigy they don’t. You said that they “……….should receive no support from the public in the form of tax exemption.” That’s qualified support at best and amounts to condemnation when viewd as an economic outcome.

    “I didn’t know that apposing those that cover-up child abuse was bigotry damage….. If it is then I’m a bigot.”
    Why would one wish to line up such people against one another?

    I share your “opposition” to the cover up of child molesting where it has existed, but to condemn -as you do – all Catholics because of it and to call for the abolition of all of the charitable work that Catholic people do on the basis of the abominable behavior of a few is indeed indicative of a deeper hatred. There have been many instances of similar behavior in state schools and scouts as well as similar behavior in the military and aged and disability care. Including systematic cover up. Should all tax payer support be withdrawn from those institutions as well? I’m not hearing you call for that, but those people don’t happen to be Catholic so why would you want equal treatment of them?
    You are a bigot craig. One of the first order and you hide behind a pretence of caring for abused children. That’s cynical and done only to support your bigotry. All respect for you should be framed within that truth.

  22. Sax says:

    The pollies don’t “chuck” immigrants/refugees into any particular suburbs. I’d suggest they gravitate to the outer suburbs where land & rents are cheaper. That’s got nothing to do with planning laws, it’s because there’s more land available in the outlying areas.

    Hmm, obviously, using Melbourne as the example again, Ray has forgotten about the high rise in North Melbourne, Richmond et al, as well as suburbs along the vein of Dandenong, Nunawadding (hell, that should ring a bell Ray ?) and so on.

    My point was that you can’t decide who may or may not live in your suburb, whereas he claimed we could by the way we vote at elections

    That was only part of what I said.
    I told you how it is done. By making the new land estates more expensive, that is how they pick and choose who lives in them. Again, the way they do that ? Councils demand the new estates have such things as u/ground power, parks, golf courses etc, convenants on size of block, what sort of house can be built on the blocks, (i.e. all have to be a minimum of three bedroom b/v etc), access to freeways, which increase the building and purchase costs, thereby limiting what socio economic group can move there.

    You obviously can’t get your head around these facts Ray. A pity, it would make the progression of this argument a lot more fruitful.

  23. Craigy says:

    I don’t condemn all Catholics damage, just those that support the religious arm, which supports child abusers still. Not all Catholics support the actions of the church and its leaders, these people get my respect. We shouldn’t be giving any tax breaks to support any organisation that covers-up for abusers. Why don’t you read my posts?

    The organisations you mention, and that I support, are not involved in covering up and supporting child abuse. If any of them are, then they should not be able to continue to get tax breaks and those responsible handed over to the police.

    I have only seen the evidence that relates to the cover-ups inside the religious arm of the church, so I can’t condemn other organisations. That said, the Catholic school system, along with a number of private schools, do have a case to answer. When more evidence is available, then changes are probably needed in the form of reduced public support or criminal prosecution.

    It’s easy to call someone bigot damage and to create strawmen around my argument. But if you read everything I have said again, you will find that I have no problem with people basing their lives on fairy stories and believing in magical friends in the sky, this hurts no-one of its self. I have a problem with tax breaks being given to anyone or any organisation that covers-up, systematically, over many years, the abuse of children by its officers. If they had any spine they would have requested no tax break themselves as penance for their sins. Unfortunately the leaders of the Catholic faith are self interested hypocrites whose ‘moral leadership’ would be a standing joke if it wasn’t so sad.

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, I mentioned the high rise commision blocks of the 60s & 70s in inner suburbs and gave Prahran, Richmond & St Kilda as examples. Yeah, they built them in Nth Melbourne too. Even in Carlton. Would you like me to list all the inner suburbs where they were built? What would that prove?

    Dandenong is an old outer suburb that has always attracted migrants & lower socio-economic groups as there are a lot of factories out there. Nunawading is just an average middle class suburb with average block sizes & houses that were mostly built in the 70s & 80s. There ain’t any new housing estates around there.

    Some councils do have areas within their municiplaties that are designated low density residential but most of those zonings were made many decades ago. Eg, a large part of Mt Eliza (about 70% of it) is designated minimum lot size of 2600 sq metres (2/3 rds of an acre). The reason for that was there was no sewerage and, due to the shale in the soil and the topography of the land (ie, hilly), the council wanted to ensure septics discharged within each property’s boundaries. Same goes for Wonga Park where my daughter lives – no sewerage (yet).

    Minimum lot sizes in Residential 1 zones are determined by State Govt planning statutes. It’s now 300 sq metres. Councils cannot overide those statutes in Res 1 zones although some developers (most actually), will offer a variety of lot sizes like they do in Pt Cook. That’s so the estate appeals to a wider market.

    Underground power is standard in all new housing estates, as it should be. As are parks or ‘open space’.

    Councils DO NOT insist on golf courses, in fact getting approval for one requires approval from various authorities including DSE.

    Councils DO NOT place covenants on what sort of house can be built. Again, the building codes & standards are set by the State Government and apply uniformly throughout the State. Some developers might place covenants such as must be brick, must be of a minimum size, must not have tin roof, etc, but that’s because they (the developers) are looking to attract the more upmarket & affluent buyer – to keep the values up and maxmise their profits.

    Which all goes to support my suggestion that if you don’t like the suburb you’re living in because refugees/immigrants/riff-raff & shitkickers have moved in then, well, go find a place where the developer has designed it to keep them out. Just changing your council won’t solve it. They don’t discriminate.

  25. Damage says:

    Ok the premis of your argument is false. “The religious arm”? WTF. How can the Catholic church have a non religious arm?
    And there is no “arm” or part of the church that “still” supports child abusers. That’s also a false assertion.

    ” We shouldn’t be giving any tax breaks to support any organisation that covers-up for abusers.”
    So you’ld be withdrawing taxpayer support from the military then?

    Interesting “projection” though.
    “The organisations you mention, and that I support, are not involved in covering up and supporting child abuse.”
    Er? The Jesuits? Are you kidding or just so obnoxiously bigoted that you prefer to expose your own ignorance like this?

    “That said, the Catholic school system, along with a number of private schools, do have a case to answer.”
    As do the state systems in all states. Tax money gone from them too? All involved condemned as evil? F_cough.

    “……….reduced public support OR criminal prosecution.”
    OR? Seriously? You’d withdraw money OR pursue prosecutions? I would think prosecutions was a must. That seems a wrong headed and silly choice to me.

    “It’s easy to call someone bigot…………….”
    It’s easy to call a bigot a bigot Craig. When you’re calling for tax withdrawals from Catholics specifically and not Islamic, Anglican or state run organisations on the same basis then the charge is easy to prove too.

    “I have a problem with tax breaks being given to anyone or any organisation that covers-up, systematically, over many years, the abuse of children by its officers.”
    But can only bring yourself to call for it against Catholics? You see I have read what you said and I can’t see where you speak of Anglicans or scouts or the Army’s covering up of systematic sexual abuse of women. You seem to miss all of those bits.

    “If they had any spine they would have requested no tax break themselves as penance for their sins. ”
    Oh yes that’d work. That would mean that the billions of dollars that the church pours into assistance for the poor and needy would not be poared in and those needy folks would suffer. That’d make you feel better Craig would it?

    “Unfortunately the leaders of the Catholic faith are self interested hypocrites whose ‘moral leadership’ would be a standing joke if it wasn’t so sad.”

    The very model of a vision statement for a bigot.

  26. damage says:

    Projection eh Craig.
    Might be something in that.

  27. Craigy says:

    So I’m a child abuser now, nice damage, nice…….you know you have no answer when………

  28. Ray Dixon says:

    Damage, lay off the personal insults please. It’s a crap way to debate. I don’t reckon Craigy is a “rapist”, a “child abuser” or a “bigot”.

  29. Craigy says:

    Ray, I’m not sure you are 100% correct above. Our council has rules that don’t apply elsewhere, like 6 star energy ratings.

    Our planning dept is very active in their attempts to force you to do it their way. Also, some of the state government overlays don’t apply to every shire, BAL levels are only needed in some areas that our betters think are the most dangerous.

    Time to get rid of councils all together in my book, they are just a large cost for little real benefit to ratepayers that couldn’t be delivered cheaper by a state government contract.

    Most of the people who run in our shire elections are ideologues who either pretended to be green or conservative to get elected, then do what ever is best for them once in. Most of them are developers of one type or another, not that we don’t need development, it’s just the dishonest way these people try and get power and influence for themselves. Much better to have the state set the rules, I would rather have planning overlays administered by mindless bureaucrats with a broad view of the state, than by local real estate tycoons and families looking to subdivide and make a killing.

  30. Craigy says:

    Oh boy that reads like I’m saying your not 100% correct and i am a child abuser…..

    Cue damage……

  31. Sax says:

    It proves that there are suburbs, that immigrants are immediately pointed towards upon arrival.

    Councils DO NOT place covenants on what sort of house can be built.

    Like hell they don’t.
    Try building a two bedroom weatherboard in Mt Eliza, or even Nunawading council districts, and see how you go getting them approved. Their reasoning for the NO answer you will get ? Will ruin the aesthetics of the suburb, and lower average values. Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. I had an uncle, who tried to build a western red cedar in the Nunawadding council area in the seventies. The council laughed at him, just before rejecting the application. So don’t tell me the discrimination doesn’t happen, because I know otherwise.

    Nunawading isn’t the only council either. Most Melbourne councils are similar in their DA’s.

    As Craigy says Ray, NATHERs ratings have to be submitted now, with a minimum rating prerequisite I know in NSW, they are here, didn’t know about Victoria, but not surprised. Thanks for that Craigy.

    Much better to have the state set the rules, I would rather have planning overlays administered by mindless bureaucrats with a broad view of the state, than by local real estate tycoons and families looking to subdivide and make a killing.

    I would agree. I think Victoria has the “2020” plan, which works as a blueprint. But not living in Victoria, I don’t know whether or not that plan covers building DA’s ?

    Councils DO NOT insist on golf courses, in fact getting approval for one requires approval from various authorities including DSE.

    Wrong ! Councils, upon DA from developers, require that park areas of all descriptions accompany new estates, including golf courses, football ovals etc. Again, not part of 2020, but these rec area requirements for new estates, have been around since the birth of the housing estate in the seventies, building areas must be balanced with park areas.

    Minimum lot sizes in Residential 1 zones are determined by State Govt planning statutes. It’s now 300 sq metres.

    Wrong again !
    From http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/41396/MoP_NewResZones_ct39_20080214.pdf the bible on such things, I quote ?

    A planning permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling if the lot is less than 500 square metres.

    Queensland has the same requirements.
    Ref : http://www.redland.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/_Planning_Building/RPS/V3_Documents/09.05.pdf

    The average block size, since the eighties is between 700-900 sq m.

    They don’t discriminate.

    Yes they do. They will know back any DA, that may detract from their long term plan for the shire involved. Any plan that may devalue land, damage land, or detract from any aim the long view aesthetic qualities of their shire will be out the door quicker than lighting.

    Sometimes I think you say these things, just to get an argument. For someone who has attempted to get into council, ffs, you would have to know better than to come up with the crap you have ?
    C’mon man, a little common sense. Or is losing an argument that devastating to your ego ?

  32. damage says:

    Graigy the other day you said you were going to confess your abuse of children and when Bolt haps on and on about Nazis you call it projection. Yet you harp on and on about Catholics raping kids.

    Ray when a bloke continues to single out one group of people for abuse and calls for dicrimination against them based on their membership of that religion then bigot is not a term of abuse, but one of description.

  33. damage says:

    I’m not BTW saying that Graigy’s a child molester Ray. I’m asking why we shouldn’t use projection as a point against him when he’s used it several times to suggest others’ arguments are poor.

    When the shoe is on the other foot you lefties get squeemish don’t ya?

  34. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, you are quoting from a DISCUSSION PAPER re land zoning that if implemented requires all councils across the State to nominate 3 separate residential zones. The selective quote you’ve cherry picked “A planning permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling if the lot is less than 500 square metres” applies only to one of those zones. As the document states, most residential 1 areas remain at minimum lot size of 300 sq metres.

    The purpose of the scheme has nothing to do with what type of person they want to send to particular areas. It’s about density and retention of character. Councils do not set out to attract or deter refugees or immigrants via the planning scheme. Governments do not “point them towards certain areas” either. As Craigy points out, most refugees are settled by outside agencies and one of the key determiners in their choice is availability & affordability of housing. That’s why a lot of Africans are settled in Wodonga. Btw, Wodonga has social problems and street violence too but it’s not caused by the refugees. Iraqis are often settled in Shepparton which has a big community of Iraqis. Once again, the Iraqis are not the ones causing social problems in Shep which has a long history of attracting displaced people mainly because they can get work there.

    I think it is you, not me, who just wants to argue the toss here by making connections and coinspiracy theories about how governments select areas like Lakemba in which to house new arrivals. It has simply always been the case that immigrants tend to gravitate to the areas that offer more affordable housing. The reasons are economic.

    This “argument” between you and me started out when I said that we have no say over who moves into our particular suurb and the only solution for those unhappy with the way their suburb has evolved is to simply move. You disagree but I think your theories are far fetched. Let’s leave it there because I’m becoming a bit tired of you constantly telling me I don’t have a clue. I could say exactly the same to you but I’d rather say we just both have different opinions.

    Over & out.

  35. Sax says:

    Another classic Ray Dixon “dream sheet” comment.
    Discussion paper my a*se !

    So, have another go, and perhaps this time, without the normal Ray Dixon argument losing parting personal shot ? It really is getting tiresome, and says more about you, than it ever does about me, or anyone else for that matter.

    My quotes were not discussion papers as you state. They are direct from building and planning regulations, from Redland Council. From the search results, it appeared that these was the average requirements.

    The minimum you stated, of 300m2 is correct, but try submitting a DA, for a single occupancy dwelling, with that block size, and you will be laughed out the door. For somebody, with numerous attempts to get into council, you show surprisingly little knowledge about how the system works. Again !

    Councils, by regulating DA’s from developers, direct what, and who move into those new estates.
    How ? Such covenants as, dwelling construction composition, minimum dwelling size, single storey limitations, single dwelling construction on blocks, limitations of occupancy numbers and so on, limit what can be built, and ultimately who can afford to purchase the blocks to begin with.

    Councils, by enforcing these requirements, ensure that maximum market value can be maintained, as well as ultimately the final purchase price. Why do they do this ? Councils charge their rates on valuations of land value. If land estates are set up, with maximum ‘bling’ value, then values across the whole shire ultimately are raised.

    Again, a classic example was Caulfield in Melbourne. The suburb was originally settled by returned servicemen from ww1 and 2 with War Service Land Grants/Loans and so on. The suburb in the seventies was gradually bought out by Jewish people. The first thing they wanted to do, was tear down the classic old 3 beddy weatherboard dwellings, to build their brick palaces. DA’s for demolishment of these old w/board dwellings were approved, upon the approval of the new plans. These new plans ? Hmm, minimum 3 b/r brick veneer and above. That way, assessable land improvement values increase substantially, and in the process, so does council rate income. That’s how councils did/do it Ray.

    This is the way they legally discriminate, just as to who can move into the suburb !

    I apologise, I thought, that as being part of the process, I assumed that you would know that simple fact. Obviously, it was an incorrect assumption ? 😦

    How do you think it worked in the ten pound pom days Ray ?
    Using Melbourne, again as the example, funny when the poms came out, they all settled in areas such as Bayswater and surrounds ? They were offered housing packages, before leaving England, jobs to match, also in the area and so on. That is how it is/was done. Maybe in these days of political correctness it has changed somewhat, but that was the way they got around the early discrimination laws. Direct ! Don’t try and tell me it didn’t happen either, because I know better. Look at my last name ffs ?

    The average building block in any new estate these days is just smaller than the old quarter acre. In the old lingo, blocks are around the old 50 x 150 +/-. Inner city blocks are changing. The minimum requirements for development for these properties, are certainly getting smaller I agree. The blocks themselves, are not getting smaller, rather multiple occupancy is occurring. I.e. flats, units etc. However, outer suburb block size requirements are still in the 800-900sq m range. Love to see you propose a new single dwelling plan, on a block smaller that that ? Be even more surprised to see you get it approved !

    Why is it, that refugees are offered such areas as Shep Ray ?
    Could it be, that the local farmers there, have always had problems hiring locally seasonal picking staff/workers ? All along the Murray, farmers have had these hiring problems for decades. The seventh day adventists, in their little communes in that area won’t do the work, so they have to find someone to do it ?

  36. Sax says:

    Salamat Malam yourself ?

  37. Ray Dixon says:

    No further comment, Sax. Your link was to a “Discussion Paper”. Councils don’t set out to attract or deter immigrants or refugees. It just happens that way.

    Calm down for Christ’s sake. Good day.

  38. Sax says:

    For God’s sake, read it again. Especially the authorship cover sheet.

    Councils don’t set out to attract or deter immigrants or refugees. It just happens that way

    Whaaaaah ! WTF ?
    Keep smiling friend, you might win the next one…..
    Then again, perhaps not !

  39. Sax says:

    The link was to

    Version 3.0 of the Redlands Planning Scheme is in force from 19 April 2010.

    See the words Discussion Paper, or maybe proposed ? or perhaps even the word draft in there ?
    Nice attempt at a duck shove.
    Quack quack, failed again Daffy !
    😆

  40. Jilly says:

    Ray
    “Councils DO NOT place covenants on what sort of house can be built.”

    I lived in a suburb enforced with covenants. Not sure if council limited building requirements but the covenants did cover such things as; No bins visible from road on non collection day / No air cons to be on front view of house / No recreation vehicles, campers, trailers to be in driveway etc. Council was the body that policed this so would assume was their laws.
    I also assume the reason for the covenants was to keep a high standard in the suburb. Would it go without saying that immigrants were a rarity in this area. Immigrants can be attracted to an area, likewise deterred by overpricing and limiting specialist services. Maybe council do have some determination in where they would like new immigrants to settle, indirectly if not so blatant.

  41. Sax says:

    Thanks Jilly.
    Nice to see some common sense in this debate ?
    😉

  42. Ray Dixon says:

    All councils have bylaws. Sax, the document you quoted the 500 sq metre min lot size reference from was a Victorian Govt discussion paper. Now this has become a silly argument to suggest that local councils are directing immigrants to certain areas. I’m bowing out of it – see if you can do it without the carry on.

  43. Sax says:

    Geez, never admit you’re wrong will you. Typical Ray Dixon come back.
    Tell me where it says discussion paper and I might even apologise ?

    Do the words is in force from 19 April 2010. suggest anything ?

    Please bow out. I prefer a challenge, and discussion with someone who argues the facts, not the person, nor one who after hours of fun research to win an argument, finds that the opponent skulks off and sulks, or worse still changes the goal posts ?
    Talking about sucking the oxygen out of a room ?

  44. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, this is the link to the document you quoted from:

    Click to access MoP_NewResZones_ct39_20080214.pdf

    “Tell me where it says discussion paper and I might even apologise”

    On the first page. Apology awaited.

    Where does it say is in force from 19 April 2010? It may well say that but I never said it wasn’t in force. I said the changes are to do with population growth and retention of character of some areas (note: “character” refers to the look and amenity of a suburb, not to the ethnicity of the residents). In fact the major changes are in creating more high density areas, not less.

    I can’t admit I’m wrong because I have not made any claim that you’ve effectively refuted. The simple premise of my argument is that we have no say over who might move into our suburb. You say we can by “elections”. I say it doesn’t matter who we vote for because immigrants and/or refugees will always gravitate to the cheaper suburbs and/or regional cities.

    Do you think you could, for once, just end an argument that is basically just a difference of opinion without adding your usual aggressive insults?

  45. Sax says:

    When you do !

  46. Sax says:

    The following are the guidelines set up by the organisation.

    * the use of materials which have a low environmental impact;
    * the minimisation of energy use and the utilisation of low energy greenhouse impact sources;
    * the placement of minimal loads on infrastructure such as stormwater, water supply and sewerage, and energy supply;
    * features which facilitate environmentally sound lifestyles;
    * a high standard of comfort, security and aesthetics, and a healthy environment.

    In respect to siting:

    The house must meet Victoria’s 5 Star Energy Rating
    The area of the site must be less than 500 square metre
    (that’s the building not the block but the structure btw)

    and further ?

    Residential size is the entire area of land that a house/residence is built upon.
    72% of Melbourne’s residential sizes were greater than 500m², (500m² is the recommended residential size according to the Green Home Guidelines Australia) and 28% were greater than 750m² in 2001 Isn’t that what I have been saying ?

    Source : http://2020.gwsc.vic.edu.au
    /wiki/As_the_population_grows_in_Melbourne,_how_do_we_manage_size_and_location_of_housing_developements_to_lessen_their_impact_on_the_environment%3F

    But, I suppose in your mind, the whole policy of 2020 is a draft as well ?
    Funny how they are already working on 2030 ?
    Naw, local councils and/or state governments don’t influence what is currently being built on our vacant land.
    Have fun with it, watching the footy with the kids.
    😆

  47. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, where in this thread have I mocked or insulted you?

    Anyway, those guidelines are NOT designed to attract or deter immigrants or refugees, most of whom start out by renting. And consider this: If you are right (a big “if” I might add) then all you are doing is supporting my original contention that if you don’t like the demographic of your suburb (like GD has bemoaned) then simply take the option of moving to one where you say the councils have designed them to keep the buggers out.

  48. Sax says:

    Finally, a Ray Dixon concilliation of sorts. Hang on.

    If you are right (a big “if” I might add) then all you are doing is supporting my original contention that if you don’t like the demographic of your suburb (like GD has bemoaned) then simply take the option of moving to one where you say the councils have designed them to keep the buggers out.

    But you said, quite emphatically, that it doesn’t happen at all Ray, which is it now ?
    Finally admitting that it does happen ? Don’t feel so bad.

    And round around the merrygoround we go.

    They are designed, (I think I, as well as I think Jilly said it as well), to attract maximum price, maximum rate value income, and therefore put the land in a market price range to keep out the riff raff. Immigrants, refugees, or even the poor Aussies, that they know, won’t have the means to pay for such luxury, at least first cab off the rank. That is how councils decide who lives within their shires.
    Funny part is, as I have also said, you attempting, more than once, to be a councilor would already known that. At least you should have ?

  49. Ray Dixon says:

    It’s neither – councils don’t use their planning schemes to attract or deter certain people. I’m just saying that if they did, as you claim they do, then it supports my claim that if you don’t like your area then move. In reality, councils don’t even consider what type of person is attracted to their area or kept out – only the type of developments they desire. It doesn’t matter how hard they might try (and they don’t try), a family of refugees can just as easily afford the rent on a home in, say, Lakemba that a family of Aussie born bogans can. Your point is moot – it always has been. Immigrants and regugees go to the areas where the housing is more affordable. Full stop. If GD doesn’t like his area that’s because his area is down market, I’d suggest.

  50. Jilly says:

    Maybe not. The councils in the country would deal more with residents fleeing rather than immigrating. The percentage of young adults residing in those areas are less than in the main population areas. The council Ray is familiar with would deal more with attempts in retaining than deterring.

  51. Ray Dixon says:

    That’s not even in the ball park of this debate, Jilly.

  52. Jilly says:

    The country shires/councils do have a different ballgame. Its common knowledge that adults in their prime leave the country and statistics do back that up. In your shire, where is the greater demographic, young adults or retired elderly.
    Thus deterring would not be a consideration from your experience in local government.

  53. Ray Dixon says:

    I don’t even understand what you’re saying, Jilly. In this town of Bright we have a very high percentage of retirees because retirees like to retire to the country. The council doesn’t encourage them to do that, it just happens. So ….. ?

  54. Jilly says:

    So what explains the drastic drop from 10-19 age range to 20-29. The young adults seem to be fleeing from your locality. Surely your Council is aware of the shift and does try to encourage the youth to stay by looking at employment opportunities, services etc.
    So your belief that Councils do not deter immigrants may be based on ignorance as your Council would address the opposite, else Bright would be a ghost town with the population shift evident.

    The reason GD is amongst immigrants may be that he lives in an area that new arrivals have familiarity with and the councils encourage with services applicable. Probably not anything to do with cost as the charities and government have that covered.

    http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvs&chd=s:pxVn229tYEA&chxt=x&chxs=0,666666,9&chs=350×90&chxl=0:|0-9|10-19|20-29|30-39|40-49|50-59|60-69|70-79|80-89|90-99|100%2B&chf=bg,s,ffffff00

  55. Jilly says:

    Chart did not come through good.
    Try this
    http://www.onmydoorstep.com.au/at/3741/bright

  56. GD says:

    Hello Ray, I hope this discussion hasn’t descended to ‘if GD doesn’t like where he lives, he can f*ck off’ which is what you make it sound like. If you read my recent comments on this subject, I have stated that in my suburb, multiculturalism seems to be working. You specifically expressed surprise when I wrote that. Sometimes the bureaucrats get it right, well sort of.

    Refugees are provided with accommodation exactly like those in public housing, ie housing commission flats. As I also pointed out, it’s far from shabby. As our learned public servant, Craigy, has agreed with, it’s administered by charities, most with religious afiliations. So far so good. My suburb, and I say that only to differentiate it from Lakemba, where I don’t live, has a predominance of Sri Lankan and Indian immigrants, all arriving in the past two years. They are a flow-on from the next-door suburb, which received a similar influx some years back. That suburb is now Indian to the core. Apart from the pub, there is no longer a business in the main street that isn’t Indian or Sri Lankan.

    Immigrants will always congregate and seek communal support. It is natural. Similarly, only the richest immigrants will settle in the silver-tail suburbs, which leaves the bulk of the immigration program foisted onto lower class western suburbs to deal with, on a day to day basis, and then these residents are subjected to jibes of ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’ if they dare to disagree with government policy, or experience a disaffection with the rapidly changing landscape of their neck of the woods.

    Meanwhile, those making the decisions, such as how many immigrants will we take this year, and those deciding the refugee policy are far removed from the practicalities and results of their subsequent decisions.

    Public housing for refugees is carefully planned to ensure that country towns receive a share, much to their chagrin it seems, and the beleaguered western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne receive the rest.

    Meanwhile, back in Bright, Ray sees a few brown skinned people smiling as they arrive for a holiday and assumes that both our immigration policy and refugee programs are working well. I’d suggest taking the blinkers off Ray, and those rose-coloured glasses. It’s not all hunky-dory.

    Our increased immigrant intake from non-western countries is a recipe for social disaster. You only have to look at Europe to confirm that. As much as you’d like to think we are different to Europe, we are importing the same tribal misfits, and inviting the same social unrest that Europe has experienced over the past twenty years.

    And if that’s not enough to get the point across, Indians and Sri Lankans = good, Middle Eastern tribal hotheads = bad.

  57. Ray Dixon says:

    Thanks for that GD but that’s not what the argument had evolved (or devolved) into. My original contention was not that you should “fu*ck off” but simply that your only option if you don’t like the people in your suburb or nearby region (which seems to be the case) was to simply leave because we cannot say who may and who may not live in what suburb.

    Sax said we could have a say by electing councils that will put in planning restrictions to deter immigrants & refugees. I say that councils don’t work that way and that immigrants will always gravitate to the more affordable suburbs. Thanks for comfirming that.

    Btw, the country towns around here receiving refugees are not complaining. I think your problem might be as much related to overcrowding, traffic congestion, lack of public transport etc. I dunno, but it all points to why the hell stay somewhere you’re unhappy with. Are you chained to the place or what?

  58. Jilly says:

    Once again you have returned to the move out and leave the immigrants to it. A recent case is an elderly man who has lived in his house for 50 years. Apartments are now built around him and a resident has taken him to court due to the noise of his chickens. He has had chickens at his home for half a century. Why should he remove the chickens or move out himself. Not related cases but does illustrate an example.
    Try telling Australia’s original inhabitants move out if you don’t like it.

  59. Sax says:

    Sax said we could have a say by electing councils that will put in planning restrictions to deter immigrants & refugees. I say that councils don’t work that way and that immigrants will always gravitate to the more affordable suburbs. Thanks for comfirming that.

    Again, you are selectively quoting Ray.
    I did say that, but qualified it, by saying that by the very fact that Councils use their planning by laws, to maximise rate income. They do it, to ensure a maximum purchase price of that land for maximisation of rate income.

    In the process, due to the higher cost of the land, they are (perhaps not on purpose, but none the less ?) pricing immigrants or refugees out of these areas.

  60. Ray Dixon says:

    Jilly, I grew up in an area that when my parents first built there was almost 100% anglo saxon. That same area is now predominantly occupied by immigrants. Things change and the people who live there now are welcome to it. The case you cite about the man and his chickens is more to do with our growing population and the trend towards higher density housing. And neighbourhood disputes over noisy animals are common place but I hope he wins the case. I’m not “trying to tell” anyone to move out, I’m just pointing out the obvious solution.

    Sax, I disagree that councils intentionally set out to maximise the purchase price of land on behalf of developers. They’re just little bureaucrats who like to justify their positions, grow their little empires and pay themselves wages way out of proportion to what they’re worth.

  61. Sax says:

    They set out to maximise the value of the land. That has a direct proportional relationship to the purchase price, and who can afford to move there.

  62. Sax says:

    They’re just little bureaucrats who like to justify their positions, grow their little empires and pay themselves wages way out of proportion to what they’re worth.

    Wow Ray, bit hard to take your argument seriously with that sour graped response ? 😉

  63. Ray Dixon says:

    It’s not sour grapes, Sax. I’m referring to council staff, not councillors. It’s the CEOs and the other council administrators who really run councils and implement the planning scheme. They just love red tape and growing their empires.

  64. Sax says:

    Can’t argue with that Ray, not one little bit. Oh s*it, been there done that.
    Been the situation in nearly every council I have ever dealt with. Planning permits, with accompanying environmental impact statements . Been there, done that, but it does sort of cement my point of them trying, through these stand over tactics, to maximise rate income by inflating land values with the use of these tactics ?

  65. Ray Dixon says:

    I really think their motive is just to increase their own importance and pay packets, Sax. It’s not the rate base that determines how much they get paid and most council works are paid for with government grants.

  66. Jilly says:

    That’s correct Ray. Money is the motivator. Higher land valuations equals higher property rates. Resident selection appears to be an indirect byproduct of this.

  67. Sax says:

    Well done the both of you !
    Now ya got it !
    😉

  68. GD says:

    Thanks for that reply Ray. Once again you are closing discussion on the future ramifications of unwise immigration, which is really what this post is about. Right, Jilly and Sax?

    Simply because other Christian based cultures, such as the Italians and the Greeks and other Europeans, have successfully settled and assimilated with the populace, you assume that other cultures, with vastly different ideologies, and agendas, are going to do the same thing. Doesn’t the track record of European Islamic immigration give you any clue as to what Australia can look forward to in the next ten, twenty years?

    Already we are seeing the seeds of dissent from this small group of immigrants and refugees. They make up 1.7% of the population but are far more visible and decidedly more devisive than all the Chinese, Thais, Buddhists and whomever else we have invited to live here in the past.

    It behoves us to take note of this disturbing trend. Rather than turning the other cheek or sticking our collective heads in the sand, perhaps we should acknowledge the elephant in the room and take note of the likes of Pat Condell when he says that Islamic immigration in Europe has been a complete and utter failure.

    Maybe then we can avert a similar tragedy here.

  69. Ray Dixon says:

    GD, Europe’s history is one of warring tribes and nations. Even civil wars. No, I don’t think we’ll go the same way here. Europe, in terms of assimilation, has always been a failure.

  70. Sax says:

    Yep GD spot on.
    I hope you’re right Ray, I really do, but past experience unfortunately tells me otherwise.
    I guess only time will tell, and again unfortunately, it will take something very bad to happen, to bring light into an issue, that really no one upon high wants to acknowledge even exists, or even worse deal with ?

  71. Ray Dixon says:

    The Serbs & the Croats were constantly at each other in Europe until very recently. Same goes for the Greeks & Macedonians and even the British and the Irish. In the Middle East, well, like how long have the Jews & Arabs been raging war & terror on each other? Yet many of those people have successfully emigrated to Australia and by and large they have assimilated and tolerate each other – as well as us. The worst cases we’ve seen of racial violence in OZ in recent times has actually been at soccer games between Greeks & Macedonians. India complained that Aussies were targetting Indians in racial attacks but I think that was overstated. By & large I reckon there is just something about Australia that eases the tensions between races. Maybe it’s the fresher air and the better climate.

  72. damage says:

    Was Cronulla over stated?

  73. Ray Dixon says:

    Good point. I still say we’re not at the point we’re we need to consider banning certain ethnics from immigrating to Australia.

  74. Captain James Mission says:

    What are “ethnics”? Please Reg, do tell….?

  75. GD says:

    Absolute gold! “middle class left wing pricks” 🙂 “multi-culti left wing prickery” 🙂 🙂

  76. Iain Hall says:

    Pat does have a way with words GD 🙂

  77. Ray Dixon says:

    I mispelt it, Zane. I meant “ethics” – I realise you don’t know what they are.

  78. Sax says:

    Middle class left wing prickery
    Home of the terminally tolerant
    Love it !

  79. Ray Dixon says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he talking about other countries, not Australia?

  80. Sax says:

    I think so, especially England, but just loved the come back. It was just too good not to comment on ?

  81. GD says:

    Well what he says about the BBC can equally apply to our ABC

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: