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 > Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity? > Comments

Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity? : Comments

By Tim Murray, published 16/9/2008

Both Canada and Australia are increasing migration, but at what cost to their respective ecosystems?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
It seems that the germs of 'growthism' and 'militarism' must have lingered in the corridors of power in Canberra. The new lot soon became infected. As far as I can tell coal is growing faster and renewable energy is growing slower than in the late Howard years. I'm not sure that urban sprawl has displaced wildlife so much as created a cultural and economic desert. It creates enclaves of resentment. When the mining boom ends as it must many thousands of people will drift back to the cities, along with many who were only supposed to be here temporarily. The outback will again be deserted while the cities are bursting with underemployed water rationed people unable to afford food and rent. All because some big city mandarins thought the good times could last forever. At the very least they should explain clearly why they think we need more people and less farm land so we can argue the point.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 9:20:53 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
An excellent article, one which should be required reading by all politicians and economists throughout the land. Our major cities are already choking to death twice a day with ever growing traffic and our water supplies are dwindling. This growth, growth, growth at whatever the cost philosophy has got to cease.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 10:32:36 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
<<An excellent article, one which should be required reading by all politicians and economists throughout the land.>>

Some people are easily pleased, VK3AUU.

<<... for Canada too could be compared to a cruise liner. The HMS Ecological Titanic still robotically stopping to pick up more passengers as it ploughs forward towards the iceberg of over-population.>>

Personally, all I felt was sea-sick.
Posted by Spikey, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 11:02:50 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
Australia should be reducing its population, not increasing it. The high immigration lunacy of both major parties is costing Australia and Australians far too much. The only sectors to benefit are developers, real estate carpet baggers, and big business. The rest of Australia – renters, home-buyers, the ALP’s much talked about ‘working families’, food production and the environment are all big losers.

Immigration and politicians pushing immigration are now the biggest threats to Australia.

Australians need to be made aware, if they are not already in the know, about the “sinister” lobbying, bribing and clamouring for higher immigration to boost their increasing growth coming from the building and real estate industries.

The current Australian Government, which has promised even more devastating immigration than the previous Government’s ridiculously high contribution to overpopulation, pays homage to the human-cause legend of climate change because it is ‘scientific’, but continues seeking to fill every nook and cranny of Australia with people – even though other scientist have been telling them that Australia’s population is already double its carrying capacity.

As for adding to the population by introducing ‘diversity’ and turning Australia into a zoo with a representation of every race there is, the left should be made to explain just why we should be doing this. (O’Connor). It seems that the lefties were sillier than we thought they were if: “…Labor was able to disguise a right-wing policy of relentless growth as left-wing “tolerance”.
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 11:07:36 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
Wats ya agenda. Limited population? We would have to be the smallest populus of a nation this size. Can you explain your reasons for this type of restraint.
Posted by jason60, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 8:14:01 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
Jason60,

Australia has a very low population density, but that is because most of the country is essentially useless desert (apart from its value to the mining industry). See this map of Australia's population distribution

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ABS@.NSF/00000000000000000000000000000000/fe3fa39a5bf5aa5aca256b350010b3fd!OpenDocument

Water is one limiting factor that is staring us in the face. There are serious problems with finding enough water for the existing population, apart from in the tropical north. That is why the government is buying back water rights from farmers, why there are permanent water restrictions in almost all of our cities, with white government cars cruising neighborhoods to catch old ladies watering on the wrong day, and why desalination plants are being planned for Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, and Brisbane. The energy costs of desalinating and pumping water uphill are enormous. This is apart from any concerns about even less water in the future due to climate change.

There is no evidence that massive population growth is of any benefit to the average person. The Europeans are doing just fine without it. Of the top 10 countries on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index (which don't include Australia), all but the US and Singapore (a city state) have either no population growth or population growth rates that are less than half of ours.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 2:48:36 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
So we need some extra infrastructure, That is no excuse for declining population growth. Australia is grossly under utilized. Get some of that northern water, and put it on the "desert" and the desert will disappear. In Au we use enormous acreages to do what other countries do on small acreages. It's like our building blocks. The sea is a great supply of water, it takes a drought to bring the infrastructure about. Weather the drought breaks or not, these jobs should never be abandoned.
Posted by olly, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 4:28:01 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
Olly wrote: "That is no excuse for declining population growth. Australia is grossly under utilized."

Are you serious?

As the author of the article pointed, Australia is not just an empty land waiting to be populated. In terms of essential natural resources such as fresh water and fertile topsoil, Australia has already surpassed its optimum carrying capacity. Much of Australia's existing population is already crammed into a few coastal metroplexes. Given that the overwhelming majority of immigrants head directly for these areas, ongoing large-scale immigration will only exacerbate this crowding problem and result in our best remaining arable land being consumed by runaway urban sprawl.

Another important point to make is that a larger population will inevitably have an adverse effect on Australia's trade balance. As it stands, Australia relies heavily on non-renewable mineral and agricultural resources for its export income. The only reason Australia has been able to maintain a First World standard of living with an export profile of a Third World country is because of its relatively small population. In other words, there is currently a substantial surplus between what can be produced and what is needed for consumption in Australia.

The problem with ongoing immigration-driven population growth is that there is no positive relationship between a larger population and the scale of mining and agricultural output in Australia. Rather, a larger population means more domestic consumption, leaving Australia with less resources to export. Furthermore, an immigration-fuelled population increase has a direct relationship with the level of imports, in the sense that imports will rise at least as fast as the population increases. This will consequently make Australia poorer, at least in per capita terms.
Posted by Efranke, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 8:45:56 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
[Continued from above...]

There are many reason why Australia should be reducing immigration and looking to stabilise its population. Even from a purely economic perspective, mass immigration provides no long-term economic benefits to the country at large.

Sure, real estate developers, businesses that are labour intensive, and some other sectors of the economy benefit. However, as Divergence noted, the average Australian is no better off in terms of per capita wealth. In fact, they are worse off when you consider the host of problems caused by immigration-driven population growth - among them unaffordable housing, overburdened infrastructure, strained public services, urban congestion, ethnic and cultural division, and the redirection of capital investments away from programs that benefit people already residing in the country.

We do not need an ever-expanding population in this country, as the growth ideologues believe. Our long-term prospects for environmental sustainability, social and cultural cohesion, and a high quality of life will be much improved if our population were stabilized at current levels, instead of doubling during this century, which is what will happen if immigration continues at present rates.
Posted by Efranke, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 8:57:39 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
Efranke,
You certainly must have a lot of time, and patience, to explain to Olly why we do not need a higher population. You did it very well, but it could all be wasted on those like Olly.

Me, I would just like some of whatever it is he smokes. I beats reality hands down.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 9:18:44 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 are two levels to the question of Australia's capacity to take more population growth:

1. Could Australia significantly increase its population as it is now without unacceptable social, economic and environmental costs? and

2. Could Australia, if it made better use of its land and other natural resources, significantly increase its population without unacceptable social, economic and environmental costs?

The answer to (1) is clearly 'no' and until such time as our Governments and business leaders can demonstrate that population can be grown furhter without the quality of life in our major cities being further degrade and can demonstrate that they know how to bring housing costs back to what they were a generation ago before population-driven demand sent them to the stratosphere (precisely as the land speculators in our midst anticipated and welcomed), we are entitled to put our collective feet down and insist that our population be stabilised.

Perhaps it can be demonstrated (as one person put to me a few months ago) that with clever decentralisation and the nurturing of our environment we may be able to make rainforests grow where we now have deserts. In that case we may be able to accommodate a significantly larger population assuming that we are all prepared to live in a pre-industrial fashion.

However, nearly all other scientists are sceptical that that is possible and until we see that happen it would be reckless and irresponsible not to heed the reasoned and evidence based arguments of scientists such as Tim Flannery who have that we already greatly exceeded this country's carrying capacity.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 9:21:56 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
Fifty six percent of total population growth for WA was from overseas last year. WA and the NT took first place for the highest population increases in the nation.

However, the intake for 2008-2009 for the nation, is estimated at 300,000 – the highest in sixty years.

And in WA, it matters not that:

At a national level, Western Australia has 8 of 12 Australian biodiversity hotspots.

At a global level, the South West is recognised as one of the world's most threatened biodiversity hotspots.

WA currently has 362 threatened plants, 199 threatened animals and 69 threatened ecological communities.

Recovery plans have been developed for less than one-third of threatened species and ecological communities.

There is ongoing loss and degradation of biodiversity in WA.

Mining and service industries are encroaching on communities with impunity. Thousands of native birds and animals have been killed due to the slack restrictions on these activities.

The resource boom has seen an impotent Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), directly responsible for these deaths. The operations of one company alone saw the demise of 6.5 thousand native animals where the DEC admitted they failed to enforce regulations.

Companies, incompetently regulated, occasionally receive a slap on the wrist for spilling millions of litres of cyanide and dumping mercury over communities whilst leaching chemicals onto other small prospecting leases.

These penalities are merely a PR exercise set up by DEC's senior bureaucrats - captured by the big polluters.

The Swan and Canning rivers are constantly on life support with oxygen “tents” placed around the river banks and the extinction of fish occurring at an alarming rate.

And while successive governments boast of their "achievements," salination and extreme poverty of the soil is rife and worsening while WA governments and regulators feast from the same poisoned tree as developers, lobbyists and mining giants.

Our masters, fixated on the economy, believe democracy can only be held in check by continued growth and continued mass immigration.

Are our "leaders" incapable of committing to anything beyond themselves?

"Erin Brockovich - where are you girl?"

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/activists-tip-a-bucket-on-big-companies/2007/08/15/1186857593122.html?page=fullpage

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,19328439-2761,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/WA-defends-its-environmental-record/2007/07/02/1183229007335.html

http://steve-kwinana.blogspot.com/
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 18 September 2008 4:02:14 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
Mr. Right wrote: "As for adding to the population by introducing ‘diversity’ and turning Australia into a zoo with a representation of every race there is, the left should be made to explain just why we should be doing this."

Indeed. It has never been explained why Australia has an obligation to transform itself into a colony of every nation on earth. Nor has it ever been explained why such a transformation is meant to be seen as a desirable thing given the division and strife that has historically afflicted multicultural, polyethnic societies.

I came across this quote from Mark O'Connor:

"Some immigrationists claim that Australia is obliged to maintain high immigration until we have a roughly representative mix of the peoples of the world (or alternatively, of 'Asia' or of 'the Pacific region') right here in our own country. Needless to say, no such moral obligation exists. The people of Thailand, China, Finland, etc. are not ashamed of having a predominance of people of a particular ethnicity or culture in their country.

Indeed, national boundaries since the age of nationalism began, have been increasingly drawn along ethnic lines. It is a little hard to see why Australia alone or almost alone has an obligation to radically change its ethnic mix, and to become a sort of microcosm of the world - unless they mean to argue that Australia is not a real nation but a sort of international treaty area, like Antarctica."

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_318.shtml
Posted by Efranke, Friday, 19 September 2008 2:27:33 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
Efranke

Mark O'Connor's article (published in 1993) is so obsolete. But worse, it is based on unsourced and unattributed claims that have no credibility. I'm amazed that you are still relying on this third-rate garbage.

Quote: "Some immigrationists claim that Australia is obliged to maintain high immigration until we have a roughly representative mix of the peoples of the world (or alternatively, of 'Asia' or of 'the Pacific region') right here in our own country. Needless to say, no such moral obligation exists."

'Some immigrationists' - who?

'Australia is obliged' - by whom?

'a roughly representative mix of the peoples of the world' - whatever for?

'or alternatively, of 'Asia' or of 'the Pacific region' - both quite different from the first zany proposition, so which one is the right one?

'Needless to say, no such moral obligation exists.' Well, then, why say it?

Nice circular argument.
(a) Set up a nonsense as if some anonymous person agrees with it.
(b) Show it's a nonsense and that you disagree with it.
(c) Conclude it's a nonsense.

Ever get the sense that Mr O'Connor is disappearing up his own orifice
Posted by Spikey, Friday, 19 September 2008 3:19:58 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
Olly is wrong about Australia having a declining population. Australia's population is actually growing by 1.6%, which would imply a population doubling time of a little over 43 years (and 800 years to standing room only) if it continued. This is due to both natural increase (momentum from past high fertility rates) and net migration. See

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0

Olly's ideas on making the desert bloom would be workable if we had a perfectly clean, unlimited source of free energy. We could use this energy for all sorts of other purposes to support a really big population, terraforming Mars for example. Unfortunately, such an energy source only exists in science fiction.

Perth's new desalination plant will use 24 MW of power to produce 45 GL of water per year. The water will cost about $1.50 per kL, although according to Jennifer Marohasy, the Israelis have claimed to get this down to $.70 at their 80 MW Ashkelon plant. Pumping desalinated water inland to use it for agriculture would add substantially to this cost, depending on the distance and elevation. Then there would be the losses to evaporation once the water was applied to the desert. The going price for temporary transfers of irrigation water is $100 per ML or $0.10 per kL. This paper by economist John Quiggin at the University of Queensland suggests that it would be more economical for the cities to buy irrigation water than to desalinate. In other words, more people would mean less agricultural production, not more. See

http://www.jcipp.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/JohnQuiggin.pdf

Spikey,

Why not defend your growthist ideas instead of just sniping at others?
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 19 September 2008 4:47:22 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
Efranke

Thank you for the link to Mark O'Connor's perspective on immigration. His new book, co-authored by William Lines, "Overloading Australia" is to be released this year.

This recent publication is a good indication that his views are hardly "obsolete" and he's certainly not "disappearing up his own orifice."

So Spikey - what are your views on Australia's expanding population and the eventual collapse of the resource boom? For instance, the forecasted closure of the Kalgoorlie Super Pit, with a workforce of 1000 plus all the service industries is 2017.

I'm having trouble reading you? Why do you feel "seasick?"

Cheers

http://www.australianpoet.com/environment.html
Posted by dickie, Friday, 19 September 2008 6:18:50 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
(This is a response to a post by Spikey at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7894&page=0#123916 in the related forum "Australia exports its draconian immigration system".)

Spikey wrote:

"Do your own sums. There's nothing 'elaborate' in the statistics. But if you find it all a bit much I'll lend you my calculator."

But I have shown that your statistics are not giving us the full picture and seem to be inconsistent with other sources. You have cited a newspaper article. I have at least attempted to go to the source and have found (yes, I am not perfect and not a genius) that, as far as I can see, they don't add up.

I think, at least, I have demonstrated that I can use a spreadsheet, as well as a calculator, when I revealed my efforts to make sense of the ABS spreadsheet.

Since it is you that is trying to convince the rest of us that we have nothing to fear from record high immigration (except traffic congestion, water scarcity, soaring housing prices, growing hospital waiting lists, declining wages, unemployment, destruction of farmland and natural habitat, etc.) you could perhaps show us how your figures are consistent with the ABS data and show us, while you are at it, that you can also use a calculater and a spreadsheet.

Spikey wrote: "And (b) the article also fails to mention the permanent departures from Australia - around 70,000 each year. So stop the panic."

I have already demonstrated that I understood the concempt of emigration. Given that the ABS spreadheet shows that the overall population increase in the 12 months to December 2007, TAKING EMIGRATION INTO ACCOUNT, was 331,900 according to that unexplained figure in the ABS spreadsheet, then, given our declining quality of live and precarious environment and that the apparent fools in control of this country want to increase that figure, I would have thought that we would have had a good deal to 'panic' about.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 21 September 2008 1:19:20 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
Spikey wrote (at )http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7894&page=0#123916 : "What plan?"

What does the term "multiculturalism" mean to you, Spikey?

To say that its goal is to transform Australia into "a representative sample of the cultures of the earth" (as opposed to most other countries' policies of assimilating immigrants into the their predominant national culture) is only a slight exaggeration of the reality, I would have thought.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 21 September 2008 1:20:19 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
daggett

When the ABS and Immigration Department make forecasts about population growth, they make various assumptions (high, medium and low) about Australia's
(a) future fertility
(b) life expectancy and
(c) net overseas migration.

Under one set of assumptions, ABS projects Australia's population to grow to between 24.9 million and 33.4 million in 2051, but under their medium (Series B) assumptions, Australia's population would virtually stabilise around 28.2 million from mid century. (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/15population.htm)

I can't agree with the doomsayers that this range of growth is unsustainable.

ABS stats seem to you "to be inconsistent with other sources". That's because you are relying on second-hand accounts and/or misreading ABS data. One mistake you're making is conflating immigration data with natural growth data and consistently omitting permanent departures from net immigration outcomes and projections. You are also including all temporary arrivals.

It's not enough for you to say that you understand the concept of emigration. You actually have to factor it in to your accounting.

It's facile in the extreme to assert that the goal of "multiculturalism" is to transform Australia into "a representative sample of the cultures of the earth". This is a distortion of all reasonable meanings of "multiculturalism". The only evidence of the existence of the so-called "plan" is one superficial article written ages ago by an opponent. Look for his evidence. You won't find it because there is no such plan.

And at any rate whether we adopt a policy of 'multiculturalism' or 'assimilation', it makes no difference to population growth
Posted by Spikey, Sunday, 21 September 2008 6:09:06 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
Spikey wrote,

"It's not enough for you to say that you understand the concept of emigration. You actually have to factor it in to your accounting."

Once more: the figure I cited of 331,900 was the ABS increase in Estimate Residential Population in the 12 months to December 2007.

Are you trying to tell me that figure does NOT take into emigration?

If you are here to inform us and not just obfuscate the issue by misusing statistics then, perhaps you could show me where I am wrong.

Now it may well prove that some of those 331,900 may not be permanent, but I think it would be prudent to assume that they will become permanent until we see evidence to the contrary for anyone to bank on it. I refer anyone interested to the excellent Background documentary of 17 August on overseas students called "Paying to be Permanent" at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2332972.htm

Whilst Spikey glibly assures us that further increases in population to between 24.9 million and 33.4 million (if we can have any confidence in such projections anyway) is of no great consequence, I am not convinced. We als have to remeber that the 1,000,000+ Australian expatriates have an automatic right to return should the rest of the world go pear-shape, so it would be interesting to know if any of the ABS projections factor in that possibility.

If we consider the congestion of the cities, the fact that a secure home of one's own, particularly with a yard is an impossible pipe dream for most Australians, etc, etc, etc, then I would argue the existing population growth has already been a social, political, economic and environmental catastrophe for our existing population.

Spikey needs to explain how he feels so assured that any additional increase in our population won't make that situation worse, especially at a time when our major river system may be about to die, the price of petroleum is gong inexorably up and climate change threatens to desertify much of this country.

(I may not be around for a few days.)
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 10:59:08 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
daggett

(Spikey here - and I was still a woman when I last checked.)

You ask, "If you are here to inform us and not just obfuscate the issue by misusing statistics then, perhaps you could show me where I am wrong."

The simplest mistake is that you are confusing the increase in Australia's permanent population and what the ABS calls increase in Estimated Residential Population.

Secondly, you are making unjustified use of assumed figures for people on visas becoming permanent settlers ("until we see evidence to the contrary," you say).

Thirdly, you accept ABS data when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't. For example, you attribute to me 'glib assurances' that further increases in population will fall in the range between 24.9 million and 33.4 million when they are ABS and Immigration Department projections, not mine.

Fourthly, you assume without seeing the evidence that a significant proportion of Australian expatriates will return. But in 2001, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimated the number of Australian citizens living PERMANENTLY or on a long-term basis number around 860 000, along with an additional 265 000 ‘visiting citizens’ or persons overseas on a shorter-term basis. Since the 1990s, there has been an upsurge in the permanent and long-term emigration of Australian-born. In recent years, numbers of Australians emigrating to Asia have increased by more than 50%.
http://ceda.com.au/public/publications/info_paper/ip_80.html

As for your claim that "a secure home of one's own...is an impossible pipe dream for most Australians, etc, etc, etc, then I would argue the existing population growth has already been a social, political, economic and environmental catastrophe for our existing population."

ABS data does show a fall in rates of home ownership among Australians aged less than 35 years, but it's not "catastrophic". But there is debate as to whether this fall is due to changing affordability (Yates 1999, 2002) or to delays in family formation among young Australians (Mudd et al. 2001). Immigration is not the over-riding factor.
http://lifecourse.anu.edu.au/publications/Workshop2_papers/Baxter&McDonald_W2.pdf
Posted by Spikey, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 1:25:12 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
Spikey wrote "ABS data does show a fall in rates of home ownership among Australians aged less than 35 years, but it's not "catastrophic". But there is debate as to whether this fall is due to changing affordability (Yates 1999, 2002) or to delays in family formation among young Australians (Mudd et al. 2001). Immigration is not the over-riding factor."

You have not acknowledged my points that show that immigration whether inter-state or international is the principle driver of housing hyper-inflation in this country athttp://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7894#123390 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7894#123369 and http://candobetter.org/node/610 ("Brisbane's housing unaffordability crisis spun by ABC to promote property lobby interests") so why should I waste further time trying to argue this point?

(Also others, interested in the evidence might also find of interest "Property analysts again confirm immigration used to inflate housing prices" at http://candobetter.org/node/710 "Rent gouging threatens Brisbane inner city retail community" at http://candobetter.org/node/360)

If you don't consider housing unaffordability to be catastrophic, then talk to some of the homeless that I have in the recent past I have reluctantly agreed to share my house with, or those others whose requests I have refused. Talk to my ex-neighbour whose life was made miserable for six months two years back by real estate agents showing off her house to prospective buyers and who then had her rent jacked up and had to move out. Talk to another friend who has lived for years in a Kombi (the regular repair bills for which almost cripple her finances.) because she can't afford to rent.

You clearly have no idea how housing unaffordability affects the lives of ordinary Australians or, if you do, you just don't care.

I consider nearly of the rest of your previous post to be obfuscation. Most people with a grip on what is happening in this country recognise that the immigration rate is far too high however we might pontificate about what the precise figures are.
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 2:10:54 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
daggert

No need for you to tell me about homelessness. I belong to a group with a very significant rate of homelessness (former inmates of institutions) and work with them on a regular basis. Their homelessness has nothing to do with immigration. It's there whether immigration rates are high or low. I have just finished yet another detailed submission to the Victorian Government on the issue.

So get off your righteous high horse. I wasn't saying that the fall in home ownership was not a big problem. (I can match your tragic stories with lots of my own, but what does that prove?) It's been a problem for many years and may be getting worse - and for a whole variety of reasons. Your use of the word 'catastrophe' which is both inaccurate and unhelpful. Unless we accurately diagnose the problem, we flounder in finding workable solutions

You have no credible evidence that demonstrate "that immigration whether inter-state or international is the principle driver of housing hyper-inflation in this country". No amount of repetition of low-level rhetoric will substitute for hard evidence. So if that's the best you can, yes then we are both wasting the other's time.

So you finally get to your real agenda: "Most people with a grip on what is happening in this country recognise that the immigration rate is far too high however we might pontificate about what the precise figures are."

Now what sort of grip would that be?
Posted by Spikey, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 4:46:14 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
Where I work in psychiatry we discharge patients to the beach, to caravan parks, onto peoples' couches, back to the streets. Things have got much much worse due to the diaspora from the inner city of people capitalising on their houses and moving further out. International immigration and interstate immigration add to this. Developer lobbyists like KPMG "demographer", Bernard Salt in 'The Big Shift' get up and lecture on how great it is that immigration is driving prices up. They think they are clever. I would be ashamed. This demand is driving up land-prices for housing and it is encouraged by State Governments for stamp duty and developers and banks for the interest they get from loans. The situation has greatly worsened since the data that Spikey cites and no-one in the industry or government bothers to deny the immigration factor anymore. As for the ABS stats: you need to coordinate land and housing prices with annual immigration stats at State level, to get the population movements. Census stats don't pick them up. (Discussed in Productivity Commission Housing Affordability Enquiry.) The internet opened up the Australian property market to international buyers and investors and diverse new bedfellows moved in to take advantage of this, including the newly privatised immigration agents, the universities touting for foreign students (and investing in university housing), the developers seeking buyers for the suburbs they build daily, the solicitors looking for conveyancing fees, the Foreign Investment Review Board (check their website) touting Oz property... we live in an immigration driven real-estate economy. That is not to say that divorce and family fragmentation don't play their part as well. Foreign Merger and Acquisitions laws have been watered down yearly since the Frazer government. Even deinstitutionalisation was largely a convenient ideology to cover the sell-off of those magnificent public hospital estates. Libs and Labor in Hansard admit the population problem at https://candobetter.org/node/663. The Victorian Government's shameful enmeshment with property speculation and immigration driven land-price inflation is revealed in Melbourne 2030: Life in a destruction zone: https://candobetter.org/node/628
Posted by Kanga, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:02:23 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
So Spikeee,

What would else it take from daggerrrrt to convince you that population growth drives up housing costs?

All the newspaper reports up here in Qld talk of immigration from the south causing a scarcity in housing, which is in turn driving up the cost of renting and house pruchase.

Are you trying to tell us that you don't accept the laws of supply and demand?
Posted by cacofonix, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 12:05:59 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
That should have been "What would else WOULD it take from daggerrrrt to convince you that population growth drives up housing costs?"
Posted by cacofonix, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 12:07:34 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
daggert & cacponix

House prices are affected by a large number of factors - not just population growth (interstate and overseas immigration and emigration). Other causes include:
interest rates,
stock market movements,
land releases,
building material and labour costs,
declining household sizes,
inflation,
unemployment,
government infrastructure investment,
transport infrastructure,
policies on negative gearing and taxation changes, etc.

All of the above relate, but are not limited, to simple supply and demand economics.
If migration were the only or even the main factor what would explain sharply falling house prices in the USA and the UK where migration levels remain very high?

According to CNNMoney.com April 29, 2008, the S&P Case/Shiller Home Price Index, which tracks 20 of the largest US housing markets, showed prices plummeting by 12.7% in the 12 months ending February. That's the biggest fall since the index began tracking prices in 2000. The 10-city Case/Shiller index is down 13.6% year-over-year, the biggest drop since its launch in 1987. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/real_estate/housing_price_fall_deepens/index.htm?postversion=2008042914)

In the UK, home loans slumped 64% in the last year. This is the lowest figure on record since the survey series began in 1997. The continued scarcity of new buyers, deterred by hefty demands for deposits from lenders and tumbling house prices, will further drag down property values, which have fallen by more than 10% in a year. Home sales fell to a 30-year low in August and house prices fell at the fastest annual pace in a quarter century according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors this month. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article4808480.ece)

Meanwhile, the OECD warns Australia that the current boom in housing prices here has lasted twice as long as past housing booms, increasing the risk of a serious bust. Historically, most booms in housing prices have ended in busts which, at worst, wiped out all the rise in prices during the boom. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/house-prices-world-highest/2005/11/30/1133311106610.html)

Local economists also warn that Australian house prices are vulnerable to falls over the next year or so. (www.amp.com.au/display/file/0,2461,FI186392%255FSI4305,00.pdf? filename=olivers_insights_08052008.pdf)

Immigration is just one factor and it’s not helpful to caste it as THE cause of THE housing crisis.
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 2:33:30 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
Spikey, firstly, can I ask: Are you intentionally misspelling 'daggett' as 'daggert'?

---

Yes, there are factors other than immigration which have added to housing hyper-inflation (duhhh!), but even if all those other factors were to be removed, we would still have housing costs massively inflated compared to what they were a generation or two ago. From my recollection it has risen from 3 times a median annual income to 8 times. (Divergence, could you verify this?) That surely represents a truly disastrous fall in the living standards of many Australians as well as a massive unearned transfer of wealth into the pockets of some others.

I suggest you read the Canberra Times article "Rising Immigration pushes housing stress to breaking point" (http://www.crispinhull.com.au/ct_html_docs/CanberraTimesArticles.html) in the Canberra Times if you still refuse to acknowledge immigration as a principle driver of housing inflation (as even intuition and common sense would surely suggest). The article is at

"The proportion of immigrants in Australia’s population growth is at its highest since the Gold Rush -- at 59%. Net immigration has been about 200,000 a year for the past four years and rising. It has doubled from the number in the four years before that. In the first quarter of 2008 it rose 71,600 to an annualised rate of 286,000, the highest on record, according to ABS figures issued this week. And we wonder why we have a housing affordability crisis."

"...

"This is not Hansonism or rascism. It does not matter what colour or creed the immigrants are, it is a question of pure numbers. We are not providing proper shelter for the increasing population – immigrant or native. Australia’s population rose by 336,800 in the 12 months to March. That is a city the size of Canberra. At 2.5 people per dwelling that is about 135,000 dwellings a year. Add to that about 40,000 more dwellings to replace dilapidated housing stock and we need about 175,000 new dwellings a year. But we have built about 35,000 fewer dwellings than that in most years in the past half decade."

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 28 September 2008 5:25:20 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
(continuedfromabove)

"Small wonder then that we have a housing shortage, high prices, high rents and about 180,000 on public-housing waiting lists. Are we building more public houses to meet this need? No. The number of public dwellings has fallen by 30,000 to 340,000 in the past five years."

"...

"As in the US, immigration is a major public policy failure.

"We have some grim choices: open up the vast tracts of vacant land on city fringes to urban sprawl and too bad for the environment or agriculture; cram more people in to existing cities and suburbs and too bad for existing residents and strained infrastructure; or (heaven forbid) drastically cut the immigration program."
---

I mentioned earlier people I know who have been personally affected by housing unaffordability, because those with whom I have argued about this have seemed not to have any understanding of how housing unaffrodability affects ordinary Australians.

The fact that you personally know such people who are homeless and yet are attempting here to deny the blindingly obvious link between population growth and housing inflation that is causing them, and so many like them, misery, anxiety and hardship hardly does you any credit in my view.

So, what's your secret agenda, Spikey?

Perhaps peddling this propaganda may be good for your career prospects with the growth-pushing Victorian Government?

I will return in the near future soon in order to dissect your summary dismissal of the evidence I presented earlier.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 28 September 2008 5:28:01 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
Daggett,

This factsheet shows the cost of an average house in Australia as having risen from a multiple of 3.3 times the average wage in 1970 to 7.4 times in 2005.

http://www.findem.com.au/factsheets/housingfactsheet.pdf

The factsheet says average annual wage, which would imply the higher mean wage, but I think that this is a mistake for median wage. The increase has been considerably greater in major metropolitan areas. This webpage contains a graph showing movements in house prices, rents, and average wages in Sydney:

http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/cityfutures/publications/presentations/ncoss.pdf
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 29 September 2008 10:08:57 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
Daggett (my apologies for unintentionally mispelling your name)

You ask what's my secret agenda? This is a well-worn tactic when the argument is running against you.

I am neither "peddling propaganda" nor advancing "career prospects"; but I should not have to defend my self from these baseless personal slurs. Stick to the issues.

I am pleased to note that you "...will return in the near future soon in order to dissect your summary dismissal of the evidence I presented earlier."

After all, I'm defending the status quo on migration which obviously has bi-partisan political support and a track record of success. You are the one challenging the current policy, so let's hear a logical and reasoned argument other than the discredited migration-causes-all-our-ills one.
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 29 September 2008 10:30:58 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
Spikey,

From the April 2006 Australian Government Productivity Commission report on Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth:

• Economic gains accrue mostly to skilled migrants and capital owners (page 151): "The distribution of these benefits varies across the population, with gains mostly accrued to the skilled migrants and capital owners. The incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case."

• Hourly wages will drop slightly under high immigration (page 161).

• These results are consistent with research both in Australia and overseas (page 161).

• Environmental impacts are likely to impose a drag on productivity and living standards, but the details are "too hard" to quantify (page 122).

The reason for the bipartisan policy is that the elite, who donate heavily to the major political parties, benefit from population growth, at least to the point where collapse is staring them in the face, as in China. They get bigger markets, high real estate prices (since there are more people, but God isn't making any more land), and a cheap, compliant workforce, much of which is of prime age and already trained at someone else's expense. The chanting about the need for migrants goes on while Australia has the highest unemployment rate for disabled people in the OECD.
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 29 September 2008 10:52:09 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
Divergence,

Nice try, but a few selective quotations from a 402 page document won’t pass as detached analysis.

Let’s compare what you quote from the Report with quotes I found on the same pages:

• You say: Economic gains accrue mostly to skilled migrants and capital owners (page 151): "The distribution of these benefits varies across the population, with gains mostly accrued to the skilled migrants and capital owners. The incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case."

The Report says: “Migration has a neutral to mildly positive effect on overall living standards…Positive contributions arise from the increase in labour supply, the changing skill composition due to migration, and a consumption price effect.”

• You say: Hourly wages will drop slightly under high immigration (page 161).
The Report says: “… migration has relatively small but generally benign economic effects.”

• You say: Environmental impacts are likely to impose a drag on productivity and living standards, but the details are "too hard" to quantify (page 122).

The Report says: “The annual growth in the mining and agriculture, forestry and fishing industries that is attributable to migration is likely to be in the order of only 0.56 and 0.76 percentage points, respectively.”

According to Professor Sloan, the Productivity Commissioner who supervised the Report, 'Migration contributes to the economy in many ways. As well as the upskilling of the workforce, economies of scale and the development of new export markets would further add to the economic benefits of migration. Environmental issues associated with a larger population would need to be managed, however'.
http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/migrationandpopulation/docs/finalreport/mediarelease

Overall, the Productivity Report showed that migrants tend to raise Australian living standards because Australia’s migrants are more highly skilled than the locally-born population on average and more concentrated in working age groups.

A more recent Productivity Commission Report (Feb 2008) concluded that Australia may particularly benefit from migrants building social and business networks that improve the quality of information flowing between countries and lower the costs of international trade and investment. &#8232;
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/76265/migraton.pdf
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 29 September 2008 6:29:04 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
Spikey,

You are also being selective in ignoring social class, as well as quality of life issues. It is quite possible for mass migration to have a neutral or even mildly positive per capita economic effect without having any significant benefits (or even having a negative effect) on ordinary people. It depends on how the gains and losses are distributed. If Australia's billionaires get a few billion more, it may raise the nation's mean wealth, but it won't make me any better off. I may even be worse off, because the people who have the wealth can use it to buy my government.

There is a strong correlation between mass migration and social inequality, although it is not the only factor. See this graph by Nicholas Gruen showing the proportion of total income going to the top 1% of the population over time for various countries.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/08/24/policy-and-perhaps-culture-matter-for-income-distribution/

In looking at the US data, note that mass migration was cut off in 1921 and stayed near zero net until 1965. See also the links (especially to Prof. Borjas work) in

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/070129_nd.htm

I doubt that many Australians are jumping for joy that their housing costs have doubled or tripled in terms of the median wage over the past 35 years. Nor do most of them enjoy urban consolidation. Robert Cummins' study for the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index showed increased happiness at lower urban densities, even if people had less money.

You are also skating over some very serious environmental issues. Per capita energy consumption has actually gone down in the US and Western Europe since the 1970s. Total increases in these countries are entirely due to population growth and, as I recall, mostly due to population growth in Australia. See

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0806/fig_tab/climate.2008.44_F1.html
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 3:37:23 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 Productivity Commission report of January 2006 was clearly trying to paint immigration in the best positive light, however, the underlying data, even in terms of the flawed measures of inflation and the Gross Domestic Production (GDP) (whether per capita or not) did not bear that out.

The small increase in GDP income was, in fact, less than the increase in anticipated hours worked, so, in one absolute sense the Productivity Commission shows that we will be worse off.

Still, if we took that document at face value without reading it too carefully we could probably tolerate high immigration.

However, as Divergence has pointed out, income has clearly been skewed as a result of immigration.

A more critical flaw in this document, which it shares with just about all other mainstream reporting of economic performance, is its unquestioning acceptance of measures of inflation as reflecting the true increase in the cost of living and of the GDP.

The GDP's originator Simon Kuznets devised it for the US Government for an entirely different purpose in the 1930's for what it has since been used. (Geoff Davies wrote of this on page 5 or 6 of "Economia")

The GDP is flawed because it counts all economic activity as positive. Thus the economic activity necessitated by the reconstruction following the bushfires of early 2003 was counted by the GDP as adding to our prosperity. Also, the GDP ignores the contribution of economic activity that does not entail money changing hands.

It is for these reasons that Simon Kuznets warned against the use of the per capita GDP to measure prosperity, but his warnings were ignored by establishment economists including those attempting to justify high immigration.

It is my view that our incomes have massively declined as a result of both immigration and the adoption of the neo-liberal economic dogma. I wrote of this in my article "Living standards and our material prosperity" of 6 Sep 2007 at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6326&page=0 and found that this was in accord with the expereinces of most who contributed to the discussion.

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 5:58:18 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
(continuedfromabove)

The House of Lords in the UK recently put the claimed economic benefits of immigration under the microscope and found that they had no basis (see "House of lords tells UK government to limit immigration" of 11 Apr 2008 at http://candobetter.org/node/407 ) and even that did not take adequate account of the effect on the environment accourding to Britain's Optimum Population Trust (see "House of Lords’ immigration report 'forgets environment'" of 2 Apr 2008 at http://candobetter.org/node/395).

Intuition and common sense would tell us that increasing numbers of people beyond the optimum level which Australia has long ago exceeded, will reduce the per-capita access to natural resources and, hence, our quality of life.

Only by resort to flawed measures such as the GDP can it be viewed otherwise.

Less intuitive are the diseconomies of scale resulting from higher populations. Once we have suprassed an optimium poplation level, we find that construction the necessray infrastgructure to supply roads, public transport, health, electricity, water, education, etc, cost more and not less per capita.

So, the reduction in living standards due to less individual access to natural resources is compounded.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 6:00:11 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
Perhaps Spikey could comment on the story "We can't afford to keep Sydney running: Rees" in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 October at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydney-bursting-at-seams-rees/2008/10/01/1222651172311.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

"SYDNEY has grossly under-estimated the population explosion that
will squeeze its resources over the next 20 years, but the
cash-strapped Premier admits it is 'pointless/ to promise the
billions of dollars in extra spending the city will need."

"Nathan Rees yesterday signalled deep cuts in the capital spending
program and a radical departure from the $140 billion infrastructure
strategy of the former premier, Morris Iemma.

"On the same day that it emerged Sydney will need almost 900,000
extra homes by 2031 - a third more than estimated three years ago ...

"Population growth in such areas will be a big test for the city's
future infrastructure needs. A soaring immigration rate means Sydney
will need to squeeze in a third more houses and flats by 2031 than
was estimated only three years ago. The city's flagging
infrastructure is already struggling to cope with population
pressures. But falling tax revenue had left the Government little
choice but to slash spending, Mr Rees said."

...

(See also "Crunch time for Sydney: Rees" at http://candobetter.org/node/832)

Somehow, it seems to me that when all those population growth pushers were hysterically beating the drum for yet more population in recent years they weren't giving us the complete picture.

Now, Spikey, please tell us where you think all of this was accounted for in those Productivity Commission Reports that you have quoted in support of immigration?

It seems to me that those charged with investigating the likely consequences of immigration were either stupid or were intentionally misleading the Australian public.

My own gut feeling is the latter, and they do it in order to allow a greedy selfish minority to profit whilst the society as a whole becomes more impoverished and less sustainable.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 10 October 2008 2:40:54 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
Daggett

Good to see you still beavering away on your fixation while I've had a well-earned rest.

"Intuition and common sense would tell us that increasing numbers of people beyond the optimum level which Australia has long ago exceeded...'" you declare.

The problem with 'intuition' and 'commonsense' is that other rational people keep producing other contradictory versions of 'intuition' and 'commonsense'.

The NSW Premier's comments should be seen in the context of the audience he was playing to. A bid and special pleading for more funding from the Commonwealth at the expense of the other States. Of course he's going to pull the population card.

You ask me to revise my opinion about "those Productivity Commission Reports that you have quoted in support of immigration?" Shall I do the same with the ones you and Divergence too quoted from the same source?

So lacking hard empirical evidence for your closed position, you now resort to abuse: "It seems to me that those charged with investigating the likely consequences of immigration were either stupid or were intentionally misleading the Australian public."

While all those experts are either 'stupid' or liars, you ask us to rely on your 'own gut feeling' to complement your 'intuition' and your version of 'commonsense'.

Could you please offer us a clear summation of what you declare to be the "optimum level which Australia has long ago exceeded"? That is, please move beyond cliche and generality to a specific population figure that matches your notion of sustainability.
Posted by Spikey, Friday, 10 October 2008 3:52:08 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
Spikey,

I note that you come up with ever more creative ways to avoid acknowledging the evidence.

Whilst I consider it legitimate to point out that the case against immigration is consistent with common sense and intuition, my case clearly does not rely on that alone and for you to imply that it does is dishonest.

I note that you have not acknowledged Divergence's data on the increase in the real cost of housing since 1970, which has correlated remarkably with the increase in population, nor Crispin Hull's article on the relationship between housing shortages and increased immigration.

---

No, I can't give a precise figure for what the optimum population would have been, but I would suggest that it would have been somewhere before the point where (relatively) natural means of supplying water became insufficient to meet the needs of our population. The newspapers in Queensland, Victoria and NSW are full of stories about how water rates and other Government charges are being increased in order to pay for desalination plants, dams, recycling and various water grids.

That is one clear example of the (counter-intuitive) "dis-economies of scale" caused by population growth which I referred to above. Clearly water rates would have been lower if population numbers had remained within what could have been supplied by natural means, then our rates would be lower.

Another dis-economy of scale is the increased cost of transport. Cramming more people into cities necessitates massive costs in providing additional transport infrastructure to relieve congestion. Consequently, when I last lived in Sydney in 2004 it cost many residents easily well over $100 per week in tolls alone in order just to commute to and from work and Brisbane is now headed in the same direction.

---

Sorry, if my attitude towards the greedy selfish growth pushers seems abusive to you, but at least they are only words.

I am far more concerned with the actual harm that these people are causing to existing residents, and to our natural environment including endangered species such as koalas, the Tasmanian Devil, the grey nurse shark etc.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 10 October 2008 8:13:26 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
At the risk of attracting the unhelpful participation of Lord High Dymo (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#47345 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=28653 ) into this discussion with his accusations of myself being a 'sock puppet' for daggett, I will post the following on behalf of daggett, to illustrate his point about the costs of water infrastructure and its relationship to population growth:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/27/2200487.htm
"Sydney water bills to rise $200"

Water bills for Sydney households are set to rise by around $200 a year, with almost half the additional revenue being used to pay for the desalination plant.

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has released a draft report, which is proposing increases to water bills for the average household of $203 a year by 2012.

Water bills would rise by $95 a year for the average household from July 1.

The tribunal says the price rise is needed to pay for major capital works.

It says $92 dollars of the increase will go towards the desalination plant, which is being built at Kurnell.

The money will also be used to pay for water recycling schemes in western Sydney.

The increases are $32 a year less than those proposed by Sydney Water.

Sydney Water managing director Kerry Schott has defended the need to increase water bills to pay for the desalination plant.

"We're in a sort of new phase without water supply and demand," she said. "The days of dams and treat water are gone."

...
Posted by cacofonix, Friday, 10 October 2008 9:15:55 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
James Sinnamon et al: << At the risk of attracting the unhelpful participation of Lord High Dymo (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#47345 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=28653 ) into this discussion with his accusations of myself being a 'sock puppet' for daggett, I will post the following on behalf of daggett... >>

Come on, James.

Stop trying to pick fights. Surely you can argue your case under the same constraints as everybody else?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#47460
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 10 October 2008 11:17:49 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
Daggett

I presume you and Divergence will soon be arguing that, just as the increase in the price of housing is due to immigration, the massive decline in the cost of housing in the US and UK are due to immigration.

Your intuition and commonsense would tell you that immigration causes prices to rise and to fall, eh?

The same intuition and commonsense that doesn't allow you to be able to give a figure for an optimum population for Australia but allows you to know we're past the optimum? Does it tell you in what year we passed the unknown optimum?

The same intuition and commonsense that causes global warming and causes the price of water to rise?
Posted by Spikey, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:16:01 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
(This was mistakenly posted to the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7896&page=0 My apologies)

CJ Morgan,

As daggett/cacofonix/whatever wrote just now:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#47461
"But it takes two to make a fight, doesn't it?

"All you needed to do was to have walked quietly away from this forum, which you still insist is a complete waste of time, or better still, not have bothered to post that first comment accusing me without any substantiation, of being "a tad obsessive", and there could not possibly have possibly been a fight."

---

The above was posted not in order to cause a fight with you, but in spite of that risk in order to post something of use to the discussion -- something you have proven yourself either incapable of doing or unwilling to do on the "9/11 Truth" forum.
Posted by cacofonix, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:25:25 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
Spikey wrote, "The same intuition and commonsense that doesn't allow you to be able to give a figure for an optimum population for Australia but allows you to know we're past the optimum?"

If charges for a basic necessity such as water are going up in real terms in order to pay for more technologically complex means of supplying that need that we would not have needed had our population remained stable, then then I would have thought it was self-evident that we have surpassed a point where population growth improves our quality of life.

No, I have to admit I don't have the expertise to give you the precise figure for an economically optimum population.

Can you tell me why you so urgently need to know a figure more precise than 'a lot less than 21,000,000'?

---

What I do know is that Tim Flannery has calculated that the sustainable population of Australia, taking into account water, soil, ecology etc, is 7,000,000. I hope he is wrong, but others regard that even figure as optimistic.

Do you happen to know of any scientific studies conducted by people who understand the environment that show that we can sustain more than 21,000,000 ?

In regard to the fall in values of UK housing, I would suggest that the falls you talk of are not particularly significant in comparison to the astronomical past cost increases which were clearly caused caused by population growth. Clearly speculation, easy availability of credit, etc have made the situation worse. I imagine that the bust in the speculative bubble has had a lot to do with the recent deflation in the UK.

Whatever, you have not acknowledged the clear relationship between population growth and housing inflation in Australia that has been shown in that article by Crispin Hull.

Are you completely denying, in the face of the laws of supply and demand and what property speculators, themselves, have openly acknowledged and wished for, that immigration driven-population growth has added massively to housing inflation?
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 12 October 2008 12:10:33 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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