Call for resignation of incompetent Immigration Minister

Thu, 2009-09-03 02:26 by admin

In the letter included below on 2 Sep 09 to the Melbourne Age, Mark O'Connor, author of "Overloading Australia" noted. that contrary to his earlier claims that immigration had been "slashed", Immigration Minister Chris Evans has recently admitted we have "an unprecedented, unplanned migration wave". In 2008 he claimed net immigration was half what the Bureau of Statistics had said it was. Whether this is through design or incompetence, Evans is clearly serving vested interests at the expense of ordinary Australians and, accordingly, should resign. (Note: two other letters published in the Melbourne Age on the same day are also included)

It's no business for big business

SENATOR Chris Evans' claim that immigration should be the nation's labour agency, meaning a continued high intake of migrants, especially younger, skilled workers, is absurd ("Migration rules set for revamp", The Age, 31/8).

The Australian population should be our normal source of workforce. Decisions about who comes to Australia should not be left to employers. Big employers have a long history of making bizarre ambit claims about the numbers they propose to employ. Often the real aim is to create a surplus of job seekers and thus bully governments into giving the go-ahead for short-sighted projects to create jobs.

The liveability crisis should be a higher priority than importing "skilled and willing" (read "temporarily more docile") workers from elsewhere.

Senator Evans bizarrely claims that his "attempts to have a more sophisticated debate about the topic have totally failed". What efforts?

The book Overloading Australia documents him claiming in May 2008 that net immigration was less than half what the Bureau of Statistics says it was. Recently he claimed immigration had been "slashed", when it was soaring. Now he admits we have "an unprecedented, unplanned migration wave". He should resign and be replaced by a minister who serves the Australian electorate, not vested interests.

Mark O'Connor, co-author, Overloading Australia, Lyneham, ACT

It's time to debate, people

I AGREE that it is "time for a reality check on immigration policy" (Editorial, 1/9). I would go further and say it is time for a national population policy. Tim Flannery, in his Australia Day address in 2002, indicated that a population policy was vital for Australia to have an environmentally sustainable future.

He said the way to achieve such a policy was for the nation to engage in a truthful, vigorous debate, together with a government inquiry charged with setting an optimum population target. Once the target had been decided we should determine our immigration policy in light of it. This, Flannery believed, would take most of the hysteria out of the immigration debate.

In my view, the bipartisanship way the major parties have kept immigration policy debate out of the public arena is an affront to democracy. I believe an appropriate forum for debating a population policy would also act as a prophylactic in keeping irrational ideologies out of the debate.

Questions about the boom

THE boom in immigration, resulting from the wholesale granting of permanent residency to international students on the basis of skill credentials obtained here, is at last being reviewed.

The demographic distortion from this influx may have resulted in increased unemployment and disaffection among migrant and native young people.

Any net benefit from the ''education industry's ''export'' earnings might not withstand examination, with the money cycle involving repayment of loans from Australian earnings, plus huge long-term costs to Australia. Issues include the diversion of educational resources to service this trade and the downgrading of the perceived value of Australian qualifications.

Excerpts from Age article Migration rules set for revamp

"Australia's immigration policy is set for an overhaul amid concerns that it is failing to meet the nation's long-term needs, with a record influx of more than 600,000 temporary residents adding to the strain of a growing population.

"...

"New figures to be released today show that Australia's official migration program recorded an intake of 171,318 permanent migrants in 2008-09.

"When the 13,500 refugees and the 47,780 New Zealanders who settled permanently in Australia are included, the migration program saw 232,598 people arriving in the past year, a 12.8 per cent leap from the previous year's record high of 219,098 people.

"But according to figures obtained by The Age, a further 657,124 temporary migrants with the right to work arrived in Australia during the past year. The 11 per cent surge in temporary migrants was fuelled by big increases in foreign students (up 15 per cent to 320,368) and working holiday visas (up 22 per cent to 154,148).

"...

The surge in temporary migrants with a right to work has created an unprecedented, unplanned migration wave. Senator Evans said Australia needed a rational immigration debate, beyond the hysteria about the few hundred boat people who arrive each year.

"...

"Decisions about who came to Australia would be increasingly left to employers ..."

See also: Overloading Australia - new book about Australia's overpopulation problem of 23 Jul 09 by Sheila Newman, Review by sociologist, Katharine Betts of Overloading Australia of 8 Apr 09, "Migration rules set for revamp" in the Age of 31 Aug 09, Want job, will travel in the Age of 31 Aug 09, Workforce ripe for the picking by John Sutton, national secretary of the CFMEU in the Sydney Morning Herald of 31 Aug 09.

Topic:

Comments

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2009-09-03 06:28

Permalink

Age article on immigration

From Mary-Anne Toy, "Want job, will travel", The Age, August 31, 2009. [Ed.Candobetter: This comment posted a significant portion of the Age article, so we have cut it down and paraphrased a bit to diminish copyright problems]. Toy cites figures from the ABS that every two minutes Australia gains another immigrant and Australia's population growth is around 1.9% - which is very rapid for a 'developed nation'; only Turkey and Mexico are growing faster, of OECD countries. "Ten years ago the projections were that Australia's then population of 18.5 million would be nudging 23 million by 2021. It is now 22.8 million and growing. A baby boom has contributed, but 60 per cent of the increase is due to the biggest immigration intake since the post-World War II boom when migrants from Europe surged here." *snip* Toy says this situation has been dubbed the 'immigration revolution', and notes that it is 'putting pressure on our cities and resources' and raising some cultural questions. Federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson is described as "virtually a lone voice in Canberra when he argues for immigration to be slashed - apart from the refugee intake, which he wants increased. The journalist describes him as linking [correctly] the front page issues of "climate change, water shortages, housing affordability, transport congestion, environmental crises, increasing prices" to the "officially encouraged" increase in the birth rate and net overseas immigration. She describes some of the contents of Thomson's submission to the Victorian State Government on urban boundaries, which you may read on candobetter.org here. Indeed, Thomson's submission is a really good one against population growth. The article notes that Thomson's seat is in a poly-ethnic area of Melbourne. She reports that Thomson says that "The business community is constantly in the ear of the politicians, Liberal and Labor, urging greater migration," and that ''The cost of increased population and migration in terms of increasing prices and pressure on our environment are not being taken into account.'' Toy writes: "Parts of the union movement are also concerned about the possibility of excessive immigration. John Sutton, national secretary of the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union, says the huge temporary migrant program makes the already high permanent program seem small. ''The most telling figure I have heard recently is that the number of 15-to-24-year-old Australians working in 2008-09 has reduced by 100,000,'' Sutton says. ''That's 100,000 Australian kids losing jobs at the very point that you have an explosion in international students, high 457 visas, high working-holiday-maker visas. You don't have to be Einstein to work out there's some linkage.'' Sutton says the Government policy of putting business and the international education lobby in charge of dramatic immigration growth was a radical departure from Australia's immigration history. ''And that's not necessarily in the public or national interest.'' *snip* Then there is a small discussion about how Sutton finds it surprising that there has been "so little debate about the size and impact of immigration". He doesn't think the silence will last. [It's all very polite, this kind of journalism, resisting accusing the government of frank opposition to the public interest and totally failing democracy.] Toys adds that "The Australian Conservation Foundation has long wanted a population stabilisation policy, but has never campaigned hard on the issue." [That's something of an exaggeration. Most population aware enviromentalists would probably agree that the ACF has sabotaged discussion, assisted the government to sabotage democracy in this area, and that the organisation has basically acted as a big fat road-block to anyone with real expertise and committment in the area getting to negotiate with government.] Toys describes Charles Berger, the ACF's 'director of strategic ideas' as supposing that the "lack of debate" results from associated issues being "tainted by racism and xenophobia." Now Berger is saying that the ACF wants to slash immigration but massively boost refugee intake. Berger is described saying that the property development industry benefited from high immigration but that there was no serious consideration of the 'long-term environmental consequences'. [Yeah, well, it's taken the ACF a long time to notice too.] ''The question we need to ask ourselves is do we want economic growth or do we want a good quality of life? These two things are not the same thing. As a nation we are jeopardising all the things we love about living in Australia.'' [Wow! An epiphany for the ACF! Sounds as if they might develop a taste for protecting the natural world, but if I were the natural world, I wouldn't wait for the ACF.] Toys cites Bob Birrell, who is something of a professional long-term performer in the immigration policy analysis arena, saying he doesn't think the reasons for the big boost in intake have much to do with concerns about an 'aging population'. He thinks the population push was to keep the mining boom going and that now it's being used to keep the economy from actually seizing up. [Words to that effect] ''Since then, Treasury continues to be pro high migration largely because it, like the big end of town, want very high aggregate economic growth. When they talk about avoiding recession, that's referring to aggregate growth,'' Birrell says. ''But if you're looking at wellbeing of individual Australians, that depends on per capita GDP. In the last year or so we have had negative per capita GDP." *snip* A surprisingly balanced article, especially for a Fairfax paper [comments our correspondent - Ed.]

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-09-03 08:37

Permalink

Minister Chris Evans should resign

Ten years of rapid immigration have been touted as the key to Australia's prosperity. At what cost? Anybody, including elected leaders, runs the risk of being labelled as "racist" by immigrant advocacy groups if they dare to suggest an end to economic immigration to stabilise our population growth. Even environmental and climate change groups have been silenced on debating this issue. However, there is not one long-term problem that can be solved by more people and bigger cities.

This population growth is driven by the Federal Government's record high immigration program for the benefit of the property developers and land speculators who generously contribute to governing political parties. Building developments continue to under the expectation that populations will rise and provide the occupiers.

Short-term economic boosts from an increasing population are evident, but ultimately real costs of unsustainable policies are relayed back to the public purse. Costs of housing, water, power, transport and land are all escalating due to more people competing for diminishing resources.

One-dimensional policies, based purely on economics, are shallow and ill-founded. We elect our leaders to serve the citizens of Australia now and in the future, not elite business groups.

Minister Chris Evans should resign due to his mis-representation of immigration figures and for bypassing the people of Australia in favour of jobs for outsiders. This is disloyalty and perversion and contrary to the interests of Australia.

We can't just "manage" the population if an over-loaded Australia as we do with other over-abundant introduced species! There can be no turning back from human growth and the burden will be laid on the shoulders of leaders in the coming decades, and the next generation.

Bob (not verified)

Thu, 2009-09-03 15:21

Permalink

There has never been a public debate on immigration!

Chris Evans is lying. We are supposed to have a robust democracy in Australia, but the reality is that we are only able to vote on a few selected issues. Vital policies, such as Defence and immigration, are not open to debate or discussion by citizens. The reason why? They know that the great majority of the public are now disadvantaged by the crowding of our cities and the associated rising costs. Most of the public would want to stop economic immigration and students gaining PR from using our education facilities. The only way we can change is from a grass-root level, and people must overcome their hesitancy about the "racism" accusations. With the over-lay of climate change, the price of our massive immigration policies will bite hard!

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-09-03 21:40

Permalink

If the paddock's full, shut the bloody gate!

Stuff the racist squirms. Only open the immigration gate if the existing stock are happy to accept. But since when have existing stock been asked? So don't be surprised why existing stock get pissed off by an influx of unwanted newcomers. If Govment wants to breed racism, ignoring locals is a darn good way to start. If Govment doesn't ask us first, it oughtn't assume! Grass roots opposition to immigration is fueled from Govment arrogance of local values.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2009-09-04 12:57

Permalink

Some online debates on immigration

You are absolutely right, Bob.

Chis Evans' claim to want "a more sophisticated debate" or, indeed, any debate about immigration has been shown to be disingenuous.

In fact, there have been many only online debates since Evan's announced ramping up immigration in May last year. Invariably, if population stability advocates are given a fair hearing, the immigration merchants lose the debate badly.

Here's one on Larvatus Prodeo that began in May last year, entitled "Will 'the great immigration debate' take place? ". The administrators promised to leave the debate open until November, but suddenly decided to close it on 18 June, because according to 'Kim',

This thread seems to have become rather unpleasantly uncivil and overly combative. I think it’s time to end it.

... as if words arising from peoples' understandable frustration and anger at politician's disregard for their wishes are worse than the reality of the consequences brought about by those politicians' decisions.

Another debate, in which not one single growth pusher could find his/her voice was in response to the article, implicitly in favour of unlimited immigration into Europe, "Fortress Europe: solving immigration by outsourced bouncers".

But, of course facts, evidence and logic count for nothing for politicians are resolved to give to the selfish elites, that they serve, what they want regardless of the wishes of their constituents.

Humanist (not verified)

Sun, 2009-09-06 19:33

Permalink

Invasion

Invasions happen in different ways. As our homeland was invaded violently, and we were invited to settle elsewhere, we did notice the stress of the natives on our increasing numbers. As only the very young and healthy were allowed to settle, they soon become a force in a community. They displaced the poorer and less able. They soon forced up prices of housing, and families were forced to scatter. There were tears from people at auctions, when one of the invaders bought a house, next to them. We have laws that protect "Heritage Places", the main reason is that people should have a sense of belonging to an "environment", yet no concern is given by the ruling class to the social heritage of a population. Now that I am older, I understand the tears of the invaded people, and their sometimes violent anger. How would I be? In a place, the ruling class often reminded me that it belonged to me and family, to protect and die for, only to see it freely given to strangers, and sometime former enemies. The Australian Immigration plan, is a long term plan merely to provide a Fortress against Asia, similar to the creation of Israel and Afghanistan. The added bonus, at the same time you have more sheep in the paddock to shear. Debate about population increase is not allowed. It sometime happens when people loose their guard, and voice a doubt, they quickly withdraw the remark. Its as if they were Holocaust deniers or questioned why New York was bombed! It may be good to stifle debate, and have total control of the sheep in the paddock. The ruling class Gods may be a better outcome, than unruly debate? Yet, I sometimes hunger for honesty and freedom of thought.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2009-09-03 11:39

Permalink

Have never seen such abandonment of responsibility by a Minister

Senator Evans said immigration should be the nation's labour agency, meaning a continued high intake of migrants ... Decisions about who came to Australia would increasingly be left to employers.

This is totally absurd.

Firstly, the Australian people should be the nation's labour agency, not foreigners.

Secondly, giving business groups carte blanche to decide who comes to Australia is reckless and idiotic in the extreme. It is nothing short of a green-light for open borders.

Chris Evans seems to be completely abrogating responsibility for immigration decisions and putting that responsibility in the hands of vested interests. This is astounding.

In all my time observing politics, I've never seen such utter abandonment of responsibility by a federal minister entrusted to serve the national interest.

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2009-09-04 16:00

Permalink

Another planet to invade in the next 50 years?

July last year the Bureau of Statistics announced that the nation's population grew at its fastest rate since 1988. The growth rate was 1.6 per cent, or 331,900 people. Net overseas migration contributed 56 per cent of that increase. However, according MP Kelvin Thompson, "under John Howard migration rates to Australia skyrocketed. In 1995-96 they were 82,000, by 2007-07 they were 148,000. The number of temporary entry visas, including students, has also skyrocketed from 2.8 million in 1995-96 to over 4 million in 2006-07." The rise may have started under the Howard government, but it has escalated under Labor! The issue of population was treated in a trivial manner by Rudd's 2020 Summit, which arrived at the following vision: "By 2020 we will have a sustainable population and consumption policy: while the population grows, net consumption should decrease." Really? Surely as population grows, net consumption demands will dramatically increase at a time when they are actually diminishing due to peak everything! An increasing population and an increasing demand for natural resources is not sustainable! Surely our leaders aren't basing their policies, and economic growth, on the likelihood of finding another planet to invade in the next 50 years?

Milly (not verified)

Tue, 2009-09-08 17:58

Permalink

Globalisation

Our population, workforce, agriculture, property ownership. infrastructures, education, trade, commerce and foreign affairs are being globalised under our noses! This is creeping into our lives, and citizens are silent! We do not have the economic power or populations of India or China, and our environment will not support it. We are being disadvantaged by these giants. Government decisions and policies are being dominated by global forces. However, while our economy may have not suffered the meltdown that other nations have, the costs for unsustainable growth will be forced onto all of us. Immigration affects us in rising living costs, congestion, climate change, jobs, education and training, limited natural resources - every aspect of our lives is being squeezed! Our leaders are being lured into making decisions that support economic growth, but few except the wealthy elite actually benefit. Nothing can grow forever!

Call for resignation of incompetent Immigration Minister

It's no business for big business

It's time to debate, people

Questions about the boom

Excerpts from Age article Migration rules set for revamp

Topic:

Comments

Age article on immigration

Minister Chris Evans should resign

There has never been a public debate on immigration!

If the paddock's full, shut the bloody gate!

Some online debates on immigration

Invasion

Have never seen such abandonment of responsibility by a Minister

Another planet to invade in the next 50 years?

Globalisation

Add comment

Filtered HTML

Tags in Topic

Help save injured wildlife

Recent comments