<< Whatever Labor tried – under Mr Rudd, then Ms Gillard, now Mr Rudd again – was blocked by the Coalition on the right and the Greens on the left. We will never know how their policies may have worked in practice. >>

Alan, this is simply not the case, as the tried and proven policies of the Coalition were there for all to see. For ages Labor went right out of its way to do anything but implement any of these. It slowly started to implement some similar policies but only a long time into the renewed onshore asylum-seeking saga, as it became apparent that they had to in order to make any progress on the issue.

So it certainly wasn’t a case of the Coalition and the Greens blocking their initiatives. It was a case of damned awful management after Rudd’s damned awful decision to water down border-protection policy.

<< Australia’s immigration rate is relatively low. Has frequently been much higher. >>

Not so! It is right up there near the record level.

<< As long as it’s balanced – which seems the case – Australia can sustain this rate. >>

What is balanced about it?? How can there be anything balanced about a very rapid rate of population growth? How do we achieve any semblance of balance in economic terms if we have an ever-rapidly increasing demand for everything?

You applaud Rudd for the home insulation pink batts scheme and other initiatives directed at reducing emissions and addressing climate change. But you seem to be completely overlooking the fact that while this is helping to reduce average per-capita emission rates, the number of capitas is rapidly and unendingly increasing, which surely sits in complete and stark contradiction to national emissions reduction efforts!

If we want real balance, we need to reduce our immigration intake down to net zero. Which by the way would still be substantial. It would still allow for a significant skills, refugee and family reunion intake.

How can we realistically analyse and organise our economic, financial and debt regime without doing this??

Greetings all,

Thanks again for these comments.

@Shadow Minister, re: “I heard that portion of the coroner's verdict repeated over the radio, and what was reported in the media was an accurate reflection.”

Did you hear the Coroner speaking, SM? Or did you hear a journalist tell you what Rupert Murdoch wanted you to believe the Coroner said?

This is important, SM, because one is the opposite of the other.

Here are the direct quotes again from the Coroner himself:

Regarding the state authorities:

“Under our constitutional arrangements, workplace health and safety is primarily within the domain of State Governments.”

Regarding the companies:

“That the employers of the three people whose deaths were investigated by this inquest failed to adequately discharge their responsibilities is evidenced by their conviction of offences under electrical and work-place safety legislation.”

And, regarding one of the victims:

“Despite being directed not to use metal staples Mitchell chose to do so and died as a direct result.”

Remember, SM, the Australian media lie to you continually.

@Ludwig, re asylum seekers, my recollection is that this was one of very few areas where Mr Rudd’s platform was distinctly different from Mr Howard’s. There were pretty sound reasons for this at the time.

Refer here:

http://info.humanrights.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/Australia%20and%20asylum%20seekers.pdf

The Opposition and the Greens certainly thwarted Labor’s reforms:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-01/greens-rule-out-asylum-seeker-law-change/2864924

So we will never know what may have eventuated had their preferred reforms been implemented, will we?

Re immigration: refer here:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=as&v=27

This seems to show the rate has declined steadily since 2008. Do you know what the rate was in the 1940s, the 50s, the 60s and the 70s, Ludwig?

Re: “How can we realistically analyse and organise our economic, financial and debt regime without doing this [reducing immigration intake down to net zero]?”

One of the contentions in this series of pieces is that Australia currently has the best-managed economy in the world. And, possibly, the best the world has ever seen.

So, if this contention is valid, and this has been accomplished with steady net migration, then the case would seem sound for a continuation.

No?

Cheers,

AA

Alan, thanks for the links.

Re: the first one - There were certainly NOT pretty sound reasons in 2007 for the corruption of border protection policy!

The issue of onshore asylum seekers and people being held in detention centres was done and dusted. Rudd was nothing short of the most extraordinary fool for tampering with that.

Your link, which was written in 2011, does nothing to support Rudd’s move. In fact, just the opposite, as Rudd’s antics reopened the whole divisive saga of how asylum seekers should be treated: how vulnerable people are affected by being placed in detention compared to the enormous pull factor that would be created if they were just accepted with open arms straight into the community.

Re: your second link – The Malaysian solution was a hare-brained idea!

It is a prime example of the silly Rudd/Gillard government being willing to do anything except the tried and proven policies of the Howard government! As much as I denounce the Greens’ whole asylum seeker policy, I think that they were right on this occasion to oppose the Malaysian plan. If Rudd had moved early on to implement similar polices to those of Howard, he would have won the support of the Coalition and the position of the silly Greens wouldn’t have mattered.

Re: your third link – You said in an earlier post:

<< Australia’s immigration rate is relatively low. Has frequently been much higher >>

But the graph shows that the current immigration intake is right up near the record level.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ABS-3401.0-OverseasArrivalsDeparturesAustralia-TotalMovementArrivals_CategoryMovement-NumberMovements-PermanentSettlerArrivals-A1830884F.svg

It is surely irrelevant as to what it was several decades ago. Suffice to say that the intake in terms of total numbers per annum was never anywhere near as high then as it is now.

continued

<< One of the contentions in this series of pieces is that Australia currently has the best-managed economy in the world. And, possibly, the best the world has ever seen. So, if this contention is valid, and this has been accomplished with steady net migration, then the case would seem sound for a continuation. >>

No! Alan, just as we need to move our economy away from such a high dependence on minerals and gear up manufacturing and all manner of value-adding industries, and just as we need to be basing it less on fossil fuels and more on renewable energy sources, we need to very seriously consider the implications of continued high population growth.

In short, the way we operate now has enabled us to have a strong economy, but that is certainly not an argument for continuing to do things in just the same way. I’m sure you would agree that there is a quite massive need for change if we are to maintain a strong economy.

And I will maintain that very high immigration is one of the really big factors here. If we do really well at addressing all the other important issues, we will still be very hard-pressed indeed to hold on to a healthy economy, and quality of life, if we don’t start steering ourselves towards a stable population pretty soon.

As I keep saying; supply and demand is all-important in this economic analysis! And yet we really are only hearing about the supply side, which is simply crazy for as long as we have a rapidly increasing demand for everything!

Our economy is so highly geared towards duplicating basic services and infrastructure for ever-more people.. and struggling to fix up the existing services and infrastructure that are overburdened by the rapidly increasing population.

For as long as we have very high population growth, we need very high economic growth just to stand still!