Bill Shorten

An alarmist headline? Not really. This judgement follows from an analysis of Labor’s proposed temporary visa for parents of existing migrants, entitled, a ‘Fairer Long stay parent visa for Australia’s migrant and multicultural communities’. The proposal was announced on 22 April, 2019.

Labor’s proposal is for an uncapped, low cost, temporary parent visa open to all migrant families who are citizens or are permanent residents. It will cost $2,500 for five years regardless of sponsors’ income or capacity to provide for their parents. All four parents in each household can be sponsored. The children eligible to sponsor their parents include all those who are permanent residents or citizens of Australia.

The visa will be renewable thus enabling parents to stay in Australia for ten years without having to leave. This means it is a de facto permanent entry visa since, as sponsors will know, it is highly unlikely that parents who have lived here for a decade will be required to return home.

Labor’s ‘temporary’ parent visa is an unprecedented offer. No other western country provides any similar parent visa. The trend across Western Europe is to tighten already stringent rules on parents’ access to obtain permanent residence status. The US, though it allows adult migrant children to sponsor their parents, has many hurdles, including that the sponsor must be a citizen and must meet financial capacity guidelines. Even Canada, the most overtly welcoming migration country in the west, has an annual cap of 17,000 on parent visas and, as with the US, sponsors must prove that they can meet stringent financial capacity criteria.

As we will see, Labor’s parent proposal dismantles all the careful rules successive Australian governments have, over thirty years, put in place to control parent migration. The door is now wide open for parent sponsorship. This is an especially attractive prospect of Australia’s more recently arrived Asian and Middle-Eastern communities. And here it should be noted that Australia’s Asian- born population (at just over 10 per cent) is higher than any other western country.

Australia is an enticing destination to migrants from Asia because of the large gulf between the political, social and cultural conditions here and in most Asia countries. Given that many immigrants would welcome in-house help with child care and that most Asians recognise obligations to care for their parents, the potential for Australia’s Asian and Middle-Eastern population to take up Labor’s offer is huge.

At present most permanent entry parent visas are from China, mainly because there is a balance of family rule in place. This requires that half or more of siblings are resident in Australia. Many readers will be aware that there is a waiting list of Chinese applicants for Australia’s existing permanent entry parent visa of near 100,000. They will likely take up Labor’s proposed temporary parent visa. However, many more Chinese will also become eligible. (These are people who don’t meet the present financial criteria for sponsorship, which are outlined below.)

The really big change in eligibility will come from Australia’s Indian subcontinent and Middle Eastern communities. They constitute a larger group of potential sponsors than the Chinese. Most do not currently meet the balance-of-family test or the financial requirements of the existing permanent entry parent visa.

Labor’s proposal will make then eligible to bring their parents to Australia. They will have at least as powerful a motive to avail themselves of this opportunity as the Chinese.

Labor’s proposal could easily generate at least 200,000 parent applications, mainly from Chinese, Indian subcontinent and Middle Eastern country residents of Australia, over a three-year period.
The number depends, of course, on how the visa is implemented. This is explored below. The information we have at this point on Labor’s proposal is that it will be open-ended.

Background

To grasp the significance of Labor’s proposal it needs to be seen in the context of Australia’s present rules governing the issuance of permanent entry parent visas. There are two subclasses for parent visas in operation. One is a contributory parent visa where the parents have to pay some $43,600 as an upfront contribution to the likely public costs of their stay. In 2017-18 6,015 of these visas were issued. By June 2018 there was a backlog of applicants of 44,886. The other entry point is a non- contributory parent visa with much lower up-front fees. In 2017-18 1,356 of these visas were issued. For this non-contributory visa there was a backlog of 50,642 and a wait time of over thirty years.

In effect, together the current permanent-entry parent visas are capped at less than 8,000 a year.

Moreover, both permanent-entry parent visa subclasses are only available to pension-aged parents who can meet the balance of family test. This is why most of the parents visaed are from China – since most Chinese residents are from one, or at the most, two sibling families.

However, there is another parent visa option, soon to be available for those wishing to sponsor their parents. This is a temporary parent visa which the Coalition legislated in November 2018. Residents can apply from 17 April 2019 to establish their eligibility as sponsors of their parents.

There is an annual cap of 15,000 parents and accompanying dependent for this new visa. It is for five years, and will cost $10,000. There is a limit of one set of parents for each sponsoring household. To qualify as a sponsor, the Australian resident family’s annual taxable income must exceed $83,000. [Candobetter net Editor: Reference in full paper, see end of this article.]

The visa can be renewed, once, for another stay of up to five years, but the parents need to leave Australia before applying for this renewal.

There was no official statement of the likely number of applications at the time. However internal departmental sources indicate that the 15,000 annual quota is likely to be filled.

Labor’s proposal

Labor’s temporary parent visa proposal was announced in response to the Coalition’s temporary- parent-visa legislation. In response to lobbying from migrant communities, the Coalition promised prior to the 2016 election that it would establish a new temporary visa for parents. As is evident, it took some time for the proposal to be legislated.

When the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, announced Labor’s proposed visa on 22 April 2019, he declared that the Coalition’s temporary parent visa option was ‘heartless, callous and cruel’. It was claimed that the Coalition’s visa was far stricter than originally promised, thus justifying Labor’s much more generous alternative.

As indicated, Labor’s initiative potentially opens the flood gates for parent migration. It appears to be a reckless and irresponsible policy bid put forward to garner migrant votes.
Did the Labor leaders consider the possible implications? It is doubtful that they did.

This article was based on the summary and background sections of the full paper by Dr Bob Birrell published by The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) in May 2019. Read more at https://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/final-draft-parent-visa-May-2019.pdf.

The opposition leader said this week that the next Federal Election will be a referendum on wages & the Reserve Bank Governor was saying he couldn’t understand why wages weren’t going up more given the underlying strength of the economy. Michael McLaren of 2GB Radio is joined by the Hon. Kelvin Thomson, former Federal Member for Wills now advisor for Sustainable Australia Party’s Clifford Hayes to talk about Bill Shorten’s declaration that the upcoming election will be a ‘referendum on incomes’.

Michael is joined by the Hon. Kelvin Thomson, former Federal Member for Wills now advisor for Sustainable Australia Party’s Clifford Hayes to talk about Bill Shorten’s declaration that the upcoming election will be a ‘referendum on incomes’.

The opposition leader said this week that the next Federal Election will be a referendum on wages & the Reserve Bank Governor was saying he couldn’t understand why wages weren’t going up more given the underlying strength of the economy.

This seems a remarkable thing for him to say given that the answer is obvious… that Australia’s high migration program of the last 15 years has provided a pool of surplus labour which is used by employers to keep wages down.

Yesterday’s commentary by the Reserve Bank Governor suggested that the issue was not confined to Australia, and that it was a 21st century phenomenon.

Other Western countries have also seen employers using “open borders” to keep wages down, and in Australia’s case the migration numbers took off from around 2004 – so yes it has been a 21st century development.

Download this podcast here

"Strong population growth is boosting aggregate demand and therefore the growth rate of the economy. But measures of per capita outcomes are more sobering and suggest that not enough emphasis is being placed on them in the policy debate. A brief look at income per capita, dwelling prices to income, infrastructure spend per capita and traffic congestion points to the need for a comprehensive and open discussion around the policy direction Australia is taking. ... The pressures of very high immigration are contributing to social, environmental and economic stress in Australia. There appears to be a tri-party (coalition, Labor and Greens) agreement to keep this off the agenda, despite high levels of public concern."

[The following is based on a letter sent to Bill Shorten, Chris Bowen and Senator Penny Wong]

Why is Labor still pushing the ‘Big Australia’ barrow – as evidenced by recent speeches by Chris Bowen at the Crescent Institute in September 2016 and Senator Penny Wong at the National Press Club on 8 November?

For most of this century, Australia has had the second highest population growth rate in the OECD and 2.5 times the OECD average. Since 2003, our population has grown by a massive 22 percent. Official forecasts show Sydney with a population of 6.4 million in 2036 (growth of 87,000 per year), and Melbourne with 8 million in 2036 (growth of 97,000 per year). (for data source, see Leith van Onselen, Who will rise up to become Australia’s Trump? (paywall))

This overheated population growth is putting massive pressures on infrastructure and housing affordability. The continuing urban sprawl is trashing wildlife habitat and scarce agricultural land.

Permanent immigration, as well as an unprecedented amount of 457 and student visas, is having a detrimental effect on wage rates, particularly for lower skilled and lower income workers. Why is Labor endorsing this?

The real national disposable income per capita of Australians is in decline, thanks in large part to this population growth. May I draw your attention to the conclusion in the recent research note by Gareth Aird of the Commonwealth Bank:

Strong population growth is boosting aggregate demand and therefore the growth rate of the economy. But measures of per capita outcomes are more sobering and suggest that not enough emphasis is being placed on them in the policy debate. A brief look at income per capita, dwelling prices to income, infrastructure spend per capita and traffic congestion points to the need for a comprehensive and open discussion around the policy direction Australia is taking.

May I also draw your attention to the conclusion of the recent research note by Leith van Onselen of Macrobusiness:

In short, the broad macroeconomic data – both domestic and international – does not support the assertion that Australia needs to run a high immigration program in order to drive the economy and increase living standards. In fact, given the significant qualitative costs – for example, the degradation of the environment, the depreciation of natural resources and decline in individuals’ quality of life – there is significant cause to dial Australia’s immigration program right back.

Recently Senator Wong cited the recent Productivity Commission report on Migrant Intake Into Australia, and its modelling which showed a $7000 increment to per capita GDP in 2060, when comparing a business-as-usual immigration scenario to a zero net overseas migration (NOM) scenario. In actuality, the Commission bends over backwards to explain in its report that the $7000 figure is not a net benefit. One must also look at the costs of immigration and assess the overall net benefits for the community as a whole. For example the Commission says:

GDP per person is a weak measure of the overall wellbeing of the Australian community and does not capture how gains would be distributed among the community. Whether a particular rate of immigration will deliver an overall benefit to the existing Australian community will crucially depend on the distribution of the gains and the interrelated social and environmental impacts.

I am not sure whether Senator Wong simply misunderstands the Commission’s findings, or whether this is wilful misuse of data for a particular agenda. May I suggest that Senator Wong carefully read pages 15 to 17 of the Overview, to appreciate the nuance of the Commission’s findings.

The pressures of very high immigration are contributing to social, environmental and economic stress in Australia. There appears to be a tri-party (coalition, Labor and Greens) agreement to keep this off the agenda, despite high levels of public concern. According the Productivity Commission report:

Despite majority support for immigration, almost two thirds of survey respondents expressed strong preferences for keeping the population below 30 million over the next 40 years, which with current rates of immigration could be reached by around 2030. While the reasons given by survey respondents for preferring a lower population size differ between sub-groups, congestion and environmental impacts featured for all sub-groups. (p. 362)

Actually, the Commission may be correct that there is majority support for immigration in principle, but there is definitely not majority public support for the very high levels of immigration we have seen this century. A recent survey for SBS found that 59% of Australians surveyed believed that “the level of immigration into Australia over the last ten years has been too high”. This is backed up by a recent (5 October 2016) Essential poll that found that 50% think that the level of immigration into Australia over the last ten years has been too high, 28% think it has been about right and 12% think it has been too low. And for Labor voters, it was 43% think that the level of immigration into Australia over the last ten years has been too high, 30% think it has been about right and 16% think it has been too low.

As the Productivity Commission has acknowledged, Australia’s immigration policy is our de facto population policy. Recent events elsewhere (eg Brexit, Trump) suggest there is rising public concern about the pressures caused by growing population and high levels of immigration. If the major parties in Australia maintain their consensus for a Big Australia, contrary to the clear wishes of the majority, where will voters go? One Nation?

I ask again, why is Labor pushing for a Big Australia?

This article was first published on Peter Cook's personal blog at http://www.peakdecisions.org/2016/11/labor-pushing-big-australia

http://dcleaks.com/ have revealed that billionaire, George Soros, has used billions of dollars to try to bring about open borders by funding NGOs all over the world to harass people who do not want mass immigration. Tactics taught are to equate all immigrants with refugees and to accuse people who want control over immigration numbers of racism.

Hackers have revealed that Australia's GetUp, like its U.S. counterparts, MoveOn and Avaaz, have massive financial support from Soros and that their agendas conform to those of Soros. Labor Leader Bill Shorten is linked to Soros-funded activities as is Greens Sarah Hanson-Young.

Bill Shorten, Australia's opposition leader and GetUp.

"GetUp! was established by ­activists Jeremy Heimans and David Madden with funding from Soros. The Labor-affiliated Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union donated $1.1 million to the group. Bill Shorten and John Hewson are former board members. A major funder listed on its 2014-15 Australian Electoral Commission expenditure return is Avaaz, the US GetUp! ­affiliate that has received copious amounts of funding from Soros networks."[1]

Now we have some idea why Bill Shorten refuses to reduce immigration. How many politicians have been influenced this way by Soros's money - either as recipients of awards, and positions or through funding? (We also know that every recent prime minister and opposition leader has become a member of the Australian Multicultural Foundation, which seems to have similar mass immigration values and leadership program links but no apparent affiliation with Soros. The Scanlon Foundation has mass immigration and opinion shaping agendas but no apparent links.)

Soros's money has influenced 'Leadership programs' in many areas, university grants and journalism in Australia. Google "Open Society Foundations". [2] Consider the impact of this on the formation of Australian politicians, researchers, academics, journalists, presenters, teachers, 'ethnic leaders' etc. Emily's list, for women aspiring to get ahead in politics, is financed by Soros, so we know now why the women who get ahead in Australian Labor have nothing serious to say about population or the natural environment.

The Australian Greens

Greens Leader Sarah Hanson Young was named a 'World economic forum young global leader' for 2016. George Soros is the chairman of that forum. [3] The Greens have, over the past decade or so, changed from a conservation platform to an open borders one employing the tactics of unfairly stigmatising people as racist and xenophobic when they call for limits on economic immigration in order to protect our natural environment.[4] Who or what changed so many of them?

"They attack democratic states by advocating a porous border policy, ­reframing illegal immigrants as refugees and degrading critics of totalitarian tendencies such as ­Islamism in orchestrated campaigns of PC censorship. Documents uncovered by Soros leaks reveal a pattern of funding for programs that prosecute porous borders, mass immigration into the Wes­t nations from Islamist regions, and overt campaigns against dissenters. OSF has provided several million to the Centre for American Progress, whose programs ­include the explicit targeting of free­thinkers critical of Islamism. A recent program grant described a strategy to target six critics of ­Islamism and the “right-wing media” in an “audit of Islamophobic activities”." [1]

Need to list Australian organisations and people linked to Opens Societies Foundations

There is a list available of United States organisations funded by Soros, but none available of Australian ones. Nonetheless, the U.S. list is very informative of the kinds of organisations that Soros has used to undermine national sovereignty.

'Independent' on line newspaper,New Matilda, praises South Africa's Mail and Guardian, calling for more papers like these and noting approvingly that they are backed by the Open Foundations Society.

"The twist, with South Africa’s Mail and Guardian, is revealed inside its front cover: its investigative reporting is supported by the Open Society Institute. To justify that, of course, it has to be clear that journalism is worth having, and capable of fulfilling a socially useful function as a civic tool in democracy." https://newmatilda.com/2012/06/19/journalism-we-really-need/

NOTES

[1] Jennifer Oriel, "Dumped files show influence of George Soros on Western politics, The Australian, August 22, 2016, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/dumped-files-show-influence-of-george-soros-on-western-politics/news-story/937a225e62420ea3807bd8308b0dad83
[2] For example: https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/rb-bulletin/2015/05/26/open-society-foundations-open-society-fellowship-20152016/, http://www.uq.edu.au/uqadvantage/robert-walter, http://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person460793#tab-research, International journalism grants: https://www.icij.org/about; Leadership programs: https://cpd.org.au/author/phil-lynch/ and Open Society Foundations: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/press-releases/open-society-foundations-launch-worldwide-fund-support-nonprofits-navigating; and so on - just keep googling. So many of our academics, researchers, politicians, journalists, have received funding from The Open Society Foundations (George Soros) and to get this funding they had to conform to its values and tactics.
[3] http://greens.org.au/news/sa/sarah-hanson-young-named-world-economic-forum-young-global-leader-2016
[4] "Greens members harassed for expressing valid views on environment and population" and "Greens population activist threatened with expulsion"

The Parliamentary Economics Committee has posted its report on foreign investment in real estate.

Basically the report says they have no means of knowing the extent or impact, because the government has not gathered the data to allow it to be measured. It is scathing about the Foreign Investment Review Board, which is clearly both unable and unwilling to enforce the regulatory system.

In short, willful blindness prevails.

Bill Shorten pulled pin on reforms re Foreign investment in Australian Real Estate

While the committee's recommendations would fix this situation, their reluctance to speculate on the possible extent of illegal investment and the fact that it would alter the assessments of impact, means that there is little impetus expressed in the report to prioritise these changes. It squarely identifies Bill Shorten as having pulled the pin on reforms promised in the lead-up to the 2010 election.

On the impact on housing affordability, it lists the views of various property industry pundits who made submissions, without making any comment on their vested interest in presenting their view (that foreign investment did not push up the price, and was necessary to fund supply of new dwellings). The vacancy rate of foreign-owned housing was noted as an issue of concern in personal submissions, but regarded as beyond their ability to verify. However, in playing down the role of foreign investment in driving price increases, population growth was repeatedly presented as the main driver.

The Report was authored by the Parliamentary Economics Committee and is entitled, Report on Foreign Investment in Real Estate – Parliamentary Economics Committee available at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Economics/Foreign_investment_in_real_estate/Tabled_Reports

This letter, written to Mr Bill Shorten, leader of Australia's opposition, criticises the basis of his position on MH17 and the attitude he has officially expressed towards President Putin of Russia's attendance at the G20 summit. The letter cites scientific analysis that casts huge doubt on the involvement of a missile. It points out that there has been no official report on the results of any investigation of MH17's fate, notably nothing to implicate Russia. Unofficial copies of documents (samizdat)[1] are thought to indicate that the countries participating in the MH17 investigation have signed a secret non-disclosure agreement where any participant (including the very suspect Kiev) has the right to veto publication of the results without explanation. The truth about the cause of the horrifying fate of the 298 appears to have been subsumed by propaganda to which Australia's Prime Minister and opposition leader both shamefully bow. The letter suggests that Australia should not subscribe to baseless attacks on Putin in order to help the US's bid maintain position in a unipolar world. The BRICs countries and Indonesia and Argentina - arguably our natural allies - are unlikely to be impressed by such dishonesty and it serves no good cause.

14 October 2014

Dear Mr Shorten,

I write to you out of concern for your stand on the visit by President Putin to Australia for the G20 meeting in Brisbane.

On the ABC yesterday, it was presented as a fact that Malaysian Airline flight 17 was shot down over Ukraine by pro-Russian militia.

Since the plane was shot down, there have been many claims about who was responsible, but no official investigation has attributed blame.

For example, ABC news reports have referred to surface-to-air missiles shooting down the plane despite this supposed 'fact' not being established by any official investigation. There is no suggestion in the report by the Dutch Safety Board that a missile shot down MH17. It draws no conclusion regarding what weapon was used, but it does highlight the following (p.25):

The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside.

Michael Bociurkiw, a Canadian in the first team of OSCE monitors sent to investigate the wreckage and the site, said in a CBC news video interview that damage to the cockpit 'looks like machine gun fire', not a missile.

The official report (p.25) states that "Puncture holes ..suggested that small objects entered from above cockpit floor". This would not be inconsistent with conclusions drawn by a Russian Union of Engineers report which contends that MH17 was attacked by a fighter jet.

An unidentified combat aircraft (presumably a Su-25 or MiG -29), which was a tier below, on a collision course, in the cloud layer, sharply gained altitude and suddenly appeared out of the clouds in front of the civilian aircraft and opened fire on the cockpit, firing from a 30 mm caliber cannon or smaller. The pilot of a fighter jet can do this while in "free hunting" mode (using onboard radar) or with the help of navigational guidance using airspace situation data from ground-based radar.

As a result of multiple hits from shells there was damage to the cockpit, which suddenly depressurized, resulting in instant death for the crew due to mechanical influences and decompression. The attack was sudden and lasted a fraction of a second; in such circumstances the crew could not sound any alarm as the flight had been proceeding in regular mode and no attack was expected.

In an article in New Straits Times Online, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, a Malaysian scholar and the president of the International Movement for a Just World, poses the question in regards to the downing of MH17, "Who stands to gain from the incident?"
Dr Chandra writes,

The public should be wary of fabricated "evidence" .... after what we have witnessed in the last so many years. Have we forgotten the monstrous lies and massive distortions that accompanied the reckless allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which led eventually to the invasion of that country in 2003 and the death of more than a million people? Iraq continues to bleed to this day. What about the Gulf of Tonkin episode of 1964 which again was a fabrication that paved the way for wanton United States aggression against Vietnam that resulted in the death of more than three million Vietnamese?

Professor Karel van Wolferen from the University of Amsterdam refers to the shooting down of MH17 in an article titled,"The Insidious Power of Propaganda" .

The story of the downed plane with 298 dead people is no longer news, and the investigation as to who shot it down? Don't hold your breath. Last week Dutch viewers of a TV news program were informed about something that had been doing the rounds on internet samizdat: the countries participating in the MH17 investigation have signed a non¬disclosure agreement. Any of the participants (which include Kiev) has the right to veto publication of the results without explanation. The truth about the cause of the horrifying fate of the 298 appears to have been already settled by propaganda. That means that although there has been no shred of evidence that the official story of the 'rebels' shooting down the plane with Russian involvement, it remains a justification for sanctions against Russia.

Mr Shorten, on ABC 7.30 last night, you declared

The Government is between a rock and a hard place. It's an international conference, not a conference run by Australia, so if Putin has the arrogance to turn up, to visit a nation whose nationals died in this plane crash, he can, but I'm like most Australians; I wish that Putin would at least show enough conscience to be able to not come to Australia because he's rubbing our faces in it.

The G20 is an 'international conference' as you state. However, it should be noted all the BRICS countries will be represented at it, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Argentina and Indonesia will also attend; they are countries which perhaps are more naturally aligned with BRICS than the 'international community' led by the United States. (In fact, President Cristina Kirchner from Argentina was a special guest at the 6th BRICS summit this year.) No doubt, the leaders of these countries will be paying close attention to the stand Australian political leaders take on President Putin's visit and the welcome he receives in Brisbane.

We are entering a period in history when there are strong pushes from particular countries to establish a unipolar world so the United States can remain the dominant economic and military power. If it is necessary to fabricate, lie, wage wars, and to take belligerent stands against the leaders and peoples of particular countries simply to maintain the predominance of the United States, then a unipolar world cannot surely be in the long-term interests of Australia or other countries. Supporting unconscionable actions deemed necessary to ensure this century belongs to America will not only compromise our values and beliefs but will risk our becoming isolated from important partners, not to mention the risks of a major world conflict.

To survive the 21st century, the world needs a stable multipolar world. As the host of the G20, Australia has the opportunity to have a voice on the world stage and display a leadership which will be highly regarded and hold us in good stead in coming years if it reflects a deep and courageous integrity as well as a vision for the people of the world as a whole.

Kind regards,

Susan Dirgham

NOTES

These notes were added by candobetter.net's editor.

Samizdat (Russian: ?????????; IPA: [s?m?z?dat]) was a key form of dissident activity across the Soviet bloc in which individuals reproduced censored publications by hand and passed the documents from reader to reader.

New Year’s Resolve from our political leaders. Are they out of touch with reality?…………See comments in Bold

Australians should enter 2014 full of optimism and willing to have a go to better their country, Prime Minister Tony Abbott says. He says the strength of the country is in its people's willingness to better their lives. 'This is the year I hope more of us than ever will have a go', he says in a new year's message.

No problem there. 1.8% more every year is what Liberal, Labor and Greens are ensuring using a policy "by stealth; without consensus". Does the additional cost of supporting those additional people exceed the ability of economic growth to pay for it? Will we "have an indebted go" while our economy tanks according to Tony Abbott? Where's the due diligence to back up the strategy of extreme population growth?

'We'll start new businesses, we'll build new houses, we'll undertake further study, make investments and plan a future.
'May we all be nearer to our best selves in 2014, government included.'

Using debt, debt, debt and more debt?

In 2014 the country will start commemorating the centenary of Anzac - which falls in 2015 - and begin a conversation about a referendum to recognise indigenous people in the constitution.

Why recognise indigenous people if we don't also recognise, and show respect for, their sustainable population management policy which lasted over 50,000 years before we dispossessed them using extreme population growth? Isn't that dispossession still evolving at maximum speed?

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said he and Labor would spend the next year fighting for Australians' jobs and making sure the government sticks to its election promises.

I note from the Vote Compass data that Bill wants population growth to exceed 2012’s 1.8% per annum. Yet the ABS reports that unemployment has been increasing by an average of 2.3% per annum for the last decade. Great idea Bill; but how does this work? To be fair, looking at the changes from one year to the next can be misleading. People reach retirement age, economic activity rises and falls, etc.... So looking at a decade gives a longer term average. In the last decade, two of the largest two-year leaps in unemployment occurred in December 2009 (165,500) and December 2013 (92,100). Over those two year periods migration was about 585,000 and 387,000 respectively. The ratios of leap in unemployment to migrant arrivals were roughly 28% and 24% respectively. They look similar don't they? This is roughly one in four, which is an average family of four with one wage earner becoming unemployed for every family of four arriving. The trend in the total number of unemployed fluctuates, but is always upwards. Stating unemployment as a percentage is political manipulation, because it doesn't quantify the magnitude of the humanitarian problem. Has the government ever evaluated the relationship between migrant arrivals prior to economic slowdowns and the step changes in unemployment that follows? Is this a new Key Performance Indicator relevant to population growth management? Don't ask me; ask Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten !!

Australia will be rewarded by its resilience, hard work and the creativity of its people in the new year, opposition leader Bill Shorten says.

Does resilience mean pumping up the economy with rapid population growth so it booms forever and never busts? Is that why we had high interest rates driven by a surge in demand while the rest of the world dropped interest rates during the GFC? Did that contribute to making our dollar high and our manufacturing industry uncompetitive? Great idea Bill; but how does this work?

He says keeping people in work will be among the biggest challenges the country faces in 2014.

OK; got that.

'For all of us, the new year presents a renewed opportunity to focus on the things that really matter - our families, our community and our nation's future,' he said in a statement.

'The kind of job losses that occurred towards the end of 2013 can't be allowed to happen again this year.'

They’ve been happening for a decade, Bill. Isn’t 2.3% the averaged increase in unemployment per annum, compounding from 2003 to 2013, a decade? We have 26% more seasonally adjusted unemployed than a decade ago. The trend is up; and the yearly fluctuations will continue.

To confront these challenges the nation's resolve must be durable and unwavering, he said.

What does that mean? Unwavering denial of the unsustainability of extreme population growth regardless of consequences? A durable, unwavering policy "by stealth; without consensus"?

'We must continue to fight for the fair go and ensure every Australian has the opportunity to reach their full potential - through education, proper health care or a hand when they need it most,' he said.

A fair go for who, exactly? How? By refusing to perform a comparative analysis of the social, environmental, economic and humanitarian consequences (both domestic and international) of a range of Australian long term population growth rates; using zero population growth as the Base Case benchmark?

'No matter what is ahead of us, I know our nation will continue to be rewarded by the resilience, hard work and creativity of its people.

……..and the short term, unsustainable policies of our pro-growth dictatorship in collaboration with the Liberals and the Greens?

Please sign and forward this petition if you think these guys have lost the plot:

http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/australia-requires-a-public-inquiry-to-determine-a-basis-for-the-optimum-rate-of-population-growth-2

If you're in the electorate of Griffith, consider voting for the Sustainable Population Party so they can "have a go" representing over 50% of the population who reckon this issue needs to be addressed.

#F5F6CE;line-height:120%;">Bill Shorten’s simplistic statement on immigration population and refugees in Tuesday night’s ALP leadership debate was also open ended and "cornucopian", ignoring the important issues directly affected by high population growth: environment , quality of life , employment, resources and future sustainability. Is Bill Shorten unaware of the sequelae of continuing rapid population growth or is he ignoring them?

Further to this, Shorten either deliberately or naively melded the issues of Australia’s immigration program with the issue of refugees, seen by most of Australia, it seems as “boat people” thanks to the mainstream media who make it seem so. This is what Shorten said:

“We in Labor, we're pro-immigration. We are pro the growth of our population through immigration. We are pro-refugees. It is not a bad thing to want to come here. People should know where we stand.”

It should not be necessary for a political leader or anyone in our “civilized “society to say “we are pro refugees” ! Really, who would be or declare themselves to be “anti refugees”, the opposite of what Shorten declares the ALP to be? To be anti refugees is in a similar moral category to being “anti homeless” or “anti unemployed” That is say anti people in unfortunate circumstances! Who was brought up like that? I don’t know anyone who was!

All these predicaments that people can find themselves in are the responsibility of governments to do something about. But neither of the major parties in recent years has given the impression of welcoming refugees. Maybe this is just “bad press”, because Australia actually continues quietly to re-settle about 20,000 refugees per year and I understand that most of the asylum seekers who arrive by boat are assessed to have genuine claims to asylum and have been settled in Australia. In August, however Kevin Rudd announced a plan to send all boat arrivals to Papua New Guinea, never to be settled in Australia!

Neither party knows quite what to say to the Australian people it seems but everyone is agreed that it is good if the Australian people see refugees as interchangeable with the county’s immigration program. Both parties have wished to appear to the Australian populace to be very unwelcoming of refugees or at least reluctantly accepting .

As any real numbers person would know (and I think they are few and far between), the Australian refugee intake is chicken feed compared with the actual immigration program including all other categories. The difference is about tenfold! The annual immigration program is about 200,000. ABS data released today show that the Australian population grew by nearly 400,000 in the year to March 2013.

From the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

“The preliminary estimates of net overseas migration (NOM) recorded for the year ended 31 March 2013 (238,300 people) was 10.5%, or 22,600 people, higher than the net overseas migration recorded for the year ended 31 March 2012 (215,700 people). (3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Mar 2013).

Australian governments, Labor or Liberal preside over huge numbers of invitees moving to Australia. These are people who already have a country of their own, already live in a house or apartment in that country and are by global standards not badly off. Many of these people are business migrants, or skilled workers and, of course, about 30,000 per year are New Zealanders, who can move to Australia at will due to the Trans Tasman agreement

It is disingenuous of Bill Shorten to bundle together in the same statement the issues of refugees immigration and Australia’s population now and in the future . To do this is a sort of emotional blackmail.

It is the 90% of people from overseas annually who are shaping our future as an overpopulated land mass rather than the relatively small number of refugees. A good numbers person will not stress too much over the environmental effects of an additional 20,000 refugees who need somewhere to call home (unless you are Fiona Scott now the Liberal MP for Lindsay who in a televised interview before the election attributed heavy Western Sydney road traffic to refugees!) when 200,000 + people annually who really want to increase consumption and therefore their environmental impact are coming to Australia to do just that!

When Shorten put population growth, immigration programs and refugees all in one basket what could his opponent, Mr. Albanese say? Had Albanese wanted to clarify the situation - and I don’t know that he did - he would have run the risk of sounding like someone who was trying to explain when he stopped beating his wife! He might as well have let that one go through to the keeper – and I believe he did.