Abbott’s population target will cost us
|
Tony Abbott’s attempt to exploit xenophobic fears about high immigration would cost Australia over $200 billion in lost GDP over the next four decades, and significantly reduce GDP per capita, Treasury data shows. Yesterday Abbott announced he would slash immigration to levels far below those of both the Howard Government and the Rudd Government, although he declined to specify a target, instead releasing a “discussion paper” and promising to replace the Productivity Commission with a “Productivity and Sustainability Commission” to develop a target range for immigration. However, both the discussion paper, and Abbott in his remarks at his press conference yesterday, suggested that he would aim to “build consensus” around a 2050 target of 29 million people, using an annual net migration figure of 140,000 a year. This year’s Intergenerational Report forecast net migration of around 180,000 a year. In the last 18 months, driven by high levels of student visas and Australians returning home to escape the GFC overseas, net migration has increased to over 280,000. Treasury modelled a range of scenarios in its Intergenerational Report. It expects the Australian economy to grow on average at an annual rate of around 2.7% to 2050, based on a population growth rate of 1.2%. If other factors were held steady and population growth was reduced to 0.8% - corresponding to a net migration level of 100,000 a year - that would reduce real GDP by 17% by 2050. On this basis, Tony Abbott’s “consensus” target of 140,000 would slash GDP by around 8.5% - or around $290b, based on projections of current GDP figures. Treasury specifically modelled “high” and “low” growth scenarios, of 210,000 net migration or 150,000 net migration. The 150,000 net migration figure cuts GDP growth by 0.14 percentage points every year, and GDP per capita by 0.02 percentage points every year, slashing GDP by over $170 billion by 2050, and cutting GDP per person by over $7,000 a year. Abbott’s “consensus target”, at 140,000, is significantly lower than this figure and would inflict even greater damage on the economy. The Coalition discussion paper tries to avoid the issue of impact on GDP by focusing exclusively on GDP per capita (which of course is less affected by immigration cuts), claiming “correlation between movements in net overseas migration and growth in GDP per capita is weak”, based on its own statistical analysis. Abbott’s target is lower than the entire migration program in 2008-09 (171,000) and indeed in the last two years of the Howard Government. To meet the Abbott “consensus target” while retaining skilled migration, the entire temporary visa program and student visa programs would have to be shut down, as well as the humanitarian program, which will accept 15,000 asylum seekers this year. The closure of the student visa program would destroy Australia’s multi-billion dollar international education industry and prevent employers from hiring skilled workers from overseas when none are available locally, driving up wage inflation in sectors with skill shortages. The Coalition discussion paper also claims that “when the Coalition left office, almost 70% of our permanent migration intake (excluding refugee and humanitarian visas) was skilled migration,” and that the Rudd Government has let that proportion fall to “two-thirds”. According to the Department of Immigration’s annual reports, in 2006-07, the last full year of the Howard Government, skilled migration was 66% of the permanent migration program. In 2008-09, it was 67%. |
|
|
|
102 Comments
Oh no! Not precious GDP!
How is Treasury modelling, in this instance, any better than the modelling they did for the GFC?
What an absolutely ridiculous argment. Australia has one of the least dense populations on earth, deserts not withstanding. If policy makers would look outside the existing Sydney-Melb-Brisbane centric policies they’d see we have huge areas we could turn into new, self sustaining towns.
Limiting population growth is a populist, xenophobic argument aimed at old white people and whining first home buyers.
ABARKER to which argument do you refer?
Agreed ABARKER, we here seem to think we can be like Canute and hold back the unwashed tides to suit our own selfish little bubble of lifestyle while those “over there” just starve to death.
Now Abbott thinks people should not have to pay extra tax to try and make them give up smoking. It certainly worked when I quit 10 years ago and Howard did precisely the same thing for the same reason and today my daughter is doing it too.
At some point in time pouring toxic swill into one’s body has to be stopped and if the cost is a reason then so be it.
I watched a woman the other day spend $20 on vegetables and whinge about the price of potatoes and then spend $70 on 4 packets of cigarettes without a murmur.
It seems all those people who have been banging on about needing to have a debate about population are going to get one. I wonder if they expected it to look like this?
Irrespective of what the data actually say, saying anything has fallen from “almost 70%” to “two-thirds” is just laughable anyway.
i think Bernard and “ABARBER” may not have brains.
Yea, you increase GDP by increasing population (even an idiot knows that). but how much is the cost of such an increase in GDP? maybe everyone has to pay an additional half million when they want to buy a home? how much is the cost of driving 3 hours everyday to work? how much is the cost of polluted air in cities and drained rivers in countryside?
how do u know those rural areas can support millions of people? have u done any sustainability research on our fragile eco system?
pls shut up and stop telling lies.
Neil, offer up your own facts.
@RG - Sorry, the argument Tony Abbott puts forward that limiting population will be a good thing for Australia. What happens when we get close, a one child policy?
@Neil - At least I can spell. That should prove I have some kind of cognitive function.
Let me start by saying I think Abbott is completely untrustworthy. I don’t like nearly everything he says.
But this actual article embracing large population growth for Australia, falls into the trap of measuring the worth of a policy, in terms of potential GDP. This criteria for worth, is a fascinating hang over of the last 50 years or so… when everything is measured and valued in terms of a growing economy. But there are other important factors to take into account, however, other than (or as well as) GDP. Other important things might be sacrificed on the alter of a growing GDP.
Other things need to be weighed when policies are decided (like population size, or an ETS or whatever). Things like:
- how many hours a week are people working?
- how much unpaid overtime is happening?
- how many weeks holiday a year are people getting?
- how content, or happy, are the people in a community?
- how are we treating our indigenous people?
- how many make up the poorest members of our community, and how are we doing at meeting there needs?
- how much fresh water is there for the population to use?
- are education facilities adequate for everyone?
- how clean is the air and water?
- how good are the health services?
- does everyone have a certain basic level of standard of living, that is acceptable to the community?
- how safe do people feel?
- what is the crime rate per head of population?
- what is the suicide rate per head of population?
- how many acres of public parks and gardens are there per head of population?
- how many acres of national parks are there per head of population?
There are many other issues than just GDP that should be weighed when deciding policy. I like the so called “tripple bottom line” approach to policy making. Not just consideration of the profits (though that is one of the three things to take into account), but also the social costs, and also the environmental costs. All three things need to be considered for planning.
Not wanting to be a killjoy, but what about this chasm between what “The Monk, he say” and “The Monk, he do”?
these GDP scare talks are just so immoral. i just can not hide my anger…….
ur equal to a criminal, u know that? if u think GDP is more important than Australian Way of life, than other species’ lives on this continent.
If your GDP increase has to sacrifise the happy life style in Australia and our environment, ur a criminal and have no brains.
Started a firestorm of comment here, especially if I am doing a comment.
Everybody knows more people means more carbon emissions.
Having more people is not a good way to reduce per capita or total carbon emissions.
I never thought that I would see the day when an Abbot policy suggestion has a potential long term good.
Its really fantastic that someone has thought of actually limiting GDP, or limiting growth or limiting population.
Carbon emissions grow with GDP, therefore reducing GDP targets reduces carbon emissions.
The lost dollars will never be missed.
No other proposal from the 2 big corporate money parties, including the dishonest ETS, has come as close as this to being truely green.
Is this as good as it gets?
Lets have lots more like this please.
Maybe there is a bit of greenie blood in Tony Abbott after all.
Matusik Missive – Big Australia
28th April 2010
Are you sick of this debate already? If so, join the club. Ironically, it has not been a debate at all, but let’s not let the facts get in the way of spin. This will be the last missive for a while on population growth, but before I sign off, here are some final thoughts.
If Eyjafjallajokull (the Icelandic volcano which erupted two weeks ago) can teach us anything, it is that we have a very thin grasp on the events that really affect us. Bill Bryson, in his book, A Short History of Nearly Everything, explains quite imaginatively that if the distance between our outstretched arms, from finger tip to finger tip, represents the total lifespan of the Earth, then complex life has existed as long as the distance between the base of your palm and the end of your index finger. If using this scale, the wisp of a nail file across your index finger would represent the timeframe human beings have been on the planet. Feeling insignificant? Now, there have been five major extinctions – where the dominant species has died out – since the base of your palm; all of which happened by forces beyond anyone’s direct control – volcanic, celestial or climatic. Some think that man-made climate change will create the sixth big extinction. But I wonder. What I am trying to say is that we need to start looking after us - stop genocide, feed the world, cure malaria and so on. The planet has, and will always, look after itself. Arguing about Australia’s population growth is futile when you look at the bigger picture.
Australia’s economic well-being comes from two sources – productivity and population growth. The split is roughly 50:50. We can either keep growing, and accommodate such, or work much harder and longer (plus pay more taxes) for the same amount of pay. The latte left, who ironically, largely live off the government tit as it is; should, at least, acknowledge such before they start mouthing off about population caps and such. Some want to create an Australia which can operate independently of growth. A noble idea, but it will take a generation or two, plus lots of sacrifice, before we can move from being a mine to competitive value adding. So population growth, Downunder, is here to stay. Our whole economic system and way of life is predicated on such. I, for one, don’t want to live in the next Japan.
Politicians need to lift their game with regards to population growth. We need a plan; it needs to be broadcast and it must be adhered to. New cities are needed, plus better infrastructure in our existing ones. Approve development where you want it to go and stuff the NIMBYs. Nimbyism, given the vacuum of leadership in urban matters, has become the new book club. Almost every neighbourhood now has an urban protest group. The vocal minority, despite how vocal they might be, are still the minority. Have the fortitude, in most cases, to send them packing. The majority of us want you to!
Certain things, however, can be fixed quickly and relatively cheaply. All you need to do is think outside the square. For example, most outer suburbs are poorly serviced by public transport and especially outside of “normal” hours. Even in suburbs serviced by rail, there is often no after-hours public transport to get commuters to and from the station. What is missing is a plentiful supply of cheap, multiple-hire taxis. The absence of taxis is explained by the refusal of state governments to issue more taxi licence plates. The current high cost of taxi plates simply reflects this chronic shortage of supply.
Finally, it took 41 years to add ten million people to Australia’s population. Based on current trends, it will take another 43 years to add the next ten million. Australia’s population growth, when based on the long term average, is actually slowing down. China, by the way, grows by almost ten million every year!
Big Australia, ha! Let’s try to keep things in perspective.
michael@matusik.com.au
@Neil - what exactly is the Australian way of life? A ute, a dog, a bleached blonde chick and a southern cross tattoo? Getting drunk and starting fights down at Cronulla?
How ridiculous. The ‘Australian way of life’ as you put it is based on, and I’m pretty sure I remember this from the pre-Howard era, A FAIR GO FOR EVERYONE.
That means those Indian guys who drive your cabs right up to the Nepalese engineer who digs the iron ore out the ground to sell so our economy keeps going and you can keep your lights on is welcome to come here and make a go of it.
The whole problem is, over the last 15 years or so every bloody whinger has come out and put their hand out for something. ‘I’m entitled’.
‘I pay my taxes so I’M ENTITLED to my age pension / family tax benefits / childcare rebates’.
Never mind some of those immigrants who are here probably pay a hell of a lot more tax than most of us - they are the doctors, the engineers and the builders who make it all happen. This country’s had the guts cut out of it over the past 20 years and now we need to realise that these people coming from overseas want to ADD to what we have, not take away from it.
Think back to the 50’s, the Italians Greeks and a bit later, the Vietnamese. Sure it’s OK to call them all the slang names you like I guess, but remember what they brought to this nation next time you go out for dinner somewhere.
I couldn’t get past the notion of Abbott “building consensus”.
I can’t recall a more divisive character since Henry VIII separated his wives from their heads.
It doesn’t have to be “the city or the desert”. Why is regional development such a naughty word? When I listen to the 30 second grabs of the Coalition, I despair of any rational planning.
I’m inclined to agree with Jim Reiher, except for his spelling of tripple.
It looks like the dogwhistling is getting the attention of some!
Leaving aside all the environmental and biodiversity issues for a moment (and they are really BIG issues), isn’t it somewhat unbelievable that the conservatives are trumpeting a policy to lower GDP? Slow population growth? (Will the Monk be handing out the condoms or what??? LOL)
First we have the coalition putting down a market based system for CO2 emissions and now this?
Maybe in the rush to get the dogwhistle in his mouth, our Tone failed to consider the economic ramifications?
(Oh, and let’s not forget that 20 million emitting CO2 at today’s world-beating rate is the same as 40 million doing so at half the rate; in other words we need to factor in the technological shift to renewables and lifestyle choices that a doubled population may/could/might possibly make).
Increasing GDP doesn’t mean a higher standard of living in itself.
Increasing GDP per capita does
GDP divided by the number of the population
Look at the USA for example with the highest total GDP and then look at a country with a higher income per capita such as Norway.
Which of the two has a higher standard of living for the majority of its people?
How to increase the GDP per capita for Aust ?
I have no idea but dramatically increasing our population is no guarantee
surely we have an old “White Australia” policy that could be dragged out and dusted off?
That used to keep the blighters in check, that and cold steel up ‘em!
(note for those who were born without the sarcasm gene - this is sarcastic)
“Tony Abbott’s attempt to exploit xenophobic fears about high immigration would cost Australia over $200 billion in lost GDP over the next four decades, and significantly reduce GDP per capita”
Good I’ll gladly pay.
Every time anyone mentions anything about overpopulation, idiots bring up the xenophobia argument, get lost.
Michael Matusik, you make a number of assertions that I thought were worth looking into. First I looked you up.
You are in real estate. The industry to benefit most from increased population. Say no more.
Less GDP, but less people to share it with so perhaps the same GDP per capita?
However, GDP is not the be all and end all. Is it economic growth to have to cater for longer commutes to work, or burning more petrol stuck in a traffic jam?
Far more important than GDP is carbon emissions anyway. Population isn’t necessarilty the issue. Consumption levels and how we fuel that consumption is the issue.
The real problem is too many lazy high consumption white people on the the planet.
It is funny how we are destroying the only habitable planet in the solar system for what? MasterChef? V8 Car racing? 3D plasma screen television?
Where is the grand project that is worth destroying the environment for? I don’t see it. Maybe we should build a giant gold-plated pyramid. At least that’d be impressive
I would think that Tasmania could sustain a larger population than it does, probably around a million. Most of Tassie’s water flows out to sea untouched especially on it’s wet west coast and this seem to be the inhibitor of growth on the mainland. The population growth doesn’t all have to be on the big island. If you were going to start a city up from scratch, then Tassies the place to do it!
All I’ll say is that Kevin Rudd must have a small ‘l’ Liberal Deep Throat within the Coalition. I wondered why he popped up and appointed Tony Burke Population Minister recently. Now I know why. Tony Burke is probably salivating at the chance to take on Abbott and Scott Morrison when they get back to Parliament for this latest bit of dog-whistling populist xenophobia from a Coalition whose only idea is to recycle Howard’s ideas, with bells on.
Dear abarker,
The population debate is not about white or black or asian, its not about “race”, babe.
It is aboout “species”, its about human and environment.
human beings have the responsibility to consider not only about themselves, not only about the shit crap of GDP (lets pretend that any economist really knows how to calculate it accurately), but also about other specieces, about environment.
Before we can roughly know what is the reasonable carrying capacity of population on this continent, I am agianst any further population growth.
I reallly want to ask Bernard and other ppl to do me a favor and stop talking like they know whats GDP is about. I bet Bernard and others who talk about Australia’s economic growth comes from population growth have not studied economic history before.
“If other factors were held steady and population growth was reduced to 0.8% - corresponding to a net migration level of 100,000 a year - that would reduce real GDP by 17% by 2050.”
The difference between the two growth rates also results in higher growth having a 17% larger population. So the benefits to each individual (in terms of GDP per capita) would be close enoguh to zero. That hardly seems to justify the additional crowds, traffic, commute times, environmental impacts etc.
-> michael matusik
“Our whole economic system and way of life is predicated on such (population growth). I, for one, don’t want to live in the next Japan.”
Is this the Japan that went from 75,000,000 people in 1948 to their current 136,000,000 ???
I don’t really care much for what Abbott has to say. He will never be PM and rarely does what he says. Personally, the worst thing about him is that as he moves further right he leaves room for Ruddles to snuggle further right. CPRS for example.
I am however shocked and appalled by the lack of maths education in Australia. Who, with a straight face could say “when the Coalition left office, almost 70% of our permanent migration intake (excluding refugee and humanitarian visas) was skilled migration,” and that the Rudd Government has let that proportion fall to “two-thirds”.
… correction … 126,000,000 in 2010 … typo
Might I also just add that I expected better from Scott Morrison. As it stands he is just becoming an avid little Abbott clone.
Well said, Christopher Dunne. When you scratch beneath the surface of the Coalition dog-whistling, there’s an awful lot of inconsistencies, or scary prospects, depending on how you look at it.
On the numbers in the story GDP per capita is almost exactly the same under the lower population case*. Bernard neatly hides that by swapping from annual growth rates to total GDP change at the critical point — presumably deliberately. So he’s either pushing his private barrow or ramping a non-story. Either way, not quite what we’re entitled to expect from Crikey.
And why does Crikey regularly choose to insult readers who prefer a lower Australian population? Last time we were all racists (Worst. Editorial. Ever.) . This time it seems we’re all just xenophobic. Guys, I work with more people from more different places every day than your office probably sees in a year. Give us a break.
(* 17% reduction in real GDP by 2050 equals 2.3% annual growth instead of 2.7%. So the annual population growth rate falls by 0.4% and so does the GDP growth rate.)
Wealth requires perpetual population growth. Australia’s population can never stop growing, ever. Thats what I’m reading between the lines here. Of course sooner or later something will force Australia’s population to stop growing, since its obvious it won’t happen voluntarily. What will it be? How soon - in any of our lifetimes? Thats what I’ve been trying to work out. I guess thats science fiction anyhow.
Jim Reiher, Christopher Dunne et al., thank you for illustrating my first point.
And Eponymous, thank you for repeating my second. I get the feeling that many media/political types are in that area because they thought it meant you could get away with being innumerate. How wrong they are, and how unfortunate for the rest of us that theirs are the hands on the levers of power.
Bernard, for goodness sake, do you have to keep making a mess of every bit of analysis on population? For a start, just run your figures on population PER CAPITA basis and see where they get you. It is simply foolish to argue that increased immigration leads to to higher standards of living, as numerous reports have found that immigration does little if nothing to benefit the overall economy. Remember, that even a car crash adds to to GDP, so it is a lousy measure of success in any case. If readers want an alternative reading of what uncontrolled, unplanned population growth (current Government policy) means to Australia, may I suggest this excellent analysis by Jared Diamond:
http://www.socialactionaustralia.org/2008/06/18/jared-diamond-on-australia%E2%80%99s-sustainable-population/
Bernard, you have become just another ideological warrior on this subject, impervious to rational alternative arguments that have caught you out at every turn. Frankly, that makes you pretty useless in the discussion, so suggest you move on.
Bernard,
Sometimes you write insightful, balanced pieces that are a pleasure to read. Other times, you write strongly partisan articles that are close to unreadable. Please focus on producing the first kind, because in this case you have really landed nowhere.
Let me state first that I am not going to approach this from a partisan perspective, as I have no interest in either the current Labour or Liberal leadership group.
1) Changes in GDP per capita should be the focus of any report seeking to quantifying the effects of population change on Australia’s economy, as changes in GDP per capita reflect the change in the standard of living of each citizen.
2) By your argument, a higher population is always better. By stating that a population target robs us of X% GDP, you are implying that by increasing our population perpetually, we can grow perpetually. This may be the case, but it ignores important tradeoffs. If a huge increase in GDP only delivers marginal increases in GDP per capita, then the effect on the citizenry’s standard of living will be marginal.
3) You make no mention of productivity; a key driver of future living standards.
In your haste to make political arguments, you have failed to adequately apply the correct metric and the article is poorer for it.
Chris 1979 offers a valid point about raw GDP figures and GDP per capita. I would still add, that even GDP per capita does not necessarily reveal an adequate picture of Standard of Living.
A country might increase its GDP per capita by making all working members of the community work 15 hours days, 6 days a week. Or by lowering the age of entry into the workforce and allowing 12 year olds to work a full working day. Or by extending the age you can retire and get a pension. Or by taking away holidays or other privileges of workers.
On the other hand, a country with a lower GDP per capita might have a happier population who don’t work as hard, and who don’t have houses full of possessions that require more work to obtain and more work to maintain.
Free time; human happiness; clean air and water; good health; a sense of security and purpose; all the things I listed above in my first post and more… they all should be considered as well.
Mr Abbott may be on the verge of a miracle. He might just win my vote. All he needs do is expand his population policy a teeny weeny bit by legalising voluntary euthanasia so that those of us who have run out of things to do or things they can do, along with those who are not really sure that they are alive can be removed from the calculations when growth is pegged and the increasing cost of an aging population disappears off the horizon. So come on Tony – say the words and win my vote.
I don’t know if it’s a stunning coincidence but the same debate is happening in America. I’ve always believed that Australia was blessed by the fact that it doesn’t border another country like the U.S. does (Mexico not Canada.) The debate over population increases/boat people and the like is equivalent to the open border polices that are happening in the U.S., and add to that this plan to annex/take over Puerto Rico that is currently being debated in the U.S. House of Reps.
Perhaps, like Glenn Beck has said about the U.S. making illegal immigrants legal citizens, it is a plan by Labor to bring those voters into the fold and have a permanent and ever increasing voter base.
Of course, I could just be paranoid.
Tamo, while Tone would NEVER get my vote (being female and intelligent I cannot conceive that anyone should vote for him to lead this country) the basic issue must be the aging population.
Setting aside environmental concerns (we can’t discuss this in relation to population until we knuckle down and actually implement a proper policy that would work) we must have a higher population, the bulk of which is gainfully employed so they can help finance our health/welfare system, otherwise all the discussion about ‘quality of life’ is going to be moot.
As usual, Tone’s short-sighted, populist and yes, xenophobic statements leave me shaking my head. He talks about needing infrastructure on the one hand, but wants Rudd to shutdown his infrastructure spending on the other. He really NEEDS to do some serious, logical thinking if he wants to even imagine leading this country.
Scott Morrison is really beginning to grate. When in doubt, he parrots every populist line that ole Tone has come up with in the past few months. Sad.
Jenauthor, the ageing question is actually not going to be solved- only delayed- by bringing in large numbers of migrants, who of course will eventually grow old too. The Productivity Commission long ago blew the whistle on this thinking, saying this Ponzi Scheme thinking does little if anything to help us. In fact, Australia’s demographic profile is remarkably young compared to other developed nations. It’s too easy to just ‘set aside’ the environmental problems which are too great to ignore. Meanwhile you, like the rest of commentators, ignore the cost of young dependents who are never factored into the equation yet represent as great, if not greater, a strain on our economy. Time for fresh thinking that examines all the facts, not just repeating the same old discredited thinking.
Jenauthor, I did not wish to suggest that I would ask anyone else to vote for him! I am interested in how he will manage his population controls without crossing crosses with the Cardinal.
I suspect that we are of like minds regarding Scott Morrison. I am always annoyed and/or feel let-down when people who gave evidence of intelligence suddenly become slogan shouters.
A little unicorn for Crikeyites.
Big Al Gore has just purchased another $8.8 million dollar OCEAN VIEW property.All the better for studying those rising seas in egalatarian comfort.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Tops BK.
JIM REIHER
I think RS Tony Abbott is masquerading as NEIL.
Crikey love, keep it up but I’ve got something for you.
Now, ssshhhhh, quiet, I am going to tell you something that only my closest family and friends know, that is, I read minds very accurately (but I refuse to exploit this gift inappropriately) so this is a rare political adventurous use I will commit simply because of the importance of SEX freedom so I will reveal.
RS Tony Abbott is planning to licence, tax and charge for all sex, yours and mine (but not his) in an overwhelming flash of RS brilliance he solves population and budget deficit issues in one grinding and infallible way.
RS – Rhodes Scholar, Rat Shit, Redback Spider
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
RS – Rhodes Scholar, Rat Shit, Redback Spider and Real Smart.
@ Roger
‘Meanwhile you, like the rest of commentators, ignore the cost of young dependents who are never factored into the equation yet represent as great, if not greater, a strain on our economy. Time for fresh thinking that examines all the facts, not just repeating the same old discredited thinking.’
As you no doubt read — I said a higher population that is gainfully employed.
As to the young being more costly — I reckon that is unlikely in the long run. Health costs are rising dramatically. We are keeping more people alive by using expensive drugs and technologies.
The young cost their families directly — but the elderly health and welfare costs are undoubtedly going to be a great deal higher over time. It might be laudable that we can eradicate disease and extend life, but the cost, as a social burden and if we keep feeding the middle-class welfare animal, who knows where we’ll be in 20 years time, even if the population remained static!
ABARKER: Obviously you have travelled extensively around Oz, perhaps even flown across i?. Have you actually tried to exist without a decent water supply? You should.
Have you had to endure the hell of trams in Melbourne which frequently fail to arrive? Have you noticed how tightly packed the commuters are?
Are you of an age to get married and start a family? If so you will have discovered if in Melbourne, an infrastructure which was built in the late 1800s. And you will know about the endless MacMansions strung out across once fertile country. I assume you noticed these erupting suburbs with names like ‘Dulcet Waters’, or Caroline Springs, or ‘Sylvania Waters’ are in places where little natural water exists?
Go to a couple of these places in order to look for schools, libraries, nice tree-lined shopping strips offering a variety of foods, goods and services compared to the giant Woolies and/or Coles supermarkets. Did you get to notice how empty these suburbs are during the day-both parents have to work to pay off the mortgages. No railway lines, ditto tram lines, the occasional bus. And a multitude of chock a-block freeways choked with traffic.
I’m surprised at Bernard coming at this ‘big country’ crap. Desalination plants by the dozens will have to be built just for the cities on the coast. How to get enough water to pump it to Alice Springs should be an interesting exercise.
It is my belief Oz should cut its immigration back to the bone for about 5 years. Then we will be able to get an idea of how much land has been lost and how a country which rewards pregnant women a huge baby bonus, is scarcely an intelligent way to plan for the future.
Once we start to control our unrestricted breeding and install some decent infrastructure, then we can start allowing for a decent migrant intake. Please notice, I am talking immigrants, not the poor bastards escaping from the violence in their own countries.
Why oh why do I have these naïve flights of fancy? A planned amount of migration? In place this appalling ad hock bull shit which is allowed to happen at present.
Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd are unashamed populists. They should stop being an embarrassment to Oz.
Good point, Venise. If Tony Abbott was serious about this population business he’d be advocating scrapping the Baby Bonus. I haven’t heard that one yet, just populist posturing about immigrants, with no basis in reality, as, if you follow his logic(hrad I know), then he is also suggesting we cut back severely on Family Reunion migration, Skilled Worker and Foreign Student migration. Now THAT will affect the GDP every which way!
The Treasury report is a crock, the article is a crock, and most of the comments above are a crock.
Has anyone noticed GDP per capita has been going down for the past few years, while both Howard and Rudd have increased immigration to record levels, well beyond any comparable OECD country?
So Australia’s ‘missed’ GDP depends on bringing in countless people from somewhere else, presumably all highly fluent in English, possessing rare ‘skills’, or possessing $500K in readies to plough into the Strine economy and employ a few hopeless locals. Let the good times roll.
This argument that ‘would cost Australia over $200 billion in lost GDP over the next four decades’ is nonsense. It’s made just by extrapolating a line and calling it an inevitability. Further, it would probably result ina decline in living standards per person, a decline in GDP per person, and set the country up very badly for the coming energy crisis. It assumes a rate of growth that no other adbvanced country is prepared to entertain. The price you would pay would be more social problems, more congestion in the big cities, longer peak hour snarls, more energy crises, more problems once peak oil starts to bite, more real estate exploitation and the likely creation of a permanent underclass, and greatly reduced sustainability on the driest continent on earth.
The Commonwealth never has a development plan for the regions, it simply allows all the new arrivals to pour into Sydney and Melbourne and stay there, with the exception of a few medico visas (yes, poaching doctors and other healthcare staff from around the world, often from poorer countries because the Australian govt and people are not prepared to actually pay to train their own, preferring instead to steal them often from countries that can ill afford to lose them.) Perhaps some of this $200M that Bernard and the Trasury insists will make all the current residents so much personally richer culd be spent on training the locals instead. And don’t get me started on unemployment. The GFC has left a huge lack of demand for workers by employers, with official unemployment at 6% and underemployment in the form of slashed hours and slashed paypackets much greater, so the only solution is clearly to pack more and more ‘skilled’ people into the country — presumably the unemployed locals are just thick. And which other advanced countries are prepared to give up all these ‘skilled’ workers, given that Australia has always struggled to meet its professional intake quotas? Can’t think of any? Didn’t think so. What countries does that leave to recruit from? Oh, just third world ones. Have a think about it. Have a think about the vested interest agendas who want to ramp immigration — mainly property developers who want to continually sell new stock and become mega-billionaires, and other chamber of commerce types like big retailers and emplohyers seeking cheap labour. You, the public, will pay the price in increased urban pollution, congestion, and crowding, impossible rush hours, unaffordable housing, and plenty of choice for employers of cheap labour to undercut your wages.
Business lobby groups always want high migration because it’s the easy, lazy way to profits.
But for a nation (rather than a company) high population does not mean high wealth - otherwise Bangladesh would be rolling cash. Australia gets most of its money from mining which has no link to population. In fact if we halved the population we’d be enjoying a far higher standard of living right now.
And low population growth seems to work fine for the Scandinavian countries which consistently rank at the top of any list about education, happiness, wealth etc
If you want to see the horrible social trauma that would result from Rudd’s “Big Australia” just spend a while walking around the immigrant-heavy cities of England. The dysfunction and social breakdown is shocking.
Politicians need to understand that population growth is essentially exponential and causes the population to double in a number of decades. Even very low growth (and even 0.8% isn’t low) eventually becomes unsustainable. Unfortunately industralized societies seems to be incapable of stabilizing their population. Only Japan seems to be on target to do this, involuntarily, and its very wrenching and painful. So Australia’s population will continue to grow until its in the 100s of millions. Unless something intervenes first.
And you are trying to be dishonest with GDP numbers.
Who gives a sh!t what the GDP numbers are… it’s GDP per capita that points to the quality of life one will expect.
Next you’ll be telling us China’s full of rich people because they have a high GDP. Please, Please cut the rubbish.
BTW, Immigration isn’t just a money issue. It’s a issue on whether we want to be crammed in, have hardly any natural surroundings left, and whether we want to water our gardens with the toothbrush water.
The left are obsessed with destroying Australians way of life simply for IDEALOGY.
Great comments, lots to think about.
In all, I dont really know how much the-we-in-2010-in-Australia can demand who comes to this country, and how many.
One thing I see absent from any discussion about immigration and ‘Big Australia’ is that our start was, at a minimum, intensely dodgy.
No agreement about settling in the 18th century with the locals, who had their idea of immigration from boat people - none at all. Immigration was hardly an issue then. And look what THOSE boat people did to the land.
Oh, I thought that ‘sustainability’ was a left-wing hippy term, by utopians who don’t live in the real world. Suddenly, this ‘Big Australia’ comes up and it’s “whoah, what about the size of our cities, our water supply, transport!!!!”. This seemingly upsurge of care for the environment is what hippies have been carping on about, but lamblasted and ignored. Until now.
So, do all the anti-Big Oz people really care about the environment? (which includes accepting the scientific consensus that we present Australians are responsible for our part of global man-made climate change).
Here’s an idea - if you are caught rubbishing the ground, if you are a company that pours toxic waste into the rivers, if you continue to fell trees on your property enmass so the cows can wonder around a bit more, and if you use about 100 other environmental metrics, you can find out who is living here AT THE MOMENT, and disrespecting the environment. (because that’s the whole reason people are against a big Australia, its this concern for the environment and our country’s sustainability, right??) Then based on this criteria, you are given ‘demerit points’. Too many, and you are out of this country.
That would get rid of quite a few of us. Then we are down to maybe, 1million. Then we can bring in migrants (and a few of those chucked out who change their ways) who will really treat this country well. That 1 million would help clean up the mess left by the (mostly) white anglos who were kicked out (who would have to pick up, say, 3 tonnes of rubbish as penance before they are booted out). In their place, the local indigenous people of each country/ land would vet who comes in to see if they are worthy of living here. I believe many of those who are ejected from Australia are believers in ‘the Australian Way of Life’ …
Yes, I would be willing to leave if I wasn’t up to scratch, or wasn’t willing to change my environmental ways.
There you go people. Drastically reduce the amount of people here, and this intense interest in the state of the environment is fulfilled with solutions. A truly sustainable country. Just like you want.
I just feel so happy that finally all the anti-Big Oz people are admitting that the hippies were right, and are now willing to talk like a hippy. Thank you for finally coming on board. It took the immigration issue to bring you in, but now, we are all united. The future Greens government is assured now!
Abbott only reluctantly agreed to lessening the amount of officially sanctioned immigrants (which have been rising steadily since before Howard- and yes, this includes _under Howard’s PMship_ for the morons) after his minister blurted it out on camera off the top of his head. At first Abbott tried to distance the party from the remarks, so as not to upset the “business lobby”, but then realised how popular the “idea” was with his easily confused constituents, so he now supports it.
Yes the GDP would be impacted and that’s precisely why the monk is full of shit- it’s just that his voters are more gullible, less informed, and as has been mentioned, care more about what the Monk says than the “business community” does. They “business community” are only interested in the $. If they were concerned that the monk was going to deviate from his orthodox ways, then I think we would be hearing it.
Footnote: if you equate a few hundred boat people (or even ten thousand odd refugees) with the hundreds of thousands of people being talked about here, then yes, you are a moron.
Is it possible that Bernard Keane is one of those aliens Stephen Hawking has told us to avoid?
Bernard, youre an idiot.
the more we import people, the lower, we push our standard of living.
Agreed ABarker! (Liked your post D Donohue!!).
We are such a malleable lot aren’t we?
This issue has raised its ugly little head again because of the coming election, and only because of that!
Both the New Liberals and the Conservatives have brought this to the fore, in an endeavour to win the popular vote gained from ‘we will decide who comes to our country, and we will do it more stringently than our opposition’.
So, off we jolly well go flogging the thing to death, slamming the door shut >after ‘our lot’ are in, and enjoying the fact that we can espouse our views fully and frankly because it is the topic dé jour, approved by our delightful politicians!
I have just exchanged such full and frank views with someone (elsewhere) who has referred to boat people ‘wearing gold chains and designer suits, and taking the water from dying kids’. A direct quote. And from someone I have known for several years who used to have a much more humanitarian view..
I know we are not discussing ‘boat-people’, but I’m referring to the bile that this is bringing out.
BOTH these useless git major Parties tacitly encourage this,-not just Abbott.
BK:- you DO write absolute rubbish.
Unless I agree with you of course. Then it’s all good.
Elan,
you dont understand.
Well of course I don’t!!
Because I don’t agree with you.
You understand that don’t you?
Bernard has regularly embarresed himself on this issue and this article is pretty much in line with what we’ve come to expect. For a guy who who supposedly is concerned about the environment to be spouting this kind of GDP fetish line - it really is tortured.
To be deliberately quoting misleading total GDP figures in the expectation that your average joe idiot can’t discriminate between GDP per capita and total national GDP is what we’d expect from the Murdoch press.
Really, take Rundle out of crikey and its a pretty mediocre bunch.
Elan
The “bile” this article has produced is the toe-curling experience of reading a journalist who does not know the difference between GDP and GDP per capita, and while flaunting that ignorance tries to paint those who actually do know the difference as racists. In the world of grubs like BK, actually having a clue means you are a “xenophobe.” Unf***ingbelievable. I
How about we take a look at a country like the Netherlands? Why can’t we model some of our future development on a country like that. It has a similar population to us yet is one third the size of Tasmania, and has virtually no hi-rise developments except a few in major cities.
Their houses are much smaller than ours — lets face it, we are spoiled for space and we have this idea that bigger is better (even if it costs so much more to heat/cool/clean/build/maintain gardens — whatever)
Admittedly Holland is awash with water, but still the bulk of their industry comes from agriculture. It’s cities aren’t congested with traffic (the bike mentality there helps and I know that our distances might preclude that on a grand scale).
People live as close to their work as possible to save travel time/cost/emissions.
They have a better welfare system than ours.
An interesting result of a round table discussion over a few pints following the footie this arvo, 8 out of 10 agreed, unless Rudd was tossed from the leadership and replaced by Gillard, the 8 (usually avid labor supporters) would not be voting Labor this year. One now gets the feeling there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with his entire attitude as the recent weeks have gone by. Beats me why the senior cabinet haven’t dragged him aside and given him the message, or an ultimatum. The loyalty can only go so far. Plus those Ministers have plenty to lose as Rudd appears to be leading Labor into the wilderness and God help us should Abbott take power.
Incidentally it was only a couple of pints.
Goodness me Septicarse: them thar’s fightin wurds!!
(Particularly in response to a ‘grub’).
GDP, DDT, BBC: I’m up to my curlies currently,- on a site where not having a clue about GDP (never once mentioned), is certainly breeding xeno’s like bloody mozzies!
Given that you are such a brainy lot of buggers lot here, it seems to me that there are different classes of xeno’s.
Perhaps Intellectual Xenophobe has a little more class.
Certainly more than the turd gargling morons elsewhere, who believe all refugees are living in ‘large houses’ ( wearing gold chains..etc.,)
Crikey is a cut above. Here we don’t require any folk from foreign watters to join us thanks very much. We don’t discriminate against boat people-we don’t want ANY of them.
_______________________
It is exactly what I first said. Our sleazy gits in the Canberra Palace require us to get all fired up. So we do.
Unbuckinfelievable.
Hey Elan, why don’t you start your own country, and invite everyone in, regardless of background — doesn’t matter if they come from a patronal society riddled with corruption, theft and vice, or from a country riven with civil war and massacres or populated by head hunters, I’m sure they will quickly come to share your nice middle-class expectations in no time, and do no harm.
Luckily, Australia has never suffered in the past, say in the 70s under Malcolm Fraser, from ‘humanely’ letting in scads of unvetted persons from backward hilltribes with questionable loyalties who might be tempted to trade, say, illegal drugs today for super-profits as their major source of income, or engage in anti-community activities. That’s because Australia is the lucky country, and no harm can befall it, not matter what policy settings there are.
Here’s some notes from Prof Jared Diamond on Australia’s critical sustainability issues: http://www.socialactionaustralia.org/2008/06/18/jared-diamond-on-australia%E2%80%99s-sustainable-population/
In the meantime, I think what the majority of people want under polling, the stated democratic preference, should probably form national policy, not what the business lobby or frustrated ex-Diplomatic Corps PMs think they want mainly for themselves.
PS There’s another Sean posting here who has the same teacup avatar, I haven’t made all the posts.
I live in the UK which is a good example of an open immigration policy with no boundaries…
high crime rates, a diminishing culture and high levels of unskilled workers.
There is nothing wrong with what TA is suggesting, learn from the Mother Country.
Bernard wrote:
And therein lies the kernel of the risk posed to this country by the Coalition. They are economic vandals supremely practiced in the dark art of Spin.
Abarker: ‘The first cut is the cheapest’. The universal truth of finance – and many other things.
I wonder how old you are. In the year I was born there were 2.6 billion humans on the planet, today there are 6.8 billion and by the time I die there will be 9.6 billion. Plus 7 billion in one life span, all wanting more GDP. It can’t happen.
In the same lifespan there will be about a 70% reduction in the total number of birds on the planet and varying % reduction of all mammal species, from extinction of most of the primates and other large mammals (big cats etc) to I imagine not much change in the population of rabbits. There will also be no oil and precious few precious metals by 2050.
Forget climate change, if you want a hockey stick graph look plot human population over the last 500 years.
To encourage any nation, any country to expand is immoral. GDP is utterly irrelevant in the debate about population, because it ignores the simplest and most obvious of constraints, one small planet and not many resources. Before you rabbit on about xenophobia and old white people take a calm look at the statistics. 9.6 billion and no oil in 2050 should give us all pause for thought. I’ll be dead by then but if as I suspect you are a youngster, you might be alive. GDP will be the least of your worries, believe me. The time to cut population, everywhere, is now.
Rudd claims a side.
Abbott claims the other.
Old story…and there the debate begins. Exactly as planned. To them, you’re either black, or you’re white - and you’ll vote that way come election day. Policy. Aka, seducing the masses.
Hey Elan, why don’t you start your own country, and invite everyone in, regardless of background — doesn’t matter if they come from a patronal society riddled with corruption, theft and vice, or from a country riven with civil war and massacres or populated by head hunters, I’m sure they will quickly come to share your nice middle-class expectations in no time, and do no harm.
Luckily, Australia has never suffered in the past, say in the 70s under Malcolm Fraser, from ‘humanely’ letting in scads of unvetted persons from backward hilltribes with questionable loyalties who might be tempted to trade, say, illegal drugs today for super-profits as their major source of income, or engage in anti-community activities. That’s because Australia is the lucky country, and no harm can befall it, not matter what policy settings there are.
In the meantime, I think what the majority of people want under polling, the stated democratic preference, should probably form national policy, not what the business lobby or frustrated ex-Diplomatic Corps PMs think they want mainly for themselves.
wow- I gotta get me the discovery channel.
until i can afford foxtel, my imagination will suffice; but there’s one thing that I still don’t understand..
did that recent oil spill off mackay increase “GDP” or “GDP/capita”?
@Elan,
Your view is the standard middle class openly proclaimed “acceptable” view. Typically white, educated, utterly ignorant.
You’ve got to stop calling everyone and everything Xenophobic and or racist…..
The issue has moved buyond race, its about rising world population and declining world energy supply.
*Please* look deeper and see the underlying issue, which is: Energy=population. Indonesia would have the same quality of life as Australia……If Indonesia had only 22 million people…..But they dont. They have over 200 million mouths to feed. On approximately the same national wealth as Australia.
Before the industrial revolution, world population was miniscule, less than 1.5 billion. Today it is out of control at 6.7 billion.
Theres too many people in the world. Theres not enough clean water supply or petroleum supply to support the exponential growth in world population.
We solve nothing by filling up Australia with the over flow from Bangladesh et al.
We only take a cup of water from a tap running at full blast.
Better you wise up. Better you turn off the tap.
Soon for example, I predict India will run out of artesian water, the same water table on which 400 - 500 million Inidans survive. When that table runs dry, they will die. Hundreds pf millions of them
Why doesnt India have a 1 child policy?
Look in the global context please, things are not as simple as you currently see them….They are even simpler actually!
Ps, we are on the verge of a massive never seen before property crash.
Just please try and look deeper than what your peer group thinks is appropriate, trust me, you cannot trust what you read in the papers and to sum up, yes the grandma that had a go at Gordon Brown was making a valid timely, non racist, non xenephobic, non bigotted point.
Sean1 or Sean 11,
“Hey Elan, why don’t you start your own country, and invite everyone in, regardless of background — doesn’t (SIC) matter if they come from a patronal (SIC) society riddled with corruption, theft and vice, or from a country riven with civil war and massacres or populated by head hunters, I’m sure they will quickly come to share your nice middle-class expectations in no time, and do no harm.”
I tried. I opened the door-and there you were. I slammed it shut quickly and ran like hell!
ERIC VIGO: “it’s this concern for the environment and our country’s sustainability right??”
WRONG. If you care to read the comment I lodged (30 Apr @11.59pm) you will see how one of the driest states in Oz, namely Victoria, is failing-majestically-to provide the basic infrastructure to support the hapless existing victims of over-population.
Try coming to Victoria, try our trains that are always late. Try our wonderful freeways, there are too many of them and they are always snail-pace. Warning, bring a book to read for the really bad bits.
Come and build a house in one of our national parks (a special treat provided by the John Brumby government) You’ll be just in time to get wiped out in the next state government induced bush-fire.
THE TROUBLE WITH TONY ABBOTT’S latest piece of populism is he fails to do the maths. In order to support an increased migration we-if we ant to be thought of as in anyway moral-drastically reduce our birthrate.
The thought of a pious practising right-wing catholic volunteering to set a two-child policy is mind blowing. If you live in the driest country on earth one can have one or the other, but not the insanity of both.
Anyhow, Malcolm Turnbull is staying in politics, I’m not a huge fan. But at least the man has brains. I’ll bet Tony Abbott got hiccups when he heard the news.
“WRONG. If you care to read the comment I lodged (30 Apr @11.59pm) you will see how one of the driest states in Oz, namely Victoria, is failing-majestically-to provide the basic infrastructure to support the hapless existing victims of over-population.”
Yes, I agree with you, on the issue, on it’s own. I’ve blockaded forest coups in East Gippsland, and lived in Melbourne for a number of years when the state first started water restrictions.
I totally agree with you on freeways, too many of them.
But most are using this issue to prop up another opinion that we reduce “immigration”.
My point was that the people who are enjoying the A.W.O.Life, (and are descendants of the first ahem, settlers) are the main benefactors of the results (good for us), and keep ruining the country we live in that benefits us. Spoken to any indigenous people about ‘immigration since 1788’? Noticed their reaction?
That means you (given you are a 1+ generation Australian) and I, and most of us humans here are linked to history, and what we live in is a result of what the previous mob have done. Insert emotive adjectives here.
So, this intense care about the environment has not been seen in a rise of people planting trees, or educating about climate change, or pushing to clean up local waterways, or understanding that our agricultural systems are ruinous to the land and therefore are swatting up on permaculture.
It’s us whiteys:
- who fail to use the runoff waters in the cities.
- who legislate to ban watertanks in homes (up until recently), but some councils still wont allow compoastable toilets
- who continue to plant and propogate lawn, and plants like lantana in the cities
- who as farmers, still love cut down the trees on their land (less and less now, but the damage is done).
Sure, limit us to two children each. Fine. Great stop the people coming in to live here in droves till we fix up the infrastructure. I would also add to all the others that I would also recommend stopping backpackers coming (they tend to overstay their visas) in their droves. I’ve seen them running taps at full boar while they put toothpaste on their brushes. (anecdote ≠ fact, but that’s my observations being in many in Oz).
In the end, I believe this is down to not allowing in different people. For this environment issue for most people is convenient to hide that they.just.dont.want.more.people.ruining.things.for.them. Of course, they’re the exception, not the indigenous people.
Otherwise, I agree with most of your post Venise.
I would also add that the reason I want to see a big Australia is that diversity keeps us as interesting of a place that means the people who keep this place alive, stay.
Cutting immigration is like building a by-pass around a country town. Noone shops there, visits there. They stay on the A>B main freeway and the town is all forgotten.
It loses whatever vibrancy it has, and starts to die.
To me, that’s Australia. We’re pretty, well, average people. Lack of critical thinking skills. Love of pretty much sports, alcohol and keeping yer job. Not much curiosity in the average Australian. Arts and culture (from any other place) pretty lacking in the predominance of most Aussies.
So, cut off the flow from the world, and the best brains will just go ‘stuff it’ and go somewhere else. Which makes this country worse off in my opinion. Then again, if all we are are diggers of minerals and nothing else, then who needs brains? How are is it to operate a digging machine?
Without immigration, we go from a second-rate country to a fourth-rate. Pity coz the environment is amazing here that you dont get in many other places. Oh well.
all stated IMHO.
ERIC VIGO: I’m very interested to read your comments. “Smack smack”, I’m hitting the side of my head with my fist. The bloody backpackers. Of course! Why didn’t I think of them?
“Not much curiosity in the average Australian. Arts and culture pretty lacking in the predominance of most Aussies.”
Christ, you are so polite. The average ocker’s whole life is the footy. He reads the Hun for the comics and the sport’s pages, and if desperate, he have a look at Andrew Bolt. He has been brought up to believe that art is done by poofters, for poofters, and is written about by poofters.
Somewhere, somehow the average Oz nerd heard about Australians being rugged individuals. And in their slob-like uncultured way they thought the word individual translated as being ‘as similar to everyone else as possible.’ And, just in case anyone thought otherwise, being rugged meant being as rude as possible to everyone else.
Fortunately, for the sake of everyone else, by the time these hoons get to thirty they become less ‘rugged’.
Personally, I think too many Irish got to these shores, their grand and great grandchildren took to law and politics which is one of the reasons we are so perilously close to becoming a clone of America, and all its rat-bag religions. And why our politicians across the political spectrum are fifth rate. Look at Tony Abbott. Flash the under-carriage- set off by Lycra- shackle the women to their ironing boards, and keep the silly cows pregnant. And we wants to become a Prime Minister?
The rural brigade have rooted our country, stripped its topsoil, chopped down all the trees and have been supporters of the huge irrigators (spelled wrong) like Cubby Station.
We are so far up the spout re the environment it is laughable. These farming types, and the politicians they elect, are so illiterate and hopeless, they can’t even get anything wrong!
What this country needs so desperately is people with brains…sorry, no oxymoron meant. People who can really farm the land. We need thinkers, we need real people of value. Importing ‘Skilled workers?’ bull shit! We need to re-start our manufacturing industries, not as they were, but as something infinitely superior.
We need to think well, not big. We need a country big with ideas, who believe if something has to be done, it’s worth a lot of bother. We need to think for ourselves……it’s no use going on.
It’s an impossible dream. We are the country of the future and will always remain the country of the future, because we haven’t got the brains, or the smarts to become the future.
Elan
Posted Sunday, 2 May 2010 at 3:29 pm
patron·al (ptr-nl) adj. Acting the part of a patron; protecting; favoring.
as in the Mafia.
yes, immigration is sic, Elan — fully sic, bro.
Sean 1 or Sean 11:
A fair cop. I stand corrected. Thanks.
I rather like bro! The rest is hits.
( Hits: Just jumbled the letters there. I put the correct version, ending it with an ‘e’, and that post is STILL awaiting moderation. Yoohoooooooo!!!)
Yep, I concur Venise with just about all of that.
Which I want to emphasise that it’s us that is the problem, not more migrants. And given that noone cared about immigration until different looking skinned people came (although I heard there was a demo in 1848 or so against the convict ships, which stopped after the last ship). So it probably ramped up considerably post-WWII.
I listen and go “mmmm OK, it’s about the environment, do we have enough water, are our cities getting crowded” which are fantastic subjects. I mean, if people stop talking on the train to each other about their friends, mobile phones, who they hate, and talk about these subjects, we’d be a very switched on country, bogan or not. But in a massively let down realisation, it’s not.
It’s about coming up with reasons to reject a CERTAIN type of person. Yes, backpackers are fine to most, even if they overstay their visa - noone wants to knock down the door of Swedish female backpackers (don’t upset the next ABBA) and turf them out. Because they are like us.
And the big thing is…. noone. Damn, I’ll scream, NO ONE!!!! has said “geez, what does the indigenous population think about our current immigration intake”
NOONE. Which is precisely why we are a passive-nothing country. We haven’t got the ability to clean up our past, or recognise it much. Going to manage the future, with such uncontrollable variables like boat people? Ha!
Who on the discussion mentioned our indigenous people? Guess what an indigenous person would say …. “all those whiteys who come and destroy the land, the spirit, our mother, send ‘em right back to England. They can p*** off”. Go on, ask one next time. I would severly doubt you’d hear “oh well, you know the farmers are struggling”. As far as they see, we’ve come into their home and poisoned it.
So, imho we havent got much of a leg to stand on when it comes to saying who WE think should come into this country. We didn’t even ask ourselves. Just because we were born on this land doesn’t mean we have an automatic right to do whatever we want. But we take it.
I am a white person, but I like to see things in a bit more of a context. Same goes for the USA (Arizona idoicy or not) and the major euro countries that had empires.
Basically, when you bash down the door to get in without permission (220 years ago or not), expect others to do the same who aren’t you - and therefore, not in your same status/ race/ colour/ worldview. At least those wanting to migrate officially are being nice to us. And sure they could bring drug habits or whatever, but hey, at least they’re not spreading small pox around and chaining you up.
Summary: immigration schimmigration. Unless we let the indigenous people decide first what we do, then just lie back and expect whatever we get - 35m, 40m, 28m. We aint got much say in it really. I suspect you scratch most angl0-Aussies, this is what you would get after say 2 hours of constant scratching and questioning. Me thinks.
ERIC VIGO: Thanks
You worry me when you say about ‘rejecting certain people’. Which sort of people do you wish to reject?
Apart from rounding up all the crims and hoons, knife wielders, pissed and fighting teen- aged louts, the males who ‘glass’ each other, and the hapless bystander.
The poor white trash who rioted outside a Bob Jane’s establishment because a car race was taken off the menu.
All the people who are cruel to animals, all the Australian Taliban incl Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd. All the people who try to install their religion in place of our constitution. All the members of The League of Nations. All the members of One Nation. All the members of the DLP, and I’m running out of people to reject.
I could, but wont, include all the mentally impaired, because I am not a fan of Eugenics. Footy fanatics.
So putting all the undesirables into several slow ships-NOTE I don’t wish to stray into the field of the mentally impaired-and sending them to America would get my vote any day of the week.
*******Para 4, line 2, is meant to read ’ ONE NATION’********
“It’s about coming up with reasons to reject a CERTAIN type of person”. Clarification: not me, it’s what I feel is the real wish, underneath all the eco-talk in regards to immigration, by most, erm, non-thinking Australians.
No no no, I’m not a big fan of rejection. Unless necessary, it kinda hurts …
Yup
Now THAT bloody well irritates me!!!
You leave my damn post unmoderated for over 18 hours,-I ask you to moderate the damn thing , and you delete it!!
Yet Sean mark i,2,3,or 4 came make the same post addressing me, in the space of 2 minutes and that’s OK.
Sod off Crikey!!
Moderate consistently or don’t moderate at all.
It seems on this thread if you have a single URL in your post it goes into moderation, Elan, possibly never to be seen again…
I just reposted without the link in the end…
SEAN @ELAN: I wouldn’t know a link if I fell over it. There has to be another reason for the erratic moderation.
I’ve written gentle humour at the First Dog site. This has been obliterated quite frequently.
ERIC VIGO: We are two minds with but a single thought!
Right, got it. Though there were no links in mine Sean.
I was responding to Bogan. I called him Booger.
( Perhaps because I said S-H-I-T-E)
Strange that Crikey has such a thin skin, if it were those??
What a load of s-h-i-t-e! Silly boogers.
Bum! We overlapped Venise!
I know you’ve had more than your fair share of moderation.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
(And I emailed b/cocky, and asked them to mod it because it had been hanging around for nearly a day! They removed it. I told them it was a pearl of wisdom. Obviously jewellery is not their thing !)
I just used b-u-m as an exasperation er, expression!
THAT is to be moderated.
Crikeys auto-censor tag needs a sharp kick in the b-a-l-l-s.
ELAN: Try fu*ck, or fu/ck.
You’re spinning wildly out of control now, Elan.
We’ll have to get Steve Conroy and the staid Melbourne religious right in to censor you for your sins against decency.
I’m assuming this post will get through, I think any Internet correspondence with ‘Steve Conroy’ in it automatically gets censored by the aus govt filter these days… then there will be a knock at the door in 5 minutes by some men in black…
Elan your sins have caught up with you, depart, leave us, go and seek forgivness in some far flung corner where blogs will no longer tempt you to sin again. Your only redemption is to do penance spending the next 6 months in the daily company of Sentor Fielding. Then cast yourself on your knees in front of the Monk who is mad, seek his blessing and never again bring down the wrath of thine moderator.
Here endeth your blogging.
@ELAN: I was moderated for close to forty-eight hours once. When it was printed it had lost all relevance to the topic.
But I do see with all this Oz Taliban religious rightism sweeping our benighted country they do have to be careful.
Better to moderate than to not have anything left to be moderated.
I’m going to go out and get some breakfast.
Sean little weed, I’m not sure if you are insulting me, so you can keep your testi-monials.
DAVID: shut your face, you twot!
Venise: David will lap this up:-I’m actually not against moderation or censorship. I think both are an evil necessity.
……….but I’m against modcen when it is,?? em, — — -;when one doesn’t even know why!
Any halfwit knows when they’ve crossed the line,- they try to get away with it. I reckon that that is human nature. I loathe it when I don’t know why.
It really gives me the irrits!
Anyway, bats and balls.
Wash your mouth out Elan and take 10 hail marys
wicked boy.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrsoul.
Bernard Keane is one of the few gallery reporters demonstrably awake to the sleight of hand routinely used by the Australian resources sector to beat up economic modeling in order to argue that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is akin to national economic suicide. As Keane notes, when we hear these arguments that emission cuts will slash GDP, employment, incomes, etc what is in fact meant is that these things will grow slightly less rapidly. GDP doubles a few years later, employment still increases, real wages still grow etc. So it was somewhat odd to see this Keane critique of Tony Abbott’s population policy ‘discussion paper’ the other day. Rather than de-spinning Treasury modeling of the economic implications of reduced immigration and slower population growth, Keane curiously ran with the sort of language one normally associates with the carbon lobby. Restraining population in line with the Coalition’s preferred 29 million people by 2050 would, says Keane: “slash GDP by around 8.5% - or around $290b “ and “significantly reduce GDP per capita”; furthermore, Treasury analysis suggests that such a population target would wreak even “greater damage” than “cutting GDP per person by over $7,000 a year”. He goes on to say it would “destroy Australia’s multi-billion dollar international education industry and prevent employers from hiring skilled workers from overseas when none are available locally…” In actual fact, Treasury’s data does not suggest GDP would not be cut in either total or per capita terms – they would just grow a bit more slowly than would be the case with faster population growth. I have to think that Keane’s tongue was firmly in cheek on this occasion… giving some of the politicians most at home with such hyperbole a bit of their own back. If only there was more economic satire of this caliber. Guy Pearse, Research Fellow—Global Change Institute, University of Queensland.
I thought it was calibre?
It is. But GP is American???? Where it is spelled with the last two letters the wrong way around…………….;)
(Bet he’s spitting that we got so little out of his post!!!)
Sorry Guy! No offenSe!!