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 > Red faces over the Immigration Departmentís 'Red Book'. > Comments

Red faces over the Immigration Departmentís 'Red Book'. : Comments

By Mark O'Connor, published 11/1/2011

Population growth isn't good and it can't go on for ever.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. 20
  10. All
A lot of writing here. A lot of work. Red Book? I'm feeling all Maoist. The discouraging aspect of this story is the fact that DIMAC is simply the public service. They implement government policy - they don't make it. There are many primers available on how the Australian system of government runs.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 7:00:32 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
Why would anyone be surprised that the Immigration Dept is in favour
of increased immigration.
Am I the only one to watch "Yes Minister" ?

Another thought for pro immigration advocates;

For every immigrant that buys a car, one Australian will have to to
take a car off the road.

What what you say, well that is what will eventually happen because
we only produce, at present, half the fuel we use.
When oil imports are not available or too expensive we will have rationing.

Basically government in Australia has simply gone mad.
They really don't have a clue.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 7:23:47 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
One has to wonder whether DIMAC has been effectively hijacked by the pro-high-immigration lobby. Letís hope Julia Gillard sticks to her promise to not go for a Big Australia and letís hope she means stabilising population rather than stabilising population growth. However she has opposition from all sides of politics and the silent majority who do not want 35 million by 2050 are being - silent. An extra sad fact is that on present trends it will be more like 50 million by 2050 and 100 million by 2100.
Posted by Ridd, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 8:17:01 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
"Note the absurd attempt to raise concern by suggesting that the Departmentís visa fees are an important part of the national balance sheet, which will be lost if NOM falls."

I have seen assertions like this so many times in the APS - it is indicative of the sort of muddle headed thinking (almost nonsensical) that the culture fosters to justify the existence of various programs and policies. It all amounts to an endless justification of waste and a focus on 'self' rather than 'service'. And if there is a growing demand from the public for sustainable population even via a fair arrangement such as a one-out-one-in policy depending on birth rates at any one time, the public basically gets the finger (if you will excuse the expression).

As far as the national balance goes, how much, as the article continues, is lost to the costs of infrastructure. Much of the current and proposed infrastructure is bandaid stuff that barely keeps up with demand. We continually hear about hospital cuts and waiting lists but no acknowledgement that with growing populations you will need to spend more money to guarantee the national health service.

Fact is the Immigration Dept has been largely monopolised by pro-growth advocates and pressures from ethnic lobby groups - they have too much to lose if immigration quotas are cut significantly and the government of the day is responsible for buying into the unfettered growth as good mythology.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 9:04:04 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
"one-out-one-in policy" - did you just make that up Pelican? Imagine the bureacracy needed to implement that. Welcome to an Orwellian world.

The anti-pops are rabid today. If you hate capitalism and growth so much, why don't you emigrate to say, Zimbabwe? That's away from the coast so you should be safe from polar ice caps melting, sea rising, etc.

The anti-pops are going for a triple whammy by blaming a government department for allowing people in to the country. It's a bit like blaming social security for being on the dole.

'The public service is full of growthists'. Of course they are. Your boat to Zimbabwe is leaving soon. Please file to the far left. Oh yes, say hullo to Robert Mugabe for me. He'd love to hear your ideas on reducing the population. He's been doing it for 20 years.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 9:35:57 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
According to Cheryl, who seems to be having a very bad and excited day, I am an anti-pop. I am assuming that the phrase means someone who does not see the growth of human numbers as an unalloyed good. I prefer to think that I can count and, even more hyper advanced for some, I understand the exponential function.
The thrust for ever more people, i.e. for ever higher levels of net immigration, has for a long time been pushed by the peculiar combination of business, big or small, and a group of doubtless lovely people generally on the political Left who appear to just want to be nice to everybody (except ant-pops). I say 'appear' becayse I have yet to see an argument put forward by those nice people that made any sense socially, environmentally or economically. Perhaps Cheryl will give us a reasoned argument as to why huge net immigration into the country is a good thing - and if so for who. Of course I could be totally wrong. Cheryl may just be repeating the big business line. Please tell us your reasoning Cheryl.
Posted by eyejaw, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 10:22:24 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. 20
  10. All

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