The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Population gold > Comments

Population gold : Comments

By Dilan Thampapillai, published 5/8/2010

Gillard's small Australia and Australia's demographic time-bomb amount to an ageing population and a diminishing taxpayer base.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
<< Gillard's small Australia and Australia's demographic time-bomb amount to an ageing population and a diminishing taxpayer base. >>

Dilan, you gloss over the enormous consequences of a rapidly increasing population, some of which Bob Birrell elucidates in his article of 3rd August, for which he has received a lot of support: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10765

These are vastly more important factors than the potential downsides of an aging population.

We desperately need a policy shift that will steer us towards sustainability. Thank goodness for the removal of Rudd and rise of Gillard to this extent. Although Gillard’s sustainability ethic appears to be pretty poor, it is still a major shift in the history of Australian politics.

A lot of policy shifts are needed in conjunction with a large-scale reduction in immigration. One of the main areas is incentives to keep older workers in the workforce and to make sure that superannuation is up to the task of comfortably supporting the retired.

For goodness sake, the last thing we need is a continuation of very high immigration. We really do need immigration to be brought right down quickly. Then if we can implement policies which genuinely direct us towards a sustainable society and give them a chance to bed in and be proven, we could possibly start increasing immigration again…. although by that time it would be obvious that a low immigration / stable population ethic would be the correct philosophy for a healthy nation and there would probably be very little push to increase it.

Dilan, your philosophy keeps us addicted to continuous growth. But you would know that it has to end at some point. We must stabilise …. or reach a peak and decline. It is MUCH MUCH better that we strive to stabilise as soon as is practical rather than just continuing to expand and letting our limiting factors cause a peak and crash event.

This really is so basic that it boggles my mind as to how anyone without strong vested interests can advocate a continuation with no end in sight of high immigration and population growth.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 5 August 2010 9:19:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And your liberal party membership card number is?
A little hint Ploy's on all side tend not to do anything that they believe doesn't have a positive net effect on votes. If you got out of your nice middle class home now and then you might see that there are plently of very dumb voters. Their votes counts the same as a well informed voter, can you see where I'm headed here. So while you can hope that our Ploy's are more like you want them to be, the reality is they'll be what we make them.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 5 August 2010 9:23:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most Australians are opposed to a big Australia and want immigration reduced. Politicians of any colour would be crazy to ignore that. When push comes to shove, polticians are there to serve the people of Australia: not foreigners, lobbyists and people with no clue on the dangers and downright uselessness of immigration-driven population increases.

As Bob Birell says, continued population growth is like a dog chasing its tail.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 5 August 2010 9:38:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to Ross Gitten’s article in the ‘National Times’ 4th August, the Productivity Commission has found that “…an increase in skilled migration led to only a minor increase in income per person, far less than could be gained from measures to increase the productivity of the workforce.” And that: “… the gains actually went to the immigrants, LEAVING THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS A FRACTI0N WORE OFF.”

Immigrants themselves pay nothing to put themselves into housing and into a life at the same standard as the rest of us, including extra infrastructure. Guess who pays – we do!
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 5 August 2010 10:29:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a carefully written and politely phrased article that concludes in gentle and respectful tones that if you are not in favour of high immigration, you are a racist.

Dilan, I respect you and I understand the feelings that you have regarding migrants being demonised for no other reason than wanting to come to Australia and live like an Australian. It is even worse because in many cases migrants appreciate the freedoms and other good things that Australia has to offer, more than Australian born citizens. It is even worse because in many cases migrants have to learn a new language and a new culture and work harder than an Australian born citizen to achieve a similar standard of living. It is even worse because after doing all that a significant segment of the population still doesn’t give foreign born Australians even half the respect they deserve.

Unfortunately, even if that significant percentage of Australians found a way to give migrants the respect they deserve, that would not change the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. Resource use can’t grow forever on a finite planet. We need to get sustainable some day. We are not sustainable with 22 million. We would need to make massive lifestyle changes to get to be sustainable with 22 million. Those changes get more difficult and more drastic as the population increases. If it is our goal as a society to leave a better world for our children (and I am not certain that really is our goal – it is probably more get as much money in the short term as possible) then we need to try to start getting sustainable as soon as possible. It will be a very big job.

You note that we have environmental problems. You seem to want to do something about greenhouse. Please Dilan get your calculator out and show us how we can reduce greenhouse emissions with a steadily rising population as a result of high immigration. It will be almost impossible without high immigration.
Posted by ericc, Thursday, 5 August 2010 10:47:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree entirely with you, Dilan, but Julia Gillard knows exactly to whom she is making her pitch: the likes of those whose half-baked comments have so far greeted your thoughtful article.

Instead of what could be were we to undertake the sort of potentially mind-blowing revenue reforms recommended by the Henry Review Panel, many Australians have, like our political representatives, allowed themselves to become circumscribed by the strictures of economic circumstances. As the GFC impacts further upon us, our political representatives are unfortunately likely to play on all the fear and prejudice this creates like piano afficionados.

Once Australians characteristically rose to the challenges that confronted them, but today many of us are just rabbits transfixed in the headlights.
Posted by Bryan Kavanagh, Thursday, 5 August 2010 11:05:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is shameless how both the Labor and Liberal Party have exploited the refugee issue to distract the voting public away from the fact that both parties when in governmetn have massively pumped up the rate of immigration in recent years. Refugees are not the problem - it is the extreme rate of authorised immigration pushing us to surpass the population growth rates of even some developing nations.

Yes, there is a problem with supporting the aging population but there is no real solution other than to deal with it (to "take the pain") because to try to solve it with mass immigration simply shifts the problem forward 30 years and doubles its size. It is mass immigration that CREATED the demographic problem we have and repeating the mistake will not solve it - it will make it worse.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Thursday, 5 August 2010 11:11:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, if so-called skilled migrants are as useless to Australia as the Productivity Commission says, it is not hard to imagine the harm to Australia and Australians that other immigrants, without a job to come to and no skills, are wreaking.

It's not as if the information from the Productivity Commission is new: it has been around for ages. Politicians have always known that big immigration is a costly and uncessarry con job, but they still persist.

What land Australian politicians are not selling off to foreigners - particularly foreign Governemnts - they are allowing foreigners to occupy for no good reason.

ericc.

The 'racist' twaddle is a worn out trick nobody even notices these days. Non-white commentators would be better employed looking at the attitudes of their own race, as we have done for a long time, and get themselves out of the colonial era when they might have had reason to resent white presence in their lands. We whites were called upon a long time ago to change our attitudes to people of other races and, in the main, we have done that.

It's long past the time non-whites had a good look at themselves and their attitudes to us - particularly if they want to come here live!

In the meantime, if they want to carry on with such abusive nonsense, stiff cheese; we shouldn't be taking notice of such stupid ignorance. Australia's immigration policy should be what is best for Australia, and at the moment it is not.

Your remarks about the author's hypocrisy on the link between large populations and climate change are very appropriate.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 5 August 2010 11:18:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Except for the fact that if people weren't emitting carbon in Australia they'd be emitting it elsewhere. That was the point that Malcolm Turnbull made on immigration and the environment.

The other point is that if you want to protect the environment by reducing immigration, but you're content to increase Australian births then there is a real hypocrisy in your position.
Posted by jjplug, Thursday, 5 August 2010 11:31:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Non-white commentators would be better employed looking at the attitudes of their own race, as we have done for a long time, and get themselves out of the colonial era when they might have had reason to resent white presence in their lands."

It must bug the living daylights out of you that there are so many intelligent and thoughtful non-white commentators who appear on OLO on a regular basis. Did you stop to think that he is actually commenting on his own country :-) and better yet that he's done so here without any resentment?
Posted by jjplug, Thursday, 5 August 2010 11:36:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This would be the most racist post I've read for a while. If you are accusing those who seek a stable and sustainable population racist, you should at least have a shred of evidence, rather than suggesting ill-educated caucasians need to be saved by more numerate migrants. If you applied your numerousy rather than ideology, you could have worked out that the costs of providing infrastructure and training for a much bigger population are massively greater than those needed to provide for a slightly older population, and far greater than the extra taxes added people provide. We are paying more in interest payments to overseas financiers for our population-fueled housing bubble, than we are paying for pensions and aged care.
In which country is quality of life declining faster: Japan or Norway (the developed countries with the oldest demographic) or Australia (the youngest)? Which country with an over-2% growth rate demonstrates that this is a path to prosperity? You won't find one. When we have a per capita immigration more than twice that of any other developed country, why is it racist to suggest this is too high?
Posted by jos, Thursday, 5 August 2010 12:04:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two points I would like to make:
1. We need political leadership, not short term pandering.
2. We forget how lucky we are to be Australian.

"When push comes to shove, polticians are there to serve the people of Australia" (Leigh)

Yes, they are. But sometimes a bit of leadership, strategy and foresight can be a good thing from our national 'leaders'. One of the key issues in Australian politics, as I see it, is that we've lost the willingness to take (and applaud) short term pain for long term gain. Every issue is now in terms of next week's opinion poll and the next election - how about having the guts to say 'This is unpopular, but a measure we have to have'.

I also can't help seeing how inward looking many of the comments are so far: 'We are not sustainable', 'It is MUCH MUCH better that we strive to stabilise (population)' etc. Population sustainability is a luxury of the developed world, especially if we put up the wall and ignore what's happening around us. The world's population is not stabilising. But it isn’t just ‘their’ problem.

Forget shared humanity, attitudes such as 'you are not Australian, so you are not coming here,' or 'I worked hard to get where I am today' ignores that we were all bloody lucky to be born into the wealth of opportunities of Australia (or allowed to preferentially migrate here) rather than Somalia, or Haiti, or <insert any of 100 other countries here>.

I appreciate that my middle-class, university educated, privileged life doesn't afford me the full perspective of 'real' working class Australia, but I'll take long term unemployment in Australia (did it for nine months a long time ago) over life in Bangladesh or Cambodia, two places I've been lucky enough to visit.

In world terms, Australia is still under-populated and inefficiently distributed. It is going to take political nerve (and dollars) to change current practices but the USA didn't get to its position today by steadfastly sticking to its first few cities.

True leadership is real ‘moving forward’.
Posted by Toohs, Thursday, 5 August 2010 12:13:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If you are accusing those who seek a stable and sustainable population racist, you should at least have a shred of evidence, rather than suggesting ill-educated caucasians need to be saved by more numerate migrants."

Well if there are two sources of population growth and you choose to cut off the one made up mainly of non-whites and do nothing about the other which is made up mostly of whites, then what conclusions are we allowed to draw? Or are we not allowed to say anything that you don't want to hear?

"If you applied your numerousy rather than ideology, you could have worked out that the costs of providing infrastructure and training for a much bigger population are massively greater than those needed to provide for a slightly older population, and far greater than the extra taxes added people provide."

Well actually we have to revamp our infrastructure anyway. Who's going to pay for that? We need more trains and more rail lines? Also Do you actually have any numbers to back your statement up? Perhaps you can tell us about the economics of public goods?

"We are paying more in interest payments to overseas financiers for our population-fueled housing bubble, than we are paying for pensions and aged care."

Whoa .... really? Again have you got some figures to back that assertion
Posted by jjplug, Thursday, 5 August 2010 12:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jjplug,

You don’t address your comments to me, but as you quote part of my post in your second post, I assume that you are talking about me.

I’m not interested in increasing Australian births, but it is not the natural birth rate that is the problem; two thirds of our population increase comes from unnecessary immigration. The proof of that is easy enough for you to find.

I’m not bugged by ARTICLES submitted by anyone to OLO. But, as they are trying PERSUADE (otherwise they wouldn’t submit the articles) it is my right to advise that they haven’t persuaded me to their way of thinking, just as it is your right to do the same with articles you disagree with.

Toohs,

I don’t agree with ‘leadership’ in politicians, except in foreign policy and the few areas where it is against our security to allow us ‘plebs’ to know too much. But in all other areas, immigration and population included, politicians must start taking notice of, and acting on, what we – their employers- demand.

Australia is NOT underpopulated in any “terms”. It is the driest continent on earth; two thirds of it is uninhabitable.

We have already well exceeded our sustainable population.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 5 August 2010 12:54:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author's second point has a problem.
By asserting that an aging population requires more service workers and taxpayers to attend their needs, what happens when those service workers themselves become elderly.

This just shifts the problem and expands it without resolution.
Posted by roama, Thursday, 5 August 2010 1:38:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear jiplug,
Firstly, I don't know anyone who advocates a stable, sustainable population and supports the baby bonus, or any other pro-natalist policy. The fertility-boosters are the real xenophobes. And I don't know any population stabilizers who begrudge the 13,750 places for refugees - most would willingly see this doubled - and refugees are far more likely to be non-white than other immigrants.
Secondly, on the costs of infrastructure, see my OLO article #10137.
Thirdly, the 2010 Intergenerational Report says we spend 3.5% of GDP on pensions and aged care. Bob Birrel's article yesterday says we spend 4% of GDP in overseas interest. Not all of this would go away if we stabilized population, but conversely, this amount is likely to grow more by 2050 under a high growth scenario than the pensions and aged care that this growth would merely postpone.
Posted by jos, Thursday, 5 August 2010 1:49:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have enough property developers corrupting our democracy, where 70-80 % of the population want stablisation of numbers. A democratic wish not reflected in Parliament.

The stupidty of loading the place up with more of our species is a "no brainer" on every aspect. In brief :

1. Our birthrate is double our deathrate....refer ABS stats
2. Every Australian on average is consuming more than they producing.
We import 2 billion dollars a month more than we export.
We have to borrow for every extra person.
It is an economic disaster.
3. WE are covering-up our best farmland with housing and ruining the habitats of the other species that inhabit Australia.
4. The aging argument doesn't pass the first test. When this "boom" of people age, what happens then ? Do you want a raft of 200 million people to come in to "help". Laughable PR rubbish.
5. Investing capital in more people and housing is an investment in pollution. This capital should be invested in emerging export technologies, education, health, research and population stablisation foreign aid.

Get a reality check. Have 2 children at around 30 years of age and have immigration equal to emmigration.........currently around 80,000 people......LOOK AFTER AND TREASURE THE WORLD. DONT TRASH IT WITH YOUR SELFISH GROWTH PUSH.

Cheers,
Ralph
Posted by Ralph Bennett, Thursday, 5 August 2010 1:59:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dilan you mention some facts which are uncomfortable to you.
You note that Australia has only four cities which are over-crowded, expensive, and with problems addressing infrastructure for . Uncomfortable indeed that these cities contain more than half of Australia’s population and are growing at almost twice the rate of the rest of the nation – are magnets for the increasing numbers wherever their origins.
Perhaps most uncomfortable is the demographic time-bomb, which must explode some time. We have a choice – deal with it now when it is bad, or later when it is exponentially worse. Currently we seem unable to afford the cost of educating our own children and training our skilled work force. Undoubtedly that is bad now, but it is a time bomb - increasingly destructive as our population increases.

We can’t afford it, so we cheat on nations even more needy than ourselves by importing those skills form them: at discount rates at the expense of their own economies and social needs. Why should their children be devalued in relation to our own? We are an affluent country, having trouble dealing with 19% of our population under the age of 15. Why should we rob those who have greater proportions of children under that age – India 30%, Vietnam 26%, Sri Lanka 24%?? If anyone is playing the racism card, perhaps it is the author of this article.

The lesser-charged bomb, the one which gets all the attention, is the unproductive aged – which in actuality is during the last ten years of life, and would be represented largely by the over 75s. They are under 12% of Australia’s population, and of much less cost than the under 15s.

Both ends of the age spectrum need attention, and need balancing. Acknowledgment of that would be by all - excepting those mathematically and reality challenged, and believing in perpetual growth. The sooner demographic transition is gently brought to an end by stable population – for Australia, for the world – the better, and genuine progress for society might have hope.
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 5 August 2010 2:08:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JJPlug said....... "Except for the fact that if people weren't emitting carbon in Australia they'd be emitting it elsewhere."

This is another furphy tossed about by growthists. It's my considered opinion that most people who migrate to Australia and especially those who attempt to migrate here by illegal means do so in the belief that they will enhance their living standards, otherwise, why would they bother to come here at all?

They only want what Aussies want. The opportunity to build a home on a block of land, the opportunity to buy a gas guzzling 4X4 for the family to tow the caravan and boat, plus a smaller car for each member of their family and the opportunity to drive those vehicles anywhere and any time they damned well want. In other words, they're shifting their low polluting lifestyles in their home country to a much more pollutant lifestyle here.

Get the picture yet? Immigrants move her to enhance their lifestyles and that's fine, but isn't it also true that any addition of immigrants to this country is also going to increase the polluting products belching form our coal-fired power plants and land fill sites. Whilst it may be true that these immigrants were emitting some pollution in their home country, you can't tell me that they're not going to double their greenhouse gas emissions once they settle down on our shores.
Posted by Aime, Thursday, 5 August 2010 2:13:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What 'demographic time bomb'? Who's blowing the 'dog whistle' here?
I'm waiting for an argument in support of high population growth that doesn't insinuate or even assert that opponents of 'Big Australia' have racist motives.
There are many countries with small populations that are not in danger of a 'demographic time bomb' and they have higher per capita GDPs than Australia,most of Australia's 'growth' is simply due to an increased population.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 5 August 2010 2:47:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jos, I am one of the population stabilizers who begrudge the 13760 refugees coming here.

To start with, I feel no obligation to citizens of any other country. I feel even less obligation to those who's very culture has caused the problems that make them refugees. I am totally horrified that with our ridiculous multiculturalism policy, we actually encourage the continuance of these destructive cultural habits that have destroyed the country of origin of these people.

We then have these destructive cultural habits in a portion of our community, who because of their background will not do well in Oz, & will soon start to resent those who are doing well, even when it is those doing well who support their daily needs.

If ever there was a policy guaranteed to cause major trouble in the future of Oz it is this one. You only have to look at places like Bosnia, Paris, & parts of the UK, & even Germany to see where we are headed.

Closer to home, try Fiji, if you want to see where we are headed. I just wish do-gooders would face the facts of human nature, instead of trying to convince themselves that we, [& particularly they] are better than that. Bull dust.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 5 August 2010 2:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author says:

"Gillard's small Australia and Australia's demographic time-bomb amount to an ageing population and a diminishing taxpayer base."

So... a call to Aussie married couples..

-*Please have more children
-*Ladies.. Nurturing little ones is better than stress trying to juggle a work and home life.
-*House prices will tumble. (We canot afford the current prices on a single income)

-Utopia will arrive :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 5 August 2010 6:51:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's one thing that I need explained to me:

Both parties don't want a big Australia so their policies reflect a reduction of immigration numbers.

But... Both parties are introducing policies to encourage the birthrate.

So what is the real message?

As far as I can tell, the world, outside Australia, is overpopulated. I would have thought the above policies logically be reversed.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 5 August 2010 8:16:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thing that worries me about this debate is the politically correct bullies that try to silence others views, such as those recently expressed by demographer Bob Birrell. Here are two recent examples of posters who don't think Australia is a democracy where people can express their own views, especially if its against large population growth. Just as well these people are politically correct trolls who due to there low educational achievements will never be in any serious positions of influence.

"Personally, I struggle to see how Monash University can continue to employ Bob Birrell, who argues against foreign students, whilst still accepting money from foreign students!"
Posted by David Jennings, Thursday, 18 March 2010 10:14:50 AM

and

"Why does Monash University keep Bob Birrell on staff? He's so anti-immigration and his anti-foreign students campaign has cost Monash a large number of foreign students. Bear in mind that Monash has 17,000 foreign students. Thats way more than Birrell's salary."
Posted by jjplug, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 10:21:51 AM
Posted by ozzie, Thursday, 5 August 2010 8:29:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, this whole population debate is really opening up. Tonight on the 7.30 report an excellent discussion on the disadvantages of population growth. Next week a report on Population from Dick Smith. Only a short time ago the subject was not allowed to be discussed and the politically correct bullies had everyone intimidated and scared to express their true opinions. What a great turn around. Let's keep it coming.
Posted by ozzie, Thursday, 5 August 2010 9:16:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes ozzie, let’s keep it coming. At long last this all-important issue has really hit the mainstream media.

Now wouldn’t it be great if Gillard and Abbott seriously addressed it and competed with each other to offer the most sensible population / sustainability policy in the last week of their election campaigns!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 5 August 2010 10:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes that would be fantastic, however I really feel it will be another 5 years or so before we have a total turnaround, and suddenly it will be these politically correct trolls that find themselves scared and intimidated to express their views.
Posted by ozzie, Thursday, 5 August 2010 10:43:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yes that would be fantastic, however I really feel it will be another 5 years or so before we have a total turnaround, and suddenly it will be these politically correct trolls that find themselves scared and intimidated to express their views."

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. You're happy if other people are intimdated if they don't share your views.
Posted by jjplug, Friday, 6 August 2010 12:20:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The answer lies with stopping the hand outs, stopping unskilled immigration and stopping the waste.

One reason why we are doing it so tough is because there are simply to many handouts.

If you want kids, fine, pay for them.

If your kids then grow in to adults and don't work, fine, you look after them.

If they then become parents themselves and still don't work, fine, thier your kids kids, you look after them.

Sitting at home and relying on someone else to pay your way is part of the reason we are in a mess.

Remember, when the aged pension was introduced, there were 27 tax payers per retiree. Now there's two!

Now I am not suggesting we abandon our hand our recipients, but I strongly object to providing money for their 'non-essencials'.

Feed them, house them and cloth them, but that's it.

If they don't like it, get a job, or don't have kids if you can't afford them.

At least then part of my taxes I have paid for 35 years will provide for my retirement.

Now go ahead and hate me. But the truth often offends or hurts.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 6 August 2010 6:30:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jjplug said

" The hypocrisy is breathtaking. You're happy if other people are intimdated if they don't share your views."

Well I did not say that jjplug. Read my post again. It refers to the politically coorect trolls that try to intimidate others who don't think the same way. I said I would be happy when the tide turns and these people will be the ones that feel intimidated to express their views and get a tasteof their own medicine. You know the type of person I am referring to, the type that thinks people should lose their job if they don't hold a particular view. Can't think of anyone that applies to? here's a hint...

"Why does Monash University keep Bob Birrell on staff? He's so anti-immigration and his anti-foreign students campaign has cost Monash a large number of foreign students. Bear in mind that Monash has 17,000 foreign students. Thats way more than Birrell's salary."
Posted by jjplug, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 10:21:51 AM
Posted by ozzie, Friday, 6 August 2010 11:13:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read Ozzie's comments as being a bit threatening. He basically says it will be fantastic once a certain group of people are "scared and intimidated."
Posted by David Jennings, Friday, 6 August 2010 11:42:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, do you think someone could be scared and intimidated to express a point of view if others were suggesting they lose their job for doing so?

"Personally, I struggle to see how Monash University can continue to employ Bob Birrell, who argues against foreign students, whilst still accepting money from foreign students!"
Posted by David Jennings, Thursday, 18 March 2010 10:14:50 AM

Even University tutors should understand the concept of academic freedom.
Posted by ozzie, Friday, 6 August 2010 10:23:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree with David. Intimidation suggests violence. You said that you would be happy when "these people will be the ones that feel intimidated to express their views." Its a bit threatening ... full stop.

Suggesting that an organisation might want to think twice about retaining an employee who openly campaigns against the best interests of that organisation is just common sense.
Posted by jjplug, Friday, 6 August 2010 11:48:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suggesting that an organisation might want to think twice about retaining an employee who openly campaigns against the best interests of that organisation is just common sense.
jjplug,
Ah, but is that organisation in the best interest of the community ?
Posted by individual, Saturday, 7 August 2010 5:33:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The growth cultists love ozzie. To the growth cultist, anyone not totally enraptured with the wonder of population growth is a miserable Marvin: White, stupid and unskilled, shuffling his way along the soup queue and resenting the world. This is the delusion they have, and ozzie seems happy to reinforce it.

In reality, a rapid rate of population growth is damaging to many. For example, my mother was the only lunch time patron at an inner city Thai restaurant yesterday. Next door was an award winning Indian restaurant which remained empty. What is happening is that rapid population growth creates a huge infrastructure burden. Government tries to recoup some of the public costs with heavy taxes on new housing, which in turn creates a supply crisis. This, together with the heavily corrupted development process which greatly limits the development rights of landowners, results in a large increase in housing costs and so reduces discretionary spending. This is happening now and is damaging small businesses.

As a medical practitioner, ozzie should know that reinforcing a delusion does not help a delusional person.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 7 August 2010 9:27:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RE: The winnowing out of malcontents who might speak at odds with the organisations best interests.

A lot depends on how you define “ the best interests” – of both the organisation, and the wider community.

Some educational institutions have already been implicated in lowering standards to better accommodate high paying, but lower performing, students--that can't be good for their long term best interests!
And many education institutions representatives have been lobbying hard for the govt to maintain generous backdoor routes to citizenship (because it makes their programs more marketable) -- not much confidence their in quality of teaching to atract, there!

Meanwhile thousands of competent Aussies can’t find places in the faculty of their choice, and thousands of Aussies can’t get entry to the careers they desire.

collateral damage arising from educational institutions focus on short tern profit?
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 7 August 2010 11:45:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FIRST AUSTRALIANS
SECOND AUSTRALIANS
THIRD AUSTRALIANS?

"This brings us to the fourth uncomfortable fact: that the population debate masks a race issue for some parts of the electorate."

In a way I suppose it does.

Remember the fate of the "first Australians?" Do you think they were in favour of a "big Australia?" Do you think they wanted a wave of people of Anglo-Celtic origin – call them the Second Australians – to settle this Island-Continent?

Could the Second Australians suffer a similar fate as the First Australians at the hands of migrants from Asia?

Not being a Second Australian myself I'm unaffected by this. I'll be a member of a tiny minority come what may. But I do detect a note of angst among many Second Australians. Perhaps they have reason to feel a little afraid. Maybe the Third Australians will do to the Second Australians what the Second Australians did to the First.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 8 August 2010 5:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, Steven. The population debate has been a case of some population growth advocates using a race issue to mask some economic and environmental arguments which do not support the growth argument. As with the emperor's new clothes, for some growth advocates the wonders of population growth would seem to be invisible only to the stupid, the morally challenged, and those unfit for their jobs. As an example, look at the responses to Bob Birrell's recent article, and note the numerous posts questioning his character, his competency, and his fitness for his position at Monash.

I hope that this cloud of McCarthyism clears and and honest an open debate ensues, but I doubt this will happen as I think that McCarthyism is the growth advocates best line of argument.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 8 August 2010 7:28:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are spot on, Horus. Some academics I know are very concerned about what the sale of permanent residency to fund universities is doing to academic standards and to the wider community. However, they are speaking against their own economic interests in having a better paid, more secure, better resourced job. They also tend to be well paid enough that they can afford private health care and often private education for their children, so they have less angst about overstretched infrastructure and public services. If they own their own homes and maybe an investment property or two, they are laughing.

Those academics who are happy winners from the influx are reluctant to recognise that their good fortune is at the expense of others. A recent post on Sustainable Population Australia's (SPA's) public forum (Yahoo Groups: Public Pop Forum 27/07/2010) was from a man who lives near several universities and TAFEs in Melbourne. He noticed a sharp rise in rents when the Howard government started allowing foreign students to stay.

"I would estimate a household cost of $3000-$6000 per annum in excess rent (my rent went from $370 p.w. in late 2005 to $495 p.w. in early 2010 for the same house, a 1/3 increase in just over 4 years -> $6,500 per annum). The nature of the rental market is such that over short periods of time, say 12 months, most rents are adjusted upwards to the price of recently let residences. So all tenants end up paying the full cost increase as a result of recent population growth. For 2006 figures from Tenants Union in Victoria, which in turn came from ABS Census 2001, has a figure of Number of Private Tenant Households: 328,176 in Melbourne. As a guess that would be closer to 350,000 in 2010. Taking the lower figure of $3000 (i.e. nearly $60 extra per week in rent) and multiplying it by Number of Private Tenant Households, this equals $1.05 Billion dollars per annum in extra rent payments, just for Melbourne alone. Note this is a conservative estimate and only represents Melbourne metropolitan area."
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 8 August 2010 7:56:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree Fester. People like Ozzie represent the nasty face of the anti-pops. If you want to have a civilized conversation I'm happy to have that.

Divergence, Howard increased student numbers, so rents would have gone up regardless of whether they have PR or not.

Individual, the organisation doesn't have to act in the best interests of the wider community. Thats not to say it can do anything unlawful etc.

At any rate what Birrell wants is for universities to train more Australians and less Asian foreign students. But that would mean bringing in Aussies who aren't currently making it to uni and it means dropping standards.
Posted by jjplug, Monday, 9 August 2010 9:14:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jjplug,

The Howard government was able to sharply increase student numbers because the foreign students would be paying full fees up front, which they would be willing to do in anticipation of getting permanent residency in exchange. There aren't enough potential Australian students rich enough to pay full fees up front to achieve anything like the same numbers.

Anyone who has worked with the foreign students can tell you that some are first rate while others are very ordinary, just like the Australian students. Some simply don't speak English well enough to cope, regardless of their other talents. Faculties such as Medicine and Dentistry set very high TER scores for entry because they have a lot of demand and funding for a limited number of places, not because such stellar performance is required to master the subject. In fact, some of these faculties are willing to take students with considerably lower scores if they can pay full fees.
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 9 August 2010 5:37:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's no denying that PR is part of the attraction. But foreign students always had to pay high fees regardless of whether they were getting PR or not.

At any rate, it isn't a case of get the degree and wham you've got PR. They do have to satisfy a few other criteria as well.
Posted by jjplug, Monday, 9 August 2010 5:44:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy