Prev
Next

Population: size doesn’t matter

James Arvanitakis

by James Arvanitakis

11 Aug 06:00am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

76

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

66

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

41

Filed under: Election 2010, Immigration, Population, Society

142 comments

For those of us who feel that Australia is at a crossroad on issues around sustainability the debates related to this topic have been more than a little disappointing – and I am not just talking about the election cycle. The issue of sustainability, carrying capacity and population numbers have all been meshed together to give us a linear equation: less people = more sustainability.

Indigenous people would have argued 1500 migrants was too many.

It is a simple equation that then takes us to discussions about numbers: should we have 180,000 migrants or 220,000 migrants? Is a 2.2 percent rise in population sustainable?

Fascinated by these numbers I thought I would try and come up with my own equation to work out the right number of people who should be living in Australia. It goes something like this:

  • Take the current population and multiply it by your height (preferably in centimetres);
  • Then divide it by the number of contestants on Masterchef plus the number of ingredients Adam (the eventual winner) used in his last dish;
  • To this multiply the entire number of times you hear ‘working families’, ‘big new tax on everything’, ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘Nauru’ and ‘moving forward’;
    •   and finally
  • Multiply it by anything of relevance Mark Latham and Steve Fielding say during this election plus one (the plus one may well stop you multiplying the number by zero).

The number you come up with is about as relevant (and ludicrous) to discussions about the ‘right’ Australian population size as any other number that has been thrown around over the past few years: be it Kevin Rudd’s glee at a population size of 40 million or Kelvin Thompson’s ability to link every evil in the world to population size.

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that population does not play a role in sustainability but this is simply one of many variables to consider. Here are four reasons why discussions about size fail to deal with the sustainability issues we are confronting.

The first links with resource usage: population size and resource usage are not directly correlated. Yes, we are the driest continent in the world but we continue to grow cotton and other water intensive crops. We do this while over allocating water usage in the Murray Darling as well as allowing millions of tonnes of rainwater to flow away.

By focusing on population size we ignore sustainable resource usage and simply believe that we can keep wasting resources because there are only 22 million of us in this country.

The second point is about the practicalities of controlling population: both from outside and those already here. Immigrant intake is important for both our economy and our society. While the benefits of immigration to our economy are well documented, I am more interested in social factors.

Families come here to settle and build relationships – and these are often strengthened through the arrival of other family members. They build community bonds and these are essential in Australia being a successful nation both economically and socially. Yes, recent migrants often congregate together in certain suburbs, but as we have seen with the Greek, Italian and Vietnamese migrants, within a generation of two they disperse. Migrants have always made Australia a more vibrant society.

Then there is the internal question: even before Peter Costello’s absurd (plasma television) baby bonus, Australia’s population growth rate has been substantial. Do we now control this? Maybe the answer is a “one child policy”? Do we place pressure on families via the tax system to discourage multiple offspring? Maybe those skilled migrants that do come here can sign a pledge to limit their reproduction activities?

To put it directly, taking the position that blames our newest and future arrivals for our environmental problems is simply placing a green coat of paint on excluding outsiders. This is especially the case when applied to the tiny number of refugees we do admit.

The third issue is our global obligations. We are part of a global community and reap the benefits. The challenge of population numbers is an international issue and by simply putting up a fence around Australia and saying ‘no more’ does not solve anything. We rely on the rest of the world for our economic, social and cultural vibrancy – we are unlikely to benefit if we turn our back on such issues and the results are difficult to predict.

Related to this is the issue of justice. Like it or not, Australia is part of a global system that has contributed to refugee flows: our role in Iraq for example and even climate change refugees. When you are part of a ‘shock and awe’ campaign, it is hardly surprising that people want to get out.

Finally there is the issue of the type of Australia we want. The debates take on an air of ‘business as usual’ about them: same economic and planning processes, same levels of resource usage, same attitudes to out cities. It is time we looked at the way we design our cities, develop our housing policies and use our resources in a truly sustainable way – and not rely on cheap slogans to exclude others for the sake of sustainability.

In hindsight, the Indigenous people standing at Sydney Heads and watching the First Fleet arriving in 1788 would argue that the 1,500 migrants were way too many – and this has nothing to do with numbers. As George Mombiot noted, it is “no coincidence that most of those who are obsessed with population growth are post-reproductive wealthy white men: it’s about the only environmental issue for which they can’t be blamed.”  It is time we left the numbers debate behind and concentrated on real issues of sustainability.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

142 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:18am | 11/08/10

      “In hindsight, the Indigenous people standing at Sydney Heads and watching the First Fleet arriving in 1788 would argue that the 1,500 migrants were way too many – and this has nothing to do with numbers.”

      Exactly. It is all about the trends.

      The first 1,500 boat people in Sydney were a tiny minority. But they continued to come, in greater numbers every year, and they refused to assimilate with the indigenous society.

      The Aborigines either could not or would not control their sea borders, and over the coming decades, more and more British boat people arrived. Eventually, the new people transformed the country - and what became of the original inhabitants?

      Reply

    • Kay says:

      09:23am | 11/08/10

      Is the issue population growth (numbers) or demographic growth (numbers of a certain type)?  If it’s sustainability, it is pure numbers (demand).

      When we stray into “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” territory it becomes less about how many and more about which type.

    • Koh says:

      11:14am | 11/08/10

      I think most people aren’t against immigration in a strict sense, but would rather see immigrants skilled in areas the country needs most (doctors for an easy example) be granted visas rather than some of the wastes of space we get…

      I mean there are only so many taxis that need driving, right?

      Asylum seekers and refugees are a separate issue and should be treated humanely but cautiously to weed out a lot of the try ons.

    • Duff says:

      12:31pm | 11/08/10

      Geez, Eric, I would have thought that you of all people would think that the migration “trend” of British boat people which became Australia as we now know it was a darn good thing.  Or do you not like your country or something?

    • Sodapoppy says:

      01:01pm | 11/08/10

      So the 1500 white arrivals should have dumped their gardening tools, axes, clothes, books and wheeled vehicles and assimilated with the locals? Yeah, that would have been a great step for mankind!  Definitely a step backward!

    • Pforts says:

      03:20pm | 11/08/10

      Right on Eric. The white invaders have in fact destroyed much of the habitable land. For instance, the metropolitan hub of Perth stands on the site of a substantial wetlands system that would have acted as a food bowl for many communities. It’s a minority opinion but some of us don’t like the state of our country. The land’s integrity has been ruined and supplanted with the usual white middle class mediocrity.

    • Eric says:

      03:48pm | 11/08/10

      Kay, the issue is both population numbers and type. The fate of the Aborigines as an example of what happens to those who either will not or cannot decide who comes to their country and the circumstances in which they come.

      Duff and Sodapoppy, I think you are making some false assumptions about what I think and what I say. Try reading my actual words.

      Pforts, I don’t think you’d agree with my full viewpoint - only with the small fraction I’ve written here. I’m not making a value judgement as to which society is better in this comment - just pointing out geopolitical and demographic realities.

    • Pforts says:

      03:58pm | 11/08/10

      That’s definitely true Eric… but the analogy is sound. As someone later in the thread points out, we could exert some choice and control, if we really wanted to - we’re not being invaded, just let down by our own thoughtless leadership.

    • TK says:

      08:30pm | 14/08/10

      bahahaha this must be a joke. The immigrants refused to assimilate? Indigenous society was one of the most undeveloped on the planet and frankly this was always going to happen one way or another. The way that it did happen have allowed us to become one of the best places to be on the planet.
      So stop looking backwards, stop sooking about past injustices, start thinking about how to move forward and stop hijacking issues with an agenda that is unhelpful and does nothing to contribute.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      06:46am | 11/08/10

      Your comment:A lot of it is a quality of life issue. Many of us have witnessed over the last 20 years or so, a distinct decline in the usefulness of infrastructure such as roads and anyone who has travelled on any Melbourne train line recently will tell you that it is beyond a joke. (Not that Victoria has a monopoly, the Gold Coast-Brisbane train is known as the ‘‘Bombay Express’‘). Add to that a housing shortage, every mainland state being on water restrictions, SA not having enough electricity for even the current population and the reasons for declining further increases in population until infrastructure is actually in place begin to make sense.

      There is also the indisputable fact that many of us are beginning to feel like strangers in our own country, even walking down a main street in the middle of one of our largest cities and catching the train to work, playing ‘spot the Aussie’ brings estimates ranging from 10 - 15% only.

      I also disagree that they tend to disperse - whole suburbs are off limits in each state to Australians and walking through them after dark is an invitation to violent robbery, or worse. Is that the legacy we want for our children?

      As for family reunion immigration - no. Just because one person has skills we want and will become a taxpayer, it doesn’t follow that we want their uncles, sisters, aging parents, cousins, infirm grandparents et al. Let them bring a spouse and their children. Why should the Aussie taxpayer take on the burden of looking after generations of social welfare recipients who have never paid tax here and never will?

      Reply

    • Allan Schwarz says:

      10:17am | 11/08/10

      I agree fully

    • AJ says:

      12:39pm | 11/08/10

      Re family reunion - you have to prove that the majority of you DIRECT family is permanently residing in Aus before you can apply for this visa class, e.g. 2 of 3 children need to be in Aus before their parents can apply for a parent visa, and only then can the 3rd child apply for a family reunion visa (I think this is different for refugees though, not sure though).

      So I disagree with you statement that implies that just because one (skilled) person immigrated, that by default their immediate and distant family members automatically qualify to enter Australia.

      As with your statement that the Aussie taxpayer take on the burden of looking after generations of social welfare recipients who have never paid tax in Aus and never will.  There are strict requirements to be met before you qualify for social benefits when you do come across on the parent/family reunion visa to prevent exactly this from happening. 

      The family members already settled in Aus (definition of settled is own a house, been in Aus for at least 3 years, etc.) has to sponsor their family members.  E.g. parent visa holders are only eligible for pension after 10 years, Medicare benefits after 2 years, etc.  In the mean time, it is the responsibility of the sponsors to take care of their living expenses, etc. 

      Take some time and browse the http://www.immi.gov.au site one day to alleviate some of your ignorance.

      Having said that, I do agree with the tendency of immigrants not integrating with Aus culture and society.  To me personally that is the bigger threat to the Aussie way of life.

    • James1 says:

      01:22pm | 11/08/10

      Tony, I assume you actually mean spot the white person, as there are more than a million Aussies who are of non-white heritage.  How can you tell by looking at a person on the street what their residency and citizenship status is?

    • Kale says:

      01:38pm | 11/08/10

      ‘spot the aussie’ - are people wearing their birth certificate or citizenship papers on their clothing? Otherwise how would you know what citizenship a person held?

      Oh wait you mean ‘spot the white person’.
      I’ve always found that statement to be the most transparent indicator of deeply held racism and ideas of white suprematism still able to be voiced in polite company in mainstream Australia.

      And I catch the Brisbane-Gold Coast line most week-days at peak time and am quite frankly sick of the manufactured complaints: You didn’t get a seat or you had to sit next to a stranger and couldn’t stretch your legs? Bo-ho.
      Plenty of lower-socio-economic white suburbs the average person would feel fairly vulnerable in, in-fact the ‘gangs’ here (Gold Coast) appear to be largely such people – guess that’s the fault of the immigrant who was prepared to work longer and harder for the same minimum wage job?

    • penny says:

      01:56pm | 11/08/10

      i agree fully aswell

    • Jamie says:

      03:12pm | 11/08/10

      Tony, I agree. It’s really hard to spot the aborigines among all the- Whoops! that wasn’t what you meant, was it?

    • Sick of Smokescreens says:

      05:30pm | 11/08/10

      Tony, you have completely missed the point.

      Our quality of life is not defined by how many people we have, or which type, it is defined by how many resources we have to maintain our current standard of living [typified by water intensive, low density suburban sprawl and high car dependancy] and our policy responses to this issue.

      The author was trying to point out that it is indeed hypocritical to be arguing against immigration, yet promoting the birth rate through baby bonuses and other family friendly policies, and that people that advocate this often want to live in a country where white people predominate [conveniently hiding behind this ‘sustainability’ fallacy].

      It is clear that the author advocates addressing the real issues behind sustainability, and separating this issue from immigration.

    • Rob S says:

      07:10am | 11/08/10

      Thomas Malthus wrote about this in June 1798,
      “An essay on the Principle of Population”.
      Rob S

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      01:24pm | 11/08/10

      Indeed he did.  And guess how many of his predictions came true?

    • Tavare says:

      07:23am | 11/08/10

      You forget one rather key point - maybe we actually enjoy a country that isn’t overwhelmed by people. Maybe we hate seeing all those appalling apartment blocks along the Pacific Highway in Sydney’s north, replacing beautiful old houses that should have been protected. Maybe the “global obligation” is for the rest of the globe to follow China’s lead and actively attempt to control their population growth. In fact, our foreign aid to countries should be dependent on them having sustainable population control measures in place. People argue it is either population growth or stagnation. It does not have to be either-or. If we have more of our existing population work - and there is a vast number under employed or unwilling to work - and work more productively, we can all benefit from economic growth while retaining our enviable (but rapidly diminishing) way of life. In the past we have been very fortunate to have supported immigrants from countries who have had greatly to our country and are now the best performing students in schools and universities. If we are to be the clever country we need to be selective in our immigration to add those who will be productive to our society and not those who just add population without productivity. Also the idea of offering cash bonuses for parents producing any more than two children does not help Australia.  Alas, James, size DOES matter.

      Reply

    • shabangabang says:

      08:41am | 11/08/10

      Why didn’t you just use the word assimilation. It appears to be the tone of your comment. Why not write that you expect all immigrants to drop their history and culture at the door before they enter.
      As for apartments in cites, if you don’t like them, move. Broken Hill is nice at this time of the year.

    • Public Speaker says:

      12:38pm | 11/08/10

      Shabangabang we should be demanding people to assimilate before entering the country, assimilation does not mean forgetting your culture or where you come from, but accepting that you made the choice to move to another country and thus you have to change your way of doing things a little to fit in. No one puts a gun to their head to make them move here. As the son of an immigrant my father spoke english in the home only, and states the same mantra, I chose to come here and thus I had to change, , and as he found out when he went back to his country of origin 20 years later he found out they had changed as well, and their culture had changed. I am sick of having grandchildren of immigrants talk about how they are Italian, Greek, Vietnamese, etc saying I am Greek, Italian, Vienamese etc, and have some of the same old hatreds that existed back in the country of origin of their grandparents. No they are not Italian, Greek, Vietnamese, English etc, they are Australians as they were born here, their parents were born here etc, Should they forget why their grandparents came here, should they forget where their grandparents come from, should they forget aspects of the culture NO, but they should be proud and should call themselves Australian, and if my father having come from a non english background speaks and reads english, and finished a university degree in english, and goes to the football, and proudly supports Australia, I believe I can expect others to embrace Australian culture whilst celebrating theirs.

    • Freeman says:

      03:41pm | 11/08/10

      The picture that penbo used with his latest piece would be better placed
      on this article I think

    • Joan says:

      07:51am | 11/08/10

      How about the rest of the world start reducing the production of people—- less copulation, more contraception, equals less human beings to ravage , devastate and pollute the earth like a plague of locusts. And I do not want Australian way of life to go the way of aboriginal life ....a group of people who allowed some in, soon found themselves swamped, their own culture, habitat, destroyed to the deteriment of their own way of life, to be at a loss, a stranger,  in their own land.  No Australia needs to be very limiting and selective in choice of immigrants, immigrants who understand and respect our culture and accept to live by the laws.The population is not just about numbers but also the nation you we want to be.

      Reply

    • YZ says:

      12:01pm | 11/08/10

      But without the British coming in and changing things we would still be living in caves and sitting round bon fires rather than how we are now. Without diversity nothing changes and if nothing changes nothing moves forward, the species may as well lay down and die.

      Anyway by the time the overpopulate would cause an actual problem we will most likely be inhabiting other planets Dr Who style

    • Pforts says:

      03:29pm | 11/08/10

      YZ I’d much prefer to ‘live in a cave’ with a bonfire (or more realistically, on a semi-permanent bush trek) than commit to a 25 year mortgage and have to spend that time in some dead-end office job. To be honest if I have to work in a cubicle all my life (or indeed drilling for ores on Mars) I might as well lay down and die.

    • YZ says:

      04:53pm | 11/08/10

      well off you go, no one’s stopping you, if that is your life’s dream have at it then, I prefer indoor plumbing

    • Phil says:

      08:10am | 11/08/10

      And if the truth be known the author is probably a committed climate chanhe greeny. Therefore if we put out x tons of co2 per year, it makes sense that unless we go nuclear, if our population grows by 50% we will put out at least 30% extra polution given minor advances in technology.

      We cant have it both ways. I am not against some minor polulation growth, I am not against some immigration, but the current levels are unsustainable, unless we increase taxes considerably to cover infrastructure etc. By this I mean a flat 2-5% on income tax or increase the GST by 2%. I am not advocating for this increase but some need to wake up and smell the roses. Everything in this world costs money.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      10:34am | 11/08/10

      Phil,
      Increasing taxes will certainly have many politicians, bureaucrats and even some business organisations rubbing their hands with glee over the extra money, so good to see you ain’t advocating it or otherwise I would want some of those tissues too.
      Even with the money, you need the vision and a plan and people to accomplish it and we do not really have any of them right now.

    • Mother Love says:

      08:20am | 11/08/10

      Save Australia and the planet - promote birth control everywhere.

      Reply

    • YZ says:

      12:47pm | 11/08/10

      Or acheivable space travel to poulate other planets with sustainable resourcesq

    • Mayday says:

      04:30pm | 11/08/10

      The Catholic Church needs to take responsibility for a lot of the poverty and disease in many third world countries due to overpopulation. 
      Their inability to see the cruelty in not encouraging birth control is beyond reason…...........the Vatican would be a good place to start lobbying in a global sense on this issue.

    • Michael says:

      08:49am | 11/08/10

      The debate over ‘big’ Australia is not at all new. The Honourable Richard Casey, while he was in London for the Imperial Conference of 1937 spoke of population. The then Treasurer of the United Australia Party spoke of Australia not being able to accomodate much more than six and half million men without our standard of living depreciating. For all but those who live outside the most congested centres will agree that Casey was wrong. The steady growth in Australia’s population since 1937 to nearly three times the size of what Casey regarded as the maximum has not brought on any sort of apocolyptic scenario of city-bred social discontent or other overtly negative outcome. Casey’s concerns were misplaced then and our concerns are very much misplaced now.

      With the growth in sustainable industries and an injection of extra capital into the Commonwealth there is little doubt Australia can support a population far larger than its current size. This does not need to involve as Tavare worries a destruction of Australia’s European heritage. New population centres premised around modernity and the most advanced environmental practices could be put in some of Australia’s less populous states. The NBN network and growing proliferation of wireless internet will assist greatly in keeping these centres connected to Australia’s major cities and also provide job opportunities. A truly national fast freight network could connect these centres phsyically, while new types of green industries and advanced farming practices provide jobs. I believe this is possible.

      Unfortunately, Australians are typically introspective. We display an amazing ignorance towards world affairs. This explains our current unwillingness for a ‘big Australia.’ If we were to all understand the population crowding of some Third World countries and the political and social instability of so many others we would be more willing to drop our xenophobic attitude and open our borders to gradual population growth.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      10:41am | 11/08/10

      When I see the NBN and that proliferation of wireless internet able to have water flowing through pipes and rivers and help to put food on the table, I can stop contemplating whether all the cabling could be a substitute for spaghetti.
      The NBN is not needed to introduce fast freight nor different farming methods but whether the former is affordable or able to have the energy to be run and whether the latter will occur without water are unquestionable.

    • Euan says:

      02:36pm | 12/08/10

      At that time they did not know that the ‘Green Revolution’ that saved us from that scenario was only 6-7 years away at that time. I think 1943 is when it officially started. The problem we have now is there is no evidence of a similar massive advancement in our food production technology, perhaps if we fully embrace GM foods, but that is another issue. Water is another issue that they didn’t have to contend with as much back then. It helps to look at when the predictions made and what happened afterwards.
      I don’t think over-population is the big issue that everyone puts it down as. To me it forms part of the equation the equals to over-consumption, the wealthiest 10% of the population consumes 59% of the main resources (water, food, timber, energy, etc). That’s what is unsustainable. Will it change? Not any time soon. One last thing, you only need to look at Europe who is having large population issues in sense that some countries are below the replacement level, and have a significantly ageing population. It is going to be very hard to develop sustainable living (mainly energy I’m talking about here) when you have an ageing workforce, lacking the skills and knowledge of the latest technologies and the ability to build them. Estonia is currently implementing tax against childless couples to try and solve it and Italy is fast heading in that direction.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:51am | 11/08/10

      Can someone elaborate further on these social factors? What exact benefits do we get from immigration socially? Are we not socially stable without immigration? What exactly is the author referring too. Saying they disperse after a couple of generations is hardly a strong endorsement. Its not that I don’t like pizza, chinese food, racial gang wars and cultural genital mutilation, its just that people are happy to proclaim this enlightenment of multi-culturalism without really giving any evidence.

      Reply

    • Sally says:

      09:44am | 11/08/10

      @Adam Diver,
      So you like genital mutilation?  Pizza is the major contribution of Italian immigrants?  How very glib, clever and modern are you?.  I’m sure you don’t benefit from the contributions of generations of migrants.  The Snowy Mountain scheme (don’t drink water), or wine, or eat sugar, or go to the doctor, or use roads or telecommunications?  There have been significant contributions made to this country by people from a diverse range of cultures.  Afghan cameleers?  The Chinese on the Goldfields?  More than Peking Duck, I imagine…..

    • The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

      10:01am | 11/08/10

      @ sally

      Adam’s comments may have been a bit glib but, the fact remains, you can’t pick and choose the best bits since the migrants bring it all with them and the PC brigade vilify anyone who says they shouldn’t.

      So, yeah, you get some really neat North African dishes but you also get female genital mutilation and that is your choice if you bring them in. It isn’t mine, btw, since I don’t want them here. It is yours.

    • Gregg says:

      10:46am | 11/08/10

      If you like your Pizzas Sal, stick with the ones made here by whoever makes them rather than what you may get as a true Italian Pizza and a bit that way for Asian tucker too for you’ll see some real delicatessan style store delights on display that will really make you wonder.

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:01am | 11/08/10

      @ sally, I thought the satire would be obvious in some of my comments.

      So mulit-culturalism has given us:

      Food
      Labor
      Sugar
      And professionals, which I assume means that non-immigrants are unable to be a doctor or build roads?

      What is the actual social benefit of multi-culturalism. I just want some real answers.

    • Sally says:

      11:12am | 11/08/10

      @The Scarlet Pimpernel,

      I concede “you can’t pick and choose the best bits” of any culture, or individual for that matter.  However, I also concede “you can’t tar everyone with the same brush” either.  I believe there are good, bad and indifferent in EVERY race and culture.  Every asian is not a gang member, every Afghani is not a member of the Taliban, every North African does not aspire to mutilate female genetalia.  It is an easy approach to blanket all migrant people as the same (them).  Just as it is easy to label all Australian people as the same (us).

      I think the term is generalisation.  It’s black and white and easy.  The human condition is not so easy to label.  We all are different, but the human condition makes us all similar as well. 

      If not having North Africans here helps you sleep better at night, fine.  My brother was assaulted last year by a bloke called Dave.  He is one of “us”.  Go figure.  At casualty, he was treated by one of “them”.  Go figure.

      We pride ourselves on being a free, egalitarian, liberal democracy.  Unless of course you want freedom, equality and a say that differs from our own.  This says more are about what we are than who we are.

    • AdamC says:

      11:31am | 11/08/10

      Adam D, I don’t think that there are any social benefits from multiculturalism. Or, at least, nothing especially concrete. Some may say that it has made our communities more cosmopolitan and interesting, and perhaps it has. But, even in this, it has been far less powerful than the rising living standards and broadening horizons of those already here. To implicitly suggest, as many multiculturalists do, that Australians, for example, needed Italian immigration in order to acquire a taste for pesto is offensively stupid.

      One of the undercurrents in the immigration debate is multiculturalism. But it is not yet politically acceptable to challenge multicultural orthodoxy, so politicans are coming at the issue from the now familiar different angles.

    • Sally says:

      11:44am | 11/08/10

      @Adam Diver,
      “What is the actual social benefit of multi-culturalism?”  To me, and I only assume to speak for myself, it is a means of developing a uniquely Australian identity in the present, which reflects the various contributors of the past.

      Are we still convicts of Anglo/Irish stock?  Do we still claim to like Football, Meat Pies, Kangaroos and Holden Cars?  Are we still fair-dinkum?  I hear so much about the threat to Australian culture.  What exactly is this?  If it is so unifying and pervasive in our society, why is it under threat?  Why do we not agree as to what it is?

      Maybe it is time to redefine in the 21st century what unites us?  How do we fight to protect something so many can’t pinpoint outside an historical context?  How do we encourage assymilation into a scattered, individual interpretation of what “we” Australians stand for?  I, too, just want some real answers?

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:47am | 11/08/10

      So the answer is that we feel good about ourselves, there is no other social benefit of mulit-culturalism. Anyone else wish to help me out on this one. What is the benefit of multi-culturalism?

    • Duff says:

      01:14pm | 11/08/10

      Adam, IMHO the benefit of multiculturalism is that it ultimately makes Australia a better place to live.  It makes the country more vibrant, more interesting and gives greater depth to our existence.  It encourages tolerance, helps us relate to people, expands our knowledge base and keeps us flexible and dynamic in our thinking.  It brings new ideas that are good and helps us discard old ideas that are bad.  In a nutshell, multiculturism benefits our society because it injects new blood, new thinking and new ideas which we can use to grow and shape our society into an even better place than it already is.  But then again, it may not ... just look at what happened to the aborogines!

    • Adam Diver says:

      01:17pm | 11/08/10

      @ sally, wrote my previous comment before yours were approved by mods, looks out of context now. Are you from the south coast and referring to that stupid holden ad?

    • James1 says:

      01:35pm | 11/08/10

      Lucky for everyone else, we do not discriminate on the basis of culture when people come into Australia.  In my neighbourhood in Canberra, the benefits are self evident, and in my experience those that are against it are old people who don’t like the funny way migrants talk, or the noticeably different colour of their skin.

      I mean really, we have always had gang wars - was it really better when the only gangs were white, Adam?  We have had genital mutilation in this country in the Jewish and gentile community alike for a long time.  How does someone doing something differently to you affect your own culture?  The only people worries about the erosion of their culture are those to weak to practice it, in my opinion.  So practice your white Anglo-Saxon culture, Adam D, and you practice your gay culture, AdamC, and let others practice their own within the law.  Where is the harm in that?

    • Sally says:

      01:53pm | 11/08/10

      @Adam Diver,
      Yes I was referencing the Holden ad.  Not from south coast though.  Relevance??  I am possibly clutching at straws in terms of a unifying “Australian” cultural identity,  I’m afraid.  To the exclusion of multicultural input, what are we upholding and protecting again?

    • AdamC says:

      03:30pm | 11/08/10

      James1, ‘self-evidence’ is merely dogmatic, you don’t actually explain why multiculturalism is so great. That is understandable because multiculturalism is a secular religion that can only be supported dogmatically.

      I should stress that I don’t have any particular quarrel with ‘cultural diversity’ but I can’t see what it adds to my life, or anyone else’s. It actually doesn’t add anything. However, I am worried about the increasingly evident ethnic tensions in the west of Melbourne where I live.

      I contend it is rather naive to glibly encourage everyone to just ‘get along’ in a sort of uptopian patchwork of cultural bantustans. If for no other reasons that perhaps a distinctive Australian majority culture may actually be worth preserving.

    • Adam Diver says:

      03:43pm | 11/08/10

      My point is the benefit is theoretical, nothing proven, nothing tangible. We feel better, we “can” engage with different cultures, but essentially with world travel, and open infomation we can get these benefits anyway.

      Things like “new ideas”, and “tolerance” are nonsense as benefits of multi-culturalism.  More importantly most of these things refer to an individual of a culture not the entire culture anyway.

      @ James1, thanks for not engaging in the debate. Elaborating on the “self-evident” benefits of mulitculturalism arounf Canberra may help. I have asked repeatly for specific benefits, at least Duff gave it a fair shot.

    • James1 says:

      03:52pm | 11/08/10

      The only way it will not be preserved is if we give it up.  If we practice Australian culture alongside other cultures, what is lost?  I would argue that nothing is lost, indeed something is gained because we have these cultures meeting and mixing, enriching all those who come into such contact.  Why does this necessitate tension?  The area where I grew up had considerable ethnic tension as well - Catholic Irish against Protestant Scots and English.  We got over that, though.  Just like we will get over the tension in your area.

      I argue that the benefits are self evident because I live those benefits every day, and to me there are indeed self evident.  It might not add anything to you, but gay culture adds nothing for me either, yet I am happy for gay people to practice their distinct culture all they like.  It does not harm.

    • James1 says:

      03:59pm | 11/08/10

      You yourself identify some of the benefits Adam.  It makes me feel better, to be exposed to other cultures.  It enriches my life by giving me a better understanding of and more empathy for my fellow human beings from every corner of the world.  My daughter gets to understand this country and the world much better, because she gets to spend time with people from all different cultures.  Indeed, she lives in a multicultural house - my family is Irish Catholic, my wife’s is mostly German Lutheran.  My daughter has spent time with Americans, Iranian Shia Muslims, Indonesian Sunnis, Indian Hindus, Korean Presbyterians, Catholics, Protestants, JWs, Mormons, and all different sorts.  She has sampled their food, and listened to their music, does karate and yoga, and has had her life enriched for having had all of these experiences that are a direct result of multiculturalism. 

      But I fully understand if feeling good, having fun and enjoying new things is not on your list of potential benefits.

    • Jon says:

      08:54am | 11/08/10

      Labor wants a bigger population because they can increase the tax base to build a bigger bureaucracy. They also like high immigration when in government, so as to import people to vote for them.

      Liberals want a bigger population because it drives down wages and ups the supply of cheaper workers to make big business richer, then they will help to get the people to vote for them.

      The Greens wants open borders and hence larger population so as to help move towards UN world government. Even though the contradiction is obvious as it creates rising consumption and negative environmental effects. People vote for them who want to feel good about themselves.

      In the end this whole globalization/population game is one big Ponzi scheme, unless the third and first world can stop making more people, which seems unlikely because of religious dogma and politics. The schemes collapse, now seems ever more likely and possibly sooner than even many pessimists think.

      Reply

    • Aussie Wazza says:

      08:59am | 11/08/10

      Erics comments are correct. It’s not the numbers it’s the effect.

      Try and find a woman wearing a burka that isn’t pushing a pram.

      Wars arn’t won with guns these days.  Just quiet gentle invasion under the name migration.

      Todays Australians will be the outcasts in twenty years.

      Be nice to the aboriginals because in twenty years we will want them to share space on the banks of the Todd.

      Fortunately I will we dead by then but God help my grandkids. The pollies wont.

      Reply

    • FeralMan says:

      09:23am | 11/08/10

      Let’s be realistic for one moment, and put the xenophobic ranting back in its box. Population growth is owned by business – not the populous.  We are conditioned to believe that in order for this country to survive into the future, we must have economic growth and wealth which can only be met through increasing levels of population.  This will keep the endless supplies of flat screen televisions coming into our homes, ensure we will always drive the latest cars and, more importantly, pay for our old age. However, the notion of economic sustainability is an oxymoron, because in order to drive the economy we must consume. The reality is population debate is driven by fear. For most part, most people, when push comes to shove will back down on taking a firm, educated stand on population growth for fear of compromising their standard of living. The xenophobic hysteria that the minions have latched onto only serves to confuse and trivialise the issue. Regardless of whether we mandate to squeeze out 5 babies per family or open the gates to migration, the result end result will be the same. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.

      Reply

    • john Williams says:

      09:26am | 11/08/10

      ...“but as we have seen with the Greek, Italian and Vietnamese migrants, within a generation of two they disperse….”
      What utter rubbish.
      This is typical of the Left   viz       ” I have said it is so , therefore it is fact”.
      Whilst it is generally true of the Greek and Italian immigrants, who wanted to become Australians, it is certainly not as true of Asians and most definitely not true of the majority of ME Muslims who not only do not want to assimilate they actively refuse to do so.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      01:40pm | 11/08/10

      You commit the same crime as you accuse the left of John.  Just because you say they do not want to be Aussies does not make it so.  You offer absolutely no evidence that this is true of the majority apart from your assertion.

      I will have you know that I know Greek families who refuse to practice Australian culture, and teach their children to speak Greek as well as English (gasp!), and even feel some kind of allegiance to Greece.  My own family has remained culturally Irish despite being in Australia for more than a century, and some members regularly donate money to Sinn Fein in support of a united and free Ireland.  You assume far too much about previous waves of migrants, as well as current ones, John.  Try some facts with your prejudice.

    • Paul Neri says:

      09:39am | 11/08/10

      I look forward to chaos.  I find the prospect exciting, particularly if my only exposure to it is the broadsheet resting on my knees in my sylvan backyard far from the madding crowd.

      Unfortunately human beings only learn from experience. We aren’t very good at taking proactive measures. For example, we are on the verge of running out of oil. We knew oil was finite, we’d had some taste of shortages in the 70’s, did we do anything about it? Nup, ‘cos we’re dumb.

      We know we can barely tolerate each other and yet we strain whatever slight bonds we have with one another by packing us in together with people who are alien to us in all but biology!

      There are some people amongst us who simply find it anathema to regard the human being as anything but a most noble creation and I tend to think that when our cities combust in food riots, race riots, the riots of people sick of living like rats, these compassionate, positive, dreamers still won’t learn - which is to say there’s no hope!

      I see the four horsemen approaching!

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      09:50am | 11/08/10

      This article seems to get a lot of things confused. While you cannot separate population from sustainability (though the author tries valiently), the immigration debate is not really about environmental sustainability, but rather things like the adequacy of infrastructure and housing affordability. Which means, in reality, it is not so much about the level of popuation as about the rate of population growth. I contend that there is a general view out there that the current rate is simply too high.

      Then there is the issue of ‘multiculturalism’, which is still a privileged secular religion among the elite, but increasingly discredited in punterville. What was developed as a smokescreen to obscure the fact that even said elite preferred migrants who were ‘like them’ (i.e, of British or, at least, northern European descent) but were prepared to accept others to grow the population, is looking totally irrelevant now that people are reconsidering the issue of population. 

      Immigration in Australia has always been primarily about populating the continent. More recent justifications, like filling skills shortages and ‘mulitculturalism’ have not provided the benefits they promised.

      Reply

    • Smack says:

      02:53pm | 11/08/10

      Is the population growth rate too high Adam? Or is that being used as an excuse by our governments for poor infrastructure planning?

    • AdamC says:

      03:58pm | 11/08/10

      Smack, you are right on both counts. They are, of course, not mutually exclusive.

      As a Melburnian, I know it is not population growth that renders our public transport system unreliable and inadequate. However, those trains are only getting fuller.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:55am | 11/08/10

      The formula is fairly well known: Environmental Impact (EI) = Population Size (P) X Resource Consumption per capita (C) X Environmental Deterioration (D). Increase any of the variables (P), (C), (D) and you must by necessity increase the Environmental Impact. Saying that population size doesn’t matter is nonsense.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      10:00am | 11/08/10

      There is no doubt that increasing prosperity and economic security leads to declining rates of population growth, until you get to the European, North American and Australian position where there is no natural increase.  That is the ultimate promise of globalisation.  Prosperity means stable or declining population.  Globalisation disperses prosperity, and economic growth means that there are more prosperity units to be distributed.  If growth does not lead to destruction the world becomes prosperous.

      Unfortunately economic growth is generated by consumption of resources.  That causes problems on several levels - climate change and exhausion or depletion of resources are two.

      Restrictions on consumption of fossil fuels means that the third world countries cannot enjoy the increase in prosperity that consumption of those resources generates.  To prevent the economic development of those countries because of problems created by profligate use of resources by the first world is a moral problem - it is how I interpret Rudd’s statement that climate change is the great moral problem of our age.  To place restrictions on the use of resources by developing countries to solve a problem that resulted from the rise of prosperity in the first world is unconscionable.

      To generate the worldwide prosperity that will result in a natural stabilisation of population growth while not trashing the place any more than we have already is the challenge. That challenge has two aspects - the eventual exhaustion of resources and the impact that consumption of those resources has on the world.  Both aspects of that that challenge can be met by the development of renewable energy sources and sustainable resource use.

      It is all linked.  You cannot look at any single aspect in isolation

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      11:15am | 11/08/10

      Your first paragraph, Ian, is one of the better reasons for the continuing transference of populations i.e. multiculturalism.

    • Richard says:

      11:48am | 11/08/10

      Omg iansand: I have never agreed with you before, but you seem to be one of the only commentators on this article of capable of thinking rationally (not emotively) and seeing the big picture for what it is.

    • Davido says:

      10:08am | 11/08/10

      Ok some reasonable points.

      But I simply do not want to live in a crowded and filthy country. Been there and done that. I suggest you try living in Mumbai for a couple of years then reassess your endorsement of population growth.

      Reply

    • Cimbom says:

      02:47pm | 11/08/10

      Or try living in New York City, Paris or Hong Kong. You know, those crowded and filthy cities which no one ever wants to visit.

    • M says:

      10:12am | 11/08/10

      Damn straight the obsession with population figures is overshadowing the discussion about sustainability- there’s a mindset out there that “we’ll be right once we stop taking migrants.” And the federal politicians are happy to let the debate focus on the numbers, because it’s a lot easier to reduce the migrant intake than it is to take the tough and expensive steps required to become a 21st century economy.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      10:18am | 11/08/10

      Part1.
      No doubt James you will get answers along the lines of what is happening here and there or perceptions of what we as a country should have or be and what type of people should come here and the latter is certainly a factor as how it can impact on our productivity, way and quality of life.
      Though being selective can said to be racist, it may not so much be races but religion and culture that needs to be monitored more for if there are the problems developing as have occurred in other countries, then the best action as with a plant is to restrict bad growth rather than wait for trends to develop and then attempt to control them.
      But let us look at the technical issues:
      ” The first links with resource usage: population size and resource usage are not directly correlated. Yes, we are the driest continent in the world but we continue to grow cotton and other water intensive crops. We do this while over allocating water usage in the Murray Darling as well as allowing millions of tonnes of rainwater to flow away. “
      True the Murray may look healthier if there were some less crops grown but the Cotton industry is well away from the Murray and we also would want to look at just how much of the water that the likes of Cubby Station harvests would actually make it to the Murray if it had been left unharvested, the storages on Cubby being but a drop in the inland sea flooding bucket and most of that water would have just eventually soaked into very dry plains or evaporated . So all the cotton growing does in one respect is to use some of the rainwater that would not even had a chance to flow away.
      There is a lot of other farming irrigation down around the Murrumbidgee and Murray and latest plans seem to be to buy back water rights but less farming equates to less food!
      The inland rainfall or lack of it also does nothing for water supplies of the majority of the population that lives on the coastal strip, and that choice largely because rainfall is more regular if not always reliable and more often being stretched for a growing population.
      For decades now we seem to have had a green block to the thought of additional water storages and yet if anyone ever goes out to developed water storages you usually find a peaceful environment where families can enjoy the outdoors with superb facilities for picknicking.
      Diversifying dam locations would help harvest more rainfall and cope with any randomness of falls and that principle all along the eastern growth seaboard to provide a water grid would also help in decentralising population growth.
      Similarly, a Snowy Hydro Scheme macro concept for inland run-offs and possibly the eventual flows from tropical Gulf waters south to the Darling R. headwaters would resolve many climate change/farming water Murray R issues.
      These are projects for development of a country over many decades if not a couple of centuries and with politicians having a next election mind set, is it any wonder they cannot think further than Water rights buy backs.
      The Coalition have nominated a Green Corps as part of their Carbon strategy and perhaps that can be taken a step further.
      ” By focusing on population size we ignore sustainable resource usage and simply believe that we can keep wasting resources because there are only 22 million of us in this country. “
      This is so true but we also need to acknowledge that this is a land of flooding rains and sunburnt plains and resource management needs to be developed to cope as best we can, desalination with its high energy cost is hardly the best answer.

      “The second point is about the practicalities of controlling population: both from outside and those already here. Immigrant intake is important for both our economy and our society. While the benefits of immigration to our economy are well documented, I am more interested in social factors. “
      Whilst no doubt James, there can be good and bad social factors, the bad ones such as gang mentalities staying with us, any benefits of immigration will be dependant on how well we can develop our country to cope with the extra numbers on issues such as water/food, housing health, education and transportation etc.
      All that means capital projects and forever increasing and ongoing maintenance works and so we need to develop our communities so the importance of that style of work is seen as just as important as what someone may do after getting a degree level education.
      For what and how we train our young people is so important and yet there seems to be more and more focus on University educations and there can only be so many jobs requiring degrees and then the question needs to be asked of what value that adds to our communities.

      Reply

    • Darla Jane says:

      10:20am | 11/08/10

      Such a simplistic argument.

      Predictably, no mention is made of the appalling lack of infrastructure servicing the current population, let alone the neglect to plan for more.

      The only people I see not breeding are white women.  No such reluctance exists amongst the migrant populace.  Shall we ask them to be the first volunteers under a ‘one-child’ policy?

      More people need more goods; more services; more transport options; more schools; more energy; more hospitals.

      Bicycles, windmills and community vegetable gardens are hardly the answer.

      More irksome is the constant bleating about “sustainability”, particularly from those with no idea what it means.

      James uses the word no less than TEN TIMES in this one article.

      “...By focusing on population size we ignore sustainable resource usage and simply believe that we can keep wasting resources because there are only 22 million of us in this country…”

      Historically people found, developed and built resources thereby future-proofing beyond their own lifetimes a way of life that was prosperous, comfortable and the envy of many.

      This stopped long ago.  Why?

      No new dams, no new power stations; the list is endless.

      Today’s politicians are petrified of offending environmental misanthropes that exist on the fringes of society and employ euphemisms like “sustainability” - code for “stuff you jack, I’m not gonna do anything” - to dupe the the rump of voters suffering in the under-resourced suburban wastelands.

      All parties are gutless when it comes to upholding the Australian way of life, if there wasn’t one why are so many people just dying to get here?

      Reply

    • Davido says:

      01:18pm | 11/08/10

      I disagree about bicycles. I think they are a great part of a solution.

      They reduce pollution, use less resources and keep people healthier.

    • Gregg says:

      04:05pm | 11/08/10

      You certainly answered that one yourself DJ
      ” This stopped long ago.  Why?

      No new dams, no new power stations; the list is endless.

      Today’s politicians are petrified of offending environmental misanthropes that exist on the fringes of society and employ euphemisms like “sustainability” - code for “stuff you jack, I’m not gonna do anything” - to dupe the the rump of voters suffering in the under-resourced suburban wastelands. “

      Could be something to do with politicians looking to keep being a politician by maintaining low taxes that they have been able to do short term and in putting more and more services in the provinces of State and Local Government, they just raise fees.
      Rates, electricity and just about everything is on a steep upwards graph.

      Our local fed bloke couldn’t even get interested in $40m + for a desalination plant being put in for a 1000 or so residents who do not really want it shoved down their neck.

    • S. Morris says:

      10:22am | 11/08/10

      unfortunately leftist ideology and emotionalism will not help. We need to be rational and address this problem now. This was a redundant article before James turned on his computer.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      10:28am | 11/08/10

      Part 2.
      ” Then there is the internal question: ........ taking the position that blames our newest and future arrivals for our environmental problems is simply placing a green coat of paint on excluding outsiders. This is especially the case when applied to the tiny number of refugees we do admit.” and yes a whole separate issue James and have a look at UNHCR figures and you will see the numbers involved globally…....and as much as it would be great to handle more, Australia is up there with the US and Canada as top refuge destinations.
      Again, it will always be the technical challenges to be faced that will determine just how effectively we can handle refugees and so called asylum seekers arriving by boats does not help with limited resources for the refugee program planned/sponsored approach.
      Increase resources do I hear?
      Easier said than done when normal fee paying immigrants are already having visa processing times extended because of handling the boats.

      ” The third issue is our global obligations…...  challenge of population numbers is an international issue and by simply putting up a fence around Australia and saying ‘no more’ does not solve anything. We rely on the rest of the world for our economic, social and cultural vibrancy – we are unlikely to benefit if we turn our back on such issues and the results are difficult to predict. “
      Sure, but it still comes down to capacity and ability to and rate at which we can develop capacity.

      ” Related to this is the issue of justice. Like it or not, Australia is part of a global system that has contributed to refugee flows: our role in Iraq for example and even climate change refugees. When you are part of a ‘shock and awe’ campaign, it is hardly surprising that people want to get out. “
      It would only be a fool that would not describe the venture into Iraq as a misguided disaster and more so for the Iraqi people despite Saddam and those who think Saddam justified it should also ask themselves when we should be lining up to venture to other lands where there is some attrocious leadership, governance and lack of freedom, NK and China being very near the top of the list I imagine.
      Likewise, what are we still doing in Afghanisatan?

      There is a UNHCR belief that supporting refugees is often better done closer to their homeland, far cheaper, cultural ties and less of an issue to return to their homeland which many seem to have as a high priority, so despite the flooding right now in Pakistan and the 2M refugees there, all countries with a global responsibility conscience need to address how best to help support them.

      ” Finally there is the issue of the type of Australia we want. The debates take on an air of ‘business as usual’ ........ It is time we looked at the way we .....use our resources in a truly sustainable way – and not rely on cheap slogans to exclude others for the sake of sustainability. “

      And James, one aspect that we cannot leave out of the debate is that Australia is somewhat unique, not because of what indigenous people thought in 1788 nor that we are are a very dry continent but in this day and age of a global community, we are still relatively isolated in a distance sense and the technical aspects of our continent will never see us with commercial markets as the Europeans and US/Canadians or the Latin and South Americas have.
      Our closest markets of sizable population are Asian and on an industrial footing we have ceased to compete because of cost of production, there seeming to be a great ignorance that this is not happening.
      Our international trade is heavily reliant on resources and yet that industry is not a high employer.

      So foresight may well say or should have us asking what will our society be like with a demise of the reources industry and it will happen either through lack of demand, uncompetiveness or simply resources being mined out .
      Europe may get its Ice Age whether from cyclical factors or our greed tipping the planet climate and we could have the reverse depending on what theory is to be believed.
      Our issues may arrive much earlier however when reducing oil reserves no doubt will see a drop in international trade and we need to forget the global picture and determine just how our continent can survive with whatever it has and how will employment/wealth be distributed.

      Some scenarios are no doubt further into the future than others, hypothetical to some extent and even still questionable as to mankinds contribution to cause and what it can be for coping.
      But there is no disputing we are differently placed and we do have a different set of circumstances to be considered in any debate and to ignore those to compare Australia with what is achieved elsewhere is ludricous.

      Do not hold your breath waiting for it all to happen though.

      Reply

    • Malthus says:

      10:29am | 11/08/10

      Water is the biggest issue facing the australian population. Let’s be real honest for just one moment - the world really needs some massive disasters in Asia and Africa to winnow the masses a bit

      Reply

    • Orange Smoothie says:

      10:36am | 11/08/10

      There is today a real, palpable anxiety about Australia’s immigration levels that has been rising progressively for the past decade and it isn’t going to simply go away after the election. Many people have finally started to come to the realization that only a small minority of their fellow citizens have been benefiting from continued mass-immigration. 

      The fact that migration at today’s record-levels hasn’t been in the interests “working families” that politicians are supposed to be representing was finally - and emphatically - confirmed by the recent Productivity Commission report which found that the only people who stood to gain from migration at today’s record high levels are big business and the immigrants themselves.

      A curious apparent alliance between idealistic, global government left-wingers that scream for open borders and the über-capitalists hungry for cheap labour has been cemented by the commentariat of all political stripes, the bureaucracy and academia. Rest assured it is all going to result in a very different Australia from the one we grew up in.

      Our politicians are now officially inviting us to vote for them once again and “celebrate’ our own displacement from the suburbs we grew up in. A raft of laws against free speech, various taxpayer-funded “commissions” and “Diversity Day” type propaganda is creating an atmosphere that smothers any dissent from the people.

      I for one won’t be voting for more mass-immigration this time round. I stopped doing so in 2004 when I finally woke up and realized what the Howard government had been doing behind our backs. Talking tough on boat people -  whose numbers are miniscule - while obfuscating and ramping up migration to record levels without even bothering to consult the electorate regarding the enormous and permanent changes it was making to our country.

      So please, don’t endorse the Liberal-Labor, anti-democratic duopoly at this year’s federal election. They aren’t governing for “working families”. They are simply governing for big business.  Put them last. The have had their way for much too long.

      Reply

    • Davido says:

      01:30pm | 11/08/10

      Well said. Many people forget that excessive immigration started under the Howard regime.

      What really scares me about the two parties is their thoughtlessness in considering any future detrimental consequences from massive immigration.

      And the argument that immigration is good for the economy is only partly true. We cant tell what the economic impact will be in 30 years.

      One idea might be to link immigration to the economy. When the economy slows, ramp up immigration. When the economy picks up, reduce immigration. Not only do you get the economic benefits, you get a stabilization effect.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      01:57pm | 11/08/10

      Davido - “Many people forget that excessive immigration started under the Howard regime”

      The great thing about that statement is that it is a truism.  Given that “excessive” is undefined, it is entirely subjective, defined only in your own brain.  That way, it can’t possibly be wrong. 

      Everyone should try a few for themselves:
      “Many people forget that excessive leadership instability started under the Rudd regime”
      “Many people forget that excessive petrol prices started under the Whitlam regime”
      “Many people forget that excessive gun regulation started under the Howard regime”
      “Many people forget that hyperbole started under the Davido regime”

      See!  It’s easy!

    • Davido says:

      03:12pm | 11/08/10

      Long live the ‘Davido Regime’.

      Point taken re use of excessive. I guess my point is that both parties, at least in recent times, have allowed immigration to grow to a point I consider excessive.

    • ibast says:

      10:46am | 11/08/10

      You can bet the biggest opponents to significant population growth in Australia are the same people that whinge about Australian jobs and production going overseas.  The fact is it is not worth manufacturing things in a market as small as Australia spread over such a large area.  For a long time 50 million was considered the magic figure for economic sustainability in Australia.

      Having said that, all evidence is that the world population is already too large.  Along with a handful of other countries around the world, Australia is in the unique position of being able too, and should be wanting too, strongly encourage immigration.

      Of course logic isn’t everything apparently.

      Reply

    • Richard M says:

      11:00am | 11/08/10

      The main issue in relation to population growth is infrastructure development.  This country’s infrastructure is already totally inadequate to cope with the current population.  This is the result of the obsession with surpluses in recent years and the consequent unwillingness of governments to invest in infrastructure for the nation’s future.  If we are to cope with the results of an inevitably growing population we are going to have to overcome this unwillingness.  If we don’t, the chaos and overcrowding in our cities will worsen, traffic gridlock will occur, public transport will become more and more inadequate, national productivity will fall, export income will reduce (as a result of inadequate railways, roads, ports and communication infrastructure - this is already occurring), and our consequent capacity to cope with a growing population will deteriorate.  This makes the program to deal with the massive current deficit in our national infrastructure absolutely essential.  Only governments can do this, so we must have a national government which will, not one that is only interested in short-term vote-buying, such as tax cuts.

      Reply

    • Duff says:

      09:03am | 12/08/10

      I second Richard M’s comment.  People are obsessed with this surplus vs deficit debate at the expense of investment in infrastructure.  I think it would surprise most punters to know that there is actually a big downside to running a surplus from year to year (it reduces growth) and a big upside to running a moderate deficit (because you are using other peoples money to grow your economy).  Provided that overall debt is under control, only a foolish (or vote buying) government would want to horde a surplus from year to year.  We are not a business.  A ‘surplus’ is not a ‘profit’.  Surplus means waste.  It’s like buying too much paint to paint your house and being left with tins of leftover paint.  No one would think you would be very clever for doing such a thing but for some reason everyone thinks Costello is the cat’s meow because he overtaxed our economy and horded a surplus (which he then used at election time to grow a middle-class welfare state).

    • JamesL says:

      11:12am | 11/08/10

      This analysis in this article is faulty and many of the following comments make invalid assumptions. Resource usage and population is correlated and quite obviously so. That usage might be direct or it might be through industry, in either case it is population at the root of the exploitation. The more population the less ability to control and limit the exploitation of our environment. Cotton and other intensive farming practices are not sustainable, but it is a fallacy to argue that because those industries are unsustainable that population is irrelevant to sustainability.

      Australia is a vast country, but existence of landmass does not equate to potential productivity. Australia has no capacity for the agricultural bounty produced in other developed regions of the world. Yes, we can theoretically do things to improve efficiency or artificially improve productivity but with decreasing return on investment. In any case, even if it was hypothetically possible to improve efficiencies to support billions of people doesn’t mean we should. Should we steer towards building a Dyson sphere gobbling every photon of energy from the Sun and cram people into little boxes with tubes, because this is the direction in which obsession with maximizing efficiency takes us.

      The economic arguments for population growth are absurd. Australia is in the position it is today by virtue, not in spite, of low population. By these economic arguments if Australia grew by 100,000,000 next year our economy would suddenly rival Japan, I suspect it would more likely rival Bolivia. The arguments regarding supporting an aging population leads us into circles where the population spirals ever upwards.

      More people does not equal more growth, it does not create a better standard of living and it reduces social mobility and cohesion. In fact the benefits of population growth for existing residents has proven to be extremely doubtful. What has been shown is existing residents bear the brunt of providing amenity and support to migrants and that the migrants themselves are the major economic beneficiaries while our per capita GDP actually declines.

      With respect to our “responsibilities” to the world, we don’t owe the world anything. Our true responsibilities are to the futures of our children and grandchildren. There is no real prospect for Australia to do anything to alleviate global population pressures. How many people would we need to accept annually to do anything to seriously help the rest of the world, 100,000,000 to 200,000,000? Even if we could do something, ultimately all it would do is compound the problem.

      Reply

    • Tarzan says:

      11:12am | 11/08/10

      Population growth is a huge problem all over the World and the Earth has tried to control it, but us humans just keep finding ways to get around it. AIDS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu these disease of Asia and Africa high density population. People living on top of people leading to stress and violence. Just like the studies of rats and chickens 100 to a cage rather than 20 to a cage. They end up eating each other. Better put a big steel fence around your home by 2050.

      Reply

    • Kareena says:

      11:24am | 11/08/10

      We have all but eliminated Natural Selection in the Western World, for humanity as a whole that is not a good thing and our ranks are swelling out of proportion. Early man had to hunt and gather to survive, if they were not fit enough they died. Today that is not necessary anymore, and we over populate. Australian’s love open space..please leave us some for future generations

    • Ben says:

      11:16am | 11/08/10

      I think Dick Smith has it right and you have it wrong.

      Reply

    • Freeman says:

      11:30am | 11/08/10

      ‘The challenge of population numbers is an international issue and by simply putting up a fence around Australia and saying ‘no more’ does not solve anything’
      Neither party, and only a small minority, is saying close the doors to immigration, so don’t try to blur the argument. but no matter if we take 200000 or 400000 migrants per year and even if other developed countries took on a proportional amount to us, it would not be never be enough to
      eleviate population pressure in the 3rd world which is still increasing despite being overpopulated. the answer is not to simply distribute the excess to countries that are not yet overpopulated. their has to be some control of population in those countries that cannot sustain their own growth.

      Reply

    • Orange Smoothie says:

      11:41am | 11/08/10

      It’s amazing how often the “Afghan Cameleers” and “Pizza” are advanced as a reason to continue mass-immigration in 21st century Australia as if they are both the apogee of high culture.

      Reply

    • Paul Neri says:

      11:43am | 11/08/10

      If the urbane, calm and tolerant kerry O’Brien is deeply worried about Australia’s population explosion (read his paper to the recent Local Government Conference), I think it says our alarm is not misplaced.

      Politicians who support a Big Australia are enemies of the people. Labor is the enemy of the people. Julia may have backpedalled on the issue but Labor had shown its hand - and what a withered claw it is. As dry and desiccated as an animal skeleton in a dried out water hole.

      The Left can’t get enough of people. They embrace human closeness!  They live in each others undies!

      You and I might appreciate fresh air but there’s nothing these people like more than sitting in some packed cafe on a wet day drinking in each other’s CO2 and, yes, the occasional puff of methane! Their nirvana is an orgy of squirming bodies exchanging bodily fluids!

      In a couple of days you’ll possibly have your last chance to have a say in the type of country you want to live in and which you want your kids to live in!

      “Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze?”.

      Reply

    • Val says:

      11:49am | 11/08/10

      I am a migrant and I’d say drop the multiculturalism, work out a sustainable population program (intake matching infrastructure & services development) and let in those who are needed, want to integrate and call this country home.  As someone said before, if we do not value our lifestyle and let newcomers isolated within their own culture under the pretext of multiculturalism one day we’ll be like France , Germany and other European countries who have to deal with the fruit of such policies. Some of the burocrats may not realise it but values are vastly different depending people’s background and upbringing. What is wrong with setting rules and having new migrants to accept that this is how things are done before they decide if they want to come and live here.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      01:45pm | 11/08/10

      Where do we draw the line in integration though?  How “Aussie” (whatever that means) does one need to be?  I find mainstream Aussie bogan culture to be crass and offensive.  Should I leave too, if I prefer traditional Irish cultural values?

    • WavetheFlag says:

      02:31pm | 11/08/10

      James1 You don’t like Australia do you? Main stream Aussies are not Bogans. Bogans have criminal elements. It’s like saying Irish and Muslims are terrorists. Or Chinese are Triad. You ask the question and I’ll give you my answer: if you don’t like the Aussie culture then maybe you would feel better back in good old Ireland, (or China).

    • James1 says:

      03:43pm | 11/08/10

      Define Aussie culture for me WavetheFlag.

      I love Australia, I just don’t like the fact that flag waving bogan idiots with their “we grew here you flew here” and “f**k off we’re full” attitude are ruining this lovely country.

      Also, you need to learn more about bogans.  Might I recommend this?

      http://thingsboganslike.wordpress.com/

    • Pforts says:

      03:46pm | 11/08/10

      Absolutely. The problem with democracy is that among the plurality it shelters is that class of human who cares about nothing beyond its immediate material interests, and wants to start a family.

    • Anjuli says:

      11:55am | 11/08/10

      There will always be plenty of open space you just have to look at Britain it is the cities where all the migrants cluster as that is where the services are .

      Reply

    • Tarzan says:

      11:59am | 11/08/10

      FYI Dick Smith is offering #1 Million to anybody that can come with a population plan for Australia. he has a TV program on the ABC Thursday night 830pm (I think). A couple of this I would like to see is this:
      1: Australia divided into regional zones
      2: All gambling houses, pokies casinos etc in one zone, probably Alice Springs. (just like Las Vegas)
      3: Regional zones have a flat 12% tax rate for the first 2 years of employment there.
      4: Regional zones have zero fuel tax. Trucking companies will establish there.
      5: Migrants under skilled program must live first 2 years in regional zone.
      6: Move capital city military bases to regional zones. ie Broome, Port Hedland.
      7: Large government departments, ie Tax Dept, ASIO, etc.to reginiol zones.
      8: Increase taxes on metro manufacturers ie Holden, Sanitarium and reduce taxes on regional zone manufacturing.
      How do you pay for it all ie infrastructure?
      1: Remove tax free status of all religion.
      2: Abolish State Governments
      3: Super Profits tax on all big business that make more than $1 Billion pa profit.
      Probably many other things can be done too.

      Reply

    • Paul Neri says:

      12:22pm | 11/08/10

      My proposal for Dick is this: people wanting to breed should be given a wild rabbit instead. Rabbits make wonderful children. In one relatively simple measure we could eliminate two environmental evils!

    • Dan says:

      12:34pm | 11/08/10

      We neeed at least 300 million Chinease in Australia immediately.  Come China, come, we are waiting for you!

      Reply

    • Paul Neri says:

      01:00pm | 11/08/10

      You know, it’s a funny thing. From time to time I hear some parent, with a few kids hanging off them, complaining about “the crowds”. At Chrismas, at Easter, “the crowds are terrible”. They sort of can’t appreciate that not only are they part of the crowd but indeed they made it bigger!

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      01:21pm | 11/08/10

      One number that seems to have ben ignored in this article as if it were akin to numerology is the birth rate.  And where most people have it wrong is the simple fact that *Western* societies are breeding themselves out of existence mostly *because* we’ve developed societies where bearing children is not the centre of existence.  The birth rate across most Western nations is just under or below replacement rate (2.33 children).  Therefore, what we think of as the “Westerner” is, in evolutionary terms, headed for self-imposed extinction.  Also, because that birth rate is low, we will have increasingly ageing populations of “Westerners”.  Interestingly, China will face the same problem about 30 years from now—because it has a stupid one child policy which meant literally millions of female children got “disposed of”, and a massive male workforce that can’t reproduce because of a lack of available females.

      Notice I say ‘Westerners”.  There’s a simple reason for that: look where the birth rates are above replacement rates.  The top fertility rates on the planet are in Niger, Guinea, and Afghanistan.  These rates hugely outstrip countries like China.  Even Indonesia (whom everyone nervously looks at over their shoulder here in Australia) is barely at replacement rates for its population.  Western concepts like feminism have, partially, caused that.  The Sarah Palins of the world have been reproducing.  The Gloria Steinems have not.

      This is the real immigration issue.

      Reply

    • Paul Neri says:

      01:34pm | 11/08/10

      One counter-measure is for the Government to forgive the HECS debt for graduate females who get knocked up.

    • Michael says:

      04:22pm | 11/08/10

      Won’t help, Paul.  The problem is the biological clock, not the statistic that childbearing women are left behind in the career stakes - you’re looking at it through the wrong end.

      See, graduate females statistically bear less children, but more importantly, one of the biggest reasons they do so is because they have them much later in life.  That’s the problem, not the loss of income.  And it’s because we haven’t yet figured out how to comprehensively beat biology - the statistics on female fertility tell us that for every trumpeted case of a woman who has a kid post-45, there are 9 others who can’t.  After 35, fertility drops to about 30%.  After 40, it’s more like 10%.  The illusion that the biological clock can be ignored without consequence is the saddest concept that feminism inadvertently foisted on women, and it’s resulting in the slow extinction of Western cultures.

    • The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

      04:29pm | 11/08/10

      @ Paul Neri

      Not a bad idea. Must only go to citizens though.

    • Markus says:

      04:39pm | 11/08/10

      Paul
      You may be on to something, provided it is a HECS debt for something besides an Arts degree raspberry

    • Michael says:

      11:40pm | 11/08/10

      Why am I not surprised that when someone suggests “give out free money” that it’s a popular idea, even if it does nothing to solve the problem? Cash for Clunkers, anybody? (And that’s what forgiving a HECS debt is - in reverse, but that’s all it is.)

      Think about this for a second.  It’s not the lost income, it’s the lost years that are the problem.  While women are at university, they are burning their best childbearing years.  This is not a matter of feminism, it’s a simple case of biological fact.  When the biological clock’s ticked over, no amount of money brings it back.

      What needs to be done is to either figure out how to usefully expand childbearing years (which is pretty much impossible) or make it feasible for a woman to have a child and go to university without either the kid or the degree losing out.  At present there’s precious little financial or logistical support for that.

      Forgiving the HECS debt of a graduate female is saying “Please, have the last three or four years’ education on us, as compensation for the fact we did nothing to support your best biological chance to have a child.”  You can’t buy a higher birth rate, whether you’re compensating an Arts, Law, Medicine or other degree.  Start supporting women properly to have their kids and the degree.  Don’t just pay them what is, in effect, a baby bonus delayed by 20 years (and just as ineffective at raising the birth rate.)

    • Paul Neri says:

      09:12am | 12/08/10

      What I was getting at folks was not only increasing Australia’s home-grown population but trying to encourage the right people to breed. A female graduate is likely to produce more civilised offspring than a female heroin addict. If we don’t turn off the bad people machine, we’ll never attain a civilised society. Only a dopey, unrealistic, “it doesn’t sound nice and the solution is more expensive services leftie”, would disagree.

    • Paul Neri says:

      10:53am | 12/08/10

      “A FATHER and his girlfriend were arrested today after allegedly abusing, neglecting and finally beating to death the man’s three-year-old son.” (Daily Telegraph 12 August 2010).

      Julia, Tony ... care to comment on baby bonuses and other financial (have a baby) inducements the State provides?

    • Observer says:

      12:55pm | 16/08/10

      “we’ve developed societies where bearing children is not the centre of existence”

      Hmmmm, private cash handouts such as baby bonuses, fam tax A and B, paid parental leave, child care rebates;  private sector favouritism such as child-friendly restaurants, parent-only parking bays, private health insurance that is effectively free for children, kids eat/fly/ride free; government policy such as internet filtering “because won’t somebody think of the children”, fair work legislation that enables parents of small children to ask for family-friendly hours, the constant “working families” rhetoric… Oh yeah, bearing children is not the centre of existance. Nup. Oh no. Uh uh.

    • Tarzan says:

      01:26pm | 11/08/10

      Yeah, a wild rabbits and 300 million Chinese. You guys must already be in Government.
      Another suggestion I have is this: The 24 Hour GP Super Clinics are a good idea, because a lot of people rock up at A and E for silly things like the flu.
      But heres an opportunity to also incorporate a good Mental Health scheme.
      In this Super Clinic have 2 Acute observation rooms, staffed by 2 Mental Health Nurses 24 Hours. Also from this clinic have a staff car that the Mental Health Nurses can respond to out calls of people in 24 hour acute crisis intervention. The police will be first on site, they call the super clinic and the nurses then rock up. During the day have a resident Psychologist, visiting Psychiatrist. Also send out student nurses and doctors after 2nd or 3rd year for experience. Community nursing also from these Super Clinics. This also can the home base for the school nurse. If the school nurse notices any problems she books them with the Super Clinic. This is easy stuff really.

      Reply

    • Poppa Lation says:

      01:30pm | 11/08/10

      The core issue isn’t so much population size or cultural diversity - but more the notion that the material world must always get better and better. Whether the continual ‘improvements’ lead to happiness and fulfillment is debatable.

      Once upon a time, everyday life was fraught with danger (disease, the elements etc). In the west we crossed the threshold to a safer/longer life several generations ago. the focus since has been more on accumulation rather than survival.

      We need little more than food, water, safety and shelter to live a long, fulfilling life. Many people wanting to come here are missing some of those elements in their homeland.

      Have a look at the happy family in the empty kitchen in the old Vegemite ad. They didn’t have a 4x2 with ocean views, aircon, granite benchtops, a dishwasher, six element stove top etc etc etc. Have these things made our lives more fulfilling?

      Reply

    • over it says:

      01:35pm | 11/08/10

      Question to every Australian:
      Would you like zero net immigration for a period of 5 years while we discuss and develop an infrastructure and population plan for Australia?

      Answer from the majority:
      YES.

      How about our governments do what they are elected to do.

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      03:24pm | 11/08/10

      answer:  Absolutely not.  Australia should be trying to get to 50 million as quick as possible.  If we don’t we will become a nation of miners and public servants.

      Howard understood this and that is why he increased immigration.  He just didn’t let anyone know.  Rudd reduced it and that is when the boats started coming again.

    • Ralph says:

      01:40pm | 11/08/10

      I would as a different question.  What are the virtues of an ever increasing human population?  If we were any other species we would be called vermin.

      Reply

    • Hope Neo doesn't vote Labor says:

      04:14pm | 11/08/10

      It occurs to me that the Greens are actually Agents in the Matrix.  Consider Agent Smith: “Every mammal develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not.  You multiply, and multiply until you have consumed every available resource, and the only way you can preserve yourselves is to spread to another area.  There is another organism on this planet that shares this behaviour.  Can you guess what it is? A virus.  You humans are a disease, a cancer of this planet, and we ... are the cure!”

    • David C says:

      01:41pm | 11/08/10

      There is a bit of the “dumb human” argument about all this, dont take your current perceived issues and extrapolate them forward. Take the progresses of the past and extrapolate them forward instead. It is the mistake Malthus et al made. Even with a major increase in population over the last 100 years think about all the major improvements in our way of life ie huge increase in ,life expectancy, increases in education, increases in calorie intake,  etc etc .
      This will continue and will conrtibute to a faling population globally, rich people have less kids.
      And re the multicultural issue, its actualy multi ethnicity you desire. One culure but with a multitude of ethnic backgrounds. That usually takes 1-2 generations ie Italians and Greeks in Oz. This is not helped though by bending our domestic laws to encourage that multi-culturalism.

      Reply

    • Just Sayin' says:

      02:31pm | 11/08/10

      Almost any level of population is sustainable, provided that lifestyle and technology allow them to produce required resources as fast as they can be consumed.  You can’t make calculations about sustainable population without taking these things into account.  Malthus was probably right for his time, but technology changed. (I’m agreeing with you.)

    • Gregg says:

      04:58pm | 11/08/10

      How’s that Logic go again David!!
      huge increase in population >> falling population globally because rich people have less kids is it??

      . Got news for you and there’s a heap of less than average wealthy people popping babes out.

      . The increase in calorie intake may kill a few of the less than wealthy and wealthy off.

      . A heap of people suffer from not enough calories.
      Famine, pestilence, viruses, plague, genocides, wars, tsunamis,  floods, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes included,
      my sums would still favour a growing population.

      Just hearing from CNN that cyber hacking is the new attack weapon and computer controlled infrastructure and weaponry might even kill off a few more.

    • David C says:

      10:35am | 12/08/10

      Gregg population will stabilise and begin to fall form around 2050. Current projections are we ill peak at around 9 bio

    • RickyB says:

      02:37pm | 11/08/10

      I dont think it is only the level of immigration, but the type of immigrant Australia is accepting.Instead of taking the dregs of the middle east & India, who have contributed very little to this country(besides enclaves like Lakemba & the middle eastern crime squad) we should be targeting migrants who share religion, history or similarities in culture.History has shown they fit in much better.There would be plenty of nth & sth Americans &  europeans who would actually contribute to this country & be grateful for the opportunity to live here, unlike the various dispicable minorities we are currently being swamped with.

      Reply

    • Mark Smith says:

      11:17pm | 13/08/10

      Protocols of TLEOZ…...

    • isis says:

      02:38pm | 11/08/10

      This isn’t about immigration. The entire world should be having smaller families. Resources are finite. Overpopulation only causes more pollution, crowds, crime, poverty… We need to change if we think economic wealth should override sustainability, quality of life and the environment.

      Reply

    • James Alonso says:

      02:47pm | 11/08/10

      Recently on a business trip to China, in just one week 4 people independently brought up the idea with me that China could easily solve the issue of resource prices being too high by mass migration to Australia and taking over the government. 4 people, who did not know each other based over 3 different cities. Clearly that conversation is going on somewhere in China. Farfetched? Well that is how Xijiang and Tibet were brought under Chinese rule.

      We have to face facts that not all immigrants come here to ‘become true blue’. Yes, Greeks and Italians have mostly dispersed but they are of European background and share a vastly similar cultural heritage, just because Australia has had a positive experience of one group of immigrants does not mean that all are the same. Chinese areas have remained so for many generations throughout Europe and America and here also. How many Chinese people live in Leichhardt, Mosman or Avalon?

      A friend who is a university professor has complained how she is now awarding pass grades to essays at Masters level that previously would have failed in first year of a BA due to terrible levels of English. 27 out of 30 students in a class from Mainland China. How does this help Australia?

      I am not anti-immigration at all, I recognise the need for skilled workers, I also recognise our strong links with Asia being a great asset. However, there should be limits, there should be stricter tests and stricter levels of English.

      The comment regarding the aboriginal inhabitants is completely wrong. Certainly they would have said that 1500 immigrants is too many, in fact I am sure that they did feel that way. Unfortunately they didn’t have a lot of choice, they were invaded. We have a choice, we are not being invaded and we can decide for ourselves how many is enough.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      11:12pm | 11/08/10

      Those sneaky Chinese eh James and now we know why they’re making all those sneakers, thongs and stubbies over there!

      Are you sure they weren’t using their own brand of humour on you?
      We’ll give Kevin a posting there and he’ll sort the Rat F…..s out.
      He’ll even have them buying more coal because it’ll be cleaner after a storage in the rain.

    • fed up says:

      03:12pm | 11/08/10

      As for the argument that we need population growth and immigration to grow our economy, I have only one statement.

      “There is only one cell in the human body that grows for the sake of growth….A CANCER CELL. Excessive population growth and immigration are like the cancer on Australia. And immigration from the middle east and Asia could be liked to the worst cancers of all, i.e. Mesothilioma, Liver cancer, etc.

      Wake up people. Only immigrants with a shared or at least similar ethnicity, religion and culture to our own (European, North American etc.) actually are thankful for the privelidge of living here.

      With the rest of them you get Lakemba, Bilal Skaf, home grown terrorists, Indian rapists.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      03:35pm | 11/08/10

      From another perspective, I think its interesting that we westerners need to spend tens of thousands of tax payer’s dollars on IVF and fertilility drugs, or else get medibank private to reimburse for thousands of dollars spent on acupuncture and chinese herbs to enable us to have babies. Fertility decline is a problem too (at least in western cultures), and I wonder if that novel/movie ‘Children of Men’ which depicted a world where no babies were born will some day come to pass.

      Nature always seeks a balance. Yes there are too many human beings in the world~ that is why we have environmental problems spiralling out of control. But its naive to think that Mother Nature will allow this situation to continue on indefinitely.

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      04:07pm | 11/08/10

      Unfortunately you are right.  It’s hard to believe that in a world where religion dominates politics, that population growth moderation will be introduced before mother nature corrects the problem for herself.

      My money is on a global disease.  We’ve already had multiple warnings with Ebola, Saars, Bird flue and Swine Flue.

    • martin says:

      04:16pm | 11/08/10

      Anyone with half a brain knows that overpopulation is an awful thing and that the left likes it because they’ve got nothing better to do other than to be sanctimonious by calling people bogan and racist and the right likes it because they’re amoral and greedy and it makes them richer.

      Vote for the Stable Population Party in the senate.

      Reply

    • Rubens Camejo says:

      04:26pm | 11/08/10

      And where are their preferences going?

    • Michael says:

      04:35pm | 11/08/10

      The funniest part about promulgating the ZPG party, er, Stable Population Party is that you literally cannot have it both ways.

      If “stable population” means you maintain the current birth rate - which is below replacement rates in Australia, meaning “Aussie” births decline and more immigration is required to keep the population number stable.  Which means more boats, more planes, don’tcha know.

      If “stable population” means raising the birth rate from its current level to replacement rate, it means increasing Australia’s population - effectively by encouraging overpopulation!

      Do you hand out toys with the McDonald Happy Meal policies? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • PopulationParty says:

      10:48am | 18/10/11

      @Michael, ‘stable population’ technically means births (roughly) equaling deaths and immigration (roughly) equaling emigration.
      If births are below deaths for example, you increase immigration to keep things ‘stable’.  It’s not that complex wink
      We support (balanced) immigration, including the current 14,000 refugee intake whch can easily be accomodated in an immigration program of up to 80,000.
      BTW, even though we have a fertility rate of around 1.9 births per woman, births are DOUBLE deaths due to demographic momentum and a high number of women currently in their fertility years. The more relevant measure is the Current Replacement Birth Rate, for births to equal deaths, which would be around 1!
      See Overloading Australia on the Replacement Rate Fallacy:
      http://www.australianpoet.com/overloading.html#rrf

      @Rubens, party preferences are decided once we see all candidates. But we will base them on our philosophy of a stable, sustainable open and tolerant Australia. If you do not like our preferences (which are made public before polling day), of course you can vote below the line according to your own preference.

    • Davo says:

      04:29pm | 11/08/10

      It seems to be just human nature that ethnicities look after their own.
      How many asian businesses do you see employing non-asians? Its extremely rare.

      And as the ethnic populations grow in Australia they will continue to look after their own to the detriment of the existing population.
      Once they have significant political power be prepared for big changes.

      Another big problem on the horizon is food security. Landline on ABC had a segment on foreign multinationals buying out all our farming land. As the demand for food grows exponentially in 50 years we will be tenants in our own country.

      In a way Im kind of glad to be born now, I really dont want to be living in the Australia of 100 years from now.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      04:54pm | 11/08/10

      The author quoted George Monbiot as if he were a valid source or authoritative of, well hell, anything.

      I would hasten to add you may as well fix the spelling of dear George’s name in the op. It is Monbiot not Mombiot.

      Sought of puts the piece in perspective…...sigh.

      Reply

    • Rossco downunder says:

      04:57pm | 11/08/10

      The original article is right to point out the lack of science to the population debate. The pure number of comments shows how few people see no problem and would therefore stay silent.

      For my part I see that there are many unprecedented things occurring in our cities and surrounds. Such as the need for desalination, water rationing, race based crimes and riots, algae blooms in our rivers/dams, power greyouts, gridlock almost no matter what roadworks happen, etc, etc.

      These just weren’t the case a very few decades ago.

      I have watched my own home suburb in Sydney gain no new roads but increase it’s population over 4 fold in about 20 years. The houses are all going to be replaced by units. I could grab a road map from 20 years ago and navigate without problem. That suburb is Cronulla… and it has made itself noteworthy on the race and resentment front.

      I agree that there needs to be more science to the population debate… and more importantly there needs to be engineering done about some of it.  But, clearly there is a tipping point where engineering cannot “fix” these things without costing more money than is available to do so. I think we’re seeing this already in our larger cities and it will inevitably deepen. In some cases it is simply more sensible to do human engineering than civil engineering… like cutting immigration OR establishing new cities rather than continuing to cram the old.

      Whether Australia is “full” or not… I think it is clear we’re struggling to cope and and perhaps have gotten ahead of ourselves. The usual remedy for getting ahead of oneself is to pause, take stock and rethink. It is also to buy yourself time. That is why I support a tightening in immigration rates.

      I don’t support the boat-people/refugee bashing. They should not be treated any differently than anyone who arrived as a tourist and overstayed. In fact the latter was trusted by Aus authorities and breached that trust - they deserve more to be in detention than the boat people. I do support that we need to stop them coming by this means as unseaworthy boats, cyclones and criminal gangs (the smugglers) make this route too dangerous. Cyclones particularly - don’t care about this debate.

      So, it is not unreasonable to cut immigration numbers at the moment… we can always increase them later. People keep arguing the decrease like it MUST be permanent. Perhaps, we just need time to take stock and get some major engineering done and catchup to the shortfalls that most comments agree exists.

      Hopefully, having a minister for population will rally the science and engineering so that we get a sensible outcome like the article espouses. I disagree that public debate is the way forward… it needs to be cold hard science and engineering done behind closed doors in government. You can’t do everything by committee or democracy - some of the right answers won’t be popular.

      Reply

    • SoylentGreen says:

      06:10pm | 11/08/10

      Go read “Make Room, Make Room” and get back to me if you don’t see this as a future with too many people. The Author is Harry Harrison.
      Then read James Lovelock.

      Bear in mind that we have destroyed 90% of world fish stocks, lost much of the suspect topsoil farming base. Most of the forrests are gone and I haven’t even started on peak oil, climate change et al.

      Most people are too stupid to join the dots, or have a direct financial gain through immigration.

      Reply

    • Arjit Sanjay says:

      10:47pm | 11/08/10

      For those who think population size is not an issue just visit the Earth’s most populated areas, reside there for a while, and decide whether you and your family would like to do so permanently.

      Reply

    • James Arvanitakis says:

      11:11am | 12/08/10

      Hey Arjit…

      The point is that population does not count - but that it is one of many factors. We obsess with it like it is the only factor in the world and think that everyone wants to invade us…

      Quality of life and sustainability are not simply reliant on population numbers…

      Cheers, james

    • ant says:

      11:39pm | 11/08/10

      who is going to be the taxpayer of the future…
      i would rather educated jumbo from subsharan africa coming to australia, making a good life for themselves, getting a good tax paying job, which paye for my hospital bed,my pension and to fix pot holes on my street so my car doesnt get wrecked.  bring in the foreigheners, so that in 50 years time their kids can say with pride.. bring in the foreighners..

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      11:45am | 12/08/10

      Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in the thread, we proudly announce that somebody has managed to enunciate the economic problem behind cutting migration!

      The Baby Boomers are about to retire.  That’s one of the biggest demographic shifts this country has ever seen.  It also will be one of the biggest increases to health and pension spending by any government, Labor or Liberal, which will have to be sustained for another good 20 years or so.  We haven’t got sufficient homegrown taxpayers to do that, so we have to import them.  Simple really.

    • JJ says:

      07:49am | 12/08/10

      land use planning is the real key to sustainability.  US studies suggest that a person living a high quality lifestyle in a well planned, well service inner urban community uses 10% (ie 1/10th) of the carbon of a similar quality lifestyle in suburbia.  Significantly reduced transport impacts, reduced water, heating, cooling and significantly more efficient food management makes the answer quite simple.  We need to kill off the silly American Post War ideal of suburbia (it was never really an Australian idea at all) and go back to the European community village square model of planning.

      Reply

    • SoylentGreen says:

      04:46pm | 12/08/10

      Or have less people…I hate crowds.
      You are however correct on the planning side I guess. Peak oil will sort the planning thing out soon enough.

    • James says:

      03:10pm | 12/08/10

      This topic is always amusing.  It seems to attract two types of people 1) people who have an understanding of how the physical world works and the physical limits to population size and 2) buisness men (and yes they are usually men) who make wildly un thought through claims about the population Australia can sustain.  When quizzed on the detail of exactly how we are going to cope with these populations they usually mumble something along the lines of “Humans are very ingenious and well come up with a way”.  The thing that they seem to forget is that the ingenious humans they are refering to are usually in catagory 1)

      Reply

    • Gary Coldman says:

      11:20pm | 13/08/10

      Dick Smiith is right

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 07:38PM

@MelanieTait I was thinking the same thing!

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 27 May 12 04:24PM

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 02:08PM

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

132

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

17

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

2

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed