I think this is a well-argued and thoughtful essay, whose long-term message is not simply to our political leaders but to us all. You could go a step further and suggest how we as individuals should act to improve the levels of calm and civilised behaviour, even if we are uncertain or apprehensive about 'these other people'. We have done very well in the last fifty years. What would you suggest for the next fifty?

“… it is a simple fact that Australia has and will continue to have very high levels of migration.”

High levels of immigration will continue only as long as self-serving, ‘ethnic’ vote-seeking politicians desire it. Bartlett assumes that everyone not of his political persuasion wants discriminatory immigration. He is wrong about this, as he is so wrong about most things – evidenced by the laughable support for, the Australian Democrats.

As if it would make any difference what we thought, anyway. The only two parties capable of forming government are both high immigration junkies, and neither is very interested in what we think.

Immigrants should be invited to Australia only if they can contribute something to Australia that we don’t already have. Immigration should be for the good of Australia. No other reason. The present number of migrants, scavenged for political purposes, is ridiculously high and unneeded. Many of the people brought here for their skills are driving taxis and doing other menial jobs we have ample resources for already. And, with the Government allowing manufacturing and jobs to go overseas – to countries where many of our immigrants come from – why do we need more workers anyway? Certainly not for old chestnut of ‘ageing population’. Migrants grow old, too. And there are models to show that if replacement by immigration worked, everyone would end up living in one country.

The objection is not to non-discriminatory immigration, but to immigration itself in a country which is two-thirds uninhabitable.

Bartlett couldn’t resist the “underlying racism” quip. Perhaps he should gather up his fast diminishing little gang, and migrate to a country where there is no ‘racism’, or at least to a place where the people don’t mind being constantly insulted by their politicians

Nice to see a discussion on multiculturalism that actually delves into some concrete policy prescriptions instead of symbolism-laden grandstanding. Surprisingly enough, I'm going to go with Leigh on this- Both major parties immigration addiction is inherently unsustainable, and at some point is going to have to be re-thought. too many people on the left are still struggling with the fact that under 'Howard the racist' we are seeing record levels of immigration, particularly from Asia- I've got no problem with immigrants, but I do have a problem with the urban sprawl, crime ghettos, and economic underclass that high immigration levels tend to produce in this country. That's not a race thing- I'm sure if we imported thousands of unskilled urban Americans we'd see similar dynamics emerging.

This article demonstrates an absolute and ironic resistance to democracy.
As long as I have been reading papers opinion polls regularly come out showing a majority of Australians don,t want mass immigration and don,t want multiculturism.
This democratic preference has been continually ignored and treated with contempt.
As for 'underlying racism', what are multiculturism and mass immigration but a deliberate effort to change the racial make-up of Australia? There is real racism.
No other country in the world has absorbed such a huge proportion of foreigners as Australia, and it is only amazing that there has not been more trouble sooner.
As long as the people who get in newspapers and on TV continue to ignore the evidence from all over the world that multi-culturism doesn't work, we will continue to head for trouble.

Mr Bartlett does not understand that many religions contain an essential political ideology, as christianity did up until the reformation. It is my view that there is nothing wrong with not limiting immagration on the basis of ideological veiws. For example, if you believe that the muslim ummah should rule the world, you should not come to our country.

I agree with old barto that immigration is absolutely necessary, but why endanger our society in the process. Cant we concentrate on countries which australia has a real historical connection with, such as east timor and papua who faught with us in ww2, saving australia from certain invasion in the process. And even Turkey, who although on the other side, anyone familiar with history will know of the intense respect that such a brutal, yet honourably fought war produced.

With regards to the above opinion that immigration will not help the aging population I would point out that most cultures see murder as murder and therefore have their children instead of killing them off prebirth. Other cultures also have more children (do not set a limit on thier family size) unlike us money hungries.

Bartlett's opinion that limiting the immigration pool to those who would get along in our culture is unfounded. I think most would agree that so long as we only limit on ideological grounds (did they let communists from russia in in the cold war? those that believed in communism I mean, not those escaping) the only people we would be limiting AT THE MOMENT is radical islamists (most of the muslim world) but this is only one sixth of the world's population.

You should remember when reading this I am solely talking of immigration not refuggee intakes.

fide mae - one of the main points I aimed to make was that our intended migration numbers are so high that we would not be able to fill them if we restrict the groups we try to draw it from. Trying to exclude people on "ideological grounds" would be very difficult - although we can (and do) use character provisions to keep out extremists or people with criminal records. We could try to tighten that further, although history has shown that such provisions tend to be used arbitrarily and politically.

Another more workable option is tightening citizenship laws (there is a Bill before the Senate at the moment which makes it a bit harder to obtain citizenship). This doesn't stop people entering the country or residing here, but it is much easier to remove people who aren't citizens if they commit serious offences down the track. However, extending this to "ideological grounds" again would be hard to do in a way that was just.

“Andrew Bartlett argues Australia needs to put some serious resources into multiculturalism and migrant settlement programs.”

Australia needs to put some serious resources into peak oil mitigation strategies in order to minimise the escalation of the sorts of issues that Andrew is concerned about here. We also need to urgently reduce immigration (and temporary visas) down to at least net zero, not for multicultural reasons but for reasons of resource demand and supply and overall sustainability. This is an essential part of preparation for peak oil.

The Democrats should be shouting from the rooftops; ‘rising fuel prices gravely threaten our ability to stop racial/ethnic/cultural/religious tensions from becoming much bigger problems than they currently are, along with all manner of other simmering divisions in our society’ and ‘high immigration is an absurd policy in the current climate where our resource base is showing grave signs of stress and one of our most fundamental resources, oil, is becoming progressively more expensive and threatening to cause massive societal upheaval’

Instead, we get from Andrew; “… it is a simple fact that Australia has and will continue to have very high levels of migration.” He is presumably also resigned to us never reaching sustainability until after society implodes. I have got to ask, what does he perceive the purpose of the Democrats to be if he has this sort of attitude??

Don: What to do in the next fifty is indeed the big question we should be exercising our minds on, rather than punching at shoadows regarding multiculturalism.

Leigh: The suggestion that there is some innate political advantage for one or other of the major parties in having high migration is just silly.

As I stated, underlying racism is present in pretty much all societies. Pretending it's not there doesn't change that.

Bull: I often hear that a big majority is against high migration, but I don't see much evidence of that. Also, countries such as the USA, Canada and (sometimes) New Zealand have also taken in very high proportions of migrants.

In response to a point made in different ways by Leigh, KRS and Bull, people should advocate for low migration if that's what they believe is best. It is better that people focus on that issue, rather than use multiculturalism as a proxy and spend their time attacking that. If you really believe high migration is bad, argue that case.

I happen to support high migration (I'm not sure if KRS sees me as on "the left" or not). I think it's very valuable and important. While it presents problems and challenges which need to be overcome (a role which a formal policy of multiculturalism can play), I believe the net social and economic positives of migration are significant. (the net environmental impact is more disputable, although I think it you assess it globally rather than just on Australia it would still come out ahead.)

One aspect of the above comments I would partly agree with is that politicians adopt high migration programs, but they don't really publicly promote the value of it. This should change. If we are to continue to have migration (as I believe we should) then those who support this should sell the benefits of it - and promote the facts of it - much more publicly.

Multiculturalism goes both ways. Not only are we an immigrant nation, we are a diasporic people as well. This also contributes to the cultural turgidity which seems to leave conservatives shaking in their boots.

Amazing, I was absolutely shocked that one of the people posting articles actually responded. Thankyou so much andrew.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I realise the language tests of the past were used racially, and I know there are proposals a foot at the moment to use tests for history and ideology (how democracy was formed etc). I don't think it would be a similar situation to the racial use of language tests, if, for example people from certain areas of the world were requested to take these tests whereas people with cultures much closer to our own (any one not from the middle east or north africa or parts of the subcontinent) need not bother, or be bothered. I see the difference between the previous language tests which were used racially and my (and others) proposal as being that we are discriminating solely on ideological grounds, and the ideologies we are discriminating against are largely found in certain areas of the world. Your point about using citizenship rather than applying this to immigration is probably much wiser than my proposal, as what we are really trying to do is to protect our ideology, only citizens have a say in this.

If it is not too much trouble (remember I was shocked that you even responded, so I understand if it is), could we get your thoughts on my point regarding some religions having an essential (for the moment) political ideology and how this changes the usual discrimination on religious grounds?

Well, When my Wife is threatened to have her throat slit with my 9 year old daughter standing next to her in a Liverpool car park on Thursday 26jan06, By GUESS WHO.MAN of MIDDLE EASTERN APPERANCE Yes, tell me Multiculturalism works.
What the F%%%$^ are they doing about it. NOTHING. So stick it. The time has come.

Yes, Andrew. Good on you for responding.

You find my contention that there is no advantage for either major parties in high immigration is silly. You are closer to the engine than I am, but I can remember the likes of McKellar and Grassby making no bones about chasing the 'ethnic' vote via support for high immigration. I'm not sure that it works, but I believe both major parties have made assumptions that certain 'ethnics'vote a certain way.

I think that you would agree that this is insulting to so-called ethnic immigrants.

On the matter of multiculturalism, I will say that any immigration should be non-discriminatory, and therefore multiculturalism is a natural product of immigration. It is the enforced-PC-give-them money to highlight differences and set up ghettos and make it an 'industry', that I think most anti-multiculturalists are against. And that is what the current and previous governments since Fraser have been doing.

And I think I did make clear that I'm a low immigration person.

The long-suffering public have the Coalition and Labor Party racing each other in a scramble to increase Australia's population. Now we have Wait-for-Me-Andrew, carrying the Democrat flag, running hard to catch up.
They all pretend that Australia's existing healthy diversity of cultural backgrounds is deficient. In doing so, they break out the "multiculturism" banner to mask their real intentions. Hiding behind it, they fire broadsides of "racism" at those who try to explain the real agenda being pursued. It has been a very successful strategy - almost all of the hard-working environmental NGOs have been brought to heel regarding population discussion.
However, Andrew has done us a service regarding statistics. The Government schedules a nett increase for this year of about 110,000. In actuality it will be considerably more when the nett pressure from tourism and those areas Andrew has flagged are considered.Whatever their origins matters tiddly-squat compared to the extra pressures they apply to environmental cohesion of Australia's already degraded coastal fringe, and upon the already over-stressed inland landscapes sweating to support them.
Migrants already here, of whatever origins or vintage (50,000, 200, 50, 10 years?), will not have their social cohesion improved from increased population pressure. That brings water shortages, transport snarls, diminished living ambience, and escalation of house prices beyond first-home buyers' reach.
"Given the reality that political parties across the spectrum support a high migration intake, there must be a stop to the dog whistling that reinforces the fears of people about different races religions or cultures." Andrew, be more up-front as to why you joined the population-boost brigade. Is it because you could not afford to alienate the industries which gain great financial benefit from population increase? Those very same ones who are the backbone of political donations to all parties?
Whatever your reason for joining those ranks, it is not because you have the best interests of your own country at heart, or for humanity generally.

There is alot of fear and concern in society but nobody wakes up in the morning and all of a sudden is worried and has fear. People see things, they feel things and they experience things and that is what triggers fear.

Pauline Hanson had alot of valid points as things are not fair. She saw problems in the amount of Asians coming in especially given the way the Education System is set up as it rewards high marks and the Asian culture is to study and get high marks. The Aussie culture is to take it easy and Australians see learning almost as a punishment. The amount of Asians in selective schools and taking the highest places and Scholarships in Universities is excessive and something needs to be done about it. It is grossly unfair. There is no need for Selective Schools.

Then on the other hand there is the issue about the Aboriginal people that needs to be addressed as these poor children are suffering, they are in disadvantaged schools in disadvantaged areas and they deserve better.

There is also the worry about the amount of immigrants on welfare. Yes there is the old “Lebanese back’ saying. Our Government should provide us with the details of the ethnic, or otherwise, background of those on welfare benefits so as to ease people’s concerns.

There is concern about people coming into this country, going on welfare and having a huge amount of babies when they cannot afford them and even if they are on welfare. Australia pays large amounts in Family payments, if you have a lot of kids you get paid a mint, you don’t need to work. This money should be going to our Hospitals and Schools.

There are a lot of issues, some of them are based on beliefs some of them fear and some of them attitude!. Problem is that the Government doesn’t allow us the information to see the facts. It’s all spin. That causes a lot of misinformation, resentment and hostility.

Well said Colinsett.

I would also love to know at what point the Democrats became population-boosters. Under John Coulter, the Democrats were a genuine strive-for-sustainability party. Now they appear essentially no different to Liberal or Labor.

Dr Coulter was one of Australia’s extremely rare truly environmentally-oriented politicians, in keeping with Democrats founder Don Chipp’s ideals. He remains an active lobbyer for sustainability.

I am utterly appalled that the leader of the Democrats is now in favour of continuous unending high immigration. It seems that this stance is not at odds with the Democrats immigration policy. But it has got to be seen as contradictory to their policies on Environment and Heritage.

I don’t suppose I should be too surprised. Afterall, I gave up any hope them being genuinely environmental-oriented shortly after Coulter’s term as leader ended

I am an immigrant to Australia. I am very glad to be here and consider it a privilege now to be an Australian citizen.
From my experience, Australians are an incredibly tolerant and welcoming people. Anyone who comes here should be grateful that they are allowed in to share in the benefits of living in Australia.
From what I can see, most immigrants are hardworking, and equally grateful that they have been allowed to come and live in Australia, and have adapted really well.
Yesterday on Australia Day, I saw people of many different ethnic backgrounds, peacefully celebrating and enjoying the National Day, and getting along well with their fellow Australians.
However, if some are unhappy with Australian society, its culture or mores, its legal system etc. then they should get out, and as soon as possible.
I’m not suggesting that Australia should be like Japan, but at the least, Australia should be able to, and in my opinion has every right to, restrict immigration to people who have the ability to assimilate, if only to prevent the kind of problems that we have seen recently.
How can someone whose avowed intention is to destroy the Australian way of life, and impose another way of life on the majority of the population, be allowed to immigrate here?
This should be obvious, and it is an indictment on the rules and practice of immigration law that it should be necessary to say it.
If the immigrant subsequently proves by his actions that he cannot assimilate, he should be repatriated to his country of ethnic origin.
I agree with the idea about improved settlement services, but I think immigration should definitely be controlled to a number that can be more easily assimilated.
A study should be done by some Universities to discover how many people Australia can comfortably absorb, from a resources and needs point of view, and from which ethnic backgrounds, and then quotas should be set.
This would make entry into Australia a more highly regarded privilege than it is at the moment.

Froggie,
the study re. Australia's capacity in regards to population has been done.
The CSIRO undertook such an exercise on behalf of DIMIA. It goes under the short-hand title of "Future Dilemmas". The Department was not all that chuffed by it.
"Future Dilemmas" is a high-powered scientific structure with a lot of hard, well-credentialed, work behind it. It provides various scenarios relating population size to lifestyles that might be possible under them.
Fundamentally, if we are going to have larger future populations, the desirability of lifestyles shrink accordingly. And even as we stand with present numbers we are living beyond the means of Australian resources to uphold them.
The report was presented before the more alarming aspects of shrinking fossil fuel availability and those of accelerating climate change problems became so obvious as they are today.
Our lifestyles are in a parlous condition, and the population boosters will not face up to this reality.
With shrinking prospects looming for society, social tensions will further escalate. There are no brownie points for politicians who are not statesmen enough to face fundamental realities.

You're right Jolanda,the whole immigration process needs to be a bit more transparent.I heard a story recently whereby a South African family were denied entry to Australia because they had a disabled child.They were business people and had plenty of resources to pay for their child's way.They were even willing to sign a contract indemnifying the Aust.Govt from any medical liabilities.But no,we have 700,000 on DSP created by our own weak kneed Politicians, many of whom have ficticious and exaggerated ailments.

Our immigration programme is an absolute mess Governed by a PC mentality to appease the sensitivities of the United Nations and fear of what the world may think of us.Nations like Japan have none of these fears,they just thumb their noses at any detractors and the UN just cringe and look for easy Western Targets to bash.

We should continue to have many cultures come here,but be much more selective about who we invite.If a particular philosophy of a cultural is at odds with our basic tenants,then we should have the right to deny them citizenship.It is about time we had a lot more debate about immigration since has been another "Sacred Cow" of the left ,that has defied analysis and criticism.

Forget all the PC BS and look at the reality of the existing Australian psyche being able to accommodate the pace of social change.

I believe in evolution,not revolution since the latter pre-supposes that all is existing social/economic structures have no revelance.
We are too eager to sacrifice social cohesion for the sake of economic prosperity.The two are inextricibly linked and we can't have one without the other.

I am impressed. This at least comes under the banner of progressive thinking and problem solving even if one doesn't agree. Nice change, refreshing.

Today I read an article, smh I think, where it was suggested we need to increase unskilled migrant intake for the health of Pacific nations. Nice sentiment, but as Andrew eludes to, social problems down the track. Enclaving happens with any group but it can nose dive into a "ghetto" generally when those that inhabit one are not active in the workforce.

This is what happened in Paris and happens all the over the US. Once in this situation no-one is happy, no-one wins. And it seems no-one gets out. Loser scenario.

So if we do invite unskilled, generally are refugee, or Pacific Islanders we can expect higher crime, higher unemployment, less integration. We are not the same type of economy that thrived under such policies in the past. We have both higher educated, more competitive job markets and social security now. Both did not exist to this extent when unskilled migration was successful.

How do we solve this problem before it happens? I think they are trying now to place people in certain areas to stop enclaving but this in itself can be problematic. In religions for eg they want to be beside a place of worship. Also anyone would admit social contact with their own people initially can provide support structure.

So the answer? social services may assist in some degree, will depend on their mindset. If they are hell bent on victim creation then we will just repeat the past.

So I don't know, maybe allow a free for all and say, any problems (pre determined indicators) further immigration from that area will be suspended for a generation, to break the cycle.

My own personal desire would be for secular multiculturalism (if we must have one) religion cannot be compromised it seems and to live together we do need compromise from all, not just non-believers. Culture is liquid, can evolve, change, but religion is stagnant. One goes against the grain of the other.

Take Australia out of the article and replace it with almost any country on the globe and you would find that it fits many situations. Global roaming, for whatever reason, is accelerating yet we act as though it is somehow unique to Australia.

The most affluent countries on earth are having difficulties with the impact of multiple cultures within a single national boundary. This would signify that it is not a funding problem but one of significant social inconsistancies.

Countries based on religious fundamentalism languish in a monocultural society that invariably descends into the torpor of stunted growth and human discontent. Multicultural countries can explode from the friction of many boundaries and little understanding.

The White (insert a country) policy has been tried. Assimilation and integration have come and gone and now multiculturalism is the flavour of the moment.

Perhaps cultures, by definition, need space, free from what can be the intimidations of competing cultures. Should Australia remake the same mistakes that the world has made for centuries? It is obvious that I am not a big fan of multiculturalism, I guess.

Perhaps I am talking about integration, for the want of a better word. Cultures are not rubbed out but neither are they kept in a sacrosanct shell. The broader community will never be the same because of their contribution and they will never be the same because of the part they have played in the creation of a new one.

Perhaps this is being overly simplistic but the world is crying out for simplicity.

Andrew, I noticed a more conciliatory tone, and a lot less 'leftist dogma' so.. your political rehabilitation is well on track :)

I would accept reasonable levels of migration in the medium term, but only from various places with 'compatible stock' linguistically and culturally and religously. I know its a big ask to see such a policy become reality in this day and age, but I would not close the door to others, yet I'd make it mandatory for them to pass some kind of 'Australian History', Langauge and culture test prior to acceptance. There are cultural issues which we must protect, and the only way NOT to lose our own culture is to ensure newcomers are aware of it and respect it.

Immigration Policy could be tied to social and cultural compatability issues without too much drama I feel.

In the mean time, ANGLO/CELT/IRISH/SCOTTISH/NORTHERN EURO Aussies...

HAVE MORE BABIES..... LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of them. I've produced 3, and even if I wanted to I cant have more for medical and age reasons. But many of you CAN... so please DO so because if not, your/our culture will just dissipate dilute and self destruct with time as non traditional Aussies do continue to have a much higher birth rate than us.

LEARN you own culture, talk to granny and grandpa... look at our history, poetry, art -pass it on as a baton to your young ones.. take pride in it, but not arrogance. Rejoice in it, but don't regard it as superior. It just happens to be the only one we have.

A PEOPLE WITHOUT A CULTURE.... ARE DEAD.... they can 'look' alive with sufficient life support, but who wants to be a vegetable ?

As much as humanitarian concerns are an issue we all should be addressing, it is not the time in our regional and geo-political history to be undertaking large scale immigration intakes.

Go back a year to the Tsunami and ponder "...what if..." the effects were more 'southerly' and realise we Aussies, as lucky as we are, need to take stock of the dwindling resources on this continent. For one, the water issues are becoming more and more critical by the year. A massive increase in the major cities population(s) would be catastrophic. Our basic infrastructures are not coping under present 'worst case scenarios' and to add; the jobs situation is being misrepresented in the media and by government agencies per se.

Many of the the areas identified as 'trades' (needing more trades people to fill demand) and skills shortages are due to the pittances being paid to these workers. The government has introduced the IR legislation with this in mind.

So you want more money for your skilled job? Sorry we have prospective overseas qualified immigrants who will work for $5.00 - $8.00 - maybe $12.50 per hour and do the same job that you now ask $20.00 per hour for.

Granted, some so called 'tradespeople' should hand back their trade certificates and enroll in a Business Management Degree. (God knows we are just screaming out for more of these).

But just a minute there are no 'real' shortages, just disenchanted plumbers, refrigeration mech's, electricians, fitters etc who have had enough of the BS conditions and actually get more pay each week, cleaning out Shopping Malls with a whole lot less grief to boot.

Why would anyone want to put up with 4 years of trade studies to learn that on the job the Trades Assistant alongside you actually gets about the same 'take home pay' without the BS factor.

Employers need to take a long hard look at the conditions that most, if not all, skilled trades work under. Commensurate with the skills involved, then remunerate accordingly.

Can I add another issue not normally raised in forums or in the newspapers.

Though unskilled enclaved populations have increased crime and anti-social behaviours in the skilled sector there is also problems.

Not considered criminal by law but criminal nonetheless.

We have social culture but we also have workplace culture. I have found that many skilled migrants fail technical tests and are left driving taxis. However we also have those that pass the technical tests, if required, mainly in management type roles, but are never tested in workplace laws, ethics and the Australian workplace culture.

I think some Americans fit this bill, but to a greater degree South Africans. I heard one business owner actually say he would not employ a South African manager because they "upset and stress the staff too much"

When a migrant is charged with management of people is it too much to ask that they are taught Australian egalitarian values and respect for workers rights?

Or do we just throw away our culture to the vultures?

The current debate is just part of a fairly simple EQUATION when all the political spin is removed.

Overpopulation is the PROBLEM, Government-serving-Government Immigration policy is the CAUSE and Government PROPAGANA is the PROCESSOR that allows immigration to continue.

The PROPAGANDA: This article, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/more-skilled-migrants-will-lift-economy-but-theres-a-catch/2006/01/16/1137260004193.html, states that immigration should NOT be used as an economic lever and yet that is precisely what Howard is doing. He is not dumb, he knows what he is doing and so should we if we expect to be treated with dignity over the coming years as 140,000 new immigrants and 400,000 visa holders per year are stacked on edge, primarily in the 5 main capitals and mostly in Sydney.

Multiculturalism is not remotely part of the above equation. Australia IS a Multicultural society, has been for more than a decade and WILL BE henceforth. All Australians know this unless they are intellectually challenged or speaking from both sides of their face. People of all racial backgrounds are averse to the loss of dignity and IDENTITY posed by economic driven overcrowding. Multiculturalism thus must be eliminated from further discussions of the immigration debate from here on if we are to weed out the ingenues and troglodytes, the self serving politicos and the schizos, and come to some potent analysis of the current population V infrastructure situation. There is no way infrastructure can be afforded to satisfy existing numbers in our big cities for at least 10 years. For example, Sydney has police force numbers set when the population was 2 million back in the 70s. The population is now at 5 million. Additionally, the physical SIZE of police officers is far smaller and less threatening to criminals. It is small wonder that segegated communities effectively have ther own police force, (nod, nod, wink, wink) in this milieu. So hopefully a 5 year moratorium on immigration will come out of a fair and balanced analysis that examines infrastucture without the government spin and without the political stacks-on-the-mill mindset that goes with it.

Continued ....

That mindset is based on post WWII development of cities like New York, Tokyo and London. Those cities have certain environmental qualities that Australiian cities do not. London has the Gulf stream, Tokyo has a similar heat energy engine and New york has an orographic (mountains) advantage that our cities do not.
Further, there is now a global concern over 6.4 billion people being ever able to live cohesively on this Earth and that is exacerbated by climate change and a looming Peak oil (Mad Max 2) scenario. The politicians promoting immigration for personal POWER, GLORY and SELF AGGRANDISEMENT need to be aware that in the next 10 years, when the Peak Oil crunch comes they will be regarded as the MONSTERS of modern times. They will be regarded in the same light as Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. No 'bolt hole' will hide them from ACCOUNTABILITY. They must think long and hard about their immigration propaganda from here on because in any tribunal, it will be that propaganda, as obvious as Iemma's Deal debacle and X city Funnel, that will be evidence against them in years to come.

Politicians must also understand that although you can legislate against ACCOUNTABILITY in power, that can change as a new wind of truth inevitably blows across the planet.

Mr Bartlett, what must we do to rid ourselves of this immigration policy tarbaby known as multiculturalism? And how can we reduce the number of migrants to zero while we put the house in order?

Does it make sense to anyone other than our dim-witted politicians that as migrants arrive in Australia, our jobs are being sent to India and China? Indeed China's economy is expected to be the largest in the world in just 10 years. Surely if a country needs workers it will be China. And why bring people here to park them on the seats at the local CentreLink office?

Mr Bartlett, Stephen Rimmer was commissioned to report on the cost of multiculturalism. In 1991 he put the cost at upwards of AUD$7.2 billion per year. Let's round it down to an even $7 billion. So that's 14 years by $7 billion giving us an expenditure figure of AUD$98 billion. I'd say that your goal — putting serious resources into settlement services — has been achieved. Indeed some Australians are paying with their lives so that your goal may be achieved. I am reminded of the man who died in a hospital south of Liverpool because it didn't have a CAT machine. He left a wife and three young children behind. Does our present expenditure on multiculturalism mean that our education budget, our health budget, our roads budget etc should be starved of funds? Even the Royal Flying Doctor Service had to sell lamingtons to raise $7 million for a new aircraft. As an Australian that disgusts me.

Why not spend our taxes on roads, education, health, and other essential things and have lamington drives and sausage sizzles and chook raffles to raise money for multiculturalism?

Mr Bartlett, do you and your colleagues know that you are responsible for shaping our society?

This is the same content of analysis and recommendation that Australian citizens are fed by our politicians who live in glass houses.

Treaties signed by our governing political parties especially in the 1970, have resulted in international influences dictating what, who and when we are to receive immigrants and from the countries they choose.

To accomodate our bulging society, Australia focus should be on our infrastructure and maintaining essentials needs.

We see many of our institutes underfunded and not coping with our populations we currently maintain.

Australia needs to pull out of these treaties and access the damage from there.

There is concern about people coming into this country, going on welfare and having a huge amount of babies when they cannot afford them and even if they are on welfare. Australia pays large amounts in Family payments, if you have a lot of kids you get paid a mint, you don’t need to work. This money should be going to our Hospitals and Schools.

There are a lot of issues, some of them are based on beliefs some of them fear and some of them attitude!. Problem is that the Government doesn’t allow us the information to see the facts. It’s all spin. That causes a lot of misinformation, resentment and hostility.

@Jolanda

How about you doing own research? ,you do it for other things when it comes to ethnic people,its not always the government.
I believe people like you will never see any bad in people migrating from countries where the people skin colours/ethnic groups are not black or dark brown. You will never truly see people as people.
Thousands and thousands of immigrants migrated from place like Britain and the rest of europe to Australia, but we will never know that side of the story,or the whole story for that matter.

Andrew thanks, you again remind me why the smell of death hangs strongly around your party.
Migration and Multi cuturism have nothing to do with continueing lawlessness of a few.
Fundamentalism combined with no regard for law and an existing host culture ,are not evedence of racism.
We will continue to grow along with Multi culturism , but without some effort to understand our way of life most Australians will not feel threatened by some selection of migrants.

Whereas I can see the benefit of importing small numbers of of well educated immigrants who have skills which this country needs, I do not understand why Australia needsw to import huge numbers of unassimilatable, violence prone, welfare dependent people who are already notorious for their high rates of criminal behaviour.

That some immigrant groups quite plainly make far superior citizens than those from countries where medieval mindsets and hatred of all governmental authority prevails. But this is something which people like Mr Bartlett steadfastly refuse to look at. Firstly, because it violtaes the sanctity of their humanitarian ideals, and secondly because the Democrats are now actively seeking the Muslim vote in order to redress their continuing slide to political oblivion.

The maintainance of an unacceptably high immigration program so that political parties can pork barrel immigrant groups just before Federal Elections in order to buy "The Greek vote", the Muslim vote" or the "Jewish vote", is quite plainly a violation of the democratic process. (Hang the Australian vote.)

Purely on an environmental level, continueing high levels of immigration are unsustainable. Sydney, the usual recipient of immigration problems, is running out of water (dam levels only 44% after a sustained period of heavy rain) and our roads are choking. Immigration has meant the creation of ethnic ghettoes with high rates of criminal beahviour and welfare dependency. Mr Bartletts solution? Well gee, Aussie taxpayers will have to dig a bit deeper to fund crime prone unwanted immigrants who can not stand on their own two feet.

Multiculturalism has been a disaster for every society cursed with it. These societies are so socially divided that it hasd resulted in high levels of criminal behaviour, terrorism, calls for separatism and finally civil war. Cronulla was simply a portent for things to come.

Yep ,five years probation for any migrant [regardless of skin colour] before they get permant residency status or become an australian citizen.If they indulge in protracted periods on social security or involve themselves in crime,sorry we don't want you.

Time for a tough approach. Let the UN and sniverl libertarians squeal discrimination as much as they like,at least we will then have safer cities.

We are too scared of offending the sensibilities of these moral and ethical absolutists,who use our fear of their dissent,to subjugate our nation.

Andrew, the tightening of citizenship laws would be an excellent cost effective control measure. The same system is used in Switzerland, to be a Swiss they make you jump hoops to prove that you really want to be a citizen, citizenship is a highly valued achievement. Until that time you are a resident (as are your children) and can be deported if convicted of criminal activity.

Andrew with all due respect, you more than likely are not living in the "multicultural" uptopia I have been forced to live in.

However I do wish to thank all those patriots in Canberra for a job well done. Traitors one and all.

Amel.

For the record I was born in Spain and my husband in Lebanon. I am light brown and fair, I look Australianish, but my husband and children are very dark and Lebanese looking…..

Included into our family has been the following: Australians; one with Aboriginal heritage, Lebanese, Spanish, Italian, Maltese, and others. Religion wise we have a mixture of mainly Catholics, some not practicing, we have Muslim, Jehovah’s and a couple of atheists. We are however, Australian and proud of it.

I am not racist against any colour or look, as then I would have to be racist against my own children, husband and family. I just have concern about some of the ‘actions’ of some people and groups in Australia. My family love Australia and the Australian culture and ways and we can see things changing in a way that seriously concerns us.

The standards are dropping, we cannot sustain things the way that they are.. I am just stating what we are seeing, hearing and experiencing and what we feel is putting the downward pressure on our standards. It’s nothing personal, surely you can respect that!.

I might be wrong about the amount of people on welfare and the amount of people who abuse the system. That is why it is up to the Government to ensure that the system is fair and that they provide the information to ease the fears of the Australians as many believe that we are supporting immigrants who do not respect our ways and abuse our system and we are going backwards as a result. Those that come from countries where the standards are low don’t see it as such a problem as the standards feels high for them. I personally don’t want Australia to go backwards as it seldom makes things better.

Please explain what you mean when you say “You will never truly see people as people” because as far as I am concerned people are human and humans are capable of both good and bad regardless of their place of birth, colour or race?

Jolanda,

"I look Australianish." I do hope that you are not saying that a real Australian is white.

I would remind you that an Australian has no particular "look". This great country is made up of all kinds of "looks". We have the blecks, the asians, the arabs etc. We live in a multicultural paradise.

I am most offened that you would say that someone has to be white to be an Aussie.

I am currently writing a book about non-white contribution to this country. It will be avilable at the local post office because it will be the size of a postage stamp.

"Australianish" indeed!!

Friedrich, I think what Jolanda meant is that she does not look so obviously ethnic that she would get picked out of the crowd for a bashing (or maybe that the gangs in Sydney might think she was a legitimate target).

I assume that you are having your book printed using a similar technology used to etch angels onto the head of a pin or limiting the achievments to area's which interest you (probably not a lot of non-white nude tiddlywink players in Australia).

If you broaden the range out a bit you might find the contributions in medicine of people like Victor Chang were worth a couple of stamps and Kathy Freemans sporting success could be worth a stamp. Plenty of other indiginous sports stars (not that I personally rate sporting achievement very high but plenty of Aussies do). I have not paid a lot of attention to the skin tones of high achievers in other area's but my impression is of a notable proportion of people who's skin colour is not quite white explaining their work when scientific breakthroughs are announced. Maybe you should reconsider and go for a book of stamps.

R0bert

Fredrich

I thought unkindly you'd be more used to the media of tattooing than writing or etching...Any forearm would probably do...eh?

Somebody has to create Australia's wealth and export industries and its us here in WA who are doing
it! For that skilled migrants are required, as Aussies arn't applying for the jobs. Remember its
all you people crowding into Sydney, who are benefitting from our wealth creation.

It would make sense to me if more 4 year work visas were issued and less permanent visas. If
somebody successfully intergrates into Australian society, makes their contribution etc, then that
person could be considered for a permanent visa. That system would reduce the amount of people
pouring into Sydney, which it sounds is the problem, but still provide the skills in those parts of
Australia where they are urgently required.

I don't think that multiculturalism is a failure as such. Plenty of people from plenty of cultures
have intergrated extremely well here and are a benefit to all.

Where we have a specific problem, as do many countries, is that no matter which way you look at it,
it cannot be denied that Islam is a religion that teaches divisiveness, hatred, Muslims being
superior to others etc. Lots of people don't take religion too seriously, but when we then add
Saudi money, preaching their radical Wahabi fundamentlist form of Islam, the inevitable result will
be exactly what happened at Cronulla. Aussie women being called sluts, Aussie society that is
looked down on, is exactly what Wahabi Islam preaches, so no wonder we have a problem.

Again, well done Andrew Bartlett for reading and responding to the comments in this forum.

I guess I don’t fit into one of the pigeon holes that politicians are forced to stick people into in order to determine how to set policy, because I love having a wide variety of people of different cultures in Australia, but I also think high immigration is unsustainable and therefore bad for Australia. Not just bad environmentally, but bad socially and economically, as well.

Mr. Bartlett comments that perhaps immigration is bad environmentally for Australia, but for the world as a whole, high immigration to Australia is good.

“the net environmental impact is more disputable, although I think it you assess it globally rather than just on Australia it would still come out ahead.”

I’d like to see more detail, to back up that statement. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Australians use more resources than the great majority of the countries that the immigrants come from, so even if the world's population stayed the same, the environmental impacts would be larger with more people in Australia.

Secondly, exactly what is Mr. Bartlett advocating with this comment. That other countries around the world should reduce their populations, but it is okay for Australia to increase its population. I don’t see how the “assess it globally” effect works otherwise. If he is saying that; does he really want Australians to support the idea that we should increase our population to improve our “economic and social positives,” and tell Kenya, Rwanda, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Bolivia to reduce their populations because they are damaging the environment with high populations? I hope not, but I can’t figure it any other way.

I also dispute the comment that immigration is good for Australia socially and economically, because the social harmony of Australia and the economy of Australia won’t work if the environment is stuffed.

continued

In referring to immigration numbers Mr. Bartlett states that “no responsible politician will support a dramatic reduction in these numbers.” Why is that? Is it because there might be a short term drop in economic activity associated with a drop in immigration numbers. A short term slow down in the economy would have the opposition (Democrat, Labour or Liberal) yelling that the current government are poor economic managers and should be dumped from office. Nothing would boost immigration like the fear of losing the next election, but is that the best thing for the long term future of Australia. Probably not.

Lastly, when is population growth going to stop? Anybody with a calculator knows that it can’t go on forever. We are not living sustainably now. Increasing population numbers makes it harder to live sustainably. Why should we leave the difficulties associated with slowing population growth to our children? Why is that responsible leadership? A hundred years ago Australian life expectancy was in the 50’s, now we expect to live into our 80’s. We have been managing with an “Ageing population” for a hundred years, but now it is some sort of big problem. Give me a break. There must be some better reason.

Please Mr. Bartlett (and Mr Costello, Mr Howard and Mr Beazley) convince me that boosting immigration is really good long term for Australia, and not just a strategy for the best result in the next election.

Andrew I admire you responding, as very few do. However the populate or perish syndrome is a failed philosophy, by those of little vision. Why anyone can think that more and more people will improve our lot is rather laughable. But then again economic and religious slaves can't see past the mirror in their heads.

Australia has just about lost the final chance to show the world how to live in a sustainable and progressive way. But the populance are forced to vote for people like you against the constitution, who have no idea of what to do for a viable future. Isn't it enough to face collapse of our environment, the massive growing problem of lack of water, degraded rivers and lands, to see that we are struggling to support those we have.

Population growth is only to support the economic wealth of a few and the brain dead desire of the religious to have more and more of their self centered clones overrun us.

Considering the development in genetics, people will soon live well beyond their centenaries. The only course is to maintain or reduce population to 15 million over time. This would give us the opportunity to develop best environmental practices as well as grow essential exports.

With our technology, we don't need a growing labour force, but a sustainable future. Sadly the current power brokers refuse to accept that.

Your party has failed the people that supported you on many occasions, so anything you have to say sounds just like your colleagues in the twin houses of despotic endevour. You all say listen to me, I will fix it, but don't expect me to do anything, but collect my huge economic future at your expense.

Your political religion, has the same credibility as the monotheistic religions and just as destructive for us. You want support, put forward policies that will give us a future, not repeat failed stupidities

Immigration of the current style, just brings more and more problems that can't be solved, not less.

"ven if it were desirable and possible to frame laws that could select migrants according to their “affinity” to some ideal of an Anglo-Saxon Christian Australian culture, many of our migration places would be unfilled if we tried to insist on drawing from such a shallow pool."

That may well be true Andrew, but it is also true that it would be entirely possible to fill our migration quotas without having to consider the option of importing any more adherents of the "Religion of Peace".

There are easily enough potential migrants amongst Hindu India and Buddhist China to fill our entire quota many times over, and in addition there are a higher proportion of skilled applicants from these countries. Immigrants from these countries are "model minorities" in any country they decide to settle in.

Why should we endanger our way of life by importing more people who follow a religion that has declared war on Western society when there is absolutely no need to? When you can answer this question have another post telling us why.

Every country in the world (with the notable exception of the USA) has had significant issues with its muslim minority over the last few years. Why should we continue to import more muslims when it's perfectly obvious that there are better options for Australia?

Yobbo,

Beautiful, sharp, illuminating - a gem of a post.

Thank you.

P.s. I challenge anyone to find fault with that post.

It does mean one (Andrew B) will have to actually find out what Islam is, and what effects Islam is having wherever it exists in the world.

Islam is a horrible yoke placed on the Arab people by Mohammed.

(Who said Cronulla was merely a race or immigration issue? How could we possibly frame it like that? It is about Islam for goodness sake we have no problems with anyone other religion/polity that comes here)

of course we need immigration.

look we have ten million workers now. as the population ages this will go down to seven million.

in twenty to thirty years we will have five million oldies unable to look after themselves. that will require about one and a half million workers to look after them. one million for looking after, another half to manage the workers.

with only seven million workers, one and a half million of which will be looking after our parents, that leaves five and a half million left to work in the rest of the economy.

that is almost half of what we have now.

all these nursing positions will have to be low paid, else the economy will fail. australians will not be able to live off these nursing positions and pay for their parents care. australians will need to work in higher paying jobs to look after their parents.

immigrants can take these low paying jobs, and be able to look after thier parents in comfort (due to the cheaper costs of living in thier own countries (exchange rate etc)).

it is not hard to understand.

all we need to do is make it clear that muslims who believe in an islamic world state are not allowed in.

given that all the pacific islanders will need places to stay when global warming comes in full force, isn't it smart to get them used to living in australia now, by giving them the three months a year working visas they want.

hell we should be training them as nurses now, for our parents health. Oh I forgot, we just care about ourselves and not even our parents, let alone our communities

Sorry I can’t respond more fully to all these comments – the two posts a day rule and wordcount limit make it impossible. Try visiting my webdiary – www.andrewbartlett.com/blog - where I often write on these and other issues.

I find it hard to see how people can be so strongly of the view migration is a negative when Australia has so clearly benefited economically, culturally and socially from big waves of migration over the past 60 years.

While I understand people thinking that a specific ethnic group might support a specific political party, I also don’t understand the regular suggestions that migration as a whole benefits political parties. If it clearly benefited one party, then the other would oppose it. It is a lot easier politically to ‘sell’ low migration which is why politicians tend not to do much spruiking about high migration, or imply it’s a year to year thing – one of the points I was trying to make in my article is that if politicians genuinely support high migration (which I presume they do or else we wouldn’t have it), they should be ‘loud and proud’ about it and counter some of the apprehensions expressed in these comments.

Judging by some of the posts, while some people who support low migration feel they are automatically labelled as racists, it appears people like myself who support high migration apparently do so for “personal power, glory and self-aggrandisement”, because we “don’t want to alienate business”, “won’t face reality”, “don’t have the best interests of the country at heart” or even humanity as a whole!

Fida Mae – I’m not aware of any religions that can be equated with a political ideology, although there may be sects or denominations that could fit in that category (depending on your definition). There are currently some groups (like Hamas) who are proscribed under law and people who are known to be members have difficulties entering Australia. I think it is much better to focus on a person’s character and conduct than target a religion.

its seculat vrs non sec.

Regardles of the press Aussie culture rights are receiving recognition John Howard's Aussie day speech mentioning something about new Australians speaking English etc.

As for new Aussies for the work force yeh sure, i reckon there will be a few dutch refugees very soon. If its true that we need numbers so high to maintain ourselves im sure Aussies would work a little harder to cover the gap prefering a choice in who and what comes in to our daily lifestyle.

As for us havign more Western babys, we also have earned the privalage in the West to no not be slaves of overbreeding, that to is a very importent cultural aspect of The West that needs respecting and curtailing to. Agreed as well tho, We could lift our Anglo pop to some degree.

please excuse my slpoopy spelling latley ive been tired.

Ludwig: there is more than one path to sustainability. I prefer pathways that have a chance of working and aim for socially just results. John Coulter was – and remains – a zero net migration person. I am sure the ACF Council is currently having as much fun dealing with his anti-migration views as the Democrats did 15 years ago. Fortunately the Democrats fully disassociated themselves from that stance quite some years ago. I can never comprehend environmentalists who call on people to think globally, *except* when it comes to migration, when it becomes ‘stay out of our country’.

Migration to Australia increases our populations levels - although even the current rate will lead to a stabilised population in Australia by mid-century - but it does not increase the global population level. People still consume resources wherever they live.

It’s true people living in Australia consume more than many other places, but this shouldn’t be used as an excuse to keep people out, but rather a reason to reduce our unnecessary consumption. Of course, a lot of it relates to economic prosperity, but suggesting we can be prosperous but others can’t is not just (and not sustainable either). Also, broadly speaking the welathier societies get, the fewer children they have. Most western countries already have birth rates below replacement levels.

Focussing on 140 000 or so permanent migrants when we have over 3 million people going in and out of Australia each year seems a bit myopic too. They might be tourists or other visitors, but they still consume resources. They also have the added consumption and emissions involved in travel. I hope the ‘migrants are unsustainable’ advocates aren’t suggesting stopping international tourism.

Blaming migrants for the NSW government’s incompetence and gutlessness in managing water and other resources is also a bit unfair. As a country we actually have more water resources per head than many others, and simply waste it. Our profligate approach to energy and irrational policies on transport shouldn’t be used as an excuse to say we can’t cope with more migrants.

Well isn’t this fascinating. The theme of responses on this thread is very strongly against high immigration.

Andrew, if you want to save the Democrats from extinction you need to drop this awful future-destroying position and really become sustainability-oriented.

Become really different from the Laborials, like the Demos were in the early days. Present an exciting alternative.

Become our SOS party (Save of Society). Address peak oil with a vengeance. Guide us onto sustainable footing as an absolute imperative. Denounce consumerism and continuous growth. Push for the widespread recognition of genuine measures of economic wellbeing and quality of life instead of absurdly misleading indicators like GDP.

Don’t get bogged down in issues of multiculturalism, health and aging, work and family, or most of the other policy platforms that you hold. ALL of these things will rapidly worsen if we fail to address the threat of rapidly rising fuels prices and our overall rampantly unsustainable direction.

My heart aches when I think about what Australia desperately needs in its political scene, how close the Democrats were to that in the early 90s, and what they have become.

The Democrats have become the wrong sort of SOS party (sold our souls).

In Islamic Kuwait, it is impossible to obtain citizenship unless you marry a Kuwaiti man or you can prove your Kuwaiti ancestry goes back at least 2 generations. As a result there are more expats than Kuwaitis. Most of these expats come from poorer nations like India, Shri Lanka and the Phillipines. These expats earn good money (for them) to send back to their families.

Kuwait is one of the most racist countries in the world, but their Islamic values are protected from western, christian, Hindu etc values. Hence why women have only just gotten the right to vote in the last year.

What about our values? Are they being protected? Do we really need to hand out citizenship to people who wish to put women's equality back a few hundred years, and see women as simply baby makers?

I think Andrew has written a really good article on the topic of immigration. Perhaps he could write a further one explaining clearly all the benefits of immigration for aussies like me who are concerned for Australia's future.

Andrew thank you for making yourself available.

I have to take you to task though about your unwillingness to differentiate between religions.

We don't have open slather with political ideologies eg Nazism, Communism. David Irving is a lightweight compared with Mohammed.

As for character, Palestinians fete as heroes those who blow themselves up killing innocent people. They clearly think these Muslims exhibit enormous character. And there is strong support from other Muslims about this.

How can one not admire a person’s courage in responding to Divine command in making the ultimate sacrifice?

These people are not lacking in character. They lack for a true Revelation. The one they have enormously increases the tendency to intolerance and violence. Of course by itself its not a sufficient condition.

A refusal to differentiate saves time, but it is irresponsible. It weakens your authority to speak on immigration issues.

How could you not care how Muslim people define themselves? Especially if it is in total opposition to our political forms. The teaching in Islam is to bide your time in dar al harb, working however to eventually promulgate divine Sharia.

For insight into these religious concepts why not read about Islam, read what the Vatican says or Daniel Pipes, an adviser to the Whitehouse. And Spengler (who has to use a nom de plume or he'd be dead by now)http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html whom Pipes quotes and draws from and who is critical of the US in many instances.

If you won’t bother enquiring into Islam (and how Islam teaches no separation of the political and religious), if you just dismiss religion entirely it will end up dismissing you, for there is no place for unbelievers in a Muslim world.

Andrew, I would like to congratulate and thank you for taking the time to respond, four times I think, over a few days. I noticed lots of the posts also thankyou for this and would like to point out that although many seem to disagree with most of your points, it would be encouraging to all that you are addressing these concerns, instead of relegating such thoughts to the 'great unwashed'.

Andrew, it is imperetive that you and other politicians begin to address islam as not just a religion. Your comment that regarding the harmless nature of all religions, unfortunately, highlights the fact that you MUST have never spoken about these issues with a muslim. During a recent interfaith dialogue class at uni we had the opportunity to meet with canberra's acknowledged islamic headman, he clearly stated that islam cannot be differentiated from politics. In fact the Islamic community sees history (politics) as a central indicator of what God thinks of them. Thus they seek to destroy the saudi king, and other authoritative regimes which do not comply with Islam and the sharia. they see the lack of correct leadership as the reason for their god's turning away from them over the recent centuries.

Any book about Islam, unless produced by some western lefty, will go into this in detail. Your comments also show that despite the current geo-political events of the world, you have neglected to read into this subject.

You should not assume that the seperation of church and state applies to all religions. Whats more as heretical events in the US show, you should not assume that all understand the seperation of church and state to be the same seperation as that which you understand (all things change)

Thanks Robert. My family, in order to lighten the situation with a bit of humour as it isn’t easy for us as we live near Cronulla, joke about who it is that will bash our family the Lebs or the Aussies. It’s a difficult place to be stuck in a mix.

Frederich. Was Australia called Australia when only the Aborigines were living here?

I too think that Aborigines have been dealt an injustice and I wonder whether Aboriginal people actually call themselves Australian and whether they actually want to be referred to as Australians given what Australia has done to them?.

If you go back in time you will find that there have been a lot of similar injustices done in a lot of Countries, it was just the way things were done, unfortunately things haven’t really changed much.

Problem is that you cannot turn back time. Common sense should tell us to make sure that we protect the future.

That does not mean that what happened to the Aboriginal people should be ignored. There should understanding and validation of the Aboriginals plight, help and support to assist Aboriginal people recover emotionally and psychologically from the damage that has been done to their culture and their lifestyle. It’s not what happened over 200 years ago that is now the problem, the problem is what continues to be permitted to happen to Aboriginal people out of fear that they might become better educated, get their act together and stand up and demand their land back.

Now Australia also risks being dealt an injustice. Some might think that they deserve it but I can’t help but wonder if Australia is taken over by another culture or race, do you really think that they will hand Australia back to the Aborigines?

Immigration and multiculturalism worked well right up until we started bringing in larger amounts of cultures that clashed with the Western culture and that were not prepared to assimilate.

We seriously need to keep our eye on the balance especially given that the Westerners are not having lots of babies. Majority Rules!

Andrew Bartlett, unfortunately the Democrats, while under your leadership, are fully disassociating themselves from reality.
Are you being disingenuous? "Migration --- even the current rate will lead to a stabilised population by mid century".
What twaddle!
The current NET migration rate combined with the net birth/death rate gives us 1.8% population increase. And there is every indication that your Democrats, the Coalition, and the Labor Party, all want that maintained - or increased. Were it to be otherwise, the antediluvian economic paragidm that you all lean upon would be devastated.
If this combined rate is held steady, Australia's population by mid century will have increased from the present 20 million to some 40 million - and increasing at 1.8%. Do you envisage some change in philosophy that will deny this? Will you tell us about it? If this is not the case, do you have a problem with arithmetic? Do you, philosophically, need a guide dog and a white stick? If none of those apply, the implication is even worse.
You say, truly enough, "As a country we actually have more water resources per head than many others." But that misleading statement is probably intended to steer attention away from Australia having an evaporation rate higher than rainfall. Per head it is higher than almost any other nation, bringing with it desiccation and salination etc.. It also directs attention away from the water needs of natural ecosystems without which our current lifestyles will be severely degraded - or worse. We are in fact gravely at risk with regard to water.
Trying to mask the fundamental problems of population pressure by invoking cultural aspects, rather than numbers, related to migartion will never put you in the ranks of statesmen.

Andrew

Thank you for your thoughtful article - even though I don't agree with you. Also, thank you for your responses. It is fairly rare for an OLO writer to respond to posters. Even so, it seems that you are not taking on board the general tone and reality of the majority of posters. That's what frustrates we plebs about policians. You don't listen to us. You don't hear us. Yet, you want our votes.

Thank you to all posters. I have found all responses very good and interesting reading. I particularly enjoyed yours Yobbo.

Cheers
Kay

Andrew,

Your statement "A few politicians have tried to tap into and exploit this community concern, but most others have just ignored these fears, preferring not to confront them except when absolutely necessary." shows considerable ignorance and I can only assume you are not aware of the Howard government in this regard. "A few"!!

Howard has traded on fear, of race, interest rates, terrorists, anyone Labor, education, health and whatever else they can dream up.

As to immigration and the supposed need to continue growing our population, who decided that issue? We constantly hear about skills shortages, fear of the future having too many dependants and so on. And as others have mentioned Australian businesses are increasingly sending Australian jobs overseas. Why? It's not lack of skills, it's the cost of the Australian skills isn't it? We import people and export jobs. Sound dangerous to anyone? Anyone?

How on earth could our governments cope with more population when they have ALL dropped the ball on infrastructure over the last 20 years. Our current infrastructure is bursting at many seams and yet still the drive is on growing. Growing means higher demands on water and a high price for water does not make it any more avai;able does it.

Now we hear we have to ration water, increase water prices and more. Why? Simple, because governments only see the next election, no more. But we must have more skilled immigrants. Why?

ANDREW

I have to support Fida's post about Islam and 'other' religions.
Please do some reading on the expansion and fundamentals of this movement. NOT from sites like the ICV or other Islamic sites which always without fail give the 'sugar coated' version.

Read Sura 23 and see how this 'divinely inspired/eternal word of Allah' (i.e. according to many schools of Islamic jurisprudence is NOT subject to contextual understanding) .. impacts on non Islamic societies.

Verse 5-6 You must guard your modesty (refrain from sex) with all but:
a) wives
b) those who your right hand posseses. (captive girls)

Now.. you might counter with "Ah but 'mainstream' Muslims don't take such a literal view" hmmm how recent is Ayatollah Khomeini... ? he changed the marraigable age for girls to NINE. Iran only recently raised the marraige age to 15.

Shia Islam is VERY mainstream in Iran...

Besides this, the basic position of Islam is:

"The world belongs to Allah AND His messenger." You only have to scratch under the surface of a reasonably educated religious muslim to find this. (Its from a Hadith)They might not admit it in an interview with the Herald Sun, but see what they say when the Imam discusses with them.

We have had a number of people arrested recently who are suspected of (among other things) "Assasination plot for John Howard and his FAMILY".

The problem with Islamic immigration is simple.

1/ There IS a clash of civilizations going on now.
2/ The 'war on terror' is in reality a war on radical(Quranic) Islam
3/ We are of the 'West'
4/ We will be identified as 'The enemy' by radical Muslims
5/ Wherever we are involved in this very real WAR, it will breed home grown radicals here. The concept of 'Muslim Brotherhood' is not just the name of a movement in Egypt, it is a wider concept.

Sharia Law
Children under Islamic law are perceived as the “substance of the male,” merely incubated by the female body without any biological or genetic contribution".

Andrew, you are very much mistaken, if you think that Islam is not a political religion. In fact thats the very problem!

If you feel like reading, Ali Dashti's "Twenty Three Years" will give you a historical background to Mohammed and the Koran. Dashti was an Iranian, who was tortured to death by Kohmeini at 86, but the English version of his book sold in huge numbers after is death. Muslims are well aware that they are unable to express their free opinions about their religion. Dashti waited until after his death to make sure it was published, for very good reasons.

Islam is about a whole way of life, with rules and regulations for everything, thats where Sharia law comes in. They never experienced the separation of church and state as we did in the West, in fact that again is the problem.

If you want to know about radical Islam, read what Sayiid Qutb wrote in "Milestones". Its freely downloadable from the net. It seems to me that many Aussie politicians only see the world from their little perspective, forgetting that others have a whole different agenda and perspective.

Andrew, I am having problems with your blanket assertion that “I’m not aware of any religions that can be equated with a political ideology”. That must take a truly trained eye to be so selective in the world that it views. Surely fundamentalism of any persuasion is basically political as well as religious in character. To ascertain Islam as purely religious in a secular society is courting an uncomfortable premise that politics is not preached from the pulpit of many, if not all, mosques. A quick glance at many of the conflicts around the globe will come up with a surprising incidence of commonality.

I apologise if I have offended any Muslim readers here and I must add that I am not versed in the Koran or your faith but the actions of too many people, in too many countries, have spoken louder than many of the words that have come out in defence of your faith.

It may be true, Andrew, that we have more water per capita than many countries, but few would have such a limited supply to service such a large area. If immigration was to be encouraged, that would have to be addressed and we would possibly see a future limiting the amount of water needed to sustain the environment, as it is increasingly needed to service the population. The Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric and Irrigation Scheme is a case in point.

The wastefulness that you so rightly point out has to be curbed just to stop the water restrictions that are necessary with the current population.

Jolanda

Your posting Jan 28 400 refers Aboriginals having been dealt an injustice then further - the Aboriginal plight etc–

I have often wondered about these issues and I do so not attempt here too under rate the trauma or belittle the apparent suffering of Aboriginal people.

My question to you in light of your statement is two fold.

First.

How is their plight any different from the rest of us? If one looks back in to the past of any if not all, we have pain and suffering it is the nature of the history of mans walk down the road from where he was, to where he is, to where he is going.

My paternal family had a farm in Lincoln, which had a history back to pre the Romans. The Celts, the Romans, the Saxons, the Normans, the Vikings, who then ruled Lincoln and York for 300 hundred years. They all raided, conquered, took, stole, raped, pillaged, plundered, and mated.

All this traumatised shocked, terrorised, and in the process they alienated and stole land, woman and enslaved the able. Most of this was done with utter savagery and little post action counselling.

Some survived, some did not - we learnt, we improved a little, we fell back, got up, had another go and got on with it - in time we become more civilised hopefully improving as we went on.

My point is, is not this – mans path…his way.

Second.

Culture is fundamental to us all some understand this more then others. Others give culture greater emphasis then others. But why is that Western Culture is seen so often as the villain the plunderer the spoiler.

Why do we not have one day at least a year to celebrate the efforts of those who have invented - penicillin, flight, electricity, mobile telephones etc

Western civilisation has done more for man collectively then any other group. All humanity benefits immensely - why not say thankyou to all these man and woman and their collective efforts in all disciplines.

Tribal,the phrases and thoughts that enable you ask these very questions,makes you also Western.

The west is responsble for all manner of ills.Medicine and Vacinines that prolong life.Agricultural technology that produces too much food for humans to over populate this planet.

The Industrial and computer revolutions that give us too much time to think about how badly done by we are or time to move to a higher consciousness.

Nuclear technology that can supply almost unlimited energy or a nuclear wasteland.

It all depends upon our ability to face the reality.If the Western civilisation didn't do it,Japan or China wouldn't have been far behind.

How empty or how full is this cup of life?The choice is both yours and the rest of humanity.

To so many posters... I see a new "Australian" emerging.. this Australian KNOWS his own past.. he/she knows it warts and all, and nows it in the context of HISTORY... he/she is becoming emboldened.. strong.. brave..and will NOT be cowed into sheepish embarrassment by ludicrous and doctrinaire questions by Journalists.

This Australian will take the bull by the horns.. control it, and direct it into a future.

This new "Australian" will know world history, including critical battles, turning points and religions, and the basic ideas behind them. They will KNOW how we came to be as we are, they will have some idea of the philosophical ideas which have shaped for good or bad, this society we live in. He/She will have a strong sense of culture, and self determination.

He/she will reach out to others, with confidence and pride, without arrogance. They will welcome anyone, no matter their skin color, but they won't EVER accept displacement either cultural or racial by stealth or demography or invasion.

May this new "Australian" become strong, unbending, unashamed, forging ahead to the future in unity and focus.

Craig.. pls refer to some of that material mentioned by Tribal.
Good on you all for interacting and grappling with these issues of national significance.

I agree we can take more immigration and would prefer some real chances of unput to how it is undertaken rather than pretend immigration will go away. It won't.

Religion is an issue that will not go away so needs to be addressed by our government. I would like religion to be the right of someone to practise in private. No denial of religion just I do not want to know about it. I do not care if I work with a muslim nor a homosexual. In both cases I have no desire to respect or know about what they actually do, just respect their right to do it in private. I do not want it to be my business.

The big problem is where, Sydney probably is running out of room without massive amount of money poured into infrastructure. For me to travel 15km to work by public transport takes 1.15 hours.

Tasmania could take easily a million people yet migrants do not want to go there. They are too racist to accept a white society. Again, their problem, not mine. If they want to live here then maybe some choices need to be taken away.

West Australia, so much land and so few people. If they can manage some water plans then easily another 3 million people.

That is four million without any drama, rainfall areas in the far north would also be a great place though they seem to be thriving of their own accord.

We can take more but we need plans and possibly a longer wait for citizenship. Also New Zealand has to become another country, it is not another state, lets stop acting like it is.

TO ALL POSTERS

UPPER CASE IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE A POINT. IT IS IRRITATING. Get my point?

A sound writer does not need to use upper case to make a point.

Upper case turns me off reading posts.

Cheers
Kay

“There is more than one path to sustainability”.

With rapid continuously growing population with no end on sight? Andrew, I agree with Colinsett; this is fully disassociated from reality.

You “prefer pathways that have a chance of working….”

Like what? Nothing can work if we continue to rapidly add stress to our life-supporting resource base, which is already well and truly stressed. You can forget about social justice if we don’t protect the basic support mechanisms of our society.

The basics of economics and ecological principles seem to not be a part of your thinking Andrew.

When the Democrats disassociated themselves with net zero migration and real sustainability, they became just another pea in the pod of the profit motive panderers. They have steadily gone downhill ever since to the status of a critically endangered species.

Net zero migration still allows for about 35 000 immigrants a year. There is scope for the refugee intake to be more than doubled within this number. It well and truly allows us to fulfil our responsibilities as a compassionate nation, along with a solid international aid effort. How on earth you can be against net zero immigration is beyond me.

“I am sure the ACF Council is currently having as much fun dealing with his anti-migration views as the Democrats did 15 years ago.”

What? The ACF has a good population policy, which hasn’t changed since 1993. ACF calls for: ‘A government population policy to stabilise Australian population numbers at a level that is precautionary and ecologically sustainable’ and ‘Immigration to Australia should be looked at in terms of ecological sustainability and our humanitarian commitment to accept refugees.’ (http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res_population.pdf).

International social justice is better served by Australia spending money and effort in places where it is desperately needed than by bringing a tiny fraction of the world’s needy people to this country. From a global perspective, it would be better if we closed our borders completely and instead contributed a greatly increased international aid effort.

I have only responded to your first paragraph and I’ve run out of space!

Kay-O-saurus the Poster Nazi,

It was the implicit shouting character of your use of caps that prompted me to reply to your off topic, ill mannered outburst on this thread.

If you had not used caps I would not have bothered.
To wit, caps are useful on fora where you only have 2 posts per 24hrs and 350 words per post and a lot to say. Caps definitely highlight a point in a crowded, competitive format such as this.

A sound writer does what gets the job done. Just read some Hunter S Thompson.

Further, no one will bother reading your posts because:
* you're WRONG and
* by RECUSING yourself from using caps, you dramatically reduce the probability of your posts ever being noticed.

Its horses for courses, or in your case feet for sticking in the mud.

Bull, Yep every poll I have seen indicates that Australians do not want high immigration or multiculturalism. I flies in the face of democracy that people continue to be ignored by the politicians.

Colinsett, Thanks for the info re CSIRO research. Will try and get copy of "Future Dilemmas".

Andrew, I think the real reason behind why the parties all have high immigration policies is because big business dictate the policy. They do not give large donations to the parties for nothing. Big business does not care a fig about the social or enviromental impacts, as long as more consumer goods are sold. We cannot even get the infastructure needed for the present population. We desparately need politicians that will draft policy on what is best for Australia.

Andrew,

you state, and apparently agree yourself, that: "whether people like it or not, it is a simple fact that Australia has and will continue to have very high levels of migration."

I have two simple questions:

1 Why?

2 How Many?

Please give specific reasons and justifications for current levels of immigration and tell us all what population you think should be a maximum.

I am astounded that you, and presumably the Democrats, support high levels of immigration.

As I see it, we have a easter egg economy; mineral/agriculture exports on the outside and hollow in the middle.

A nation of manicure artists and brickies will not survive peak oil!!

Hi Colinsett, Froggie here. I’m sorry I didn’t respond to your post regarding “Future Dilemmas”. I’ve been very busy lately. Thank you for the link, I downloaded the Executive Summary- it makes interesting reading.
It seems that most posters are against high immigration and multiculturalism.
It does seem a shame that politicians are not listening. I think that here is a very good source of votes, far out-weighing the number that can be gained by appealing to the multiculturalists. Maybe there is room for another new party!
Personally, I think multiculturalism is not the same as welcoming people from other cultures and have them integrate into Australia. Multiculturalism appears to create separateness, and seems divisive to me. We do not need “foreign enclaves”, and there is no reason why immigrants should not integrate into the general community, if they are helped to do so.
I agree that immigrants should make every effort to adapt to Australian ways, rather than the other way round. Although, they can also add some interesting perspectives in food, music, art etc.
Unfortunately, immigrants do tend to cluster in specific areas, maybe it is a defensive thing, or seeking mutual support. It is the same everywhere in the world. It is not easy to emigrate to another country and another culture.
As long as they are not in numbers that would swamp the Australian way of life, and especially not put the Australian environment at risk, I think it is good to have some immigration, if only to balance the outflow of people seeking an “overseas experience”.
Still, I think Australians, if they are to have a real democracy, should be able to vote on how much immigration they want, and from which countries.
What about a referendum?
I think it is a subject sufficiently important for that, since it has such a big potential to change Australia in so many ways…

@jolanda



Was Australia called Australia when only the Aborigines were living here?

I too think that Aborigines have been dealt an injustice and I wonder whether Aboriginal people actually call themselves Australian and whether they actually want to be referred to as Australians given what Australia has done to them?.

If you go back in time you will find that there have been a lot of similar injustices done in a lot of Countries, it was just the way things were done, unfortunately things haven’t really changed much.

Problem is that you cannot turn back time. Common sense should tell us to make sure that we protect the future.

That does not mean that what happened to the Aboriginal people should be ignored. There should understanding and validation of the Aboriginals plight, help and support to assist Aboriginal people recover emotionally and psychologically from the damage that has been done to their culture and their lifestyle. It’s not what happened over 200 years ago that is now the problem, the problem is what continues to be permitted to happen to Aboriginal people out of fear that they might become better educated, get their act together and stand up and demand their land back.

Now Australia also risks being dealt an injustice. Some might think that they deserve it but I can’t help but wonder if Australia is taken over by another culture or race, do you really think that they will hand Australia back to the Aborigines?

Immigration and multiculturalism worked well right up until we started bringing in larger amounts of cultures that clashed with the Western culture and that were not prepared to assimilate.

We seriously need to keep our eye on the balance especially given that the Westerners are not having lots of babies. Majority Rules!

You may not like it,but you have racist beliefs Jolanda.Thats a fact!
I've notice that people like you always throwin the "Aboriginal family member" that you've got (which many whites can say), and that you understand them, blah blah, as if that doesn't make you racist.
I've heard it all before.

Boaz, I applaud you,

I think Cronulla was an extremely significant turning point. Already the discpicable "race card," the armour of "multiculturalism," is losing its viability.

In due time, along the path of re-affirming WHO we are, I predict the "race card" will do its belated 180 degree turn.

Of the 3 paths open to take when confronting the abyss of alienation, only that taken in Europe's Enlightnment is viable, for only critical reason and democracy have ever had a chance of providing the balance us discordant humans need.

Now although it was Europe that first hit on such a manner of living together, they really only erected the conditions requisite of democracy, for the latter is a universal principle of humanity, not Europe.

And as you say, we need now more than ever to re-affirm these roots, if only because they are not roots that are a particular "custom," but rather more about a procedure to live by, a process that IS beyond culture.

But sadly some of those "identities" still intensly rooted in their dogmatic ethno-soils--all those fearful of the transformative threat at democracy's heart, of its uprooting effect, of its calling-into-question the grounds of their very being--look upon this as a "white" way of living, when it is really a human way (they have trouble removing their ethno-shaded glasses).

Re-affirming our heritage then will be problematic, for many racists (e.g. Hizbut-tahir) will misunderstand it as the hegemony of a particular ethnicicty's customs, when really it is nothing more than an open-ended process held together by critical debate for its grounding. But nothing is more frightening to the fundamentalist dogmatist than critical thought.

WE PEOPLE, WE CAN COPE WITH CHANGE. But others cannot

Andrew Bartlett,

Careful with what you say, you might be taken for a "new racist"*

* “A curious feature of the new racism is that it is very difficult to attack. This is because its advocates speak in terms that are remarkably similar to those of postmodernists and the New Left. They speak about the need to preserve identity, difference, traditions and culture. They also speak about the need to maintain standards of equality, fair play and so on. Who can disagree with any of this? Only rarely is anything unambiguously racist said (at least in public). Instead a characteristic of the ‘new racism’ is to speak in a kind of code. Words such as ‘special treatment,’ ‘Asian ghetto’ and ‘Aboriginal Industry’ carry with them connotations which the true believer can recognise, but which allow plausible deniability of racist views on the part of the speaker” (Robert van Kriekan et al, “Sociology: Themes & Perspectives,” 2nd ed, Longman: Australia, 2000, p.542).

This was a first-year sociology text in 2002 at least at USYD and ANU.

If you bump into the authors one day can you ask them, given that it doesn't manifest, how it is they're able to discern it?

Did we miss this one?

"Pauline Hanson had alot of valid points as things are not fair. She saw problems in the amount of Asians coming in especially given the way the Education System is set up as it rewards high marks and the Asian culture is to study and get high marks. The Aussie culture is to take it easy and Australians see learning almost as a punishment. The amount of Asians in selective schools and taking the highest places and Scholarships in Universities is excessive and something needs to be done about it. It is grossly unfair. There is no need for Selective Schools." (Jolanda, 27-Jan-2006)

50 exclamation marks!

I promise to never confuse racism with white supremacy ever again!

(Note to programmers: Lots of explanation marks are sometimes necessary.)

A number of posters observe that the volume of anti-immigration postings on this page (and many other discussions) highlight that politicians mustn't be listening since the weight of opinion seems to be so strongly against immigration. I note, however, that much of the protest comes from the same 20 or 30 posters who seem to believe that sheer weight of postings will bend the argument in their favour. Perhaps the real issue is that much of Australian society doesn't air it's views - and it is left to the vocal few to assert their opinions as universal.

Andrew: Full marks for adding something with substance to the discussion about the future state of immigration.

To those asserting that immigration dilutes our cultural heritage - and let me state that I am a 7th generation Aussie, my family was one of those that opened up Sth Australia in its early days - there are a vast number of other factors which shape the dilution of our aussie culture. Mass communications for one thing. On a single issue I can plumb a range of opinions from a number of international sources. This means that my opinions and therefore my world view - and therefore my "cultural framework" are all influenced by a global view of the world.

Yes, there are problems with our current immigration policies. However winding back the clock to policies such as that espoused by BOAZ-David are not the answer either. Yes we face issues with resource scarcity, particularly oil and water, but they can be solved with vision and technology.

As a final point, Jolanda talks about high marks as some sort of problem? Because some try harder that is a problem? So you would reward the lazy through implementing a policy of equally rewarding them with those who try harder? I never finished high school, I studied at night after work for the last 25 years and now enjoy the rewards. I am now working fulltime and completing a doctoral thesis. I have worked hard. Am I to be punished for that? Your view would suggest so.

tribal, As I did say in my post - its not what happened 200 years ago that is the problem, as lots of Countries have had to suffer similar invasions. The problem is what has been allowed to happen to the Aboriginal people since.

Education is the key to change and prosperity!

In Australia - the rich get Private Schools
For Asians there are Selective Schools

For mainstream there are Public Schools

For Aboriginal children - they get “disadvantaged” Schools.
The system also provides ‘disadvantaged’ schools for the poorer people in the West.

Millions of dollars are going to Private Schools. Huge amounts of money is being wasted outsourcing testing for children for placement in Selective Schools (even private school kids) and then ferrying students for hours at the taxpayers expense to attend these schools when they have schools in their local areas. Whilst children with disabilities, special needs and learning and behavioural problems are neglected on the basis of “lack of funding and resources”. The Governments favourite line!

How is that fair? Where is the equality in that? The system is segregating and to make it worse they are discriminating and neglecting and they have the power and the safety net to do anything that they want with students and/or their marks without question or challenge. I know that for a fact as my children have been victims of this systemic abuse and discrimination.

Aboriginal children are so behind in Education – that is where the major problem lies as Aboriginal children cannot get out of the situation that they are in when they are illiterate and they feel they have no hope. It is a vicious cycle.

Morals and obligations in our society have fallen victim to profit, prejudice, spite and greed. Adults need to regain control and set a good example. Neglecting our most vulnerable is not a good example to be set.

I love the Western Way but I do think that is getting out of control and many children are turning to drugs, sex and crime in order to rebel and cope

Andrew Bartlett's responses so far have the tone of "come gather round,I'll tell you Bible stories you've never heard before". Unfortunately, for this mob which he seems to regard as kindies, we've already heard them.
Ludwig makes a very important point about the sugar-coating of humanity applied to the immigration pill: Far more could be achieved by rendering assistance in the country of origin. That rather than the feel-good exercise of importing a miniscule few of the needy. In 1994 Australia agreed, along with other nations and even the reluctant Vatican, that such action was appropriate. Particularly, assistance would be given less-developed nations for taking responsibility, as with developed nations, for controlling their own numbers within their borders. Australia has lagged in this regard - Andrew ignores it.
Froggie, I am glad you are taking the effort to access scientific assessment of Australia's prospects. Please, everybody, do likewise rather than chase pie-in-the-sky. CSIRO has done great service in making Future Dilemmas freely available on its website. Dilemmas Distilled is a good introducion, but the complete publication provides some perspective on the thorough approach to this long and arduous exercise.
Yes, the world's six and a half billion could fit in Tasmania - or in Queensland with the advantage of families on "quarter acre blocks", as economist Glenn withers likes to quote when advocating population growth. And how many could Western Australia hold, or Antarctica? But the real world lies with Future Dilemmas. Andrew Bartlett, discard your white stick and read it!
Yes, we need to have a living, breathing, adjusting society interchanging with the world: please,no more enclaves here! Australia has done well in advancing its own culture, assisted by adopting the more progressive aspects of others. May interchange continue. We do not need to multiply to do that. Why allow ourselves to be bullied into increasing numbers via migration; or by increased birthrates? The Vatican's imperative to "outbreed the bastards" has not improved social cohesion in Northern Ireland; nor in Pacific Island communities and elsewhere.

last word,

"A nation of manicure artists and brickies will not survive peak oil."
Good stuff.

Andrew,

What part do the black uneducated Africans play in our society? Apart from using the money I pay in tax to be on the dole.

What part do the uneducated muslims from the middle east play in our society? Apart from causing trouble.

What the western world needs is more people like Nick Griffin and Jean Marie Le Pen and less people like the current lot of politicians in Canberra.

Pauline Hansen was framed and hung out to dry and the so called "representatives of the people" stood by and let it happen much to their eternal shame. Shame however doesn't play a big part in the lives of the "representatives". It's all about the gravy train.

The New South Wales Government lets the middle eastern trouble makers get away almost scot free.A few token arrests. Why? The gravy train.

This country is bent.

What's the difference between the plight of Pauline Hansen and Nick Griffen? Australian politicians taught the rest of the world how to persecute.

Long live the gravy train and all who ride on it. All aboard.

Having taken in all of the pro-immigration arguments, I stll believe that, apart from importing people with skills we don't have, all immigration should cease,now, until responsible people of all persuasions sit down and hammer out a population POLICY (sorry, Kay,it's the only way to emphasise that we don't have a POLICY). The current shambles is ad hoc.

Politicians and high immigrationists think of economic growth and nothing else. High immigration suits big business - particularly developers and builders, retail giants. When they have made their piles, they can shoot off to live in pleasant, green lands where populations have been sensibly controlled their populations with nil or low immigration suitable for the needs, leaving us with a desert.

High immigration is short sighted. When Australia blows away in the dust like an overstocked sheep paddock, those responsible will be long gone. Their heirs will curse the memory of people who believe that Australia can continue to take more people than it has now. We are already more than halfway past the 12m we have been told is sustainable.

We should find out how countries like Sweden, with around 9m people do so well.

I agree with Sladeb’s thought, “Much of Australian society doesn't air it's views”.
As many people have said, Australians have never been asked for their approval of the high-level immigration policy currently in place. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

If that is true, I suggest a referendum about the subject of immigration. It does not appear to be receiving the attention it deserves, with its potential to change Australia. A wide public debate about it should precede a vote about the level of immigration permitted, and from which countries.

Jolanda, what is wrong with selective schools? People go to them based on their ability to undertake higher academic studies.

The following article points out some of the benefits for people of academic ability:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/24/1027497352845.html

A highly academic education just doesn’t suit many children. University education is not the only tertiary education that is worth anything. There are plenty of technical or vocational schools that people can go to, as well as the TAFE colleges. We need bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, nurses, builders, drivers etc, just as much as PhD’s. My point is there are many worthwhile and well paying occupations that do not need a highly academic education.

Instead of “one size fits all”, we should have a system where each child can gravitate towards the type of education and training that really suits its abilities and interests.

Thanks Andrew, for the article and for joining the forum.

You do get the impression that a lot of people are worried until you look at the number of posters, rather than the number of posts. At the same time the white worrier is a well researched element in Australian society. The theory goes that as globalising processes progress, parochial types find themselves increasingly out of the loop and get upset. I don't think it's as simple as that when more worldly people also worry about issues like these.

Regardless of the issues raised here (culture clashes and scarce resources seem to be the main ones) it does seem a bit undemocratic of our government to keep immigration rates high when so many people are uncomfortable with it. Especially when governments also support sociocultural divisions which agitate people's concerns.

Personally, I am comfortable with high immigration and multiculturalism. As others here have observed, it's ridiculous to expect migrants of any description to absorb Australian culture with their first breath off the plane. Or boat. The Bartlett argument suites me just fine, but I do believe it's unfair and asking for trouble to force change on people who, for whatever reason, feel uncomfortable. I'm not using the word 'comfortable' because of the 'relaxed and comfortable' slogan, but to avoid upsetting anyone.

The education issue is irrelevant here but I can't help myself. I come from a white Australian family (no idea how many generations past the three I met personally) with very little cash to throw around. I went to a selective high school with hundreds of other kids exactly like me. The selection process had to do with grades, not race. The promotion of downward envy was a political master stroke. I think it's ugly but admire the brilliance of it. Now if we can just rearrange a bit of funding to get Middle Eastern kids on the honour roll of selective and private schools...

Just love this geezer ...

"I never finished high school, I studied at night after work for the last 25 years and now enjoy the rewards. I am now working fulltime and completing a doctoral thesis. I have worked hard. Am I to be punished for that? "

The downright ingenuousness of bringing multiculturalism and individual rights into a debate on OVERPOPULATION is evident here. In overpopulated scenarios individual rights don't exist, only corruption and the corrupt will rule. People of all racial backgrounds, no matter how hard they worked or how much they feel they deserve will be just as physically vulnerable in an overcrowded city. Let's not be coy, only the capital cities will get the immigrants and for example the 100,000 extra immigrants in Sydney each year mean 100,000 more cars and 100,000 hectares of soils lost to salinity each year.
The kind of SELFISHNESS you display here is keenly noted by fair minded Australians. It is going to take some extraordinary branch stacking in the next state and federal elections to subvert the anger that is mounting in communities around the country.
People are WATCHING.

"Yes we face issues with resource scarcity, particularly oil and water, but they can be solved with vision and technology."

NO they cannot be solved. Your doctorate is obviously NOT in science. If you make clumsy assertions like this you must back them up. All you have shown here is you have a vested interest in overcrowded, market oriented cities where big business is the only real government. Once oil reaches $4 per litre in Australia, within the next 10 years, you will see Mad Max 2 scenarios develop. The last thing we want is more people to slug it out and protract the inevitable CULL. There is already market demand for a CULL. Kidneys from people over 60 can now fetch $20,000 each. And there is no guarantee that your aspirations as a captain of the ruling businesses will protect you any better than the rest of us

Response to Jolanda:

When you say "For Asians there are Selective Schools", that is a product of your imagination or someone’s deception. Selective schools are for bright and promising students and only a racist would connect intelligence with race. Only a racist could say "For Asians there are Selective Schools."

Racism is abhorrent to a free and democratic society. Your comments have no value. They are defective -- to be examined for the defect and then thrown out without hesitation. Anyone would do the same.

Response to Friedrich:

A Senator of the Australian Parliament should have to answer such racist questions. What role do they play? Answer: The same role as anyone else. Their racial background of course in no way has a part to play. In Australian society everyone is equal regardless of whether you are educated or not.

Your comment that the NSW government "lets the middle eastern trouble makers get away almost scot free. A few token arrests. Why? The gravy train" suffers from the racial defect also. That you would accuse the police of gross corruption, dereliction of duty and acceptance of bribes, because you label some arrests as "token", is an example of how racism can create the most hallucinogenic of states.

For the record, someone who speaks about migration levels is not racist. There are many respectable comments being made here.

Opps! A Senator of the Australian Parliament should *NOT* have to answer such racist questions.

David even though I agree with most of what you say, I must disagree with a couple of points.

We are not a free and democratic society. Andrew as well all federal politicians have been elected in defiance of the constitution.

Our constitution states, and the chief justice of the high court agrees, that all our federal politicians have been elected unconstitutionally and illegally. The Australian constitution states, that our parliamentary representatives are to be “directly chosen”. Yet we are forced to use a biased preferential vote, which makes those elected not directly chosen, but indirectly forced upon us.

Nothing will be done about this, as all challenges end up on the to hard list. Even a high court of 5 judges, have pushed this issue aside, because it would effect their friends, (read political parties). If you belong to a political party, you can't be directly chosen, because you have indirectly been forced onto the voters.

Its the same with multiculturalism and immigration, these are forced upon us, as was the GST and privatisation, they are not directly chosen policies of the people. So we live in a dictatorship, the dictators (political parties) defy our constitution. We will continue to go down the same ridiculous road, until we remove the present system and replace it with one that expresses the real will of the people. That can only be done by bringing elections and the running of the country into the 21st century.

All policies should be determined be electronic referendum. That way we will go in the direction the people want. Politicians should only be elected on the platforms they put up for various portfolios, not by core and non core lies.

You won't get that from any of them, but if if you had a party that was prepared to sacrifice their power to the people once elected, to achieve this, they would romp it in

Andrew, two posts a day and 350 word limits can be a pain. Cheer up though there are plenty of threads where your input as the leader of an Australian Political party would be interesting (The "Paying Women to have Children" is one I would really like to see the involvement of some politicians in). Two posts a day there and you still get one extra post elsewhere - bargain.

Now back to the thread. I'm one of those who enjoys "soft" multiculturalism but then I live in South East Queensland not southern Sydney. I also care a lot for our environment and the sustainability of our way of life. At some point we are going to have pain, either from too small a population to support those who don't work or by stretching our environment beyond it's ability to support us. I think that is almost a given, one is relatively short term, the other could be terminal.

I'd rather see the focus on improving what we are doing with the existing population, better management of water resources, more research into minimising the impacts of aging, ensuring that the kids growing up in this country are given the best possible chance to live happy productive lives (for a start radical reform of the disasterous family law system which encourages very bad outcomes).

On the migration front we could put some research into how to best play a meaningful role in helping the world while at the same time caring for this countries long term needs.

Looking forward to see your contribution on some other threads.

Cheers
R0bert

David Latimer,

I'm not interested in a response from Mr Bartlett.

I respect politicians in this country about as much as your inane analysis of my previous post.

By the way who are you tell me who to respect. How long have you been boss of the barbecue.

Nice to pull out the "racist" card. Anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, they are a neo-nazi. They are the anti-Christ. Your post was as usual "piffle".

Mark Latham had a name for John Howard that discribed his realtionship with George Bush. Fits you to a tee.

"Let's not be coy, only the capital cities will get the immigrants and for example the 100,000 extra immigrants in Sydney each year"

Ok lets not be coy and state some realities. Australia's currant
account, at -5.9% of GDP, is still a disaster and we urgently need to focus on exports, a high % of which come from regional areas.
You city slickers want to keep importing your toys to play on OLO etc, somebody has to generate the wealth, thats the reality of it.
So perhaps migration needs to be directed at people who will live in regional areas and help generate export wealth. Thats where there is a mass shortage of labour.

Its pointless for people like Andrew to scream about live exports for instance, if regional abattoirs cannot even find staff to process livestock. Fact is that Aussies have it so good, that they don't need to work, certainly not something like on a meat chain.
Many young kids today don't want to get their hands dirty, its far easier to lie in bed and play video games, then move to where the work is, get out of bed and work hard for 8 hours.

If overcrowding in cities is the problem, then change the migration policy, so that those regional areas which really need staff to increase exports, can obtain them for jobs which city based Aussies don't want to do anymore.

Andrew -

Regarding being myopic about international tourism, I find it hard to believe that a person in your position does not grasp the difference between tourists that are “in and out” and “permanent migrants.”

To formalise - international tourists stay an average of 26 nights and they don’t buy houses or cars so they consume less per day than permanent residents. That means 3.5 million international tourists is more like 170,000 residents. But they go home, the 140,000 permanent migrants stay, so next year that is 280,000, the year after 420,000, etc. After 25 years the cumulative impact of the migrants is 10 times as much as the tourists and in 50 years the cumulative effect is 18 times as much. In other words the permanent residents and their offspring are using 18 times as much energy and water, producing 18 times as much rubbish and sewage, using 18 times as much farmland and fisheries as the international tourists.

If being concerned that migrants having 18 times the impacts that tourists have, makes me myopic, I guess I don’t understand the context in which you are using the word.

Just so you are clear, I am not advocating stopping international tourism, I am advocating reducing immigration, so that we have a better chance to live sustainably in the long term. Reducing migration will have a much more significant impact on living sustainably with the finite resources that we have, than stopping international tourism. In fact I believe that if we do a better job looking after the environment, we will be able to attract more international tourists. We will be able to attract people who are looking to get away from the polluted parts of the world, and visit a place that is clean and uncongested. That increased international tourism would result in a boost to the economy, that will not be possible if we maintain the current unsustainable policies.

KAEP’s response highlights exactly the type of attacks that seem to result every time someone dares to suggest that perhaps there is a middle road to this argument. I stated that I have worked hard and enjoy the benefits of that – you suggested as a “captain of industry”. I am certainly not that! The benefit I enjoy is going to a job every day which I get up and look forward to going to. You have attacked me without knowing anything about me. You suggested selfishness on my part, again without knowing anything about me. So be it. I will ponder that view the next time I stand at the end of the hose as a Rural Fire Fighter. You demonstrate the ignorance which seems to predominate both extremes of this debate.

For the record, much of my study has been on urban sustainability and I could sit here and discuss subjects such as Natural Capitalism, deep ecology, sustainable urban design, affluenza and a wealth of other related subjects. I am a systems analyst and as such I look for systemic relationships between issues under consideration. The issues of overpopulation, resource scarcity, immigration, aging population, foreign ownership, the so called brain drain, the population pressures on our major urban centres etc cannot be considered in isolation. Australia has the capacity to develop well thought out policy frameworks in which we will find a middle road that will allow us to consider not only short term skill shortages, but longer term aging population issues, resource demands etc. Extremism of any sort will not bring the necessary clarity to this debate.

Alchemist - and here I thought your name was based on the book!

You may be right about the constitution, but I would point out that the constitution says nothing about a PM, only an unelected governor general ruling the nation, do you want that as well. As anyone who has studied politics in australia will tell you, our constitution bears no resemblance to how Australia is run.

Your ignorance regarding democracy shows how worthless you position truly is. We live, and have for a hundred years, in a representative democracy (not a direct democracy as you seem to assume). Direct democracy could never work, as there would be no stability of government. For your information, democracy is not just about rule by the people, it is also about the rule of law (which has changed the effect of the constitution), acceptance of capitalism (the right to own something), liberalism (inividuality) and equality before the law (not equality full stop). The fact you only recognise a fraction of what a democracy is, clearly explains why your veiws are so outlandish (hamas outlandish).

get an education

Bartlett said: “I find it hard to see how people can be so strongly of the view migration is a negative when Australia has so clearly benefited economically, culturally and socially from big waves of migration over the past 60 years.”

Australia’s economy, culture and social aspects are ultimately dependent upon a healthy natural ecology, the only feature that ultimately supports us and other species. Our economy, culture and society are subsets of the natural ecology and must always fit within its finite bounds. Is this so difficult to understand?

I live near Mandurah WA, growing its population at 7.1%, thus doubling every 10 years as a result of overseas and interstate migration.

Colinsett drew your attention to the national damning study – Future Dilemmas. One of the local studies gathering dust on government and corporate bookshelves that validate the assertion that our natural ecology is progressively deteriorating as population/migration increases is the August 2002 “Economic Development and Recreation Management Plan for the Peel Waterways”. Part of the major finding of this study stated that: “Without corrective action, the Peel Waterways will not be able to support the increased demands of expected POPULATION GROWTH.”

Another damning report was “Peel Away the Mask”, a Nov 2001 study of the social condition of the Peel Region. The summary of this study’s findings stated that, “The community issues have been rapidly building during the last few years but it is only now that the warning signs are becoming increasingly apparent to the wider community. There is strong potential for the area with many natural and human assets but with the RAPID INCREASE IN POPULATION, the gaps in services are becoming wider as the service providers are struggling to cope with the demands of increasingly vulnerable community members.”

Currently, according to majority scientific opinion, we are using the earth’s and Australia’s natural CAPITAL in order to maintain our profligate lifestyles, having already used up the INTEREST. In other words we are already using “our kid’s inheritance”.

How can increasing Australia’s population via migration benefit anyone but the news-media and the corporations who support/fund government?

Continued from my last post…

I don’t advocate closing our borders, I advocate net zero immigration with a doubling of the refugee intake and a greatly improved international aid effort.

Andrew, you write; “Migration to Australia increases our population levels - although even the current rate will lead to a stabilised population in Australia by mid-century”.

As Colinsett points out, this is terribly wrong. Crikey, it really bothers me when people in the top echelons of our political system get basic facts so awfully wrong. At the current fertility rate, with low immigration levels, our population will stabilise by about mid century.

“People still consume resources wherever they live.”

In practically all cases, they will consume much less in their home countries than they would in Australia. Money spent helping them at home is also very much more efficiently utilised than it is in providing them with an Australian way of life and level of consumerism. In fact, several fold more efficient.

“It’s true people living in Australia consume more than many other places, but this shouldn’t be used as an excuse to keep people out, but rather a reason to reduce our unnecessary consumption.”

It is a pretty good reason for concentrating on helping people in their own countries rather than bringing them here. Besides, what on earth are the Democrats doing about reducing our consumption? As I said in an earlier post on this thread and about a million times all up on OLO, peak oil is the paramount concern at this point in time. What are the Democrats doing about consumption in preparation for this resource crisis? I haven’t heard boo out of them. With this crisis looming we really do need to reduce immigration to net zero, if not implement a moratorium on it.

O here we go again, word count nearly exhausted and I’m still only half way through my response

I personally believe we can take migrants from most countries if they can easily assimilate into our common cultural practises. For instance we take Lebanese Christians with little social conflict, compare to Lebanese Muslims. We take South Koreans with no social conflict, we take Egyptians with no social conflict. However when we take practising Muslims we have social conflict, which indicates to me they are a religious idiology that cannot settle without social conflict. Therefore we must evaluate people on their political / religious aspirations.

Quote, "Even if it were desirable and possible to frame laws that could select migrants according to their “affinity” to some ideal of an Anglo-Saxon Christian Australian culture, many of our migration places would be unfilled if we tried to insist on drawing from such a shallow pool."

I believe Australia can only accomodate about 30,000,000 by having a slightly lower standard of living if they disperse more widely throughout the continent. The problem is most want to live in major cities. This destroys the sustainability of the environment.

To Yabby,

skills shortages in Rural area is due mostly to the younger people moving to the cities to find work and go to study. Most never come back. If they did return, skills shortages you mention would'nt be such a problem.

Racism is felt more acutely in small towns than in the cities. This is due to the limited number of jobs and resources people are competing for.

You would find that even if immigrants were to be settled in rural areas initially, they would still find themselves in major cities. Thus not really solving the problem of skills shortages.

Skills shortages are overcome by telling the kids to come home, not importation (a lazy, short sighted option)

Leigh

Once again, thank you for another thoughtful post. I share your views but I am unable to articulate them as well as you do.

Cheers
Kay
PS: My last post was rather stupid and did not add anything to constructive argument. My apologies to the Forum.

Few pre-qualifiers:
*I'm not a racist...don't care where people come from or what they look like.
* To talk, as some do above, about overpopulation in relation to a country this size is plainly absurd..the place is almost uninhabited.

The message: When I was a boy and before Al Grassby was Minister for Immigrashe 'multiculturalism' was unheard of...we had a concept called "assimilation"...that meant learn the language and absorb the local ideas of law, morality etc..become an Australian (why else would one come here...?)...but then Labor got elected and said people actually migrated here so as NOT to become australians and that to expect migrants to absorb our culture was (by some leap of logic) 'racist'...(especially as we had no culture anyway according to Alf)...Thus did assimilation become a dirty word and multiculturalism arrive in Oz.
Quite apart from being an ugly word multiculturalism is a defective concept; a crock of counterproductive crap that fosters cronullas.
Take some of those boys and whip them mercilessly in between a few lessons about our laws and morality and perhaps they'd evolve into proper humans as well as acceptably monocultural aussies.
Luv,
Alf.

Andrew,

having just looked at the Democrat web site - a further comment:

It appears to me that the Democrat Party are being deliberatly misleading and disingenous on the subject of continuing high immigration numbers.

If you and your party do support high levels of immigration, then you should state this clearly and unequivocally on your web site, (either in your policy statement or on the home page with other major issues).

I suggest you are frightened to do so, because of the unfavourable reaction you would get from your dwindling band of disillusioned supporters.

Your comments please.

Sladeb
please don't worry about knee jerk attacks on you, we all get it and in most cases give a bit also.
Clearly you have a good background to discuss this type of issue, so I encourage you to continue and to flesh out some of your ideas. Don't waste time on responding to attacks too much :) If you can refer us to more detailed explanation of your 'systems' approach where the impact of particular variables are factored in, (such as a spreadsheet) it would be in our interests for you to share it.

Bucko,

very well presented/argued post mate. I don't agree with the increasing immigration for refugees without some very clear 'filters' myself, but in principle I think you made a very good point. Your reference to the studies mentioned shows a careful attention to detail and a committment to the issue. Well done !

To Others, great work :) the variety of perspective is quite enriching, and indicative of most of us needing to go further into our own positions and come up with strong arguments for them.

To me, the most important step on all of this is that we are actually talking about it and grasping the nettle.

Its worth mentioning in the interests of truth in history, that a major plank in One Nations immigration policy was 'population' based not 'race' based. When the ABC broadcast the story about the launch of this policy on the 6.00pm news, they edited out any reference to actual policy (from the afternoon version of the same story) and simply said "The One Nation spokesperson on Immigration is in serious conflict with the Government Minister" .. how informative was that ?

At least here, we can express our viewpoints and not be selectively edited. My own views on immigration are pretty well documented here, so I can't add anything now.
Keep well all.

Amel. Everybody is a racist; we have to be, its part of our survival instinct. There is nothing wrong with believing that you are better, so long as you don’t do anything illegal or immoral.

If there were two people and you had to choose only one to take with you; one was of your own culture/race and one was not and everything else was equal, you would choose your own. Why? Because that’s just the way it is, because blood is thicker than water and nobody would expect you to do otherwise, that is your obligation and right. That’s not racism, that’s favoritism and/or Freedom of Choice.

David Latimer. Why is it White Supremacy to believe that it is unfair to administer a system of education that provides superior educational opportunities on the basis of an academic competition? Those that are not in optimal learning environments and are from disadvantaged homes/schools, or don’t have the money to pay for the tuition and coaching cannot fairly compete no matter how much potential they have.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t blame Asians - they are motivated and ambitious and they are not going to sit and wait. This is not a race issue, it wouldn’t matter if it was the Australians, Lebanese, Spanish etc, I would still think it equally wrong if one group was so over-represented in Selective Schools and the system of selection was so grossly unfair and it was obvious why! I blame the Government who has set up and supports a Selective System that compliments the Asian culture and gives them unfair advantage while lying to the public about the impact and effects of coaching.

If it is White Supremacy to bring up issues that you find unfair and if it is racism to have an opinion on issues to do with another culture then, what can I say?.

Thank God I live in the Western World; otherwise for sure my family would have been ‘dealt with’ even more harshly than my family has already been for being outspoken about our rights

One problem I have with immigration is that it seems to displace people. The UK has higher immigration recently and the few recent English immigrants I meet (btw where do they go?, not Sydney!) have come here because of too much immigration in the UK. NZ attracts immigrants that promply relocate here or displaces those who feel a loss of identity. Then Sydney and Melbourne people relocate to QLD because of the rapid changes and associated stress of population growth and again a loss of indentity in our major cities.

It does seems that immigration creates immigration. Immigrants never go where they are needed, they go where people where happy with the way things were. People starved of population growth who support growth never get it because they offer nothing that attracts.

Lets solve that problem.

Meanwhile I agree that we will have continued immigration, because it IS part of our culture. Australians, I do not believe, will reject it outright unless they feel some sort of control over how, who and where. Australians are about the fairest people on earth until they are treated unfairly themselves.

Also we need to get rid of the term "multicultural". Damaging. You can still have diversity and fairness without giving equal rights to small populations. Like our senate innit, *wink* *wink*

Although almost getting off-topic, David's "Selective schools are for bright and promising students" is worth comment due to immigrant-intake rates increasing pressure on schooling.
Malcolm Fraser, during his tenure as Minister for Education prior to the Whitlam governments, was grilled by the ABC on the matter of selective schools. After waffling on, he concluded that someone has to be the hewer of wood and drawer of water.
That attitude continues to this day unchanged, unfortunately, because choosing that someone is still based more on parental income than it is on student potential.
And there are other types of selective schools: those which promote the development of religious/cultural exclusion of their attendees from the rough and tumble of interaction with the rest of our mostly happily cohesive and very polyglot society. That is to the detriment of both sides.
Such schools potentially degrade society by development of "them and us" attitudes. That, rather than provide opportunity for mutual absorption of better aspects of cultures, and for the less desirable to wither. They may very well be greeding grounds of cultural disharmony, as society suffers further constraints from population pressure.

Jolanda,

I don't find you racist.

To me you seem a polite, interesting and open minded person.

Congratulations Senator Bartlett, I concur with Professor Aitken. This is one of the most cogent essays I have read on line in the past few months. It's unfortunate that some of your most crucial points regarding immigration and population are hijacked by the looney left aka the Greens.

This would make an interesting feature article subject for The Oz or SMH as it has currency and relevance.

Thanks for your comment Cheryl. I tried SMH and The Australian without luck I'm afraid.

The comment suggesting that the Democrats action in disassociating themselves from net zero migration is connected to the decline in their vote is a new thought. I've heard many views on why the Democrat vote crashed (plenty of them involving me in the reasons), but I've never heard this one.

As my article suggests, politicians who support high migration should promote it more. It would be interesting to see how well a party promoting big cuts in migration would poll, but I'm not aware of any currently, (though there are some who just keep quiet about the issue).

Governments have done better lately in encouraging migration to regional areas, but we can still do better.

In regards to the comments on religion:

I don't profess to be an expert on Islam, but I have read plenty (including people like Daniel Pipes and the thought that the White House listens to him worries me greatly), and had a lot of discussions and meetings with many Muslims. The religious views of some fundamentalist Muslims are intertwined with political ideology. This does present significant problems. However, it won't be tackled by trying to cut ourselves off from mainstream Muslims. That would make the problems worse.

Fundamentalist Jews could also be said to be intertwined with a political ideology. This also causes problems, but trying to cut off contact with all Jews wouldn't help either.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of any religion. Many of them have great ethical frameworks, but I don't see the value of the supernatural stuff. However, it obviously works for a lot of people and as long as it isn't a vehicle for restricting other people's freedoms and rights, it shouldn't be an issue.

People's willingness to support democracy and diversity, the rule of law and key principles such as equality and freedom should be what we assess, not what their religion is. Clearly, the separation of church and state doesn't apply in all countries, but it certainly should apply here.

Some more brief responses:

Lastword: Part of the point of my article was to emphasise that politicians who support high migration should be more open about that and do more to promote why. The article itself is part of that. As to the Democrats website, the official policy is fairly general. I'd be happy if it had more detail on immigration in addition to all the material about refugees. I shall endeavour to remedy this.

One of the benefits of having more debate on migration numbers – including from people opposing migration - is that it can draw attention to our hopeless performance on environmental issues, whether it's water, energy, land, transport, etc.

Environmental sustainability has to be central to any policy. Everything else – our economy, society, culture – is dependent on this (this is also long-standing Democrat philosophy). I support the ACF policy (mentioned in one comment). I believe high migration can be consistent with sustainability.

I'd also note that it is impossible to credibly argue in the political arena for increasing our humanitarian intake while suggesting family and other migration should be cut by 100 000 a year.

I repeat my view that – unless our birth rate turns around – our population will stabilise with net annual migration of around 100 000, but I will find a source for analyses I've seen showing this.

I support efforts to reduce global population, and Australia should definitely do more assisting this. I "ignored this" matter in my article because that wasn't what the article was about.

I don't see why we should stop people coming here, or how it helps ecological sustainability, or addressing peak oil, etc, if people are consuming resources elsewhere on the planet instead of here.

As for the statement that "Money spent helping them at home is more efficiently utilised than providing them with an Australian way of life and level of consumerism." - this seems to me to just be a way of saying they can stay poor, while we keep consuming as much as we want. Unjust and also unsustainable.

Thankyou alchemist, I totally agree:

"All policies should be determined be electronic referendum. That way we will go in the direction the people want. Politicians should only be elected on the platforms they put up for various portfolios, not by core and non core lies."

I they already have this system in Switzerland.

Andrew,

The economic case for immigration, which you have embraced, is utter nonsense, and is essentially the same kind of neo-liberal economic 'rationalist' garbage which I had thought the Democrats had long ago rejected. Much of these arguments have been repudiated (with seeming reluctance) by the recent Productivity Commission report into population and have been completely demolished in a recent press release of Sustainable Population, Australia (http://www.population.org.au) which quoted SPA Vice President and former National Leader of the Democrats (find copy here : http://www.candobetter.org/population/spa-mediaRelease-19jan06.html)

I can just about understand the Democrats favouring immigration for humanitarian reasons, but it should not take very long to understand how deeply misguided those motives are as collinsett(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#29013), Ludwig and others have pointed out. The number of people we could help by allowing them to migrate here is miniscule compared to the many hundreds of millions who are persecuted, oppressed and in dire poverty around the world. The number of people, two years ago, living in sprawling shanty towns with no proper economic role, whatsoever, to play, on the outskirts of sprawling third world cites alone was over 1 billion. (see article, "Planet of Slums" http://www.candobetter.org/population/NLR-Davis-Planet-of-Slums.pdf (136k))

As collinsett (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#29013) pointed out, if the sacrifices that our society is making now to accommodate new immigrants, and, incidentally, also, to line the pockets of land speculators and property developers (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3954#24278), were, instead, given to those countries as foreign aid, many hudreds of millions of more could be helped.

Also as Greg Wood, who posted (http://tinyurl.com/e3gus) to John Quiggin's blog wrote :

"... the massive upswing in resource demand effected by those emigrating to the first world consumer states ... directly leverages back upon the resource sacrifices made by the nations that they are leaving behind."

(toBeContinued)

(continuedFromBefore)

So, in fact, poor people from those countries could be far better off on the whole if we immediately cut back, rather than increased, our immigration intake. (And I don't see that your more recent post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#29106) has properly addressed this argument. Allowing a small minority from those poor societies to become rich in our society, is indefensible when it demonstrably adds to the poverty of many millions of others left behind.)

I would hasten to add that, notwithstanding your current deeply misguided support for high immigration, you are one politician that I have enormous admiration for.

It seems to me that you are in politics for the best possible motives and if I am correct, then you should be able to find it within yourself to understand the reasoned and factual arguments, presented here and elsewhere, against high immigration, and act accordingly to change the Democrats policy back to roughly what it was when John Coulter was your leader (which is, incidentally, also supported by Sandra Kanck a serving Democrat member of South Australia's upper house, who helped, last year, to organise protests against Dick Rumsfeld's visit)

If you were then, as other contributors have suggested(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#28768), to shout from the rooftops against the recklessness and stupidity of high immigration as well as high consumption levels when the world is facing, in a matter of years at most, oil shortages, I believe that the Democrats would immediately displace the Greens as the recognised "Third Force" in Australian politics.

Given a few weeks more, it would be the Democrats, and not the Labor Party, which would come to be regarded as the real opposition to this utterly rotten and despicable Federal Coalition government, and by 2007, the Democrats could expect, at least, to be an influential partner in Government.

The ball is in your court: either continue with the present course that will help lead our society further along the path to Hell, or use your voice and influence to help bring about the necessary change in the direction of our society.

“There are still today many people who insist that the jihadist attacks on so many cities are not part of a wider campaign. There are also, legions of paid and unpaid apparatchiks propagating the notion not only that there is no wider campaign, but that any wider campaign has nothing to do with Islam. Such claims – as it becoming clearer with each attack – are based not on knowledge, but on hopefulness, not on truth, but on helplessness. Western governments have so consistently welcomed Islamic Trojan horses into our cities, that the only strategy now apparent to many of them is to pretend the problem is not there, or to pretend that it is other than it is”

http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/targeted-jihad/

The idea you can equate, in scale and kind, Jewish and Muslim violent behaviour must just have been a throw away line. You don’t really mean that.

Daniel Pipes is worried too and he can justify it.

http://jewishworldreview.com/0106/pipes2006_01_24.php3

How can you respect the ethical system of a man who said he always existed? John 8:57-58 And they picked up stones to cast at him.

We know how the story ends, they didn’t think much of him either.

I won’t get into how much your metaphysic is supernatural, but its alot.

Anyway, the issue isn’t whether you see the value of the supernatural, but whether Muslims do and whether the book they derive their ‘ethical system’ from is a threat to Australia.

‘Fundamentalism’ is a religious necessity in Islam given the nature of the revelation (dictation by the Angel Gabriel; a copy resides in Heaven. Jewish/Christian? – God uses his imperfect creatures who are historically and contextually conditioned. The Quran as ‘given’ has no context it is an eternal word not historically conditioned). So the fundamentalism argument doesn’t wash. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA10Ak01.html

If you read the link below you will understand why Islam religiously sanctions political extremism. Just as Christ sanctions us to be Good Samaritans. My point? We’re not all good disciples, but a religious revival in Islam is all it takes.

Open the pdf file

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001307.php

Andrew... "unless our birth rate turns around"

yes.. indeed.. u could have gone one back from there, to "Unless we think less about materialism and more about family, we are in dire straits."

You could add, "Reward families who contribute to the bringing down of our average age by having more children." Perhaps when balancing the cost of supporting an aging population against assisting young fertile families, we might be better off doing the latter ?

Now.. I have just 'got' to dig you about this comment...

"Personally, I'm not a big fan of any religion. Many of them have great ethical frameworks, but I don't see the value of the supernatural stuff"

I broke out into a smile like the joker when I read this. I immediately had 2 mental images in my brain.."Andrew and the alchohol fueled parliament issue" and "Andrew reading his Bible that morning, having a quiet time with God, and putting thoughts of indulging in substances which could effect his capacity to think clearly totally out of his mind " :)

I guess that based on your comment about 'religions' I won't be seeing the 2nd one any time soon, but.. I know God is able to reach into peoples lives in dramatic ways.

But let me encourage you with this: we all make stuff ups.. not you alone. I've made my share... just not quite so publically. I must confess that when that incident occurred, I was a little cocky, but it was more related to policies which I find great difficulty in relating to than anything personal.

I think the main point of separation between Dems (and Greens) and 'the rest' is where you mob start referring to the UN rather than our own national/cultural interest. That is the point where you totally lose me and many others.

You guys need to accept that you are a small minority party, representing not that many people. The Senate should NEVER be used for such a small interest group. Its there to protect states rights.
A useful contribution would be to de-party the Senate.

Thankyou Andrew for your responses. It's so good to be having this debate. On a couple of points you made I would like to say the following:

On the topic of more babies from an aussie women's point of view (please listen BOAZ):
At the moment I believe women are not attracted to childrearing for the following reaons:

1. It's incredibly expensive (at least $300,000 to raise one child)
2. We are concerned about the environment and overpopulation, and until that issue is resolved, we will continue to have less children no matter how many baby bonuses are thrown at us.
3. It's incredibly tiring and draining and goes for 24 hours a day so why pay money to be tired all the time?
4. It can put a serious dent in our careers, and after all the money and work we have put into our education, this is serious consideration.
5. We know that marraige is unreliable and the reality is that a lot of us will have to become single mothers. A single mother with more than one kid is a lot of hard unpaid work.

May I suggest that politicians start giving women some real incentive to start having more children instead of a measley $3000 baby bonus that is completely laughable when you consider that it costs at least $ 300,00 to raise one child.
For example,
1. Free child care so women (or spouses if thats is the case) don't have to compromise their careers. This will encourage more educated women to have them.
2. Salaries equal to what they were earning in the workforce for women or men who do want to stay at home and be full time carers.
3. Improved salaries and conditions for professional child care workers.
4. Children to be tax deductible.
5. Free education and free educational expenses.
Those that choose not to have children could be taxed at a higher rate to help foot the bill.

Minuet get over yourself!

You have a bloody duty to the next generation, you have a bloody duty to all those who sacrificed for us to have the freedom we do. Where else would you want to live?

Your career? - you'll be dead soon enought and the time and fertility you sacrifice for a bloody corporation won't amount to bugger all.

You're tired all the time? You're bloody tired? Are you going to make me bring up all the wars fought for freedom over the millenium?

We have nothing to die for and clearly nothing to live for, given our fertility levels.

What was the 'standard of living' or 'lifestyle'(I hate that word with a passion) of our parents? They chose children. And you and I breathing now have them to thank for that.

Ohhh ours is pale pale sick culture when we talk this way.

Precious bloody plasma TV's precious bloody 4WD's.

Read the articles to do with demographics and civilisational death

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

And read Mark Steyn NOW

http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/its-the-demography/

As for marriage - girls court smarter

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17232182%255E5001167,00.html

Have lots of babies Minuet, trust me you'll be fine.

To Davo:

"You would find that even if immigrants were to be settled in rural areas initially, they would still
find themselves in major cities"

That depends on how you select your migrants. I can think of plenty of migrants, who have happily lived in rural, regional areas all their lives, happy to be out of the ratrace. That includes me. I've lived outside of cities for umm about 30 years now.

"Skills shortages are overcome by telling the kids to come home, not importation (a lazy, short
sighted option"

Davo, get used to it that when kids turn 18, they can do as they please and you can't tell them anything. They are not your slaves either. Meantime there are actually people around who would be happy to live in a regional area and work in an abattoir for instance, generating export $ for the country. Its just a question of migrant selection. If they have worked on a work visa first for 4-5 years doing that job, they will probably stay there.

Froggie
There is definitely room for another political party, based on real sustainability, obviously including low immigration. In fact there is an absolutely yawning gap in Australia’s political spectrum. Not even the Greens come anywhere near it. Yes I think the interest, as demonstrated on this forum, could very quickly exceed the membership of both the Democrats and the Greens.

Alternatively, either the Democrats or the Greens could see the light and adapt accordingly. But for the Demos to do this, they would obviously have to undergo some pretty big policy reversals. It’s a bit beyond them I think. Perhaps it’s not beyond the Greens, although Bob Brown is not exactly a big-picture sustainabilityist.

So when are we going to form the SOS (save our society) party?

.
Welcome to OLO Bucko. An excellent response tying your local experience with population growth into Australia’s migration policy.

.
Well said Daggett.

.
Andrew, you wrote; “Environmental sustainability has to be central to any policy. Everything else – our economy, society, culture – is dependent on this (this is also long-standing Democrat philosophy).”

Glad to hear it. But for the second time I ask how then can you possibly justify continuous high immigration / population growth pertaining directly to sustainability?? Can you please give us a full explanation of this essential point. Thankyou.

Just for the record young Andrew seems to be a little entheomania prone. Those at OLO who insist on promoting Andrew should know that Senator Andrew Bartlett resigned from the leadership of the Democrats in November 2004. Senator Lyn Allison was elected leader of the Democrats, a position she still holds. After her election to the position of leader she toured Canberra city in an open top car to the cheers of thousands.

Andrew Bartlett is not leader of the Democrats. Perhaps his immigration policy is as confused and muddled as his self-assessment. Or is he suffering from oneirataxia?

Andrew what you don't seem to get is that ALL nations, including Australia, have to stabilise their populations as soon as possible. The trouble is that most nations with high population growth rates are rightly) suspicious of international efforts to slow their population growth rates while nations like Australia continue to gallop ahead with their own population growth.

Your background as a social worker and political adviser is admirable, but for my take on population issues I'm rather more inclined to listen to Sir David Attenborough, who ran the BBC brilliantly for a decade or so before returning to first career as a naturalist/film maker.

Attenborough argues that Britain should over the next century return its population to 1870 levels - around half its present population (i.e. to 30 million rather than its present 60 million). This is what he says: "The human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us and it is the poor people of the world who will suffer most."

Attenborough wants population reduction at the heart of government policy. And he is adamant that immigration to Britain will have to be drastically curtailed.

I do not think Attenborough, who has travlled to virtually every corner of this planet, is a racist. In fact I'm positive he's not. So let's immediately drop this puerile nonsense that to be opposed to high immigration automatically qualifies one as a racist.

Who's racist? Maybe it's those people who don't seem to give a damn that 25,000 people a day are dying of starvation (UN figure) and that this terrible suffering will only get worse as the population continues to spiral out of control.

The irony is that the so-called Democrats have constantly ignored the opinion of their own membership on the issue of population stabilisation. The Democrats are in fact totally undemocratic on this issue.

Try educating yourself in demographics. Read the work of your namesake Al Bartlett. Try the streaming video at http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461

The problem is not immigration. The problem is immigration. No it isn’t. Actually immigration is only part of the problem.

In my humble opinion, there are three issues that converge into what can be called the “immigration” problem (for lack of a better term): welfare, multiculturalism and the type of immigrants.

Immigration has been going on for hundreds of years, and it was in most cases a success – with bumps and lumps in the road. Yes there was discrimination and yes there was even violence. Even so, the idea accepted by all was that the immigrants would have to make it on their own and would have to integrate and accept the new country as their own.

No more. Multiculturalism means that they can not only retain their identities from their previous country, but are even encouraged not to integrate. Modern technology and globalization makes this possible. At the same time welfare makes it easy to not work, not mix with others and have plenty of time for mischief on your hands.

The modern Welfare State is also a magnet in itself. I hate to break it to you liberals, but millions of people come to the West just for the benefits. Period. This attracts the worse kind of immigrants. In the southwestern USA, the big thing in the last 10 years is to have a child born in the USA, at the taxpayers expense. The first thing they do after getting the Birth Certificate – before even going home – is go to DES (Department of Economic Security) to receive SSI, AFDC and Food Stamps. This is worth about $400 a month. And that is just the beginning – factor in medical costs, schools, crime, etc…. These people come not for a better life or be become part of society, but for the money and benefits. Think about it.

Now for the touchy part. Lets talk about the new type of immigrant that is taught to despise the host country. Lets talk about immigrants that follow a religion of hate and anger. Lets talk about Muslims.

Continued...

The wave of Muslims immigration to the West is a new phenomena. Before the 1960s Muslims had never really been part of the great human migrations of the last 400 years. Indeed, people coming from Muslim countries were usually Christian Arabs fleeing the oppression of Sharia and Islamic societies, as was the case of the Copts from Egypt and older generation of Lebanonese in Australia.

Starting around the 1970s the Muslims began coming, bringing the hate and anger of their religion. Yes, the Quran is filled with verses promoting hate, oppression and even killing of non-Muslims – and if a Muslim denies this, laugh in his face. He lies. When they were few, these constituted no problem, but when they reach a certain level, the problems start. Look around and where you see Muslims in the West, you see unrest, anger (and also crime, rape, honor killings, etc…).

It all goes back to Mohammud. According to Islam’s own writings this man waged dozens of wars on unbelievers, and preached enough hate so that it had endured for 1400 years. This man was also a murderer, torturer, slaver, rapist and a wife beater, yet is considered to be a great example of morals and virtue by Muslims. This may explain much of the actions by Muslims in modern societies. (Note to Muslim readers: if you question this I will provide specific references and links to Islamic sites proving this, so don’t waste your time or insult our intelligence).

And things are getting worse. Muslim communities in the West are becoming more radicalized. In Islam, the “conservatives” always win because they have Mohammed and the Quran on their side. Things will get worse.

So it is not, as the article says, that the problems of “second generation Australians of Lebanese background stem back to inadequate settlement assistance.” That is denial. The problem is their religion of hate and anger that makes them despise the rest of us. Lets not play politically correct word games, blaming everybody and everything except the real culprit: Islam.

Things will get much worse.

John kactuzki

Daggett, your earlier consecutive posts were brilliant and reflect my view also. I do hope Andrew and the Dems policy team give them close attention. I would like to see the Dems restored as the third power on the basis of ecological sustainability.

Top marks to Andrew for his participation on this forum.

Beazley promises free TAFE

His announcement marks a shift from the previous Labor strategy of releasing policies in quick succession before elections.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/beazley-promises-free-tafe-in-new-policy-push/2006/01/29/1138469608038.html

This is Howard's archilles' heel. The skills shortage,HECS fees and subsequent skills immigration policy show voters two things:
* He has no respect for voters and doesn't believe they can be trained.
* He has never lived in NORMAL suburban SYDNEY otherwise he would know that increased immigration was a serious threat to 'Quiet Enjoyment' of our city.

This initiative WILL bring Howard to his knees.

Peter Debeham should also know that NSW Labor exposed their own archilles' heel when they bought into the old RTA "Keep Left Unless Overtaking" blooper. Everyone knows there is no such thing as safe speeding. This policy means "Keep Left Unless SPEEDING". All Peter Debenham has to do is announce his own policy initiative of "Keep Left Unless Travelling at Speed Limit". This exposes NSW Labor's secret policy to allow elitists, government personnel and certain donor transport operatives to legally speed.
This SEEMS trivial but NSW Labor spent a lot of energy on it last year.

Additionally, the fact that NSW Labor has already planned housing for one million immigrants subverts any discussion we may have on the matter on this thread. Like the desal debacle, we will be given plenty of time to debate various alternatives and then Iemma will do what he wants anyway.

It seems to me then, that the real topic under discussion on this thread is how to return Australia to true Democracy. It is thus worth remembering, when things aren't right, when governments serve themselves, MacBanks and property developers and not their electorates, it often only takes the exposure of one weak link for them to be brought into line with reasonable public expectations

Amel. Everybody is a racist; we have to be, its part of our survival instinct. There is nothing wrong with believing that you are better, so long as you don’t do anything illegal or immoral.

If there were two people and you had to choose only one to take with you; one was of your own culture/race and one was not and everything else was equal, you would choose your own. Why? Because that’s just the way it is, because blood is thicker than water and nobody would expect you to do otherwise, that is your obligation and right. That’s not racism, that’s favoritism and/or Freedom of Choice.

Jolonda please speak for yourself, everyone isn't a racist like you say.I know theres different types of racist,like those polite "so-call caring types" (those ones are hard to identify)until you get to really know them,then you make a visit to their house,then one comment "slips out" or maybe three.So keep you telling yourself, well, he/she isn't racist,some of her/his family members are ethnics(or does she hold racist beliefs about them as well)? But those comments really made you feel angry&upset. The polite racist, as well as those redneck looking ones ,who are not scared to bash you over the head,some regular.I wouldn't say thats everyone. A good amount.

Anyways jolonda,If holding racist beliefs makes you feel comfortable and safe,then thats you.You should remember that noone has power forever,the majority rules,but not all the time.Everthing has a season.

"I don’t advocate closing our borders, I advocate net zero immigration with a doubling of the refugee intake and a greatly improved international aid effort."

Dumbest. Idea. Ever. Humanitarian refugees are the worst of all performing migrant groups. It would be much better for Australia to accept zero humanitarian entrants and simply increase our intake of skilled tradespeople. We only take refugees out of the goodness of our hearts, they are a net drain on the rest of Australia.

"The religious views of some fundamentalist Muslims are intertwined with political ideology. This does present significant problems."

"Significant problems" like actively plotting to kill people who don't share their religion.

"However, it won't be tackled by trying to cut ourselves off from mainstream Muslims. That would make the problems worse.

Fundamentalist Jews could also be said to be intertwined with a political ideology. This also causes problems, but trying to cut off contact with all Jews wouldn't help either."

What a disgusting example of moral equivalence. Please feel free to go ahead and point out all the examples around the world where innocent people have been targets of violence by Jewish extremists.

Ridiculous stuff. Stop trying to whitewash Islam and people might take you more seriously.

The fact is that Andrew cannot come up with a good answer to my question of why we should continue to accept Islamic immigrants when we could easily fill our quota with people who adhere to more peaceful religions.

Instead, he tries to make out that all religions are equally evil. This is so obviously not true it's a joke.

The problem as I see it comes in comments like the one from Amel, Monday, 30 January.

I am speaking for myself when I say that I believe that everybody is racist, of course to different degrees and against different cultures and for different reasons.

The problem with ‘some’ people and cultures is that they don’t want to allow others to even “think” negative thoughts about their culture or race or say anything that they don’t want to hear. They want to control our thoughts and actions and force us to believe 100% that they are pure and they are right. If we don’t, they expect us to keep it to ourselves so that we don’t offend them or make them angry. If we don’t act like they want us to act and don’t say what they want to hear we are automatically referred to as “racists” and discredited. It’s a process; it’s a type of bullying.

Now back to my previous little example on my other post - in Australia if you had to choose from two people and one was of your own culture/race, say Aussie, and the other was say Muslim and you chose your own. You could be accused of racism and maybe even sued. We have lost our Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Choice. We should be concerned as this is a free country and we should have Freedom of Choice without automatically being discredited, considered racists, and our rights removed. Otherwise we risk being taken over because those that keep calling us racists have Legislation on their side.

Those that do not allow you to think or have preferences, ideas, opinions without calling you a racist in that negative tone are the ones that are truly racists as they seem to think that they are perfect and superior and that they can do or say no wrong.

Thanks Merideth. I don’t see myself as a racist in the negative sense of the word. I do however, have preferences and I have my reasons, some reasons probably more worthy than others – who doesn’t?

Kay,

I knew what you meant, and your post was not “rather stupid”, it wasn’t stupid at all. You were referring, rightly, to ‘shouters’ – those people whom you know are angry and spluttering and spitting when they use upper case. It is universally seen as rude and ignorant to use upper case.

It’s a pity we cannot underline or italicise things we want to make a special point of. I’ve tried it, but it doesn’t work on OLO.

Don’t worry about ‘articulation’. You express your views simply, honestly and politely. This has always been the best way. Some of us tend to waffle a little.

Keep on keeping on.

It is very necessary to point out the racists in this discussion, especially those who attempt to subvert the hard won freedoms Australia enjoys. Racism is contrary to Australian values and it sickens me how that tiny minority want to stain our national reputation, damage our community spirit and hinder our economic progress.

When decent people hear a racist argument, they discard it -- it's worthless. They pity the person who presents it and wonder why do they do it.

When Friedrich claims that the contributions of non-white Australians would fit onto a postage stamp (28jan2006) one can only react with astonishment. It clearly fits the definition of racism and like all racist arguments it is clearly wrong.

The rejection of racism unites us. It is one of the pillars of peace and prosperity, both locally and internationally. Rejection of racism is also an important spiritual teaching.

Jolanda's defence of racism (30Jan2006) is as pathetic as the idea itself. She says she is not a "racist in the negative sense of the word." Well, there is no positive in racism. She claims that discrediting racism is a type of bullying. That is like saying discrediting bullying is a type of bullying!

To everyone else, please continue to discuss multiculturalism, community values, overpopulation - whatever you like. Discussing these topics critically does not mean you are racist. Rejection of racism is jointly supported by conservatives, moderates and progressives alike.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001307.php

I have just read the .PDF file above, referred to by Martin Ibn Warriq in his post on Sunday 29th January. It has been a revelation to me!
Thanks a lot Martin; you are doing a service to the Free World.
This is absolutely chilling stuff, and makes me glad that we only have a small Muslim population here.
I recommend every poster on this site to read it.
It will make you realise that what we face, in the so-called “Religion of Peace”; i.e. Islam, makes all arguments about Multiculturalism and Racism, Immigration etc. look utterly puerile.

Let's test Andrew Bartlett's claim that mass immigration is good for us. First, no one disputes that there are cultural benefits to having some immigration or that there are uniquely talented people who would be an asset anywhere; the issue is the huge numbers. Sen. Bartlett himself admits that huge numbers aren't great for the environment. According to the ABS in its last two Measuring Australia's Progress reports every environmental indicator has been getting worse except for urban air quality. I doubt if many of us really appreciate such things as houses built wall to wall at the sides and backs in our cities or permanent water restrictions. Growthist politicians sometimes bring up Yellow Peril invasion issues. Leaving aside why China, say, would want our deserts when it can't populate its own, modern countries are defended by technology, not masses of cannon fodder. Consider Israel if you doubt this. If the politicians thought that we were in danger of invasion they would be pushing for nuclear weapons and missiles, not more people, especially not from places that might prove hostile.

The recent draft Productivity Commission report on immigration found no significant economic benefit to the existing population, even if you put zero value on environmental deterioration or congestion and resource shortages. This matches the 1997 report "The New Americans" of the US National Academy of Sciences. There are no shortages of labour in Australia. The former head of Centrelink has estimated that real unemployment is 15-18%. 16% of the working age population are living on welfare, as opposed to 3% in the 1960s when we really did have full employment.

The US actually provides a good test case. There were open borders in the early 20th century, but after some very bloody rioting between American blacks and migrants after WWI, immigration was essentially reduced to zero net from 1921-1965. Urban wages tripled in the 1920s and there was huge and widely shared economic growth after WWII. Why is the minimum wage there now worth less than in 1960 (www.epinet.org)?

I think its time to admit that andrew bartlett is totally unfit for the job. From environmental implications, right throught to understanding the sectarian nature of the muslim community, HE HAS NO IDEA (suck on those capitals, who cares what caps people use anyway).

Lets start suggesting our own policies, as some have already done.

I think we should stop immigration and keep refugee immigration the same as now, until our infrastructure can handle them (or at least us). I also think it would be wise to give the muslim community $100000 or so per family and be rid of their ideology. $100000 could easily buy a mansion with enough left over to live of for several years in afghanistan etc. Of course those who are refugees are always welcome and those muslim refugees are not included in this statement, unless they request to go to a third country. The five to ten year break will give all australians the time needed to truly assess where we take migrants from, and who we prefer. Part of this strategy would include the acceptance of the pacific islander's suggestion of thier seasonal guest workers (for fruit picking etc). the mining sector will need to raise its payments to employees so as to get their workers, they rake in the cash anyway. Fruit growers on the other hand, arn't raking in nothing but thier fruit, back into the ground coz noone will pick it before it goes rotten (or the price is too high).

If only OLO had a "agreement' button, so we could see how many agreed with each policy (and or statement in usual threads, this would save the "i agree with blabla" people who don't add anything but length to the thread)

“I think its time to admit that Andrew Bartlett is totally unfit for the job.” Fide mae, it pains me greatly, but I’ll have to agree.

.
Yobbo, I wrote; “I don’t advocate closing our borders, I advocate net zero immigration with a doubling of the refugee intake and a greatly improved international aid effort", to which you replied; “Dumbest idea ever. Humanitarian refugees are the worst of all performing migrant groups. It would be much better for Australia to accept zero humanitarian entrants and simply increase our intake of skilled tradespeople. We only take refugees out of the goodness of our hearts, they are a net drain on the rest of Australia.”

This indicates that you have a very narrow perspective, seeing only what you perceive to be good for us in the short term.

Of course we take refugees for non-selfish reasons. Is there something wrong with that? Yes they are a net drain on Australia, at least in the short term. But if we were to double our refugee intake within a total immigration intake of not more than 35 000, the net drain on Australia from immigration would be reduced to about a third or less of what it is now.

You think of our refugee intake purely in terms of what it costs us. Similarly, you see only the apparent short-term benefits of taking more skilled migrants, with no thought of what skills we really need, why we aren’t concentrating on training up our own citizens with these skills, what it means for the skills base in countries where these people come, what taking in more people would mean with respect to sustainability when we already have a ridiculously high immigration intake, and so on.

So what is really dumb? This sort of terribly narrow perspective.

Fida

I’m so sick of them, I’d happily pay extra to pay em off and get them out, even if I had to pay it off weekly for the rest of my life!

This is why I despise the vile islam in my country

http://www.islam.org.au/articles/16/RACISM.HTM

read this link and pass it on

Careful Meredith, Fida Mae could soon have you reduced to an agreement button!

What was it that Paul Keating said about the Senate?

How can you get "opps" out of "oops".

On the right of this debate you have "Friedrich" and on the left you have the pseudo-intellectuals( the ones with a phd in gall). In the middle are the rest.

The way this country is going we'll be lucky to get a republic, especially with "gall" and the Senate involved.

We have three problems in Australia today. Multiculturalism, Muslim immigration and pseudo-intellectuals who should have spent less time at university reading Karl Marx and Mills and Boon and more time drinking their fluffy ducks.

David Latimer. In dictionary.com there are two meanings to the word racism as such.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

If you say that both the interpretations of racism are negative and that we are not even allowed to have a belief that a particular race is different and superior to another without being seen as bad and being racists then Muslims must be the most racist of the lot because they believe that their race is superior and their Religion is the only true religion and some have even declared Jihad against those that they call infidels.

If all people were good, then it wouldn’t be a problem as people would accept that some are going to believe that they are more superior than others, so what! Like I said before, so long as you don’t do anything illegal or immoral and we treat others with respect we should have Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Choice.

Calling somebody a racist just for voicing their concerns and opinions about other cultures is a form of bullying. Just like discrediting a person for voicing their concerns about bullying is a form of bullying.

The word racism is being used as a weapon and as protection by some.

I just look at the tolerance levels of the different religions and my survival instincts tell me that if Muslims believe that they are superior to others (yet they refuse to see or acknowledge that superiority as racism) and they are known not to be tolerant of the ways of others and are known to resort to violence, then it isn't in our best interest to be putting our head in the sand.

Jolanda, have you had a read of the article Merideth has been posting links to?

Whilst aspects of it are very concerning it is at the same time a fairly strong rejection of racism. Certainly a sense of the superiority of muslim belief in the article despite it's stated rejection of elitism but that's not racism and has no substantial difference to the views expressed by many christains on this site and elsewhere.

It's worth remembering that the article was published in the summer of 1996/1997, my own views on a lot of issues have changed a lot since then and the world has changed fairly significantly. I'd like to know if Keysar Trad's views have changed at all in that time.

You might also note that muslim is not a race, it is a word used to describe those who embrace the Islamic faith in the same way that christain is not a race.

R0bert

Could those reading this post place a character (A) etc at the top of their next post indicating a choice from one of the following. If they have another choice give it the next character in sequence and indicate the option so others can choose. This way we can gather a straw poll from those reading comments on what their preferences are.

(A) Reduction in Australia's current level of population (State a figure less than present population)

(B)Skilled Migrants only at current net levels. (Or state a figure higher or lower than current levels)

(C) Skilled Migrants and Refugees only to net levels (Or state a figure higher or lower than current levels)

(D) Migrants only from countries with the same cultural values as the majority of Australians retaining current net levels.

(E) Increase the current levels of migration from unspecified cultures. (State a final figure of what level you would see as optimon for Australia eg 55,000,000.)

(F) Increase Migrant and Refugee intake and spend X resourses on settlement programmes for those not familiar with our social and cultural values. (State a figure of how many and a level of expenditure per person)

(G) My personal choice would be to retain current net levels of population by immigration equating equal to the similar intellectual levels as are leaving for permanent overseas positions. With a genuine refugee intake of not more than 24,000 or 0.001% of the National population per annum with real education and housing settlement programmes for up to one year.

Pliny the Elder (ad77) in his monumental work titled “Natural History” documented heavily what he referred to as the “monstrous races”. Ever since then (and probably even earlier, if we are to believe the Old Testament writers) the fear of “the other” has been an integral, albeit tragic, part of human society. And since earliest times politicians and leaders have used a fear of the other to bolster fragile positions by creating a common enemy. It saddens me that this forum seems to capture the fact that we haven’t really progressed very far as a human species. We are still obsessed with blaming someone else whose race, religion or worldview is in anyway different to our own for the problems we face in our lives, rather than face the possibility that it is our own laziness or inadequacies that create our problems.

I worked in the Balkans last year - a fascinating microcosm of the divisions that tear apart the world right now. I wonder if we are able, as a nation, to face the possibility that, 500 years from now our children’s, children’s, children will have taken the fear of the other, passed from generation to generation to the point of stupidity that the Balkans has reached. Do we have the courage to accept that the world is changing and it is our own inability to cope with change that leads to a need to blame someone else for our own inflexibility. Do we have the courage to change – or do we want to wind the clock back to a perceived “golden age” of Australia where the white Australia policy reigned supreme and muslims stayed in isolation. The same time period in the Christian world, when the fear of the other was a fear of the catholic or the protestant typified in the stupidity of Northern Ireland.

One final truth that we have to face up to. Fundamentalist Christianity is just as intolerant as fundamentalist Islam. Both require nothing short of absolute conversion of the other to their way of thinking and their world views. Neither is right.

Leigh

Thank you for your last post. Much appreciated. I'm glad that someone understood what I was on about.

Cheers mate
Kay

Robert,

people say its impossible to reform islam to Western standards and i agree, but really its our only option, but how do you reform a deep religious conviction?

Homophobia and Islamic fundamentalism 2002

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/519/519p7b.htm

One last point, those who speak of separation of church and state as Yabby did 28 Jan should look to the US. It is not true to assert that we have a separation between church and state in the US, and increasingly in Australia the same is true. The influence of the christian right on US and Aussie politics is deplorable at best. Also look to the Middle Ages of Europe – no separation there. The church ran Europe. In fact if intolerance was practiced by anyone back then, it was Christian intolerance that was at issue.

Now to a more positive posting. BOAZ-David – you asked me to list related issues in a systems view of overpopulation. I took a short time last night to build a Mindmap. It is unfortunate that graphics can’t be posted here as the picture would tell a thousand words.

So a quick listing would give-

Overpopulation, immigration, birth rate, aging population, social security pressures, demand for services (who is going to provide all that nursing home assistance?), economic growth (is this a creditable measure anymore or does it increase environmental degradation?), environmental sustainability (what is our sustainable capacity? Can we solve the water problem? Can we overcome our obsession with car ownership?), globalization of the workforce, impacts of mixed cultures, loss of low skilled jobs overseas and need to reskill the workforce, religious intolerance, cultural clash, language training for new immigrants, affluenza, gross consumerism, suburban sprawl, greenhouse gas issues ...

AS you can see, it doesn’t take long to multiply the range of issues which all come together to shape new policies on the future of Australia.

Finally, Andrew quoted the view that based on extant immigration rates, population would stabilize by 2050. Many attacked him. Could I draw attention to the CSIRO “Future Dilemma’s” Study. From the executive summary:

The base case scenario gives 25 million people by 2050 and that population size should be maintained indefinitely if the assumed birth rates and immigration rates are maintained.

The base case scenario referred to here is an immigration rate of 70000 per year.

sladeb,
Wake up man you are in Australia now. Christianity is the dominant culture. Since you state fundamentalist Christians are just as inflexible as fundamentalist Muslims I would ask you on what street in Australia do you fear the terrorist activites of fundamentalist Christians or Jews.

The very fact that you have identified these people as different and inflexible indicates you see them as the "other" so you are just as much as inflexible as you claim others to be. Wake up and identify those who might easily kill you as part of a religious jihad. You may pretend to be tolerant of all - but there are those who are indifferent to your attitude of tolerance - because you will tolerate anything. Sentimental but not realistic. There needs to be an internal attitudinal change and forgiving enemies, as Jesus taught, this still remains the only answer.

Arguing about which particular religious/cultural tradition you prefer is equivalent to arguing about which pianola roll/wax cylinder you would like to hear playing in the saloon of the unsinkable Titanic. What you SILLY people don't seem to realise is that you are on board the Titanic and the captain has just given orders to run ALL the engines FULL SPEED AHEAD. Against his better judgement. He knows better than anybody that what he is doing is suicidal, but the madman who owns the ship wants to break the record for the transatlantic passage. To get good newspaper coverage. To get more dollars. I am totally disgusted with the b.s. that has been flying around over the last 24 hours about cultural traditions, can't you realise that this sort of petty bickering is completely irrelevant to what is actually happening?

As for Andrew Bartlett, I challenge him to listen to the argument of Al Bartlett (http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461) and refute it with intelliegent argument.

The poster who said the Democrats would have a chance of saving themselves from total political oblivion by presenting the Australian voting public with a choice is right on the money. At present voters who would like to see population stabilisation have no-one to vote for because the entire political apparatus appears to have been captured by the property developer/infrastructure/real estate bandwagon and parliament merely serves to give the illusion of democracy so that the plutocracy is free to continue to line their own pockets at everyone else's expense.

Mr Bartlett says the Australian population will stabilise with 100,000 net migration. I challenge him to find any evidence for this. He can search high and low but he won't, because it is absolute moonshine. Professor Don Aitkin might also try educating himself some time. he says Mr Bartlett's piece is "well reasoned and thoughtful". How can you say that, Professor, when Mr Bartlett has come up with a piece of mathematics that is completely ABSURD? Australia's population WILL NOT stabilise with 100,000 net immigration. This shows just how stale, flat and unprofitable is the title "professor".

It is interesting to read Friedrich and Jolanda's contrasting posts.

Jolanda: you have the right to speak as you please and if you believe that I am trying to attack you personally, my apologies but have not tried to. What would be the point? If you want to read a personal attack, then look at Friedrich's posts.

What I am attacking is racism - both the belief and the prejudice that results from the belief. It's your choice whether to own the label. It's your choice whether to defend racism or reject it.

A few people have responded to Jolanda's post with the argument that fundamentalist Christians, like many Muslims, believe their religion to be superior. I don't think that counter-argument is any more valid than Jolanda's argument.

When it comes to religion, there is the invitation to be converted. A Christian hopes you will one day become a Christian. A Muslim hopes for you to become a Muslim. In Judaism it's not as simple as that, but one can become Jewish.

Racism is different. An X-type person is neven acceptable to a Z-type racist. Just another reason why racism abhorent.

meredeth, first some assumptions
- Islam comes in different strengths and approaches.
- We have a substantial number of muslims in Australia already and they are not likely to go away.
- Extremism for the mass market does not exist in isolation. There are things which encourage it's growth and things which hinder it's growth.
- A desire to encroachments on secular freedoms and issues like homophobia are not limited to hard line muslims but are shared by most religious fundies and some others.

I believe that our best hope lies in ensuring that we don't provide fuel for the extremists to whip up support. Rather we provide the tools for moderates to show that muslims are treated fairly. Continual picking on muslims and talk of singling them out only provides ammunition for extremists to whip up support.

- The thing we most need to be doing is breaking down barriers where ever we can do so without surrendering our freedom. More resouces into SBS and the like, use it for propaganda to promote core values in a manner that enthic peoples can understand and relate to.
- We also need to ensure that unpopular opinions can still be heard. What proportion of One Nation voters voted for them not because of credible solutions but because of disgust at the attempts to silence Pauline Hanson? I suspect a significant proportion. Are there concerns which extremists can use to whip up support that we can address without harming others. Would we take the wind out of their sails by having some cover up beaches just as some states have clothes optional beaches.
- We need to support moderates as far as practical, do whatever we can to ensure that the voices muslims in this country are hearing are those willing to find a muslim way of living within this great country. I'm not sure how to do this without making laws about religion or leaving the more radical ones feeling shut out (leading to stronger radical views etc) but we have some clever thinkers in this country.

That's a start
R0bert

"Wake up man you are in Australia now. Christianity is the dominant culture. Since you state fundamentalist Christians are just as inflexible as fundamentalist Muslims I would ask you on what street in Australia do you fear the terrorist activites of fundamentalist Christians or Jews."

Philo, sladeb said that both were as intolerant as one another, in that he is correct. Obviously, as your mob these days preach the "jesus loves you" story, they can't burn heretics at the stake like they used to.

Get used to it, Aus is now a secular culture. 90% don't bother to go to church, football, sport etc are far more important in their lives.

Yup the Xtian fundies are just as intolerant. They want to tell us how to live our lives, they try to use politics as a weapon. Who is campaigning against RU 486 right now? Well the churches of course!

"But if we were to double our refugee intake within a total immigration intake of not more than 35 000, the net drain on Australia from immigration would be reduced to about a third or less of what it is now."

You might have a point except that immigration is not a net drain on Australia. Only the humanitarian and family reunion strains of immigration are a net loss. Other forms of immigration are a net gain for Australia. A sensible person would try to maximise the beneficial types and minimise the detrimental.

"Similarly, you see only the apparent short-term benefits of taking more skilled migrants, with no thought of what skills we really need"

The skilled migration intake actually does take into account what skills we really need, and people who possess those skills are given first priority.

"why we aren’t concentrating on training up our own citizens with these skills"

Because 1.) it's much cheaper to import skilled people than to train them themselves. 2.) to even have people worth training we would have to first pay people to have more babies, and then later pay those babies to study. This is a double cost to us.

"what it means for the skills base in countries where these people come"

Who cares? Immigration is supposed to benefit Australia, it's not some global goodwill program.

Our immigration intake is not "ridiculously high". Our immigration intake increases at an inverse rate to our natural population growth rate. As people have fewer kids, we allow more net migration. The total population growth rate of Australia has been pretty constant at around 1.5% per year for the last decade.

"So what is really dumb?"

You are, by the looks of things.

"This sort of terribly narrow perspective."

The barrel of a rifle is also narrow. Narrow and accurate.

Andrew this link, suggested by Thermoman, is absolutely ESSENTIAL viewing: Al Bartlett (http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461).

Dr Bartlett most wonderfully and succinctly explains why there is so much concern about population growth and peak oil. Please check it out.

.
Yobbo, you should do the same, to see what 1.5% continuous growth really means.

“You might have a point except that immigration is not a net drain on Australia. Only the humanitarian and family reunion strains of immigration are a net loss. Other forms of immigration are a net gain for Australia.”

All Immigration is a net drain when you consider environmental impact. Economics that doesn’t take this into account is at best pseudo-economics. In real economic terms it is most definitely a drain in the longer term.

“Because 1.) it's much cheaper to import skilled people than to train them themselves. 2.) to even have people worth training we would have to first pay people to have more babies, and then later pay those babies to study. This is a double cost to us.”

In reply to 1. Yes, so as is our stupid way, we pander to what is cheaper and easier in the short term rather than setting ourselves up for long-term security.

In reply to 2) what?? I’ve searched an inkling of sense in this, but there isn’t one.

“Our immigration intake is not "ridiculously high". Our immigration intake increases at an inverse rate to our natural population growth rate. As people have fewer kids, we allow more net migration. The total population growth rate of Australia has been pretty constant at around 1.5% per year for the last decade.”

Our population growth is ridiculously high. Immigration makes up about half of it. “ It makes no sense to increase immigration as the birth rate falls. Besides, the total birthrate has remained high, while the fertility rate has slowly fallen.

“Who cares? Immigration is supposed to benefit Australia, it's not some global goodwill program.”

Believe it or not most of the good people on OLO do care. Yes it is partly a goodwill program, and so it should be

Hi Robert. I do tend to mix up race and culture in my writing, but I do hope that most people would understand what I mean.

I had tried to read the article Meredith posted and that you refer to but I found it so draining. It was difficult to focus on. Maybe you could give me a run down if you have 350 words free.

Everybody is busy challenging each other trying to prove whether racism does or doesn’t exist.

Wouldn’t it be so much easier if we all just agreed that Racism does exist in every one of us - to different degrees, with different results, and for different reasons? It’s in our Genes and mixed with our Pride.

If we all just agreed that, because we can all choose to put our faith in different gods and have different beliefs then we must all believe that the one we have chosen is superior to the others – otherwise we would have chosen the other.

Racism is really only an emotion or a belief. Discrimination is an action, they are two different things and the word racism shouldn’t mean both. Not too many people really believe that one human body is more superior to the others. They just think their choices are more superior.

The system is not set up to consider us all equal and all worthy of protection. That is an issue that needs to be addressed. Unfair and unjust discrimination should be against the law regardless of your race or culture.

Damian where exactly did I say you attacked me?

I agree with you when you say that a Christian hopes that you will one day become a Christian but I am not so sure that Muslims will be content to just hope that one day we will all become Muslim

'Yobbo' (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#29306),

Thank you.

The content of your contributions reveal, probably far more accurately than what we might assume from what Andrew Bartlett has written, the true motivation of many high immigration proponents.

It is not about care for one's fellow human being. It is about grubby motivations of personal enrichment, regardless of the consequences for poor people from other countries, or even for citizens of your own country. There is certainly no concern shown for future generations.

You show no concern for your countrywomen and countrymen who have missed out, and are missing out on training opportunities because this mean-spirited and bone lazy Government would rather poach skilled workers from poor overseas nations than get off its own backside in order to provide those opportunities to its own citizens.

In regard to the supposed "net gain" brought to Australia by immigration, had you read the SMH report, mentioned by a previous contributor at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/more-skilled-migrants-will-lift-economy-but-theres-a-catch/2006/01/16/1137260004193.html?

It said: 'But the Productivity Commission says there is a catch: little, if any, of those higher wages will be received by Australian-born workers. "It's probably true that the gains are largely snaffled by the migrants themselves," said a commissioner, Judith Sloan.'

As one who has been both unemployed and underemployed as a result of this Government's skilled migration program I can readily relate to this.

(toBeContinued)

(continuedFromAbove)

Perhaps 'Yobbo', you might care to tell this forum exactly how you personally benefit from immigration. Are you a property speculator who wishes to use the crude means of increasing demand for land through population increase to allow you to profit at everyone else's expense? Are you a landlord? A mortgage broker? A real estate agent? Are you engaged in the flogging off of places in our universities, once affordable to most Australians to the highest overseas bidder? Are you an immigration agent, a lawyer or perhaps a recruitment agent?

Clearly, there are quite a few who stand to benefit immensely from immigration and that is why the media facilitated chorus in favour of immigration has become almost deafening in recent years.

Yet the benefit they receive is at overall the expense of this society, of the planet as a whole and of future generations.

The only reason that some economists are able to present immigration as economically beneficial is that they rely on the deeply flawed GDP measure, which was designed, in the 1930's by US economist Simon Kuznets, for an entirely different purpose. In 1934 he urged the US congress to not use the GDP as a measure of prosperity, but his plea has been ignored by those economists right up to the very day.

One final point, 'Yobbo', I noticed your remark "The barrel of a rifle is also narrow. Narrow and accurate."

I, for one, don't find this to be very funny, if that was your intention.

I call on you to unequivocally apologise to to other forum contributors and visitors for having made this remark and to offer us an explanation as to why you chose to do so.

If you fail to do so, then I call upon the administrators to revoke your rights to contribute to any Onlne Opinion forum until you have done so.

The truth the PM and the Democrats don't want us to know about immigration qu0tas:

Boss of the Cock-fights tells birds to put their manners back in.

The Boss said he agreed with the chief justice and believed fighting birds were not polite enough to each other, especially in supermarket checkouts and tollway overtaking lanes.

"I think there are certain vulgar expressions that have no place on television and if there's not some self discipline exercise in that I think cock-fighting standards will continue to deteriorate."

I will also, in concert with MY Private Public Partners, be building bigger fight pits and charging greater admissions to boost MY economy. May the best birds win.

The Boss did say that he was bringing in 140,000 new fighting birds per year and he expected tax-paying birds will pay more to build additional New Migrating Fighting-Bird Centres to give them a head start and maybe some manners.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-to-public-improve-your-manners/2006/01/31/1138590476814.html

Internal Cock-fight Inc memo: Management will continue its aggressive propaganda program to ensure the birds never find out that overcrowding in ill equipped pits is the reason they fight. We must continue to ply the trade that THEY should feel guilty about fighting. This makes for better spectacles and easier to control birds. We DON'T want them finding out the truth. They might join as one and fight US.

Give it up boys and girls - MC is as Australian as meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars - it is likely the pie manufacturer is over seas owned as is the car manufacturer and some American laboratory has taken a patent out on the kangaroo DNA - but hey! we can still call an Ugg boot our own.

All this migration has and still is according to some sending us to hell in a hand cart - over run with migrants, full of shopping strips with foreign language signage, governments grants to ethnic groups, embargoes on ham sandwiches at cetain public functions - we still manage to slip 5 of our major cities into the worlds top ten most livable cities list

Apart from the fact we treat large numbers of new comers like garbage, many of them still stay and most of them contribute to our quality of life and have got us to where we are to day - which remains by most measures not too bloody bad.

Cronulla, 9/11, London 7/7, Osama, Islamism - are a bloody side show and the sooner we focus on getting on with our lives the better off we'll all be.

I simply do not care about other cultures encroaching on mine; if my culture is worth preserving it will survive - if it is one worth saving it will adapt - thats what cultures do - if they dont they die.

Any one would think Australia and Australianess is some sort of cultural relic preserved in aspic for all time. And I am sick reading about our values - and our "way of life" and for that matter our heritage.

I beseech the editors give any story that features the words Islam, Mulitculturalism, immigration, and/or terrorism a wide berth.

If migration and population growth were as beneficial as sneekeepete claims then this would show up in economic studies and international comparisons. As a number of us have repeatedly pointed out, the Productivity Commission has found no significant benefit. Finland is number one on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index and among the top 10 on the UN Human Development Index, with a population growth rate of 0.16% and net migration of 0.89 per thousand as opposed to 3.91 in Australia (CIA World Fact Book). It and the other Nordic countries also outrank Australia and the US on environmental management and the welfare of the poorer citizens.

The people who support high population growth either personally benefit from it (as described by Daggett) or are insulated from its effects. Although I can't say anything about sneekeepete personally, the demographic with the same views is characterised by jobs that require (recognized) tertiary qualifications, fluent English, and often an intimate knowledge of the culture. Such jobs tend to be safe from foreign competition. They also tend to be relatively well paid so that the people who have them can afford to opt out of crumbling public health and education and to live in suburbs, possibly even gated, that are too expensive for the underclass or the problem migrants. Speaking up for migrants allows such people to appear noble and generous at no cost to themselves. As the situation deteriorates, they may even benefit from nannies and gardeners who will work for next to nothing or from renting out their little investment property to 14 or 15 migrants who will sleep in shifts, as in the US. Naturally they would like to shut up people who are objecting to this cosy situation.

Sneakpete,

"Any one would think Australia and Australianess is some sort of cultural relic preserved in aspic for all time. And I am sick reading about our values - and our "way of life" and for that matter our heritage. "

Get over your cringe. This IS a multicultural society. Only illiterate people who live in cocoons would debate that at all, or even bring it up. Never mind what Howard says about history or the fair mindedness of Australians. The geezer is just OUT OF TOUCH with reality. He lives at the lodge and Kirribilli, NOT in Liverpool where hard working taxi drivers are murdered for the night's takings.

What intelligent people worry about is overpopulation. About the chaos that stems naturally from putting too many people too close together without a thought to anything except political leverage and 'corporate profits for post ministerial jobs' schemes.

Unless you live at Kirribilli house and have chauffered limos to get you from A to B, you know you can't move in Sydney. Its GRIDLOCKED. Only people like yourself or the unbelievably ignorant Andrew Bartlett would prescribe adding more people. Where do you live, on the Moon? Only total cretins would believe that the NSW Government can kick start money-losing public transport initiatives and demand that we abandon our modern Gods ... the car and the SUV.

And don't tell people we should put in regional centres, the 100,000 immigrants per year coming to Sydney. Morris Iemma has already announced property developments for 1,000,000 extra people over the next 10 years. To be built by his favourite MacCompanies group. 100,000 people a year have been PLANNED FOR by NSW government (dubious) electoral mandate, no matter what limp ideas people come up with on this thread.

"Our immigration intake increases at an inverse rate to our natural population growth rate" (Yobbo).
This does seem to be the intention of the Coalition, Labor, and Andrew Bartlett's style for The Democrats.
It would have to be, and more, if their totalitarian attitude is to be successful in getting us to their desired (?) population of 40 million by mid-century. The rate of population increase would have to be about 1.8%, which is way above our present rate. As the number of females of fertile age declines, as it must, in coming years the immigration component will have to rise well above Andrew Bartlett's currently stated 140,000: no, not just twice that, but perhaps closer to three times in order to reach the target. Will the currently-discussed battle for social cohesion simmer down as a result? Even should climate change not impact us adversely? Or we magically overcome present water shortages, agricultural deterioration, and city congestion?
There is currently no political search for stabilisation; for now, for mid-century. John Howard, Kim Beazley, Andrew Bartlett have all given every indication that they have no interest in stabilisation. And ignore the model enabling this in the 2002 Future Dilemmas base case scenario.
Although the fairly stable Australian fertility rate has now gone up marginally to just under 1.8, the average immigrant intake of 70,000 used in Future Dilemmas has since increased to well above 100,000. We are gathering speed. And, when/if we reach mid century, what philosophies do these "statesmen" have regarding a yearly putative immigrant intake of third of a million immigrants? Will politicians of 2050 vintage suddenly turn off the immigration tap just to make these three political wise monkeys retrospectively honest?
Andrew Bartlett, you have pointed to multiculturism to take our attention away from a program of stealing peoples futures - from our children, from the rest of society. It is to no-ones benefit other than very short term for the likes of Steve Vizard and those who used him as a pawn for hardly honourable purposes.

KAEP; Clearly you are not a student of my scribblings. If you were you would realise I am all for multiculturalism - I am just sick of hearing about it. Particularly on these pages - it is part of my life and vice versa.

And as for cringe i only cringe from wacky statements about cabbies getting killed for a nights takings and the like that seem to have no bearing on this silly thread.

I am just tired of the discussion that is used as a trojan horse for all manner of intolerance regarding immigration - some times it is even dressed up as an ecological arguement -

And as for over crowding I dont care about that much either - we dont know what over crowding is.

Hi Sneekeepete
You don’t have to be here on the forum and you can choose which subjects you respond to, so if you are sick of this particular subject, just tune out.
You are right about overcrowding, though. We don’t know what it is here in Australia.
I love visiting London and Paris, they are full of very interesting things, beautiful architecture, history and people, but if you have lived in either of these cities (or I suspect, any city of comparable size) it is such a relief to be able to get back to Sydney and relax.
It is probably selfish to think like this, but that is one reason why I don’t want Sydney to have an equivalent density of population.
Life is exciting in these cities, but very draining.
If you have ever watched people packing into trains on the Paris Metro, or the London Underground at 5.00 PM you will know what I’m talking about.
In Paris, they have a saying about daily life - “Metro, Boulot, Dodo” which means “Metro, Work, Sleep”. That is their life.
Here in Australia, we have the chance to keep the country as a very pleasant place to live, which it is already.
That is why we need to plan properly for the future, and control immigration and the size of the population, so it can continue to be an enjoyable place to live. Shouldn’t there be at least one place on this planet that is relaxed and where people can enjoy their daily lives?

DEAR ANDREW PLEASE COME BACK!

As one poster noted, it is rare for authors to come back and comment and it was very welcome that you did so before. But we haven't heard from you for awhile and would very much like to.

Three things, especially:

1) Have you taken the time to listen to Al Bartlett at http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461?

2) Do you disagree with David Attenborough when he says: "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, maybe we should control the population to ensure the survival of our environment"?

3) Have you found any evidence (as you promised you would) that Australia's population will stabilise with a net immigration of 100,000? And if so, when will it stabilise?

And just another thing. Please remember it's not really your country to open the gates wide and say to the rest of the world, hey come in. Without reference to its Aboriginal owners. It's like saying to the Aborigines (who ran the place, ecologically speaking, quite well for 60,000 years), "Well we know immigration hasn't been exactly good for you over the past 218 years, but we don't give a flying fig what you think because we're running the show now and you're goona have to have a lot more of it".

I ask again, who's racist?

I'm sympathetic to the environmental issues raised. You guys care very much about the raping of the environment. The lack of planning involved. Much encouragement.

My concern which I think trumps the environmental concerns in urgency is selective immigration with respect to culture.

Not much can be done, no mobilisation of collective effort to work for the environment when a particular part is working for the destruction of democracy. An authority they consider a usurpation of Allah's rightful divine rule, namely Sharia.

It is silly to be blaise about culture. Any comparison between Islamic and Western Christian Democratic cultures reveals that.

How badly does anyone want to live in Saudi Arabia for example. They spend many millions of dollars in Australia promoting Wahabi Islam, and they're doing a good job of undermining Australia.

I don't expect to be taken on trust. I expect people to find out for themselves by following Froggie's injunction and hyperlink.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001307.php


I don't think there is the evidence to support 9/11, 7/7, Spain, Bali, Beslan, Iran, suicide bombings elsewhere are aberrations. Support for Islam is increasing eg Hamas elected in Palestine.

Sneekypete doesn't care what laws he lives under or whether he is forced to live as a dhimmi, mmm thats evidence of an encouraging attitude towards Islamism and proves my point. That vacuum created by that carelessness will be filled by Islam Europe is evidence of that.

It is us, these generations alive who are unwilling to fight to preserve two thousand years of the best culture anyone has come up with. People who don't care for future generations are handing it to Islam eg England, France, Netherlands.

Palestinians boast at their rallies how they are conquering countries like Denmark. Only bcz Europeans aren't reproducing and don't care.

If you're like sneekypete and have contempt for our institutions, for western civilisation all this will fall of deaf ears. Thats understood.

But who is genuinely silly?

Jolanda, not sure I'm up to writing the condensed version but I'll have a go at some impressions that stuck after reading the article.

For reference the link supplied by merideth is http://www.islam.org.au/articles/16/RACISM.HTM

Note for all readers these are my impressions of what Keysar Trad had to say in an article refered to by merideth not my own views about Islam or Australia. I may have misunderstood what Keysar was saying. Also note that the article was published in the late 1990's and may not reflect the current views of the author. The article seems to be a response to the perceived reaction to Pauline Hanson.
- The Quran is very strongly against racism
- Elitism is also wrong
- Muslims who were bothered by Pauline Hanson's views because of the potentail impact on their own lives rather than hurting for Allah are no better than Pauline.
- People under Islam are equal, there is no division by race or class. I didn't notice any mention of equality of gender.
- Western society is riddled with elitism whereas Islam seeks out the disadvantaged to help them.
- Fat women in bike pants are vulgar.
- Muslims tolerate the descendants of the criminal dregs of white society who colonised this country because muslims are not elitist.
- If they don't have a legal way of getting what they want they will take it anyway.
- Vile though Australia is the rest of the western world has big problems as well. Apparently no problems in any muslim lands.

If the views expressed in the article are still held by the author it is a very disturbing piece of work. Worth reading to try and understand a viewpoint.

Any alternate interpretations of the article? I'd like to know if others see it in a different light. FH are you in a position to give it a go or write a response to the article?

R0bert

"It is not about care for one's fellow human being. It is about grubby motivations of personal enrichment, regardless of the consequences for poor people from other countries, or even for citizens of your own country. There is certainly no concern shown for future generations."

Only if you are of the opinion that economic growth does not benefit future generations. In which case you're an idiot.

"Perhaps 'Yobbo', you might care to tell this forum exactly how you personally benefit from immigration."

Alright then, I've got a thing for asian chicks. So I admit my conflict of interest.

"The only reason that some economists are able to present immigration as economically beneficial is that they rely on the deeply flawed GDP measure, which was designed, in the 1930's by US economist Simon Kuznets, for an entirely different purpose. In 1934 he urged the US congress to not use the GDP as a measure of prosperity, but his plea has been ignored by those economists right up to the very day."

Translation: All the economists and politicians in the world are wrong, and I am right.

"One final point, 'Yobbo', I noticed your remark "The barrel of a rifle is also narrow. Narrow and accurate."

I, for one, don't find this to be very funny, if that was your intention."

It's not supposed to be funny, genius. The point is that "narrow" and "inaccurate" are not synonyms. I can have a narrow viewpoint and still be correct.

"I call on you to unequivocally apologise to to other forum contributors and visitors for having made this remark and to offer us an explanation as to why you chose to do so.""

[Deleted for flaming.] It's not my problem if you have a nervous breakdown when someone even mentions the word "gun". Grow up.

Some info in regard to population projections:

this page from the Australian Bureau of Statistics is one of a number online:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0e5fa1cc95cd093c4a2568110007852b/0cd69ef8568dec8eca2568a900139392!OpenDocument

The example has 3 different projections based on different variables. It does not have one with the specific 100 000 figure I mentioned, but there enough other examples to give a good picture. It is not worth arguing too much about fine print, because even small variations in the fertility rate can make a huge difference over 100 years.

There are many other examples, but this one shows 110 000 annual net migration and 1.7 fertility producing a population of 24 million in 2021, 28 million in 2050 and 30 million in 2101;
or 80 000 annual net migration and 1.5 fertility producing a population of 23 million in 2021, 25 million in 2050 then dropping back to near 22 million by 2101.

Even if our fertility rate doesn't continue to drop and we stack in 110 000 net migration every year for 100 years, we’ll still only hit 30 million. We can't keep looking for excuses to continue our grossly inefficient ways.

100 000 net migration and fertility of 1.6 would produce in between that – close to a stabilised population I’d suggest.

Current fertility is above 1.6, but given it declined from 1.91 to 1.75 through the 1990s, this is not an unrealistic possibility. Fertility rate is a bigger factor than migration. I repeat my support for efforts to reduce global population growth, and I don’t agree with shaping our policies here specifically to encourage more births (although I don’t suggest deliberately penalising people either).

These projections also give an insight into what happens with a policy of zero net migration – a precipitous crash in our population. This may please some people, but I very much doubt this could happen without significant negative economic consequences (regardless of what David Attenborough may think). Maintaining prosperity doesn’t mean pursuing ever increasing growth, but collapsing your population over a few decades doesn’t do it either. That’s why a stabilised population level is a reasonable (and very achievable) goal.

In regard to comments about multiculturalism, religion and Islam – for those who suggest in various ways that Muslims are incompatible with Australia, democracy, etc, it is useful to see your views expressed, but I simply say I disagree very strongly.

Extremists who don’t eschew violence – of whatever religion, or no religion at all – should not be allowed to settle here. But if you try to falsely taint the vast majority of Muslims as somehow being in this category, all you will achieve is to create more extremists.

Fundamentalism and extremism is what we have to guard against. In response to Yobbo’s accusation of “moral equivalence”, I am not trying to either equate (or to rate) the harm done by extremists from differing religions. All I was endeavouring to say was that extremist fundamentalist Muslims are destructive, but extremist fundamentalist Jews (or extremist fundamentalist ideologues of no religion) can be also. I am not going to weigh up degrees of blame, but if you don’t think fundamentalist Jews have made a contribution to the deaths of innocents in the Middle East you’re not looking too hard. I’m fairly sure it was a fundamentalist Jew who assassinated the Prime Minister of Israel for exploring peace with Palestine.

I am not, as suggested, trying “to make out that all religions are equally evil.” I do suggest that extremists of any sort are people we could do without. Just because I don’t believe in a religion doesn’t mean I suggest that all non-religious people are good, any more than I would suggest that all people from any particular faith are bad. Some of the most murderous regimes of the 20th Century, such as the USSR or Mao’s China, have been avowedly atheist.

Focusing on people’s religious beliefs is a distraction. Their acceptance of the basic values of Australia, which include democracy, freedom of religion and speech, (and the separation of church and state) is what matters, not their religion.

"Focusing on people’s religious beliefs is a distraction. Their acceptance of the basic values of Australia, which include democracy, freedom of religion and speech, (and the separation of church and state) is what matters, not their religion."

And Islam specifically rejects the notion that church and state should be separate. http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=559

"he basic belief in Islam is that the Qur'an is one hundred percent the word of Allah, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of Allah to the Prophet sallallahu allayhe wasalam. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah."

So, by definition, anyone who adheres to Islamic ideals disqualifies them from the set of "those who accept our basic values". I'm sure you will continue to ignore this inconvenient fact, but I think it's important we get it on record.

AB you're probably not being deliberately dense. You have a family and need to consider their safety.

Nowhere in Judaism or Christianity is the kind of encouragement to violence that Islam’s holy books contain. It just doesn’t. The revelations are completely different. The peaceful sayings are swamped by the enormous amount of violent ones.

God even as a mere idea is the most powerful in history. How can we so quickly forget that?

If AB thinks that by understanding Islam you make extremists. Why do free, well educated, intelligent English boys blow themselves and innocent Londoners up. And middle class Muslims in Indonesia and elsewhere? Osmarmy Bin Lardy is a billionaire!

Why do Muslims, after accepting all the benefits of freedom, social assistance, non-judgment, and pc protection still teach in their Mosques, textbooks, pamphlets that democracy is Satan’s rule on earth? Not because they are persecuted but because it is a tenet of their faith! They are being true to their faith.

In 10-20% of people it will occur to them to act on that in the manner Mohammed teaches.

Its as simple as that. There is no scope within the Qur’an for change. I hope the love of God in Muslim hearts and common sense will reject this 7th century nonsense.

Yet we don’t hear Muslim leaders say “We reject Sharia. We do not will an Islamic State in Australia”. Lies and obfuscation instead.

What causes violence as seen in Aceh is non – judgmentalism, a superficial tolerance. You tolerate something you disapprove of. To be non-judgmental is to approve of everything and hence to tolerate nothing.

If you won’t understand Islam, and instead parrot out one or two nice sounding concepts that are an excuse for thought. What right do you have to hope to lead Australia?

I think AB believes Judaism and Islam are pretty much the same. Would he mind if i voted Green bcz they're p.much the same as the Dems?

I've just pointed to Islam's scriptures. I don't think AB actually read the link. *shrug*

"That's why a stabilised population level is a reasonable (and very achievable) goal."
Andrew, At last, categorically distancing yourself, from such as the Business Council of Australia, on faster population growth forever.
So, no 40 million target by mid century, no urge to rack up our immigration rate should our women follow the lead of their sisters in Spain who thumbed their noses at the Vatican's political dictates for their nation.
Obviously, you "happen to support high migration" still, yet have not produced support for it. Is your personal assessment more believable than the model of CSIRO's Future Dilemmas? That which says:
"The medium populaton scenario (25 million people by 2050, driven by an assumpotion of 70,000 net immigration per year) represents approximately the average net overseas migration during the past decade." ---"The key element of this scenario is the stabilisation of population size after 2050. However, even with stabilisation, resource use and pressures on the environment keep growing due to scenario assumptions of growth in personal affluence, the growth of our export trade and inbound tourism and the failure to implement cutting-dege technology across all sectors."
Yet the knackering of CSIRO continues today. This scenario continues:
"Its key challenge is to move from relative inactivity, into aggressive and positive action on several major fronts. How does the nation enable major investment to proceed while addressing failing marine fisheries, declining biodiversity, and land and water degradation? How do capital cities restrict edge growth while re-inventing urban transport and energy systems to provide low carbon transport and energy services with reasonable equity? How could the nation's endowments of domestic oil and gas stocks be diverted past short-term personal consumption, into capital stocks that produce low carbon electricity and transport fuels for subsequent human generations?"
We have had four years to ponder it. Social, environmental, economic indicators have deteriorated alarmingly since then. Yet you advocate delaying population stabilisation, and increasing human numbers before that happens.
Andrew, you would take us, migrants and all, out of the frying pan and into the pressure cooker.

Senator Bartlett,

You tell us there is no cause for alarm and cite a projection with a fertility rate of 1.6 with immigration occurring around the current rate of 110,000 net immigration. The current fertility rate is 1.8, not 1.6, much closer to the exponential growth scenario of series A that will give us nearly 45 million by 2101 than what you suggest. Whenever they are asked, people say that they want enough children to stabilise the population, even without immigration. Many don't get their wish, often because depressed wages and sky-high housing costs have pushed them into delaying childbearing into their less fertile years. However, IVF has been getting better, and improvements in technology are likely to allow women to freeze unfertilised ova in their 20s for successful use later on. The government is also pushing pronatalist policies that involve big family payments. Fertility could very easily go up to the 1.9 of series A and longevity can continue to increase.

Your scenario also doesn't consider the prospect that the business lobby will continue to push for and get even higher immigration. Lots of nice directorships, etc. on offer for retired politicians. Nor does it consider the migrants that are called something else, such as the people on 4 year visas that are renewed time after time or folk that arrive via New Zealand. I would say we have every reason to worry, especially in view of the problems with the environment and social cohesion that we are experiencing now and concerns about climate change and peak oil.

ANZUS and AUSTRALIA and POPULATION

The best thing Australia could do for both itself and New Zealand, is to identify the decendants those whites who went to NZ at the behest the greedy white capitalists in Sydney who urged 'massive white settlement' in direct contradiction of the Treaty of Waitangi, and urge them to RETURN to Australia. Those who settled there prior to that treaty, can stay.

That would solve the following:

-Skills shortage
-Cultural compatability issues
-Help address the just grievances of the Maoris against white land grabbers
-Build up our own population with the least degree of cultural or religious conflict.

Yep..I think its a great idea :)

Hey, Boaz - David: great ideas for alternatives to current immigration policies. All the whites should have more babies and we should get back all the whites who went to New Zealand after the Treaty Of Whaitangi. Right. I guess you also would encourage all the British descendents who live in Africa to resettle in Australia too. What about language tests for would-be immigrants of non-english speaking background - in any language that is not their native tongue? That would work, too, wouldn't it? And what if we require would be immigrants to face the pork test - they have to eat pork every day until their application is approved? Or require them to take take holy communion - that would keep out the Fenians. I am sure if we worked on it we could think of many tricks to 'preserve our culture'.

Martin Ibn...

have you ever looked after a bunch of kids under 5 all day, everyday for at least a week for no pay! It's one of the hardest jobs in the world!

I checked out your article and I do think there could be some truth in the belief that co-habitation is undermining serious committment and family planning. I know several women who have wasted their time living defacto with men who stated from the outset that they didn't want children, yet choosing to stay with the guy for love and the false hope that they would later change their minds, then only to have the guy leave them for a younger woman who surprise surprise ends up pregnant.

If career women had more support facilities and financial support to have children, I think there'd be more incentive. I like the idea of going to work where a child care centre is actually located in the building so I can drop in on the kids during breaks and at lunchtime, get my washing done there, and pick up some healthy take away for dinner if I need to. One thing that always baffles me is how there is never a child care centre located as part of a primary school or highschool.

Andrew Bartlett -

Well done on Muslims being compatible with Australia. I know many Muslims / Middle Easterners that are valuable and important contributors to our country and I agree there are nutjobs in all religions and secular nutjobs, as well.

As far as a stable population I can't understand why we can't have a stable population around 21 or 22 million instead of 30 million. With a lower population it will be much easier to live sustainably. Especially when we can't rely on cheap fossil fuels as we do now.

What is your description of a "precipitous" decline in population? We have never seen any kind of population decline in Australia and if we did it would be simple enough to increase immigration again (if that is what people wanted). Worrying about population decline seems about as important as worrying about a disastrous fight between the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.

I can see that the total Gross Domestic Product would be less with a stable population around 21 or 22 million (compared to 30), but are you absolutely sure that the living standards for the average family would decrease. I don't think they would. We would certainly produce less greenhouse gas, have more water per person and take the pressure off our farmland. It would also be a lot easier to get over the Harbour Bridge on Friday evening.

Please remind me again of the way in which we can encourage the world population to stablise, while we are pushing for increases in Australia's population. Aren't we saying to the rest of the world "do as I say, not as I do?" Seems hypocritical.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

so Andrew Bartlett,

you are actually proposing a target population for Australia of about 30 million by 2050,correct?

A little less than ABS series b - at last - an honest politician who is prepared to give us a honest view - thankyou - I hope your leader doesnt object.

This represents about 27 million by 2020 , or 35 % more than at present.

My question is why - what benefits do you expect people to realise from this; and what losses? What are you basing your views on?

Where are you proposing to put this extra 7 million. Not to SEQ I hope!! Oh, and will manicure artists and pastry chefs still have top priority - can never get enough of these highly skilled people?

As regards your comment " a policy of zero net migration – a precipitous crash in our population". You are setting up a straw man - no one has suggested a "precipitous crash".

What about a strategy to produce a steady decline in our population; or if you prefer a stable population at current levels? Surely this could be achieved?

But as regards a "precipitous crash" in our population, I will suggest that it might be better to do this in a controlled way, rather than wait for peak oil and climate change to do it for us. At least we should be thinking about this.

Or do you believe in G Bush's energy tooth fairies? Perhaps you think ethanol or hydrogen will rescue us?

I am genuinely sorry that you and most politians seeem to share similar views on population - I believe this is because you are hostage to big Media, big business, the HIA and, for balance, Tasmanian Forestry Unions.

Common Andrew, break the mould!!

In Australia our rapid population growth and overpopulation are not led by natural increase. Our population is growing too fast because of government policy to build it up through high immigration, in addition to natural increase.

This is a political problem.

In Australia we have pro- immigration government and pro-immigration opposition because the industries in our commodity economy derive their major profits from population growth. The Fairfax and Murdoch media actually both own huge international property dot coms. Television and radio market property speculation through consumer lifestyle programs. Unsurprisingly then, the mainstream press simply blackballs political commentators who criticize high immigration. A politician that says they want more immigration gets great coverage.

The policies these beneficiaries of population growth influence governments to make can be fought like other policies, such as paying for courses in university which should be free.

Overpopulation in Australia is the result of bad policies. It is not an inevitable natural event.

We can legitimately and we should, responsibly, have some political input, because none of this has to be.

The policies of our government and future governments must change in order to avoid increasing the problems of overpopulation in Australia. Moderation of immigration numbers is a part of this.

Moderating immigration numbers does not mean being nasty to refugees and asylum seekers.

Less than 10% of immigrants are in those humanitarian categories. Almost all our intake comes from the educated middle classes of other countries, and they have many choices.

Instead of taking 130,000 economic migrants in and only 10,000 people who face life and death issues of persecution in their countries, we could take up to 50,000 refugees and only 10,000 people seeking economic advantages. In this way our population would stabilize late this century.

Yes, that would still leave something like a billion people in the world out in the cold, without good shelter or economic roles.

But it would also leave more doctors, nurses and business people with capital to improve the lot of those people who will never be able to leave where they are.

You people are crazies, one and all. Australia is not overpopulated. It is in the fact the world's most UNDERpopulated country. There is plenty of water in Australia for at least double our current population, the main problem being that most of our rainfall occurs in uninhabited places.

The reason we have water shortages in places like Sydney and we have virtually nobody living in our highest rainfall areas is a result of public water subsidies, not overpopulation.

It's pretty ridiculous to think that the malthusian rubbish peddled by the greens has affected so many people. Saying that Australia is overpopulated is close to the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Yobbo, Thursday, 2 February 2006 3:08:05 AM thinks it is crazy to consider Australia overpopulated.

Guess it depends on your definition. The things I value have deteriorated depressingly as population has grown. We will soon be paying more for recycled water than we ever paid for fresh water. I loath the traffic; it wastes my time and energy. My hospital workplace is replacing experienced locals with temporary immigrants to avoid retaining people it has to pay more per hour. This is dangerous and nasty. Where I live, richly biodiverse bushland, forested continuously for between 60 and 90 million years, is being fragmented and trashed to squeeze more housing in. The rights and concerns of residents are being cashed in by their neighbours and one-time friends. Continuous housing turnover undermines the community network of mutual obligations and respect. A corporatised council deals with developers over our heads. State government overrides councilor protests for what I see as childishly naïve and corrupt economic priorities in the Melbourne 2030 developer-push for population growth. Land-prices are rising due to the internationalization of the real-estate market and investment in population growth. Ditto debt. When land prices rise so does everything else. I should not need to explain to you how that works. There is conflict over space everywhere, e.g jet skis vs dogs vs swimmers at the beach. Parking is sometimes impossible downtown. Crossing a rural highway by car has become dangerous because of volume and speed of traffic. You might see this as exciting competition. I see this as falling for a new series of enclosures and poor laws as fossil fuel decline looms. The protection of complex water ‘servicing’ infrastructure relies on the survival of civil government and the ability to maintain it technically and organizationally. Given that our fossil fuel based societies have only been going since the 1750s and I see signs of political and technological entropy I am not in favor of going ahead with higher populations and increasingly complex systems. I tip a population crash to about 1 million in Australia within approx 130 years.

'Yobbo' wrote (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#29455)

"It's not supposed to be funny, genius ... I can have a narrow viewpoint and still be correct."

...

"[Deleted for flaming.] It's not my problem if you have a nervous breakdown when someone even mentions the word "gun". Grow up."

No, actually, I didn't seriously believe that you intended be funny. Also, it's beyond me why anyone would think that the perspective from the barrel of a gun would be an appropriate metaphor for this forum.

Kanga (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#29700),

Thank you for spelling out concretely what overpopulation means in practical terms.

Up here in South East Queensland, the Beattie Labor Government plans to cram in another 1 million people by 2026. Up until 8 December last year it had attempted to depict itself as reluctantly responding to the problems caused by the movement of so many people from the South.

Then on 8 December last year, to perversely celebrate the birth of Queensland's four millionth habitant, at a time when our water reserves were running dry, our hospitals were unable to meet the demand for their services and we were threatened with blackouts over summer, the Queensland government placed, at taxpayers' expense, full page advertisements in the Courier Mail and, presumably, other national capital dailies, encouraging people from other states to move here.

So, now without any word of explanation to the Queensland public the Beattie Government is now adding to the problems that it had claimed earlier that it was trying to solve.

Andrew, could I ask you to please take a stance against this insanity? You can demand that the Queensland government call off its reckless population boosting campaign, presumably done at the behest of property developers who contribute so generously to Labor Party coffers, and you can add your voice to the demands for a cutback in immigration numbers which is ultimately driving the overcrowding of South East Queensland.

If you don't than what chance do the various communities in Queensland such as in Maleny(http://www.malenyvoice.com/), Montville, Redland Shire (http://www.carp-redlands.org.au/), the Gold Coast (http://www.gecko.org.au/), Minnippi (http://members.optusnet.com.au/minnippi) etc, have of succeeding in their struggles against overdevelopment?

Kanga,
Your last two posts were excellant. You did not miss much. Just wish you spaced the last one out a bit. I will save them for future reference.

As I said before, both major parties have high immigration policies because big business dictate the policies. They pay the piper and call the tune. Big business do not care how long it takes you to get to work or how long ques are, or the crush of communters, shoppers, etc. Or reduced good farmland or enviromental impacts. They simply want to sell more consumer goods, land and houses.

Farmers are continually being pushed out onto marginal country and I could cry to see beautifull farm and pasture land being covered with houses, bitumen and concrete. Then, the smart people we are, import food. Don't even mention our depleted fish stocks. Brilliant!

Like the drover said. "The more I see of people, the more I like me dog"

Very well said Daggett. Surely the primary role of the Democrats is to oppose this complete future-destroying lunacy. Celebrating a population of 4 million in Queensland (and it was such a short time ago that we ‘celebrated’ 3 million) and encouraging rapid continuous population growth, while some our most fundamental indicators are steadily worsening, is insane. We are constantly told that we need this sort of growth in order to increase economic growth, in order to improve services and quality of life. The complete opposite is happening.

If the Democrats were to really get stuck in to fighting this absurdity and push for real sustainability in a genuine and concerted manner, they WOULD find a rebirth. They WILL save themselves from extinction.

The time is absolutely right to do this. There is enough support across the country for it to really take off.

The question is, will the Democrats drive it? Will the Greens drive it? Will we have to start up a new party to drive it? Or will we just blunder on into oblivion

Kanga… my compliments.

It is truly rampant capitalist consumerism that is driving this human train to the end of the line – over the American Grand Canyon if I were to place blame in a metaphor…. and with the assistance of out-dated, egocentric religious enterprise in it’s rubber-tree preserving attitudes (to drive the metaphor further!)

Economic models have proven that 0-growth sustainability is possible. That wealth creation – over the long period (rather than the current ‘want it now’ model) can work and is better for all – all classes of society and all classes of life on this blue-green rock.

Unfortunately between amoral people (of religious and non-religious bents), we ride the ‘last train out’ unless we can find the emergency brake.

And if we do not, at least I can spend the remaining time wondering what the next life-form on this galactic oasis will look like!

ANDREW THANKS FOR GETTING BACK TO US

It is good that you care enough about this debate to take time to follow up on your article.

However I don’t think you’ve really got the stabilisation idea. You say that if we go along with 1.7 million and 110,000 annual net migration we’ll “only” hit 30 million in 2100. It’s taken us 218 years to reach 20 million, i.e. around 10 million a century, and you don’t seem to see anything too much wrong with another 10 million this century, i.e. business as usual.

Population stabilisation and business as usual are two different things. We actually have 1.8 fertility and at least 110,000 net migration (if you take the informals into account), thanks to the rapacious greed of the Liberal Party who are busy trying to turn their already huge fortunes into humungous fortunes.

What Australia needs is someone with the courage and foresight to go along with the Academy of Science 1994 recommendation of aiming for a plateau of 24 million by around 2040 – that means cutting net overseas migration to approx 40,000. Note that is net i.e. you still get 70,000 coming in – you still honour your international refugee obligations, have some family reunion, but you cut skilled and business, i.e. stop raiding (generally) less affluent nations for their professionals and capitalists.

You said “We can’t keep looking for excuses to continue our grossly inefficient ways” – you seem to think stabilisation would give us an excuse to continue to be environmental vandals. The latest State of the Environment report (Commonwealth Government) shows all our environmental indicators going backwards with our present population. Stabilising would at least give us breathing space so we could really tackle the environmental problems and set up a truly sustainable society.

I do not argue for zero net migration. I just want to see population growth halted in Australia, then Australia can start working with other countries to stabilise their populations. By the way, have you had a chance to look at Al Bartlett yet?

Ponder for just a moment, and use the thing we evolved through the eons and mists of time to place us at the head of all species on this wonderful home called Earth, Gaia, or whatever.

The fore-brain, the wonderful faculty of perception! Yet think of the immense good that could have been achieved if Einstein's theorum, Max Plancks works, and all involved in the making of the most destructive device known to us thus far was channelled into a benificent purpose.

What if Adolf Hitler himself had been not as he was, malignant, but instead used the powers he possessed to do good. Likewise, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam, Milosevic, & all the other monsters throughout history.

20,000,000 Russians, collectively 6 million?, (of Semitic origins) - Gypsies, Jews and on the list goes. Where would all these people, their decendants, and kin be today?

To paraphrase Gene Roddenberry (Creator of Star Trek) we have to remove all of our prejudices, not just religious, but those involving home, family and all that we hold dear../ then & maybe then, clear out the debris held in our minds so we can see more clearly.

Some would see this in the light of a castration complex... "I can't do that..." Even the most eminent folk amongst us today can not manage this for even a few hours so it appears.

An interesting concept none the less - would there be anyone willing to go there?

Wars benefit only the oligarchs, industrialists and Bastards Incorporated. They have unfortunately had the side effect of culling, in the worst sense, our populations.

The next 10 - 15 years will be critical for everyone. Let us not leave a dying legacy to the next generation.

Dear Albie Manton

Yeah - all done in the name of liebensrum - room to live!

It didn't seem to occur to Herr Hilter (sorry, can't resist the misspelling) that his glorious volks could simply stop multiplying, rather than expanding at the expense of the rest of Europe. In that sense, he is not all that different from Herr Bush, who is presiding over the one of the fastest pop growth rates of OECD nations.

By the way, I recall that many years ago the Chairman of the ABC was a certain Talbot Duckmanton. When he visited the Orange (NSW) office of the ABC he was a guest of the local manager, who lived on a farm, where there was a dam with a pet duck on it. He asked what the duck's name was, and was told it was "Manton".

Goodnight, and good luck

"focusing on people's religious beliefs is a distraction".. Andrew Bartlett.

Tell that to the victims of the London bombings, 9/11, murdered school children, Munich '72. Statues of the Buddha blown up. What a glorious "religion".

A "distraction". Tell that to little boys in Iraq.

Great lot of politicians in Canberra. Ask Pauline Hansen.

Nick Griffin has beaten two of four charges thus far.The tide turns.

FRIEDRICH (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#30049),

Your points about acts of terror by Islamic fundamentalist extremists are valid, but we are not likely to get on top of this problem, until we put our own house completely in order and not provide any pretext, whatsoever, that could politically justify attacks on innocent civilians in the minds of people from those cultures.

Our country's participation in the invasion of Iraq, based on the mountains of deceit peddled by John Howard, has provided them with one enormous pretext.

Now that our country has got itself into this mess, at the very least it must distance itself from any efforts to steal the wealth of the Iraqi people. In particular it must distance itself from any efforts to privatise the oil wealth of Iraq and hand it across to oil corporations.

Given the shameful behaviour of our Government in regard to the Iraq wheat export deals, on top of everything else, it would be extremely naive to hope for this from John Howard, but at least the rest of us should make it clear to the rest of the world that we thoroughly repudiate the behaviour of our Government.

That is the only way we can hope to begin to win the war against terror. Resorting only to ever greater acts of violence against the people of these countries will lead us no-where.

FREIDRICH

We could all play the 'let's list the atrocity' game to reinforce a prejudice if wanted. The simple point is that extremism is the danger, not religion... and that's coming from someone who is not religious at all. Frankly, they all seem a bit silly. But atheist extremists have killed millions, and off the edge environmental extremists can be dangerous too.

Trying to keep all people out of a country on the basis of their religion is (a) a ridiculous ad monstrous over-reaction not justified by any evidence, and (b) utterly unworkable and asking for big trouble.

I don't think I'd go as far as Yobbo in saying Australia is grossly underpopulated (and obviously I don't agree with his comments regarding Islam at all). However, he is right to point out that the malthusian mindset is not consistent with how things have turned out.

Also, I don't think it's so much that the rainfall occurs in uninhabited places, more than we are laughably wasteful and profligate with what we have. Either way, there is enormous room for greater efficiency, as we are in the early stages of demonstrating in some regions.

daggett - I know what's happening in South East Queensland. I've lived my whole life here. Much of SEQ population growth (although obviously not all) is internal migration, which is rather harder to halt. I agree we could do way better at planning and constraining development in certain areas, but that is different to keeping people out all together.

Thermoman - I believe it is reasonable to assume the fertility rate will continue to decline, despite a brief halt in the last year or so. If it stays steady for another 10 years, or climbs back up, then I agree that migration intake would need to be trimmed. The point is that migration numbers are much easier to vary somewhat from year to year, and that current numbers (combined with fertility trends) are likely to generate a stabilised population. It is very quick rises or very quick drops which cause the biggest difficulties with economic and social adjustments.

Given that greenies are (quite rightly) always urging people to 'think globally', I don't understand why people don't see population as an issue without borders, the same as climate change. We can continue to help (more) with other countries to contain their population - at the same time as moving towards stabilising ours. I don't see why one has to come before the other.

We also need to acknowledge more often that a key part of reducing population involves increasing health and prosperity, which also inevitably means some greater resource consumption. It's not all about numbers.

"I don't understand why people don't see population as an issue without borders, the same as climate change. We can continue to help (more) with other countries to contain their population - at the same time as moving towards stabilising ours."

You are quite correct on that one Andrew, the world keeps increasing at 80 million a year. IMHO its a huge issue and every single woman on the planet should have access to family planning etc.

The real problem on that one is of course religion, specifically the Vatican. They lobby worldwide and have enormous political influence in many countries. The evils of condoms, the pill etc. They have also painted themselves into a corner. As the pope claims to be infallible and the pope spoke about all these evils, to now change opinions would make infallibility look rather silly. So they plod
on with their dogma, relentlessly.

Its time that the United Nations got serious about telling the Vatican where to shove it...

Andrew,
Im sorry but you just don't seem to get it - are you suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You say " We can continue to help (more) with other countries to contain their population - at the same time as moving towards stabilising ours"

Andrew, you are not proposing to stabilise our population. You are proposing to increase it by 10 million people. This is a 50% increase - not stabilisation - I hope youre not in weightwatchers!!

And tell me, what do you think your mates in big business are gonna say when the population reaches 30 m. I will tell you - exactly the same as they are telling you now - we want more.

Re: you comments on SEQ; dont you think the fact that Australias population is growing at a million every 4 years is the main factor in SEQ growth,

Also, you still have not answered the question - why? What are your reasons for, and the benefits of, your extra 10 million people. Please let us all into the secret. Its a bit silly saying you think its for all our good, if you won't tell us why!!

Anyway thanks for responding; I think its useful.

Right on the money Yabby and Last word.

Andrew, you write; “However, he is right to point out that the malthusian mindset is not consistent with how things have turned out.”

No he is not. We are not at the end-point of the consequences of the population explosion yet. Give it another few years and old Tom Malthus will be proven to be pretty well spot-on.

“I agree we could do way better at planning and constraining development in certain areas, but that is different to keeping people out all together.”

No one is arguing for closed borders to SEQ. Yes the rate of population increase could be considerably tempered with the right sort of limitations to development. So what are the Democrats doing about this?

“I believe it is reasonable to assume the fertility rate will continue to decline, despite a brief halt in the last year or so.”

I hope you realise that the personal fertility rate and the effective fertility rate are two very different things. While the personal fertility rate is about 1.8 or a bit less, Australia’s population growth due to births alone is far greater than the death rate, which means that the effective fertility rate is well above 2. Our grossly irresponsible treasurer Costalotello tells us that "Our national fertility rate is less than replacement level" and "Only immigration is making our country grow". Again, what are the Democrats doing about this really serious often-repeated gross misinformation?

“The point is that migration numbers are much easier to vary somewhat from year to year”

YES!! So the pro-growthers should be basically forgetting about trying to raise the fertility rate (as if it needed raising). The baby bonus is a complete shocker of a policy, especially given that even the ‘best’ desired result could be matched by a small increase in immigration. So what are the Democrats doing about this godawful blatant bribe to have more babies, funded by taxpayers who for the greater part wish to see population stabilisation?

Andrew, how's politicians going to handle the required extra infrastructure, roads, power, water, health and welfare needs of this 30 million population. Considering it's collapsing, How will you accomplish this

'The simple point is that extremism is the danger, not religion and that's coming from someone who is not religious at all. “

You are religious, you follow the religion of money and politics at the expense of the people. You have no answers except more growth at any expense.

Economic growth is an illusion, the results around the world show that it is not beneficial for the people or environment, Where are you going to get work for the extra 10 million, when we have about 5 million unemployed and another 5 million underemployed. The unemployment figures politicians rely upon are false and criminally misleading.

I hope some day soon we can find those that will take over and bring your mob (politicians) to account, and have you made responsible for the mess you have got us into. You can tell a persons worth by the veracity of their works outcomes. The biggest threat to our future, comes firstly from politicians, and secondly from religious conflict.

Even though we appreciate you getting involved in this thread, you are yet to present anything that would give us confidence to vote for you, or for that matter any politicians. But, you have one glaring fact in your favour, when it comes to polling day, you have two things going for you. The corrupt illegal preferential voting system and the knowledge that the vast majority of the population are slaves to stupidity and will lemming like, just vote as they are directed to against all the evidence.

We sure live in a wonderfully stupid world.

Alchemist,

Hear, Hear!

(lots of rumble, clapping and foot stomping)

The alchemist. There is a reason why our Government ensures that the standards of Education are low and that schools are run by teachers and students that are often bullies!

They want us to get used to being treated like dirt and they want to make sure that we do not have enough education, confidence or skills to do anything about it.

If a parent complains that the education system is neglecting children, bullying students and is corrupt at the core, the parent is the one that gets her head chopped off and everybody supports the bullies. What else is new!

We've got to take some responsibility for your own fate. We can't just say it is all the fault of the politicians or the teachers. Politicians are just people who are trying to do a job as best they can and get re-elected in the process. If the Business Council of Australia promotes high population and high immigration and puts forward their arguments in a way that is compelling to Andrew Bartlett and others, then it is our job to try to counteract those arguments with the same energy that the BCA brings. I'm pretty sure if Andrew Bartlett, Kim Beazley and John Howard thought they would lose a lot of votes by promoting high immigration they would change their stance or lose the next election. At the moment they don't lose many votes.

The arguments regarding population growth and the environment are complicated. We can't just yell "You're an idiot" and expect to change anybody's mind.

When I read Andrew Bartlett's responses, I get the feeling he thinks we are on the fringe of the voting population, and that the mainstream voters support his view of increasing immigration and hoping the environment will take care of itself. He has a quick look around and sees that Labour and Liberal also support high immigration, so what has he got to lose. It is the sensible political approach to getting re-elected.

Our job is to convince the general voting population. Its clear that Andrew Bartlett is not going to be a leader in reducing immigration, even though he lives in SEQ where the effects of high immigration are most dramatic.

Its a political world. Get on board or be left behind.

Andrew

As an Australian Democrat in 1990 I helped formulate the draft policy advocating low immigration levels for Australia. Three times it was accepted by the membership. Three times the members’ decision was over-ruled by a partisan executive. It’s one reason I’m no longer a Democrat. (Lyn Allison, however, has done well on RU486).

But we can agree on a number of things. Migration has made, on balance, a positive contribution culturally; much more needs to be done in terms of migrant settlement; the program must be non-discriminatory; and temporary residents and short-term business visas should be part of any debate on migration size.

The migration program, however, is simply too big. It needs to be halved immediately. By all means increase the humanitarian component but only at the expense of the skilled program. The recent Productivity Commission report shows there are negligible economic benefits to existing Australians from migration. So, leaving aside the cultural aspects, that leaves the environment. Migration contributes nearly half our population growth, which, without a concomitant reduction in per capita resource use, is bad for the environment. Look no further than your own southeast Queensland that is being paved over by urban development.

The issues you raise are important but pale into insignificance against the various catastrophes that confront us, particularly Peak Oil and climate change. Many commentators warn of economic meltdown from Peak Oil when demand will exceed supply and oil prices rise inexorably, hurting the poor the most. We might be able to surf the wave were we moving quickly to a renewable energy society, but we’re not. Nor are we moving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Should temperatures rise 2-3degrees, Australian agriculture will go to the wall for starters, never mind the economic impact of severe weather events and sea-level rise.

This is not the time for growth, either in resource use or population. It does not mean closing our doors but it does mean being better stewards of this fragile continent that simply cannot sustain a bigger population, even without the coming catastrophes.

Jenny Goldie aka

I believe the politicians are reading the vote given to the Party, "Australians Against Further Immigration" and note their low first preference vote and assume no one sees their issue as relavent.

Though I do not vote for AAFI I have attended several of their lectures only to find local Liberals and Labor Party members present. While talking to them they agree with much of the arguments put foward by the AAFI lecturer as it applies to local overpopulation issues but they still believe we need a greater population spread across Australia to sustain our markets.

Andrew

You made the following comment

'It is no secret that a large amount of the former One Nation vote went to the Coalition...'

Please explain how the only One Nation Politician ever elected to our Federal Parliament was elected by coalition voters?

She was elected Member for Ipswich. Bill Hayden's former seat and a Labor Paty stronghold. They haven't elected a Liberal or National/Country party politician ever.

Why do you politicians distort such facts?

Keith

Pauline Hanson was not elected as a One Nation politician.

The only One Nation politician elected to federal Parliament was Len Harris as a Senator for Queensland (after the candidate above him on the party's ticket was ruled ineligible). He won this seat off the National's Bil O'Chee, and when he lost it, it went back to the National's Barnaby Joyce.

There is also plenty of research done which shows where the majority of One Nation votes came from and went to. Indeed, the fact that part of the One Nation base came from traditional Labor voters, and then went from One Nation over to the Coalition is part of how John Howard built his support base in outer urban areas.

Alchemist and others

I didn't post my article or comments to win votes. I am putting forward ideas. If I formed my views purely on the basis of what might be popular, then I probably would run with an anti-immigration message. As my article infers, this is politically easier to do, which is why politicians who support high migration often don't promote it much. I think they should - one of the key points of my article - not because it will win votes, but because it is better for the country.

The big business sector has never been much of a constituency for the Democrats and we have never formed our policies based on their needs (although one should try to listen to everyone's views, including theirs and yours)

(...but to suggest our preferential voting system is "corrupt" or "illegal" is just silly. It is not perfect, but it is certainly better than the barely democratic first past the post systems in the UK, Canada and the USA.)

Jenny/popandperish - I don't really want to sidetrack into ancient internal Democrat disputes, but I remember that situation rather differently. More that ballots kept being appealed until the option of zero net migration option got up.

It probably is irrelevant in any case, as zero net migration certainly was official policy at one stage because I spent quite a bit of energy once I got into Parliament working to get it replaced and disowning it wherever possible.

I realise we will never agree on this, but I think I've probably already outlined my views enough on this in earlier responses.

Ludwig - I agree that policies aimed at increasing our own fertility rate are silly (and mostly an expensive waste of money in any case).

In regard to fertility rates, I use the one the ABS uses. Given that's what they base their population projections on (and which I follow), I don't think it matters much how it differs from the 'effective fertility rate' ..... (although I will check my assumption on that with others just to make sure)

Andrew you say:

"..politicians who support high migration often don't promote it much. "

Is this why the democrats don't promote their high immigration policy? Because you think it may be unpopular? I think we may be getting close to the truth now!

You also say " I think they (politicians) should" Well why dont they? On the Deomcrats web site for a start.

You also say why you support high immigration levels " one of the key points of my article - not because it will win votes, but because it is better for the country"

I repeat my earlier question; Why?

What reasons do you have for your position? In what ways is it better for us?

If you have a good case for high immigration, then tell us! This is a forum, not a game of hide and seek!

Popandperish, welcome to OLO. An excellent post.

The Democrats membership supported low immigration but was overruled by their executive….three times. Fascinating!!

Ericc, I see it differently.

You wrote; “He [Andrew Bartlett] has a quick look around and sees that Labour and Liberal also support high immigration, so what has he got to lose. It is the sensible political approach to getting re-elected. “

I don’t think this is a sensible approach at all. Why would people in favour of high immigration vote for the Democrats when they can vote for the Libs or Labs? The Demos are doing themselves out of votes and a purpose for existing by not offering much that is significantly different to the old dinosaurs.

If they offered something strongly philosophically different they would stand a very good chance of scoring a much higher vote. What have they got to lose? If they stood for sustainability, including low immigration, a reversal of pro-natalist policies, maximised push for improved efficiencies in resource usage as well as alternative energy sources… and all that sort of stuff, then they would be on a real winner.

In this political world, if a small and fading party just tags along with the big players, they are doomed… for sure.

“Our job is to convince the general voting population.”

Yes. What better way is there than to convince a struggling political party to come onside and then start a massive publicity campaign?

We struggle to get the message of sustainability out there to the masses. Even with high-profile people like Tim Flannery and Ian Lowe who are regularly in the media, the vested-interest pro-growthers have it all over us. We desperately need a political force to take up the struggle.

Getting the Democrats, or the Greens, to get back to the core issues could well be the key to triggering the desperately needed sustainability revolution in this country.

What better political platform could there be than sustainability? Afterall, if we fail to very quickly prepare for peak oil and other sustainability issues, not much else is going to matter

Andrew, you wrote; “but to suggest our preferential voting system is "corrupt" or "illegal" is just silly. It is not perfect, but it is certainly better than the barely democratic first past the post systems in the UK, Canada and the USA.”

It is profoundly corrupt and if it isn’t technically illegal, it should be. It cannot possibly be better than first-past-the-post. This is what I said under ‘It time for positive politics’ (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4062);

“if you really didn’t want to vote for either Labor or Liberal, and you put them last and second last on your ballot paper, in the vast majority of cases preferences would filter down until they counted for whichever party you put second last. This is a million miles away from democracy. What it amounts to is massive vote-rigging. There should be no way in the world that your vote can end up counting for a party/candidate that you specifically did not vote for!! There is no reason why the optional preferential system that we have at state government level can’t apply in federal elections.”

This is something that the minor parties and independents should be critically concerned about. It is something that every person who believes in democracy should be critically concerned about.

“….zero net migration certainly was official policy at one stage because I spent quite a bit of energy once I got into Parliament working to get it replaced and disowning it wherever possible.”

What a crying shame!

“Ludwig - I agree that policies aimed at increasing our own fertility rate are silly (and mostly an expensive waste of money in any case).”

Thank goodness for that. So I re-ask my question; “what are the Democrats doing about this godawful blatant bribe [the baby bonus] to have more babies….?”

“I don't think it [the individual fertility rate] matters much how it differs from the 'effective fertility rate' .....”

It gives Costello, Turnbull and the rest, an excuse to pull the wool over our eyes and pretend that our population will go in decline if we don’t have significant immigration. It is highly significant.

Andrew, the way you almost boast of pushing high immigration policies against the wishes of the Australian electors and, it would appear, against the wishes of your own party membership seems a little reminiscent of boasts by Liberal politicians of having somehow shown great moral courage for having defied the wishes of their own electorate in ramming through the Telstra last year because they also said that they knew better than their electors (see http://www.citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com).

Could I suggest that if you are not able to accept what appears to be the vote taken three times in favour of zero net immigration by the members of your party, then perhaps it's time that debate was re-opened. A good start would be, as suggested by 'last word' displaying your support for a population of 30 million (i.e. a further 50% increase) prominently on the Democrats website.

Perhaps some rank and file Democrats who appear to be absent from the debate (at least those in support of your stance - I wonder why that could be?) could be encouraged to join this forum.

One point where I will agree with you against some of the others is that Australian preferential voting system, for all of its grave flaws and for all the ways it has been corrupted by the different party machines, is almost infinitely preferable to the rotten 'first past the post' system practised in the US and the UK. This system often guarantees that candidates who are opposed by the majority of electors win the election.

This is clearly what happened with the US presidential elections of 2000 where the anti-Bush vote was split between those voting for Al Gore and those voting for Ralph Nader. If their had been an Australian style preferential voting system Al Gore and not George Bush would have been US President today.

Definitely the Senate voting system needs to be reformed. The vast majority of voters who are unwilling to number every box below the line must be allowed to allocate preferences to the parties of their choice above the line.

Sometimes I cant help but feel that Politicians are too scared to suspend immigration etc because they fear that it will mean that people wanting to come might get angry and they will come anyway and will use any method necessary, including violence to achieve their goal.

They think it is best not to antagonise these people so they keep letting them in to avoid trouble as Politicians know we already have enough trouble with law and order and it wouldn't do our Governments reputation any good to have more!

Our Government doesn't really care how the majority feels because, by the sound of it, the voting process is all fixed anyway!

Andrew, our constitution states categorically that our representatives are to be “directly chosen” not preferentially chosen. That makes it illegal. Because current political practise is to force us to vote preferentially for one or more candidates against our will, makes it a corrupt practise.

What part don't you understand, politician's insult us daily, forcing upon us unpopular policies, who do you represent, its obvious that its not your members or the populance.

You state it yourself, immigration is unpopular, as is most of the policy formats placed forward by political parties. How much money in donations did the democrats get from corporations and business for the last elections. If it was more than one cent, then you are being influenced by them.

Politicians are to be elected by the people, not by business or corporations, since when did business get a vote. So corporate/business donations are bribes designed to influence political parties to push the corporate/ business agenda, nothing else. You will note, that the vast majority of the population don't donate to political parties, because they know it's a waste of time.

Popular polices are what the people want and what would make people happy. Unpopular policies make corporations/business and politicians happy, resulting in our current collapsing society. Don't you get it, you are a corrupt bunch that keeps itself in power by corrupt and illegal practices. We need change soon, before we slip further over the edge into chaos.

You had an opportunity here to show some positive direction and gauge public opinion on immigration. All you have done is show readers how right they are in their assessment of the political system.

We need a voting system that allows voluntary preferential voting, bans corporate and business donations and donations over $10. No party advertising, just candidates up to $5000 each and no public money. Then we would see who was the most popular. Add no political or party statements nor advertising in the two weeks of polls and we may get some sense.

Those who want to help Australian women to control their own fertility, and thereby help us to achieve sustainable population numbers, should sign the online pettiton in support of the availability of the RU486 abortion drug at :

http://www.ru486.org.au/support.html

Also, I concur with popandperish (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#30200). Congratulations to Democrats Senator Lyn Alison for her strong outspoken stance in favour of RU486.

Andrew, by way of clarification; I am vehemently opposed to the compulsory preferential voting system, or the illegal preferential marking system, not to preferential voting per se. Optional preferential voting is the system we should be going with.

Daggett, the Australian preferential voting system consists of two very different systems, one of which is better than first-past-the-post or simple majority voting and of which most definitely is not. These are the optional preferential system and the compulsory preferential system respectively.

Yes Nader caused Bush to win power by diluting the opposing vote. This probably wouldn’t have happened if there had been a compulsory preferential voting system in the USA at the time, although it still could have if the ratio of votes had been just a little different. That sort of thing can even happen with an optional preferential voting system. Indeed it happened to Goss, who would have won a third term in 1995 if I hadn’t run for the Qld Greens! [Sorry Wayne L]

The great objection that I have to compulsory preferential voting is that you have to mark every square on your ballot paper. This kills the democratic process outright and turns it into a most horrible two-party support system. The words ‘compulsory’ and ‘preferential’ are at complete odds.

The majority of people who vote Democrat do so specifically because they do not like either Liberal or Labor. With an optional preferential system, where you can mark one square, all squares or anything between, a significant portion would not allocate a preference to either, no matter how far down the order. But with the compulsory preferential system, in the vast majority of cases Democrat votes effectively count for either Liberal or Labor, even if the voter specifically and strongly does not wish to vote for either, and puts them last and second last. Figure out how this can be proper, democratic or even legal! Why the Democrats haven’t protested in the strongest possible manner, and kept it up for as long as it takes to get it changed, is simply beyond my comprehension.

Andrew

In your post on Saturday 4 February you wrote: “I don't understand why people don't see population as an issue without borders, the same as climate change. We can continue to help (more) with other countries to contain their population - at the same time as moving towards stabilising ours. I don't see why one has to come before the other”.

The reason why Australia has to stabilise its own population first is that poor nations are suspicious of any program to reduce their fertility while rich nations continue to grow their populations full speed ahead. Population is indeed an issue without borders, and it’s for that reason that Australia must do more than vaguely “move towards” stabilisation, but make it a top priority. Australia should lead by example, showing the benefits of a stable population. Our population cannot keep growing forever, and the time for it to stop growing is not at the end of the century, but now.

Would be interested to know if you've had time to listen to the video by Al Bartlett, at http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461, and if so what you think of the points he makes?

Andrew,

I'm wondering why you're supporting a population in Australia of 30 million, when the Academy of Sciences said that 23 million was the most politically achievable lowest point at which we can stabilise?

With a net immigration of 50,000 (not 110,000 which the Howard government is bringing in) and the current fertility rate, I think I remember reading that we could stabilise at 23 million by 2030 (would need to check these figures to be sure).

Is it because of a mistaken left-wing idea that absorbing an extra 10 million (generally elite) is more ethical than helping hundreds of millions (generally poor) through foreign aid?

There are millions of refugees in the world, and Australia could probably absorb a few more than we do currently - some 10,000 or less than 10% of our current immigration rate. If the citizens of Australia are willing to pay for more refugees, as long as the numbers fit within the 50,000 net, then so be it.

But the fact is that the government uses the other immigrants to pay for the refugees. Business migrants bring in money and create jobs to help pay for our refugee program. And also to prop up the housing and construction - development industry.

The truth is that all three levels of government in Australia are captured by the development industry. The media is dependent upon their advertisements, so we get fed a continuous line of growth is good philosophy, without any regard for the environmental losses or lifestyle changes we endure.

Multiculturalism and immigration is just another attempt to prop up these industries. As the driest inhabited continent with poor soils and high biodiversity we should be stabilising our population as soon as possible and assisting other nations with their stabilisation programs.

I kept my offspring to two in an effort to ensure they had a decent quality of life. I certainly don't want to be paying for baby bonuses or for those who have a lot of children because of some religious belief.

Binky

Desal and Immigration.

Ok so the desal plant has been canned for now http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/desalination-plant-dumped/2006/02/07/1139074234090.html

Its purpose was to accommodate the extra 100,000 immigrants coming to Sydney each year under the unholy alliance that exists between John Howard and Morris Iemma. I mean, Howard ups immigration to 140,000 knowing full well that at least 100,000 want to live in Sydney and Iemma organises with ALP donor developers to build pretty boxes for them to live in when they aren't clogging up freeways and shrinking open space. Its bloody teamwork.

In 5 years Sydney will have another 500,000 thirsty, angry multicultured go getters pushing their way over bodies, dead or alive to get to glory. Sutherland shire will get a fair proportion of these muticultures, the Desal plant will be resurected and there won't be so many people brave enough to protest.

In the meantime, Sydney water refuses to look at the benefits of stormwater harvesting, which is important for the unsustainable population of Sydney in the here and NOW. Can someone please inform them that you don't have to pump stormwater back to dams. Thats what God gave us RAIN for. All you have to do is hold stormwater in Engineered Wetlands where terrestrial evaporation gets locked into the sydney basin airshed and eventually rains out in the foothills of the Blue Mountains. Once stormwater is in coastal waters, complex thermodynamic interactions mean that very little of it reforms as rain over Sydney basin.

These Engineered Wetlands should cost around $500,000 apiece. Not over $2million apiece like the pork barrel design at Riverwood near Morris Iemma's electorate. This wetland still hasn't had its reed beds planted because they ran out of funding!

Well look here!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydneys-underground-lakes-found/2006/02/08/1139074263283.html
No sooner than public opinion turns the tide against desal, Mr Iemma magically finds not one, but TWO lakes under Sydney.

I still can't help betting that certain big MacBanks are offering big MacPost-Ministerial jobs schemes to get our elected officials to be so unbelievably out of touch with public opinion.

I mean, CommBank just announced a half yearly $2billion profit, presumably by riding on the back of the immigration wave and at the expense of people in Sydney who are fobbed off with lousy hospital, transport, police and other services.

If Sydneysiders don't want a desal plant then its an odds on favourite they don't want continued immigration into Sydney.

->No more immigration MEANS no more water shortages, and an opportunity for all governmnet services to catch up to current population levels.

Further, if you extract water from sub Sydney aquifers, then connected regional aquifers are depleted. This causes dry conditions and drought in areas remote from Sydney. How smart is that? More water for Sydney's unarrived immigrants, more profits for MacBanks, more drought for NSW, more post ministerial job opprtunities for government officials and fewer basic services for the citizens who were stupid enough to vote for them.

Next bet! How long do you think NSW Labor will last with this kind of transparent tom-foolery?

Andrew Bartlett(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#30127) wrote

"daggett - I know what's happening in South East Queensland. I've lived my whole life here."

Then, are you aware that that 700 hectares of bushland is being bulldozed each year in the Gold Coast shire alone to allow for new housing and infrastructure? How do you hope to stop this destruction if the Queensland Government continues with its insane plans to cram another 1.1 million into this region by 2026?

Also, developers are pushing to have a desalination plant, presumably powered with non-renewable coal, to support population growth in the Gold Coast. This is to be the first of a number planned for other coastal cities in Queensland. Can't you see that population levels that require the consumption of a finite non-renewable resource which cannot last for much more than 100 years in order to supply drinking water is UNSUSTAINABLE?

Andrew Bartlett wrote "Much of SEQ population growth (although obviously not all) is internal migration, which is rather harder to halt."

It is harder to halt, I agree, but what sense does it make for the Queensland Government to actually be encouraging this growth when our infrastructure and natural resources clearly can't cope with the existing population?

In any case, this discussion is about immigration into Australia, and if you continue to support high immigration levels, then you are effectively supporting the unsustainable growth in SEQ which it ultimately drives.

I would also be interested how you think that the water needs for the additional 1 million the NSW and Federal Governments plan to cram into the already hideously overcrowded Sydney basin in coming years. Do you believe that, perhaps, the desalination plant down there should not have been shelved (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-great-carr-crash/2006/02/08/1139379573532.html), or do you think that, instead, they should mine the underground aquifers in Sydney and the Southern Highlands with unpredictable environmental consequences?

If you insist on giving your support to high immigration levels, which you acknowledge, yourself, to be unpopular, then I think you owe, to the Australian public, your explanation as to how you think we should cope with the extra people.

How you think we should cope with the extra people?

You use the Tunnel Funnel Shuffle.

It goess like this:

Tunnel Funnel Shuffle
Apologies to Ashton, Gardner & Dyke lyrics

Choose yourself a partner
From the ASX floor
Blow a little kiss
To the CEO next door
Step on the gas
Put your head in the air
make a Mac-sign
And you throw back your hair

Think about desal now
You`re nice and high
You`re advocating immigration
But you don`t know why
Now you getting vibrations
All down to your feet
That`s the brow beatin`
Heavy ... anti desal beat

Put your hand on your hips
Now you let your policies flip
Put out your tongue
Put your hand in the air
Make a Mac-sign
You just don`t care

Now you feel free
You got a aquifer control
Extraction causes drought
Got a little bit of soul

You don`t have to think
You don`t have to move a muscle
dams drop to 30 percent
Its a Heavy leather
Dseal Resurrection shuffle

Alright
Oh, here we go again
Oh, that`s the tunnel funnel resurrection
You're doing it, alright

Your services are nothing
But you`re nice and high
You`re advocating immigration
But you won't say why

You`re getting vibrations
All down to your feet
That`s the riot heating, crime tweaking
Multicultural Heavy leather
Resurrection beat

Here we go again
Put your hand on your hip
You gotta let your
Services slip

Put out your tongue
Put your hand in the air
Make a Mac-sign like
You just don`t care

Now you feel free
You gotta lose control
All God`s children
Gota fight for their soul

You don`t have to think
You don`t have to move a muscle
To do the population beating
Heavy leather
Tunnel Funnel shuffle

You`re doing alright
Post ministerial scheme'll last you
For years and years
And it`s alright

You`re doing Mac alright
Don`t get uptight
Uh-huh, yeah
That sounds alright,

WHERE ARE YOU ANDREW?

Been a busy week I know with parlt sitting etc but would REALLY like to know if you've had a chance to check out Al Bartlett at http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461, and if so what you think of the points he makes?

Well, it appears as though Andrew is not going to partake any further in this thread, or the other one that he has been involved with; ‘Refugees – we’d like to help but…’ (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4101).

I hope he proves me wrong.

We are just left completely unenlightened as to why he promotes high immigration or wants a population 50% bigger than the current level in Australia.

We completely don’t understand why he fought to eliminate John Coulter’s policy of zero net migration, which is an essential prerequisite for real sustainability. Dr Coulter certainly didn’t hide his feelings before he was leader, so he must have had a great deal of support from his party. Then along comes Andrew, with a completely different outlook and succeeds in radically overhauling the fundamental sustainability policies of the Democrats.

One has got to ask, why did he join the Democrats in the first place if he had such a different viewpoint? Why not the Libs? And how come the Democrats let him join? Did he hide his desire for high immigration until he was in a powerful enough position to reveal it?

I feel very strongly duped. I have always thought of the Democrats as reasonably environmentally friendly and sustainability-oriented – until Andrew posted his article that is. Even despite then leader Natasha Stott-Despoija’s extremely one-sided stance over the Tampa incident and even despite personally turning away from them before that because they weren’t green enough for me, I still held them in high regard compared to the Libs and Labor.

But now….. well! I will go as far as saying that I think the majority of Democrats voters have been gravely misled into believing that the Demos are an environmentally friendly party, when they are in fact just a third or fourth pea in the pod of the grossly unsustainability-promoting incumbents and opposition.

No two ways about it, I am appalled

Thermoman

Yes, I read the piece by Dr Bartlett.

Firstly, migration doesn't add to population growth, it just shifts people from one place to another.

Secondly, global population growth is not exponential, and with better social and economic policies it can be made even less so.

Thirdly, even with a net migrant intake around about our current level, Australia's population growth not only won't be exponential, there won't be any growth in our population at all by mid-century if fertility rates continue on their current trend.

Fourthly, whilst most resources are finite, the efficiency with which we use them certainly isn't.

In my view, pro-environment policies should not mean elitist or anti-people policies. If people wish to promote such an approach they are entitled to, but don't expect me to support it. A view that sees the Democrats' approach (which was strongly supported by the whole party, not just the then Leader) at the time of the Tampa as "extremely one sided" pretty much says all the needs to be said. It is absurd, at best, to imply that there was any significant sustainability aspect involved in the Tampa situation.

The zero net migration policy was pushed through the Democrats membership by a committed minority in the early 90s - forced to reballot repeatedly until they got what they wanted. They were entitled to do this of course, but I don't believe it was what a majority of the membership believed. It was certainly never supported by any Democrat Senator at the time or later, except John Coulter.

The policy was brought in after I became a member. I presume the Democrats 'let me join' because they never saw or held themselves out to be an anti-migration party. I fought to overturn the anti-migration policy because it was unjust, unsustainable and unworkable - the more aware I became of migration laws and policy and how it operated, the clearer this became, and the clearer it was to me that it was also against fundamental Democrat principles.

Firstly, migration certainly does add to population growth in Australia. With your way of thinking Andrew, why don’t you advocate a much higher immigration intake? As far as I was aware, the Democrats supported the idea of ‘think globally, act locally’. I thought it was obvious to them that we must strive for sustainability at home!

Secondly, It doesn’t matter if growth rates are actually exponential or not. As Al Bartlett points out, even seemingly small rates of increase add up very quickly. These apparently small increases in population or demand for resources have the power to greatly dilute if not completely cancel out and overwhelm even seemingly big improvements in efficiency in all sorts of resource usage.

Thirdly, I and a number of other contributors on this thread vehemently disagree that with current growth rates our population will stabilise by mid-century. I continue to feel that you have been badly misled on this, by looking only at fertility-rate and age-structure projections and not immigration. Please recheck this with your staff or supporters, because you are wrong with this Andrew.

Fourthly… efficiency certainly is finite – we can only refine our methods of utilising resources up to certain point.

I did not imply that there is any sustainability aspect in the Tampa incident. My point was that Natasha’s (and Bob Brown’s) stance over the Tampa was something I found extremely unfortunate (see my views on this under Opening Australia’s borders - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3838#22156) However, as you mention it, there certainly would have been a sustainability aspect if the asylum-seeker issue had been allowed to escalate uninhibited as it was threatening to do at the time.

Finally, net zero immigration is by no means anti-immigration. It is a good balance between striving for sustainability and maintaining some humanitarian and skills intake, along with associated family reunion.

I would love to know why you consider net zero immigration to be “against fundamental Democrat principles”.

O by the way, I am pleased that you are still with us Andrew.

The sentence, which began "I would also be interested ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#30884) was incomplete. It should have read:

"I would also be interested to know how you think that the water needs for the additional 1 million, that the NSW and Federal Governments plan to cram into the already hideously overcrowded Sydney basin in coming years, will be met."

My apologies for my carelessness.

---

Andrew, whilst I also greatly appreciate your continued participation in this forum, I note that you haven't responded at all to any of the points made in my last post.

Now the Brisbane City Council is to spend $30 million to drill in the hope of finding underground water aquifers in the southern Brisbane. Brisbane's Courier Mail reported on Friday 10 Feb :

"Liberal spokesperson for water water Jane Prentice yesterday admitted that the region was now in a perilous situation and the council would invest millions in the aquifer project to ensure that southeast residents had adequate drinking water.

"'We're at a crisis point now,' she said 'We've got about three weeks left of the wet season and we have to start drought-proofing this city'."

So, in order to cope with continued population growth which economists (read 'mouth-pieces for property developers and land speculators' (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4006#25957)) insist is necessary to save our economy from collapse, we have to obtain massive volumes of water from underground aquifers with unpredictable environmental consequences or we have to burn non-renewable global warming coal in order to obtain fresh water from the sea.

How you could seriously maintain, in the light of this and all that has been written above by myself and others, that a further 50% increase in Australia's population, including a further 1.1 million in SEQ is 'pro-environment' is beyond me.

Could I suggest that you and the whole Democrats organisation give consideration to these questions? A good place to start would be at the forthcoming conference of the Queensland branch of the Australian Democrats on 25 February (see http://qld.democrats.org.au).

Andrew Bartlett

Do you honestly believe that “migration doesn't add to population growth, it just shifts people from one place to another?”

Do you believe that people are not affected by the things that happen in other parts of the world? If all the prosperous countries in the world were stabilising their populations and living sustainably and poor countries were starving, don’t you think the poor countries might get the message that stabilising your population helps increase the standard of living?

Don’t you think that if Mexicans, Afghans, Turks and Vietnamese could not migrate to other countries to have a higher standard of living, that they might be more likely to stabilise their populations at home?

Since the one child policy in China, the economic growth rate has been 9% per year for 25 years. The UN estimates that there are 300 million less people in China than there would have been without the one child policy, and all those 300 million would have been living in poverty. Is that an anti-people policy? Why does the general population in China say “Yes it is a difficult and painful policy, but we know we need to have it for the good of everybody?” Don't you think that the success in China has had a big impact on reducing fertility in many countries around the world?

Do you believe that you can tell poor countries “You should reduce your populations, by reducing your fertility, but we are going to increase our population because we get short term economic benefits” and expect them to say “Oh great idea we will lower our population and you go right ahead and increase yours and take our best people to help you increase your standard of living, while we starve.” Why are there more Ethiopian doctors in the United States, than in Ethiopia?

1. If you honestly believe that the world population should stabilise, and
2. that the best policy for getting the world population to stabilise is to have high migration to Australia,
then you must not have thought about it very hard.

Nothing governments can do will stop the majority of immigrants flocking to Sydney and SEQ. They will find a way whether you force them to live in Orange or Dubbo.

This makes the wellbeing of Sydney and SEQ residents intolerable. If its intolerable NOW, why advocate an acceleration of this hell?

Because the big MacBanks and their back pocket politicians dont'give a rat's about our WELLBEING.

..A new survey that compares the wellbeing of people in all 150 federal electorates reveals the safe Labor seat of Grayndler, covering Annandale, Leichhardt, Petersham, Newtown, Marrickville and Summer Hill, tops the national list for all-round unhappiness.
The compiler of the national happiness scorecard, Robert Cummins, professor of psychology at Deakin University, said Sydney generally had more miserable people than the rest of the country.

It shows the happiest electorates tend to have a lower population density, a high proportion of people over 55, more females, more married people and less income inequality. Importantly, they have a strong sense of "connection to their community".

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/welcome-to-the-angstridden-inner-west/2006/02/12/1139679480760.html

Wellbeing? You can't make a profit out of that.

If residents have to be miserable for MAC BANKS to make profits and for their CEOs to be paid $1million per day in bonuses then like the Funnel Tunnel, residents just have to learn to like it .. OR ELSE.

Future attractions:

NSW government has spent unknown millions on back room public serpents, consultants and planning instruments to satisfy the big Banks vision for an overcrowded profit motivated future NSW, centered solely on Sydney. Is this where the $500 million budget shortfall has gone?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/debnam-targets-back-office-bureaucracy/2006/02/12/1139679480814.html

Rockdale council has spent undisclosed amounts of ratepayers money on plans to turn Botany Bay into a rich man's paradise that no local ratepayer could ever afford to visit. Anyone with half a brain can see this be a backdoor to the big Banks dream of Botany Vegas. This IMO is all the Kurnell Desal plant was ever about. They won't be developing prime real estate for the benefit of local residents.

Gentlemaen, its time for ACCOUNTABILITY.

Andrew

Further to my last post:

You wrote; “Fourthly, whilst most resources are finite, the efficiency with which we use them certainly isn't.”

Oh dear! Most resources are NOT finite!! Most are renewable. Surely it is now our highest priority to make sure that those potentially renewable resources do not reach a point where they are effectively exhausted, nor anywhere near it, and to see that those approaching exhaustion or unaffordability are both substituted and used very much more frugally (a la oil).

Fisheries, forests, soil, water, energy sources, etc - they are all renewable... and all showing major signs of stress.

Shouldn’t this be the overwhelmingly most important objective of the Democrats?

Andrew

Last Sunday you wrote "in my view, pro-environment policies should not mean elitist or anti-people policies".

What on earth gave you the idea that a limit to population numbers is "anti-people"? In fact, it is precisely out of concern for humanity that this insane obsession with packing the globe with the largest number possible right now has to stop. What good has it done humanity for the world population to grow from 2.5 billion in the 1950s to 6.3 billion today? Sure, there is a larger QUANTITY of people but what about their QUALITY of life? According to UN figures, there are 25,000 people a day dying of starvation - there should not be a single person added to the world's population until this figure is reduced to zero. But what is going to happen? The world population is destined to rise to 9 billion by 2050. How many people will be dying of starvation then, with fisheries, agricultural land, water resources, fossil fuels, minerals stretched beyond their limits? What about inter-generational equity, or don't those people (our children and grandhildren) matter?

Truly, I don't think you give a fig for the plight of the world's starving. In fact I think you are anti-people because you would rather see population growth halted by famine, disease and war than by deliberate human planning. I am digusted by the moral bankruptcy of this "anti-people" argument, it is so short-sighted and stupid. I would much rather listen to Sir David Attenborough than you on this subject, he knows what he is talking about and with respect I place a lot more store by his credentials as a natural historian than by your relatively narrow background.

By the way, the link to Dr Bartlett was a streaming video and it seems pretty clear to me you didn't bother with it, otherwise you would not have said that you had read his piece. Your response to the points he made was a complete non-response.

Andrew,

It would help this discussion if you would clearly state your reasons for your proposed high immigration policies.

Once again Andrew - why?

Thermoman - the link goes to a page which provides a transcript. I read the transcript. I responded - in particular noting that it was wrong to link Australia's migration intake to talk of exponential growth. But if you prefer to think I'm a liar, feel free.

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but migration does not increase the world's population - it moves them from one part of the planet to another. How having some people live here instead of somewhere else makes things worse for the world's starving is beyond me.

Your argument is basically saying you want to help the world's starving and help everyone else's quality of life by keeping them out of Australia. We try to help them in some general manner as long as they stay away, so we can continue to have one of the biggest per capita ecological footprints of any country all to ourselves.

last word, if you haven't been able to figure out my reasons for supporting migration from my article and all of my comments, then I doubt my repeating them is going to help much.

The current levels of migration to Australia, which I call 'high' (as opposed to some of the enormous numbers which the Business Council and others sometimes spruik, which I would call 'massive'), are already policy of most political parties in a general sense. My article was basically saying that, seeing we have these policies, we should to do more to promote the reasons behind this approach.

I believe the biggest plus is the social and cultural enrichment, followed by the economic benefits - a more solid foundation to our economy and more investment, export and trade opportunities. The benefits to Australia from the migration intake over the last 60 years are many and obvious. That doesn't mean that this will always be the case regardless, but it does show the clear pluses that can come through migration.

Of course everyone is racist. As very young children we learn our species identity. We recognise the difference between ourselves and the family dog; and the dog from the cat. We learn our gender identity at a very young age too. And we learn our racial identity. This can even be confused. At a very young age we develop a mindset as to what we find attractive based on who we see and interact with in our everyday environment, which guides us in the later choice of a mate. In the case of say a Japanese family living isolated from other Japanese people within say a Norwegian society it can be expected that upon maturity the offspring of the Japanese family will find themselves sexually attracted to Norwegians and not Japanese. Simply because of the earlier mindset of racial identity.

Blacks, muslims, jews etc too are blatantly racist - otherwise they wouldn't persist in using words and phrases against us that is politically incorrect should we refer to them in the same manner. Politically correctness is very one sided and very very racist. I'm not a racist. I'm ok with everyone being equal. Problem is blacks etc don't want to be equal, they insist they're better and downtrodden to boot. If there were true equality I could speak publicly about them the way they speak about me.

Andrew,

For now, I will let lie the glaring logical and factual flaws in your last post and won't dwell on the fact that you have barely responded to any of my posts and not at all to my most recent posts.

Had you read the article "Overpriced and over here: Housing affordability" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4156 by Damian Jeffree?

In it, he notes the critical link between continued relentless growth of Australia's population and our hyper-inflated housing market:

"The current level of immigration is effectively pumping demand and preventing the normal supply and demand pricing mechanism from operating to lower prices. The resulting prices unfairly disadvantage the current generation of Australians trying to afford what we should aim to have as a basic right."

Even though property speculators openly advocate increased immigration in order to drive up the already obscene cost of Australian housing, this crucial factor, which has, more than anything else, caused the impoverishment of ever larger sectors of the current Australian population, is barely ever mentioned or discussed by anyone in the spectrum of Australian politics ranging from the small 'l' liberal to the far left, who supposedly have the best interests of Australia's working class and underprivileged at heart.

You talk of immigration 'enriching' Australian culture. I ask you what sort of culture is possible for the growing numbers of Australians who have been cheated out of their entitlements to decent affordable shelter and the right to live in secure stable communities as a result of what is, at best, naive misguided head-in-the clouds idealism, or, at worst, naked profiteering?

daggett

I'll avoid the usual pot-kettle retorts.

I read that piece you refered to. I've been one of the few people at federal level consistently trying to raise the major problems with affordable housing, so it is good to see others drawing attention to it. His commentary about the problems of housing affordability are good, although I think his analysis of the migration figures are flawed.

Of course growing numbers push up demand which, in the absence of other factors, can impact on prices. However, it is silly to try to suggest that is the sole, or even main cause of the problem with housing affordability. It is this sort of reasoning which makes me use terms like 'anti-people'.

On the demand side of things, just as big a factor has been the dramatic decline in the number of people per dwelling. I presume you wouldn't advocate a compulsory minimum on the number of people residing in each house,or some formula of people per square meter of floor or land space, even though it would clearly be a plus for 'sustainability'?

By far the biggest impact on housing prices has been tax changes which encouraged many more investors into the market seeking windfall capital gains, pricing owner-occupiers out - coupled with a big drop in government investment in public and community housing. I haven't noticed anti-migration sustainability advocates complaining about this. Blaming migrants is just a cop-out.

We could make big sustainability gains by mandating building codes with greater energy and water efficiency designs. This would probably also push up the price of housing, but it could be subsidised in the same way we have a first home buyers grant now - indeed it would have more sense and public good to it than the first home buyers grant, which is poorly targetted.

However, as I've said repeatedly, we should aim for a stabilised population, which is likely to happen over the next 50-75 years with net migration numbers roughly around where they are now. Although if anyone thinks that that alone would solve housing affordability problems, they're dreaming.

ANDREW GOOD ON YOU

… for avoiding the “usual pot-kettle retorts” – you are keeping this discussion at a high level and I am amazed and very pleased that you are bothering to pursue this discussion with all the other demands on your time.

In your post yesterday you summarised my argument as “basically saying you want to help the world's starving and help everyone else's quality of life by keeping them out of Australia".

Yes! – you have somewhat overstated my case but it’s helpful to look at it this way.

Australia should raise its low foreign aid to the UN recommended amount of 0.7% of GDP (it’s currently only about 0.2% or something). And use those resources to work with poor countries to raise their per capita GDP by a combination of economic development and population stabilisation through better primary health care, education and contraception. BUT those countries will be suspicious if we do not stabilise our own population. Therefore the best way we can help the world’s starving is indeed to lead by example – to be a showcase of the benefits of a stable population, while working internationally for the same goal. We will not help by acting as a receptacle for the overflow populations of other countries – we could take 1 million a year and it wouldn’t make the slightest difference, when there’s another 3 billion on the way over the next 50 years.

I do not advocate zero immigration – something like 50,000 net would discharge our refugee obligations – but I do advocate a halt to the immoral practice of raiding Bangla Desh for its expensively-trained doctors, i.e. skilled immigration. And at the same time we should seek in all ways possible to reduce the large ecological footprint per capita. Remember also it is not our country to give away – those people who have been here for 50,000 years probably don’t think thir lives have been enriched by immigration over the past two centuries.

Anderw Bartlett you say:

"last word, if you haven't been able to figure out my reasons for supporting migration from my article and all of my comments, then I doubt my repeating them is going to help much."

You are wrong Andrew, you have not given any reasons, except in a most general sense, for your support of high immigration.

You did not do so in your article, where you took high immigration as a "given" - "it is a simple fact that Australia has and will continue to have very high levels of migration."

Andrew, you did say: " I happen to support high migration .... I think it's very valuable and important. .. I believe the net social and economic positives of migration are significant...)

Are these your reasons - " very valuable and important ...net social and economic positives" ?

Andrew, you said: "I find it hard to see how people can be so strongly of the view migration is a negative when Australia has so clearly benefited economically, culturally and socially from big waves of migration over the past 60 years."

So Andrew, is your reason based on your perceptions of historical benefits?

These are the only reasons you have put forward in your posts.

You have argued against against,low or nil immigration; but this is not the same as arguing your case for high immigration.

So what is the problem Andrew? As our senator tell us in detail why you and the democrats support a population of 30 million by 2050.

If you believe in it sell us the benefits.

Andrew, you are correct that repetition of vague generalities will not help me, nor will snide comments, and I am not requesting this.

I will be honest with you Andrew, I do not think you have thought through your policy position; if you had, you would have told us, and we would all have a clear picture of the benefits of your (and the Democrats) high population policy.

So once again, Andrew, why, specifically, do you think 30 million will be so good for us?

Please Andrew

This is the crux of the issue – for us to really understand why you support high immigration. Can you please spell it right out.

Thankyou.

ANOTHER BARTLETT TALKS SOME SENSE

If you are still under the illusion that it will be business as usual this century, I have just uncovered another Bartlett whose comments might interested you:

He is US Reublican Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland who gave a speech a couple of weeks ago (26 February to be exact) drawing attention to peak oil, as follows: "The world has never faced a problem like this without massive mitigation, more than a decade before the fact. And remember, Mr. Speaker, very few authorities believe that peak oil is more than a decade from now. So we are pretty much here.

"This really is a worldwide problem. We are all in the same boat on this little planet Earth traveling through space. There is only so much oil. There are about 7 billion people, and clearly we would do better to engage the nations of the world in a competition to achieve sustainability instead of a consumption contest, which is now what we are doing: Who can use the most oil to grow their economy the fastest?"

Then there's George H.W. Bush's speechwriter, conservative Republican Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall Street Journal, October last year. She wrote that she fears that "the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. ... [I]n some deep and fundamental way things have broken down and can't be fixed, or won't be fixed anytime soon ... and tough history is coming."

Or Paul Volker, former Federal Reserve Board Chairman, who was quoted in the Economist April 16 last year "Circumstances seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember. ... What really concerns me is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do anything about it".