Will New Aussie Prime Minister Live up to Election Promises?

Will the newly-elected Australian Prime Minister live up to his party’s election promises to cut foreign aid and immigration?

This is the question on all observers’ minds as Tony Abbot celebrates his runaway election victory this weekend and prepares for his first major policy speech over the next few days.


Abbott’s Liberal Party (which in Australian political parlance, is actually the home of “conservatives”) said in their election manifesto that they would “deliver stronger borders” and take “immediate action to protect both the integrity of our borders and Australia’s immigration programme.”

They also expressed a firm opposition to Third World “boat people” invaders landing in Australia.

“We will not allow illegal boat arrivals and people smugglers to either determine Australia’s immigration programme, or undermine the Australian people’s confidence in the programme,” the Liberal Party’s manifesto continued.

“We will deliver stronger borders—where the boats are stopped—with tough and proven measures.”

These are strong words, but, as observers point out, there is yet to be a “conservative party” anywhere in the West which has actually lived up to any of its public utterances on the issue of actually stopping the Third World invasion of the West.

The manifesto continued: “If elected Prime Minister, the first overseas trip that Tony Abbott makes as Prime Minister will be to Indonesia to renew cooperation against people smugglers.

“We will re-introduce the use of Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) to deny the people smugglers a product to sell.”

The TPV was a visa scheme first introduced by a previous Australian government in 1999, issued to persons who had been recognised as “refugees fleeing persecution.” This was given to people who applied for refugee status after illegally entering Australia, and was the main type of visa issued to “refugees” when released from Australian immigration detention facilities.

After being granted a TPV, refugees were required to reapply three years later, in case conditions had changed in their homeland. TPV holders were eligible for Special Benefit, Rent Assistance, Family Tax Benefit, Child Care Benefit, Medicare, Early Health Assessment and Intervention Program, torture and trauma counselling, and English as a Second Language classes.

* One point in the Liberal manifesto which might be of consequence—if enforced—is the section which says that “We will establish presumption against refugee status for people who arrive on boats without identity papers. Where asylum seekers deliberately discard their identity documentation, we will deny them the benefit of doubt when determining their refugee status.”

* This means that, if implemented, it will no longer be good enough just to set foot in Australia and cry “asylum” without papers, as a large number of the Third World invaders have done to date.

In addition, the Liberal Party manifesto said that it would “ensure future [foreign] aid funding increases are dependent on AusAid meeting strict performance benchmarks.”

The outgoing Labor party government was blamed for implementing a carbon tax based on the theory of “global warming”—for which many Australians blame for steep increases in their power bills.

Abbot said during the election campaign that if elected he would cut 4.5 billion Australian dollars (£2.63 billion) over the next four years by reducing increases in its aid spending to the Australian inflation rate, which is currently less than 3%.

They did not say they would end foreign aid—that would be too much to expect from any establishment party, who are all mysteriously obsessed with giving as much money as possible to the Third World—and have said they are still ultimately committed to reaching a foreign aid spend of 0.5% of gross national income.

Abbott told reporters last week: “I have to say, there are higher immediate priorities” than reaching the 0.5% target.

The money saved will be reallocated to road projects in the three biggest cities, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Recommended For You


  1. Abbott isn’t planning on reducing immigration to Australia, he’s only going to get tough on Third World boat people. Apparently he doesn’t mind migrants, as long as they enter the country legally. I have Australian friends and all of them say that with Abbott in charge, Australia will get hit long and hard with mass 3rd world immigration. Australia is a lost cause and, thanks to globalists, now belongs to the hordes of Asia.

  2. Some pertinent facts:

    ¬ Only 1 in 4 Australians of voting age voted for Abbot’s ‘Liberal’ Party. Only 1 in 3 voted for the Coalition that put Abbot in as PM. In other words, 3 in 4 voting-age Australians did NOT vote for him. Tony Abbot’s Liberla Party is all for migration including high intakes from Asia. [1]

    ¬ The numbers of refugees who arrive by boat is small – around 20,000 combined over past 4-5 years and around 20,000 combined in the 20 years before that; just 40,000 or so refugees. Refugees are mere scapegoats. [2]

    ¬ It’s the 150-200,000 official migrants that arrive each year that have dramatically changed the country over the past 15 years; around 2,200,000 of them since 1996. It was the conservative-right Liberal Party, with John Howard as PM, from 1996-2007 who greatly increased these migration levels, especially migration from Asia and Middle East.

    Most migrants are from the UK, New Zealand, China, India and South-east Asia. See reference [3] below for figures.

    [1] – AustralianPoliticsElection2013.blogspot.com.au
    [2] – http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/2011-2012/boatarrivals
    [3] – Australian Government, Department of Immigration, ‘Permanent additions, 1996–97 to 2010–11’ summarised at http://AustralianImmigrationStatistics.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/migrants-to-australia-1996-2011-how.html

  3. I agree with the points that Kate has made. Illegal immigrants who arrive by boat are being used as a scapegoat to appease public dissatisfaction with mass immigration initiated by a Liberal Party government, and that the their numbers are insignificant compared to those immigrate legally.

    What tends to get overlooked in the debate about immigration in Australia is that the entire Australian establishment is united in support of the policy of ‘replacement migration’ which means using net immigration to offset the aging of the native population. The idea is that working age immigrants will supplement the native working age population and maintain the proportion of elderly dependents. This policy has been decided in secret at an international level without the public being informed or consulted. There has been no debate in the media or parliament about it and it is was never part of any one’s election manifesto. As far as the Australian establishment are concerned ‘replacement migration’ is essential to prevent serious problems in the future and thus this policy is non negotiable and the prejudices of the public should not be allowed to hinder it. Hence all the establishment parties are united in their support for ‘replacement migration’ and the public cannot reject it by voting for an alternative. Exactly the same situation exists in Western Europe and North America. All the establishment parties are united in their support for ‘replacement migration’ while proposing ineffectual rule changes to immigration to appease public concern about the issue. This has been the situation with immigration in the West since the end of the second war – Third World immigration has been imposed by elites in opposition to the public’s opposition as revealed by opinion polls.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.