Wayne Swann

Wayne Swann obfuscates

According to recent reports Wayne Swan ..."can't bring (him)self to agree with those who think we can solve all our problems by putting a freeze on national
population growth”. No Wayne, we certainly can't solve all our problems by reducing runaway population growth, but it sure would go a long way toward easing house prices, shortening hospital queues, preserving the environment and cutting our carbon footprints.

Who is this ‘We’?

A great many Australians these days would really like to know who exactly Mr Swan is referring to when he talks about "we" solving “our” problems. Is it the "working families" struggling in the outer suburbs to pay off hefty mortgages on second-rate housing stock on the fringes of our cities - or is it the vested corporate interests at the big end of town which possess an insatiable appetite for more growth, more markets and more people? Whose problems are you trying to solve Mr Swan?

Political addiction to population growth

The gap between the policies of the Liberal/Labor (Liboral?) party elites - that are politically addicted to massive population growth and mass-immigration - and the wishes of the electorate has never been greater. It’s a bipartisan problem. Tony Abbott has been whipping up mass hysteria about boat people lately, trying to make it an election issue. He's going to "close the borders" screamed the Herald Sun last week. But on the broader topic of mass-immigration, like the P.M. and Wayne Swan, Mr Abbot has also nailed his colours to the mast as a "big Australia" man whose "instinct" is to bring in "as many people as possible".

Who benefits and who loses by population growth?

Cheerleaders for the growthist lobby in the media have been doing their level best to scare the bejesus out of the public by raving on about retiring baby boomers and even raising the prospect of an armed invasion should we dare to consider putting the brakes on. The problem is no-one seems to have any real insight into where all this growth is heading for our country as well as the thorny question of who benefits and who loses from it? Who gets the profits and who gets to pay? How does the average citizen benefit when GDP per capita declines through massive population growth? Exactly what are the long-term implications for the environment and the famed liveability of our cities of this new "mega-trend"?

Rudd like a deer caught in headlights on population numbers

Despite the creation of a new population ministry, Labor has not had a great deal to say on these questions so far other than "growth is good". Mr Rudd hasn't even had an opinion this year. He appeared like a deer caught in the headlights recently when Kerry O’Brien confronted him on the 7:30 report - which is a bit strange considering that he "made no apology" last year for his support for “a big Australia”.

These questions are being ignored by our leaders other than a very vague undertaking to perhaps grow somewhat “differently" than before - presumably by stacking people 50 stories up in ugly high rises or transforming our urban areas into Los Angeles-style megalopolises with double-decker freeways and ghettoes of haves (those who bought houses before the great population explosion) and the less-fortunate have-nots that didn’t.

Some commentators in the media are suggesting that Rudd has "gone cold" on a big Australia this year. But what is far more likely is that he is simply being a very clever politician – like his predecessor John Howard - and is saying nothing publicly. Behind closed doors, however, he and his minions are champing at the bit to raise the volume as high as they can get way with without provoking too great a backlash from so-called working families whose marginal seats Labor took back from “Howard’s battlers” at the last election.

Expect Spin

To keep population growth ticking along at 2.1% per annum and maintaining a docile and electorate Rudd will try to do what politicians do best - bombard us with a mountain of meaningless words on things like the "programmatic specificity" of his new population ministry - but without of course actually doing anything.

One thing is certain, if the present growth trajectory is going to be maintained by Canberra indefinitely, the volume of complaints rising from the public is going to grow incredibly loud. When it takes the average person more than a lifetime to pay off a mortgage on an average house and when commuters have to spend half their lives stuck on clogged freeways or dysfunctional public transport systems, the politicians that continue to push growthist polices are going to eventually pay a heavy price at the ballot box.

Stable Population Party of Australia - a new alternative

Let's hope the newly formed Stable Population Party of Australia can capture many of the votes of the people that are most badly impacted by our government’s mad growth-at–all-costs agenda. We desperately need to lobby and apply pressure on our elected leaders to change their current policies. This is going to require constant media campaigns to get the public's attention as well as a small army of committed activists to get the message out.

Growth Lobby vs The People

The public needs to be made aware that there is an alternative to growth for growth's sake and that there is an alternative to the "Liboral Party” and their bipartisan and undemocratic policies which are failing to maintain a sustainable population. Make no mistake; the growth lobby is a formidable opponent with enormous financial resources on its side as well as the backing of both major parties and large sectors of the media. Only a very vigorous and determined grass-roots campaign the likes of which we haven’t seen before in Australia is going to have any chance at success at slowing down this juggernaut.

NOTES

7 April title was changed to better reflect newsworthy content

State and Federal Government on the defensive

The Sydney Morning Herald article, "Cap, 'Not the answer to population growth'"(AAP 30 March 2010) quotes only those on the high-population side of the debate. Yet it depicts almost all of them as desperately trying to hose down the arguments for capping population.

Why they are so on the defensive is clear from the Essential Research political poll that was released back on March 1st. Among the usual questions on voting intentions etc was included one on attitudes to population, and the results were stunning:

Poll shows Australians against more population growth

* 75% agreed and only 19% disagreed that "We just don't have the infrastructure and services to manage more population growth."

* 64% agreed and only 29% disagreed that "Immigration should be slowed as it causes too much change to our society"

* 61% agreed and only 30% disagreed that "Australia has a fragile environment that cannot cope with a much larger population".

* 38% agreed but 52% disagreed that "Having a larger population will help our economy."

* 35% agreed but 58% disagreed that "Australia has the space and resources to cope with a much larger population."

* Coalition, not Labor, supporters were more likely to agree to the first two propositions.

See Source.

Obfuscation

Predictably the growth side tried to argue that it isn't the number of people you cram into the cities that counts, it's the superb way they plan to house them. Growth-promoter Bernard Salt once again got himself described as a "demographer". He also tried to run the aging population scare in reverse, as an optimistic claim that an immigration intake of 180,000 each year is Australia's "get out of jail free card to fund our retirement of the baby boomers".

Fuel crisis

However Salt admitted that "One thing that you can be confident about in the next 40 years is that, in real terms, petrol will be $5 a litre." It did not occur to him that high-priced fuel implies similarly high-priced fertiliser and food. (Food riots broke out last time oil reached $100 a barrel, because even the third world now grows its food with nitrate fertilisers derived from oil and gas.) One problem with the mega-cities that Anna Bligh and others would create is they will be totally unsustainable -- dependent on people elsewhere being willing to send them millions of tanker-loads of fuel and millions of trucks of food. It is far from clear what these cities can produce to offer in exchange.

Just at present the really valuable commodities, like oil and food, are dirt cheap whereas one pay through the nose for fashion accessories etc -- a situation which makes cities seem sustainable and provides millions of jobs for city dwellers. But it is unlikely this would be the case in an oil-starved world.

Wayne Swan swats problem away

Wayne Swan is still trying to swat away the population issue without descending to debate it: "I can't bring myself to agree with those who think we can solve all our problems by putting a freeze on national population growth." But the democratization of the internet makes it harder to get away with such tactics. One internet correspondent, Skooner, retorted:

"No Wayne, we certainly can't solve all our problems that way, but it sure would go a long way toward easing house prices, shortening hospital queues, saving the environment and cutting our carbon footprints. I, and a lot of other Australians would also like to know who exactly you are referring to when you talk about "we" Mr Swan? Just who are "we"? The "working families" which elected you - the Australian people - or just the vested corporate interests that possess an insatiable hunger for more growth and more people.

The ideological gap between the Liberal/Labor (Liboral?) party elites - that are addicted to huge population growth, baby bonuses and mass-immigration - and the electorate has never been greater."
("Skooner", on [email protected])