As demonstrated in a recent house of Lords paper, immigration is of no overall benefit to the UK. It has never been conclusively demonstrated that there is any overall benefit to Australia of allowing vasts numbers of iimigrants into Australia. Most of these people have simply failed to produce viable cohesive societies in their own countries and now wish to take advantage of what Australians have created. We now have increasing levels of violent crimes unheard of before. I firmly believe we don't need immigrants. They have an obligation to fix their own countries. The only people that harp on about how good immigration and multiculturalism is, are the actual immigrants themselves. Time for Australians to say we don;t need any more.

<< Yet despite such a range of important and conflicting issues, the major parties seem to focus on dealing with the one component of the debate that can elicit electoral support in key seats. >>

Not so, Zareh.

Julia Gillard has had a fair bit to say about population policy and a sustainable Australia. At least she is approaching the population / immigration / asylum seeker subject on a broad front….much more so than Abbott it would appear, although the shadow minister for immigration, Scott Morrison, is also very vocal on broader population policy.

I don’t see this enormous issue as being particularly complex. The way forward is very clear to me, and I think that my vision would resonate very well with voters.

That is:

Stop onshore asylum seeking, but not by way of just turning boats around. Do it with sensitivity to the claims of those seeking asylum while implementing a very strong deterrence factor to further arrivals. Offshore processing and temporary protection visas should be key planks in this policy.

Boost our input into refugee issues via our international aid efforts through the UN and increase our intake of the most needy of refugees. Why this is not part of either Gillard’s or Abbott’s policy, I don’t understand. I’m sure it would sit very well with those who are so vocal about the perceived hard action against onshore asylum seekers, and it would not get on the goat of those who want to see our borders resecured.

Work towards a sustainable population that is not too much bigger than the current level.

Reduce immigration in line with that goal.

It is not complex. At last we are at a point in our country’s history where the right policies can be implemented, because the majority of the general public will support them. These are the policies of sustainability, better humanitarianism and good control over our borders and our destiny.

Gillard has shown a promising start. Given that she WILL be returned to power, I just hope to goodness that she develops her policies strongly in this direction.

The immigration debate is a highly vexed issue for Gillard but politically and electorally there are some short term solutions. One is to simply cut the numbers of immigrants by 20 percent. This will reduce Australia's net population but it won't stop it growing which is what the hard liners want - but it will find favour in the electorate.

I would disagree strongly with the first poster.. there is some evidence that immigration has helped Britain, and it is possible that immigration helps Australia. Studies in Britain have shown that the newcomers take jobs that native Britons simply will not do, such as cleaning or delivery or some forms of factory work, even when they are unemployed.. Immigration here is different because a much higher proportion of those immigrating are skilled (refugees make up a small proprotion of the total), but skilled in categories lacking in Aus. A major example is that of nursing. Whether those benefits are offset by supposed higher costs of infrastructure and housing is another question - wouldn't town planning regulations have a much great effect? But as the author notes a crucial point is that the electorate in marginal seats seems to think it does, or can identify it as a reason. No wonder the government has tightened up on boat people and never mind the logic.

Not so sure about that ozzie. I'm on the right of many of the posters here and I'd say Australia's immigration program has been an unmitigated success. The major projects we take for granted: Snowy, Hume Highway, Adelaide/Darwin highway and about 30 percent of the nations veg crops are produced by immigrants or from European/Asian immigrant stock, not to mention their drive to start small businesses. Many are small 'l' liberals which is fine by me. The ALP will almost certainly cut immigration and say TA-DA - we fixed the population 'problem to'.

Actually, there is no population problem just as there is no immigration problem. We have a capital city design and infrastructure problem but I'm not hearing much about that.

House of Lords? Neutered in 1913. Just as well.

Curmudgeon,
Giving individual examples of where you feel Immigration is of benefit to Australia does not disprove what I have suggested, that is that there is no OVERALL benefit. Its easy to give mulitple isolated examples of benefits, but the studies from some of the leading economists in the UK show there to be NO OVERALL benefit. The example you give of immigrants doing jobs that locals won't do I would in fact suggest is not a benefit at all. It is actually an example of how immigration hurts a country. The studies by Lord Richard Layard ( one of the most respected Economists in Britain) show that Immigration lowers the wages of the most vunerable and lowest skilled locals to a point where only immigrants are prepared to do those jobs. So in fact these locals are now far worse off, having to compete with immigrants for the jobs that are now paying much less. Remember these jobs were obviously done by locals prior to mass immigration, but for resonable wages. This kind of situation leads to an underclass developing, called the working poor, which is becoming evident now in Asutralia.

Cheryl,

Again quoting isolated examples of unproven potential benefits does not disprove the suggestion that there is no OVERALL benefit. Where does the stat 30% of Vegs produced by European/Asian immigrants come from? and what is the percentage make up of these people in our population? I would have thought that would pretty much just reflect there proportion of the population.
Do they really have a higher rate of starting businesses? is this proven? I heard a PhD student on the radio a few years ago suggesting that they did this to avoid tax. Many immigrants come from countries where authorities are not to be trusted and so many startbusinesses and deal mainly in cash. Having visited a local immigrant area, I know of 4 restaurants beside each other( I have not eaten there) who will only except cash.

The problem isn't caused by people but by government incompetence in not providing adequate infrastructure to faciltiate a bigger population (through immigration). People rock! People are the ultimate asset, yet the green quasi-religion tends to view them as pollutants. It's the lunar right wrongly defined by the media as representing a left-wing position.
Many years ago I met Tim Flannery at a party in Sylvania, Sydney. We'd known each other at university. He was keen to convince me that Australia's optimum population was seven to eight million. Staggered by this, I just asked him: "Tim, do you know what Australian society was like when the population reached that figure?" Well, that was 1947 - the population was between 7 and 8 million. White Australia. Women 'in their place'. Universities only for the rich. A rarity for any working class person to complete high school. A fairly (though not entirely) insular society that feared or felt uneasy with foreigners. Etc.
The benefits of immigration are not just economic but also social and cultural. And with around 15 million people identified as refugees by the UNHCR, there's strong ethical reasons for an under-populated country like Australia to take in many more. We need a left-wing party committed to growth to provide an alternative to the reactionary ALP/Libs/Greens.
Human beings are problem-solvers, part of the solution.

Well put ozzie! The ‘big Australia’ mob never ask themselves how countries (e.g. in Scandinavia) with smaller populations than we have manage without increasing their populations. Immigration might be fine for immigrants, but it costs the host population dearly.

High post-WW2 immigration was needed; there is no need for it now. Even the skilled immigration programme is a cheap and lazy way of getting labour – instead of educating and training our own people.

And, asylum seekers, illegals, whatever you want to call them, have nothing to do with Australia’s orderly immigration system. Immigrants are those who have successfully applied through the proper channels to come here. Illegals are cheats who would never gain visas through the proper channels. To lump them in with legitimate migrants is an insult to the latter.

Under no circumstances should people arriving illegally - or arriving legally but overstaying their visas – ever be granted permanent residence. They should be returned on discovery.

And, irrespective of all the name-calling from the looney-Left, any immigration should meet the needs of Australia only; and only people who are compatible with our culture and way of life should be sought. That means Europeans and South East Asians in our own region.

If Australians don't start discriminating on immigration just because they don't like being called 'racist', they are foolishly risking their own culture and values.

Leigh,
I totally agree with you post!
And to another post about the British and the asylum/refuge sager. Yes well, you might now that Britten has now declared that they are opting out of this issue as far as the UN is concerned..I hope that we follow suit.

Giving asylum/refuges visa's it just another sneaky way of letting them in. Hey, after all the gove. sees that they are cheaper, they will work for nicks, they don't care if the job they get is not permanent., it could be just a seasonable one, and that will suit them fine 'cause it will be enough just to stay and settle themselves for the time being.

By allowing this visa process to happen it will most surly under mind or moreover undercut any argument as to what exactly does the ordinary lay person need to live on. Surly it is not just as if it is a 'safely net' as the Howard gove. stated it to be. Gosh, what is the message here? It is to say that the ordinary ozzie lay person should be happy to live below the border line? I don't think so! If often have a smurke on my face as to how this so called 'living standards' is calculated out. And also, isn't is rather sneaky as to how the gove. sets their salaries up? It appears to be very much of a challenge to obtain such a position these days. I wander what they assume to be 'the basic salary' for them? Do their view it as a safety net? No, I don't think so as much.

Ozzie - nope, sorry, your attempted refutation does not cut it. In fact immigration's effects on unemployment is by no means straightforward. The actual supply of bodies on the ground is just one factor. In the UK example, and I don't think you read my post properly, the locals were not doing the jobs filled by the immigrants at all, so the arguement over wages and competion you advance is irrelevent.
As for overall benefit, my distinct impression is that the UK research concluded that there were overall benefits. So who are the economists you cite? Certainly there has been very little work in Aus, so I don't know what research you could be citing for conditions here.. Australia, after all, has been taking immigrants since the first fleet, and a lot more per cepita of late and the economy seems to be doing very well, thank you very much.
Illegial immigration should be discouraged, and legal immigration could be taken down a notch of two if people are feeling uncomfortable, but attempts at making a case for high immigration having bad economic affects has yet to be made.

I think it was a very good article, altho he should have explained "sustainability" as more than just an after thought.
The misuse of the asylum seeker and immigration issues to drown out ecological voices and concerns has been one of the disappointments of this decade-long debate so far- get sustainability right in the first place, as against the shocking contrary example of Tasmania the last twenty years as what NOT to do when imposing a responsible policy on development- THEN, larger populations become feasible.
Otherwise we will just be setting a huge snare for the enlarged populations of the future; that rises as resources are degraded and become useless, with the country becoming a poverty trap, where the only winners will be employers playing off elements of the extended working classes against each other.
Which is not to say that we must ignore global poverty and refugees fleeing wars that are usually the West's fault; let alone avoid trying to help post colonial states out of the messes many find themselves in, in neocolonial times, as a result of Western policies inducing poverty big time for local populations, thru history.
The failure of people like Obama and the various subspecies of "New" Labour, to act on a popular mandate for reform world wide since the collapse of neoliberalism ansd neoconservatism in 2007, is the real tragic story of the last few years.

The argument that immigration should be slowed or reduced or stopped because it undermines the working class belongs back in the nineteenth century from whence it originated. Immigration creates domestic demand, which creates jobs. It is true that illegal immigrants tend to work for lower pay and conditions and this places downward pressure on the wages of the unskilled in general. BUT, this is why illegal immigration should be stopped - by making it legal!

In the early twentieth century when the reactionary trade unions were campaigning against 'cheap foreign labour', they actually prohibited membership to such groups. How bizarre. The best response is to welcome them with open arms and to allow them to join the fight for better conditions for everyone. The capitalist welfare state maintains a significant 'reserve army of the unemployed' while immigrants stimulate demand for goods and services.

As for the ecological concerns, they are absurd in a nation whose national parks, in total area in square kilometres, are equivalent to the combined area of some of the biggest countries in western Europe. (And this doesn't even begin to consider the vast areas of disused farm land in Australia).

Ozzie - nope, sorry, your attempted refutation does not cut it. In fact immigration's effects on unemployment is by no means s..........
As for overall benefit, my distinct impression is that the UK research concluded that there were overall benefits. So who are the economists you cite? Certainly there has been very little work in Aus, so I don't know what research you could be citing for conditions here.. Australia, after all, has been taking immigrants since the first fleet, and a lot more per cepita of late and the economy seems to be doing very well, thank you very much.
Illegal immigration should be discouraged, and legal immigration could be taken down a notch of two if people are feeling uncomfortable, but attempts at making a case for high immigration having bad economic affects has yet to be made.

How you heard the latest issues relating to the UK and this delmma about this issue. I may say your could be wrong my good ozzie?

Clearly, this issue about what you declare has no bearing no the matter to do with immigrates such as asylum/refuges. This UK declares that is has actually caused a negative reaction. That is to say that those who have follow the Islamic faith and have immigrated to the UK have protested heavily about the UK's participated in the war. Those islamic folk are outraged about this purely because they say that the British gove. is insulting their faith. Oh yes,I will say that immigration is not as straight forward as one may see it to be, but you do need to look at all aspects of this issue. And I may add that it is most important to also take in an collective economist factual view point.

I do feel that it is very fair and reasonable to say 'let's us look into what is happening within our own back yard before we even contemplate other options as to being immigrates in to do the work'.

Curmudgeon,

Have a read of these articles. Then please give me a link to the work you cite that shows there was an overall benefit from immigration.

MEMBER OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, LORD RICHARD LAYARD: ( Prof of Economics from the London school of economics and one of the most repected economists in the UK)

"The government have been using the overall national income as a measure of the success and and value of its immigration policy. But of course some of that increase in the national income goes to the immigrants, so the question is what is the impact on the existing residents and the answer is the impact is approximately zero."


Also from The Sunday Times ( 1/4/2008)

Immigration is not a benefit to the economy and should be cut, say peersRichard Ford, Home Correspondent

Immigration should be capped, according to a parliamentary report published today which concludes that record numbers of new immigrants have had “little or no impact” on economic well being.

Some groups, including the low-paid, young people seeking jobs and some ethnic minorities, may have suffered because of competition for work from immigrants willing to accept low wages and poor working conditions.

Today’s report, from the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, whose members include two former Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer, seeks to undermine the Government’s claim that record levels of immigration have boosted the economy.

It also sets out to demolish a range of arguments in favour of immigration, including the one that foreigners are needed to prevent labour shortages and also to help to support an increasingly ageing population.

also from the same article
Lord Wakeham, the former Conservative Cabinet minister who chaired the Lords inquiry, said: “The argument put forward by the Government that large-scale net immigration brings significant economic benefits for the UK is unconvincing. We have found no evidence to support their position.”

Sonya2,

Are you criticizing my opinion or that of Curmudgeon?

You quote Curmudgeon but then critisize me?

Thanks, ozzie

Firstly, Leigh: "irrespective of all the name-calling from the looney-Left". There's a common saying about a pot and a kettle I think... You instantly lose credibility with statements like that mate.

re: the actual topic

I find it difficult to digest this argument for offshore detention centres as a deterrent for boat people. Despite them being processed off-shore, 90%+ are still given genuine refugee status and this is the statistic prospective boat people are going to be given. After all, I'm sure they all believe they are genuine refugees, whether the actually fit the criteria or not.

Further, these people are desperate which is why they take the path they do. Regardless of what refugee-haters may think. As such, like desperate drug addicts, threatening them with incarceration is obviously not going to be enough to deter them taking the risk to get what they believe they need.

So, like the drug problem, we need to deter those people doing the actual trafficking. They are the real criminals, taking advantage of the desperate to make a quick buck. They are the ones facilitating the people/drug smuggling. Increasing the penalties is the obvious policy choice.

Why is this not being done? Politics over Policy. The big casualty of democracy. It's the government and opposition using Marketing 101 to win what is basically a popularity contest. And the people fleeing persecution or war are just pawns in the game.

Should it really be such a massive issue; how many people a year? 5000? Do you people seriously believe 5000 people are going to change the culture of 22million? It's ludicrous. And the same people banging on about the cost to the economy are the same people wanting the offshore processing and mandatory detention. Compare the costs of putting one person in detention for a year compared to a year of welfare. The whole argument is completely inane.

And I bet at least 85% of people who disagree with me won't have read this far.

Trash

OZZIE,
You are correct with what you use as your references. May I also point out to you that being a politician is a career. And it is a fact they politician may use an economist view point, mainly to thicken up their argument to prove their point and gain a win in the lower house. This is only so it adds flavor to their argument... Roughly put, it is a matter of 'give me the money honey'....

One can not refuse to admit the truth the the career in politics is what will be the common denominated that will sway the polly into turning a core issue into a real dilemma. This is common practice between all of them.. After all, what would you do to save your career/job? Would you be prepared to loose your job just for the case of a personal view point? I'm sure I wouldn't. What do you say?

Here's a study from the site of the American Civil Liberties Union. The study was conducted by reputable sources. It argues that immigraiton is good for the economy. http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/immigrants-and-economy Needless to say, there will be studies that seek to prove the opposite. Cyberspace is a big place. All one need do is google some key words. To a large extent, one's attitude to immigration will depend on one's political-philosophical values.

Excerpt: "Contrary to popular belief, immigrants do not take away jobs from American workers. Instead, they create new jobs by forming new businesses, spending their incomes on American goods and services, paying taxes and raising the productivity of U.S. businesses. Immigrants are good for the economy, not the other way around".

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/04fifty.htm

Prob worth looking at the following:

The post-war immigration program has benefited Australian life in many ways.

Economic
Immigration affects the demand side of Australia's economy through:

* migrants' own spending (food, housing and leisure activities)
* business expansion (investment to produce extra goods and services)
* expansion of government services (health, education and welfare).

It also affects the supply side of the economy through:

* labour, skills and capital introduced into Australia
* new businesses developed by migrants
* migrant contributions to technology
* adding productive diversity through knowledge of international business markets.

Like all Australians, migrants pay taxes to, and receive benefits and goods and services from, government. Research shows that, overall, migrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in benefits and government goods and services. As a result migrants generate surpluses for government.

Australia's economic growth is significantly enhanced when migrant's direct impact on the economy through their contribution of migrants to supply and demand and their indirect contribution to government surpluses (or smaller deficits), work their way through the economy.

Of course one could say, 'but they're the government, they would say that'. But you'd an idiot to think that. Hands up all those who think we're drifting back to the 1930s with these anti-immigration posts. All we need is for Hitler to take over the Reichstag. Jeeeez...

Cheryl, "All we need is for Hitler to take over the Reichstag."

Yikes, the Nazi Card, Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Ozzie
I looked at material on that report. That's really unconvincing. What you cite is part of a much larger debate with the report being a supposed refutation of an earlier report by the government finding that there was a benefit... the bit about immigrants taking the low-silled jobs is even mentioned in the report and it says "no net benefit" .. considering that the result would depend more on the settings in the economy rather than the flow of new workers you've just sunk your own case. Sorry. the actual immigration flows don't mean a great deal. Not much work has been done by Aus economists in this area.. This from a Mark Crosby, an associate prof of economics in the Melbourne School of Business crossed my desk just today.. "It is argued that reducing population growth rates would reduce economic growth. Unfortunately this is far from clear cut. The workhorse model of economic growth suggests that rising population growth reduces steady state living standards, and has no effect on per-capita economic growth. The simple and intuitive reason for this is that higher population growth increases investment required to keep the capital stock growing, which becomes more difficult the faster is population growth. If Tony Abbott cuts infrastructure spending and increases population growth we have pretty much a recipe for reduced living standards, according to the standard model.”
I must find out just what he means by this, but I think you'll find that the immigration story is not as simple as you think. It does have negative results if we neglect other areas. Leave it with you.

Yes indeed, to the Post by Curmudgeon,

Most of the Australian population come from one or another country and have immigrated here. I was born in Australia however though, my family roots go back to Europe, so i am grateful that those family members had come to ozz and set up home here.

I for one, feel it a human right, to be able to travel around the world and set up home in another country if one chooses to go that way. However not to the determent ot yourself or to the people of that country. Immigration can not be planned so hairy-fairy, smack-bang and here we go. Yep, I can see a couple or two more dollars coming into the tax bucket. Ha, ha more for me!
Close enough is not good enough. One must look at sustainability for all, not just a wish list to grab extra future tax. First and foremost,i may add that it is all good and wonderful to start at the bottom and work your way up of the $$$$ chain but it is another if one has done, secured a home and a great super-fund. Your Children have education at their finger tips - basically, money is no objection and everything is honky doree. Unfortunately it is not like that, rather it is quite difficult for the ordinary lay person.

The Labor Party including Gillard and Rudd have used immigration in a disgraceful way over the years.

Barry Jones tipped the can on Hawke and Keating over their attitude to Middle Eastern Immigration when he admitted this source was seen as a way of creating a Labor constituancy in Western Sydney.

What Rudd did was underhanded. He increased immigration from the longterm average of around 140,000 per annum to over 300,000 per annum. The only reason for that, wasn't because of his yearning for a 'big Australia', but as a tool to assist the economy during the recent crash. It was a disgraceful unreported action.

Now Gillard, who was a major party to this, cannot reveal this 'great Labor secret' because if she does then her credibility on immigration totally goes out the window. Hence the disingeneous attempt by labor and gillard to transfer attention to the lack of infrastructure and congestion in our big cities.

The answer is to return to the 140,000 p.a., which over the greater part of this and the last century we absorbed comfortably and quite happily. Gillard cannot embrace this as she would have to admit she and Rudd were responsible for the uncomfortable results of doubling our annual immigration intake.

Illegal immigration is another issue. Very very few Australians resent new arrivals if they have come here legally. The vast majority of us resent the illegals and want the illegal boats stopped. Gillard knows this but won't do the necessary but just rabbits on with a very very stupid Timor solution.

That is no solution. It is stupid. If we established a processing centre in East Timor, the place would become a Mecca for every asylum seeker in Indonesia. They wouldn't have to pay for the passage in a leaky boat to Christmas Island. All they would have to do is walk across the East Timor/Indonesian land border. Do you think the Indonesians would stop them or assist them?
What a bloody disgrace!
Gillard's solution would turn the poorest country in the world into the world's biggest refugee camp.

Here is a link to the 2008 House of Lords report so that people can see for themselves whether it has been misrepresented

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Ozzie could have cited a number of other reports, such as the 1997 American Academy of Sciences Report, "The New Americans", or journal papers by Prof. George Borjas (Economics, Harvard), who has calculated the impact on various workers who are in competition with migrants. Here is what Prof. Robert Rowthorn (Economics, Cambridge) said about the literature in a column in the 2/7/06 [UK] Sunday Telegraph:

"And the Government's claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration. There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative."

The Productivity Commission modeled the effects of a doubling of skilled immigration. See p. 151 of the 2006 report

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf

They found a very modest gain in income per capita of 0.71% by 2024-25, but this was on the assumption that per capita hours worked would increase by 1.18%, i.e. average income per hour worked is falling. They also say,

"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 Productivity Commission report quoted by Divergence actually indicates that immigration is good for the economy. It only says that "The incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case". But they GROW nonetheless.

Of course, no study or report will be the final answer. It's worth noting, however, that in 1990 the American Immigration Institute surveyed prominent economists on the matter and four out of five said immigrants have a favourable impact on economic growth.

This finding is cited in the link I posted earlier but to which no-one responded. It draws on several studies in the US, including one by the US Department of Labor as well as studies by the Rand Corporation, the University of Maryland, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Research Council and the Urban Institute. The article can be accessed here: http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/immigrants-and-economy

The article concludes: "Contrary to popular belief, immigrants do not take away jobs from American workers. Instead, they create new jobs by forming new businesses, spending their incomes on American goods and services, paying taxes and raising the productivity of U.S. businesses. Immigrants are good for the economy, not the other way around".

The 2006 Productivity Commission report was only concerned with the narrowly economic effects of mass migration. It didn't even consider effects on quality of life due to crowding, congestion, noise, permanent water restrictions, loss of open space, skyrocketing housing costs and utility bills, etc., etc. The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index has repeatedly flagged high density as reducing well being, with people being happier in lower density electorates, even if they have less money.

http://australianunity.republicast.com/wbr2008/republicast.asp?page=37&layout=1&control=yes&zoom=100

Nor does the Productivity Commission report consider the environment, where population acts as a multiplier for the vast majority of negative impacts. The Governments's own Measuring Australia's Progress reports have shown every environmental indicator getting worse apart from urban air quality, which has fairly easy technological solutions.

Most of us would accept that there is a need for some immigration, that it can have some real cultural and educational benefits. We are arguing about the numbers. Even larger-scale immigration may have had some benefits in the past, but so what? It is good that your bones were growing when you were 8 years old, but you have a very serious problem if they are still growing that way when you are 35.

Divergence, the reality of high density living is hardly an argument against immigration. It's an argument against current and past planning practices. We need new cities. As for water scarcity, it's a question of management and technology - the north is drenching while the south-east is still in drought. And, besides, humans do know how to desalinate. Israel and Libya have both irrigated their deserts, transforming them into farm land.

Bjork,

It is undisputed that mass migration grows the economy, at least until you get to the point of collapse, but what most of us are interested in is per capita benefit. The US effectively had open borders in the early 20th century, although it was difficult and expensive to reach it. As a result of a number of influences, including some bloody rioting when mass migration was resumed after WWI, Congress cut immigration back to near zero net in 1921. It stayed that way until 1965, when Congress opened the floodgates again. In the 1950s and 60s, there was enormous economic growth, and it was shared proportionately among the social classes. Since the 1970s, real incomes have been stagnant for the bulk of the population, while they have been skyrocketing for the top 1%. Virtually all of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the folk at the top. See

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/03/09/the-best-inequality-graph/

How is this possible with the wonderful benefits of mass migration?

This graph from Club Troppo shows the share of national income going to the top 1% of the population in Australia, the US, Canada and Sweden since 1900

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

The folk at the top have a strong interest in promoting mass migration because they are the ones who benefit from bigger markets, high real estate prices, and increased competition in the labour market, along with skilled workers who have already been trained at someone else's expense. The ACTU can be considered as representing the humanitarian Left, mostly upper middle class people who aren't personally harmed by mass migration or population growth and see no negatives, unless they are nature lovers or care about their fellow citizens. They may also benefit from "affordable" nannies, gardeners, and restaurant meals. Various mass migration studies are discussed at the Center for Immigration Studies website

http://www.cis.org/

Divergence, the economic crisis in America since the late 1970s is a crisis of capitalist overproduction, a cyclical product of the social relations of production based on private accumulation of capital. In no way are immigrants to blame for this situation.

It makes as much sense as to say that immigrants are to blame for Melbourne's drought or for over-crowded trains and trams - the answer to the latter is to build and supply more trains and trams - yet this is what is really being suggested.

House prices aren't exorbitant because of immigrants but rather because of the anarchic nature of capitalist production. Human beings know how to build inexpensive, sturdy and comfortable houses. There's no reason why supply should not exceed demand - except for the social system based on unplanned production for private profit.

I find it strange that no-one has, as yet, commented directly on the article I linked to previously, which cites several studies.

By the way, given that you have said that the discussion is about numbers rather than about immigration per se, can you indicate what you regard as an appropriate net intake for Australia? Neither Julia Gillard nor Bob Brown seem able to answer this question - and I'm not sure whether Abbott has attempted an answer yet.

PS - Can you link us to an article at the CIS site that supports your case

Since when was economics the sole, or most suitable advisor, of what is best for public policy? Economics advising public policy, they really have to be kidding, right? Didn't that very limited and misled way of thinking go out with yesterday's men (of Banana Republic ill fame) who were prone to bounce between very narrow rails?

The very first concern should be that a now deposed (rightly too!) Prime Minister went ahead on his own say-so to double what was an already record immigration flow, much to the consternation of the usually long-suffering electorate. Rudd's brainstorm, a deluge of immigrants to impress the UN, should be reversed immediately.

Mr Rudd was given a nasty kick in the pants by the electorate in the form of lousy approval numbers. Had Rudd led his government to the election, they would have been roundly trounced and slung out on their ears. A good thing too for a PM who was dismissive of the electorate and was so arrogant as to boast of his 'Big Australia', the one he didn't get a mandate for.

It is ridiculous that anyone could think that more 'economic' fudging could continue to pull the wool over voters' eyes when they can see for themselves the damage wrought by those who claim to know what is best for the community and (who) think they are superior to the people they are supposed to be serving.

Keith (post on page 4) is right in his criticisms and there is every chance that Julia Gillard is just playing for time with spin, hoping to hold off debate until she can shrug the usual 'never you mind' after the election is over. However the Greens and the LNP seem no better.

What is required is to trash the spin and for politicians of all persuasions to listen to what voters are saying. Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about, representing the voters? Or does the electorate need to provide more frequent and sterner lessons for arrogant, self-interested politicians?

Why the assumption that high immigration is a carefully planned policy to benefit the Australian public? What is wrong with thinking it the result of people pursuing their own interests? At least with the latter assumption the profit motive is very clear. In contrast, the economic justification for high immigration is very nebulous.

If you had a block of land on the edge of town and the prospect of seeing the land developed for housing due to population growth, would you be more interested in a policy which benefited the nation or a policy which would benefit you personally? The idea that someone would be putting the prospect of national benefit ahead of personal profit seems a silly one.

The Gillard gove or fill-in gove. is talking about 'sustainability'. Looking at Australia as a sustrainable country. I would like to hear how and what the gove. views or measures 'sustainability'? How would Julia Gillard measure or calculate 'sustainability' using herself as a measure to calculate this? Or is sustainability measured as sustrainabilty (non such word)?

Divergence, waiting for you to respond to this question from previous exchange: "Can you indicate what you regard as an appropriate net intake for Australia?"

Surely sustainability is hypothetically possible, no matter what the population: there is no necessary correlation between sustainability and low population growth. It depends on so many other factors, infrastructure, the rate and type of economic activity, education funding, water economies, and so on.

Think of it the other way around: what population could Australia support if there were no major highways or railways, reliance on an agricultural economy with very little manufacturing or mining, and a very elitist (i.e. small) higher education system ? In other words, a package that is vaguely similar to Australia a hundred years ago ? In those circumstances, four or five million would be stretching the limits.

Conversely, and still hypothetically, if a future government decided, let's say, to process much of the products of mining on-shore, and aimed to rival Singapore as a financial, and research, centre. Imagine if we had TAFE and higher education sectors which could provide much of the skilled personnel for a transformed economy (still hypothetically). Imagine if we can crack the problems of affordable renewable energy and water shortages (banning cotton and rice production, and allowing the water flows to get down to South Australia would be a start). Of course, there would have to be massive investment in transport infrastructure, higher education and urban services.

But with continued immigration of skilled workers, and a more compassionate refugee settlement policy, is there any doubt that Australia could, hypothetically, support a much bigger population than forty million ?

People are not necessarily the problem, but they must be part of the solution :)

So please, no more dog-whistling about sustainability as low rates of growth, and low rates of growth as an attack on immigration and refugee resettlement.

Joe Lane

byork, "Can you indicate what you regard as an appropriate net intake for Australia?"

Easy peasy, this is supposed to be a democracy and a very substantial majority of the electors are demanding that government immediately reel back Rudd's massive immigration that doubled the previous record number. What ego-maniac leader puts diversity and a doubled population as the highest prioritises of government without seeking a mandate for such enormous social change? Rudd had no mandate whatsoever for any of it.

Or are you pretending that in a democracy the electors should be obliged to justify what they want, even when they were not asked in the first place?

If Australians treasured their democratic rights and freedoms as do (say) the French they would be out in their thousands to protest about the loss of democracy and of individual rights that have been a feature of government in the last decade and more.

The real question is how can democracy be regained in Australia, when the major political parties are determined to thumb their noses at it. As for immigration, let the parties put forward a convincing business case that takes into account the needs, wishes and betterment of the Australian population before just charging ahead like a bull at a gate to ramp up numbers as Rudd did.

Cornflower? I thought it was Divergence who raised the issue of numbers, of size, and with whom I was engaging. Oh well, Cornflower, could you actually suggest a number then?

Joe

There is nothing hypothetical about the myriad of problems associated with high population growth. Yes, there would be no housing crisis were government not so restrictive of development rights, but the other problems would still be there. My concern is that the current high immigration rate is being used less for the purpose of nation building and more as a get rich quick scheme for some at the expense of other Australians.

byork, "Cornflower, could you actually suggest a number then?"

Like the government, you are just not listening. It is up to those who would have increased immigration to put the business case in detail and to convince the voters, not the other way around.

That is how democracy works, or should work, which is more the question at present.

dog-whistler's (one of them anyway),

Joe, Joe, Joe, to speak hypothetically is really not nailing it on the head. Not that your post of your view on a hypothetical outlook was totally out of the question, no, no it wasn't. It did give some food for thought. However, let us look at it realistically. Now, with the matter of needing more skilled workers. I can't quite swallow that theory. Fantastic in the Menzies era but we are talking about the 21st century.

Australia has plenty of 'skilled workers' but very few 'slave workers' that would work for a couple of bob or two. Now this is where immigration comes in. OK all good isn't it. As I have stated in another post, it is a human right to be able to travel the world and settle where ever one would like to settle, made home, assimilate and become one of them. But again I do stress, without prejudice or being bias, what you are suggesting is not a realistic or a hopeful plan/policy outlook. Indeed it has passed it's use by date. Those Menzies times are over. To ban cotton and rice production. Don't worry about banning the cotton farm it is in dye-straights and bank-rupt, and wants the gove. to lend a hand with funding. The Murry-Darling is in desperate need of help in that dept. Education, yes well, schools in the outer regions do not have proper electricity, at time non at all let alone a good water supply indeed they have no water at times at all! What does that tell us? And moving on now, with the education topic. It is an excellent idea to sell our education to student off-shore, be bring them over to oz and pay through the noise to be educated at one of our uni's or tafe's. Look at it at another angle. If we need to do that, gosh what does that tell us

Cornflower is not willing to put a figure on the intake he/she thinks 'sustainable'. Oh well, I can only ask Divergence yet again to put forward an actual figure. It's a reasonable request, as Divergence has agued that it's not about stopping immigration but reducing the current level. Okay, reduce it to what?

Having occasionally entered this debate at other sites, there is a pattern in the reluctance of those who argue against further immigration, or variations on that idea, to commit to actual numbers. This applies equally to Gillard/Brown and probably Abbott, too.

I suspect they don't want to commit to a figure because, once they do, then it can be dissected, analysed, and the onus can be shifted to them to indicate which element of the immigration program should be reduced. It makes the debate more real, practical, rather than a vehicle for the expression of generalisations, usually unsubstantiated ones or reactionary ones.

A complexed issue for our gove. but not for me.

You see, I am at the view, that there needs to be a lot of work done to see that all Australian's are benefiting the wealth that Australia has. Isn't it claimed to be the lucky country? Or is that just a lot of puff? Travel around and you will witness the homeless people and the amount of the mentally ill without the proper care. Goodness gracious, charity start in the home first and that is not to say that we so not have to put are hand in our pockets either. Again, I do sugest to you, that there is enough wealth or wealthy people in Australia but unfortunately it is not balanced out correctly. The idea to grab people from other parts of the world for 'skilled labour' or rather slave labour it not on.

I am all for immigrations. But - Look at it this way. If you are not properly set up, have a secure roof over you head, the best education for you kids. Money in the bank or in property or super, what ever you are comfortable with. Have secure working conditions with excellent pay, you feel rich and well off in Australia, the lucky Country! Let us imagine that the population is not in die-straits with the seat of your pants hanging out. Now if that is that case well then ,Yes, let us help those that need genuine help. But is that the case? Is that the real deal within the Australian population? Don't give me the 'you must share what you have' answer, because that is not a solution.
1% of the population hold 22% of the wealth,
5% hold 45% of the wealth
10% hold 58/12% of the wealth
20% hold 72% of the wealth....

Lets get this in order first.

Loudmouth, I have never been able to understand this fixation with the eastern states having to let their water run down to South Australia.

Just why should very large amounts of Queensland rain have to be allowed to be wasted to evaporation, just to provide SA with a nice fresh water water sky dam, & a pool of water for their wine & dairy growers. The water could be much more efficiently used where it fell, & rice & cotton offer a much better return than water skying.

In fact, I believe we should either close South Oz down, & avoid all that waste, or perhaps excise it from the Oz migration zone, & fill it up with boat people. What ever we do, good Queensland water should not be wasted bu letting it run down that way, It's just not right.

byork, "Cornflower is not willing to put a figure on the intake he/she thinks 'sustainable'."

What a load of tosh, my view and yours are just two among many, or at least they should be. Anything to circumvent democratic processes and let greed rule, eh what?

Speculation about numbers is irrelevant where government has not even deigned to discuss such vital issues as population, sustainability, quality of life with the electorate. Agreed goals first and resolve the nitty-gritty before 'solutions'.

Then there is the nonsense of Gillard's proposed talk fest of a select few with a whiteboard and a brief to ensure they come up with what she wants. If they don't there are still the fine filters of 'interpretation' and refining' to go. What a travesty of democratic processes that is!

On the other side Abbott reckons that it is far better to let the Productivity Commission recommend, then put his filter on it.

The Greens?! Too afraid of upsetting the 'multicultural' vote to say anything except "How many reverse gears has this thing got?"

There is an election going on at present and that is the opportunity to politicians get get their riding instructions from their electorates. Or is it old-fashioned to expect that democracy might have any role in population decisions?

Sonya,

Well, I did say 'hypothetically': I'll stick by what I wrote. But if Australia needs skilled workers for the mining industry, why do you think they will be treated as slave labour ? From what I hear, as highly skilled workers, they command very high salaries, and there's a crying need for them in WA. Tell that to your kids :)

Hasbeen,

You forget that a lot of that SE Queensland water has been generated by heat coming across from South Australia, picking up moisture and dropping it on Queensland. It's really our water. You should be paying us a productivity tax :) And thanks, by the way, for looking after our water for us.

Joe

U _HU!

Is this the question or what! Yes indeed with the 'ask the population first' - good call there!

Let's hear, the spin-doctors at their best! What is on the offer?

Cornflower's response proves my point about generalisations: "let greed rule eh what?" No point pursuing Cornflower but Divergence, who said the intake should be reduced, still hasn't put a figure on it. If he/she has thought it through to the point where he/she feels confident to argue for a reducation, then it's perfectly reasonable to expect a figure.

He/she, and others who seek a reduction or end to immigration, might also want to address the question of the five to six million additional people who are in Australia, annually, as tourists - each year, every year.

Bjork,

To answer your question, I want to see the population stabilised. I don't know what the optimum population is, and it varies with technology and what matters to people, but it is very obvious that we are going the wrong way. We will know that we have it right when all the people, not just the elite, can have good, free lives without trashing the environment. Obviously, better management is important too, but stabilisation can be easily achieved by cutting back to zero net immigration, which would currently allow (see fact sheet 5 of the Immigration Dept.) an intake of 81,000 migrants a year. Natural increase supplies about a third of our growth, but this is strictly temporary. It is due to demographic momentum and will end when the baby boomers start to die in significant numbers. Fertility rates are still below replacement level and have been since 1976.

Prof. George Borjas disagrees with you about the irrelevance of immigration to stagnant wages in the US, estimating that it has caused about 7.4% lower wages for the least skilled. See

http://www.cis.org/node/238

This is highly significant for people who are already poor.

We are already pressing hard on our natural water supply. See

http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/now-were-reaching-peak-water/1859945.aspx?storypage=0

Much of the continent has old, poor soils and ferocious evaporation rates. These maps from Dr. Chris Watson of the CSIRO show rainfall and fertile soil.

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

Desalinated water is 4-6 times as expensive as dam water and requires prodigious amounts of energy. The politicians have been telling porkies about what it will really cost us, even for city use.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/time-to-come-clean-on-the-cost-of-water-20100530-wndy.html

The cost of pumping it thousands of km up a gradient through a pipe network would be astronomical. Where do you propose to get the energy? Israel may use it to grow a few high value crops (without our distances), but they are very far from being self-sufficient in food.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/food-troubles-are-here-to-stay-1.245149

In my last comment, I meant ACLU, not ACTU.

Divergence, zero net immigration (81,000 pa) would be an utter disaster, especially for the working class and the poor. It would result in economic stagnation and a victory for the insular mind-set that underpins it. Maybe the wealthy elites would be okay with the lack of economic stumulus, but the rest of us would suffer.

Professor George Borjas would indeed disagree with my position, but then he also disagrees on this issue with the US Department of Labor, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Research Council and the four out of five prominent economists surveyed in the UCLA article previously linked to.

I wonder which 120,000 of the 300,000 net intake for Australia will be cut in the zero intake scheme? The 100,000 overseas students who are included in the figure because they can reside here for more than 12 months? They represent a fair slab of the $16 billion pa that Australia earns from international students. Good for the poor? For the workers? Not to mention the students!

Maybe the 13,500 refugees taken in can be reduced too. Hey, there's only about 16 million of them in the world, and 280,000 seeking urgent resettlement through the UNHCR.

No, wait on, there's the skilled intake. Let's slash that, and to hell with the mining boom. Who cares about the multi-billions earned from mineral and gas exports? Doesn't effect the poor or the working class? Really? (Coal exports alone pay our annual national public health bill).

Migrants contribute to innovation and entrepreneurship as well as supplying skills needed, right now, for the resources boom. While I think China will inevitably experience a major crisis of overproduction like any other major capitalist economy, the signs are that this won't happen soon. China and India will continue to boom and Australia will continue to reap enormous benefits. This momentum can only continue if we bring in more people for the expanding jobs created by the boom. These jobs are not only in the mining regions but extend to the cities too.

Will continue in a separate post.

Byork,

You seem to believe immigration is good for Australia yet the evidence you give simply does not back up you point of view.

You stated earlier...

The Productivity Commission report quoted by Divergence actually indicates that immigration is good for the economy. It only says that "The incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case". But they GROW nonetheless.

This basically states that Australian residents will be WORSE off than they would have been without immigration. Sure they might be better off than previously but not as well off as they would have been WITHOUT immigration.

You also stated...

Of course, no study or report will be the final answer. It's worth noting, however, that in 1990 the American Immigration Institute surveyed prominent economists on the matter and four out of five said immigrants have a favourable impact on economic growth.

Sure, no one is really arguing that immigration has a negative impact on economic growth, but that is really a poor measure of benefit to Australia. As stated earlier in the House of lords report, the UK governments have been trying to fool the British people immigration benefits them by increasing economic growth. Yet it is per capita figures which are a much better measure of benefit. In other words if we have a population increase of 2% due to immigration yet consequent economic growth of 1% then on average people are worse off. So quoting economic growth figures does not demonstrate a benefit from immigration.

Even if there was an economic benefit from immigration and that is doubtful, for it is more like a financial benefit for the few already very well off at the expense of the many, who say that economics should be the sole basis of public policy? That sort of thinking was disgraced decades ago.

The 'progressive' Rudd, informed by elites and the wealthy big end of town, deliberately went against the wishes of the very substantial majority of voters by slyly doubling the already record immigrant intake. Then he bragged about his deeds and history shows how he was regarded thereafter.

Abbott and the LNP have done the right thing democratically, by promising to reel back Rudd's excesses, for which he had no mandate. Isn't that what governments are obliged to do, to respond to the wishes of the people they represent? There are signs already that Julia Gillard was merely being sly in distancing herself from Rudd's 'Big Australia', while ramping up the spin to continue as before. Any such hypocrisy by Gillard will bury her, permanently.

What does it take to convince the government that the electorate is opposed to to its reckless immigration policies? Immigration is no longer a sacred cow and no-one seriously believes the mantra that immigration is always good for the country so let's keep increasing it.

More importantly, there is the not-so-small matter of government having the gall to go it alone with social policies that have momentous impact on our culture, financial viability and quality of life, without bothering to consult with the electorate in the first place.

Why would zero net immigration be a calamity? There wouldn't be the huge infrastructure costs. Housing would be far more affordable. Populations wouldn't face worsening traffic congestion and more severe water restrictions. The mining industry would create employment opportunities for workers displaced from the housing and infrastructure sectors: This would improve the balance of payments as infrastructure and housing are now heavily financed with foreign borrowings. And lets not forget the many koalas and other native fauna that would be spared extermination.

Like any cult, the population growth cult seems to have prophesies of calamity should their faith not be followed, as well as a few apparent contradictions. For me, the most glaring article of faith of population growth cultists is the paradox of consumption. The cultists are always humming the prosperity mantra "More people = more for all and for less". Yet in contrast, as an example, they seem obsessed with people using water and paying so little for it. And I have seen similar arguments advanced by growth cultists for housing, toll roads, and other infrastructure. It seems odd to be championing a policy that will allow increased consumption whilst simultaneously condemning people for their profligacy.

What is needed in this debate is a rational basis for ideas, not fanatical cultists doing Chicken Little impersonations.

Fester,

You have pointed out some crucial points. Indeed, it is true as the saying goes, 'fix up your own back yard'. Very simply put, look at it as if we are going to have visitor's, in the distanct future and their just might want to stay here. Oh, that is to say, if we can afford that expensive pleasure.

I would like to see the next gove., which ever party, have the determination to work first and foremos with what Australia has at hand, at this very minute. A new reform. A liberated gove. A gutsy policy setter with the determination to built on what we need to do, here and now. A gove. with a different approach. With the wealth or very wealthy people, in Australia as it stands to day, I am confident that all of those people with the mighty $$$$ in Australia would rally to such a course. Those wealthy folk would makes such a difference to the economy, it would go down in history. Oh yes and I am not implying for one minute to do what the British gove. is doing ! No, no not at all. Those elite British should put their prays in their pockets and help build the place of home up to scratch. After all, last I heard Britten was not a 3rd world country, but may-be I have missed out on the latest inside party news.

It is actually worse than that, Ozzie, because the Productivity Commission shows average income per hour worked to be falling. If your employer cuts your wages and then lets you maintain your income by working longer hours, you might end up with a few more dollars in your pocket, but no rational person would say that you were better off.

The 1997 American Academy of Sciences report on immigration is behind a pay wall, but here is a summary of the main findings

http://www.cis.org/articles/1999/combinednrc.pdf

The report itself represents the thinking of labour economists, the people who actually look at immigration.

Bjork, if zero net immigration is such a disaster, why did the Americans, and especially the lower income Americans, do so well while it was in force? None of the top 10 countries on the World Economic Forum competitiveness index have even half our rate of population growth, and Switzerland (number 1) and the Scandinavian countries on the list have miniscule rates of population growth compared to ours. Germany and Japan (also on the list) are actually losing population.

So far as the intake is concerned, the number of refugees is tiny compared to the total intake. Skilled migration is largely a scam, with two thirds of skilled migrants not even working in their field. They are wanted, not for their skills, but to keep wages low and real estate prices high. Foreign students wouldn't count, so long as they go home at the end of their studies. If housing costs went back to the 3.5 years of median income required to pay for an average house in 1973, instead of the 7.5 years Australia-wide now (8-10 times in some places), people could afford to pay enough taxes to properly fund the universities, instead of funding them by selling visas. Figure 1 in the link below shows housing costs versus real wages in Sydney up to 2005. (Rents have since gone up a lot as well.)

http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/cityfutures/publications/presentations/ncoss.pd

ozzie, you haven't even begun to address my arguments, just taken my response to Divergence's quote from the Productivity Commission. Wage levels are determined by many factors, not just immigration but, yes, growing slowly is still growing. You guys seem to actually believe that immigration levels determine wages.

Divergence, Switzerland's competitiveness has nothing to do with its immigration rate but lots to do with government policy and the nature of its resource base and history. Greece and Italy also have much lower rates of immigration than us, and look at them. The USA had its greatest progress - economic, social and cultural - when its borders were wide open. Australia, with our high levels of immigration, is a much better place today than it was in the mid-1970s when immigration was temporarily slashed. The 300,000 additional people in this country helped stimulate demand and helped get us through the world recession.

You say foreign students wouldn't count, yet they are counted in the 300,000 figure. You see, that figure includes people granted a visa as 12 month visitors. Okay, don't count them - but then your 300,000 is reduced by about 100,000.

Zero net intake is pie-in-the-sky and will never happen. It would be bad for Australia economically, socially and culturally and represents a return to the reactionary mentality of insular nationalism. We should be opening our borders to many more people and voting for parties that think big and see human beings as an asset. The absence of such a party means we will soon be sen as a very small country in a rapidly globalizing world.

In a previous post you linked to an article about a CSIRO scientist who, incredibly, believes in 'peak water'. The article cites a CSIRO report from 2008. I wonder what that scientist thinks now that a body of water as large as western Europe has flooded most of north-east Australia and is filling Lake Eyre. The problem is not water per se, but its management.

We can argue on here, and this will never change, however one very promising aspect is now clear. Only a few months ago when this topic was occasionally discussed it was disappointing to see that none of the political parties would discuss it. Kevin then made his "Big Australia" speech which really cheesed many Australians off. We then had the new Population Minister, then Dick Smith and his population party. Now in the last few days I am seeing people on the streets and at work OPENLY voicing there concerns about population and immigration. What's more the politically correct bullies that often lurk around OLO as well as many other places have felt less inclined to criticize. Let us hope that this trend continues

ozzie, "What's more the politically correct bullies that often lurk around OLO as well as many other places have felt less inclined to criticize. Let us hope that this trend continues."

You are right. It is a pleasure to have a robust debate without the name calling and labelling.

cornflower, The use of "politically correct bullies" is name calling.

Opponents of immigration have had considerable public space for their views since the Blainey debates of the early 1980s.

I can no longer continue with this thread, due to other commitments and interests.

byork, "Opponents of immigration have had considerable public space for their views since the Blainey debates of the early 1980s."

Disagree, the focus then as you must realise was on something entirely different. Your reference to Blainey is completely irrelevant.

Byork, the reference was not aimed at you but to others who regularly lurk around OLO pouncing on anyone who dares to give a politically incorrect point of view. Although I disagree with your arguments, you have given them in a genuine manner ( although obviously you are misguided).

There has not been "considerable public space" to express these points of view. Only in the last few weeks has the whole immigration/population debate opened up politically, although people in the street have been talking about it for much longer.

Ozzie,
Agreed, immigration has not been a topic debated publicly since Bob Hawke PM brokered a deal with the Coalition NOT to debate immigration issues, but allow the government of the day to set policy with no comment from the opposition.

They gave the phoney excuse that immigration was too complicated for us poor electors to comprehend. The truth being that the two major parties could carry on appeasing big industry with high immigration without much critisism. It has not been an election since that deal was done.

It may be the one good thing to come from this election, that immigration has made it back to being an election issue and the polys will have to take note of the wishes of the electorate. We have been treated like mushrooms for too long, on immigration.

Clearly, immigration is not the major core issue. Rather it is the standard of living that seems to be out of balance by to days expectations. I note that this must be the major issue for any political election campaign. This is what needs to be look at and addressed first and foremost.

I had look at the 'fact, figure and suggestions for the future' in reference to the web-site. xxx.bsl.ogr.au. and have notice an upsurge of Australian people living on-below-just above the poverty line. I note, the graph provided to demonstrate exactly how much poverty exists here in the 21 century. Further one would agree the reflection of poverty in this country is totally mind boggling.
Just image for one minute if a political party took this issue as the major core issue? Made those figures public notice for all to be aware of. I would declare it would be a huge victory.

SONYA 2, neither immigration or other population pressure causes poverty. You need to look at the nature of capitalism to understand poverty amidst plenty. In a richly-endowed nation like Australia, there need be no poverty under a social system in which production was owned by the producers and geared to social need (and fun) rather than privately owned and geared to private profit.

No politician has the guts to identify capitalism as the source of such problems - the easy way is to blame the foreigners.

Ozzie, I'm sure you are aware that Australians Against Further Immigration was set up in the late 1980s and stood in elections - and was decisively rejected by the people for nearly two decades. Their rise occured at the same time as Pauline Hanson, who also argued against immigration levels (specifically against Asian levels, but also in general on environmental grounds). Hanson received huge publicity and, at her peak, her group received a million votes (a minority).

The Greens had an attitude similar to the above in that they too opposed the levels of immigration.

However, none of the above has been endorsed to govern by the Australian people, the great majority of whom voted against them in support of two parties that did indeed have a bipartisan approach to immigration.

The current political use of population as an issue is just old fashioned rightwing populism, designed to excuse Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum's absence of vision and policy for a bigger and better future.

Byork,
I remember hearing of people being assualted and having urine thrown on them just for attending speeches by Pauline Hanson to hear what she had to say. Just for trying to listen for what someone had to say. I hardly think that's giving someone a fair go.

Now we see both major political parties adopting policies more in line with what Pauline said. Why is this? It's because the polls are telling them that's what people want. That's what is going to get them votes.

I have seen it happen many times that someone when spoken to on an individual basis will feel safe enough to express their true concerns. However in a crowd, very few people would have the guts to say they supported Pauline's views.
Anyway the tide is now slowly begining to turn. I will give it about 10 years and you yourself Byork will find that you are the one who will be scared to express such views as you do now.

Ozzie, I remember that violence too - and was appalled by it. There was irony in the way those suppressing others called them 'fascists'. But, in the voting booth, people were and are free to vote as they choose. And at best, One Nation captured about 8% of the vote. The specific anti-immigration group of 'eco-nationalists', the AAFI, fared much worse whenever they contested an election.

Neither party will adopt a zero net intake or advocate such. Labor is pandering to the Green vote, the Greens being Tweedle-Dummer to their Tweedle Dee. The Liberals, Tweedle-Dum, will support an intake similar to that of Labor in power.

The public have never, and will not, vote into power any party that advocates zero net intake or anything close to it. They may, however, in the course of an election campaign, be persuaded that unacceptably crowded public transport is the fault of migrants rather than of hopelessly incompetent governments. And they may even momentarily prefer to blame immigration before waking up to the fact that you reduce crowding on trains by increasing the number of trains. And you pay for the extra trains by wealth that comes from growth - and that needs people.

Byork,

When a party is shouted down, demonized and people are to scared to run as local members for that party due to violence and intimidation it is hardly a fair go. People were never allowed to hear what she had to say. Would any sensible person want to be bashed in the street because they wanted to run as a local member.
Considering all this 8% is not bad. Remember 8% does not mean 92% were against it. It just means 8% believed in her views strong enough to give their 1st vote to her. (I think the primary vote for the Libs is around 40% , correct me if I'm wrong). Many others may well have believed in what she said, however thought she did not have enough other policies to run a country. Most I think never actually heard what she had to say, but heard it 2nd hand from her opponents. The current policies of both parties today are a reflection of people's views about immigration and multiculturalism expressed through a desire to reduce population.

Also when you say never, that's usually a very silly thing to say. Better to say you feel it would be highly unlikely.

PAULINE HANSON -
An excellent book to read is G Melleuish - Politics and cultural wars - the Packaging of Australia. UNSW press.

In short, it describes the Howard era and what Pauline Hanson was all about. Look basically Hanson spoke out on issues that Howard believe in, right down to his boots, as Menzies did. Hanson really did not have the financial backing nor did she have the educated finesse needed in the business of Politics. She lacked the skills and the (small party) expertise needed to address the public. The elite Mr. Howard did. She came across to harsh, didn't know how the work the media, have no sense of the political domain. Her come back was 'please explain'. This has stuck in most people head. Hanson, with her, 'please explain' sounded just like someone drilling their spouse over, not putting the bins out, or spending too much money or ??

It has been noted, Hanson blurpt out exactly what was in most peoples minds and lips. The trouble was we were not ready for a (red headed) female with limited backing. Funny how Julia Gillard has made it.

ozzie, Pauline Hanson was made into a media celebrity and was given far more publicity than her level of electoral support deserved. Her views were aired over and over in the mass media - newspapers, television, radio - yet still the best she could do was score 8%.

The great majority of Australians voted for two parties that were both committed to an immigration intake that was significantly larger than 'net zero'.

SONYA 2: Howard and Menzies both supported and implemented large immigration programs: neither supported zero net intake. It was under Menzies - the Member of the Order of the Rising Sun also known as "Pig Iron Bob" - that the 'White Australia Policy' was significantly dismantled (through reforms in 1957). Pauline Hanson had much more in common with the insular nationalism and racism of ALP Leader, Arthur Calwell, than with Menzies.

In the post-war era, the big decrease in immigration intake occured under Whitlam, who ended the mass immigration program that had thrived under Menzies. Whitlam significantly reduced the intake. Remember those years of greatly reduced immigration? No unemployment? Interest rates? Small businesses doing well? (If you reply that immigration doesn't determine those things, then I'll agree - and you'll be proving my point).

The current dog-whistling by Gillard and Abbott merely reflects their desperation and vacuousness. They treat us like fools. Gillard even pretends that infrastructural problems in the western suburbs are the product of immigration rather than failed government policy.

Neither party will advocate zero net intake, and the actual intake will remain significantly above that. Time will tell, ozzie.

The world is interconnected and nations are interdependent as never before. You're resisting an historical trend that is irreversible.

I really must disengage now

"We should be opening our borders to many more people and voting for parties that think big and see human beings as an asset."

So countries with high population growth rates like Ethiopia, Somalia and Bangladesh should be held up as positive examples for the population growth cultists? Why then are these nations festering scumholes of extreme poverty, misery, and corruption? Perhaps the truth is that people are a potential asset to the extent that we have the means to develop their potential? People aren't born electricians, engineers, nurses, plumbers etc. Roads, railways, schools, hospitals, power stations etc dont form as geological features. All must be trained or built, which requires a substantial amount of capital, and all are part of our civilisation. The current ballooning infrastructure debt is less the result of incompetence as it is the impossibility of trying to provide a first world civilisation for a population growing at eight times the oecd average.

Pol Pot tried to circumvent the belief that a high quality of life required an expensive supporting infrastructure by trying to make an agrarian nirvana. I dont think that his experiment was much of a success. How else then do the population growth cultists propose providing the supporting infrastructure for Australia's massive rate of population growth, other than by denying the problem exists or believing it due to a coincident increase in government incompetence?

If it wasn't for immigration a certain O Aussie wouldn't have a wife.