Comments

Original subject heading was "Australia's place in the world" - JS

Australia’s population is rising at 1.6% a year, faster than Indonesia next door, and one of the fastest rates in Asia.

Australia is not actually "in Asia"; it's a separate continent in its own right. To assert that Australia is a part of Asia is to not only make a geographically false statement, it is to parrot one of the favourite arguments used by immigration enthusiasts. The open borders crowd like to claim that since Australia is a "part of Asia", it has an obligation to transform itself into Lebensraum for the populations to our north (Phil Ruthven, a notorious immigration fanatic, used this exact argument during a debate about population on ABC's Difference of Opinion [Read transcript]). By redefining Australia as a mere extension of Asia, it becomes impossible to defend our uniqueness as a continent-nation and, therefore, much harder to justify one's opposition to mass immigration.

A discussion over at OnlineOpinion.com.au that may interest CanDoBetter contributors:

forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1970

I notice that the former federal senator and notorious immigration enthusiast, Andrew Bartlett, is still recycling the same old open-borders bromides.

James, what angered me most about Canadian refugee policy was that from my vantage point Canada was becoming the dumping ground for all the right wing refugees of the world. Some of the most virulent reactionary people I ever met fled Hungary, Cuba and Vietnam. A lot of Hong Kong immigrants were in fact refugees from mainland China. They were welcomed with open arms and no restrictions were placed on their activities. By contrast, victims of Pinochet who found refuge here were often subjected to humiliating political scrutiny. The freedom fighters from Hungary, Cuba and Vietnam were fighting for a kind of freedom to the government's liking. Freedom of enterprise. The freedom that the Chileans were fighting for, the freedom of workers to organize into unions, to fight for a fair wage, to fight for decent housing, for medical care, for education—that kind of freedom the Canadian government did not like so much.

Now the accent is on multiculturalism. But behind that is a hidden agenda. The Big Five, that is the banks who run our economy and manipulate our politics, want to almost double our annual immigration take, already the highest of G8 countries, but more than that, they hope to draw those numbers from Asian countries under the noble cloak of multiculturalism. Why? Asians make better clients. They save money like demons and take out big mortgages. The banks in turn chase them by promoting diversity in their ranks, celebrating various religious holidays, having mulitilingual calendars, ATMS, diversity awareness and sensitivity courses, and the latest, Scotia bank has made a deal with an Indian bank. Canadians travelling in India who deal with Scotia are sent to this Indian bank and the India Bank in turn refers Indians to Scotia Bank if they go to Canada. Canadian banks recognize that the Asian market is huge and that Multiculturalism paves the way. This Yellow Canada policy is de facto just as exclusive as the White Australia policy was. The Asian orientation of our immigration policy is now set in stone. Off the tangent from refugee policy but an illustration, I think, that Canadian immigration and refugee policy has always been marred by ideological or commercial bias.

I am also a member of the group which visited WA to ask the government and the farmers to extend the moratorium on GM crops (see section in main article Visit of the Japanese consumer group reps).

After returning home, I had a chance to listen to a talk by one American farmer who grew non-GM corn and GM corn. He said that he used to grow non-GM soybeans, but he gave up growing. Because the risk of contamination by GM- genes is too high to prove the level is lower than 5%. He and we can't get reliable non-GM soybean seeds almost anywhere in America. Choice is being denied to us.

As Yuki pointed out in his comments, GM technology

can

cause an irreversible change. For the last few decades, the change has occurred in one country.

Now I want to say again to farmers in WA,

Please! continue to grow non-GM canola, not only for overseas consumers but also for your right to continue your agriculture.

Japanese grain consumer

The writer, Peter Lee says “ ~it only accounts for 4000t of WA canola per year~”. That's true at this time and I know those are very small amount for total production in WA. But once WA farmers start to grow GM canola, the same thing will happen as

happened with

American soy beans. It would mean that WA would not be able to produce non-GM canola any more, not even as little as 4000t per year

Now I want to say again to farmers in WA, “Please! continue to grow non-GM canola, not only for

overseas

consumer

s

but also for your right to continue your agriculture.”

Sick of the congestion? Time to talk about immigration of 28 Sep 08 by Michael Duffy in the Sydney Morning Herald.

This article is just so wrong and outdated that I wonder who told you this stuff. Having an Icelandic background doesn't seem to have encouraged you to learn about the country from reliable sources. It is not perfect, no country is but Vigdis (the woman president you saw a decade ago) hasn't been the president for about a decade. "Women go on a strike once a year"? What? There was this one strike (decades ago) where women did that and again in remembrance of that day a few years ago but it is not a yearly event. People who move there are not forced to take a new name, that was years ago that they removed that rule. "stress that makes young people and everyone turn to alcoholism big time" This is such bullshit. Alcoholism doesn't have a stronger connection with Iceland than any other country. But yes I could go on and on about how inaccurate this piece is but I'll leave it here. What is the point of writing something like this when you have absolutely no facts excepts tales of a grandmother of drank her coffee strangely which means all Icelanders drink it strangely, or a tale of a slutty cousin who got so overstressed over having to own everything that she turned to alcohol and sex. Try to find the facts next time, it would save people the trouble of reading bullshit like this.

In the U.S. the "pull" factors have been legislated and thus can be unlegislated. Incentivizing illegal and legal immigration is the driving force behind this country's unprecedentedly rapid population growth exacerbating all resource depletion, ecological degradation and industrial unsustainability problems. Arizona recently began experiencing an exodus of illegals after it passed a law enforcing employer penalties. What must also be addressed is federal and many states's providing generous education, and welfare programs while not allowing police to even ask about immigration status. These factors incentivize ever-more illegal and legal immigration. This pull factor results in gaining millions who consume up to ten times what they did in their native countries.

Migrants, births fuel rise in numbers

David Uren, Economics correspondent | June 25, 2008

A FLOOD of migrants and a continuing rise in the birth rate gave Australia its fastest population growth in almost two decades last year.

Queensland is leading the population boom, attracting migrants from overseas and across the border in NSW.

The number of Queenslanders rose by just under 100,000 last year, almost a third of the national population increase of 331,000.

The 1.6 per cent increase in the population lifted the national total to 21.2 million.

Australian National University demographer Peter McDonald said the rise made Australia the fastest-growing nation in the developed world.

"The United States has a slightly higher fertility rate but our migration rate is much higher," he said.

The population was boosted by an extraordinary influx of 410,900 migrants and long-term visitors from overseas, far in excess of the 226,400 long-term visitors returning and Australian residents leaving the country.

Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia were thebig magnets for overseas migrants.

Western Australia lifted its migrant intake by 24.6per cent last year to 28,880 people, while Queensland attracted 35,800, an increase of 19.1 per cent.

Professor McDonald said NSW was the big loser, as a result of efforts by former premier Bob Carr to close the state to migration.

"Over the last seven years, NSW's share of international migration has dropped from 42per cent to 29 per cent," Professor McDonald said.

NSW still accounted for 42 per cent of the people leaving the country, he said.

Western Australia was the biggest destination for British migrants, while Queensland attracted the most New Zealanders.

Victoria and NSW appealed more to Chinese and Indian migrants.

"South Australia has also achieved a remarkable increase in its migrant intake from 2000 five years ago to 13,000 in the last year," Professor McDonald said.

With about 24,000 people leaving NSW, mostly for Queensland last year, NSW had lower population growth than Queensland and Victoria.

Despite the resources boom, Western Australia failed to attract a significant flow of migrants from the eastern states, with only 3775 people making the trek across the Nullarbor last year. Queensland lured 25,650 people.

The fertility rate continued to climb, reaching 1.85 births per woman, up from a level of 1.72 four years ago.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics said this number might have been exaggerated by the new requirement that births be registered before parents can claim the baby bonus.

However, Professor McDonald said even accounting for that change, the fertility rate was above 1.8 births per woman.

The death rate also declined, from 6.6 deaths per 1000 people in 2002-3 to 5.9, the lowest on record, last year.

Natural population increase added 147,400 people last year, an 11.3 per cent increase from 2006, while migration added 184,400, a 16.2 per cent increase.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23918355-5013169,00.html

Observe how NSW is described as the "big loser" in the frenetic race towards overpopulation and lower living standards. As premier, Bob Carr came to the conclusion that rapid immigration-fuelled population growth was unwise, unhealthy and unsustainable and would only come to an end by either conscious control or by catastrophe. He prudently chose the former. Yet he is maligned and condemned for placing the interests of the existing population of NSW above those of big business and other pro-immigrationists.

Superb criticisms. I am definitely not for relaxing immigration controls. I am for tightening them. I am merely arguing that the dam will not hold unless we try and relieve the pressure that is coming at us and will come at us in waves. We can triple our navy and arm the coast guard, build electronic fences, turn our coast lines into what our version of Hitler's Atlantic Wall but history tells me that all fortresses have limited capabilities. So then, while we are strenghtening our defences, forcing employers to pay decent wages etc. We ought to work on ways to reduce the push factors.

Now you introduce the dark view. These regions are so devastated by overpopulation that to "raise" their living standards by more consumption is environmentally untenable. But some would say that they had a living that was agreeable until the corporations and the trade agreements messed with it. That scrapping those agreements and giving the boot to the multinationals would be a step toward restitution rather than profligate consumerist bingng. Just to return to the level of living they had forty years ago would be an achievement for many Third World victims of free trade. But this process of reparations would indeed, take decades, and I certainly wouldn't leave our front door unlocked.

One point to remember in passing. First world countries, Canada, the United States, the UK and Australia, are also ecological basket cases from over population. When the oil runs out, analysts like Dale Pfeiffer speculate that fully one-third of North America's population will starve to death, as modern agriculture is utterly dependent on oil. Microbiologist Peter Salonious puts the figure at 95%, as intensive agriculture has completely depleted our soils.

One need not talk about water. Dark views, in other words, are not confined to developing countries.

Tim wrote:

"But I am also frustrated by the blindness of the red neck wing of the American anti immigration movement that takes no responsibility for the factors which PUSH migrants out of their third world countries.

"These countries have been ravished by decades of iniquitous trade agreements that have extorted resources from them at bargain basement prices, causing them to forfeit self-sufficiency, destroy natural capital, and strip social services to pay off debt charges that the IMF dictates must be paid."

This may hold true in some cases, but it's certainly not correct that everyone attached to the "red neck wing of the American anti immigration movement" supports the globalist "free" trade agenda. Patrick Buchanan, for example, has railed extensively against "free" trade and remains an ardent advocate of economic nationalism.

As for mitigating the immigration "push" factor, American immigration reform advocate Roy Beck noted in his book, Re-Charting America's Future (PDF 1.3MB), that:

Any serious assessment of the world situation will show that even under the very best of scenarios and the most extravagant aid possible, standards of living in underdeveloped nations cannot become competitive with advanced nations for many decades, according to professor Antonio Golini of the Institute for Population Research in Italy. Thus, the immigration push factors will remain in place. If the advanced nations were to relax immigration controls until the push factors disappeared, their populations likely would multiply several times over.

The prognosis is even more dismal, according to Professor H.J. Hoffman-Novotny of Zurich: If living conditions by some miracle did rise high enough in underdeveloped nations so that their residents would stop fleeing, the world environment would be devastated by the additional resource consumption and pollution.

Prospects for such economic success, however, are unlikely, in the dark view of New York Times correspondent Malcolm Browne: Anybody who actually thinks foreign aid [or in this case, fairer trade] can soon eliminate "push" factors in the third world doesn't know the hopelessness overpopulation has created. "The third world is not a 'developing' culture. It is a putrefying 'state' of existence perpetually in the grip of a plague deadlier than anthrax: the burgeoning human race... For the past dozen years, I have devoted most of my reporting to science... I have become convinced that until population growth can be controlled, all other environmental problems will remain insoluble."

Sadly, the Australian Greens are no better than their Canadian counterparts on the issues of immigration and population growth.

Greens lose the plot on Population
by TheRealists ~ June 14th, 2008

The Greens have abandoned any pretence that they are a party that cares for the environment with their continued failure to engage in any debate about Australia’s future population.

Instead, The Greens use obfuscation to hide the fact that they don’t have a population policy at all. The Greens use phrases such as “our environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live” in their population policy in a clear affront to the reality that Australia has the highest per capita carbon footprint in the world.

Judging by the media releases found on the party’s website, The Greens appear to be more concerned with Work Choices, Guantanamo Bay and the Dalai Lama than campaigning for a sustainable population policy that that will benefit all Australians, as well as the environment.

With current immigration trends, Australia’s population will double by the year 2050 and then double again to 100 million people by 2100. This is a serious issue not only for the environment but also for Australian society which will face tumultuous changes.

The Greens should stop trying to be a party of the extreme left, and instead engage the Australian public and the federal government in a sensible debate about the serious issues of immigration and population.

therealists.com.au/?p=15

For a reply to "Intact Aboriginal Cultures" in North America in my blog.

Even some within the immigration industry are concerned about the impacts of ever-increasing mass immigration on the country's environment and quality of life:

Australian Immigration Could Harm Resources Down the Line
02/06/2008 by Tamar Blieden

The Australian government is constantly calling for skilled immigrants, but with an estimated growth of nearly 1 million in the next 13 years many question if Australia's infrastructure can cope.

These concerns have come to the fore today on the eve of the state budget where billions are thought to be given to building Australia's infrastructure. But will this be enough to deal with the mass of immigrants flooding in to Australia on a yearly basis?

"Australia is one of the most popular immigrant destinations and it is now easier for skilled foreigners to start a new life," says Erin Ryan of www.globalvisas.com, specialists in global mobility. She adds that this is great for the Australian economy but if overpopulation occurs it could turn into a disaster, with not enough water, housing or food.

The influx of immigrants, particularly to Sydney, could cause major stress to resources, but because the effects are thought to take years to be felt, the government still open the doors to immigrants through an increased migration programme.

Last month Rudd increased the amount of immigrants by over 30 000 a year, with growth like this it is important for the government to invest in services in order for Australia to ultimately cope with the growth.

www.globalvisas.com/news/australian_immigration_could_harm_resources_down_the_line181.html

I sent the following letters to The Age and to the Herald Sun on 6 Jun 08 in response to the 2 articles on this bad news re population growth in Australia and particularly Victoria (since they are Victorian rags.) I don't think either was published but I'm not completely sure.

Tim Colebatch's article "Population grows at record rate" The Age 6.6.08 is a smorgasbord of depressing numbers - no less for Victoria than other states. Whereas we used add one million to our national population about every 4 years - now we do it in 3. Victoria's population used to grow by some 60+ thousand per year and now it's over 80,000 in the last year recorded.

Population growth, especially at this rapid rate is self evidently and logically unsustainable. Even at this stage much of the country is water-stressed. Our current Federal Government appears as unlikely as its predecessor to curb this trajectory and alleviating population pressure on largely arid Australia will be left for governments of the future to deal with as crisis management - if they can.

This one went the The Herald Sun on the same day

The Victorian Treasurer's self congratulation in claiming credit to his government for Victoria's attributes as a great place to live and raise a family (H.S. 6.6.08 "Victoria's population booming") seems ingenuous given the well known existing and anticipated problems that population growth is causing in Victoria and the proposed controversial, environment threatening infrastructure projects resulting from this. e.g. desalination plant in Wonthaggi, road tunnels in inner Melbourne suburbs, and dredging in Port Phillip Bay to accommodate larger ships for increased cargo.

Mr Lenders, it is not much fun for families now spending so much time trying to protect their local environment when once they could just enjoy it.

As long as we press our noses up against intensely selective and highly suspect sources of information, we will continue to fail to engage with the wider picture.

I have read fairly widely about peak oil and associated issues and my conclusion is that you guys are over-focused and, therefore, easily manipulated. You are in good company; about 6 billion people are doing likewise; that is, when three of those billions can take their minds off hunger long enough to think at all.

A word of warning, which I am sure you all know, but never apply… never believe anything said to you by the mass media, corporations, banking interests, the UN, academia or scientific institutions. In case you haven't noticed, all of these are now controlled by the same banker conglomerates who fund and administer the WTO, the WB, the IMF and the BIS. They are not your friend; and in fact that sector of the population that I would describe as wide awake, would identify this group as humanity's number one enemy. I refer, of course, to the Hills Samuel/Rothschild/Rockefeller led groups.

Peak Oil Alarmism?

Back to oil:

Sources I am more inclined to take seriously are individuals who are non-aligned, and who slip their esoteric knowledge out to those prepared to search for it. However, these people have widely divergent views. At one end of this spectrum we have peak oil alarmists (who may or may not be right). At the other we have the 'she'll be right' brigade. The reality is, there is not enough empirical data available to draw a firm conclusion. The whole issue is just not as simple as most would portray. For example, four of Russia's top geo-scientists joined others around the world to argue that oil is not fossil-based, but magma-based; and therefore, renewable. I must admit this leaves me incredulous, but I have learned to keep an open mind; especially as I am not aware of a single credible report on oil that correlates with others.

Meanwhile, there are more urgent matters at stake. If I recall the figures correctly, 70% of the current oil price is set by the NY futures market. This is insane, and has nothing to do with supply or other quantitative issues. Secondly, I am aware of literally hundreds of wells sunk in and around Australia that were qualified by geophysicists prior to shafting, and simply capped without testing. I got this from several individual drillers. I believe them; I do not believe the corporations or government. Moreover, 70% of the world's current oil is not pumped by the great oil companies, but by national interests; often government-owned. Their prices are low. In other words, the oil prices we hear quoted are first world globalised nations only.

Thirdly, our bass Strait diesel requires only filtering. It is high quality and cheap. Why is it higher priced than petrol?

Official figures show only one third of our oil is imported. My challenge to you guys is to identify the tankers that bring this here; and their manifests. The word I got from inside is that most imports are on paper only.

The necessisity for the resoration of tariffs

Finally, and most significantly, why did we ever sign the Oil Price Parity Agreement; wherein we have paid foreign prices for Australian oil. And of course, why do we not revoke this criminal piece of nonsense now?

By calculating our actual production costs, relative to Venezuelan, I estimate that our bowser price (sans tax) should be 12 cents per litre (Venezuela is equivalent to 6 cents). The savings generated by such a rationalisation would quickly pay for a pan-Australian standard rail system and saturation public transport. Our oil requirements would then fall dramatically. A second tier of savings could then finance alternative energy and technology research and development.

This, I believe is the direction we should be headed. In terms of current knowledge, it is feasible, economically viable and self-regulating, and addresses economic realities.

However, there is one exception. This will not be implementable, not will it be realistically utilisable, if we do not first restore tariffs. This is because the prime regenerative beneficiaries will be the manufacturing and family farming sectors. Tariff removal destroyed two thirds of our family farms and almost half of our manufacturing over a period of two and a half decades. This also cost three million full time jobs. Simply put, tariff restoration would regenerate all of these, and it would also cause a massive decline in imports, which would make UN/US-generated trade reprisals ineffective.

A bonus would be the creation of a firewall against imported recession. Incidentally, we need to do this anyway because Australia's imports are around 30% higher in value than our exports; which means we are already bankrupt and almost in the clutches of a foreclosing World Bank.

A final thought, to inspire urgency; the US has been reducing imports from China now for a year. This means our exports to China have been falling in tandem (as they must). Our politicians have been lying to us. We are now looking down the barrel of depression; especially if you consider government still has liabilities of 500 billion in unsecured/uncovered public service superannuation liabilities. Only the proposals I outlined can save us from that. So it is really just Hobson's choice.

I know nix about oil, so if any of you can proved evidence-based reasons why I should alter the above, I will be eternally grateful.