Comments

mike's picture

mike

Tue, 2008-06-10 09:58

Tony, rest assured I have a very robust bullshit filter. You have brought up so many issues to reply to it's hard to work out where to start, however, here goes..... The empirical data may be neither complete nor accurate, but there is more than enough to allow one to draw serious conclusions. Like the fact the year the most oil ever was discovered was 1964... Regarding the Russian Abiotic Oil, it really doesn't matter whether it's for real or not, it's plainly obvious the Earth is NOT creating 85 million barrels of the stuff every day to feed our habit. Re speculation, to be sure there is plenty of that, but I put it to you that were it not for the fact oil supplies are ultra tight, there would be none. Remember the days of $20 oil? Speculators were buying and gambling on oil futures back then.... so why didn't the oil skyrocket way back then? Do you have a source for your Bass Straight 'filtered diesel' statement? MY understanding is that this oil was actually too thin to make diesel with but was perfect for making cheap petrol (hence we export it!) but that we need thicker oil to make diesel, and import both that and finished fuel. I was told this a very long time ago as an explanation as to why diesel here is more expensive than petrol, which at the time was the complete opposite to everywhere else. One thing I don't understand properly is why diesel now seems to be dearer than petrol everywhere..... unless of course demand is skyrocketing because so many cars now run on it due to these vehicles being so much more economical than petrol ones. After giving us a lecture on the credibility of sources you have the nerve to write "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." I hear stories like this all the time too when I broach this subject. I have a source. My father worked for TOTAL FINA way back in 1963/64 - interestingly, the years the most oil was ever discovered globally - and you know what? They didn't find a single drop of oil..... NOT ONE. If all this oil was just sitting out there waiting for us to exploit, don't you think the time is ripe to pull some out at $100+ a barrel? Don't you think oil companies would be falling over themselves to sell us the stuff? I put it to you there may well be at least three factors at play here: no oil, crap oil, or very slow flow rates. It's a well known fact in the industry that currently 90% of drillings are wildcats, ie duds..... even in Saudi Arabia. I read this on the Oil Drum which I think is a pretty good source. And finally, we probably signed the Oil Parity Agreement so we could get a high price (for then!) for the oil we were exporting. I think it's called Capitalism/Globalisation. Don't worry though, both are on the verge of collapse. A pessimist is a well informed optimist

jill (not verified)

Tue, 2008-06-10 08:54

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.

terri

Mon, 2008-06-09 20:16

Thanks so much for posting Captain Watson’s plea to Greenpeace (GP) to help save the Whales from being slaughtered by the Japanese Whalers. It would be a History-making event if the two organizations would finally work together for the same cause at last. As you can see, Captain Watson has repeatedly in the past asked for GP to help and has been refused any cooperation from them. Thus, causing the death of more Whales while GP holds up Banners or rides on the backs of dead harpooned whales for photo-opportunities, until Sea Shepherd’s ship arrives to chase the Whalers away.


When the Whalers spy Sea Shepherd’s Ships, they run!

The reason I left GP after over two decades of working with, and Donating my money to them, is that they have not in all this time effectively stopped Whaling. When the Whalers spy Sea Shepherd’s Ships, they run! They do not run from GP because they know that no action is taken to actually stop them and have no fears of GP. But they never are certain what Sea Shepherd will do to stop the Whaler’s slaughter of these magnificent intelligent creatures, our beautiful Whales. They know Sea Shepherd will take direct action, where GP will not.
They do not run from Greenpeace because they know that no action is taken to actually stop them …

This past season 2007-2008, the Japanese Whalers even resorted to having military onboard hurling exploding flash grenades at our SSCS Crewmembers in retaliation to our harmless stink-bombs thrown onto the empty Flencing Deck where they cut up Whales on the Factory Ship, Nisshin Maru. One of the Japanese SWAT team (no doubt it had to be a crack marksman) shot Captain Watson in the left side of his chest exactly in the heart area. Fortunately, he was wearing a Kevlar Bullet-proof vest or he would have surely died. See www.seashepherd.org for the pictures of ships’s Doctor
digging out bullet from the Vest.

And our own Australian Government finally got around to sending a ship to ‘Document’ the Whale killing. Why would they need more pictures when there are decades of Documentation already? Surely more pictures still have not stopped Japan’s plans to continue Whale killing in the Antarctic, where again they will be adding Endangered Fin Whales to their list of nearly 1,000 Minke (Piked) Whales to be slaughtered. But will they leave our Humpbacks alone this year?

terri

Mon, 2008-06-09 19:42

Just because an activity has been going on for a long time, does not mean that it is presently sustainable or correct especially with the World's Shark population at a 90% decline.

The Shark along the area of the Great Barrier Reef do not “wander” or migrate, only living in that area. To continually remove shark for any reason now that there are only 10% of the number of Sharks on the Planet is foolhardy. So to state that there are millions of Shark, and if you take one another appears, is not correct and a false assumption. Because these creatures live in this area and take many years to mature, having only have one pup at a time, replenishing a supply of Sharks takes many decades. If shark fishing of any kind continues on the Great Barrier Reef and is expanded, these creatures will be wiped off the Planet. Sharks are vitally needed for the health of the Reefs.

Your statement that the Shark Fishery is well managed, is a point of view of the Fisheries Dept, and with the loss of 90% of the World's Sharks gone and many Species on the brink of extinction within the next few years due to Shark Fishing/Finning and Poaching, we cannot continue to allow any Sharks to be taken. The Fishery must be abolished to save the Sharks. We do not want to see any Sharks killed in Australia for any reason. There is an abundance of other foods to eat, and with Shark poaching rife, all Shark killing must be stopped.

The Coral Sea Marine Park must be established to save all marine life.

rvw (not verified)

Mon, 2008-06-09 18:28

Perhaps the permits are a way of managing the fishery which currently requires no special permits? Shark fishing has been happening for a long time on the great barrier reef, a well managed fishery. Recent laws require each fin to be accompanied by the rest of the shark, which is a huge positive. I feel the attachment makes no distinction between shark species (more than 125 on the great barrier reef) and different shark habitats. nor bases it's conclusions on any actual study. Shark fishing IS sustainable, there are millions of them, when you kill one, another takes it's place. The fact that many species are in decline is due to over-fishing, poor management and human population growth. Maybe this media release, like the movie mentioned, focuses on the cruel slaughter of individual sharks (which is just like a dolphin with big teeth), rather than the problem: over fishing, over population. Reduce immigration.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2008-06-08 20:47

The Sunday Mail, in a story “Loveless couples too broke to split” with the by-line Sharing bills but trapped in ‘non-divorce’ by Hannah Davies reports:

A growing number of couples are choosing to stay in loveless relationships because they can’t afford to go it alone in the worsening economic climate.

The trend, dubbed the “non-divorce”, has resulted in married and de facto couples living together like passionless room-mates rather than spouses, ….

As mortgage and loan interest rates continue to rise, purse strings are tightening across the state. The average mortgage is now $300,000, carrying monthly repayments of $2168, and average rent is $260 a week for a modest unit on the Gold Coast, or $350-$400 for a house in Brisbane or on the Sunshine Coast. Add to this petrol surging past $1.50 a litre, and the weekly grocery bill going through the roof.

…

Relationships Australia counsellor Fiona Hawkins said … “I know a woman in her 50s who has a low-paying job, who feels she is going through the motions of a relationship, but will stay with her husband because the alternative is renting on her own.

“She feels sharing the house makes good financial sense because then the overheads burden is shared. Repairs, rates, and rents are usually the same no matter how many people live there.

… Dr Brian Sullivan, from the University of Queensland, said financial concerns could cause a couple to stay together even when the relationship was hostile.

“If a woman has children and she leaves her husband, she suddenly becomes the breadwinner,” he said. “When faced with this, a woman will often decide to stay in the relationship because if she was to leave she would be on the streets, with no viable means of support.”

Relationships Australia offers counselling to couples (in marriages of financial convenience). Phone 1300 364 277 for an appointment.

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2008-06-07 21:24

Hi Tony, King Hubbert's calculations on oil peaks are proving more and more on the nose as time goes by. His calculations and others are explored by Seppo Korpela in the first edition of The Final Energy Crisis, Pluto Press, 2005. In the second edition, coming out in September, and edited by myself, he has updated his calculations, retesting the Hubbert theory, and this confirms that we are probably in or around the peak at the moment, using the best knowledge and opinions available. There are also two articles by Colin Campbell, who is an expert in reserve estimations and discovery trends. In the first chapter of The Final Energy Crisis, Ed.2, 2008, which I wrote, I have looked at other indicators of trends, including measures of economic growth, and I write about the per capita oil production trend. I also look at the theory of energy decoupling of the economy and find it wanting. Speculation must account for some of the dollar price, but not for the failure to make large new accessible discoveries sufficient to keep our overpopulated world in oil in the style to which it has been accustomed. There are numerous other indicators, but you will have to buy the book. :-) Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2008-06-07 20:51

So it appears as if the New Zealand Green Party should not have been disqualified from Tim Murray's “most idiotic Green Party in the world” competition, after all. I was unable to locate any meaningful information about population and immigration on the NZ Greens web site www.greens.org.nz, so I would be interested in looking at the document referred to by Tim Murray.

Giving credit where credit is due and why the lesser evil should sometimes be chosen

I would take one issue with Kevin's informative contribution. I think in politics one should give credit where credit is due. One should also choose the lesser evil over the greater evil when there is no other choice. So, if I was in NZ, I think it is possible that I would still vote for the Greens before Labour and Labour before the Nationals (that is, assuming NZ's electoral system allows for preferential voting). One of a number of reasons I would choose to vote Labour is because the NZ Labour Government has recently renationalised NZ's rail and Ferry services (whilst their 'Labor' counterparts across the Tasman are moving in the opposite direction). That doesn't mean one should for a minute try to either conceal or excuse corruption and other flaws of 'lesser evil' political forces (although possibly, in the heat of an election campaign such as the 2007 Australian Federal elections, where we were trying to rid this country of the truly loathsome and incompetent Government of John Howard, we would not seek to dwell on the shortcomings of the opposition Labor Party.)

Kevin (not verified)

Sat, 2008-06-07 19:57

We regarded the Greed Party of New Zealand as one of the biggest bunch of hypocrites, liars and clowns on the planet until we read how useless other Green parties around the world are. Let me elaborate: Party leader Jeanette Fitzsimon (JF) has known about the peak oil issue as a defining issue of our time in considerable detail since around 2000, and in general terms for at least 20 years. She remained silent on the issue for years, then quite suddenly decided it merited public airing. At the 2005 election, having announced ‘peak oil’ banners from one end of the country to the other the Greed Party actually managed to produce election posters that had no mention of peak oil. and most people could not decypher any clear message at all from them. The party's literature over those months had virtually no mention of peak oil and was focused on peripheral matters, such as water quality of mountain streams and food labelling. I was a guest speaker at a Sustainable Living Fair in April and took great exception to Jeanette Fitzsimon (many people refer to her a Genetic Fizzer etc., that's how low her rating now are) being a speaker, since just a few months earlier (Now 2006) she had given a speech about tourism being a sustainable industry with huge potential for growth — she was of course referring to people flying to NZ and taking bus and motor boat trips, not arriving by canoe and cycling round the country. In April 2008 JF was pushing furiously to have the NZ government enact a totally unworkable bio-fuel policy by July of 2008. Now we all know that bio-fuels are nothing other than a scam (see Evo Morales re-nationalises energy and telecommunications companies, denounces biofuel-driven starvation - admin), and that the majority have marginally positive or negative EROEI. That's if any land can be found to grown them of course. Or fertiliser to promote growth — we are almost certainly at peak phosphorus as well as peak oil. I vividly remember Sue Kedgley (a senior Greed Party MP) showing a film about industrial agriculture in 2005, but being more or less totally oblivious of the effect that peak oil would have on agriculture: indeed, I had the distinct impression she did not even know what peak oil was, and certainly was unaware it was supposed to be a major component of Greed Party policy. More recently we have witnessed various rorts and wheeling and dealing amongst senior Greed Party members (Ron knows more than I do about that) including junket trips that consume nonrenewable resources and generate pollution in the worse place possible — the atmosphere. (Robert knows more details that I do on that one). We usually refer the Green Party of New Zealand as the Greed Party because:
  1. the leadership is more interested in political gainsmanship and jockeying for position than in tackling issues;
  2. Greed MPs are notorious for taking junket trips here, there and everywhere;
  3. they pretend they can bring about revolution in thinking by making minimal tweeks to the present system — in other words they are quite prepared to sacrifice the future of young New Zealanders in order that they can continue to live the high life;
  4. the leadership is totally unprincipled and will bend policy in any direction if they think it politically expedient. We call it sleeping with the enemy; in the early years of this century the Greeds formed a loose coalition with Labour — a party that promotes global corporate agendas, globalisation, Genetically Engineered food etc. After having been stabbed in the back by Labour, the Greeds hang around looking for someone new to sleep with, like prostitutes hanging around street corners outside bars and pubs.
The good news is that the Greed Party is languishing at around the 5% threshold and may get completely eliminated form the next parliament.

Tony Ryan (not verified)

Sat, 2008-06-07 11:04

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.

Robert Thankyou... (not verified)

Fri, 2008-06-06 16:25

The New Zealand Greed politicians have had something like 3 children in the past 6 years, and they think nothing of flying around the world on junkets ....... and they help promote a retirement scam that relies on continued growth for the next 40 years Robert

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2008-06-05 20:46

Darren, Thanks for your article. You may not be aware of it, but the choice of living in the country is no longer there for many because big agribusiness and modern enclosures for so-called efficiency are forcing people off the land. One of the ways this has been done most recently is by disaggregating water from the land and forcing people to try to make unsustainable profits from farming or get out. Have a look at two articles on this site: Orwellian Waterworks: big-agribusiness and Victorian Gov, John Locke in Ellen Meiksins Wood's The Origin of Capitalism. It is common to mistake a trend for a desire. In the industrial revolution people flocked to the cities as well, because they were chased from the land. These trends are a feature of Anglo-capitalism and they will end when oil and coal run out. You are right about power needing to be local, but the population growth is both unsustainable and democratically unmanagable. It is destroying our democracy, in my view. Good luck with your attempts to reestablish democracy locally. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2008-06-05 20:36

I have the same problem with these problems that are not problems, also with the people-centric thinking. Until/if we manage water shortage, it is a terrible problem with terrible repercussions. Also, none of the proposed solutions pay heed to the rest of the natural world and other animals; all our 'solutions' just take more for humans. The idea of Brisbane competing with Barcelona for the 'best people' conceives of a city as some kind of exchange house for manic enterprise. What about the other 99% of people who have to live there? What about the elderly people and children who need gardens, quiet and stability? What about the large number of people in dull jobs, who want to work fewer hours and have more time peacefully relaxing in a calm, pleasant natural environment? I agree with the need to empower people locally, but if you have big business maniacly building all over the place, no-one local can stop them and residents would have to give up work and pleasure and spend all their waking hours making submissions to government and lobbying to stop the roads from being torn up and rebuilt and the subdivision to microscopic proportions of every neighbourhood. The reason for the impossible pace of development is the population growth. Without population growth developers would just go away. (God, I wish they would GO AWAY!) And what about those of us who despair at what is happening to the birds and trees and other wildlife? What does the city hold for us, except more heartache. And the country is being torn up as well. So there is no-where for us to go.

darren (not verified)

Thu, 2008-06-05 17:05

Thanks, Mike for reading the short article. I think your comment is about as long as the original op ed piece, obviously a poor reflection on the way I presented my concepts. People have chosen and are continuing to move into cities to live their lives -thankfully for the Sunshine Coast I might add. But that doesn't help the millions of Australians that live in our cities. Accordingly, I was seeking to take the experiences of urban life into relevant illustrations. Sadly, when living in the city you don't get too many opportunities to garden & farm - but that's a choice people make. Its my hope that by having a closer look at some of these lived experiences surrounding urban realities we might be able to move people to a better future. A future that is more sustainable. A future that does know its limits and bounds. And a future that enables more people to take more a lead over leading better lives. Mike, at present our State government is dependent upon 'growth' for 41% of its current tax revenues some $4.2billion, how do you think we should restructure our state economy & revenues to take the need for growth out of the need for government?
mike's picture

mike

Thu, 2008-06-05 16:30

Goodness me Darren, I have a problem with your non-problems... The drought isn't a problem? Did you REALLY mean to say that? The "failure to have water management" is just part of the issue. It's much much more complex than that. Wivenhoe Dam is in the wrong place (if you want water storage). It's a flood mitigation dam. It was built post 1974 flood to catch the 1 in 100 year flood that comes down the Brisbane. Other than that, it almost never rains there. So you start plugging houses into this dam, and you'll empty it, FOR SURE! I know, I was involved in its design when I worked for the then Irrigation and Water Supply Commission. Being creative with 'management' will only work if you stop the growth. Twice as many houses consuming half the current water each STILL consumes the same amount. What then? Halve the consumption again? Besides, this drought, whilst not caused specifically by climate change, is certainly worsened by it, and cities are greatly responsible for elevated levels of consumption which cause elevated levels of greenhouse emissions. "The skyrocketing price of petrol isn't a problem, the failure to unhitch our city economy from car dependency is the problem." Oh really? Do you realise we pour more petrol into our refrigerators than our cars? Even if we all gave up our cars (like I did) Peak Oil (and the resulting price hikes) will cause us all sorts of pain. I've left Brisbane because it's a terrible place to grow your own food. The soil's crap, the allotments are too small, and there's not enough water..... we thumb our noses at water restrictions here on the Sunny Coast..... we have nearly 50,000 litres in our water tanks, and they fill up at the sight of clouds! The problems, Darren, really come when we ignore that we are living on a finite planet with finite resources, and then consume everything at an exponentially growing rate. A pessimist is a well informed optimist
denis's picture

denis

Thu, 2008-06-05 09:28

Oil is an exhaustible natural resource. The easy to extract and process half has already been burnt in a short period of time. There is plenty of talk about 'supply and demand' but little mention of the fact that geophysical factors have an increasingly strong influence on supply. There is plenty of speculation on why the price of oil has risen so strongly but little on the fact that exploration and extraction costs have also risen very rapidly. The industry have to face that supply reality, though, of course, they say little about this in case it depresses their shareholders. The days of 'cheap oil' are over. That is the reality even though our leaders are not prepared to face it - publicly.

admin

Tue, 2008-06-03 13:02

This was posted by Judy Bamberger (bamberg[AT]eaglet.rain.com 02 62476220) to her local newspaper.

While our politicians contest who can spit the dummy further over petrol-related taxes, they drive and fly, fly and drive, burning oil at unsustainable rates. Australians consume nearly 50% more oil than the average, nearly 10-times than our nearest neighbour, Indonesians, 50% more than Brits.

While we whinge about the price of petrol, we consume oil excessively. Price-per/L is a miniscule percent of per-capita income, far less than about 80% of other nations, six times less than Indonesia, about 50% less than the UK.

Our politicians waste energy, media, time, and oil arguing and blaming each other, concocting tax-saving stunts. And the price of oil (and petrol) rises. The GST on the excise tax (3.8-cents/L), the excise tax (38-cents/L), GST entirely (16-cents/L) - even if we cut all these, barely 50-cents, economists predict the price of petrol will exceed AU$2.00/L by year-end.

Since 2001, oil increased five-fold (US$25/bbl to US$130/bbl); at the bowser, prices have barely doubled.

Wake up, Australia: The price of petrol is high, and it will go only higher. As much as it pains our pocket books, we pay the average world-wide price; half what many Europeans pay.

"It's the law of supply and demand, stupid," as the saying goes. You want to spend less on petrol? STOP DRIVING.

Vivienne (not verified)

Mon, 2008-06-02 18:44

Kangaroos should be taken off our Coat of Arms and their symbolic use as emblems of Australia for sporting clubs and businesses should be banned. They are considered by our government and land-owners as a pest to be wiped out. Canberra's mascots were systematically executed by bureaucratic "experts" as a form of population control. They are constantly blamed for the damage actually done by livestock industries and feral animals. They are being vilified and hated by so many otherwise patriotic and kind-hearted Australians. They have been hounded and relentlessly hunted for their meagre amount of flesh, and for their skins, for over 170 years.

Over 3.5 million are ambushed and shot each year across Australia in a so-called humane and sustainable industry, and overall their numbers are crashing. The killed ones are getting younger as prime males are being eradicated and now are more likely to be females. These gentle, proud and fascinating animals are being treated as a plague, and disease, to be hunted out of existence due to the pure hatred aimed at them! Joeys are just bashed until dead, or left to die slowly.

Kangaroos are ancient animals that actually help soils and grasses, and they have learned to live in perfect harmony on frugal and seasonal food and water supplies. If they are dying of starvation in their own habitat then it speaks volumes of the damage we humans have inflicted on our country since Colonial times!

Instead of believing this industry's claims and at the same time condemning Japan for atrocities against whales, we should stop our hypocrisy and fix up the mess in our own back-yards! Our ancient and iconic animals are unwelcome and unwanted in their own land! We have betrayed them and so morally we should not use their profile to represent Australia.

dave

Mon, 2008-06-02 11:33

The SMH has picked up on Dr Bob Birrell's comments on the Rudd government's expansion of Australia's immigration program. The report also cites some immigration numbers showing a steady and significant rise in intakes since 03-04: Immigration intakes 2003-04 110,000 2004-05 120,000 2005-06 140,000 2006-07 148,200 2007-08 152,800 2008-09 190,300

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2008-06-01 22:01

Let's face it, we are planning massive heavy industry development of our coasts (e.g. Mornington Peninsula biosphere at Hastings Port and the horrific dredging of Port Phillip Bay, which has already begun). The reason is that we have been nothing but an extractive third world Pacific Rim economy since the early 1980s. We sell off land to foreigners and second-class our own citizens out of the market. Shark-fin fishing goes right along with this trend and the one of the land-sharks chasing our wildlife into extinction. Good on the Seashepherd for standing up for sea-sharks. I hope they and others reverse this mad trend. In fact a case could be made that killing sharks is anti-competitive. Humans are trying to have a monopoly on fishing the ocean and they are using foul means to achieve this, when, according to competition theory, they should be matching and out-doing the sharks' skills. The ACCC might have something to say about this. Personally I would not be surprised if the sharks ran a counter attack by taking more bipedal prey from closer to the shore. It is indeed surprising that there are any sharks still able to make a living from the sea with so many dredges and nets about. Yes, we are certainly dredging the bottom from every perspective. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

admin

Sun, 2008-06-01 01:17

Australia may lead the world in extermination native animals, but California is not far behind. Read this article: California's status as 'wildlife state' threatened by growing population of 30 March 08.

California is the "wildlife state." It boasts more species than any other, as well as the greatest number of endemics, those species found nowhere else. This extraordinary biodiversity is already stressed by the state's enormous human population and further threatened by continuing rapid population growth and development.

…

Unfortunately, California also claims the dubious distinction as the state with the most imperiled wildlife. When overpopulation and biodiversity collide, biodiversity invariably suffers. More than 800 species in the state are now at risk - including half of all mammals and …

lexie barker (not verified)

Fri, 2008-05-30 20:55

This slaughter is unneccessary, these animals should be relocated. It is after all their country... We are the intruders not them...After we have saved these animals it is time to address the senseless slaughter of our wildlife on our roads...It gives tourists a great lasting impression of Australia....dead wildlife everywhere.. Did you all know Australia leads the world in extinction of our native animals... Gee we should be proud of that.... At least I suppose its some consolation to know we can be world leaders in something at least... How much better would we all be if we lead the world in care and conservation instead?

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2008-05-29 16:55

ECO-FRIENDLY GOATS VOTE TO PHASE OUT HUMANS IN CLOSED FRANKSTON VOTE Canadian Press, Tim Murray , May 28/08 At an in-camera meeting of Frankston goats, resident ruminants chewed over a resolution to ban humans from the city outright, or build a sunset clause into it. This would allow existing ratepayers to stay the duration of their natural lives and continue to pollute the area with their cars and gas lawnmowers, among the worst GHG emitters on the planet. The more moderate approach prevailed only because of the sentimental attachment that many senior goats had formed with their homo sapien pets. One reportedly said of his old companion at the mike, “Bah, I knew him as a kid, watched as a nanny, and now HE’s an old goat.” The consensus of the meeting was there were too many humans in the region, 3.8 million and growing in Melbourne and 21 million in Australia itself, and most of them were not a native species. The ecosystem was being irreparably damaged by these numbers, whether they were from Europe or Ethiopia or born right here in this country. A bylaw was needed soon to ban them. But how and when was the question. The problem as always was and is, there just too many humans in suits making money developing and rezoning land to more and more people, who are pressured to live more compactly, with little room for other critters. Sheila Newman, population sociologist on behalf of Tim Murray in Canada home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2008-05-29 10:44

Victor and his human associate were interviewed on channel 9 and you can look at the video here Victor is an unusually hansome goat! He is really beautiful. I think that local councils, along with all levels of government in Australia, are living in a 1950s version of reality where everyone fits into a tightly constructed consumer box. As oil depletion realities set in, with the impossibility of cheaply transporting food long distance, quite apart from having pets, people are going to be knocking down their fences and sharing backyards to raise animals and grow crops. For this reason it is imperative that we stop making suburbs more densely inhabited and that we take power back at a local level. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Debbie (not verified)

Wed, 2008-05-28 19:49

I agree that goats and other animals which have been introduced to Australia can cause an environmental problem, but as a pet owner, I also admit to a long addiction to having pets. I have welcomed pet mice, horses, rabbits, a ferret, a lizard, goats, dogs, cats, birds, roughly 100 introduced tropical fish and one rather goofy pig into my life over my lifetime. And it's true. I got attached to each and every one of them.

I also understood the responsibility that went with having a pet in my life. You don't let cats run around killing birds. You don't let tropical fish out in the bay. And you don't let dogs roam the streets. You abide by the laws and seek to ensure that they don't play loud music or throw wild parties (or is that children?). You take care of your pets and they take care of you, and you respect your own environment as well as theirs. Provided this is the case, and there is no cruelty or neglect, there is really no comprehensible reason why someone should be forced to give up a pet.

For those of us who understand that animals are more than just livestock running around, waiting to be eaten, it’s bewildering how anyone could support the removal of a clearly beloved domestic pet from the back yard of a private citizen.

Increasingly pet owners are being forced to discount the importance of having pets as part of their family by laws similar to this and other market restrictions which are put on rental market places which more and more often say “No Pets”.

We are becoming a society which discounts the importance of having the experience of a loyal and adoring pet, and who almost sees a pet as a disposable “optional extra” regardless of the relationship it has with its family.

What possible reason could there be to class this animal as “livestock” a term which inherently suggests it has no personality, no rights and no value beyond it’s consumer worth.

I am lucky to have grown up in country and rural areas where there were no such restrictions on our animals. But even if we are to introduce new laws relating to the custody of pets, shouldn't there be an amnesty for those who were obtained legally prior to the changes?

(excerpts from this are at freevictor.com)

Tim Nelson (not verified)

Wed, 2008-05-28 14:41

I can see the problems with the growth argument. However, the housing affordability crisis is a problem all across Australia. The only way to limit demand is to limit immigration to replacement levels only. As the population growth estimate calculated from data in the CIA world Factbook is 165,000, and the immigration level last year was 131,000, you can see that immigration will need to be lowered to 131000 - 165000 = -34000. Yes, minus 34000. So basically, we'd have to start by stopping all immigration to Australia. Even refugees. And then we'd have to find a way of coping with the growth anyway. I don't mean by this to justify the sale of the land to large developers (I'd rather see people buy blocks of land and tell a developer what they want on it), but it does indicate the need for some way of coping with the situation. At least they're doing something, unlike some other states I could mention.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2008-05-27 23:12

This is the kind of practical criticism that the population and development lobby needs. Thanks! And maybe we need a really strong squatter movement in the cities with their vacant, speculative spaces. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

dave

Tue, 2008-05-27 11:11

I'm surprised that it hasn't come to this already. The Fourth annual international Demographia survey on housing affordability for the third quarter of 2007 says.. "The housing affordability crisis is most pervasive in Australia and New Zealand, each with an overall Median Multiple of 6.3. Affordability is only somewhat better in the United Kingdom (5.5) and Ireland (4.7), however is still far worse than historical norms. On the other hand, the national Median Multiple in Canada is 3.1, indicating that housing is less than one-half as expensive relative to incomes as in New Zealand or Australia. The national Median Multiple in the United States is 3.6." Median multiples over 6 are defined as "severely unaffordable". While some areas of the US are as unaffordable as Sydney (for example) overall the situation in the US is not as dire as in NZ and Oz. Meanwhile the spin from the Real Estate Industry just goes on and on. Rightly concerned about a 'generational decline in housing affordability in Australia', the Property Council of Australia has set up a new website. The Affordablehome website propagates all the usual supply side myths so loved by the industry, along with a bit of whining about planning regulation. It's basically the same old drivel, tarted up in a webpage vaguely similar to the one used by St George bank. Nothing there about record population growth pushing up demand. Nothing about tax laws that encouarge the speculative purchase of property through negative gearing. Nothing about innovative design and construction methods that might reduce the cost of constructing a house. No. Australians must now conclude that as serious as the housing affordability problem is, it comes a distant second to maintaining the profitability of the industries that feed the real estate and construction sectors. At least in the minds of the Real Estate lobbyists. .

dave

Tue, 2008-05-27 10:27

I wonder why Frankston Council has it in for goats? Yes, they're introduced and yes, they have a tendency to go feral. But I imagine the good people of Frankston are still able to keep cats, dogs, rabbits and rats as pets? Surely the environmental damage done by these species is equal to or greater than that done by goats. It surprises me that Australian laws are so lax about keeping cats and dogs, given the heavy regulation imposed on people caring for native animals; and goats, apparently. For those interested in the issues around replacing introduced species with natives, 'Going Native' by Michael Archer and Bob Beale is worth a read. It's confronting and I found it hard to agree with every concept supported by the authors. Nevertheless, there are some valid ideas there and the basic idea that using native species in place of introduced ones - in some circumstances - seems to make a lot of sense. Back in Frankston, I say good luck to Victor and his human companion! .

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2008-05-27 08:35

Victor is not wildlife and goats are not good for the Australian situation, but as so many have pointed out, lawnmowers are much worse than goats. We certainly have too many humans already in Frankston. And humans are so much more harmful to the environment than anything else, due to our massive consumption. One goat on a grassy hillside offsets quite a few humans who would otherwise be inhabiting that hillside with their cars, pumped water, sewerage, coal-fired electricity, etc. Vive Victor! Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

admin

Sun, 2008-05-25 22:47

Peter Salonius posted this to the Sinking Lifeboat mailing list in reponse to Tim's article.

The CBC will often tell what is happening ―however you must use your own judgement about why it is happening, as opposed to paying much attention to the CBC's explanations.

Scrap the CBC and you are left with local growthist boosterism, police action and ambulance chasing that is the fodder that more local media outlets feed on.

"Re-runs of the Howdy Doody Show" will not give you a 'ringside seat' to observe the approaching apocalypse

.

Peter Salonius

Peter Green (not verified)

Sun, 2008-05-25 18:08

One of Carr's achievements was to give poker machines to the hotels. This took money away from the community (clubs - many of whom were financially crippled as a result) and into the pockets of those few running the pubs. What a deplorable act from a leader of a party that supposedly supports the common man.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2008-05-23 14:42

The issue of Pauline Hanson is problematic for me in a number of ways. For years she was considered by many to be the embodiment of evil in this country. Being a leftist myself, I felt obligated to accept the view that the One Nation Party was the genesis of a fascist movement like the German Nazi Party, the Italian Fascists (or in this country, the New Guard or Old Guard of the 1930's). On one or two occasions, I could almost have attended the rowdy demonstrations against the One Nation Party, but, thankfully, did not.

I can now see the issue as more complex. Moreover, despite its flaws and the socially conservative views of many of its members, I see the One Nation Party as largely a necessary and positive response to the neo-liberal counter-revolution of the time. It was the only large organisation that was prepared to confront the paramount political issue of our time, that is, immigration.

I was a member of the organisation that now sells Green Left in the late 1970's and 1980's. It was then called the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) and it is now called the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP). I have recently learned that the people who controlled it back then have become a minority and have been expelled (see Australian DSP divides, Disrepute and democratic centralism according to the DSP and The politics of the DSP purge all to be found on the web site ozleft.wordpress.com.) I very much doubt if I would have much sympathy for either of the two warring parties in this dispute, although I still believe that socialist thought, if strongly tempered with the Malthusian understanding of the world that Marx and most of his successors stupidly tried to deny, still has a lot to offer. A good article to read is socialist environmentalist Sandy Irvine's Trotsky's Biggest Blindspot

Dave wrote: “It will be interesting to see how the left websites and papers deal with Cameron, …“"

In fact, Green Left, whilst the core of the Socialist Alliance, members of which have actively harassed immigration reduction activists for years, has been curiously silent on this issue lately. It does promote refugee rights, which, as we have all seen, have been used as an effective smokescreen behind which immigration numbers have been ramped up in recent years, but it is extremely difficult to find any article specifically about immigration lately. The following are the first twelve links I obtained when I used the term 'migration' on Green Left's web site:

  1. CUBA: US employs weapons of mass migration, 14 May 03
  2. Editorial: Migration bill splits the Coalition, 17 Nov 93
  3. Migration, racism and environment,16 Mar 94
  4. Washington announces arrangements on migration of Cubans of 26 Oct 94
  5. Ruddock's refugee tribunal biased of 28 Aug 02
  6. Marx vs Keynes on immigration of 13 Aug 97
  7. Issues: Migrant women: tired of being invisible of 26 Feb 92
  8. Howard ducks for cover on 457 visa rorts of 14 Jul 07
  9. West Papuan asylum seekers need our support of 17 Nov 93
  10. TPVs finally shelved, deportations continuing of 17 May 08
  11. Environment: Why cutting immigration won't help of 27 Nov 96
  12. Labor changes its refugee policy, slightly of 4 May 07
  13. …

The above results are similar to those I have obtained on a number of previous occasions. The only article above which actually addresses immigration in any sensible way is Howard ducks for cover on 457 visa rorts, but it doesn't actually take a stance on immigration itself and avoids reflecting upon the DSP's past more strident promotion of high immigration.

A problem with Green Left's search facility is that it does not seem to give any weight to chronology in its ordering of its search results, so it is difficult to know for sure how much or how little current coverage is being given to this critical issue. Still, on the basis of the above, it would appear very little. So, it seems to me that the DSP is being dishonest and evasive. Whether they currently support or oppose high immigration, they should have the courage of their convictions to say so openly and explain why.

Dave, if you have Doug Cameron's email address, please let me know.

Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2008-05-23 11:30

The following was posted to the mailing list Optimum Population (optimumpopulation AT yahoogroups.com). The web-site of the UK group Optimum Population Trust is www.optimumpopulation.org.

Re Tim Murray's outline of Icelandic culture it seems that they don't wish to have their culture diluted but don't mind the dilution of their recently very pure blood and genectic line by the immigration of, as I have heard, a large contingent of Pakistani men in the past so many years as long as they change their name, speak Norse, presumably not open kebab/tandoori food establishments etc. and everything stays the same except the look of the immigrants and their offspring.

This is a very enlightened, accepting attitude the Icelanders are taking which shows immigrants are welcome as long as they are really integrated. It would be interesting to know how the Muslim immigrants have handled the strong women, promiscuous sex and the high consumption of alcohol all around them.

The Icelanders must be hard working as, at least until recently (their currency was devalued) they had a higher per capita income than those in the UK with a population of 1/25th of the population of London with no exportable natural resources except fish, which they sensibly had a war with us to protect. They must be living from the rest of the world's population by clever investments and expertise. An interesting place.

dave

Fri, 2008-05-23 08:58

Mr Cameron's treatment by the Oz reminds me of the way that Pauline Hanson was dealt with by the media in her period as the disendorsed candidate for Oxley. Quite clearly, whether you speak from a social-democratic or a right-populist perspective, the mainstream media will rip strips off you if you question the dogma of mass immigration or anything else that threatens corporate profit. To some extent, this is to be expected from the Murdoch media which has always been anti-labour (as opposed to anti-ALP - quite a different thing). It will be interesting to see how the left websites and papers deal with Cameron, though. In the past, their tone has been generally negative. When Mr Cameron was the Secretary of the AMWU, he proposed the idea of a 'social tariff'. This is quite similar to the idea, discussed on this site previously, of applying tariffs differentially based on the wage levels and environmental responsibility of exporting countries. It's a good idea which to my mind needs to be developed a bit further. Needless to say, Corporate Australia hated the idea on principle. But more surprising is that the left also bagged it relentlessly. The whining Trots over at Green Left Weekly obviously thought that any kind of tariff just smacked too much of nationalism to be hip and wrote it off accordingly. Good old GLW. Always more interested in striking a fashionable pose than in defending Australian workers. Even the Guardian was critical. The workers flag is palest pink.. I intend to write to Mr Cameron today to thank and congratulate him on being the only Federal MP with the interests of Australia's workers at heart. .

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2008-05-22 23:01

What evidence did the Australian give for this statement which seems horribly defamatory against Doug Cameron? Are they trying to incite hatred against him?

" … the immigration debate has already pricked the raw nerves of xenophobia and self interest that lie just below the surface of many within the labour movement. …

"It is a rerun of the views that underpinned the ALP's support for the discredited White Australia policy, which grew out of a deal between labour and capital to protect Australian jobs from Chinese immigration."

Personally I would ten times rather be associated with Cameron than with the people who actually benefit from high immigration - the bankers, the property developers, the big mining companies and those who destroy forests everywhere. It certainly seems like the moral universe of the Murdoch Press is very murky and strange.

It is terrible to see Cameron treated this way. I would say that the worse he is treated by the Australian, the better a man he must be.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2008-05-22 14:34

This was also posted to abandonskip.blogspot.com

Hi Skip,

Good that someone else is raising his voice against high immigration.

In regards to Tim's article, "Iceland, the most peaceful country on earth", please feel encouraged to reproduce it as long as you acknowledge the original source, preferably with a link back to the article.

For the record, I take issue with some of the content of the sites linked to from there, for example fortressaustralia.blogspot.com which, in turn, links to sites which apparently support aggressive US wars against other countries, for example MilBlogs.

I support the defence of the Australian continent against overt military attacks and terrorist attacks and I oppose high immigration into this continent as trampling on the rights of the current residents of this continent.

However, this should not imply support for this country or its allies violating the rights of other countries such as Iraq. I strongly recommend that you read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". I have quoted from in on Online Opinion Discussion.

I think you should ponder why US citizen Rupert Murdoch through mouthpieces such as The Australian both supports the invasion of Iraq and, as you have noted, high immigration into Australia. I think they are two sides of the same coin.

I also recommend you read Tim Murray's Article "Closing our borders can't mean turning our backs". Whilst Tim resolutely opposes high immigration into the US and Canada, he points out that it would not be nearly as much a problem if neo-liberal globalism had not previously destroyed the self-sufficient agricultural economies that had previously existed in the countries from which prospective immigrants want to come.

We aren't going to solve our problems by perpetually waging war on everyone else on earth as the bloggers at MilBlogs seem to think. By all means we must act prudently against military threats, but we are only going to fix the mess for good if we deal with the cause instead of just the symptom of immigration.

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2008-05-21 13:43

I have been wondering the same thing, referring to your question of, 'Has the mainstream media in this country always been so deplorable?'. On the question of pushing for a big population, I would say it has defninitely got bolder, just by comparison with chapter 6 of my thesis on the Growth Lobby (www.candobetter.org/sheila). The ABC seems to have, along with much of the public, lost its ability to distinguish between opinion offered by vested commercial interest and opinion offered by relatively disinterested experts. It presents as 'news' stuff from Bernard Salt, APop and the Property Council of Australia as if it were on a par with ABS information. The problem of the commercialisation of universities has also made plain speaking very difficult for lecturers and researchers to speak out or even to think against the research dollar. In fact anyone who is going to speak out against growth will have a lot of difficulty getting a guernsey in academia. Another thing to note is the restriction on length of letters to the editor in the press. Letters have been considerably dumbed down and blanded through selection, I would suggest. The restrictions on length are an insult to contributors. And, of course, the newspapers (and tv) are really the mouthpieces of enormous corporate empires and, if you look at it from that perspective, it is obvious that what they publish in terms of journalism, never goes against that interest except in a token fashion, and much can be seen to further that interest (classically real-estate marketing and property 'analysis', suppression of fossil-fuel depletion and, most importantly, selection of politicians by screening out any who pose a significant threat to the established ideology. You don't have a chance if Murdoch and, to a lesser extent, Fairfax, don't like you. I hardly watch commercial tv but I assume it is the same there. Give me u-tube any day. International syndication is the name of the game these days and there are very few real journos at the feed-trough. Even our most outspoken journalists tend to cave in to the hand that feeds them on the big issues. Even if they are now independently wealthy, I bet that they cannot bear the idea of losing that platform that being a regular columnist or announcer gives them. Of course this is all well known and was predicted by various writers about media and technology decades ago. Which is why it is so damn important to get www.candobetter.org up in the public eye because it offers a new paradigm. Ditto for any other online news orgs like it. A clue for detecting the real thing as opposed to political market research trojan horses: they won't have boards of directors from banks or mainstream political parties. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

dave

Wed, 2008-05-21 13:13

Honestly. Has the mainstream media in this country always been so deplorable? Both Murdoch and Fairfax seem to be presenting undiluted spin as genuine news with increasing regularity. The Herald, which likes to portray itself as Sydney's quality paper, is obviously not averse to shedding all journalistic standards when it comes to a pro-business story. Today's (21/5) online selection offers a classic case in point. The report, Australia slips in peaceful nations list contains some of the most partisan corporate effluent ever inflicted on the Herald's long suffering readers. The article opens with the startling revelation that 'Business is likely to be the driver of global peace'. Wow. Not business as a consequence of a civil society with well developed infrastructure and an educated population. Not even business as a minor contributing factor. No. THE driver of global peace. The ONLY driver. You see, it seems Ghandi, Lennon et al had it all wrong. While they were calling for compassion, tolerance and non-violence, what they should have been doing is calling for lower taxes and less government restriction, so business could get on with making the world more peaceful. If only they'd read the Herald.. The article goes on to quote Sydney-based 'philanthropist' Steve Killelea as saying "Business can drive peace, no doubt about that. Business, as we all know, affects government and the way governments think". "One of the beautiful things about business is it really is driven by the bottom line. If you can create the associations with a particular agenda and their bottom line, they will respond and I think peace is one of those things." So there you have it. All we need to do to establish world peace is (somehow) create an association between peace and business' bottom line and we'll be fine. Until now, I naively thought that business' bottom line was about return on investment and not much else - but obviously I'm missing something that Mr Killalea knows. The last half of the article deals with the far less sexy details. You know, the list itself, where countries rated and the like. And despite a growing sense of nausea from having to wade through this bile, I read on. What I discovered is that the 3 most peaceful countries are all Scandinavian nations that have traditionally run social-democratic forms of government. The most peaceful nation of all is Iceland, which (I'm sure coincidentally) has a relatively stable population and homogenous national culture. That paragon of corporate freedom, the USA is rated number 97. PNG, Libya and even that blasted-commie cesspit Cuba rate higher. Mr Killalea's thoughts on all this go unrecorded, but Herald readers are re-assured that an "Institute of Economics and Peace will be established in Sydney this year to research the economic benefits of peace and encourage business to lead government on the issue". Just what we need. .

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2008-05-16 03:03

If you go to the Amalgamated Manufacturing Workers' Union's (AMWU) site (see also above) and click on campaigns, you can send messages to parliamentarians on a number of issues, notably (as well as 457 visas) to Iemma on the privatisation of electricity.

It's a good site.

Thanks Dave,

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2008-05-15 21:01

Dear contributors on the 'rough EROEI' of nuclear, It may not look as if much was achieved here, but in fact it was enough to set off contacts and networks for other investigations, culminating in a long chapter on nuclear energy which will be published in Sheila Newman (ed), The Final Energy Crisis, (2nd Edition) Pluto Press, UK, 2008, which is due out in September and will cost something like AUD$31. The new book also contains a fascinating analysis by Swiss particle physicist, Michael Dittmar, of the $10 billion euro ITER project for nuclear fusion. There are articles by Colin Campbell and 8 others. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact  [email protected] if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish or contact the editor at [email protected]

Joe Z. (not verified)

Thu, 2008-05-15 20:51

Well, I don't know much about this Leninist, Marxist stuff, but have to agree about democracy. Wow, these South Americans are really standing up for themselves! Wish we had leaders like that in Australia.

dave

Thu, 2008-05-15 14:41

The Age is still running the original report, reproduced here in full: Qantas' strike breakers Ben Schneiders May 15, 2008 "QANTAS has devised a secret plan to smash the influence of a powerful airline union, with strike breakers being offered $100,000 for just six months work as aircraft engineers. The radical plan has come to light on the eve of industrial action by engineers that threatens to bring major disruption to domestic flight schedules from tomorrow. In a dramatic escalation of an already bitter dispute, Qantas has been quietly recruiting non-union engineers in Asia and the Pacific to act as strike breakers, The Age has learned. The tactics are reminiscent of those that triggered the waterfront dispute of 1998, raising the spectre of an epic battle between the nation's biggest airline and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association. The Age has seen an employment contract from a Sydney labour hire firm, Newport Aviation, that spells out terms for the strike breakers. The contracts for six months or less offer about $2300 a week to work as aircraft engineers, plus a $40,000 "completion bonus". If paid in full, the strike breakers would receive about $100,000 for six months — double the average rate for an engineer, according to the union. Union national secretary Steve Purvinas said he expected his members to be "locked out" as a result — as dock workers were in the waterfront dispute. He said Qantas planned to use an alternative workforce of about 100 people to replace the existing 1500 engineers. Engineers have significant industrial power, as planes are not allowed to fly without their authorisation. Mr Purvinas said Qantas had been offering contracts to former staff, including many based in Malaysia, since around Christmas. Some had been approached up to a dozen times, he said. Qantas chief Geoff Dixon last night refused to confirm or deny whether the airline was training strike breakers. "They are our business, our contingencies, they're not for media or anyone else (to know)," he said. The airline said it had "put in place measures to minimise the impact on customers" of industrial action but declined to say what the measures were. The dispute centres on the union's demand for a 5%-a-year pay rise. Mr Dixon has said he will not budge from 3%. The union will begin overtime bans today and is planning a four-hour stopwork from 2pm tomorrow, with significant disruptions to flights expected. Mr Dixon said "a limited number of domestic services" had been cancelled. "We have begun contacting affected customers and rebooking them on other services, and everything will be done to get them to their destination as quickly as possible," Mr Dixon said. Mr Purvinas said the 3% offer failed to match the rising cost of living. The airline says the union reneged on an earlier agreement for pay rises of that amount. Mr Dixon said this week the airline would not negotiate on its wage policy, which limits pay rises to 3% a year. But Mr Purvinas said the contracts showed that Qantas wanted to break engineers' "culture of commitment to safety", a claim rejected by Mr Dixon. Qantas has a history of tension with unions. In a recent interview with The Australian Financial Review, Mr Dixon nominated IR as a key issue in his final year running the airline. "The management of this company has contributed far more to its wellbeing and success than any bloody union has," he said. "It is very important for unions to understand that it's more than just representing your people for a couple of per cent — it is really the long-term future of the industry." Rising fuel costs and competitive pressures have been used by Qantas in the past to back threats to move jobs offshore. In 2006, strains escalated over the airline's threat to send 2500 maintenance jobs to China. The Federal Government moved to alleviate the situation by giving in to Qantas' demands to lock Singapore Airlines out of the lucrative Pacific route. With MATHEW MURPHY, ANDREW WEST, SCOTT ROCHFORT" .

dave

Thu, 2008-05-15 14:25

The Herald reports today (15/05/08) that "Australia's flagship airline is preparing to smash its unionised engineering workforce with non-union labour recruited in Asia and the Pacific, in a move that echoes the epic maritime dispute that rocked the waterfront a decade ago." Presumably the non-union workforce will be permitted entry into Australia under the 457 visa scheme. Which really begs the question of what this scheme is supposed to achieve. Is it about addressing skills shoratges, or dampening wages pressure? In this case the engineers are already there, on the payroll. It's not like Qantas can't find enough skilled staff. In the current dispute the engineers have been offered a pay rise less than last years CPI increase and, not surprisingly, have declined. Australia's IR landscape now facilitates the reduction (in real terms) of skilled workers wages through the use of overseas recruits to undermine collective action by Australians. And this under a supposedly Labor government.. .

dave

Tue, 2008-05-13 13:26

Further to my earlier post, I've tracked down the survey mentioned in Evan Jones' blog, about residents attitudes to Canberra's growth. It's in "How Big Should Canberra Be?" an Australia Institute Webpaper by Clive Hamilton and Claire Barbato published in May 2005 downloadable as a 61K pdf file.

It makes interesting reading, as all the issues are the same today. This notwithstanding, we still have the local Real Estate Institute coming out with press releases saying that Canberra has 'stalled' because of 'sluggish population growth'.

Mind you, according to the ABC news report "Canberra's population reaches 340,000" of 19 Mar 08, Canberra's population growth over the year to March '08 was right on the national average.

Obviously still too slow for the REI.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2008-05-12 21:51

Damien Cahill and Sharon Beder, "Regulating the power shift: the state, capital and electricity privatisation in Australia" ABSTRACT This article examines the process of electricity privatisation in Australia in order to identify the dynamics of neo-liberalism in practice. It is argued that neo-liberalism is best understood as a particular mode of regulation in which the state legislates to secure freedoms for capital. In the case of electricity privatisation the main beneficiaries have been corporations rather than consumers and this has been facilitated by a whole host of new state regulations. You can download this article free at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=artspapers

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2008-05-12 21:41

Gordon Moyes, a NSW Christian Senator, listed pros and cons very usefully on his site on 14 Feb 2008. I wonder where he stands now. He said that he thought he would vote against privatisation. I have not included here the reasons he set out as pro-privatisation, since the government and the mainstream media peddle these ceaselessly. Reasons against Power Privatisation 1. According to UnionsNSW, the State’s power industry would be in the hands of Big Business in Hong Kong or China. The potential buyers are TruEnergy, AGL or the Chinese Government. 2. NSW does not need a new baseload power station. Reducing demand for energy through improved efficiency, energy conservation, and reduced consumption will keep the lights on and reduce costs to consumers, without massive investment in new large generators. 3. One of the main reasons against the selling of the State’s power industries is the tendency for price manipulation by private companies when generation capacity is low and a reluctance to increase capacity (and thereby lower prices) for energy users. 4. The experiences of Victoria and South Australia show that power industry privatisation led to higher prices for households and industry and resulted in increased blackouts through lack of critical infrastructure maintenance. 5. The State Governments of Victoria and South Australia found privatisation attractive, despite public opinion, because it promised a short-term influx of money into government coffers. A primary political motivation for privatisation in the states of Victoria and South Australia was debt reduction. However, although state debt fell from $76 billion in 1993 to $47 billion in 1997, taxpayers were often not any better off, particularly with respect to electricity privatisations. (Beder and Cahill 2005: 6). In the early 1990s, the Victorian State Government had such a large government debt ($32 billion) that its credit rating was downgraded by international rating agencies. Privatisation was a tool for reducing government debt and therefore taxes and charges to business. Moreover, Professor Beder, Research Fellow from The University of Wollongong, debunks the myth that the state’s triple-AAA credit rating is at risk by keeping the industry in public hands, even if it requires the government going into debt in order to invest in infrastructure. That’s because this infrastructure generates income and the NSW Government is able to support the additional debt involved. 6. Victorian consumers faced a 17% rise in the power bills from 1 January 2008, taking the cost of electricity for an average family in Victoria from $945 to $1106 a year (West SMH 02/01/08). The Kennett government privatised Victorian electricity in the mid-1990s and TruEnergy now controls a large segment of the market. Electricity prices in South Australia increased by 40% between 1994 and 2002. 7. Under the plans pushed by the Premier and his Treasurer, Michael Costa, prices will be regulated, but only until 2013, when free market forces will operate. A survey of 1011 NSW voters, conducted by Essential Research for UnionsNSW, found 85% of people oppose privatising the electricity supply, while 96% fear private operators would force up the cost of electricity (West and Robins SMH 19/12/07). 8. Another major consequence of electricity privatisation has been heavy job losses. Between the mid 1990s and 2003, employment in the sector fell from 83,000 to 33,000 (Wilson 2003). For example, CFMEU’s John Maitland noted: “Electricity privatisation has led to the rise of contract labour in the electricity industry which has undermined union power and resulted in inferior wages and working conditions.” Furthermore, those communities built around the electricity industry have been particularly hard hit by electricity privatisation. Victoria’s Latrobe Valley experienced job losses of 16,000 as a result of privatisation. 9. According to Ben Kruse of the United Services Union, “Private providers are not in the business for the long haul…the employment protections tend to disappear”. Privatisation would result in lower standards of customer service. TruEnergy moved 200 billing and sales jobs from regional Victoria to India. 10. The idea of building another power station ignores the State Government commitment’s in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which aims to cut to 2000 levels by 2025. NSW accounts for about 28% of Australia’s total emissions, which means that it will shoulder the biggest burden of any greenhouse gas reductions. NSW’s biggest emitters are its power stations, which contribute to 10% of the nation’s emissions, or more than a third of NSW’s total. (Coultan SMH 25/01/08) 11. Competition in the state’s power industry would inevitably result in mergers and acquisition (seen in AGL’s failed attempt to merge with Origin Energy in early 2007). These increase horizontal and vertical integration and private monopolisation of the energy market by powerful transnational energy conglomerates. Such integration has allowed for the manipulation of wholesale prices, thereby exposing energy users to fluctuation in prices. 12. Customers will also soon have to call two separate organisations for electricity needs. A Government owned corporation responsible for power lines, poles and substations, will handle maintenance. Retail and billing will be handled by at least three private operators, competing for customers. How can you influence what happens If you understand the issue and have read the arguments I have presented for and against, you can effectively influence what happens. Members of the major parties and the Greens have no option but to vote as their party tells them. But the Shooters Party and the Christian Democratic Party can vote in accordance to their conscience and the expressed wishes of their members. If you want me to know what you think then email me today. Make it brief and give me your reasons. I will read your concerns and take them into account. I may also print them in coming weeks for others to read. While I will listen carefully to the Government argument to sell and privatize the electricity system, I am under no obligation to support them as others may be and at this stage will probably vote against the proposal. But I will read your opinion. So email me at [email protected] today (do not ring – I cannot handle all of the calls). While the leasing of power generators and distribution can be achieved without legislation, any sell-off will need the approval of Parliament. This crucial issue will be discussed in the first week of sitting. As a democratic party, I invite you to voice your opinion, concerns and perspectives on the State’s power privatisation plans before making my decision on the future of the power industry in NSW in what could be a very even vote. Rev The Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, A.C., M.L.C. References Beder, S., and Cahill, D. (2005), Regulating the power shift: The state, capital, and electricity privatisation in Australia, Journal of Australian Political Economy, 55, June 2005: 5-22 Coultan, M., Iemma too stupid or too proud, The Sydney Morning Herald, 25/01/08 International Energy Agency (IEA) 2005, Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Australia 2005 Review, OECD, Paris Maitland, J. (2001), Is corporatisation a viable alternative to privatisation, CFMEU website Owen, A. (2007), Report of the Owen Inquiry into Electricity Supply in NSW, Sydney Salusinzky, I., Costs lower for privatised power, The Australian, 15/01/08 West, A., Unions warn of high power bills, The Sydney Morning Herald, 02/01/08 Wilson, N., Power to the People, The Australian, 26-27/04/2003 www.dpc.nsw.gov.au www.stoptheselloff.org.au www.erig.gov.au www.esc.vic.gov.au Thursday, 14th February, 2008, 9:32 am | Editorials Comments are closed. © 2005–8 GordonMoyes.com

Tony Ryan (not verified)

Mon, 2008-05-12 14:40

While it is technically correct to describe the Morales Government as left wing, inasmuch as it promotes people-power rather then the rampant elitism of Bolivia's opposition; this generally tends to create the impression in the minds of casual readers that Evo is socialist in the historical Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist context. This is promoted by the right wing, especially the Murdoch media, to denigrate the movement. I'm open to ideas here, but I believe it would be tactically smarter for us to use terms like pro-democracy or people-power or engaging consensus protocols.

dave

Mon, 2008-05-12 13:39

Excellent post, Sheila. Thomas Frank's book, 'One Market Under God' considers how markets came to be seen - in some circles - as more democratic than democratically elected governments. The book's preface describes how John Perry Barlow, a former lyricist for the Grateful Dead, railed against the authority of governments from a kind of cyber-libertarian perspective. Frank notes that Barlow's diatribe in Davos, Switzerland was, in fact, a "note perfect expression of the imperatives of global business." It's no surprise that libertarian objectives correspond directly with the interests of international business. What's surprising is that the messages of the 60's counter culture, about getting governments out of the bedroom and away from the bong, have translated into economic rationalist liturgy. A liturgy which, apparently, has gained widespread acceptance across the political spectrum and which is ruthlessly applied; even when evidence of its failures are clearly apparent. John Perry Barlow can perhaps be excused for hanging on to the warped remnants of 60's counter culture. It was the environment that defined him. Keating, Carr et al have no such excuses. .

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2008-05-10 18:35

As far as I can see, the privateers in the State Government are using ideology as a con-man's trick to rationalise their panicky transfer of our assets to the pockets of private individuals who have somehow got control of the parliament and of the philosophy of government. We do know that Keating and Carr are net financial beneficiaries of electricity privatisation deals, so no confidence can be placed in their opinion. One cannot point out too frequently that the Murdoch Press has consistently failed to make vested interest and other points of view clear to the public. Surely these people will go on trial if the people ever regain control over government in NSW or in Australia. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact [email protected] if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish or contact the editor at jaymz@bi

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2008-05-10 14:59

This article asks some of the necessary questions about how to confront the decline in the availability of material wealth. The solution demanded by the wealthy elites of this country, who got us into this mess in the first place, is to demand that workers pay the full cost by imposing wage freezes, whilst they be left keep all of their ill-gotten wealth. Whilst this is unacceptable, the traditional left-wing proposals of wage rises to compensate for the rises in the cost of living only addresses a small part of the problem. Unless accompanied by government measures to regain some control of our economy from the 'free market' wage rises may add to inflation and the overall economic chaos. Other factors which have eroded the standard of living must be dealt with. The most obvious is housing. If houses remain scarce, then whatever wage increases are achieved may largely end up in the pockets of landlords and land speculators through increased rents. Immigration, which threatens our environment and reduces the access to natural resources per head of population, but, perversely, has served to enrich a small elite within this society, for example, by increasing the demand for housing and hence property values and rents, must be reduced immediately from its current record high levels. The inefficiencies and complexity added to our daily lives by privatisation and the growing tendency of governments to allow services which could far more efficiently be provided by government (employment agency and health insurance to name just two) to instead be operated by the private sector. Tom Wayburn, an occasional contributor to this site, has written a lot about this on his site dematerialism.net Tom's article, Energy in a Natural Economy illustrates the appalling waste of energy and other natural resources by our 'free market' economy. Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2008-05-08 22:06

Thanks for this! And to think that the Murdoch newspapers are so uncritical of the people they publish in this very important matter, and that they only publish one side of the views. At the moment the Murdoch press is bleating about freedom of the press in Fiji (where it owns the two major newspapers) but I don't see that the Murdoch press brings freedom to the press. What I see is that the Murdoch press presents a certain point of view to the public and that the Murdoch Press owns so much of the media in Australia and the rest of the world that its rather narrow viewpoint amounts to global propaganda. I would like to know what interests the Murdoch press has in the privatisation of electricity or any other assets (apart from land, where we know it has many interests.) Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact [email protected] if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish or contact the editor at jaymz@bi

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2008-05-08 15:32

In fact, Keating has a direct financial stake in the privatisation of NSW's electicity assets proceeding. As reported on the ABC news of 6 May:

Mr Keating has also declared he is a consultant to a private financial company advising the NSW Government on its privatisation proposals.

Curiously, this information was not revealed when the Sydney Morning Herald published Keating's opinion piece Iemma deserved better than naked obstructionism on 6 May

And after Carr resigned as NSW premier he infamously began working as a consultant for Macquarie Bank,one of those companies aiming to buy NSW's electricity assets, for AU$500,000 per year.

Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2008-05-07 23:31

I don't know. Here are some ideas, but no evidence: There is something in it for them. Hard to believe there isn't. They still crave the limelight. They are still working for the same people. They need money. They are never satisfied with what they have. They have an ideological commitment to Milton Friedemann economics. Iemma asked them for help. The NSW parliament asked them for help. Keating said that he would be accused of having some vested interest on account of some commercial contract he is working on. He said that, no, to the contrary, he was keen on this because it was the culmination of what he had worked on as P.M. Hard to believe that any of them are motivated by edifying notions. They all belong to the same club - the Multicultural Foundation, so none of them has left politics and they all seem to be associating with eachother. What do you think? Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact [email protected] if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish or contact the editor at jaymz@bi

ilan

Wed, 2008-05-07 21:05

What do you think of both Bob Carr and now Paul Keating, who have both come out in support of this privatization? What is their interest considering they are both retired? What about Keven Rudd's support?

rvw (not verified)

Tue, 2008-05-06 23:18

Australia does have a population policy. It's not in the 'too hard basket' at all. Our population is actively manipulated and controlled by the federal government, right now. The policy is: 'continued percentage growth, as per last century'. The fertility rate of 1.75, is modest and sustainable, and therefore unacceptable to your blind and twisted government. Policy (Baby bonus and immigration), is being used to combat this natural sustainability,.. to replace it with a more familiar, circa nineteen 50's population growth rate.. An increase that ensures continuous clearing, and construction, just like the good old days (before the internet, and transistor radios). The ultimate cost being Australia's economic, social, and environmental future. But we won't worry about that. When your government looks at the population 'projections', or population 'predictions', they are actually referring to population 'plans', signed for, instigated by them on behalf of you, the blind, stupid masses. To help 'the economy', so you can have 'jobs', to pay for your 500 thousand dollar 1/4 acre block that used to cost 50 thousand dollars. But don't worry, you monkeys, we'll fix the housing crises by selling your state forest to developers, who will then sell it back to you, no, to new customers imported from overseas, and we'll use the profits to buy a fat cigar and bottle of pretentious 50 year old wine, and congratulate ourselves on the great job we've done sending your country to hell.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2008-05-06 21:48

Rudd, Kennett, Keating, Carr, have all been quoted as egging Morris Iemma on to privatise NSW electricity, against the will of 7/8ths of the ALP conference and 2/3 of NSW voters. The electorate, as well as having the right to say, "No", should also be asking, "What gives?" Don't tell me that there are no contrary opinions around which the newspapers could have published. This time they have forgotten to keep up even their 'balanced reporting' illusion. Why would you trust any of the above politicians? Elected to serve the people, they serve big business and serve up ideology. The Australian Financial Review editorial today was another piece of choreography in the dispossession of the common wealth. Evidently obliged to ransack his toy-cupboard and chests for material, in "Last stand against unions", the anonymous editor accuses unions and 'a few Latin American countries' of being misled in thinking that public ownership has some transcendent quality that could be worth striking for. Well, excuse me, but public ownership DOES have a transcendant quality: it means that the people own the electricity and the state is obliged to provide it and perform to satisfaction in its delivery. Private ownership can never be 'efficient' because it is only justified by 'profit'. Private industry has to gouge a profit out of providing power to the public. That isn't efficient; that's just wealth transfer from public to private pockets. Once the wealth is in the private pocket, the public won't see it again. We are in a nasty society, growing nastier every day, where the wealth divide is visibly widening. And we should transfer MORE to the private sector? Please... How stupid do the newspapers think we are? Furthermore, private industry is ideologically and economically committed to the growth paradigm. If private industry provides electricity, it will try to get people to use more and more, so that it can make more and more profit every year for shareholders and CEOs. That would be disasterous for everyone. In the 21st century we cannot afford to entrust our electricity to the puerile economics of growthism. Electricity defines modern civilisation. As we run down our oil supplies, the other fossil fuels, such as coal, which currently power our electricity, are going to be called upon for all kinds of other functions, including the manufacture of coal-oil, for motor transport. This is already happening in China and is being contemplated here. Australia is already supplying more export coal than any other country. We don't have the money to build nuclear power plants, even if they were a sensible solution to the problem of powering down. Governments have to grow up and be responsible for the provision of power in an equitable and humane way to citizens as the growth era, founded on cheap oil, recedes. Selling off electricity makes no sense in a democracy. As for the assertions the editorialist makes about how Victorian and South Australian voters barely notice anymore that their power industries ... are privatised, well, how would he know? It seems like the Financial Review just lets the editorialist of the day on the Opinion page make up anything they want. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact [email protected] if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish or contact the editor at jaymz@bi

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2008-05-06 20:50

Hi Mike, I totally agree with you about the radical changes you propose for the economy. The 'live to work' culture serves the rich, who cannot stand the idea of most of us getting out of debt and having calm and enjoyable lives. Why? Because all that work we do (making widgets and polluting) makes the owners of property and the means of production rich. It doesn't make you and me rich; it makes THEM rich. Sorry to quote Marx there, but he said it so well, and he wasn't the first or the last to say it. Work is the enemy of the atmosphere. If we all worked only on things that are essential, cutting down our activity to about half, at least, then there would be half as much pollution and the petroleum we have would last for twice as long, giving us a couple of generations to adjust, at least. We hear a lot about how the 'third world' has to be given an opportunity to live (and work) as we do. What we don't hear is that the third world became the third world because the first world dispossessed indigenous peoples, leaving them no option but to work for peanuts in the towns (where the colonialists and the erstwhile leaders of the dispossessed) owned the land and the means of production. Heck, we cannot even share the food we produce, having destroyed perfectly sustainable food production systems in the countries which are now poor and overcrowded. Best for the US and the rest of the first world to pull out of the countries they are 'helping', and power down. And the first world dispossessed its own as well, and is about to do it again, to all those poor devils who believed what they were told about everything getting better and better every day and handed over their wills and lives to the bankers. Yes, totally agree, cancel all debts and close down the banks. I would go further. Stop land-sales. Stop selling land. Allocate land to communities, with every citizen entitled to shelter and food. Take it from there. Also, the only way to work this thing is for the leaders to lead by example; NO MORE OSTENTATION. We should only trust people who demonstrably live modestly, giving the example of what we will all need to do. Gone should be the days when snotty leaders who hobnob with developers and bankers, wearing italian suits, tell the rest of us that life was not meant to be easy, we have to make sacrifices, etc. No, leaders must make sacrifices. Or go. algi
mike's picture

mike

Tue, 2008-05-06 17:17

Aime, Howard is well known for lying through his teeth... apart from telling everyone they were very well off, he also told them that under his guidance interest rates would not go up, and that is principally why so many people borrowed beyond their means. This is why I maintain we need a revolution of sorts. Surely we cannot bankrupt every Mom and Pop investor in the land, it would be far better to forgive all the debts, give all the renters the house they live in (and in which they have made, in some cases, substantial investments anyway), and close the banks. Then we could start again, with 10% employment for those who must work to do essential chores, whilst the rest (like me!) practice family planning and permaculture. The future is GREEN or not at all.... Mike. A pessimist is a well informed optimist

dave ironside (not verified)

Mon, 2008-05-05 14:22

News of the development of land around Mt Stromlo in the ACT has been greeted enthusiastically by the usual pro-development crowd. The new division of Molonglo is said to be aimed at catering for a total ACT population of 500,000 - up from the current 340,000. Of course, the effect that such development will have on the Territory's water resources (already stretched to breaking) is not mentioned. The effect on quality of life for existing residents is barely considered. Evan Jones presciently commented in 2005 that; "...the fight is between those who want Canberra's growth to be slow and controlled and those who want full speed ahead. The debate was triggered by a survey from which the majority of respondents (albeit a small survey) said that they liked Canberra pretty much how it is." "Canberra is liveable because property development has previously been constrained by red tape. You can see the benefit in limited building heights. Property developers and builders leverage the public domain, and red tape ought to be the price of doing business. There is a lot of public domain in Canberra, which is precisely why it’s a nice place to live. It’s also why the fight over who will dictate Canberra’s future development is so important." He concluded at the time.. "I think that the developers are winning". alertandalarmed.blogspot.com/2005/06/optimal-size-for-canberra.html Judging by the plans for further development of the ACT to accommodate yet more unsustainable growth, it looks like they're still winning. .

aime

Mon, 2008-05-05 00:10

Yes Mike. I can see your point concerning debt to a degree, but over the past ten years, it was the Howard Government that preached to the masses just how well off they were with the current mining boom. He and his Government were thoroughly efficient at making ordinary people believe that as long as the mining boom continued, so to did their ability to borrow like there was no tomorrow. "Look how well shareholders are doing!!" he cried, "Look how prosperous our country is!!" he told us. And the people were fools. They believed his rhetoric and outright lies and came to believe that there was no end in sight to Australia's boom years. And, like the charlatan Howard was, he'd convinced the masses that they could afford to put everything on credit and pay for it later, for while we sold our souls, our gas and our minerals to the Chinese, we could have anything we wanted and at prices never dreamed of before. How he bemoaned the fact that there were not enough people to fill vital jobs. He told us the mining industry had swallowed all the excess workers and left a vacuum of job vacancies in it's wake. He instilled into the average person's brain the belief that we needed "guest workers" to fill the vacancies. In short, he caused the population to believe that our commodities boom was the salvation of the masses and it would enrich our country beyond our wildest imaginations. We could have what ever we wanted........as long as we paid for it later. And so, as you suggest, the mining boom isn't directly responsible for our current levels of debt, because of course not everyone is employed in the mining sector. The illusion John Howard created by using the mining industry as a economical 'false front' has sealed the fate of those who have gone out on a limb and hocked their idiotic necks to the hilt. And so it continues with our next lot of loony politicians. The Labor Party is no better. It's business as usual with them. That imbecile running the NSW Labor Party once told Land Magazine..... "It's no use saving the environment if you ruin the economy doing so," or words to that effect. That shows you the caliber of our State elected parliamentarians. They'll continue to exploit the commodities boom and the general population who follow them like sheep, but eventually, the wheels will fall off. It's fine to tell the masses how much our mining sector is contributing to the wealth of Australia, but what about the debt?? If the commodities markets falls over, there's a lot of people out there who will feel the pinch in dramatic fashion. Aime.

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2008-05-03 21:04

As it happens, a lot of discussion Online Opinion concerns the so-called skill shortage and migration. I will include a few posts from a discussion forum in response to Labor Senator Kim Carr's article Securing the future of Australian manufacturing of 10 April 2008

Is skills shortage largely the result of needless certification barriers?

I question whether we really do have a skilled labour shortage or an excess of hyperbole.

We are so demanding of certificates for hands on work we are struggle to find skilled tradesmen. for example.

Commonwealth Games Melbourne. lack of security personnel. In Victoria a security person must study at TAFE for 6 months and sit through classes given by serving policemen. The appropriately accredited bouncers were not going to drop their permanent night club job to do security for the Commonwealth Games for 4 to 6 weeks max. Consequently Indian students were hired. Now skippys had to be qualified by the Indians didn't know how to search bags, persons, were easily bribed with food and quite frankly some Indian security guards were too small to be any deterent to a 50 year old aussie.

Railway linesmen and bush fire brigade members now have to attend TAFE to learn how to use a chainsaw. Can't see how practical experience isn't more beneficial.

Why do registered teachers have to pay an additional $2000 to get a Certificate IV of workplace training?

I am sure there are further examples of demands for certification that are used to create unnecessary barriers to entry.

Wednesday, 30 April 2008 9:36:47 PM

Attainment of unnecessary accreditation costly for jobseekers

Billie has drawn attention to a serious obstacle to employment and promotion; the obsession with academic control over non-apprenticed manual skill employment.

Courses are expensive and out of reach for those unemployed, and at the rate in which TAFEs are being closed down, many students are forced to travel up to two hours each way to their nearest facility (ie as in the closure of Seaforth).

Even such simple jobs as building wooden fences, require a labourer to have several thousand dollars on hand; and (in Qld) be certified by a Building Services Authority that clearly exists to favour the big end of town. It is an indication of how extraneous this qualification demand is, that I learned this skill in a few hours at the age of sixteen.

Politicians insist these requirements were introduced to protect consumers yet, continuing with the example of fencing, construction standards have plummeted quite dramatically.

Of course, government then claims positions cannot be filled and these figures are deducted from unemployed statistics. Thus real unemployment is actually enforced, while simultaneously hiding the numbers.

I look forward to the day when the politicians and bureaucrats responsible stand trial for these crimes against the Australian people.

Wednesday, 30 April 2008 11:07:02 PM

Requirement for Four Wheel Drive Certification

Billie, I think you will find that a lot of that accreditation stuff is tied up with Worksafe, a so called duty of care and some litigation that has gone on. One property owner in NSW I was told, was fined something like $200,000, after a couple of his staff rolled the 4WD whilst checking cattle. It seems he did not fulfil his duty of care, by sending them to an accredited 4WD course.

…

1 May 2008 10:02:20 AMWednesday, 30 April 2008 11:07:02 PM

Two thirds of 'skilled' migrants not working in vocation

I refer to posts by Billie and Tony Ryan about Australia's skills 'crisis'.

Regardless of the causes of this phenomenon, the prefered solution to date - increasing skilled immigration - seems to have failed.

See Sydney Morning Herald story Migrants add to skills crisis: study of 29 April 2008.

1 May 2008 10:05:13 AM

Government by Minority Lobby, not democracy

…

Personally, I would like to see an end to all immigration and refugee programmes; and I suspect the majority of Aussies think similarly. I would go further; those who plainly do not respect Australian culture should be returned. But that's our problem. Decisions are made on the basis of what 15% of the population want. This is Government by Minority Lobby, not democracy.

According to my surveys, and depending upon specific issue, between 65% and 94% of Australians do not agree with government policy. I think that that just about sums up all of Australia's problems.

…

Thursday, 1 May 2008 1:31:18 PM

mike's picture

mike

Sat, 2008-05-03 15:06

Hi Aime, thanks for the thoughtful response. However, I must take you to task over the claim that the mining boom is responsible for the nation's prosperity. The money used by those who have built McMansions did NOT come from this boom, it came out of thin air, called debt. The mining boom has enriched the wealthy share holders, but I doubt they would have invested too much in housing, otherwise we would not have the current shortages. Re welfare, it's always bugged me how it's given such a bad rap. Just what do you think people on welfare spend their money on? Holidays to the Bahamas? Of course not, it all gets pumped right back into 'The Economy', where the landlords, retailers and wholesalers make their profits. I agree with you though that putting 90% of people on welfare was a bit facetious on my part, I was after all hoping to start a debate. What we need is a revolutionary new economic system where debt cannot be created, and all present ones are forgiven. Try to imagine a world where no one drives (no fuel costs!) and they no longer have a mortgage to pay off. Just how much money would they need? Then imagine further, if you can, a world where everyone did practice Permaculture and grew nearly all their food at home in a sustainable manner. How little money would they need THEN? Such sustainable lifestyles could thus be funded from taxes paid by those 10 unlucky percent of the population who would still need to go to work to perform essential services like hospitals, fire brigades, police and so on.... I did say it was revolutionary. Frankly, I see no other outcome unless it's total Urban warfare a la Mad Max, and that's hardly worth contemplating. Mike.

aime

Sat, 2008-05-03 14:36

Mike, although your idea of putting anyone not working in an essential job on welfare might even seem appealing to some, it's also something that won't happen on a voluntary basis. Not by employers certainly, but not by Governments either. I say this for one obvious reason........how would such a proposal be funded? One of the biggest users of energy is the mining sector. The mining sector is also one of the few reasons Australia is enjoying it's current prosperity. Sales of our gas and commodities have a flow-down effect that have provided money for people to buy and build their McMansions, to drive their flashy cars and keep their children in private schools. Whilst in theory, it would be possible to place all non essential worker on welfare tomorrow, it would eventually be a loose, loose situation as funding dwindled away. It must be fairly obvious that the Government will never consider such an option, however, that doesn't mean it isn't right around the next corner. In an interview between Astrid Schneider and Fatih Birol on todays Energy Bulletin, Birol, of the IEA predicts a dire future in the coming years and we're not talking about 20 - 30 years. It's looking increasingly likely that we, as a Nation, will have to face up to petroleum shortages before 2012. The knock-on effect of that will see an economic collapse. First will go employment considered not to be of any relative importance to life, such as certain sectors of IT, sales, insurance, etc. First to go will probably be the service sector such as dog washing, wheelie bin cleaning, home maintenance and the like. Next round will see the loss of public servants, small manufacturers, builders and retail staff. The trickle down effect will spare nobody until all that is left are those working in essential services such as nursing, the police force and armed defense. Eventually, even some of the latter might be considered non-essential. Welfare is already struggling. Just a slight increase at the pump will see it struggle more as families find it impossible to fill the tank to get to work and provide the other necessities of life. The Government will be powerless to intervene and life will, for some, become a race to the bottom. With that will come lawlessness, drugs grown and manufactured in Australia will become more valuable then gold and life on the streets will be fraught with danger as those with enough strength rob from those who are weak. At some time in the not too distant future, people like myself may be forced to decide when the cost of fuel to get me to and from work is no longer worth going to work in the first place. It's a scary thought, although I believe petrol/fuel rationing will be introduced first. That alone might mean that more people will have to down size as they find it impossible to drive long distances to work every day, working every other day or when ever they can obtain enough fuel. At this point, perhaps your idea of forgiving debt might become palatable to the government. Not a good look to have street after street filled with discarded personal effects as members of the Sherrif's Department toss defaulting home owners out and change the locks. That might work now, but in a few more years it will become obvious, even to our sightless governments and especially when half the occupants of major cities are left to wander the streets. Well, that's my two bobs worth. Time to get ready to drive to work. I really don't have much choice. Regards, Aime.

K. Noisette (not verified)

Sat, 2008-05-03 14:30

Iemma is a real Marie-Antoinette, isn't he? Pourquoi les Australiens supportent-ils de telles canailles? Et pour combien de temps? Est-ce a cause de vos passes soumis d' forcats? K. Noisette

ilan

Fri, 2008-05-02 23:07

I go for the 3rd option: he is condoning the highjacking of government by the commercial growth lobbies (mainly in housing, development and finance). I think in some corner of his mind there is a hint of discomfort with the way Victoria is governed, but he is happy to go along with things as they are.

quark

Thu, 2008-05-01 13:14

Articles like this seemingly serve to normalise a trend in an attempt to reassure, to get readers to readjust to what is now considered to be OK and to prepare themselves for future frustrations and difficulties their own children will have and that they did not- at least not to the same extent. It's the same as all those articles about (need for) urban consolidation - smaller houses pocket handkerchief gardens or no gardens -that have been run in the Victorian press for decades- now we've got it. We can't afford the land we used to occupy. We are not moving closer together to be nice and considerate or community minded-we have to. The fact that people are economically forced to wait longer than they would wish before marrying and having children seems to me to be a strong negative in a country giving out a baby bonus to encourage baby production. This anomaly in itself shows how stuffed the end result of our economy is. If this trend continues, people will be middle aged before they can buy a house and think about having a family. As for making friends and networks by sharing bathrooms and living rooms with strangers when you are 32 years old- not sure fire at all. There are much better ways to make friends than to be forced into clearing away somebody's beard hair from the bathroom basin first thing in the morning. There are no positives about this. It's hideous.

rvw (not verified)

Thu, 2008-05-01 12:33

Ask the property council members if they would like to make lots of money, and they will say: Yes. Population growth underpins the economic wellbeing.... of the property council members. If a company can happily make money from landmines, is it any surprise that an organization can also happily profit from the destruction of Australia ? Of course endless population growth is unsustainable and ultimately impossible. But if we can make a quick buck by; increasing density, destroying state forests, decimating species, and squeezing in more consumers for every commodity; land, water, road space, food, then we'll do it.. It's so easy; we call it economic growth, when it is actually, high immigration and baby bonuses, the economy of idiots. The day the property council members go out of business, will be the day Australia transitions to a modern economy, a sustainable future, and a stable population,.. a great day for Australia. [email protected] Peter Verwer, Chief Executive [email protected] Arthur Vlahos, National Accountant [email protected] Catherine Carter, Executive Director - ACT

Albert A (not verified)

Tue, 2008-04-29 20:28

These images are useful, but the ACF didn't help Jenny Warfe at all, at the beginning of her campaign and has left its pitch too late. I am sick of these professional 'environmental' organisations which, like politicians, jump on the bandwagon when it is going full steam, in order to take credit for the hard work of others. If the dredging is called off, I won't thank the ACF, I will thank the Blue Wedges. Albert A.

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2008-04-29 12:26

Thanks for drawing this story to our attention, Ilan. In a way, it's good that John Lenders has raised this issue in this way instead of just relentlessly shouting that massive population growth is inherently a good thing as the rest of the members of the Victorian Government seem to. Nevertheless, his comments still appear to accept some premises which are in conflict with democratic principles as Ilan has noted. For example, why shouldn't a democratically elected Government which is supposedly acting in the best interest of the public it is purportedly serving determine how big it can grow?

Every day of the week we find stories in the media where what should be regarded as a choice to be decided one way or the other through democratic processes is, instead, presented to us as a foregone conclusion over which none of us, from the highest levels of government and business decision makers right down to the communities and individuals within them can have any control. In fact, as I have noted in my article The Australian laments outcome of Queensland local government elections of 29 March:

... the choice is being made, but instead of it being made by the affected communities, it is being made by politicians, like Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, who serve the same vested interests as does the Murdoch media. They include principally the aforementioned Property Council of Australia, whose members gain from population growth, through land speculation and property development, at the expense of the rest of the community, the environment and future generations.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2008-04-29 12:26

What is Mr Lenders trying to say here? 'Mr Lenders, who grew up on a Gippsland dairy farm and was briefly a Young Liberal, said there should be a debate on how Victoria handles population growth. But it was the Government's role to help make Melbourne liveable, not to determine how big it grew. "I'm not quite sure what governments do about that," he said. "If we are trying to have a vibrant economy, people will want to come and live here."' Either Treasurer Lenders is acknowledging that the government is (to say the least) stepping outside its role in undemocratically engineering a much larger than natural population, with all the problems that entails for Victorians, OR Mr Lenders is maintaining the fiction that Victoria's population is growing accidentally because 'people... want to come and live here' OR he is condoning the highjacking of government by the commercial growth lobbies (mainly in housing, development and finance). Does anyone know which of the above? In the first this would indicate unusual courage amongst the other cowardly lock-steppers in Victoria's government. In the second it would indicate dishonesty or incompetence (neither a good thing in a treasurer). In the third, his statement would indicate open support for the Victorian government's - um, is there any other word but 'fascist'? - alliance with big business against the people. Does anyone know where Mr Lenders really stands? Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact [email protected] if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish or contact [email protected]

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2008-04-28 17:41

Good suggestion, Dave. Although 'thinking outside of the box' has become a popular catch phrase these days, it is not that often put into practice in the way you have. I also posted your comment to the above mentioned Online Opinion discussion on Australian Manufacturing in a transparent attempt to arouse interest in this site. I trust that that is OK by you. It is hard to comprehend how the free-trade globalisers were allowed to get their way over the last three decade when ordinary common sense and intuition would have told us that abolishing tariffs would, in a world with so many living on subsistence wages, only lead to the off-shoring of most of Australia's manufacturing sector as did occur. Notwithstanding their promises to the contrary, the globalisers would have understood perfectly well that this would be the result, but it suited them because they stood to gain at our expense. Some reasons why they got away with it include:
  • The strident absolutely self-assured way in which their propaganda was relentlessly pushed by the newsmedia;
  • Opponents views were dismissed as quaint and old fashioned and they were given little voice;
  • As may workers lost their livelihoods, others, not so exposed to competition from slave wages, gained from cheaper imports;
  • That much of the left opposed, rather than supported, tariffs. Part of their rationale was that tariffs were somehow reactionary and served to divide, rather than unite workers across national boundaries and accordingly would lead to trade wars and ultimately more inter-imperialist wars such as the First and Second World Wars
Dave, if you register, you won't need to await the approval of the administrator before your comments are published. Whether you do or not, your comments will still be greatly appreciated.

dave

Mon, 2008-04-28 09:57

The argument against tariffs has always been that they lead to anti-competitive situations - especially in countries with smaller populations like Australia. A manufacturer sets up behind the protective wall of tariffs. Wages and conditions are protected but the manufacturer achieves monopoly status simply because Australia doesn't have the population to support the kind of competition that can be achieved on a global scale. On the other hand, unrestricted free trade pitches Australian workers into a race to the bottom against slave labour countries, as writers on this site have pointed out. But at least we get competition. So the story goes. Well, at the risk of sounding like the Mexican girl on the Taco ad; why can’t we have both? Or the benefits of both anyway, without the disadvantages? What about a system where tariffs were applied on a sliding scale depending on the wages and conditions prevalent in the country of manufacture? So goods mostly manufactured in Norway attract a 0% tariff, whereas those manufactured in any place where subsistence wages apply attract the top rate? A medium rate could apply to countries where wages and conditions were moderate. The ILO could be the arbiter. Such a system would provide bigger markets in which genuine competition could flourish, among true equals. The incentive to move manufacturing to low wage countries would be killed stone dead. If the system were sophisticated enough, companies in low wage countries paying higher wages could apply for special status, recognising their better treatment of their workers and rewarding that with favourable tariff status. Given that the protection vs free trade debate is common to all developed countries where workers enjoy a reasonable standard of living, I think this notion would find support around the world. It’s a concept worth thinking through in more detail….

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2008-04-28 01:26

Thanks for the encouraging feedback. I could not find the article through the Age web site, but, fortunately, someone had already sent me the link. The article is Here's what 2020 needed to be about. Here's some of what Kenneth Davidson wrote:
Economic scenarios might involve revisiting the protection debate. There are meagre returns from further reductions in protection for manufacturing industry but the finance industry gets fabulous assistance. When push comes to shove, the central banks exist to prop up the financial system when the banks lend to the point of self-destruction in a deregulated financial market. It is happening now. Should the banks be re-regulated? What quid pro quo should the community demand for its largesse? Are financial markets sacred?

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2008-04-27 18:46

Needs to be explored more. There was a good article in the Age last Saturday by Kenneth Davidson that talked positively about protectionism and a small population for Australia. Your site has some interesting and possibly valuable takes on the stuff we read everywhere else.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2008-04-27 15:47

I think the restoration of tariffs is an excellent idea although I need to be convinced of the details. I don't think that there is a cost-free painless for us to emerge from the terrible self-reinforcing downward spiral that the globalising free-marketeers have led us into.

Dave (not verified)

Wed, 2008-04-23 15:12

Hi Sheila, Thank you for your follow-up and kind words. My comments were really aimed at directing readers to the work of some of the 'good guys' and happily they seem to have had that effect. I certainly didn't mean to criticise your article, which was - as always - perceptive and clear. E.L (Ted) Wheelwright wrote a number of books and lectured in political economy at Sydney Uni. Sadly he passed away last year, but he's left a legacy of works on globalism and Australian economic history. He also wrote the occasional piece for the Social Contract press - a US based outfit with an interest in sustainability and population issues. He truly was one of the good guys. http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0802/article_704.shtml Evan Jones produced what was one of my all time favourite blogs - Alert and Alarmed. Contrary to the dry obfuscation associated with so many economic writings, Evan writes to be understood; and in a lively style. In an article about the top marginal tax rate, for instance, he considers those Australians who threaten to move offshore because of the 'crippling' top marginal rate (at the time) of 47%. He says: "Some Aussies will feel the imposition of a 47% marginal tax rate, so they race off to Hong Kong to escape its tyranny. Good luck to them in the shitbox that is Hong Kong, and good riddance." http://alertandalarmed.blogspot.com/2006/05/tax-burden-of-rich.html Classic. A&A was sadly discontinued in 2006 but it still makes an interesting read. I was very pleased to see that our own dagget had been in and left a supportive comment with links back to this site. With short term profit inspiring so much misrepresentation in the media, I think it's important to share any source material that can be used to refute it. And to support those who speak out publicly in the national interest. Katharine Betts lecture on 10 May would be well worth attending for anyone in Melbourne.. I look forward to her next appearance in sunny Canberra. Cheers, Dave .

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2008-04-22 21:06

Hi Dave,
Please write us an article if you feel up to it.
See end this response for an event where Assoc Prof Katharine Betts will be speaking.
Really appreciated your comment. The truth is that I nearly added that not all demographers and economists are useless -gosh, Malthus was the first economist - (not that he got everything right) but I kind of hoped to inflame some information rich response - and did. Of course they are not ALL useless - just the ones that bad business uses to ram home its destructive agenda. I didn't know about Ted Wheelright and will look up some of his work. With regards to demographers, Cristabel Young, Graham Hugo, Terrance Hull (who is also an anthropologist I think) spring to mind as good guys. Please do write a paene to any others and post it here.

The big problem (as you probably realise) is that having a maths degree, without broader scientific method and sociological or biological background, doesn't equip you to draw any political conclusions based on a series of numbers of people. What it does permit is crafting a recipe for cashing in on trends, and it leads to people trying to organise those trends to keep on happening when they would probably ordinarily come to an end or evolve into something different. The broader public need to be educated to distrust academics who spruik for business.

It is really poor that entire state planning departments abuse past demographic trends by presenting them to the public time and again as if they were cast-iron predictions. The politicians jump on these trend-vehicles like trained dogs and tell us all to get on board and the media market them to death. I have complained in the past to the ABC that they have reported APop pronouncements as if they were equivalent to ABS pronouncements. Once upon a time - I think - the ABC didn't make those kinds of mistakes.

Mind you, quite a few sociologists have been funded by business lobbies to write ideological population-boosting books which are no better. And few sociologists have a clue about ecology or fuels, which makes them incapable of assessing the impact people and society have.

It does help to have a conscience as well and maybe some control over status hunger. Perhaps I should be more understanding; so many people are trying just to make a living, but personally I draw the line at selling my country down the [dry] river.

Katharine Betts is not a demographer She is a sociologist, as is Bob Birrell (albeit Bob has an economics degree as well, I think). Betts and Birrell draw their sociological conclusions carefully, based on research and theory.

What I object to is economists and demographers who feel okay about cobbling together a coincidence and peddling it for hire, when the consequences are so serious, such as spooking the public with mad ideologies like demographic implosion (in a world of 6.5 billion!), or implying that Australia's population is falling when it isn't etc. in the service of economic growthist ideology. And the coarse and fascist remedies they propose for their imaginary problems. The horrible thing is that business has used these people plus money like weapons against democracy, and the politicians have been sucked in or induced to foist this kind of really muddy thinking on the public. So now we are in danger of having some official policy of growing our population to two or three times its size, against a background of oil depletion and atmospheric pollution, soil impoverishment and water overshoot, intensification of intensive feedlot farming, and gross fracturing of the population structures and social organisation of much of our wildlife. We are becoming such a depraved society.

By the way, Katharine Betts will be giving a lecture and discussion session at the North Melbourne Town Hall Library on 10 May at 3-4pm.

HOW FAST ARE WE GROWING?
Are we going too big?

How fast is Australia’s population really growing?
How much of this growth is due to immigration?
Have trends really changed dramatically?
Did we need a baby bonus?
Do government and the media give the true picture in a state where the impacts of growth are becoming overwhelming— traffic-choked roads, water restrictions, anxiety about future water supply, pressure on land for housing, unaffordability, constant massive infrastructure projects and increasing need to protect wildlife from rapid growth and development....... ?

SPEAKER: 3PM – 4PM, SAT 10 MAY, MELBOURNE:

DR KATHARINE BETTS, Australian Population Sociologist, Associate Professor in Sociology at Swinburne University, Editor of Monash University demographic quarterly, People and Place, and Author of Immigration Ideology and The Great Divide.

This session will look at Statistics and Politics:

Statistics: Changes in collection and definition of Australian immigration statistics over the past 10 years.
Reliable estimates of the numbers from 1998-2008 (Migration and total population change)

Politics: Interpreting recent trends in Australian Political population policy and how policy intersects with real immigration numbers.

Dr Katharine Betts is Australia’s leading expert in different ways of measuring and presenting immigration statistics. An experienced teacher, she will explain Australian population statistics and show trends over the long and short term.

DISCUSSION: 4PM – 5PM

VENUE AND DATE:

(After the SPA VIC AGM at 2PM)

Saturday 10TH May

North Melbourne Library (upstairs)

66 Errol St. North Melbourne (Melway ref.2A J 10)

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Copyright to the author. Please contact [email protected] if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish or contact the editor at jaymz@bi

Dave (not verified)

Tue, 2008-04-22 09:30

The idea that Phoenix's growth can be attributed to aesthetic judgements is laughable. Phoenix's growth is underpinned by the damming of the Colorado river and the mining of ground water aquifers. Over a third of the city's water usage comes from these aquifers which the Arizona Dept of Water Resources describes thus: "Throughout this Century, groundwater has been pumped out more rapidly than it is being replenished, creating a condition called overdraft. Though a large amount of water remains stored in Arizona's aquifers, its availability is limited by location, depth and quality. By continuing to overdraft the state's groundwater supplies, we challenge our ability to ensure a secure water supply for the future." www.azwater.gov/dwr/Content/Publications/files/supplydemand.pdf So while the city is host to some sensible water initiatives (such as re-using treated effluent) to reduce its environmental impact, we're still left with the clear impression that this growth - described with something approaching rapture by Mr Salt - is unsustainable. Having a desert style garden might be nice but it's no substitute for a sustainable population policy. On a separate issue, I feel I must defend the honour of demographers and economists. Rarely has a task given me less pleasure because in the main, both vocations warrant the criticism levelled at the start of Sheila's post. Having said that, there have been some notable exceptions in both categories that deserve a favourable mention. In the demography category, I like the work of Katherine Betts and Bob Birrell. Both have spoken out against rampant growth and suffered verbal lashings from all the usual suspects for their trouble. As for economists, the late Ted Wheelright from Sydney Uni produced some legendary work and Evan Jones ran the 'Alert and Alarmed' blogspot which carried a number of articles critical of growth and the cargo cult mentality. Ted's treatment by the University hierarchy is infamous. Evan Jones is regularly defamed as a 'fringe' character by mainstream economites. www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1868 alertandalarmed.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-price-growth.html These are some of the few good apples in generally rotten barrels. More power to them. Cheers

admin

Mon, 2008-04-21 20:52

I also heard the same b.s. about Vancouver, in Melbourne, at a lecture at the Fabian society, on the subject of improving urban transport. There was a panel of four on stage. It was the usual set-up, where the audience are expected to act as if they themselves know nothing, and those on the stage are treated as if their pronouncements were cutting edge from on high. They alway say more or less the same thing. Some time into the questions I asked the panel if any of them had considered slowing down population growth by taxing land speculation windfalls. Surprisingly one of the speakers said, "I'm glad someone had the guts to say that! No-one ever talks about that." And they went right on not to talk about it. Anyway, we also heard there about the wonders of Vancouver. It didn't sound very wonderful to me, but I wasn't surprised to hear this barren 'wisdom'. I find it infuriating that our planners KNOW NOTHING outside the anglophone country systems and wish to know nothing. And we all have to put up with it. And Australian infrastructure and disturbance of nature are growing like tumours on a drying body which is losing all its natural fauna and flora. And most Australians are so poorly educated that they think this is normal, and they are told every day that they are having a great time. Not only is it sad to live in a country which is dying, but to have to put up with all this lying is infuriating.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2008-04-20 20:40

I wonder, if most people who call themselves environmentalists are polishing the furniture on the Titanic, what do you say of the Captain of the Titanic? In Australia's case, it is Captain Rudd, and he has called 1000 Australians together to the 2020 Summit, which is to decide the future of the little ship Australia. Captain Rudd wants it to carry many more passengers. He realises there may be problems ahead, but, business requires that we take on more passengers, for some reason. Australians are welcome to raise all kinds of issues, with the exception of changing course to avoid the iceberg - or, as we know it to be - overpopulation. Overpopulation is bringing poverty, misery and homelessness to Australians, as their land becomes increasingly barren and sad, desertified and losing species just like the third world country it is. Good ol' Captain Rudd just doesn't care about this. He just wants to sell more tickets to Australia and he wants us all to produce more wood furniture to polish, to keep the GDP going. Apparently, from the bridge, although he can see the iceberg, it seems very far ahead, and really quite small. Dear Mr Murray, do you have an analogy for the Captain? Sheila N Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page
Suzy's picture

Suzy

Fri, 2008-04-18 11:34

The "moonscaped" block is an all-too-common and depressing sight... I feel dread every time I see an auction sign in my neighborhood (Bentleigh) because a house more likely than not ends up being demolished, and the garden it was in, lost. We seem to be living in a permanent construction zone rather than a suburb, and I am sick of it!

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2008-04-18 11:22

Every comment counts to build up a symphony of voices to counter the deafening white noise from the commercial and government propagandists. Please keep commenting. I repeat, every word from a kind and thoughtful person concerned about democracy is of immeasurable value to Australians and this planet. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact [email protected] if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish or contact the editor at jaymz@bi
Suzy's picture

Suzy

Fri, 2008-04-18 10:33

I made a submission through the online form, though I could not answer most of the questions (see my previous comment)! I ended with a rather lame comment:

"The new zones give too much power to developers to do whatever they like; even the current zones are preferable to these proposed ones. The residents who are affected by a development should have the right to object to it. Melbourne's liveability - its open spaces and low residential density - is being eroded by overdevelopment. The Government should try to restrict population growth rather than try to cram more and more people into the same area."

Sheila Newman (not verified)

Thu, 2008-04-17 00:41

I think that the real issue is control and influence within one's community. If vast numbers of new people come into a community, it doesn't matter if they are of similar ethnicity or appearance; they will still impact on logistics, hugely disrupting local networks which are the basis of government and democratic organisation. This is happening at the minute in neighourhoods all over the country, where waves of people are selling up inner suburban homes, to find cheaper dwellings in outlying neighbourhoods, as the cost of living rises. The recipient neighbourhoods are being destroyed by this population pressure, even though it comes from people speaking the same language, born and raised in the same country. The fact is that government, by following the big business agenda, is disempowering citizens by disorganising them spatially, interrupting their family, neighbourhood and employment networks. Overseas entrants are, of course, driving the property price and cost of living inflation, simply by ADDING to the population and thereby to demand on resources. The Australian-born and long-term citizens are responding to this induced inflation by moving out of the densely populated areas where the costs of land are usually greatest. As they move out, they raise the population density and inflation in the outer suburbs. The State uses the situation to impose draconian planning laws on all citizens. And, bingo, one day you wake up and there is not even the semblance of democracy and the government is not even pretending there is. This is what has happened overnight in Victoria, with the "New Residential Zones in Victoria" questionnaire, which has come up with a fait accompli and presented it to Melburnians in the guise of seeking their opinion. Under the pretext that population is growing uncontrollably, the Victorian Government seeks to take away all the control that people that people had over their local environments, streets, and neighbourhoods, and believed was their right. The government fails to take responsibility for the population growth, although it was clearly induced by design and policy. I really wonder how much worse the situation can get.

Dave (not verified)

Tue, 2008-04-15 14:12

G'day Alex, I think the issues can be considered separately. In the past, the immigration 'debate' has been dominated by those favouring big numbers - largely business interests. Regardless of the valid arguments put forward by those in favour of population stability, the big numbers crowd has been able to bash us with the allegation that any argument for population restraint is racist. Obviously, this is not the case. One could argue that Australia would be best served by a very small immigration program comprising people of any imaginable descent. Such a position would be consistent with achieving a stable population. But it could not reasonably be described as racist. On the other hand, it could be argued that Australia is best served by intakes of 500,000 a year - all sourced from within a tightly defined racial group. This would be disastrous for population stability and for our social and environmental wellbeing. That said, it could also be described as racist. The big growth crowd has deliberately muddled population stability with the composition of migrant intakes in the public mind - precisely so that it can avoid dealing with the real issues associated with unsustainable population growth. I tend to think that any consideration of these concepts should recognise that while they are related to a degree, they are not inextricably linked. To my mind, putting them back together tends to reinforce the confusion created by the Corporate/Trot open borders alliance in the 80's. Personally, I'd like to see the preferences of Australians reflected in the composition of our migrant intakes. Advances in technology mean that conducting referenda on the issue would not be demanding. Within the context of a considered and scientifically based population policy (which would be solely about numbers) there's room for the will of the Australian people to be reflected in terms of the composition of migrant intakes. Reflecting this will; giving the people a direct stake in the determining the future face of Australia, would be the act of a Government that truly recognised the sovereignty of the people. It'd be an inspiring thing. A third related, but not integral, issue relates to whether we encourage assimilation or ethnic balkanization (multiculturalism) once migrants arrive. But time and space constraints prevail.. All three issues are important and all three have suffered through being hijacked by special interests in the past. In my simple opinion, the most effective way to deal with each is separately. Yours for Australia, Dave

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2008-04-15 09:24

Whoops! Don't know how I got the date so wrong. It was the April 9 editorial in the Courier Mail, Brisbane. I have now corrected this. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact smnaesp |AT| alphalink com au if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2008-04-14 21:22

Yes. It would make sense for the people in Melbourne to be given the opportunity to give permission or withold permission for further population growth and development. This document should be the information provided so that Melburnians and Victorians may make an informed choice, knowing that these will be the consequences of further growth. I think we can be sure that the purpose of the document is to abrogate any such informed choice whilst marketing the document as a detailed questionnaire. Unfortunately democracy has been distilled into a sort of tick-box about which colour you would prefer your oppression to be delivered in. It is severely coercive to ask people if they think that some neighbourhoods might be spared total negative transformation whilst others should take the full brunt. Obviously people would not choose to run roughshod over any neighbourhood or region. One can only assume that the Government marketers are relying on the belief that Victorians remain unaware of the fact that there is absolutely no need, humanitarianly or economically, for high immigration. And, for those who are well aware, as am I, that the only reason we have these alarming levels of population growth is because the government is forcing us to have them, the parameters of the questionnaire and the lack of anonymity implicitly exclude such rational protest. The fact that we must fully identify ourselves makes it scary to comment unfavourably on the questionnaire and I interpret this as another part of the marketing of the forced growth. Dissenters will think twice before revealing their names and addresses to a government which gives so little consideration to democracy or quality of life. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Dave (not verified)

Mon, 2008-04-14 13:25

Perhaps Mr Silberberg has had a change of heart - turned over a new.. tree. Historically the HIA has been at pains to push for bigger and bigger intakes. Will be interesting to see how long this 'conversion' lasts. .

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2008-04-13 17:00

Actually, although this may seem unfashionable and may make me unpopular with many population stability advocates, not to mention the usual 'open borders' crowd, I think, contrary to what Suzy wrote, race as well as sheer numbers, should be raised in discussions about immigration. Certainly race comes into the question of Immigration into East Timor, West Papua and Tibet (and in Australia going back to 1788), where local people do not want to become minorities in their own land. If that is valid in those cases, why not for Australia in the 20th and 21st centuries? The implicit reason for European Australians not being accorded the same status as other victims of high immigration is that Australia is a colonialist settler society which had early dispossessed another culture, namely the Australian Aboriginals. It turns out that Aboriginals don't like high immigration any more than many European Australians do. So clearly, far from rectifying our own forefathers' poor, and often shameful treatment of Aboriginals, high immigration is only compounding the problem for them. I think 'racism' is, to a certain extent, a natural part of the human condition. It is natural for people to prefer to be amongst people who look similar to themselves and behave the same way. Does this make acceptable the actions of groups like the Ku Klux Klan in the US, or, worse still, Nazi genocide, the Armenian holocaust, ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, etc? Of course any decent compassionate person would emphatically disagree. However abhorrence of these genocidal excesses of extreme racists, should not prevent us from openly considering questions of race and racism. I personally would have preferred the racial composition of 1960's Australia to have been largely preserved, as I believe most Swedes and Norwegians would have preferred their countries to have remained predominantly and homogeneously Nordic. If Australians had been asked back then if they would have preferred to have become a minority in their own country they would have emphatically rejected it. However, this is the way things are turning out without the original inhabitants ever having been consulted. In the 1960's most Australians would have accepted that the complete exclusion of virtually all people from non-European backgrounds was unfair, but now, the whole situation has been turned around to a point where we are supposed to welcome the extinguishment of our European heritage by other cultures. --- Alex
Suzy's picture

Suzy

Sun, 2008-04-13 15:13

Interesting to see that a lot of commenters at the article agree with them! Unfortunately if you oppose high levels of immigration you get called "racist" (though racism has nothing to do with the issue).
Suzy's picture

Suzy

Sun, 2008-04-13 10:52

After reading through the questions, I find many are somewhat technical and difficult to answer - how do you comment on a question like, "Do you agree that there should be the ability to apply different controls to different areas within this zone?", or "Which residential standards do you think should be able to be varied in this zone?"

ilan

Wed, 2008-04-02 09:04

Look up this page at the Australian Senate's web site: Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia No transcript yet for yesterday's hearing, but it will be worth reading to see the detail of Silberberg's submission. and today's (2nd April 2008) hearings: Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia Agends 2nd April 2008 Public Hearing: AGENDA 10.00am NSW Federation of Housing Associations Mr Adam Farrar Executive Director 10.45am Morning Tea 11.00am Australian Bankers' Association Mr Nick Hossak Director, Prudential and Payments Policy 11.45am Professor Julian Disney Social Justice Project, University of NSW 12.30pm Lunch 1.30pm AHURI Sydney Research Centre University of Sydney Associate Professor Judy Yates Dr Nicole Gurran (TBC) AHURI UNSW-UWS Professor Bill Randolph 2.45pm Urban Development Institute of Australia, NSW Mr Ross Blancato, UDIA NSW President Mr Scott Woodcock, Executive Director 3.30pm Afternoon Tea 3.45pm Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) Mr Andrew Johnson, Director 4.30pm Adjournment Committee Chair: Senator M. Payne

Pages

Click to read all comments.