In his ill-informed and intemperate article, Joel Butler concedes that his “end of the world as we know it” scenario sounds a little extreme. He's right, but that doesn't deter the chicken-little posters who seize the opportunity to beat the neo-White Australia drum.

Butler's economic data and information about movements of people are out-of-date and partial. He takes no account of the vast numbers of British citizens who work and live in Europe. Nor does he mention the massive economic boost foreign workers have given the British economy.

Nor is he familiar with recent trends the other way. As a recent visitor to the UK I know that the number of migrants to the UK from eastern Europe is falling - last year by 10% - and is expected to fall even further. ("Tide of migration turns as Polish workers return" The Independent, 27 February 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tide-of-migration-turns-as-polish-workers-return-787914.html)

Polish workers - Butler's bogeymen- are not only choosing other EU countries in preference to Britain but are also returning to Poland because of the fall in the value of the pound, disillusionment with conditions in Britain (see Marina Lewycka's "Two Caravans", Penguin 2007) and Poland's improving economy which had led to higher salaries and job shortages.

A spokesman for the Institute for Public Policy Research, said of migration from Poland: "It has always been a question of when these flows started drying up, rather than whether they would."

Let's assess Rudd's broad proposal on its possible merits and demerits. It's worth making a detached consideration of the facts and making a cool evaluation of possible benefits and consequences.

This "free trade" is a recurrent favorite of right-wing ideologues the world over, an old well worn chestnut dating back to the 1850's. As there is no such thing as "free trade" this needs translating into "free labor". This is why there are references to Polish workers who lately have been a source of very cheap labor. Rudd wants to exploit the labor power of workers in the Asia Pacific Rim as a source of very cheap labor. The colonial interventions into Timor (oil and gas and and wages 30 cents an hour)and other Pacific Islands was to recolonise them, grab their resources and exploit the labor force. A similar scenario in the Northern Territory after a full two centuries of genocide and inexorable racial oppression, government neglect and high unemployment. Rudd and former Liberal leader Howard both wish to slash welfare, cut pensions and unemployment dole and serve the aboriginals up to the mine owners and stations as cheap labor. As well as, securing control of mineral-rich lands and dumping spent uranium on aboriginal lands.

It's an interesting article.

I suppose the value of the proposal might be to say that yes, there can be some longer term agreement one day in the distant future. Lets chat.

Given the difference in governments (Burma for example). No agreement seems possible for a long long time. And that's without looking at the economic policies of each country.

Aren't we jumping the gun a bit? Rudd has not said he wants free movement of labour and people between all Asia-Pacific nations. Has he? I took it more as a fostering of transnational cooperation.

The author is right in arguing that the lack of homogeneity and economic disparities between the countries of Asia and the Pacific would make the free movement of people unworkable. It would also be disastrous where large movements of people to one area would place a strain on the existing infrastructures not to mention other problems with surges of population growth eg. water, sustainability etc.

As far as free trade goes we all know that the term is an oxymoron there is no such thing, there is always a cost, there are always winners (those with economic power) and losers (those with no power) and there is a lack of esential national focus and attention to local agriculture and industry - all important to sustaining local communities.

It is seem that if we want to continue improving our economy we need a much bigger market. High technology means high productivity, which require big market, which means we must join with one or more countries. But it is not only economic needs which push us to join with other countries but also political and cultural reasons which press us to move to this direction.
IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE IMPROVING OUR ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND CULTURAL STANDARDS WE MUST JOIN WITH OTHER COUNTRIES.
BUT if do not count our steps and join with the wrong countries then it could has catastrophic results for Australian labors and small businesses or even for Australian political and cultural standards.
I do not know what Rudd say and means but any kind of FREE (trade or movement)with our neighbors is extremely dangerous, we will be lost, AND WE MUST BLOCK IT. It is very different the cooperation from the free trade or free movement.
It is true that a big part of corporations in Australia belong to Asian, to our neighbors, mainly to China and Japan.
WHILE MANY CORPORATIONS BELONG TO ASIA, ALMOST ALL AUSTRALIANS HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS, VALUES, CIVILIZATION WITH EUROPEAN UNION.
If we have to join with a country or group of countries this could be ONLY THE EUROPEAN UNION.
Almost all Australians are from European background and if we want to keep the basic characteristics of Australian civilization WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE THAN TO JOIN WITH EUROPEAN UNION.
It is seem that Australian politicians are ready to give the Australia as a gift to Asian corporations.
WHILE AUSTRALIA GEOGRAPHICALLY BELONG TO ASIA, ALMOST ALL ITS CITIZENS ARE FROM EUROPEAN BACKGROUND AND I CAN NOT IMAGINE THEM LOST BETWEEN THE BILLIONS OF ASIANS. OUR CIVILIZATION IS SO DIFFERENT FROM THEIR CIVILIZATION AND OUR POPULATION SO SMALL COMPARE WITH THEIR POPULATION WE WILL HAVE NO CHANCE TO SAVVY.
INSTEAD TO SPEAK FOR FREE TRADE AND FREE MOVEMENT WITH ASIA LET'S START A DISCUSSION HOW TO JOIN WITH EUROPEAN UNION!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

The major flaw in Kevin Rudd's suggestion is that what he proposes is dependant
on the expectation of continued economic growth.
Too many politicians and indeed others presume that growth will be as
usual as in the past.

It won't, so how can free trade possibly work when everything is moving
towards localisation ?
In the same context a merge with the European Union is likewise impossible.
Frankly, it is pull up the drawbridge time.

He who thinks growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist.