The chief purpose of Howard's revitalised immigration policy is NOT the wellbeing of Australian citizens nor is it the welfare of Australia's future. If it were he would stop immigration till the drought eases.

Every immigrant that comes her is presumabley promised all the water they can use otherwise Howard would have trouble getting the numbers for this year's 140,000 intake. That means the new immigrants expect existing citizens to make sacrifices. Should we be sacrificing our lifestyle choices including water consumption so Howard can get more votes while we get gridlocks, crappy services and water restrictions?

What we are seeing is a political gambit to lower living standards in capital cities by increasing population densities with dubious private infrastructure investments, dilute civil rights with the resulting intense competition and hence increasing Federal power to what amounts to DICTATORSHIP. Why are Australians so accepting of this iniquity, subversion of our democratic vlues and the monopolised media propaganda that is constantly pushing only its side of the immigration debate.

Are Australian's really prepared for this Dictatorship? Do we understand the consequences
of having to compete harder to survive in our cities,
of gridlocks in all services
and of an unwillingness of both federal and state governments to lower taxes or increase services as their new mixed community manfdates enable them to defer responsibility to profit motivated private companies.

What are the uglier consequences that could evolve and when are we likely to see them?

What can we do to reverse the threat and is that even possible when an insecure Labour Party is probably cock a hoop about inheriting a Federal dictatorship and embracing it even harder?

What role is media monopoly by big business playing in stifling debate and even perpetrating propaganda that downplays all the negative implications?

What role does gambling and gaming play in increasing immigration. Studies show that when populations are stressed more, they gamble more? Is John Howard too close to the gambling emperors and moguls of this country and deliberately feeding them more highly stressed Australian populations to bolster this existing $14billion a year industry?

Since Australia reached its sustainable population of 13m people (see Tim Flannery et al)immigration has been national suicide. This would not have been obvious to people with no particular interest in sustainablity or our environment. But now, when we have almost doubled the 13m and are runningout of water, the 140,000 extra people brought into the country in the last year should have even the most complacent jumping up and down.

Unfortunately for us all, our jumping up and down will not do much good as both major parties are big immigrationists and bleeding heart acceptors of "refugees" adding to the strain without putting anything back. In my own city of Adelaide, the idiot Rann government is, on the one hand doing nothing about water infrastucture for the time when it does rain again - merely introducing restrictions on use and, on the other hand, squealing for more people to come to live here.

How much more stupid can these people, who are supposed to look after our interests, be?

We are told by people who study such things that immigration has no net benefit to the country. We needed immigration in the past. We do not need it any longer. In fact, it is going to turn Australia into desert. Just like the Sahara, which used to be wheat bowl of the Roman Empire.

Leigh

No net per capita benefit from immigration has the disturbing implication that any profit derived from immigration must come wholly at the expense of other Australians. In the case of a property developer selling cheaply constructed housing on bulldozed bushland on the fringe of a capital city, any profits will be wholly offset by community costs such as increased charges to the community for infrastructure and associated services

That's right, Fester. It does actually cost the rest of us big time. See Graham Young's post on rent.

Yep, pretty much spot-on Leigh.

High immigration is the absurdity to end all absurdities.

And then just when you think it couldn’t possibly get more absurd, immigration actually rises at the time that we have entrenched severe water-supply problems in most major cities and many other areas across the country.

What the hell gives?

Do we really need to keep reminding ourselves of the fundamental purpose of government – to look after the populace and do the right thing by them in terms of quality of life, now and in an ongoing secure manner?

So what is our government actually doing in this regard?

Its a good point that water and infrastructure are at crisis, and more people moving in will make matters even worse. Putting immigration on hold before we resolve this crisis is sensible to manage a serious situation.

Thank the good lord that Tony Abbot is not Prime Minister. In a speech a few years ago, you can find this in in Hansard, Tony Abbot strongly believed Australia urgently needed to boost our population to 60 million people. He was serious. The Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was right beside him nodding his head. All they think about is short term greed. Now we can see that responsibility must prevail.

Greed was so, 1980s. Time for change.

I fully agree. The current immigrating policy is both folish and unsustainable. The only purpose it serves is to make certain sections of big business (ie: property developers) richer, but could I ask you good posters, who amongst have actually done anything about it other than venting on this site? Eg: Have you been speaking to local members about your concerns? Have you been writing letters to the immigration minister? For after all, a written letter with your full name and address upon it is much harder to dismiss than a simple email of which Amanda Vanstone receives hundreds a day. And don't stop with the current Federal Government. Write to the opposition. Next year is a voting year and a very good time to get your message across. Bombard Neville Ran with letters and petitions. Heck, bombard everyone and eventually the message might get through. However, I fear Australia hasn't changed much in the last decade or so. We tend to whinge and whine about how "crook" things are, but don't lift a finger (or a pen) and actually set out to try to change things for our betterment. Come on! I'm sick of writing letters to pollies. Help me out here! Even if you do send a simple email message (don't forget your home address or it will be instantly deleted), it's better to have made that simple move than to have sat back and done nothing. Hope you're all with me on this one. Also, join "Get-up" and have a say on your country's future. As the posters above rightly point out, Australia is fast heading down the gurgler while high and mighty Howard literally gets away with murder.....murder of our once "lucky" country and murder of our way of life.

Thanks KAEP,

The link to the discussion arising from Graham Young's article, referred to by Leigh, on the link between immigration and increasing rents, is to be found at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=310

(There was considerable contention between Graham Young and myself, but I think he should still be commended for having posted the article in the first place.)

An earlier (somewhat labored, in parts) discussion on affordable housing in response to Andrew Bartlett's article "A crisis in housing affordability", which gave rise to discussion on population and immigration, can be found at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834

I would also like to again commend Sheila Newman's Master's thesis of 2002:

"The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France"

This describes how, after the oil shocks of 1973, France, and other European countries, ceased their policies of encouraging high immigration and embarked upon a campaign to establish energy efficiency and self-sufficiency. Australia, at first, under the Whitlam government tried to do the same. However, after it was removed from office, policies of high immigration were resumed, and programs to attain energy efficiency were scrapped. Of course, Energy Minister Rex Connor's visionary plan to make Australia energy self-sufficient never got off the ground. The fact that they resorted to using unorthodox means to raise the funds got blown up, by a hostile newsmedia, into the "Khemlani Affair" which led to the Whitlam Government's downfall.

Fraser, subsequent Labor governments and, of course, the Howard government resumed polices of high immigration and undermined or prospects of achieving energy independence by allowing the farm to be further sold off to foreign corporations. The reason much of this occurred in Australia and not in France, was that in Australia there are significant groups who stand to gain from high immigration at everybody else's expense, whereas this is not the case in France.
If anyone wishes to understand what is largely driving this country today I suggest that they read the thesis, particularly chapter 7. It can be downloaded from http://www.candobetter.org/sheila

I fail to see or understand the logic of our current or previous Governments continually advocating their immigration policies.
Australia no longer has sufficient vital resources to justify immigration. With the recent bushfires ingulfing our country how much of our precious water was used to fight the fires.
Nostra Damus made a lot of predictions in his quotrains which were not deciphered until after events occured.
One of his predictions suggested a country, which in his time had not been discovered. So called experts have suggested it to be Australia.
Nostra Damus prediction went something like this. A new continant would be discovered. Around the year 2000 it would be engulphed in fire and destroyed. Modern day beleivers of Nostra Damus presumed he was predicting the 3rd world war, a war with the potential to completly destroy the world. Perhaps his predictions were more in line with what is courently effecting our country now. From what I understand the bushfires, although contained for now are still burning. We are again facing temperatures into the 30's, which will have the possibility of the fires getting out of control again, resulting in more of our precious water being used. Niether Federal or State Governments are doing anything substantial to rectify Australias water crisis. They need to close the stable door now before all the horses have bolted. Stop further immigration and do more to implementing more water resources.
Gypsy

The entire system is an end product of Proletariat Ineptitude or the artificial intelligent useless Idiot syndrome, and there are some people gathered on this forum who very well know what I mean.

You can well call it; The End of days, or the annihilation principle; Hypocrite does not go any where near explaining the fete that has plagued us by all of our brain dead Looter Elites.
I would call it " The MURDER of Nations" in the first degree and of the worst intent.
Try this Essay;
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_problem_of_the_power_elite/
I don’t know if calling it Political Hypocrisy is sufficient.

But we can draw some comfort in that the whole Western Civilization principle is scheduled for decimation and not Just Australia.
So making way for the: “Third World Reich”. And get used to the Idea of Cave dwelling and tribal wars, its has arrived.
And you’re Private Property and Rights had not existed for 30 odd years, The State Assumed ownership, you were the dumb suckers who feed the Labyrinth of Proletariat and Fascist regimes , Dhimmitude & Taxation. You paid for your own Annihilation.
Happy New year

I did what you suggest for many years, Wildcat. Sadly, as you say, not many people seem to contact politicians, though. Those of us who do are written off as nut cases. I no longer bother. Too old, and too cynical, I suppose.

My biggest problem in 2007 will be to find someone to vote for. I am a conservative (the Howard government is hardly conservative, but that has been my only choice to date). I would not vote Labor in a fit. The silly minor parties and independents are just that - silly.

Until politics is seen as something other than a refuge for no-hopers and control freaks, nothing is going to change. It seems that Australia will have to reach rock bottom, almost a state of anarchy, to get the message through.

The complete lack of regard by all politicians for anything but the next election is a scandal we should all be ashamed of supporting.

Leigh,

"My biggest problem in 2007 will be to find someone to vote for."

Therein lies the solution.

Vote contrary.

If all the parties are as bad as each other, alternate them at each successive election till they no longer find a continuance of personal gain in selling the rights of their constituents to the highest corporate bidder.

This year vote Liberal in the states and labor at Federal level.

ITS THAT EASY to send the message .... we've had enough!

The same-old-same is far too dangerous. As an example, if Howard is reelected the Snowy will be sold. No one wants that but a fifth term will see Howard with a mandate to do just that.

This and similar moves, particularly privatisation of farming, could well result in civil war in this country.


We judge the Fijians harshly for taking back their country but who will judge us when it is our turn to have to take back ours?

Best New Year wishes.

Drought is a very poor excuse to curb immigration. This country can support a much larger population than currently. You only need to look at the amount of food exported and the amount of fresh water lost through not recycling and runoff going out to sea.
Since nearly all our population reside close to the coast desalination is always an option. Country towns, some of which have no current water restrictions, could benefit greatly from population growth.
There is no doubt that our major cities have water sustainability problems with current sources, all the more reason to specify immigrants settle outside these areas but not to stop them coming.

For those concerned about the economic impact on voting CONTRARY you must understand that the Howard/Costello economic Messiah mantra is just a con.

This nation has had 10 years of booming commodity sales irregardless of any Howard penny pinching. Contrary to Costello and vested interest pundit predictions for a downturn in the economy ruling commodity sector, Green project futures for the next 10 years guarantee Austrlaia will continue to BOOM no matter who governs.

Mark well that those in the best position to gain from this boom, such as the treasurer and the banks and investment houses will be desperately trying to obscure its coming from prying eyes. Its a shame they cannot be post date charged with insider trading because that is precisely what they are doing.

Rojo,

If you can find country areas that have sufficient water and jobs to sustain ALL new immigrants I agree with a continuance of immigration.
If not it should be STOPPED totally till the drought has lifted.

However we all know that big business and Gambling interests are driving immigration policy. They demand more migrants in big cities to boost market opportunities and profits. They will scream like stuck pigs if your idea is even canvassed, so it will never happen.

NOTE: all coastal areas and major cities do have severe water problems and must be ruled out even if your idea did get up.

Kaep, my idea does not have to get up, its yours that has to come to fruition. City dwellers will have to constrain water use even further and embrace recycling. Desalination will come online all of which will create jobs in construction, maintainence and compliance.
Why are big business and gambling driving immigration policy? In driving the economy are we not all to benefit especially regarding the economic losses attributable to the drought.

Leigh,

I can't understand how you see the Howard Government as in any way way preferable to Labor or any of the other alternatives. As just one of many glaring examples, how could you vote for a Government, which prior to 2003 allowed AU$300 million in bribes to be paid to a regime, that it then told us was such a threat to humankind, that we were left with no alternative but to invade?

Our society has almost no hope of rising to meet the grave challenges before it, if such an abysmally incompetent group of political leaders as this remains at its helm beyond 2007.

Of course you are right to have serious misgivings about the Labor Party and all the alternatives to this government, but how do you think it conceivable that any of them could do a worse job than this government is now doing?

There can be no guarantee that Labor, the only possible alternative that can hope to win office in 2007, will be capable rising to meet the challenge. If they are not, then that will be a necessary part of the learning curve that the Australian public must proceed through, if they are ever to get a Government that can rise to meet these challenges.

What on earth do you imagine can be achieved by failing to take the opportunity to get rid of this Government in 2007?

rojo(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=339#5846) wrote:

"You only need to look at the amount of food exported ..."

Have you any idea of how parlous is the state of Australia's agricultural land? I suggest you read "We Fiddle as the Continent Turns to Dust" by Sydney Morning Herald journalist Paul Sheehan at http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/102406ED.shtml . If the current apparent trend toward the desertification of agricultural land is not stopped we will soon be struggling very hard to feed ourselves.

In any case, why does any country have to find excuses such as that of the drought in order to be able to exercise the right to restrict the numbers of people that it allows to move there?

The argument that more numbers are necessary in order for the Australian economy to become modern and competitive is a self-serving lie, peddled for too long by land speculators, property developers and related businesses so that they can profit at everybody else's expense (again, as explained in Sheila Newman's thesis at http://www.candobetter.org/sheila).

The principle reason that Queensland does not have enough water, its power generators are struggling to cope with the additional demand, its hospitals cannot cope, Moreton Bay is filling with silt, Koalas are now an endangered species, its roads are often gridlocked, its buses and trains can't meet the demand, etc, is that its population has doubled since 1974 to over four million, and the fools governing this state and the country now hope to increase this, in the South East corner, alone, by another by 1.25 million by 2026.

Why should the rural communities in the Mary Valley (http://www.savethmaryriver.com) and around Wyaralong (http://www.stopthewyaralongdam.org) suffer their destruction as a result of their Government having increased the population without having first bothered to ensure that there were adequate natural resources to meet their needs?

rojo also wrote: "Desalination will come online all of which will create jobs in construction, maintainence and compliance."

Perhaps the government could could also be persuaded to create more 'compliance' jobs by by further increasing the complexity of our tax system.

What of the cost in green house gas emissions of water recycling?

For a start, Labor would do in 12 months what the Howard Government had done in 10 years; Call the Howard Government the Fabian effect. The Labor party stands for nothing but Proletariat Altruistic Idiocy. Over the same period of time we would be totally decimated and probably returned to primitive tribalism, or speaking Mandarin, only now we are 60% decimated.
Even after 10 years with a pseudo conservative government we have achieved every single Proletariat goal conceivable; and they still wing and wine and bounce around in their rubber rooms.
You have to agree with Leigh, the whole fraudulent system can rot in hell. The Idiots have overridden the Nation. And looted it out of existence.
The problem is, They have totaly stuffed up the whole world, and there is nowhere left to run. The State has destroyed us.

Wiping out farmers: now where did that proletariat Idea come from; they wouldn’t be picking on the bourgeois would they?

Dagget, I suspect I have a little more understanding of the agricultural scene than you do if you rely on the SMH for all your info. Yes there is a drought, but you have interpreted a throwaway line "pretty soon we'll see desert from the Great Dividing Range" as being fact. Without rain a great deal of the land currently looks like desert, of that there is no question, but it is not desertification.
"What of the cost in green house gas emissions of water recycling?"
This would have to be the weakest arguement ever against water recycling. If GH gas is emitted for any cause surely this would have to be one of the most important. Our civilisations are based on delivery of clean water, and our lifestyle requires more than is strictly necessary. One way to supply these additional needs is to not pollute our harbours and rivers with run off and nutrient rich treated sewerage(or untreated as is sometimes the case).
The Qld govt is doing what it needs to for the population. Severe drought has pushed them to consider recycling, build more dams(they have been earmarked for decades) and currently exploring cloud seeding. Upgrading transport etc will increase employment and no doubt employ immigrants. You have stated they are already behind on this issue.
Govt could employ more people in the tax area, but this is does not add to economic growth. The comparison is a bit silly.

KAEP, you ask, in your opening post, "Why are Australians so accepting of this iniquity [the sacrifice of living standards to accomodate immigration], subversion of our democratic values and the monopolised media propaganda that is constantly pushing only its side of the immigration debate[?]".

I suggest that a large majority of Australians are not at all accepting of these things.

Could it be with respect to "democratic values" that Australians, in the great majority of cases, have simply been consistently ill-represented for over a century, and only subliminally recognise this? If you think this is true you will have to look beyond the presumed influence of historically prominent political personalities on party policies for an explanation. I suggest the explanation lies in a mixture of complacency and naivety, concentrated most notably amongst those who are attracted to political life, and their accolytes, with respect to the very administration of the electoral process itself.

The first question of such seems always to have been "how can we work the system to maximize the chance of winning?", rather than "is the contest being conducted according to the rules?". Now being able to determine whether the rules are being observed requires first a knowledge of the rules. A detailed, thoroughgoing knowledge of the rules, a knowledge acquired for the purpose of ensuring compliance, rather than acquired in order to "get around" their seemingly inconvenient provisions! Fail to acquire it, and you fall into the hands of those who have, those who may be bent upon using that knowledge for an entirely different end: the subversion of the electoral process.

I do think the term Constitutional values to be a more focussed expression than "democratic values". It implies an actual written "rule book", a standard to which the elected should be held accountable. A standard politicians seem consistently to strive to evade.

The link to a previous discussion, "The New Migration" , could prove informative.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5021 .
Also, re Daggett's first post, "Rex Connor: The Other Dismissal"
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5018

Forrest,

If you are right and Australians do care, then they will THINK and VOTE CONTRARY: Vote Labor Federally and Libs in the states. So, no other discussion of this point is necessary.

If political parties still keep selling Aussies our to overseas interests then we can keep voting CONTRARY until their PERSONAL profit motive for BETRAYAL of this nation is utterly stamped out.

This nation is a essentially desert and destined to become the world's mine. Howard is intent on using media to hide this fact and position himself to manage it all with minimal interference from Australians who are stakeholders of that wealth.

So, Howard is just doing a snow job on all of us with his immigration policies.

The more immigrants and the more we have to compete to survive. The more state governments fail to provide adequate services and we will be far too stressed to challenge Howard. That is his plan. That is why he has to go.

Australian history, Constitutional values and Democratic values are largely irrelevant because they were never meant to deal with enslavement issues apart from those of Colonial rule. The new enslavement threat is sequestration of critical economic information through global corporate ownership and proxy media propaganda, keeping us in the dark. All of which Howard has embraced VERY RECENTLY with gusto. How the blue blazes is our 'War-of-the-Roses-constitution' and antiquated 'parli-a-ment' supposed to deal with THAT?

Think and vote CONTRARY.

And while voting, spare a thought for the Fijians who have had to fight to take back THEIR country, 'Lest-we-Forget' it may be our turn next.

As for economic outcomes, it does not matter who governs Australia in the short term as long as in the long term WE the people continue to own our own assets and chiefly our own mineral assets.

It is disturbing that gold mines in Australia are now 80% foreign owned. We don't have much time.

STOP Howard's way before he totally swamps our voice with more migrants and sells everything in HIS country that is not glued down in blood.

Rojo,

This country cannot support a “larger population than currently”. It has the oldest, most impoverished soil in the world. One third of the continent is habitable, and that’s where all the migrants want to go.

The country towns you talk about don’t have the water the cities have, apart from brackish bore water if they are lucky. It is too expensive to provide the services city people enjoy. The country population is shrinking. There are no jobs. Migrants will just not go to go to the country.

We need to start reducing our population now.

City dwellers will have to constrain water use even further, you say. How the bloody hell can we have more people when we have to reduce water used by the current 25 million already here? Most of them will continue to live in cities because they have to. Most of Australia is a desert. Restrictions cut use to that of 50 years ago!

As one who has been in the water business, I can tell you desalination is grossly expensive and uses huge amounts of electricity, something else we are expected to cut back on.

Your “driven” economy will not provide water.

Dagget,

I probably wouldn’t understand why you prefer one political party to another, either.

I didn’t know about the AWB scandal prior to 2003? Did you? I agree, that now we do know, it’s a big strike against them – for incompetence if not for actual complicity.

I did say I HAVE voted for them in the past. I did say that I don’t know what I’m going to do in 2007. Selective reading on your part just to air your own views on Iraq etc?

I do think it is conceivable that any party in Australia could do a worse job than the Coalition, yes! Hawke and Keating have already demonstrated that. Don't forget Whilam.

What do I imagine can be achieved by failing to kick out the incumbent government in 2007? It will keep out the socialistic ALP which simply does not know how to handle money.

rojo,

I would suggest to you that if our agricultural land is not gravely degraded by the abuses of mechanised monoculture and the ill-conceived use of irrigation over many decades, it would be a miracle. Of course, Australia is already an arid and dry country, but that is no guarantee that it can't get a lot worse.

I regarding GHG emnissions from water recycling, I was suggesting that it is stupid to grow our population and then have to depend upon means which further damage the environment in order to supply basic necessities. The operation of water-recycling will require the burning of finite, non-renewable fossil fuels and will help make the prospect of runaway global warming even more likely.

We should understand that the spectacular growth in the number of our species from less than 500,000,000 to 6,500,000,000 in around two centuries was only made possible because of the use of captured solar ennergy in the form of fossil fuels. Once that runs out, no-one knows just how it will be possible to feed everybody.

If we don't aim to limit human numbers to what we know are within the capacity of our natural environment to support then the survival of our society cannot be assured in the longer term. If we continue to push as far beyond those natural limits as we have today, then catastrophe is assured.

You wrote: "One way to supply these additional needs is to not pollute our harbours and rivers with run off and nutrient rich treated sewerage ... "

(ToBeContinued)

(ContinuedFromAbove)

I agree that human sewerage should not be flushed into the ocean. In fact, I regard the building much of this country's sewerage sytem to have been a big mistake. In other countries the fertility of the soil has been maintained for thousands of years by recycling, back into the soil, all the nutrients taken out of it, including that contained in human waste. The fact that this has not been done has caused much of the fertility in our soil to have been lost in recent decades. As a consequence, the nutritional worth of even fresh vegetables is far less than what it used to be. Eventually our soils will lose their ability to grow anything if the broken chemical loop is not re-established.

You wrote: "The Qld govt is doing what it needs to for the population. ..."

The Queensland Government largely brought about the current problems because it encouraged population growth without regard for where the necessary natural resources would come from. This included a full page newspaper advertisement in the Courier Mail of 8 December 2005, which on the occasion of the anticipated birth of the 4,000,000th Queenslander the following day, urged other urged people to move to Queensland and for Queenslanders to welcome the new arrivals. It was personally signed by Queensland Premier Peter Beattie.

You wrote: "Govt could employ more people in the tax area, but this is does not add to economic growth. The comparison is a bit silly."

And why is it any less silly to suggest that the extra economic activity necessary to cope with greater population amounts to economic growth?

As result of water shortages, we are soon to pay a lot more for what used to be virtully free a generation ago. It's impossible, we are told to build the necessary roads without crippling the Brisbane City Council's finances. When the wretched North South Bypass Tunnel, alone costing $3billion, and associated projects are finally build, tens of thousands of Brisbanites are to be gouged with easily four tolls each day of the week

Forrest Gummpp, thanks for having pointed me to the article about Connor's dismissal at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5018 I have posted some comments there.

---

Leigh,

Can you really believe that Howard and Downer did not know what was going on during the years that bribes were being paid to Hussein's regime? They received 31 (as I recall) warnings that something was wrong during that time. What else do you think could possibly have been done to have got them to act? If they weren't able to comprehend that many warnings, then how can you possibly consider them capable of running our country?

I believe that they did know what was going on, and right from the start, because I just can't believe that Downer and Howard are stupid enough not to have known.

It's not about airing my views on Iraq. If you state that you may be voting for John Howard, then I think it's reasonable to ask you to justify yourself.

(ToBeContinued)

(ContinuedFromAbove)

Regarding the alleged incompetence of the Whitlam government, this was largely an invention of a hostile newsmedia with vested interests in having it removed. Mistakes were made, but most of the economic problems were caused by the international economic crisis, itself, largely a consequence of the oil crisis.

In fact, Energy Minister Rex Connor wanted to make Australia energy independent. He tried to obtain a loan that would allow his Government on behalf of the people by back our oil and gas deposits. The fact that he resorted to unorthodox means was blown up by the newsmedia into the "Khemlani affair", but in all the hype and hysteria, the merits of Connor's underlying purpose were never discussed. Soon, with our own oil reserves likely to be exhausted in only 6 years time, we will pay the terrible cost for Connor not having realised his goal.

Another fact, not widely acknowledged is that the Whitlam Government reduced immigration as a response to the oil crisis as did European governments at the same time. Of course, as we know, policies of high immigration were resumed by the Fraser Government and all subsequent governments. You can read about in Chapter 7 of Sheila Newman's thesis, referred to above, at http://www.candobetter.org/sheila

I consider myself a 'socialist' although not one who supports open borders or who believes that the resources of our planet are infinite.

I think, for your own part, you should be prepared to reconsider whether our interests as a society are best served by giving unrestrained power to corporations and property speculators as this Government is bent on doing.

Dagget,It is a miracle! Conservation farming using no tillage, selective and cell grazing, and rapid adoption of irrigation technologies are changing the mistakes of the past. Landcare and private tree plantings are lowering water tables and reducing salinity. Shelter belts are reducing wind erosion whilst boosting productivity. Salt interception schemes reduce salt loads in the Murray.
Times change. Agriculture changes. Get out and have a look, preferably after we get some rain.
Your GH gas concerns seem to presuppose that our immigrants are GH gas neutral in their home countries.
World population increase is more attributable to agriculture and food availability. Fossil fuels did not provide widespread power(electricity) until the 1950's and I'm sure many populous areas still have none. Cars have only become widespread in China in the last twenty years yet they have a billion residents. Certainly industrialisation plays a big part. By not being subsistence farmers or hunter gathers, people have been able to specialise knowledge in medicine,health and hygiene. Builders create more comfortable and safe homes and hospitals and so on.
I agree that world over population is of great concern, and that current supplies of food and fibre have bred a complacency toward agriculture. Particularly as population is predicted to increase another 40% this century.
Brisbane no doubt has growing pains and I am surprised to hear that Mr Beattie recently was openly inviting more people to come

Leigh, whilst I can't speak for every town, those in northern and central NSW have ample supplies of clean potable water from bores. I believe farmers in the darling downs in QLD are suppling their bore water to some city populations like Toowoomba.
Western Australia has an enormous underground aquifer. Northern Australia has no lack of water, just lack of infrastructure.
No, Leigh, lack of water is not the issue but we are relying to heavily on it in the wrong places.

I can only assume from the views expressed here that many of you have been Australians since before time began. Otherwise you too would be immigrants wouldn't you? Why did your family come to a country that you see is clearly incapable of absorbing additional population?

At what time in history did the exact number of people that could be supported occur?

Clearly a lot of what has been written here is irrational to put it mildly. Reduce population Leigh? How? Extermination perhaps?

"Alleged incompetence" of the Whitlam government? Khemlani ring a bell Daggett? Or was he too alleged only?

It seems many have swallowed the media drive to convince all that water is disappearing. It's not. What has been missing is simple. Governments for over 3 decades have been relaxed and comfortable hoping infrastructure will cope with increased demand. It has, but has reached it's limits, and beyond. Plan ahead, spend tax dollars on the people's needs rather than political advantageous vote buying.

Neither major Party will do anything but fight fires as long term to them is a week.

I'm surprised none of you here has raised the New Year's crackers as a major threat to our climate yet.

Daggett,

So now I have justify why I might vote for John Howard? Is it just me who has to justify myself to you? To whom do you justify your beliefs?

Where were you when Whitlam and company stuffed up? Were you even born? Rex Connor was disloyal to Whitlam as well as being a total incompetent. Same goes for the left lunatic, Cairns. Whitlam was dudded by his own people. The electorate endorsed the dismissal.

Anyone who considers himself a socialist, as you proudly do, is out of touch with reality and the harm that that stupid philosophy has done all around the world.

I presume you are trying change my mind, in your arrogance, but you have failed miserably and merely demonstrated your own ignorance. Dangerous naifs like you strengthen my resolve.

Robby H,

Fine one you are to talk about others being irrational. If you really believe what you say, you are away with the fairies.

Your ignorance is appalling. You don’t even know why Australia was settled in the first place. You don’t appear to have travelled anywhere in Australia to see what geographic conditions exist outside your own dunghill are like. You obviously haven’t read any of the learned opinions by people who actually have the knowledge to calculate a sustainable population for Australia.

Your opening comments are ludicrous. Even buses and other public transport have passenger limits for safety. People already in Australia have every right to say when enough is enough with immigrants.

If you want to push your nonsense, try it on with the scientists – not politicians - who will tell you that we are now well past sustainable population levels.

Rojo,

If farmers are supplying bore water to Toowoomba, how is it that that town is such dire straits? How is the water getting from farm to town? Are you sure that the bore water is potable? If it is, why were the people of Toowoomba asked if they would like to have recycled water? You say that you “believe”. Facts are needed

Leigh, I said "believe" because the proposal was made 6 months ago and Toowoomba's water crisis is not over. An interview on local radio recently "led me to believe" it is happening, but it may not be yet. Here was my original source. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1701477.htm

rojo,

(At least you appear to have read most of my posts, and have not resorted to personal attacks, so thank you.)

The fact that there are some, as yet, unexploited reserves of underground water in parts of this country doesn't alter the fact Australia is a very dry continent and we have clearly already overshot it's carrying capacity. Even if we can exploit those reserves they are finite and piping them to the settled parts of Australia will require the further consumption of non-renewable fossil fuels.

In fact, the world's agriculture has been dependent upon such underground water. I heard a scary statistic (can't give the precise measure) a few years ago that far more water is consumed each year by the world's agricultural system than falls out of the sky above. As a result, the levels of the world's underground water tables are dropping each year. So, feeding the world's population now depends upon at least two non-renewable resources : fossil fuels and bore water.

Can I suggest that you read the transcript of an interview with Fred Pearce, author of "When the Rivers run dry" at:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2006/1730593.htm#transcript ?

In regard to the claimed achievements of landcare as opposed to Paul Sheehan's very pessimistic view, I truly hope you're right. I think some of what you describe gives me hope that the enormous damage done to our agricultural land can be undone. At the moment I am engaged in discussions with others who you would find even more pessimistic than I am in this regard. Until I am convinced otherwise, I am going to to assume that the overall truth lies much closer to what Paul Sheehan says is the case.

(ToBeContinued)

(ContinuedFromAbove)

rojo,

Yes, it is true that Beattie actually asked more people to move to Queensland only in late 2005. Although I have lost the full page advertisement, I transcribed much of it before I lost it, and posted it to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4591#44914

Since then, I believe he is still encourging this interstate migration. He excuses himself to say that there is nothing he can do, but he won't come out and publicly say that population growth is bad and he won't show any leadership by taking a stance against the international immigration into this country which is driving interstate immigration.

---

Leigh,

As I said, I think it is reasonable to ask why you would contemplate voting for a government such as John Howard's. If you don't agree, then suit yourself.

Just because I have a different political viewpoint to you, that doesn't give you the right to resort to personal abuse. I had thought that we had something in common in regard to questions of the environment and to population, however, if you have chosen to allow those other differences be a barrier between us, then I consider that your problem and not mine.

BTW, I was an early teenager during the years of the Whitlam government and had something to say about it at: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5018

---

RobbyH, you wrote: "Khemlani ring a bell Daggett? Or was he too alleged only?"

I had already acknowledged the Khemlani affair. You should read my posts more closely.

Please tell me why, if a Minister chooses to use unorthodox means to raise funds for a worthy end, does that make him incompetent? What are your criteria for judging a government susc as Whitlam's as incompetent, other than taking as gospel truth, what the media barons choose to tell you?

Did you also disagree with Connor's plan to buy back the farm and make this country energy independent?

The beauty of THINKING & VOTING Contrary.

I am fanging to see who Howard and Iemma and the other state leaders are REALLY working for. They sure as hell aren't working for average Australian citizens and taxpayers. Bloating city populations to stress US so we will be bigger, more obedient CONSUMERS. In order to compete with presure-cooker populations and foreign ownership and ensuing foreign charging rights, we will need to buy and consume more and yes gamble more and take drugs to ease our pain. Guess who wins?

Women in our society are already asking the appropriate questions about the perils of this global Corporate Consumer nudge:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/motherhood-statements-of-feminism-ring-hollow/2007/01/01/1167500060563.html

I would like to see what post-ministerial appointments Howard, Iemma and co get and from WHOM. Its nice to know who your governors really are in a so-called DEMOCRACY. Aren't other Australians at all curious? Don't we have the right to lift the veil and find out?

I guarantee for starters that Howard and Iemma etc will not return as opposition leaders beause there is no glory, no added post-ministerial inducements in that.

And remember If Federal Labor and state Liberals are elected and keep immigrating, toadying to foreign and McBank corporations and stressing us out of our basic human right to quiet enjoyment of our cities and environment they can be Thought and Voted out the next election.

ITS THAT EASY.

Life doesn't have to be like a box of chocolates ... You CAN find out which one you want to get.

I should also point out that Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute (http://www.tai.org.au) wrote an excellent article against population growth and further high immigration in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 December. It is entitled:

"It's life, but certainly not as we want it"

... and can be found at:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/its-life-but-certainly-not-as-we-want-it/2006/12/29/1166895477172.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

This drew a response and further discussion (now closed) at http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/12/30/and-a-happy-new-year-to-you-too-clive/

Being an early teen during the Whitlam government explains your misunderstanding of the situation.

Your “suit yourself” quip, and “your problem not mine,” indicates that you are still using teenage patter. I have no problems, even with people like you putting up their heads to be chopped off.

Who knows, you might learn something. Life would be very boring if people like you didn’t present your naïve ideas from time to time.

If you have studied or even read about Connor, it is hard to believe that you would not deem him to be incompetent. I alone haven’t judged the Whitlam government to be incompetent. A majority of voters did that in 1975, and history has proved it. Whitlam himself was a very clever and engaging man – still is, for that matter. But he made the mistake of surrounding himself with ideologues and nincompoops, then trusting them while they stabbed him in the back.

I dug out my old copy of “The Dismissal” the other day, and once again felt sympathy for the only politician I have ever felt that emotion for.

The Hamilton article is interesting, thankyou. High immigration is another reason why I’m having trouble choosing the “better of the two worst”. Both parties are high immigrationists. It’s a pity that the Australia First Party couldn’t drop some of its more extreme ideas and present itself as a viable option

Leigh,

My “suit yourself” quip and statement that it is “your problem not mine” were perfectly in order given your unreasonable and unbalanced hostility towards me.

Until you are able to write posts that don't include any personal denigration, I have nothing further to discuss with you.

dagget, personal attacks shouln't be a part of an opinion forum because thats what we have, opinions. It's the basis for those opinions which should be discussed, not who hold them.
I've had a read through the transcript and Pearse is generally correct although a little vague on figures. One of concern is that Australia uses "80%" of it's water for irrigation. This is not right, irrigation accounts for 70%(or so) of water extracted for consumptive purposes ie irrigation, cities, industry etc. Total water extracted is in the region of 54%(Murray/Darling).

Anyway we were mainly focused on groundwater systems. There is no doubt that groundwater is being mined throughout the world, mainly because property rights mean different things in different countries. In the US farmers are pumping from greater depths each year. Their rights entitle them to whatever is under their ground and apparently they plan to get it all with little respect for neighbours/towns. In China large areas of land have subsided by 1-2 metres through groundwater over extraction and the aquifers have collapsed. I'm not familiar with India etc .

Australia's groundwater (well NSW in paticular) has had it's allocations adjusted in line with aquifer recharge as well as allowing 15% for environmental needs not yet identified. There have been cutbacks of up to 87%(of potential allocation) in some regions. I'd say we are doing it pretty well in addressing the sustainability issues.

I don't know whether we have overshot sustainable population or not, but I think not. I do think we have to go where the water is as opposed to transporting it. Plenty of cities around the world have been built from scratch (thinking along the lines of Canberra, Alice springs , Brasillia, Vegas) for one reason or another. Why not begin one to utilise water availability.
(continued)

daggett I'm heavily involved in agriculture and hope for my sake that I have a realistic view upon it, and I think from my travels that Paul Sheehan doesn't have the full story. Sure if it never rains again we could classify our land as the desert, but given the inherant variablity of our weather and the frequency of severe drought I think we are going through a phase. I hope

Leigh,

You are entitled to an opinion.

But if you come here, decry Howard's immigration policy, do not put forward reasonable solutions to the problem AND IGNORE valuable opportunities to discuss the 'Vote CONTRAY' solution THEN people are justified in assuming you are a Howard quisling. Worse still, people are likely to get the impression you are trying to stack, obscure and neutralise this thread the way you have done on others in the past.

That's my opinion!

First of all: I came to this country as a migrant some thirty seven years ago because Australia was seen as a land of opportunity, freedom of (decent) speech and relaxed rules and regulations with the opportunity and moral demands to totally intertwine with the Australian habits and living standards which by the way was still under "white policy" rule.I think that it was a big mistake to let different races make Australia their home as Australia was not capable of even looking after their own indigenous problems and people.
To revitalize Australia: Take back large parcels of land which are being ruined by mono-culture and foreign ownership.As with decentralisation of industries in the seventies and eighties, whole families (who came from desert countries) should be assisted to implement organic systems,as the knowledge already exists.To go back in history to go forward, one could look at windmills to do any work with horse,bullock and camel to do labouring and toiling.So friggen what is the problem with desalination driven by wind power? What about
starting at homes in the cities? What is the problem starting a garden patch to grow your own, if only every tenth house in a street supplies different organic food to the whole street there would not be a supermarket takeover but a supermrkt distruction,which is really needed.They are poison to any society with the crap they are selling,with the profits going to overseas co's let alone the tax ripp-offs they're enjoying, we the people are subsidizing their tax advantages.The biggest problem here in Australia is we are being dummified by poisoning of our drinking water, you better believe it!
It is outright stupid to stuff up our own drinking water.A famous Texan expression is: "DO NOT DRINK DOWNSTREAM FROM THE HERD" How appropriate! Hasn't anyone noticed the diversion principals the governments are applying and as soon as someone knowledgeable speaks out they will apply the "delphi" method to alter the herds opinion?
I can go on for hours so...grab the stage.

Kaep

You might enjoy this Migration Watch UK press release announcing an estimated per capita benefit from immigration of 4p per week.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressreleases/pressreleases.asp?dt=03-January-2007#148

Fester,
while we may scoff at the 4p/week per capita this equates to about $AU 300 million per annum.

KAEP, Fester and rojo,

The figures discussed on that site were probably arrived at in a similar manner to the figures that were arrived at by the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commision showed a small financial gain, but also found that we were working longer hours to get that money.

However, it is only possible for the UK Government and the Ausralian Productivity Commission to depict immigration having any benefits at all because many of the negative effects are not properly accounted for in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measure.

If we had an index which measured prosperity more accurately than the GDP, it would, in fact, show a very large negative impact. This was shown by John Coulter, a previous leader of the Democrats in a media relase on behalf of Sustainable Population Australia on 19 January at http://www.candobetter.org/population/spa-mediaRelease-19jan06.html

This was also discused on the thread "Solve the housing crisis - wind-back immigration" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=310#5434

Daggett

Thanks. Yes, I am quite aware that the 4p a week study probably ignored a number of factors that could well turn the modest benefit into a substantial liability. MWUK does a good job of "keeping the bastards honest" about immigration into the UK, and closely scrutinises publications on the subject. The political climate is changing there: Criticising immigration does not make you a racist(as still seems to be the case in Australia), and there is now public acknowledgement that immigration degrades the living standard of low income Brits.

I often wonder why the UK does accept immigrants so readily. Having 60 million squeezed into an area marginaly bigger than Victoria must create great problems.

Just quickly,

Someone asked why Britain lets so many immigrants in.

It is a bit complex but Britain was obliged to allow all British citizens free entry and this applied to any member of the Commonwealth. This meant that the poorer countries in the Commonwealth tended to be sending countries of large numbers of often poorly skilled immigrants (although not exclusively poorly skilled). This caused gluts in housing and all kinds of things, as well as social distress, but since British immigration policy is made in parliament (dissimilar to French policy and only partly similar to Australian policy) it was not possible to easily make policies to avoid logistical problems because they always were subject to be blown up as cause celebres in Parliament by political grandstanders.

The solution, in the end, was to break up the Commonwealth, which is why Australians and Canadians are no longer able to go and work in UK.

There is a netsite called Migration Watch in England which has some very well researched and accessible articles, mostly from academics and journalists.

By the way, now that UK is in the EU they are going to be subject to new EU laws guaranteeing housing to all. Citizens will be able to sue the government for lack of housing in France and Scotland in 2008 and I think everywhere else.

Can you imagine this ever happening in Australia where if you are homeless it is your fault and you should shut up and crawl into a hole and die or enslave yourself to some pukey upstart who does have land and a factory simply because you are not filthy rich?

Apologies for not being abreast of the rest of this article; I am responding to an email asking for my opinion.

What a country WE are turning in to. I prefer the EU laws.

Sorry I have to go to work; this page looks interesting.

Sheila N

Kanga,

Did you mean to write "shortages of housing", rather than "gluts of housing"?

The encouragement of interstate into Queensland and international immigration into Australia has, of course caused housing shortages here, also, whilst giving windfall profits to landlords, land speculators, property developers and various fincancial institutions that derive their income from these industries.