“Merely adding more people isn’t a sustainable economic strategy. We can’t pretend that high immigration comes without a cost and growth should not impose an unfair burden on those who are already here. Excessively rapid growth puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on housing prices, both of which have sorely stung workers and aspiring home-owners in Sydney and other parts of NSW for a decade. When you look at the numbers, it’s no surprise communities in Sydney are feeling the pressure. In 2006, annual net overseas migration to Australia increased to roughly double its pace across the preceding 25 years.” (Dominique Perrottet as Treasurer in 2018)
To the horror of many Australians, Perrottet has recently called for 'explosive immigration' to Australia, purportedly as an economic fix. In this interview we see how shockingly cynical this call really is, in the light of Perrottet's own history.
Dominic Perrottet’s ‘explosive immigration surge’ will be a disaster
Kelvin Thomson, after quoting Dominique Perrottet above, added, “He told your colleague Michael Mclaren, in an interview in 2018, that simply because the treasury bureaucrats might tell you that putting in more people drives economic growth, that is lazy economics. That’s what he should have told your bureaucrats now, instead of apparently falling hook line and sinker for what he was able to recognize as rubbish three years ago.”
Candobetter Editorial comment: It is obvious that immigration adds pressure on politicians too. Was giving the growth lobby 'explosive immigration' the price Perrottet paid to be NSW Premier, causing him to eat his 2018 words? NSW people and the rest of Australia will also pay for this if it goes ahead.
In the podcast we link to above, Luke Grant is joined by The Hon. Kelvin Thomson, Former Federal Member for Wills & spokesman for the Sustainable Australia Party, who advises that NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet rule out proposals for an “explosive” immigration surge which would bring in 2 million extra migrants over the next five years.
Mr Thomson says, “Not only will 2 million extra people be an environmental disaster, it will be a disaster for young Sydney-siders.”
“For the first time in years the Reserve Bank and leading economists have seen signs of wages growth and increasing job opportunities for young people.”
“The “explosive” two million extra people would detonate those opportunities, blowing the chances of young people to have secure full time jobs right out of the water.”
“The “explosive” surge would also be bad for Sydney’s housing affordability, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, open space and tree canopy cover.”
Comments
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 2021-10-21 14:30
Permalink
Public alarmed as power elite tries to talk up mass migration
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021, The Age carried the following letters to the editor, under the heading, "POPULATION"
Fewer people for our health and environment I read with alarm the article, “Migration quota may rise to aid recovery” (The Age, 20/10), and realised how little we have learned from these past two years.
Some leading economists have presented strong arguments that immigration’s supposed effect of increasing wealth is a mirage: yes, it increases gross domestic product but only because there are more people, not because there is increased wealth for individuals.
Just months before the pandemic arrived, the media ran many stories and letters about Melbourne’s population growth being out of control, that the CBD was overcrowded and that public transport was unable to cope with so many people. Now the focus is on climate change and our need to reduce our carbon footprint.
But none of our decision makers are connecting the dots. Australia could have learned so much from the pandemic: we could have appreciated the need for fewer imports and more self-reliance; we could have understood that big is not better and in fact, our relatively smaller population helped to save us from the worst of COVID-19; and that our quarter-acre blocks are better living spaces than high-rise apartments. We could have learned all Australia’s advantages in staying near zero population growth, for the sake of our health and our environment.
But our decision makers learned nothing. We seem condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Pam Cupper, Dimboola
Putting the needs of business before the people The lord mayor is dreaming to believe the recent population forecasts give the council a strong basis for planning the city’s recovery – “Melbourne’s heart will find its beat again” (The Age, 20/10).
The forecasts are built on very shaky ground, namely that international migration will return to pre-pandemic levels. But immigrant numbers are determined entirely by government decisions, and will and should be hotly debated.
Does the community want 144,000 new residents, in the next 19 years, squeezed into its CBD? They will clog the city’s arteries rather than improve its heart beat.
Both the forecast and the lord mayor’s reaction perpetuate a business-win, people-lose scenario.
Ian Penrose, Kew
Recipe for more ecological degradation and conflict
According to Josh Frydenberg, to maintain Australia’s living standards, we need to ensure the population keeps increasing through migration. However, population growth is linked to increased demand for food, water, housing, energy, healthcare and transportation. More humans mean more ecological degradation and conflicts and a higher risk of disasters, including pandemics. A government with any capacity for leadership and innovation would recognise this scenario and come up with a technology-based solution that utilises our existing population.
Leigh Ackland, Deepdene
Richard Smith (not verified)
Sun, 2022-03-06 13:43
Permalink
Plague immigration reduces your political representation and smo
DeFoe Mary (not verified)
Mon, 2022-03-07 10:47
Permalink
Big Business at work for Big Australia
Jennifer Westacott is the chief-officer of the Business Council of Australia [BCA] and she is regularly solicited for media commentary in print and electronic media channels. The reoccurring message she parlays on behalf of BCA, is pressuring governments to ramp-up immigration intakes as the means to power the economy.
On February 18, Westacott wrote an opinion-piece in the Financial Review: "Migrants, more women more productivity."
In The Australian of 18/2/22 she gets a mention in the article: "Bosses want budget boost for migrant workers catch-up."
Westacott pressed a case for the Federal government to increase the permanent migrant intake to about 220,000 per year in the next two years, up from the 160,000 before the borders were closed, in order to catch up on lost numbers. However, to be able to catch up on the lost numbers in the next two years would, of course, require having to double the number of permanent migrants arriving to about 320,000.
A mere two weeks after Dominic Perrottet ascended to the premiership of NSW in mid-October 2021, this boof-headed, economic-rationalist was duly championing a like-minded scheme. Still, he went way further than Westacott by advocating for the numbers to be raised to 400,000 and continuing until 2027!!!
But if the permanent number of immigrants were to become 220,000 per year, it actually means the number of immigrants entering the country in a year will be in the vicinity of 500,000. This is so, because the permanent component of the gross figure of immigrants arriving into Australia in the previous decade, averaged about 40% per year. The other 60% are classified as temporary-migrants, with the largest contingent of them from 2014 being international students. Yet, after completing their courses, around 65% of international students remain in the country for at least 2 years, and up to 6 years working in some capacity. The rest of the temporary migrant categories can be anything from IT workers, backpackers to seasonal-agricultural workers.
With respect to agricultural workers, there is a clause in this visa-type which stipulates that if they worked diligently harvesting crops for at least 3 months, then they would have their 12-month visa extended by that period.
According to an immigration lawyer I know well, this clause in working visa-types has been ruthlessly exploited for years:
He told me in February 2016, a firm he was working with sent him to Mildura to speak with a group of Asian workers undertaking agricultural chores, and who wanted to utilise working 3 month to transition to another visa, which permitted them to stay longer and work in urban areas.
He said on attending a shed on a property he encountered four other lawyers from other firms doing the same thing. There were over a hundred potential customers. The other striking matter is they were all women aged between 25-35.
Most were from Vietnam, and were intending to work in nail/manicure businesses, and their agricultural visas were only a means to allow them to transition to work elsewhere.
Corruption and manipulations rule – all for Big Business!
Add comment