Is Australia the developed-world leader of domestic-population-growth-driven crimes against humanity?

The purpose of this article is to argue that, even in the short to medium term, mismanagement of Australia using a flawed strategy of extreme population growth driving extreme GDP growth (both the highest in the OECD) will change us from custodians of a resource rich, wealthy, biodiverse country with the capacity for global philanthropy and disciplined, sustainable development, into an indebted custodian of a depleted environment incapable even of sustaining itself.

The argument goes further by accusing the ABC, Environmental NGOs and Government of crimes of negligence against humanity as a result of refusing to investigate and understand whether this custodial responsibility requires competent, sustainable population growth management to enable that global philanthropy to continue into the future.

The argument also extends to crime in the domestic context, in that Australia's government targets something it calls "Growth" This is a primary political endeavour to expand Australia economically and structurally. This changes the nation from one which exists for its own sake because it is a nation of people, to one which is working for defined objectives (Growth, etc.). The people are now a means to an end, rather than the end in themselves. Is this not a direct act of hostility against the nation? If government's goal is to engineer and modify the nation, or even completely change it demographically, government has targeted the people, their way of life and their identity for destruction. Even if not done with maliciousness, government is still responsible; especially if it has been made aware of what is happening. Does this constitute a crime against humanity in Australia? (Ref. Dennis K's comment below.)

Successive governments have had no mandate to dictate "a policy by stealth, a policy without consensus" as described by the now Professor Gavin Jones in his work for government in 1996/97. He is now research team leader at the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore, and was formerly Head, Division of Demography and Sociology, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University.

Democracy is supposed to be a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It should encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. On the issue of population policy that is clearly not the case. Abuse of human rights is often facilitated by such lack of democratic process.

First I list a number of no-brainers as premise to the argument:

UNICEF claims donations save lives and wants us to donate where the need is greatest. For example, $64,000 spent saving lives in the developing world arguably address a greater need than $64,000 spent on one metre of the Eastlink Freeway construction (Final project cost $2.5 billion; length 39km). Extreme population growth drives the need for infrastructure expansion, diverting resources from more worthy causes in the (false) belief that extreme economic growth delivers sustainable benefits that somehow justify this end - regardless of the domestic and global consequences.

Now there are many complex arguments for and against the value of foreign aid. Let’s avoid these details and look at some “big picture” truths. Foreign aid is a general term that differs from foreign investment and includes medical and other humanitarian aid in times of crisis. Such times of crisis may be more or less continuous in many developing world locations. The aid provided by developed countries is a relatively small proportion of their respective GDPs, but it is constrained by government decision-making and it is a real cost. There is no doubt that misuse of foreign aid has had adverse consequences in the past, but to arbitrarily define philanthropic foreign aid as something that should be banned is like attempting to ban philanthropy itself.

I am calling into question rhetoric that makes out that the Government's big population agenda and high immigration policy is in any way humanitarian. I believe it has the opposite result by depleting our capacity to carry out humane policies both domestically and overseas.

Definition of Crimes against Humanity

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum,

"are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings.

Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts of similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."

Based on the above definition, a country that deliberately adopts extreme policies (such as extreme rates of migration of relatively wealth opportunists) that can be proven to directly contribute to reduction in its capacity to provide philanthropic foreign aid to the developing world is arguably guilty of "other inhumane acts.......intentionally causing......." that "are part of a widespread and systematic practice."

So it seems we require proof of the negative economic impact of population growth (by Public Inquiry) and proof of intent? We live in a "developed" society with full access to government statistics and basic numeracy skills. In my opinion, to deny intent in these circumstances is like claiming that ignorance or incompetence is an excuse for negligent homicide. Show me the proof that our government is using global humanitarian due diligence in its strategic planning and I will show you a flying pig !

Or maybe we can look at this another way. How often have you heard a story about an armed robbery of a late night convenience store going wrong and the cashier being killed? Then the accomplice sitting in the getaway car is also convicted of the murder. Can somebody please explain why a government found to have mismanaged an entire economy "by stealth and without consensus", with negligence and incompetence, would be innocent of any responsibility for the fatal consequences of those failures?

So Mass Migration fires the bullet and (successive) Prime Ministers drive the getaway car loaded with cash that disappears faster than it is "stolen"?

In my opinion Australia is orchestrating a global crime against humanity. It makes no difference whether the children are dying in Pakistan, Sudan or the Northern Territory. The connection between cause and effect exists. Allocation of resources is the key. Claiming global responsibility for introducing a Carbon Tax while concurrently ignoring the need for detailed analytical review of population growth’s impact on domestic sustainability and the capacity to maintain, or increase, philanthropic foreign aid over time highlights the confused behaviour of some of our politicians. Are they in an irrational stupor?

Just as a drunken thug can king hit an innocent bystander and then deny murder, the ABC and government might claim ignorance or some other excuse for lack of intent. Such arguments don’t stand up to logical scrutiny; particularly if the crime is dictatorially imposed by a demonstrably corrupt regime using a demonstrably corrupt propaganda machine "by stealth and without consensus" as described in the following links:

(Proof of the ABC’s biased support for Australia’s extreme population growth)
(Explanation of the Risk Assessment methodology that Australia should be using to avoid crimes against humanity)

By my assessment, this crime of negligence is based on failure to even attempt to optimise use of resources to prioritise protection of human life using universally accepted Risk Assessment criteria that WorkSafe and all major industrial companies use. A WorkSafe Risk Assessment reference document is attached by way of example. Just flick through it to find the methodology for protecting life. Table 9.1 provides a typical Risk Matrix. If a country recognises the concept of global responsibility it must apply such Risk Assessment techniques to the global consequences of its actions.

So when is the Public Inquiry going to start? Not until enough people sign the petition (see link at end of article).

Selected ABS statistics that challenge the economic feasibility of extreme population growth

Annual GDP has increased by over $474 billion since 2008. But the size of the economy does not dictate the level of government debt. Profitability does that.

Net national debt has increased by over $267 billion since 2008. If the long term interest rate on that additional debt is around 3%, this costs over $8 billion per year in interest charges. This is effectively an $8+ billion per annum ($22 million per day) reduction in the money that could be available for government funding of global philanthropy (or anything else).

Population has increased by over 1.76 million (8.2%) since 2008. About 60%, or 1 million, of the increase is migrants. But in the last decade alone, migrant population has increased by over 2 million. This creates an ongoing financial cost for the economy that needs to be understood by government and the people.

The 2012 government budget was about $365 billion = roughly $16,000 per person, per annum if we pro-rate the entire budget on a per person basis.

The additional 2 million migrants costs a ballpark additional $32 billion per annum to support. So what are they actually contributing to GDP growth and what to government debt? Does the government even know? Many are not earning income or paying tax as they are dependants. But they are buying goods and services which generate profits for businesses and tax revenue. So why is government debt rising?

Unemployment has been growing at around 2.3% per annum for the last decade in conjunction with compound population growth of around 1.6% per annum. Is extreme population growth contributing to these trends? Who knows? I speculate that the government doesn't know. They haven't even publically discussed it, let alone commissioned a public inquiry to try to evaluate the impact of population growth on these trends.

The largest export revenue producers for the Australian economy are mining and agriculture. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining comprise only 5% of the total workforce.

It is estimated that over 7 million children die in the developing world every year. Approximately 20,000+ per day. The silent killers are poverty, hunger, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time headline coverage.

But there's another issue. Australia is selling off assets and exploiting every mining opportunity it can identify, yet still the debt rises. In recent years, Australia's debt to the rest of the world has increased.

Real net foreign debt grew on average by 6.1% per year on a per capita basis between June 1999 and June 2009, increasing from $15,400 to $27,900 (in 2007-08 prices) (Ref. ABS).

Is there something government is missing? Could it be the cost of population growth? Don't ask me; I'm not running the country! This is what a Public Inquiry needs to address.

Most of those migrating into Australia are relatively wealthy by world standards. Refugees form a small minority of the total. Slowing migration-based population growth can actually increase the capacity for accepting refugees. Meanwhile over one billion starving or severely undernourished people live in adversity in the developing world. The cost of living is low in the developing world and that is one reason why the cost of saving a life there is many times lower than the cost of infrastructure expansion and social welfare for each additional Australian.

The national accounts show escalating debt. But they don't show the rate at which infrastructure expansion is falling behind the rate of population growth. Hence the true rate of escalation is disguised. Is this a crime against humanity in Australia? Do you feel like you've been metaphorically king hit? In my view, the facts show that extreme population growth is a significant contributor to the above-mentioned problems.

If you see the logic of this argument and wish to take a first step in reducing the extent of Australia's crimes against humanity please consider signing this petition:
Australia requires a public inquiry to determine a basis for the optimum rate of population growth

Every day counts. The longer we sit on our hands doing nothing the more people may suffer both here and overseas. We can't make the world perfect, and we may have little hope of success. But based on this assessment of the facts, calling Government and the ABC to account for their "drunken-thug-like" behaviour is long overdue. We need your signatures and we need you to forward a link to this petition or the link to this article.

Thank you for your help. Thanks also to Dennis K. for his contribution.