There have been many calls for a referendum on the subject of immigration, but all of the major political parties have refused or ignored these calls. They know what the outcome would be… The majority of Australians did not ask for an end to Australia's traditional immigration policies, nor did they ask for a massive influx of Asians into Australia, or for the Asianisation of our nation.
Michael Barnard, writing in The Age newspaper, recognised this view.
There is an even greater onus on the Government, once having placed its vision before the public, to put the issue to referendum. It is scandalous that any fundamental shift in national characteristic or any definitive step towards "Asianisation" should be attempted without proper public recourse to the ballot box.
When, in 1988, one opinion poll asked whether "Australia should hold a national referendum on immigration policy"; 70% replied that they thought we should. Naturally, the Government and Opposition politicians ignored the poll, ignoring the wishes of the Australian public.
the Liberal/National Party government of Harold Holt, with the support of the Australian Labour Party, began to dismantle the infamous White Australia policy. Neither Chifley, nor Holt, nor any of their successors enjoyed majority community support for what they did... Bipartisan support for a completely non-discriminatory immigration policy has been one of the great and rare distinctions of modern Australian political leadership. It has been a triumph of principle over populism, of reason over fear, of statesmanship over politics.
Mark O'Connor wrote about this betrayal of democracy by Australia's Multiculturalist Establishment.
Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke boasted at the Bureau of Immigration Research's National Outlook Conference in Brisbane in 1993 that his government had enforced 'elite as opposed to popular views on immigration.' By 'elite' he did not mean 'expert', for ...he had ignored advice to reduce immigration not only from the Australian Academy of Science and CSIRO, but also from the government's two main sources of economic advice, Treasury and EPAC. By 'elite' he was referring to the bipartisan political support for high-immigration that existed in Australia throughout the 1980s and much of the 1990s, supported by large sections of the media - especially by most of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation - and by most of the public service and many school and tertiary teachers.
Well-known journalist Sam Lipski once wrote of his disdain for popular democracy. Sadly, it is apparent that many other Multiculturalist journalists and politicians share his view.
"But what about democracy? What if 75% of Australians do want, ahead of all other concerns, to slow up or stop Asian immigration... the democracy we inherited is not meant to be government by referendums... parliamentary democracy is an interwoven net of representative institutions, not populist ones".
The anti-democratic meaning of Lipski's contempt for the majority of Australians has been recognised.
In other words: liberal-internationalists believe that, no matter what 75% of Australians believe regarding immigration, the self-given duty of the Establishment's media and politicians is to press on with immigration policies that are opposed by the majority of Australians.
As John Bennett points out,
The elitist argument by politicians (who often ignore majority opinion on specific issues) that ordinary people are incapable of making decisions for themselves and should be ruled by politicians who know what is 'best' for everyone, is anti-democratic and is contradicted by the success of rule by citizen-initiated referenda in Switzerland and elsewhere.
Mark O'Connor revealed the anti-democratic brand of the Multiculturalists.
The truth is that, far from being defenders of democracy, many 'anti-racism' campaigners frankly attack free speech and majority-rule. 'Anti-racism' makes a good cloak for elitism. The argument that the people must not be given power because their views are barbaric is a classic right-wing view, even when advanced by those who consider themselves left-wing.