Evans’ silent signal on
immigration
|
The money line from Chris Evans this morning in announcing changes to the skilled migration program was that this was about “taking back control of our immigration program”. The announcement is a big step in the Government’s pre-emptive attempt to ensure immigration does not turn against it in an election year. Unlike with climate change, the Government won’t be caught out thinking it owns an issue that is starting to damage it. The Opposition has taken its time finding its line on the issue, partly because Scott Morrison is new to the portfolio. Kevin Andrews in fact beat him to the punch, calling for an 85% slashing of immigration as soon as he returned to the front bench. Since then, Tony Abbott has been unclear on the issue, talking about how he “instinctively” favours high immigration but more recently emphasising the need for a sustainable population. Andrews ran a huge immigration program when in Government, much to the delight of business, which reflexively supports a growing population. Meantime, both sides of politics have had a march stolen on them by the likes of Dick Smith, who has been spruiking for a new political party to cut immigration — again on the basis of “sustainability”. “Sustainability” is the new dog-whistle on immigration and population issues. Only, it’s left-wing dog-whistling. The idea that Australia can’t support a higher population without massive environmental degradation and loss of urban amenity is a line that has been pushed by environmentalist groups and racist groups for years. It gives people who hate the idea of high immigration an excuse to oppose it without sounding like they hate foreigners. Thus the talk of how Australia — with one of the lowest population densities in the world — is fragile, running out of water and won’t be able to feed or house any more people. The normal solutions to such problem are, of course, provided by markets and price signals that direct investment to and reward innovation in areas of scarcity — an idea that’s anathema to the far left and far right. The Government has been aware for some time that the Coalition might turn to population issues in an attempt to get back in the electoral contest later this year. The ascension of Tony Abbott to the leadership would have reinforced their concerns. That it would be archly hypocritical doesn’t particularly matter — the Coalition in Opposition, and not just under Abbott, has shown itself quite happy to turn its back on its strong points or key policies from the Howard years in search of electoral advantage (just as the Beazley Opposition did with Labor’s record). It was significant that the Government plainly changed its spin on the population figures in the Intergenerational Report, from the Prime Minister welcoming “a big Australia” in November to Wayne Swan assuring us that the 36 million population estimate was not a target or “set in stone” but only reflected demographic trends of the past 40 years extrapolated to the next 40. Evans’ changes — complete with high-profile trashing of 20,000 visa applications — and their careful timing to lead off the Monday media cycle are intended to send a clearer signal not merely that the Governments will decide which skilled migrants come to this country and the circumstances in which they come, but that immigration is to be a tool in support of economic growth, not some random factor to be accommodated. In 2008-09, nearly two-thirds of the 171,000 people who arrived under the Government’s Migration Program did so under the Skill Stream. The expected angry reaction to the changes from Indian students and, quite possibly, the Indian Government, will help. Despite sympathy for Indian students who have been victims of violence, racially motivated or not, there’s a resentment toward the Indian Government and media being stirred successfully by our own media. Who said Labor couldn’t dog-whistle as well? To get the full story, you have to (as usual) read Laura Tingle’s coverage in the Fin, where she outlines the clash between Immigration and the Education Department over the issue and the tensions within federal cabinet. The unspoken trade-off here though is between the complaints of the international educations sector, which is increasingly disreputable anyway despite its alleged large contribution to exports, and possible damage to the relationship with India, and the Government’s desire to show it is in control of immigration and that it is sustainable. Whether it’s enough to cut the ground from under the “sustainable population” crowd will become clearer as we get closer to the election. |
|
|
|
29 Comments
That headline apostrophe is surplus to requirements.
The accolade to Laura Tingle is well-deserved. She is undoubtedly the best political journo in the country.
I’ve reconsidered the apostrophe. You can keep it.
“It gives people who hate the idea of high immigration an excuse to oppose it without sounding like they hate foreigners.”
Dick Smith is calling for an INCREASE in refugee intake. It could easily be doubled. Trebled. Along with a 50% reduction in immigration. Only someone breathing the clear air of Canberra with a view from Black Mountain Tower would think there is no ecological ceiling to human population both here and globally. Get real.
Keane here effectively throws his lot in with Harry Triguboff and Frank Lowy who are on record pushing for a 100M total population. If Australia can’t put a cap on it’s population, then what hope do other over stretched countries have?
Instead of getting sanctimonious about high immigration how about some analysis of the Australian aid dollar on broad based education programmes for women - which is the only known correlation with global population reduction.
This cutback was an easy step to Take. The case for more foreign trained hairdressers was never incredibly strong.
Althought David S Jenauthor would argue that there should be an additional ‘S’ on the end.
Well the whole student thing has proven to have more holes it in than a sieve, but the media focus their whines on a very few refugees who sail the last bit of their journey.
It’s truly monumentally stupid to keep selling citizenship with education in dodgy colleges as we have found in recent months when we are training cooks and hair dressers and people like my grand daughter can’t get a place.
I am all for cutting back immigration and having ten times more refugees.
After all we only accept 0.01% of the world’s refugees and then pretend we are marvellous.
We can support a lot more population than we do now.
If you look at the wheat stats from the abs, we use around 1.6 million tonnes of wheat a month. Of that 1.1 million is exported (67%) and 500,000 is domestic use (33%). We have a stockpile of 10.6 million tonnes of wheat in various silos. Food security is not an issue.
Water is the only real constraint. But by investing in desalination technology (like NSW) and using recycled water this would be less of a problem.
Scott, that our population should be decided by the size of our food surplus seems simplistic to say the least.
Today’s comments are off to a poor start.
Gripes about an apostrophe or not, affirmation (incorrect!) that Dick Smith favours more, not sustainable, population, then Scott’s amazing statement that people can live in full of wheat ilos connected to a desal plant.
Eventually the errant apostrophe makes its return via Tom McL’s “If Australia can’t put a cap on it’s population…”.
Bernard, you are usually not so unkindly treated.
All I’m saying is that Australia can support more people based on our food and water security. I know it’s not the prevailing opinion of this site, and if you disagree, fair enough, but at least come up with some figures to support your view, rather than calling me simple and amazing (though I don’t mind the amazing part)
Scott, Australia might export 67% of its wheat at the moment but the demand that irrigation water is increasing and that wheat crop is turning whole agricultural regions saline.
We have a decreasing supply of water, increased demands for agricultural water, degrading soil.
If we used all our wheat crop domestically we could support a maximum population of 40 million providing they were happy to eat wheat. If we want meat, vegetables, fruit and dairy product then we can’t support a population of 40 million.
I am not happy with high immigration levels when we have high levels of unemployment amongst the people already here. Yes we have a headline rate of 5% unemployment but that figure is arrived at by excluding all those studying, engaged in work for the dole programs, other support programs, who did not work for an hour per week paid or unpaid. Ergo volunteers are not unemployed. When you count those people looking for more work, those people who would like to work but engaged in study or work for the dole or social security support programs you might find the real unemployment rate is 25%. In which case we need job creation policies.
I agree with Marilyn Shepherd that our refugee numbers are paltry and our policy is nasty, brutish and worthy of another regime.
I think the meat stats aren’t too bad. In the month of September 2009, we produced 802,133 tonnes of meat products and exported 321549 tonnes (or 40%). Dairy also good (2360 ML’s produced and only 564 ML sold domestically). All figures from the ABS.
Don’t know about the fruit and vege…I’ll find those stats later.
As for unemployment being increased due to immigration, that’s not really true. People forget that immigrants are also consumers of goods and services and increase aggregate demand. They create more jobs than they take.
I think we are a net importer of food overall - perhaps someone can confirm or deny, as I can’t recall where that bit of information came from.
John Bennets, Dick Smith said we should take more refugees, but lower the total intake. Easily done, as we take so few refugees that doubling them would hardly be an impost.
I have to give full marks for effrontery to those who insist supporters of a sustainable population are racist - is that the best argument you can come up with to support your case? It doesn’t matter where immigrants come from , as they adapt to our high carbon lifestyle in a flash. I’d like the whole world to aim for a stable, sustainable population, so we can better confront the forthcoming shortages of oil, coal etc. The UK, for example, is looking down the barrel of 75 million in an area less that half the size of Victoria and dependent on Russian gas. Ouch.
Australia is the driest inhabited continent with only the green fringe around the coast suitable for dense population. Work out our population density after the uninhabitable areas are removed from the equation. We are already having to expend large quantities of CO2 desalinating water and will have to spend more as the SE of the continent gets even drier. There is a also a severe housing shortage because of Kev the Rev’s immigration program to the extent our kids can’t afford a decent house without putting themselves in debt for the next fifty years.
Why do we need a large population? Government thinks we do because they reckon it will solve the problem of the old age demographic and the Captains of Industry want it because it will make them personaly richer. Of course they will be able to afford to live in the nice parts. They will be able to buy their way out of all of the crap that high population brings.
So people want to live in a country with a modest population with clean air and clean water are racists. Well I’m not. I think the people we should be letting in are the refugees who have no where else to go, not rich foreigners coming in on aeroplanes with Visas, who want to escape from their overpopulated, polluted, religiously intollerant and crime ridden countries that they and their countrymen have created and maintained.
When climate change starts to bite there will be plenty of homeless and starving refugees looking for somewhere safe. I bet the current crop of immigration advocates won’t be so Keane on having them.
isn’t immigration one of the pillars of the property bubble…
Overall, 70% of our agricultural prooduction (aka soil mining) is exported. Wheat isn’t grown with irrigation, which is probably why we have the lowest yield per Ha on this particular planet (an Iraqi peasant with abullock & a bent stick gets a higher yield).
We could easily feed ourselves on just the produce east of the GD
I am all for the tightening of immigration laws. I find it astounding that someone from India (or anywhere else in the world) can study in Australia at tafe for a hairdressing certificate and then apply for permanent residency. How farcical is that?
Brakes need to be put on immigration for the time being, anyone that believes the current unemployment rate of 5.8% to be a true reflection of ‘real’ unemployment is insane.
Bernard,
It’s a bit average to talk about “population density” in Australia, when most of it is basically uninhabitable - you look at the pattern of population, and it’s all on the coast, and it is already stressing infrastructure and ecosystems.
Apart from that, it is insulting and incorrect to equate legitimate concerns about sustainability with dog-whistling - racists and other loonies have always attempted to co-opt whatever issues they can to support their cause.
The Lefties support Open Borders.
I support the opposite view… compulsorary exportation of lefties to Africa. That way they can live in the type of country they aspire to without destroying ours in the process.
A Win Win situation I think you will agree.
The fact is that for OECD countries there is no correlation between population growth and per capita GDP growth. So high immigration and fertility rates for Australia present us with a lose, lose situation. Perhaps that is why our inept, “ignore the evidence at all costs” governments have been so keen to follow that path.
@ John Bennetts, the shallow dilittante?
Dick Smith supports a population cap as per a book launch recently Overloading Australia by author Mark O’Connor, and interview with Smith on Glover ABC Sydney radion 702. It was a cracking interview and he’s right.
(My summary, in my words - By all means bring in the refugees, but high immigration is a big business racket for structural unemployment and desperate rental/development market. It’s got nothing to do with xenophobia. Same who pay the big political donations. It’s an essential plank in a business model screwing our democracy and city amenity. As per 7.30 special series on population development intensification)
Smith specifically calls for a boost for humanitarian refugee intake and a stabilisation of population around LESS THAN 35 million, projected by the Rudd Govt for 2050.
It’s hard to get quotes of Smith via google despite the massive public interest, prime time radio coverage by Glover on abc radio here (not on his blog) but here is one, a view shared by my 2nd generation Italian landlord:
“The entrepreneur Dick Smith has backed the plans to form the party as ”a good idea” because it might finally force the government and the opposition to publicly discuss an issue they refused to touch.
”I reckon Kevin Rudd’s realised nine out of 10 people don’t want a big Australia,” he said.
Concern about population projections had increased along with concern about the impact of global warming. ”There was the hypocrisy of the PM going to Copenhagen saying he wants to reduce global warning and double the population. You just can’t do it,” he said .
Last week Mr Smith launched the second edition of Overloading Australia, a book by Mark O’Connor and William Lines, which argues that Australia has the highest rate of population growth of any comparable country and that it should peg its population at present levels.
Joining him at the launch were other like-minded thinkers including the former NSW premier Bob Carr, singer John Williamson and Clean Up Australia founder Ian Kiernan.
He said the fear of being branded racist had scared environmental groups from discussing the issue of population increase despite its huge impact on the natural environment.
Mr Smith said all governments encouraged high levels of growth because that was what big business wanted, especially property developers, who depended on an ever-increasing demand for accommodation to maximise their profits.”
Oh just to add, Kelvin Thompson is ALP ‘danger mouse’ on this: He is being pushed out ostensibly as the low population voice for brand ALP, as a dispensible backbencher, (trouble with reference he wrote for a crim, ouch).
Kelvin has cred as greenie, as shadow ex env minister and I like him but it’s transparently a PMC choreography to run interference on the One Nation forces. A confused real politik to be sure, just as the freeze out of Dick Smith is above. As always follow the money.
@Tom McL, 8:10 today:
Tom, I have no problem with your contribution this time, except for the first line, where you display some kind of need to attempt a put-down.
I have a reasonably thick skin, so no harm has been done. I wonder though… wouldn’t it be more productive to stay on topic, play the ball and forget the man?
Thanks for the Dick Smith quote. It demonstrates that his position is pretty much what I said it is, and not necessarily what had previously been contributed. Your comments re Kelvin (0836hrs) are a bit Machiavellian. It will be interesting to wait and see whether his party supports him or hangs him out to dry.
“The normal solutions to such problem are, of course, provided by markets and price signals that direct investment to and reward innovation in areas of scarcity”
You can tell who is the former public servant. It’s a finite world, Bernard.
@ Bennets
Re read my first comment champ - double or treble refugees, halve immigration. Do the math - refugees are so small that it still amounts to a major decrease in overall numbers thus avoiding the moral trap of xenophobia or racism by helping the most in need, and avoiding the vanity of cherry picking the best of struggling nations. That’s what I call shallow analysis.
When you use “Today’s comments are off to a poor start. Gripes about an apostrophe or not, affirmation (incorrect!) that Dick Smith favours more, not sustainable, population, …”
Well James Joyce free flow of consciousness and double negative, no doubt. But a hypocritical and ironic self judgment too - given it’s an early comment and therefore also a “poor start” out of your own keyboard!
In Australia, there is definitely a positive correlation between GDP (and GDP/capita) and population. Unconvinced? Do a least squares linear regression analysis using excel with GDP and population (and GDP/Capita and population)
Or if you are more of a visual person, download the stats on population and GDP from the ABS. Population on the x axis, GDP (or GDP per capita) on the Y.
Definitely a relationship showing an increase in population corresponding with an increase in GDP.
@Tom, above:
I interpreted your “more refugees and less immigrants” comment as being yours alone and in no way related to Dick Smith.
Married as I am to a refugee, I agree with you both - now that it is clear who is saying what.
jb
Wow what a debate, i love it, a topic that seems to bring out everyones hidden agenda’s. Well done ****SCOTT**** for actually doing his homework, something nobody else wants to do and also to ****AR****
anyone who can read, write and do a bit of maths can work out population stats and then put it all together.
Anyone who disagrees with the idea that australia can support alot more people either has an agenda or hasn’t stuck their heads out of their own backyards.
I think the core of this issue is and always has been the decision that Australia should or should not have a moral obligation to the rest of the world to ease other parts of the world’s population burden, which continues to grow especially in India, Africa as a whole and of course China which is huge but not as much as they have been in the past thanks to their famous laws. Ecological footprints in these places will also grow if they have rising aspirations and covet westerners lifestyles making them more affluent, the world will certainly change, the forcast is 9 billion by 2050 i think??? So that is the question are we obligated to help???? Not are we capable of helping, of course we are, but will we or not???
I don’t know that it matters alot what aussies do, we are pretty small except for our huge footprints, it will probably be a paradox a plenty the more we take the more they will make.
Womens education is important, thats why we have a low birth rate, below replacement levels, has been since the late seventies, same with alot of other countries, in europe some countries actually have a declining population. So that raises the question of what kind of Australia do you want in the future? Coz their is definately going to be less “Native Australians” as a percentage of the total population than ever before.