Comments
Brilliant! hope other Victorians also read it
We can't stop the population from ageing!
Mr Brumby needs to step down
Brumby on melbourne @ 5 million
The anti-democratic conspiracy
What is Anarchism?
Minchin's Maiden Speech
Found - early Minchin speech calling for small population
Date: 27-9-1999, Adjournment - Immigration (Full references at end of this excerpt from Hansard)
So, maybe it wasn't a maiden speech, but here it is - quite feisty and an historic and ironic document, considering where the Liberal Party later took us with immigration numbers and now the Rudd Labor government's massive and undemocratic population push:
Senator MINCHIN (South Australia) (7.20 p.m.) —I wish to speak tonight on a matter which I regard as a serious deficiency in Australian public life; that is, our lack of any population policy. I am moved to speak on this subject by a recent news report on immigration to Australia in 1994-95. The Adelaide Advertiser reported on 7 September 1995 that figures released by the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research showed a 25 per cent increase in immigration from the previous year. That is an extraordinary increase in one year. What is also extraordinary is that it was largely ignored by the media and by the parliament. It does appear that immigration is, in fact, a no-go area in Australia.
There were 87,428 immigrants in 1994-95 compared with 69,768 in the previous year. The bureau notes that nearly half the immigrants are still going to New South Wales—43 per cent to New South Wales; nearly twice as many as go to the next highest state, Victoria, which received 22 per cent. I think that is quite interesting in the light of New South Wales Premier Carr's recent comments on the population problems, as he sees them, in New South Wales.
The concern raised by the latest figures is the fact that such a big increase in the immigration intake has occurred while unemployment in this country remains so high. We had an MPI on that subject today. Unemployment is still at 8.3 per cent—a very high level. There are still nearly three-quarters of a million Australians who cannot get work but who want it. The economy is slowing down. It is being deliberately slowed down by the government. So the likelihood is that unemployment will at some point start to rise again. Even the government's budget, which one must say is an optimistic document, admits that unemployment will not be less than eight per cent by June next year.
Yet, in the face of all that—three-quarters of a million unemployed—the government is accelerating the immigration program. I am not talking about whether there is immigration or not; I am talking about the pace of the increase in immigration. To have a 25 per cent increase in one year really makes no sense to the Australian community in the face of the very high level of unemployment. It particularly does not make much sense when you note—as I do not think many Australians do—that the unemployment rate for migrants who have arrived in the last five years is 22 per cent. That means that almost one in four of recent migrants who wish to obtain a job cannot get a job and are unemployed.
In fact, the unemployment rate for all migrants who arrived in the last 20 years—that is, since 1976—is above the national unemployment rate of 8.3 per cent. Yet, in the face of all that, the government is proposing another increase. We see that in 1995-96, the current financial year, the government has set aside an extra 14,000 places, which will take immigration back over the 100,000 mark. I just do not know how the government can justify such a rapid increase in immigration when we still have three-quarters of a million Australians who cannot find work. I really wonder what the trade unions think of all this.
The real issue, in my view, is that the government is threatening what is fragile community support for a big immigration program by this sort of rapid increase in the intake. I note that the community has really already given up on Labor on this issue of immigration. The Newspoll survey published on 20 September, which sought the attitudes of people to the handling of various issues by Labor and the coalition, showed that voters think that the coalition can handle the issue of immigration better than Labor.
That is not a surprising finding when you look at what has been an extraordinary roller-coaster ride on immigration under Labor—incredible fluctuations in numbers year by year. The net migration in Labor's first year, 1984, was 49,000; by 1988, only four years later, it was 149,000—an extraordinary increase in four years. In 1989 it was 157,000; in 1990 it went back to 124,000; and in 1991 it went down to 86,000. It is just like the big dipper at Luna Park.
Former finance minister Peter Walsh was very revealing in his book about the way this government conducts immigration policy. He noted in his book that it took five years of this government before it even had a major debate on immigration. It said:
Early in 1988, the first major cabinet debate on immigration took place.
He then says, in looking back over the five years at that point:
Thus three sequences of blow outs and cave-ins boosted arrivals from 70 to 115 thousand. The next year—
that is 1989—
it blew out again to 140 thousand. Apart from the unplanned and unintended doubling of numbers in four years, the composition at the instigation of the ethnic mafia, also changed towards `family reunion', which debased migrant employability. Frequent Ministerial changes—four Ministers in the first five years—did not facilitate the development of coherent on-going policy.
An understatement, if ever there was one.
This is the hopeless adhockery of immigration policy which former Labor minister Peter Walsh complained of and which Barry Jones in his own report—a very interesting report on Australia's population carrying capacity—complained of. The report is by the National President of the Labor Party, and the committee has a majority of Labor members on it. Its recommendation No. 2 is well worth reading in the light of what I regard as this ad hoc approach to immigration. Mr Jones's committee recommended:
The Australian Government should adopt a population policy which explicitly sets out options for long term population change, in preference to the existing situation where a de facto population policy emerges as a consequence of year by year decisions on immigration intake taken in an ad hoc fashion, such decisions being largely determined by the state of the economy in the particular year and with little consideration of the long term effects.
There is your own national president—the national president of the party in government—describing his government's policy as ad hoc. I strongly support that committee's recommendation. I note that it was a recommendation from a majority of government members. It is about time the government responded to that report in full, not just the interim report we have had.
I want to indicate tonight my personal support for committee option IV in looking at the future for Australia. Option IV was for a stable population in the possible range of 17 million to 23 million, which the committee notes has `strong community support'. I do not think anyone in Australia can read Tim Flannery's outstanding book The Future Eaters and not recognise the significant environmental limits to Australia's population carrying capacity—that is really what was being referred to in the Jones report.
Very interestingly, New South Wales Labor Premier Bob Carr referred to this matter in May. I want to quote what he said about all this. He said:
. . . the debate ought to be about the carrying capacity of the continent—a continent that has lousy soils, fragile vegetation and depleted and degraded river systems.
I do not often agree with Labor premiers, but I must agree with Mr Carr. I suspect that, like me, Premier Carr has read The Future Eaters and been moved by what he read. What was very sad was the condemnation that Mr Carr incurred right across Australia. It was a disgraceful example of the sort of intimidation and intolerance—
Senator Bob Collins interjecting—
Senator MINCHIN —Certainly. The criticism of Mr Carr was not confined to people outside the Liberal Party. I condemn everyone who attacked Mr Carr for making a very sensible contribution to what is an important debate in Australia, and a debate we have to have. It is very sad that in Australia, allegedly a free democracy, a bloke like Bob Carr cannot make those sorts of comments without being attacked from all sides.
In my view, both major parties, including my own, need to recognise the need for a population policy and need to recognise that the immigration program that the government, of whatever colour, presides over must be determined within the context of that population policy, which, as Mr Jones says, is not the case at the moment. The population policy that the government has, whether it is Labor or coalition, must recognise the real constraints on our continent's carrying capacity.
Here are the references for the speech:
Immigration, Database, Senate Hansard, Date 27-09-1995, Source Senate Parl No.
Electorate SA, Page 1608, Adjournment, System ID, chamber/hansards/1995-09-27/0175
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=CHAMBER;group=;holdingType=;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1995-09-27%2F0175;orderBy=_fragment_number;page=;query=(Dataset%3Ahansards%20SearchCategory_Phrase%3A%22senate%22)%20Context_Phrase%3A%22adjournment%22%20Electorate_Phrase%3A%22sa%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22senator%20minchin%22;querytype=;rec=4;resCount=
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Minchin speech a real mystery but some oblique references found
More anti-growthism from Minchin
Okay, still haven't located that parliamentary speech, but here's some more evidence of his historic outlook, which should be of interest:
This is from Katherine Betts and Michael Guilding, “The Growth lobby and Australia’s immigration policy”People and Place, vol. 14, no. 4, 2006, page 45
http://www.population.org.au/issues/Growth_lobby_and_immigration.pdf
Though immigration had become very unpopular in the early 1990s it was not an issue in the March 1996 election. After its victory, however, the Howard Government embarked on a program of immigration reform, including a reduction in numbers.24 By 1999, public hostility to immigration had eased considerably.25 But the moderate decrease in migrant numbers meant that business leaders, long accustomed to high immigration as a matter of course, found themselves in new territory. The advent of a non-Labor, presumably pro-business, government which reduced the intake in fair economic times was novel.
Disquiet in business circles was apparent in a 2001 interview conducted with Senator Nick Minchin, Industry Minister and a member of Howard's cabinet. The journalist, Maxine McKew, reported that Minchin was a convinced immigration skeptic and very aware of business pressure on the Government to increase migrant intake:
But he [Minchin] parts company [with business] on a key point that's advanced by many corporate leaders and industry bodies-the need to dramatically increase our population. Can a market of a mere 20 million, it's argued, ever really be taken seriously? Over and over the message from business is the same. Entrepreneurial cultures welcome immigrants on the basis of a simple proposition: who knows where the talent might be? Minchin clearly is unimpressed. 'With great respect to business, they speak, not unnaturally, completely out of selfinterest.
They want more people to sell more widgets to. But there is a world of 6 billion customers out there, so I say: “Get out there and sell to the world”'. It's time, Minchin says, that Australian business 'stopped trying to bully governments and the Australian people into a view that we should double our population'. This must go down a treat with assorted CEOs, I suggest. 'Whenever I have this debate with businessmen, I say, for God's sake, read Tim Flannery's The Future Eaters.
The fact is there are severe physical limitations in terms of the population we can sustain on this continent'. You sound like … Bob Carr. 'Bob and I have a lot in common on this issue. But it is all there in Tim's book. We made this mistake with European colonisation, we all tried to believe we could live like Europeans and fare like Europeans. But this ain't Europe.
It's a desert'.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Brisconnect shares
More on Minchin on population
Found this one, which demonstrates his purported attitude:
http://www.csiro.au/files/mediarelease/mr1999/FutureMakersFutureTakers.htm
Media Release - Ref 1999/60 - Mar 31 , 1999
Future Makers, Future Takers: Life in Australia 2050
There are three political strategies, and three alternative routes on the road-map to Australia's future.
That's the choice offered by a CSIRO scientist in a new book that attempts to give a rational guide to getting Australia to the year 2050 in good shape.
"Today's Australians have to consider the big choices which will ensure that our grand-children have a good quality of life," says Minister for Science and Technology Senator Nick Minchin.
"Should we be going down an economic prosperity path using a strategy of self-regulated markets and small government? Or should we be following the 'conservative development' path of active intervention by a strong central government?
"Or the third alternative, 'post-materialism', putting a cap on development and the economy, and building political and business structures which are based on stakeholder participation and collaboration."
Senator Minchin today launched the new book by Dr Doug Cocks of CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, Future Makers, Future Takers. Dr Cocks creates three hypothetical political parties - the Conservative Development Party, the Economic Growth Party, and the Post-Materialism Party. He gives each party a detailed policy platform, and rigorously draws out the consequences of each of them getting into power.
The book is subtitled 'Life in Australia 2050'.
Dr Cocks emphasizes that he does not favour any one particular option of the three that he presents, and he asks readers to "resist going partisan, as soon as they think they know which strategy best reflects their political allegiances."
According to Senator Minchin, Future Makers, Future Takers is likely to stimulate important discussion about Australia's future directions.
"While there has been lively community debate about a number of matters of political form, decisions which we take today will have a real and material effect on the way our children and grandchildren will live their lives," says Senator Minchin.
"Although Doug Cocks is careful to avoid taking sides in his three scenarios, he is urgently concerned about the need to avoid 'short-termism' when choosing paths to our nation's future," says Senator Minchin.
"The way we educate our children today will determine their capacity to find employment and fulfilment as adults. Big infrastructure projects like airports and the Very Fast Train will still be operating in fifty years, and will have profound effects on population densities," says Senator Minchin.
"We need to consider, today, the consequences of continuing our relatively rapid population growth. Do we want the mega-cities which could be the consequence of a large-scale immigration program?" asks Senator Minchin. "What will our grandchildren inherit of our natural environment? Are today's government decisions going to have the effect of ensuring sustainability and profitability in industries such as mining, forestry, and agriculture in fifty years time?"
According to Senator Minchin, Future Maker, Future Takers will become a valuable handbook for all Australians concerned with future policy directions, and should be closely studied by politicians, and their advisers, of all political persuasions.
Future Makers, Future Takers will be launched by Senator Minchin on Wednesday 31 March at 5.30, in the Mural Hall, Parliament House, Canberra.
It is published by the University of New South Wales Press, and costs $39.95.
Review copies are available from Maria Foster on (02) 9664 0909 or email [email protected]
More information from:
Dr Doug Cocks 02-6242 1741
David Salt 02-6242 1645
0419 283 154
Monica van Wensveen 02-6242 1651
0418 168 535
*Note that to attend the launch you will need a Parliamentary pass. This can be arranged by
calling Shona Miller before 1.30 pm on Wednesday 31 March
Shona Miller 02-6242 1681
Contacts
Mr Nick Goldie
Journalist
PO Box 225
Dickson ACT 2602
Phone: +61 2 6276 6478
Fax: +61 2 6276 6821
Mobile: 0417 299 586
Email: [email protected]
Ms Monica van Wensveen
Communicator
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems
GPO Box 284
Canberra ACT 2601
Phone: +61 2 6242 1651
Fax: +61 2 6242 1555
Mobile: 0417 561 802
Email: [email protected]
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Bizarre re Minchin speech
Minchin's maiden speech
Governments are not able to guarantee water technology
Getting at the facts on water recyling
Anarchy Links
Hi Kadet,
They are on the way. It would be great to claim that I have simply been building the suspense but alas, there is greater complexity than that. I have nearly finished the intro piece regarding Anarchy and will post it, with some relevant links, very soon!
Regards
Andrew
Population growth and carbon emissions
Former Labor MP Barry Cohen on the perils of population growth
Barry Cohen, former federal Labor MP, makes a strong case against further immigration-fuelled population growth:
Danger in growth for growth's sake
Barry Cohen
August 06, 2007
Scene: The House of Representatives
Date: 29-5-2007
Time: 2pm
Program: Question Time
IS the Prime Minister aware that the basic reasons for the introduction of Australia's excellent immigration policy by the Chifley government in 1946 and continued by successive Liberal governments are considered by many people to be no longer applicable? Does he realise that vast population increases, once considered highly desirable, are now being questioned due to the pressure it places on education, health and social welfare services, housing and land prices and the consequent diminution in the quality of life that overcrowded cities have on our environment? Will his Government bring down a white paper on immigration so that a cost-benefit evaluation can be made?
Good question isn't it? It shows that at least one backbencher is on the ball and understands the crisis Australia is facing. There's one problem. I lied about the date. The question was asked on June 10, 1970. Modesty prevents me naming the prescient backbencher.
The prime minister, who, at the time, happened to be John Gorton, was shocked at the question and appalled that it had been asked by a Labor MP. Fred Daly, then Labor's shadow immigration minister, was none too pleased either. Questioning Labor's sacred post-war immigration policy was not on his or his colleagues' agenda.
All had been nurtured, since World War II, on three fundamental beliefs: that Australia, having just fought a war of survival with the Japanese, had to substantially increase its population to ensure that it had the numbers to defeat "the yellow hordes" who were casting their greedy eyes in Australia's direction; to justify our occupation of the vast open spaces and to provide a substantial population that would enable our manufacturing industries to develop the economies of scale that would enable us to compete with the world's large economies: the US, Britain, Europe and Japan.
All of the above was conventional wisdom among Australia's political parties. It ensured bi-partisanship no matter who was in government. "Populate or perish" was our national slogan.
Gradually, Australians came to realise that basing Australia's defence on population increases was beginning to look ridiculous. With billions on our doorstep a few million extra Australians would make little difference. Increased trade, cultural exchange and diplomacy would have far greater effect.
So too with the economies of scale argument that gradually disappeared as our manufacturing industry wilted under the pressure of the Asian tigers. Mining, agriculture, tourism, education and specialised manufacturing that did not require large numbers of low-paid employees, ensured a growing and prosperous economy.
As the old argument faded a new reason emerged for increasing our population. As medical science extended the average life span, an increased population was essential to support the swelling ranks of the retired. It is no surprise the business community enthused about that one. Immigration provided them with a continually expanding market with little effort on their part.
At the same time, while there was growing concern about the deterioration in the quality of life, particularly in our cities, there was little public debate about the cause of the deterioration: more and more people. Very few made the connection.
In 1970, when Australia's population was about 12 million (it was 5 million when I was born in 1935), in a speech in reply to the budget, I asked: "We all know that if we follow unthinkingly the present program we will reach almost any figure we care to name - 25, 50, 100, 200 million and so on. But the question is when? Will it be by the year 2000, 2050, 2100, 2200 or 2300?"
After my speech, the then minister for immigration, Phillip Lynch, invited me to his office to ask me what I was on about. I told him: "You can't have an immigration policy divorced from a population policy. Growth for growth's sake is nonsense. It's a question of how many people Australia can contain and still maintain a high quality of life." We should be asking, "What is Australia's optimum population, when should we get there and what do we do when we arrive? Slay the first born?"
Shortly afterwards Lynch announced the appointment of W. D. Borrie to head up an inquiry into Australia's population. Unfortunately, when the final report was tabled in 1978 it made no recommendations about numbers, merely stating that there were various schools of thought that favoured population levels ranging from 14 million to 50 million.
In the decades that followed nothing much changed and then suddenly the debate about climate change exploded. Headlines daily scream about greenhouse gases, global warming, water shortages, air and water pollution, urban congestion and so on. What had, for years, been primarily the concern of the dark greens overnight became mainstream. The worst drought in our history suggests the Cassandras might be right. Even the sceptics, agree that action must be taken.
What is bizarre about the debate is that rarely is the connection made between the apocalyptic scenario painted by eminent scientists and the demand for a greatly expanded population. Why is that?
In part because public figures are nervous that any call by them for a slowdown in population growth will be interpreted as less immigrants which the multicultural lobby will call racism. That is nonsense but it will bedevil any attempt to develop a concerted attack on the environmental catastrophe many believe Australia is facing.
If our population continues to expand over the next 40 years as it has during the previous 40, by 2050 Australia will have a population more than 40 million. If that happens, all the solutions now being proposed by politicians and public figures won't amount to a hill of beans.
Barry Cohen was a federal Labor MP from 1969 to 1990.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22193118-7583,00.html
New resident horrified to learn of enforced mass medication
The case of Peanut the dog
U.S. immigration
As an American, I am deeply troubled by my country's ridiculous rates of immigration.
Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. Immigration, both legal and illegal, are fueling this growth.
I'm not talking just about the obvious problems that we see in the news - growing dependence on foreign oil, carbon emissions, soaring commodity prices, environmental degradation, etc. I'm talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight other countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. The U.S. is one of the few developed countries still experiencing third world-like population growth, most of which is due to immigration. It's absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that's impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)
Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph. I just don't know how else to inject this new perspective into the immigration debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.
Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"
Sea Shepherd’s direct tactics embarrass do-nothing govt
Briconnections shares
still waiting??
Canine and human crimes
The Amygdala
Toowoomba was to be a recycled water "living laboratory"
Kulu is wrong at least in regard to water recycling.
The residents of Toowoomba were indeed intended to be guinea pigs in the consumption of recycled water. This was explicitly stated in a document released under FOI legislation which stated that Toowoomba residents was to be the "living laboratory". (I can't precisely date or say who snet it ot whom, but it was show in a presentation by Snow Manners at the meeting of 15 November.)
It was a "living laboratory" because, contrary to the misinformation spread by Beattie, no-one else in the world uses recycling water for drinking. Singapore makes use of some recycled water, but, by law, it must be piped into the house separately. It is not used in London, although in Essex they have water recycling facilities which are only meant to be used in extreme drought conditions.
Nevertheless I think your point, that at least one unpalatable alternative must be adopted to get us back out of the hole that the Queensland Government and their corporate masters have gotten us into until we stabilise our population, is a good one.
It seems to me that the least undesirable of all the alternatives would be simply to endure whatever water restrictions we need to to get through our water crisis. The alternatives of more dams, mining underground aquifers, desalination plants or piping water in from far away will only make our circumstances worse in the longer term.
Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.
In a word, Relocalise
The practical implication of social scale and consciousness
No choice but to engage with 'complex and remote' institutions
I largely agree with Greg's comment.
However, the danger is the implication contained within it that it may be altogether impossible for grass-roots activists to stop our society heading towards the cliff as it appears to be because of the scale of our political structures which are the consequence of overpopulation. As Greg put it:
... The 'masses' are both too massive, and too remote from their careless leaders to be functionally competent in their social synthesis and embrace of 'the truth' in any matter. Additionally, the dynamic architecture of these matters is generally too complex and too remote from peoples' daily lives to successfully grasp within social processing modes.
The notion that people can successfully interact as rational individuals, and thereby successfully manage complex socio-political conditions is one that many thinking people irrationally believe.
All available evidence suggests that, to be effective, society must be functionally autonomous at a scale that is sufficiently intimate, inclusive and interpersonally accountable to enable the full inclusion and genuine respect of the emotional realities operative within the ALL of the human consciousness affected by the matters being decided.
It may prove to be correct that we simply won't be able to 'successfully manage complex socio-political conditions', but we don't yet know that for certain and unless we do we stand no chance of being able to pull our society back from the brink.
So, it is imperative that all of us engage together with other like-minded people with whatever political institutions we can until we have taken control of those institutions out of the hands of our global wealthy elites before it is too late.
Ideally it should happen in local communities where the scale of political institutions are (or were before the enforced council amalgamations of 2007 in Queensland). However, this is not possible for many. Often the local communities themselves have become corrupted and grass-roots activists find themselves in the minorities and often ostracised at that. Even when this is not the case, local Governments can still be over-ruled by their state and federal governments who tend to be more firmly in the pockets of corporations.
So, one way or another, we have no choice but to engage with these 'complex and remote' institutions such as state governments, federal governments and even such international governance bodies as the United Nations.
Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.
Prevailing social attitudes make all technology anti-environment
Re: Vivienne's observation,
93:6 against Nth-Sth pipeline on-line poll
From Yea to Yarra Glen on Melba Hwy
What if people become ill? Will they be able to sue the SEQ Gov?
Coal to liquids
The Greens have turned the corner
Anna Bligh leading us into a banana republic
Re: Rod Cronnie
The Amygdala
Hi Catherine,
Sensational Post! Unfortunately, Mr Rudd and his predecessors are all too familiar with the psychology behind 'the amygdala', that part of the human brain that still dominates the masses behavior, primarily from the perspectives of 'fear and greed'. I know, he said those words recently in relation to the so called 'financial crisis', but I wrote the original article entitled 'Fear and Greed', for Margo Kingston's Web Diary, back in 2002. If you'd like me to post a copy to 'Can Do Better', let me know.
Anyhow, we can only hope that one day the masses will reach the point where they can engage their frontal cortex in order to 'think' with a degree of consciousness, about these issues. Humankind has unfortunately, only managed this level of awareness three (3) times in its entire history. None of those occasions were driven by people who desired the 'scientific management' of the people. Those occasions were educed by philosophers!
Alas, I fear my time may well end before I see the Renaissance!
Kindest Regards
Andrew
Justifying Brishen's holistic critique of Suzuki
Disgust at Senate vote against population policy
Deep in denial
Bob Brown
The environment and population implications are too abstract!
Like smoking, only the "good" side is evident at the time, and the "bad" effects too far off to worry about! This is the same as immigration and environmental threats. The "good" side is commercial as more people prop up the demand for goods and services. The long term implications are too "far off" and abstract for our politicians to ponder! They will be well and truly superannuated off by the time our food shortages hit us, and climate change makes survival more difficult and the cost of compensating for it too expensive! It is easier to understand the financial figures of economic growth! Long term planning and livability is not on their agenda - only short-term gains and a "happy" electorate that will return them in the next election!
LTG CSIRO
Metaphors explained
LTG CSIRO
CSIRO study on 'Limits to Growth'
Multiculturalism and the environmental movement
My 2c worth on the cost of oil
Why are we at US$60 a barrel now?
Recycled Water, Fluoridated Water
Climate change refugees and defence are vexed issues
I think this is a vexed question in many ways, Tim, and we need to approach it very carefully.
Climate change refugees
I think the solution to this problem, if one is to be found, must lie somewhere between the extremes of complete acceptance of all climate change refugees on the one hand and total refusal to accept any on the other.
I believe that we should be focusing now on the prevention of economic migration and natural population growth both here and in the Third World so that when we have to confront the climate change refugee question, we may just have a little more space in which to place any climate change refugees should we then decide to do so.
If this awful day comes, then I believe that we should then ask ourselves the hard question as to whether we possibly can take any refugees without completely destroying our own environment. We can't know one way or the other what the answer to this question will be in advance and should not definitively pre-empt one way or the other what our decision as a society should be at that point.
Defence
Defence is also problematic. The Canadian Armed Forces does have a right to defend its own borders from both invaders and illegal immigrants. However it also engaged in an illegitimate war in Afghanistan, which is based on the fraudulent pretext that the principle perpetrators of the 9/11 terrorist atrocity came from within the Afghanistan. Whilst until recently I accepted this lie and, hence, the legitimacy of the current Afghan War, I have since become familiar with the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement and no longer do.
Thus the Afghan war is only yet another of many unjust wars conducted since at least the end of the Second World War and the Canadian Armed forces, and, for that matter, the Australian Defence Forces, should be playing no further part in it.
South East Queenslanders industrial sewage recycling guinea pigs
You don't seem to have been following the news lately, Rod.
The claim that everone overesas is using industrially recycled water is a lie peddled by the Queensland Government and the Toowoomba City coouncil at the time they tried and failed to win the supprt of Toowomba residents for water recycling in a 2006 referendum.
From "Flush then drink in the Sunshine State" of 30 Oct 08:
"PETER Collignon is a worried man. 'Nobody in the world has done what southeast Queensland is about to do,' says the eminent microbiologist and Australian National University professor of clinical medicine. 'What is about to happen is the reversal of 150 years of public health policy in Australia because sewage will be put into the drinking water of more than two million people. Everywhere else in the world, the emphasis is on keeping sewage out of drinking water. We should be concerned about what Queensland is doing, especially as it is being looked at by the rest of the country as a solution to water supply problems.'
"In February, southeast Queenslanders will become the first Australians to drink their own waste when 60 megalitres of recycled sewage a day is pumped into Wivenhoe Dam, Brisbane's main water source.
"...
"Collignon insists that contrary to claims by the Queensland Government, the project is unprecedented. 'Nowhere in the world is the proportion of drinking water that is recycled sewage anything like 10 or 25 per cent. There's never been a population of this size that has been subjected to this.'"
"Collignon rejects government claims that a seven-stage treatment process will ensure the water is safe. He raises three major health concerns."
"Collignon says the technology is not available to detect minute quantities of viruses, some potentially fatal, which may enter the water supply. 'The quantity of virus must effectively be reduced 10 billion-fold to make it safe. If you have a 1 per cent leakage through a tear in the reverse osmosis membranes, then the water is not safe.'
"The second area of concern raised by Collignon is the delay of one or more days before the results of tests for E.coli and other dangerous bacteria can become available.
"'By that time, you will have substantial quantities of contaminated water in the dam and although you can do things to reduce the damage, there is potential for infections to get through. There will be no real time testing being done to get results immediately.'
"Third, Collignon says it is inevitable some antibiotics and other natural and man-made chemicals will not be filtered out. 'It is of concern if various estrogens and hormones are being recycled, and it is not good if antibiotics and other drugs are being recycled.'
From "Support wavers for use of recycled sewage water" of 1 Nov 08:
"The process of sewage and waste recycling being used in southeast Queensland is not used anywhere else in the world and, while the Government strongly defends the integrity of the process, there are doubters.
"This week, two academics from the Australian National University, Patrick Troy and Peter Collignon, cast doubt on whether the recycled water scheme was safe.
"Professor Collignon, one of Australia's leading infectious disease experts, argued that the technology did not exist to prevent recycled sewage from contaminating the water supply.
"Professor Troy, whose expertise is in planning, said the safety of recycled water had not been proved in any long-term epidemiological studies. 'It will not be possible to remove all biologically active waste molecules from the system,' he said. 'The probability is that something like 8 per cent of these impurities will get through, and that is assuming the system is working properly.'"
From "Health chief out of loop on recycling" of 4 Nov 08:
"THE bureaucrat charged with safeguarding the health of Queenslanders was not called on to approve the adding of recycled sewage to the drinking water of the state's southeast.
"The Bligh Government left Queensland Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young out of the approval loop on the Western Corridor Reycled Water Project.
"Instead, the scheme was given a health clearance by the Office of the Water Supply Regulator, an arm of the state Department of Natural Resources and Water.
"The revelation came as Dr Young's department admitted it did not know how much hospital waste would be recycled.
...
"(Queensland Health population health senior director) Dr Selvey said the quantity of hospital waste that was dumped into the sewage system -- and would therefore be recycled as drinking water -- was not known
...
"Australian National University microbiology head Peter Collignon said hospital wastes should not be included in recycled water.
"Hospitals have a high concentration of toxins and bacteria so there is a bigger potential for contamination," said Professor Collignon, also Canberra Hospital's infectious diseases director
.
...
He said recycled water in rivers in Europe had resulted in elevated levels of hormones, which had changed the sex of fish.
"We don't know what the effects on people are but the changes in fish suggest it is not a good idea."
Recycling water
Gosh! I hope none of these experts ever travel overseas to such places as Britain, France, Germany, some of the USA and Asia who've been recycling water for years.
The term attention seeking nobodies comes to mind.
First Home Owner's Loan
Fluoridation
Sheila, you have hit the
Premier John Brumby has broken an election commitment
Kangaroos
Recycled water
Even choosing between two poor alternatives is often necessary
Not just South Australia - every State similar bad stuff
Online marathons not for everybody
Online debates, even with pig-headed cornucopians, have value
Tim, whilst we all have to prioritise, and all of us don't have time to argue to the very end with pig-headed corunucopians, it is my experience that it can pay off, if you remain focused and don't fall for the usual debating tricks.
If you don't fall into traps you can find that debates are usually quickly concluded. The debate over your article has "Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity?" of 16 Sep 08 concluded (for the time being at least) over three weeks ago after only 44 posts with mine being the last. My chief protagonist clearly judged that her debaters' tricks and obfuscation were unlikely to fool many others if she persisted.
Also, a large number of growthist and pro-free-market trolls, who have, in the past, caused me immense trouble, now stay well away from any forums in which I participate.
I think such debates can quickly show many undecided people where the truth is most likely to lie in these controversies. About two months ago I listened to a radio debate between 'sceptic' Michael Shermer and Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in order to come to a decision about who was most likely telling the truth in regard to claims that the Bush administration itself orchestrated the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
After I had finished listening to that debate I had completely lost what remaining respect I had for Shermer and had concluded that Richard Gage was most likely telling the truth. Since then I started my own online discussion about 9/11 partly in order to further sort out the issue in my own head. There are currently 243 posts of which I have contributed 79. I have been savagely attacked on that forum, but the complete lack of any convincing argument from those who insist upon the veracity of the official U.S. Government explanation of 9/11 has further confirmed in my mind the truth of the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement. So, it has been useful to me and it can be useful to others, particularly if I realise my plan to write a summary of that discussion.
I have been planning for some time to write summaries of the many debates I have been involved in with links back to the actual forums.
Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.
Victoria is a timberbox ready to burn!
Built for shelter, not prosperity
City populations need to go en-masse to logging sites
stop immigration
Why is Michelle Grattan regarded as a quality journalist?
I am puzzled that so many people I know, who should know better, have a high regard for Michelle Grattan.
On this occasion, at least she has discussed the issue at hand, even if only to parrot the establishment position on immigraton.
However, quite often she fails even to do that. Her coverage of the debate of the legislation to fully privatise Telstra back in September 2005 was abysmal. As to even discuss the issue at hand would almost certainly have entailed making her audience aware of the stupidity of privatisation, she did not. Instead she focused exclusively on statements of the obvious about the wheeling and dealing to get the necessary majority of the Senators on side with the Government in order to ram through the legislation. I listened to fantastic debates in both houses of Parliament, but never a word of these would ever reported by Grattan on radio the next day. 'Democracy' and 'accountability' were two words which seem to be entirely missing from her vocabulary. The Government cut Senate discussion time and Senate committee hearing times in order to ram through its legislation with the minimum of scrutiny, without any critical comment coming from Grattan, that I can recall.
At one stage during the 2004 election campaign Grattan did a very good impression of a mindless bimbo. Both Labor and the Coalition were attempting to outbid each other in offering tax cuts. To this her response was words to the effect of, "Each side want to give me so much money! I just don't know who to vote for!"
Evidently she expected us to believe that politicians were intending to generously shower us with gifts that were theirs to give and not taken from our pockets in the first place. Of course, it would never have occurred to her to remind her audience that tax cuts necessarily mean that less money will be available for Government programs, particularly for the urgently needed repair of our damaged environment. Of course, this is the impression that run-of-the-mill hack political journalists routinely also try to give, but I would have thought we were entitled to better from one supposedly so much more sophisticated and experienced.
The sooner the ABC dispenses with Michelle Grattan's services the better for its audience.
Audio of ABC Newsradio of Sharman Stone interview
Fairfax follows up the attack
First-past-the-post a double edged sword
One dimensional policies from our government
No fan of proportional representation
No case to put up with first-past-the-post has been made
Preferential voting
Why are News Ltd propagandists given air time on the ABC?
(This comment was posted to ABC Radio National's National Interest guest book in response to an interview with Dr David Burchill concerning NSW state politics.)
What a shallow analysis of NSW politics by Dr David Burchill that was!
I guess it should have been no great surprise to me to learn that he was a regular columnist for that shameless propaganda arm of the New World Order, namely Rupert Murdoch's Australian newspaper. (To get some idea of just how appallingly the Australian misreported the NSW electricity privatisation issue, read Media contempt for facts in NSW electricity privatisation debate of 18 Sep 08.)
Burchill blames the NSW Labor Party administration and the Union movement for the trouble that the NSW government got into when it attempted to privatise electricity.
What about the NSW public, who were never informed by Costa and Iemma of their plans to privatise electricity in the 2007 elections, and who explicitly rejected privatisation in the 1999 elections and who, throughout all the many months of the recent conflict over privatisation remained 79%-86% opposed to privatisation in the face of media misinformation and taxpayer-funded pro-privatisation propaganda?
What an appalling outrage against democracy that was!
Thank goodness that the NSW Labor Party administration and the NSW union movement, for all of their faults, together with the Greens, Independents, and NSW state Liberals and Nationals, stood up to Iemma, Costa and the NSW corporate sector.
I urge the ABC to make use of proper commentators and analysts and to reduce its reliance upon those on Rupert Murdoch's payroll - David Burchill, Greg Sheridan, Paul Kelly and Phillip Adams to name only a few.
Postscript: The second and third paragraphs of the above comment was read out on the feedback section The National Interest program of Friday 24 Oct 08 - 27 Oct 08.
Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.
Canada's anachronistic and stupid first-past-the-post system
I think Tim's article glosses over some very serious problems with the Canadian electoral system.
However correct he is about the Canadian Green Party's cowardice on the population and immigration question, I think it needs to be acknowledged that Elizabeth May's result in her own riding of Central Nova was impressive. She achieved a vote of 12,620 or 32.24% of the vote compared to the 18,239 votes or 46.60% of the victorious Conservative Party candidate.
Across Canada, the Greens achieved a total vote of 6.80% -- a not altogether insignificant result -- yet achieved zero representation in Parliamament. Had Canadians not been saddled with the appallingly undemocratic first-past-the-post voting system, it is likely that the Greens' votes would have been considerably higher. As it was many Canadian Green supporters would have felt obligated to cast their vote for other less preferable candidates in order to prevent even worse candidates from winning. Indeed Elizabeth May herself made this reasonable suggestion to many of her supporters and was savagely attacked for having done so.
Very frequently, where first-past-the-post electoral systems are employed, electorates (or what are referred to as 'ridings' in Canada) are saddled with representatives who are strongly opposed by the majority of electors. On quite a few occasions whole countries in which the first-past-the-post system is used, governments, which have been strongly opposed by the majority of electors, have been able to win office. This has happened on a number of occasions in the UK, Canada and the US.
A very simple remedy to this is the preferential voting system practiced in Australia. (In the US, where it has not yet been adopted, it is referred to by its proponents as "instant run-off".) The electors simply place numbers starting from 1 in the boxes for each of the listed candidates in the order of their preference. If their most preferred candidate does not achieve a majority and receives the least number of votes, then that vote is added to the tally of the candidate which has that voter's second preference. This process continues until one candidate achieves an outright majority.
It only requires a small amount of additional work to count preferential votes.
Preferential voting is not necessarily the same as proportional representation in which a number of candidates can be elected to each constituency, thereby allowing parties with smaller support to win representation. In countries like Canada proportional representation would almost certainly allow minor parties such as the Greens to achieve some representation as they do in various local, state and national parliaments in Australia.
Whether the preferential voting system is adopted in its single- or multiple-member-constituency forms, there is absolutely no justification for Canada or any country to persist with the first-past-the-post system. It is a stupid anachronism that should long ago have been consigned to the garbage bin. That it has not been made a greater issue in countries like Canada, the UK and the US is astonishing.
Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.
VCAT a vehicle to cram people into Victoria for developer profit
VCAT is not about consultation or serving the community to improve planning and living standards, but to help developers cram more people and infrastructures into Melbourne in line with the Melbourne 2030 plan! More people means more "prosperity", for developers and businesses, and governments. The allusive prosperity is not for the average person - their financial, housing and lifestyles are deteriorating! Councils, representing the rate-payers, should be the best source of how to balance community needs. However, they are easily over-ridden by VCAT. They are not about democracy but about State government bureaucracy and heavy-handed tactics to rake in more stamp duty, charges and taxes.
'Interesting' indeed
Peter Garrett's performance
It was interesting to note that Water Minister Peter Garrett approved the North South Pipeline [which permits Melbourne Water to extract 75 megalitres of Eildon Dam water a year] before the high security foodbowl irrigators were granted 4% of their allocation. It's worth remembering that 42% of Australia's food comes from the Murray Darling Basin. Irrigators pay for their water allocation irrespective of whether they get 100% of their allocation or they get nothing. Irrigators water bills can be $36,000 even when there is no water available. Melbourne Water will report on the amount of water extracted from the Murray Darling Basin after the water is taken.
Happy birthday Tim
A Vote for the Opposition is an Endorsement of Growthism
Removal of Australia's equivalent of Harper was essential
Tim,
I am not an expert on Canada, but if we had not removed John Howard Australia's equivalent of Stephen Harper, this country would effectively be a dictatorship today. That creep squandered over AU$120million in taxpayers money in order to indoctrinate Australians into accepting the his slave labour (so-called) Work Choices legislation that he had not even put to them in the previous 2004 elections. Had he gotten away with this and won the 2007 elections an unbelievably dangerous precedent would have been set (and this is only one of a large number of examples I could give). It may well have undermined the morale of grass roots activists for years and his power would have been entrenched practically forever.
Obviously Kevin Rudd leaves a great deal to be desired and his raising of immigration levels was particularly concerning. Nevertheless, having asserted in 2007 the principle that corrupt incompetent governments prepared to spend almost unlimited amounts of taxpayers' funds to keep themselves in office can indeed be thrown out, we are in a much stronger position to stand up against high immigration and other anti-environmental policies of this Government. Indeed Rudd is considering at this moment cutting back immigration, due in part to the fact that he is a little more vulnerable to activism than a re-elected Howard/Costello dictatorship would have been.
So, I suggest you think very carefully about what is at stake in these elections in Canada. If Harper is anything like our former Prime Minister John Howard, then Canadian democracy itself may be at stake, and if you lose that then you lose any ability to control your population. (Clearly Canada's totally brain dead first-past-the-past voting system doesn't help either. Its replacement with some form of preferential voting system, that at least makes far less likely the possibility that a political party opposed by the majority of Canadians will able to form government, must be fought for as a matter of utmost urgency.)
Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.
Government Employee?