FIRST AUSTRALIANS
SECOND AUSTRALIANS
THIRD AUSTRALIANS?

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

In a way I suppose it does.

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

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

Not being a Second Australian myself I'm unaffected by this. I'll be a member of a tiny minority come what may. But I do detect a note of angst among many Second Australians. Perhaps they have reason to feel a little afraid. Maybe the Third Australians will do to the Second Australians what the Second Australians did to the First.

No, Steven. The population debate has been a case of some population growth advocates using a race issue to mask some economic and environmental arguments which do not support the growth argument. As with the emperor's new clothes, for some growth advocates the wonders of population growth would seem to be invisible only to the stupid, the morally challenged, and those unfit for their jobs. As an example, look at the responses to Bob Birrell's recent article, and note the numerous posts questioning his character, his competency, and his fitness for his position at Monash.

I hope that this cloud of McCarthyism clears and and honest an open debate ensues, but I doubt this will happen as I think that McCarthyism is the growth advocates best line of argument.

You are spot on, Horus. Some academics I know are very concerned about what the sale of permanent residency to fund universities is doing to academic standards and to the wider community. However, they are speaking against their own economic interests in having a better paid, more secure, better resourced job. They also tend to be well paid enough that they can afford private health care and often private education for their children, so they have less angst about overstretched infrastructure and public services. If they own their own homes and maybe an investment property or two, they are laughing.

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

"I would estimate a household cost of $3000-$6000 per annum in excess rent (my rent went from $370 p.w. in late 2005 to $495 p.w. in early 2010 for the same house, a 1/3 increase in just over 4 years -> $6,500 per annum). The nature of the rental market is such that over short periods of time, say 12 months, most rents are adjusted upwards to the price of recently let residences. So all tenants end up paying the full cost increase as a result of recent population growth. For 2006 figures from Tenants Union in Victoria, which in turn came from ABS Census 2001, has a figure of Number of Private Tenant Households: 328,176 in Melbourne. As a guess that would be closer to 350,000 in 2010. Taking the lower figure of $3000 (i.e. nearly $60 extra per week in rent) and multiplying it by Number of Private Tenant Households, this equals $1.05 Billion dollars per annum in extra rent payments, just for Melbourne alone. Note this is a conservative estimate and only represents Melbourne metropolitan area."

I agree Fester. People like Ozzie represent the nasty face of the anti-pops. If you want to have a civilized conversation I'm happy to have that.

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

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

At any rate what Birrell wants is for universities to train more Australians and less Asian foreign students. But that would mean bringing in Aussies who aren't currently making it to uni and it means dropping standards.

jjplug,

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

Anyone who has worked with the foreign students can tell you that some are first rate while others are very ordinary, just like the Australian students. Some simply don't speak English well enough to cope, regardless of their other talents. Faculties such as Medicine and Dentistry set very high TER scores for entry because they have a lot of demand and funding for a limited number of places, not because such stellar performance is required to master the subject. In fact, some of these faculties are willing to take students with considerably lower scores if they can pay full fees.

There's no denying that PR is part of the attraction. But foreign students always had to pay high fees regardless of whether they were getting PR or not.

At any rate, it isn't a case of get the degree and wham you've got PR. They do have to satisfy a few other criteria as well.