Australia's immigration problem

Referring to the HILDA Report, the author suggests that, if immigration were reduced, a precipitate decline in house-prices could probably be adequately buffered by local buyers who currently cannot afford to enter the grossly inflated housing market.

Yet another report about homelessness in Australia

Melbourne University Faculty of Business and Economics this week released a report entitled,"The Household, Income and Labour dynamics in Australia survey," (HILDA for short).

The main disturbing and most publicized finding on the day it was released was that home ownership in Australia is in steady decline and the steepest decline is in the state of Victoria. In Victoria I see the extreme manifestation of this trend, homelessness in the streets of Melbourne, every time I venture to the city or inner Melbourne areas such as Carlton. I actually know personally two people, one older and one young, who have experienced homelessness in Melbourne.

It seems obvious that for home ownership levels to recover, growth in house prices urgently needs to slow and stop. For the good of our society, prices even need to fall. Author of the HILDA Report, Professor Roger Wilkins, offered as a solution to the catastrophic decline in home ownership, the very meagre suggestion of an abolition of the capital gain tax discount, presumably as a disincentive to investment in housing. I would however maintain that people will still want to invest if a certain capital gain is to be had, even if they do pay tax! They would still be ahead!

Would a decline in Australian house prices be a concern?

For home owners with only one property and who are mortgage-free, a drop in the $ value of their houses really wouldn’t matter as long as it were part of a general, overall decline in property values. For those who are servicing a mortgage, a significant drop in property prices could be a problem, as their equity becomes less as a proportion of the amount owing.

So, can we escape a populating growth fueled housing Ponzi nightmare without collateral damage?

Initially, stabilising the $value of houses would not be as painful as a sudden decline.

I will take it as read that house price increases are due to a greater demand than there is supply. Demand has increased as net overseas migration has increased. A dramatic increase in Net Overseas Migration (NOM) dates back to John Howard’s time in power and has hardly let up. This number needs to come down.

One can also base the potential housing demand on the number of young adults in the population. In the 'best of all possible worlds, local young adults will want to establish their own households, whether singly or as couples, or with friends or siblings, as a first step. Immigrants, young or old, all need accommodation immediately on arrival.

If, for young Australians, buying a house is manageable and they enter the housing market (for many it is not affordable now) then that will actually increase demand from that age group. So reducing immigration dramatically would not be the only factor affecting prices. Lower immigration would have a downward effect and local young adults entering the market would tend to keep prices buoyant. The two effects would not necessarily at all be equal to one another and this balance would depend largely on the amount by which net overseas migration decreased.

In 2015 there were 1,054,565 people in Australia in the age group 24-26 (inclusive). At this age let’s assume young people have finished their post school education and are ready for the work force. They really need to leave home and either buy a house or rent. In 2011 (https://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129552283) 29% of young people 18-34 were still living at home. All the young adults still living at home with their parents are potential home-grown consumers of housing.

Are vacancies as a result of deaths an adequate source of housing supply?

In Australia there are about 150,000 deaths per year. Not all these deaths release accommodation, as not all deaths are of people living alone. Some may leave a family behind! But even if 50% of them did result in a house coming for sale or rental, i.e. 70,000 houses or apartments, then there is still that potential demand from 1,054,565 people in the 24-26 age group alone (2015 ABS) and, if the cost of housing stabilized, maybe all young people would be seeking accommodation away from the family home. Even without immigration, there is still, from these figures, a much higher potential demand for housing than there is existing housing which may become vacant. This is because the present age group needing to establish themselves in their adult lives is much larger than the older group. For example, in the Baby Boomer age group in 2015, arbitrarily aged 60-63, there were 775,971 people (2015 ABS) . This is a much smaller number than the potential house hunters in the 24-26 age bracket. Even then, people in their early 60s can expect another 20 years of life and will need their homes in the interim. Even if they left their houses there would still not be enough houses for the more numerous early 20s group. If one were to expect an imminent bonanza from the group 20 years older than the Baby Boomers, one would be disappointed because there are only 223,430 in a three year age bracket in their early 80s!

Where does demand for housing come from?

1. Emerging young adults needing housing away from the family home either as newly formed couples or other arrangements. The actual number depends on which age group is selected but it is a larger number than in the age brackets where downsizing or death are likely

2. Net overseas immigration – about 200,000 every year 3. Investment – local or overseas. 4. Holiday houses or units.

Of the investment properties, many of them will be available for rental. Although this does not help home ownership, at least it means, if rents are affordable, that people may be housed.

If foreign investment in Australian real estate were prohibited and net overseas migration reduced to levels say of the 1990s - 70,000 to 90,000 or lower, it would take extreme pressure off house prices. Then local young people might have a fighting chance of getting into the housing market. Young Australians who are now living at home with a parent or parents would get an opportunity to enter the market which would keep prices buoyant but not in the extreme.

Further demand for housing in Australia is surely waiting in the wings from people now sharing dwellings who would prefer less crowded arrangements. They would, in fact, become a new market for house sellers. The housing market would become more stable and gradually Australians could get used to a climate where a house was somewhere to live and not a speculative investment. The housing sector does not need to worry. If houses are on the cusp of affordable, I maintain there are local customers who will want to buy them or rent them. People would start to be able to exercise choices with respect to housing.

We are now in a dangerous cycle of price rises and of buyers, possibly in a defensive move, taking on enormous debt (relative to income) because they expect prices to go ever higher. A crash in prices would be wonderful for some and catastrophic for others, but I believe this situation can be avoided in Australia even with a significant cut to demand from overseas because of the age distribution of the population and the 'pent up' demand from young adults in the population.

A new front has opened in the student-migration scam, whereby the Turnbull Government has opened the door to international primary school students and their guardians to access Australian schools and purchase Australian property ahead of achieving permanent residency. From SBS News:

[Republished here with permission. Originally published at http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/category/featured-article/. Published by the Unconventional Economist at #comment-2636816">http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/06/turnbull-opens-new-student-migration-scam-floodgate/#comment-2636816]

From July 1, students aged six and above would be able to apply for student visas regardless of their country of citizenship – and their guardians can also apply for Guardian visas (subclass 580)…

These visa-rule changes, which were announced during Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s visit to China in April, also mean non-residents can buy several new properties or one existing property…

Dave Platter, from the leading Chinese international-property portal Juwai.com said there has been a nearly 20 per cent jump in inquiries for properties in Australia since Mr Turnbull’s announcement…

Estate agents Vera and Geoffrey Wong have hosted an open home in Sydney’s Eastwood.

Most of their clients are either Chinese or South Korean investors, and Mr Wong says when they were choosing a property, there is no doubt their children’s education is considered most important.

He said buyers are planning purchases that cater for their children’s entire education.

“Schooling … that is – I can’t emphasise it enough – is one of the main factors,” he said.

“Our clients, I would say over 70 per cent, (are looking,) at schooling and the university afterwards.”

Unbelievable. Primary schools in “good” catchment areas are already bursting at the seams. Meanwhile, Australia’s biggest cities, which is where most migrants arrive, are already struggling to digest a decade of rampant population growth (immigration), which has clogged their roads, trains, and reduced residents’ overall amenity.

And yet the government wants to add more immigrant fuel to the fire, just so that it keeps a floor under Australia’s already ridiculously expensive house values.

Where is the additional federal investment in schools and infrastructure to keep up with the migrant influx? And where is the consideration of impacts on Australia’s existing residents – especially young families struggling to buy a home and put their children through schooling?

Is this what Australia has been reduced to: flogging land, houses and visas to wealthy Chinese? Is this what Turnbull really means by his “innovation agenda”? Surely we can do better.

unconventionaleconomist AT hotmail.com

Today I received an email from GetUp recruiting volunteers to hand out how to vote cards. They referred to success stopping destruction of the Reef (by capitalists), promoting renewable energy, etc.... Everyone who believes in population growth supports a traditional right wing agenda. This includes GetUp, the Greens and all the major political parties. Does GetUp even know what it means when it refers to right wing and left wing? Open Letter to Paul Oosting, Level 14, 338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000. Paul, Your latest email rant entitled: “Our new weapon against right wingers” implies that you think you, and GetUp, are left wing? Excerpts from Wikipedia below provide a context to the absurdity of your confusion:

The left–right [political spectrum] is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies, and parties. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another. In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order."[1][2][3][4] The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate. Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.[5][6][7] Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.[8] Progressive Progressivism is a philosophy based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[1] Sociologist Robert Nisbet defines five "crucial premises" of the Idea of Progress as being: value of the past; nobility of Western civilization; worth of economic/technological growth; faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason; the intrinsic importance and worth of life on Earth.[2] The term is often used as shorthand for a more or less left-wing way of looking at the world. Beyond this, the meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives.[3] The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and industrialists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.

The definitions above generally describe a left winger as a progressive anti-capitalist. The fundamental flaw in all of this hypothetical mumbo jumbo is the driving force behind economic development, economic inequality and environmental devastation. That driving force is population growth. Since population and economic growth (a direct consequence of capitalism) are inextricably linked; anyone who supports the former is by definition right wing. GetUp and the Greens are right wing as are all Australia’s political parties with the exception of the Lower Migration party. Australia’s annual GDP growth has averaged 3.2% since Federation. Population growth has averaged 1.6%. Over the last 2 decades GDP growth has declined and population growth has increased to around 1.8%. The numbers may seem irrelevant to a relatively innumerate left wing activist who jumps on scientific evidence to support a climate change argument but chooses to ignore it when confronted with the facts about population growth. But these scientific facts are essential for developing coherent political objectives and humane ideology. Since left wing is described as anti-capitalist you are clearly not left wing. The fuel for capitalism consists of two things. These are currently hydrocarbons and population growth. Each and both are directly responsible for climate change. It is not just hydrocarbons which are causing climate change. Had Australia’s population growth been zero since Federation only a compound rate of GDP growth of 1.6% would have been required to create the same per capital financial wealth. But because of population growth, environmental damage and infrastructure expansion has occurred. The primary beneficiaries are big business (capitalism), government and government bureaucracy. Hence all political parties support it. But the trend has changed. The cost of infrastructure and its expansion is no longer covered by GDP. The reason in Australia is primarily driven by population growth which costs more to support than the economy can generate. It is over. The era of left wing and right wing is over. It is legendary and farcical in the 21st century. There is only right wing or population stabilization; because the latter is the only way to deliver the benefits the left wing cannot deliver with this element missing from its agenda. GetUp is neither progressive nor anti-capitalist. It targets only specific consequences of its own political agenda. There are only two “developed” city states on the planet with comparable rates of population growth to Australia. These are Singapore and Qatar. Both are authoritarian regimes with far lower costs of infrastructure, and infrastructure expansion, than Australia. Their population grows due to expatriates, who have no claim on social welfare and no rights to citizenship in these city states. The only other countries with similar rates of population growth are under developed. Most are in Africa where GDP per capita is roughly 4% that of Australia’s and the birth rate per woman is roughly 6. Australia stands out as a country retaining a reactionary, non-progressive, mass migration policy which makes no ethical, environmental or economic sense. Another example of GetUp’s right wing extremism is support for refugees while actively promoting a political agenda of mass migration of the relatively fortunate; who all cost the economy more than it can afford to support them. So GetUp’s delusionary and allegedly “left wing” dogma drives the displacement of Australians from jobs using a skilled migration program which is a reactionary policy dating back to Federation. This same policy displaces genuine refugees from the opportunity to enter Australia. All political parties, including the Greens, are right wing according to universally accepted definitions of right wing. They display common agendas with their support for migration-based pro population growth extremism: • Pro capitalist extremism • Reactionary defence of the status quo • Conservative defence of the status quo • Anti progressive • Anti Green Please explain to me how GetUp’s support for migration based pro population growth extremism meets any of the traditional definitions of “Left Wing”. I respectfully refer you to my blog which might provide information of value in your educational development: /blog/310 Thanks and yours sincerely, Michael S.

People often ask me why I campaign on population and the reason that I give is that it is an issue that is often overlooked by the environment movement and by the wider world at large. I feel that by ignoring this topic, so much of the other great work done by environmentalists and campaigners is in danger of being severely compromised. Rapid population growth is a worldwide issue and it is also an issue here in Australia. One reason for this is because Australia has one of the highest migration rates in the ‘developed’ world. Due to the way our infrastructure is distributed this is a major reason why an average of 1760 people are added to the population of Melbourne every week and 1600 are added to Sydney. (More by Mark Allen at http://candobetter.net/taxonomy/term/7484)

As a town planner I cannot ignore the impact that this growth is having in terms of how we can create long-term sustainable communities. This is why I run workshops on suburban sprawl and inappropriate high density and the impact that it has on our changing climate.

With my work I am asked a lot of questions, many on a reoccurring basis, so I thought that I would give my best shot at providing written responses to a number of written questions and comments that I have received over the past twelve months.

Where better to start than the issue of reducing population growth and xenophobia?

Population is not the right factor to focus on. It's a slippery slope to xenophobia and not directly linked to sustainability. It is also very dubious on ethical grounds, no real policy levers, and divisive all around. My suggestion would be to focus on sustainability if that's your objective.

I do understand why people are put off by the topic of population because there are so many people who have hijacked the issue with xenophobic intentions. This is all the more reason why we should embrace the topic with a critical, thinking mindset so that those with narrow minded views can be quickly called out. It is reasoned and rational discussion that will prevent a descent into xenophobia, not ignoring the topic and leaving it in the hands of those who feed off irrational soundbites.

In the meantime, if we continue to ignore the issue here in Australia, we will have to accept that suburban sprawl and unsustainable rates of high density development will continue until the current system breaks. By then we will have greatly reduced our ability to adapt to a low carbon society and we will be left with an environmental and social legacy that may take generations to reverse.

Eventually migrants will want to stop coming here due to the increased commutes and expense as well as services becoming increasingly inaccessible. This is already starting to happen (see The root of Sydney and Melbourne’s housing crisis: we’re building the wrong thing – Bob Birrell The Conversation).

If we wait until migrants stop wanting to come, we will make it so much harder for those migrants who need to come. In short we have to get our planning back into the hands of people who want to build communities.

Population growth has not been sustainable since the Howard era when it was massively increased to increase GDP with deliberately little fanfare. This kind of growth fuels the worst types of development; the type that forces generations of people to live lesser lives, all to justify short term profits. We need to shift our population policy away from growth for the sake of growth model towards one that does what is the most sustainable and the most equitable from a global perspective.

This means using some of the money that would otherwise be spent in trying to reduce the massive infrastructure debt that accompanies rapid population growth to help other countries stabilise their population in a non-coercive way. This money could also be channelled into partnering with them to create permaculture based communities as a way of adapting to and helping to combat climate change.

Secondly, by slowing population growth we can better utilise land that would otherwise be developed to house a rapidly growing population to sequester carbon through regenerative farming practices.

Thirdly, most of our population growth is directed towards the fringes of our cities or in ribbon developments along the coast. As well as being some of our greatest areas of biodiversity, these areas are also have some of our most fertile soils. Therefore slowing population growth in Australia may help us to increase global food security or at the very least reduce our reliance upon importing food from areas of the world who will likely have food security issues of their own.

Lastly, slowing our current rate of population growth will allow us to engage in the slower more considered method of planning that is required to create resilient and meaningful communities that will benefit everyone including incoming refugees and other migrants.

High immigration to Australia doesn't add to net world population so it seems right that Australia should take some of the load.

When you consider that the population of the world is increasing by 80 million a year, the effectiveness of Australia in helping to more evenly distribute global population growth is negligible and it does nothing to stabilise the rate of growth in those regions that are struggling to adapt. It is a reactive approach rather than a proactive one. The fact that Australia’s population centres are situated in some of the most ecologically rich and fertile areas of the continent coupled with the fact that we have a planning system that puts profit before resilience, means that this is having a massive environmental and social impact.

Most of us agree that we need to be reducing our emissions rapidly. Therefore the last thing we need to be doing is compromising our capacity to reduce our food miles by pouring huge amounts of carbon intensive concrete over our inner suburbs and urban fringes. It makes much more sense to reallocate the money that would otherwise be required for all the additional infrastructure into helping people in their own countries adapt to the climate crisis and importantly to partner with them to reduce that crisis. Otherwise we only help a small number of people at a massive environmental and long-term social cost.

We want to be in the best position to provide sustainable resilient communities for those people who cannot stay in their own country for one reason or another. Otherwise incoming refugees will be blown like feathers in the wind into the social isolation of an ever increasing suburban sprawl.

Why not just change the planning system?

We need to work hard to change the planning system and work towards reducing GDP driven population growth. If we do one without the other we will fail because deliberate high population growth is the driver of fast paced suburban sprawl style development as well as prefab concrete apartment developments that are quick to build and quick to age. It is a never ending vicious circle. I saw this with my own eyes when I worked as a planner. Sustainable planning takes time as it is about regenerating wasteland, increasing medium density in the post-war middle suburbs and building new village communities complete with recreation, services and capacity for permaculture. This requires a slower rate of population growth for a slower more considered rate of development.

You seem to be advocating for more development in the middle suburbs. This is where much of our food security could lie and we could end up losing this if we are not careful.

Many of the houses in the middle suburbs are being demolished because they do not meet the perceived needs of 21st century living. Also, because most of them lack heritage appeal, very few people feel the inclination to retrofit them. The middle suburbs (unlike the outer suburbs) are much more connected to public transport and much of the housing stock is within walking distance of public open space. Many of these houses have large backyards. Some of these are well utilised while many are not. So the question is, should we see this 'outdated stock' as an opportunity to encourage increasing the density of these areas (as much of it is likely to be demolished over time) in order to reduce the pressure on the urban fringe? Or should we instead regard these backyards as an underutilised resource which will become all the more relevant as we move towards a low carbon, steady state economy?

Could it be that the larger backyards of the middle suburbs will one day provide the food security that other medium density settlements cannot provide? If so, how much of a willingness is there for the occupants of these areas to become urban farmers? In reality most people see their garden as something that simply needs mowing but resilience is all about the ability of communities to adapt to new social and economic circumstances. In which case those backyards could be seen with a new perspective. I really don't have any firm answers. I believe that we can potentially increase housing diversity in the middle suburbs without threatening their potential as permaculture communities but I know that with the current planning system in place, this will not happen. In reality it will be ad-hoc and many good gardens will be lost and much more besides. Increasing housing diversity in the middle suburbs does make a lot of sense but the potential of these areas to grow food and contribute to local self sustaining economies could be critical in the future. We need to tread very carefully (for more on this issue check out the co-founder of Permaculture, David Holmgren's youtube videos and forthcoming book on retrofitting the suburbs)

Are you not just some privileged white guy trying to protect his way of life?

Anyone who thinks that we should be protecting our way of life is in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later as we are currently living well beyond the planet's capacity to absorb our lifestyle. The only thing that we should be trying to protect is our potential to create sustainable resilient communities that are adaptable to energy descent and that can absorb population growth sustainably. The demographic of the inner suburbs of Melbourne has changed a lot in the past few decades as more and more Greek and Italian migrants are displaced by a white middle class demographic. The irony is that it is this very same demographic that is rejecting a suburban model of living that originated and is still championed by white culture. This will continue under the current paradigm as multicultural areas such as Footscray and Richmond become increasingly gentrified through modern apartment living, all of course under the greenwash banner of urban consolidation*. This forces more communities to be dispersed into the social isolation of the urban fringe. We need to prevent the further gentrification of our existing suburbs while ensuring that new communities are built around a village model, as this is the most socially, ecologically and economically sustainable method of creating communities.

*Urban consolidation (the act of increasing densities within the existing built form as a means of reducing urban sprawl) does not have to be greenwash if:

a) It is not perpetual and ongoing. In other words if the high density is not being constructed to house the endlessly growing population that is needed in order to prop up an over inflated housing market.
b)If a substantial proportion is affordable and within financial reach of those people who would otherwise live on the urban fringe where land is cheaper.
c) A substantial proportion of the units are large enough to be viable for families. This includes being within close proximity to services that are within walking distance, including childcare (most inner suburb areas currently have waiting lists of over a year for childcare services).
d)The apartments are resilient and will last for generations.This includes high quality finishes that will not require constant maintenance and trips to landfill.
e)Apartment developments are incorporated into the fabric of existing neighbourhoods in a way that they do not become the dominant built form and that that their presence is subtle and not detrimental to the overall streetscape. Maintaining the village like feel of our suburbs, including the green spaces within them is essential for long term social and environmental resilience.

Much of the urban consolidation currently taking place in Melbourne fails on all of these points and as result does nothing to reduce urban sprawl whist also compromising much of the existing urban landscape.

You support the Greens policy of increasing our refugee intake but in the future there could be many more refugees as climate change worsens. Where do you draw the line?

Assuming that we do not end up becoming refugees ourselves due to climate change (especially as most Australian cities lie on the coast while the interior is becoming increasingly dry) we could theoretically house an increased number of refugees without increasing sprawl or over developing our existing neighbourhoods. We won't have the economic or environmental justification to build many new towns so the focus will be on retrofitting what we already have and part of this would be retrofitting existing housing stock. In Maroondah alone, at the time of writing there are 3000 empty homes. These are artificial “housing shortages” created by speculators and developers to inflate the value of their investments. Therefore we can provide asylum for people without compromising the ability of our cities to adapt to a low carbon world but of course we have to change the paradigm.

Preserving our capacity to provide food close to and within our cities will however be critical. This is why we need to be focussed on retrofitting what we already have as opposed to creating new development on our precious soils.

New research shows that Melbourne's "food-bowl" supplies 41 per cent of all fresh fruit and vegetables to the city but that is set to plummet to just 18 per cent by 2050 thanks to urban sprawl. It is a similar situation in Sydney.

A major component of reducing our environmental footprint lies in sustainable town planning and that just cannot happen at the current rate of population growth because it is quicker and cheaper to build new estates on the fringe or the unsustainable prefab concrete apartment blocks that we are increasingly seeing in the existing suburbs.

Surely population growth is good because it stimulates change and innovation?

There are some areas of Melbourne that in combination with sound planning and urban design principles could be enriched by a modest increase in population. This however is an issue of poorly distributed growth as opposed to it being an issue of there not being enough growth. Many areas within the wider Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane conurbations are growing much too fast while there are some areas that could benefit from the modest amount of growth that is needed to generate commercial activity (helping to decentralise jobs) while making public transport more economically viable. Therefore we need a slower rate of growth coupled with an improvement on the way that growth is distributed.

We have an ageing population so we must increase our population to compensate.

The drain that older people have on services is over emphasised. Many older people contribute to society well past retirement and if we need to create more jobs to support them, then no problem. It might mean fewer jobs running and maintaining poker machines, a few less real estate agents perhaps, a few less loggers and a few less property developers. And how would we pay for it? The last time I looked there was 452 billion dollars from big corporations and millionaires in Australia that are not being taxed (source: Getup). It is also worth considering that:

1)The average age of a person migrating to Australia is 30. That means they are 30 years older than a newborn baby, which has the affect that in 30 years time the ageing population problem will be even worse than it is now.

2)It is worker-to-dependency ratio that matters, not youth-to-elderly. Australia's un/underemployment is probably over three million people.

3)Demographer Dr Jane O'Sullivan has estimated that it may be costing thirty times more in growing our population to offset ageing than our ageing population is costing.

Migration policy is not the only way of achieving a sustainable population.

Very true. For the answer to this question I will quote Michael Bayliss who is the president of the Victorian/Tasmanian branch of Sustainable Population Australia.

“I envision a future where families with no children are respected as being the societal norm just as much as families with children, and where adoption is seen as a viable and accessible alternative to couples of all sexual and gender identities. The key as always, is through education, empowerment, and allowing people to make their own choices. High schools for example should educate young people into the pros and cons of having children, and with due consideration given to the environmental impacts of having children. I do not advocate fiscal policies that reward large family size, instead this money should be spent on children’s services, such as schools and medical subsidies.”

The questions and answers written above form part of a booklet that is available in electronic format by emailing [email protected]. It is also available as a hard copy from the New International Bookshop in Carlton, Melbourne.
Feel free to contact me at that same email address with your feedback.

Mark Allen is an ex-town planner and environmental activist with a particular interest in population. He runs workshops on Population, Permaculture and Planning across Australia and runs a Facebook group of the same name.

Sustainable Australia says the Turnbull Government has no chance of making good on the Prime Minister’s announcement that he wants to build so called “30 minute cities”, where everything people need is within a 30 minute commute. Sustainable Australia’s Senate candidate in NSW, William Bourke, says that the Prime Minister’s vision of a congestion free future is delusional, while immigration continues to run at record levels.

Mr Bourke says, “The Prime Mister’s plan has three parts, each as preposterous as the next.

“First, he wants to pay a group of bankers $50 million to tell him what to build, and where.

“Then, he wants to borrow another $5 billion for new road and rail projects. That’s on top of the almost $500 billion of government debt racked up over the last 8 years.

“And thirdly, he wants to make the grandchildren pay off that additional debt, by raising the $5 billion by selling 30 year bonds, which will be honoured by a future generation of taxpayers, long after the PM is gone.

Mr Bourke says it is absurd for the Prime Minister to suggest that the government could build its way out of a congestion trap, and borrow its way out of a debt crisis.

“Sustainable Australia says there is only one way to fix congestion. It is decent public transport and a lower immigration intake of 70,000 per year, back from the current high of 200,000 per year.

“The truth is our high population growth is the real reason for our daily traffic jams, and overcrowded trains, buses and trams.

“If we want an Australia that is better, not bigger, then we need to lower immigration”.

View Sustainable Australia’s “30 minute cities” Video Here:

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/VoteSustainable

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/VoteSustainable

Geoff Dowsett writes that he received a pathetic response from the Greens re the letter he sent to the Australian Minister for Immigration. He invited people to comment on the Greens response. Inside find some apt responses from Jane 0`Sullivan, of Sustainable Population Queensland. The responses are inserted in a different colour, email style.

Hi All. A pathetic response from Greens Senator Sarah
Hanson Young  to my Dutton letter. Your ideas for a
response are very welcome.   Geoff Dowsett.

Dear
Geoff,

Thank
you for contacting the Australian Greens and providing us the letter you sent
to Mr Peter Dutton MP, in relation to the government’s migration programme and
its impact on Australia. As the Greens spokesperson for Immigration &
Citizenship, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has asked me to respond to you on
behalf of the Australian Greens.

The
Greens believe that environmental impact is not determined by population
numbers alone, but by the way people live. According to the Greens
policy on sustainable populations “The current level of population,
population growth and the way we consume are outstripping environmental
capacity. Australia must contribute to achieving a globally sustainable
population and encourage and support other nations to do the
same.”

JANE O'SULLIVAN: The
Greens address "the way people live" in most of their other policy areas. Why
does the Population policy not say "Environmental impact is not determined only
by the way people live, but also by population numbers"? They didn't even bother
to include the word "also" in the current version - it is entirely dismissive of
the number of people. Nor is there any recommendation under that policy which
would stabilise Australia's population. Nor is there any acknowledgement under
any other policy, such as energy or transport, of the impact of population
growth. This policy statement has one purpose only - to bury the population
issue.

The Greens do not accept that population growth is a problem in or
for Australia. It is only recognised as a Global problem. I asked a Greens
Senator if she thought Australia had a right remain less overpopulated than
anywhere else on earth (i.e. to limit immigration from any more crowded place)
and she said "No." Despite us having no say over how other people breed, she
said we have to put their resource needs ahead of our environmental
custodianship.

That's the crux of it - if Australia can't contain its own
population independently of the rest of the world, then it also can't preserve
its unique biodiversity and ecosystems. How green are the Greens
really?

Is it even possible for a nation to encourage others to "achieve
a globally sustainable population", while supporting rampant growth in that
nation? How could that work?

The
issues that you raise in your letter are not issues that can be tackled
individually, and are not as simple as dramatically reducing Australia’s
migration programme to subsequently reduce our population. Australia has a
wonderful tradition of integrating cultures into our community, and this was
especially important to our recovery post-World War II. Immigration is still
important today, and is designed to meet Australia’s economic and social
needs.

JANE O'SULLIVAN: Actually, there is nothing
simpler than the Federal govt adjusting immigration quotas. They doubled them,
without so much as a statement in Parliament or a press release. They could
halve them just as easily. We already turn away far more prospective immigrants
than we accept, so nothing would change on that front, except the criteria would
tighten.
There is not one iota of evidence that immigration today meets
Australia's economic and social needs (let alone that it is designed to do so).
There is abundant evidence that it has negative economic and social
impacts.
The touchy-feely argument that multiculturalism has made a major
contribution to Australia's wellbeing is at best an ambit claim, that says
nothing about the required levels of future migration. There are plenty of
countries which made spectacular post-World War II recoveries without
immigration. To say that we are better and happier for multiculturalism is to
devalue the largely more homogenious societies from which our migrants come.
Cultural tolerance is important for the harmoneous integration of a lot of
diverse immigrants, so it is a very good thing that Australia has nurtured
cultural tolerance. But it says nothing whatever about whether that immigration
benefited the incumbent population.

The
Greens are the only voice in parliament providing a real alternative to the
current status quo. The problems you have outlined for the current government
are issues that the Greens wish to tackle as part of their broader values as a
party.  Australian Greens members of parliament are campaigning and
advocating for these alternatives on a daily basis, and were elected to
parliament for these very values. Our ability to explain the entirety of that
platform in the media is somewhat limited, but you will see that these values
are integral to Greens’ policy responses on day to day
issues.

JANE O'SULLIVAN: What
a lot of hubristic nonsense. If the Greens were going to tackle these issues as
part of their broader values, they would have been doing it already. They've
been doing the opposite - vilifying people who raise concern about high
immigration, and turning every discussion on immigration into a discussion about
refugees - deliberately generating misconceptions in the public to support
massive immigration.

You
are welcome to read more about the Greens policies on population here, although I note that as you are a member of
the NSW Greens Population & Sustainability Working Group, you would
already be aware of them and are able to put forward your views on these
matters to shape this policy directly. We hope that you continue to do
so.

Yes,
well, we've read them, we've criticised them, and nothing changes.

Furthermore,
the Department of Immigration has a link on their website where they seek
submissions and papers on policy initiatives. You can access the site here.

Thank
you for your contribution to this important conversation, and thank you once
again for forwarding this to the Greens Members of Parliament and
Senators.

Kind
regards,

HAYLEY
PEARSE  EXECUTIVE
ASSISTANT & OFFICE MANAGER

OFFICE
OF SENATOR SARAH HANSON-YOUNG

AUSTRALIAN
GREENS SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Level
7 / 147 Pirie St, Adelaide, SA 5000

TEL  ADL
+61 8 8227 0425  PARL +61 2  6277 3430
|  FAX  +61 8 8227 0426 

Dear Minister Dutton.
Australians are sick of your government's excessive and irresponsible immigration rate and 457 Visa intake levels. This is clear by studying recent polls, Mark O'Connor's book Overloading Australia, and monitoring social media. Of particular concern is the dreadful impact that the your resulting unsustainable and damaging population growth rate is having on our local urban and natural environments.
(This letter has been sent today, 17 Jan 2016, to the Hon Peter Dutton MP. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The author encourages others to copy and forward to other Lieberal MPs. The author, Geoff Dowsett, is a member of the Hornsby Kuringai Greens and a member of the NSW Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group. Headings have been inserted by the editor of candobetter.net and some minor typos have been corrected.)

Australia has among the world's highest population growth rates, due to mass immigration

Australia, now under your government has one of the world`s highest population growth rates which is destroying our capital cities and Australia`s delicate ancient eco systems and over stressing infrastructure and public services at an alarming rate. When are you going to recognize this and reduce Australia`s damaging, irresponsible and unsustainable immigration rate and 457 Visa intake ? When will you wake up to the fact that Australian`s are aware of your obvious hypocrisy in your treatment of desperate refugees while at the same time you import 260,000 pa net well off -middle class - aspirational economic migrants a year to flood our labour force to drive down wages and working conditions to third world levels. All for no better reason than to create consumers for Frank Lowy`s vile shopping centres, consumers for Harry Trigabuff`s battery hen appartments, while Melbourne and Sydney real estate prices sky-rocket out of reach of ordinary Australians? Our urban environment, quality of life, standard of living and heritage are now seriously compromised. I believe that your government is indulging in a giant Ponzi scheme which is rapidly leading to Australia`s and your government`s demise.

The 'skill shortage' is a furphy

The skills shortage is a complete furphy. It`s corporate and Liberal Party propaganda. A billion dollar industry all designed to mislead and deceive the Australian public. The reality is that it is corporations demanding high population growth for the purpose of lowering wages and working conditions and to create more consumers to boost their already obscene profits while your corporate masters laugh at the idea of any responsibility to employ Australians or pay taxes in return for the damage they do. This is pushing Australian living standards and over-stretched infrastructure down to third world levels. Your Governments propaganda is that there is a skills shortage. There isn't. The Baird Government in NSW is closing down and cutting funding to TAFE, public schools, and universities, when it should be training young Australians free—no fees. This tactic of reducing Government spending on needed infrastructure is all designed to keep big business happy. They are the big donors to the Liberal Party. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The non sense that we need more population to pay welfare costs is in reality more lies from your government`s propa ganda machine and the corporate media who finance your party.

Wealth distribution

The biggest welfare recipients are the big corporations who pay no tax and the very rich who avoid tax. Why should low income earners foot the welfare bill ? Australia`s growing problem is your government`s out dated irresponsible Social Darwinist economic policies which are widening the gap between rich and poor. Your government is one of robbing from the poor to pay the rich. An intelligent, socially and environmentally responsible tax system would tax BADS: gambling, alcoho, 4x4 gas guzzlers, McMansions, conspicuous consumption, and re distribute revenue into public infrastructure, free medical, free education, particularly to give women the freedom to choose to have smaller families, and free public transport. All of these civilized measures are the case in advanced intelligent countries such as Norway, Sweden, France,Italy and Cuba where population growth has been reduced down to responsible levels.

Most immigrants aspire to increase their consumer lifestyle

The bulk of your 260,000 pa well off middle class: aspirational, materialistic, high carbon and high eco-footprint immigrants are from the well off countries such as the UK and NZ. A smaller number of the well off so called “business” elites from India and China is increasing. They are not desperate refugees escaping death: war, flood, famine. If they are "skilled" then they are a brain-draining their home country. They come here to get rich: to indulge in high consumption lifestyles, just as the Liberal Party`s corporate donors want. More consumers = more consumption = more obscene profits and the wealth only trickles down to the masses, since your government has been instructed by your corporate masters to allow them to destroy Australia TAX FREE. This is nothing less than corporate welfare on a massive scale--unprecedented in our history. This is the foundation of the uncontrolled capitalist system we and the planet are suffering and which you are promoting. You have no mandate for this destruction of Australia. Your immigration policy and high birth rate policy is causing for more environmental problems increasing IMPACT on Sydney and other capital cities and the Brisbane Gold Coast growth corridor, increasing demand for high density housing, and increasing impact on Australia`s fragile ancient ecology.

Australia has the second highest carbon and eco-footprint per capita on the planet

Immigrants come here to get rich and to indulge in high consumption at the planet`s and Australia`s expense.
Baking a bigger cake in a finite world through increasing GDP Growth isn’t the solution. We must progress to a Steady State Economy and end our imprisonment by the Growth addicted capitalist behemoth and it`s addiction to constant increases in economic growth which demands constant population increase.

The Hon Kelvin Thomson MP, member for Wills is the only MP in Australia it appears who is prepared to criticise your Govt`s horrendous immigration rate and 457 Visa rort which fuels developers` destruction of Australian cities and fragile ecology and heritage. The population explosion is pay back for corporate bribes/donations to the Liberal Party. We are being SHANGHAI`D ( Dick Smith`s term ) by big business sociopaths – environmental criminals who care nothing for Sydney`s heritage, quality of life, infrastructure meltdown or sky-rocketing house prices out of reach of working families. Youth suicide and unemployment can also be attributed to the import of so called skilled workers and 457 Visa workers who work for third world standard conditions and wages.

Non-stop immigrant invasion

Your insidious immigration program deliberately favours middle class, aspirational, materialistic, right wing "business"/so called "skilled' immigrants who are not threatened with death, disaster, war or starvation, but who are brought into Australia to feed the insane capitalist, debt ridden, profit and growth-addicted destructive economy, while our standard of living, quality of life, urban heritage, infrastructure, fragile ecology hotspots and precious wildlife habitat, is bulldozed for more high rise and high density housing to house the non-stop immigrant invasion of Sydney and Melbourne.

I recommend you go to #10;<p>I suggest you acquaint yourself with the global movement for transition to the Steady State Eco responsible Economy. Your type of government is now irrelevant to the needs of Australia, which is facing terrible environmental challenges and social upheaval in the 21st century.</p>&#10;<p>It’s time to move away from the policies of the 1950s and try to find a way this country can live so as to preserve high standards of clean air, water, soil and biodiversity, whilst maintaining some semblance of community, rather than chasing the likes of Beijing and New Delhi into a nightmare of pollution and social polarisation.</p>&#10;<p>I don`t believe you understand your responsibilities in terms of inter-generational and intra-generational equity. Future generations will view your government actions as a vicious attack on Australia, its natural capital and social fabric.</p>&#10;<p>Geoff Dowsett. BA Dip Ed. Pennant Hills.</p>&#10;</body></html>">

Andrew McNamara is former Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation in Queensland. He argues here that the Sustainable Population Party (soon to become the Sustainable Party) was the real winner of the North Sydney by-election; that all other participants showed diminishing or one-off results.

The Liberals have claimed victory in the North Sydney by-election, but at a cost of around $1 million and with a 13% swing against them, there is not much to celebrate. Too many wins like this will send the Liberals bankrupt.

The independent Dr Stephen Ruff finished second with over 18%. It is a commendable result that will turn into a 60:40 two party preferred vote, but given there is no second prize and the good doctor will now return to doing hip replacements, his result will only be referred to ever again under the heading “Dr Who?” at future political trivia nights. Article first published at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17888 on Friday, 11 December 2015.

The Greens scored under16%, a minute increase of .35% on their 2013 result. With no Labor candidate in the field this time, a third place finish is a serious failure. The 20% of punters who voted Labor at the last general election went everywhere but to the Greens.

The other independent in the field, two term North Sydney Councillor Maryann Beregi finished a creditable fourth, with 3.45%. But now what? The personable Councillor needs to run again, in order to avoid the perception that voting for an independent is a WOFTAM.

The biggest loser is easy to pick. The by-election marks the death knell of the Palmer United Party, who finished dead, motherless last, with a derisory .45% of the vote. They were trounced by all the micro parties: the Arts Party, Voluntary Euthanasia Party, Australian Cyclists Party and Bullet Train for Australia, all of whom received more than double the PUP’s vote. Even the Future Party beat Palmer’s candidate home. RIP, PUP.

The Liberal Democrats scored 2.%, which given the high profile and big spend of their candidate, local storage company owner Sam Kennard, would be well below expectations. Seventh place and just a handful of votes in front of the Arts Party is a decidedly sub-prime result.

The Christian Democrats threw everything at it including the kitchen sink, and did pick up a swing of 1.5% from 2013. But sixth place on 2.5% would be a bitter disappointment for a party that has been around for so long and promoted themselves in the by-election as “the only true conservative party”. It suggests that their appeal in too narrow and they will struggle ever to break out of the minor party band of 2 to 3%.

Which leaves the big mover in the field as William Bourke, from the Sustainable Population Party. A 3% result is more than triple the Sustainables’ previous best ever result, at the Griffith by-election in 2013. They finish fifth on primaries, not only as “King of the Kids” by moving out of the micro parties grouping, but also beat home the far more established minor parties of PUP, LDP and CDP. They may even sneak into outright fourth, when preferences are distributed after all postal votes are received by the cut-off on 18 December.

With the endorsement of Australian icon Dick Smith and the financial support of rich-listers Graham Turner and Geoff Harris, the soon to be re-named Sustainable Australia has a bright future. Positioned in the centre of the Australian political spectrum, with a leftish social agenda and a rightish economic outlook, they will be well placed to draw support from across the political field.

The Liberals won the North Sydney by-election, but the only candidate still smiling after the cameras went off on election night was William Bourke of Sustainable Australia.

What gives with surveys that tell us that most of us want more immigrants and a bigger population when, all around us, we suffer the effects of faster and faster population growth in groaning infrastructure, costly housing, road congestion, and rising costs for power and water? If we examine such studies, we will find that they pose their questions in the abstract and do not prompt people to make concrete associations about the effects of immigration and population growth. This is a bit like asking people how they feel about war compared to asking how they feel about war in their suburb. These polls also focus on ethnicity of immigrants rather than environment and planning impacts of mass migration. This article looks at recent polls by the Australian Institute of Progress, Roy Morgan Research, the Australian Election Study and Queensland Growth Management Summit 2010, Social Research on Population Growth and Liveability in South East Queensland". The Queensland survey is the most detailed and valid and has been discussed in its own article, "Poll shows most hate population growth: Lessons from Queensland in polling reliability and interpretation."

In 2013 the Australian Election Study found that only 24% of Australians supported higher levels of immigration. It received 3,955 valid responses from an initial sample of 12,200 people. The survey is conducted on paper via snail-mail or online. There are prizes to motivate timely responses. [1] This survey is known as Australia's biggest and most reliable, but, as the table below shows, its response rate has been falling every year.

Responses to telephone polls, however, are an order of magnitude dimmer, at 9-17%. This is the method that the Roy Morgan institute uses. The Australian Institute of Progress uses on-line surveys of a particular population it has gathered over the years, but that population cannot be said to represent the average Australian's point of view.

On October 15, 2015 the Australian Institute of Progress (AIP)came out with [usable] poll results from 1349 people which it claimed showed that 69% of those polled supported higher immigration. The poll received inordinate publicity from a mass media eager to promote rapid population growth in Australia, [2] with The Australian interpreting the result to mean that "69 per cent of Australians support high rates of immigration."

On October 20, 2015, Roy Morgan also came out with poll results from 650 people: A majority of Australians support higher immigration and an Australian population over 30 million. This predictably also received huge publicity in the mass media.

Claims that most Australians suddenly support higher immigration [3] and an Australian population of over 30 million are hard to take on face value, especially in the light of the results of the Queensland survey: "Queensland Growth Management Summit 2010, Social Research on Population Growth and Liveability in South East Queensland", March 2010 [4], a probed survey with 801 respondents which showed that about 90% experienced population growth as having a negative impact on their lives. My experience between 1994 and 2015 (the period I have been studying attitudes to population growth) is that more and more people are speaking out against the many effects of high immigration and rapid population growth. That's not surprising, since the effects have been more and more noticeable as the population has grown more and more rapidly.

So I took a look at the questions, the numbers and the method in the AIP and the Roy Morgan polls.

Why would most Australians tick a box for a population over 30 m but less than 35m in the Roy Morgan poll?

"A majority of Australians support higher immigration and an Australian population over 30 million."

I find it interesting that the respondents in this poll apparently endorsed 'under 35 million' but did not endorse '35 million or more', and did not choose 'Under 30 million'. How did they make such a distinct choice? How were the population number choices proposed?

This is how the Roy Morgan poll posed the question of population size:

“Australia’s population has increased by 6 million from 18 million to 24 million over the last 20 years. What population do you think we should aim to have in Australia in 30 years – that is, by 2045?”

Under 25 million 9%
25 - Under 30 million 23%
30 – Under 35 million 27%
35 – Under 40 million 16%
40 – Under 50 million 10%
50 million or more 4%
Can’t say 11%

There are a number of things I find odd about these responses and the interpretations made.

Why, for instance, did more people not select the last three options, if they want a bigger population? The choice of 30m or no more than 35m does not signal enthusiasm for a big population; rather a desire to remain at the lower end of the scale they were presented with as the choices. How, I wonder, did they make these choices? Were they under the impression that what they were selecting was either mathematically reasonable or appeared more 'generous'? Or, given the historic growth described as going from 18 m to 24m in 20 years, did they assume some arithmetical trend of six million every 20 years, and therefore a sequence of 18:24:30? Which would mean that they stopped at the lowest possible logical number sequence?

My own experience of talking to people about population numbers, including conducting polls at the Sustainable Living Festival, is that many have only the faintest idea of what Australia's population is now, or the world's. They seem to be unable to quantify or imagine these numbers. 24m might mean little to them. The rates of population growth that the Roy Morgan poll gave them as historical examples are abnormally high, due to mass immigration, and atypical of normal (naturally established) populations. Few Australians, however, would realise how unusual Australia’s population growth rates have been.

Social desirability bias

Also, given how wanting lower immigration is stigmatised by the mass media and the government, which tend to conflate invited economic immigration with refugee or asylum-seeker migration, and protests about Muslim immigration as racist, it is likely that responses may have been affected by social desirability bias. Which would mean that this Roy Morgan poll would have been measuring what people have been taught is acceptable opinion rather than what they really think.

In an era of electronic surveillance, increased identity theft, phone scams and home invasion, how many people are likely to freely give an honest personal or political profile to some anonymous inquirer on the phone?

Although I also asked the Roy Morgan polsters a question about the use of randomized phone numbers, phone polls, the size of the group, and whether they used this same group size for their election polls, Roy Morgan did not get back to me.

My understanding is that Roy Morgan polled a group of 650 people. This size group has a relatively high standard error.[5] The responses could be quite misleading.

The Roy Morgan polls were conducted by phone. A huge proportion of people select out of answering phone polls these days. As mentioned above, the response rate is something between 17 and 9 %. Although professional polling groups do studies on the huge and increasing refusal rate in phone polling, they usually conclude that this doesn’t make much difference. They base this conclusion on finding that small phone respondent groups have similar characteristics to larger groups of respondents to other methods, however the characteristics explored are not deep.

If survey groups revealed that their survey methods were very unreliable, they would go out of business. Think of your own reactions to phone surveys. In an era of electronic surveillance, increased identity theft, phone scams and home invasion, how many people are likely to freely give an honest personal or political profile to some anonymous inquirer on the phone?

Social desirability bias risks:

The responses the Morgan poll obtained were in accord with mainstream media propaganda which manufactures consent, rather than informs. The Australian mass-media and government consistently endorse high immigration and stigmatise as racist or ungenerous people who do not want high immigration. In polling there is a strong problem of social desirability bias, where people do not like to reveal to the polster that they hold views that vary from what perceived authorities deem desirable. This is particularly so on sensitised issues and the issue of immigration is strongly sensitised in Australia. In the Roy Morgan poll, the population growth question came after the survey group had been softened up by the immigration questions.

Misleading and vague

Although the survey informed people of approximately the numbers of [planned invited economic] permanent immigrants in 2014-2015, it did not mention the rate of temporary immigration nor the rate of conversion to permanent whilst in Australia, which comes to a much higher number. Nor did it mention that over 60 per cent of Australia's population growth comes from overseas immigration. There was no information about the recent high annual rate of growth of Australia’s population compared to that of other comparable OECD countries. Most people would not be able to tell you what that would mean in terms of doubling time anyway. Basically, there was no way for people to judge whether Australia’s population growth rate was normal or extreme. The survey questions lacked context and personal relevance.

What was the poll actually measuring?

The Roy Morgan poll did not establish that those surveyed actually knew the facts on what they were agreeing or disagreeing with. How valid were the responses in regards to population size and immigration? What did the poll actually measure? Impressions that immigration and population were 'under control' could be based on erroneous beliefs, such as that most immigrants are refugees, 'boat people' or asylum seekers; that the government has reduced this inflow, leading to the erroneous conclusion that Australia is getting hardly any immigrants and that the population may not be growing much at all from overseas immigration. Although you would think that people could work the situation out by looking at the growing traffic congestion, the fact is that, if asked a question about population or immigration without any prompting about congestion or housing shortages, for instance, most people do not make that connection.

Australian Institute of Progress Survey into Australian Community Attitudes to Immigration

The Australian Institute of Progress Australian Attitudes to Immigration reported that 69 per cent of its respondents were in favour of current or higher levels of immigration versus 27% who wanted less than current levels. (Table 1). But the institute admitted that

"Our percentages are not necessarily representative of the wider community with the same question in a poll commissioned by the Q Society finding 40.8 per cent thought that it was good. This is a significant discrepancy that we cannot explain." AIS, p. 6.

The Australian Institute for Progress's poll of 1349 respondents, from a non-random survey, gave similar results to the randomized Roy Morgan one, but it also asked questions which showed that a large proportion of those surveyed who agreed with higher immigration intake probably thought that most immigrants were refugees or asylum seekers, and may well have believed their numbers were less than 20,000 per annum, unaware of the far greater numbers of planned invited economic permanent immigrants, numbering around 250-300,000 per annum, or of short term immigrants.

The AIP Australian Attitudes to Immigration poll asked people for comments about the reasoning behind some of their answers and threw up plenty of misunderstandings indicating poor information about numbers and kinds of immigration to Australia. Few people seemed to understand that immigration increased population numbers and that this would affect their lives:

"The refugee issue affects what comes to mind when people talk about immigration. They often seem unaware that Australia is running a substantial non-refugee immigration program amounting to hundreds of thousands a year." (p.8.) "Many of those favouring an increase in immigration think that Australia takes far fewer immigrants than most other countries. (This is objectively wrong as can be seen in a comparison of net migration for all countries complied in the CIA factbook and available at "https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html). (p.8.) [...] "Many of the respondents conflate immigration with the refugee issue." (p.12).

People opposed to immigration seemed to understand more about its role in population growth and how this would affect their lives:

"Those who are opposed to immigration are most likely to cite stress on infrastructure, housing, or the employment market." Australian Attitudes to Immigration, (p.10).

The Australian Institute of Progress does not claim that its results were for an average of Australians. Graham Young, Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Progress Poll told me in an email,

"[...] the survey sample has grown organically over the years. We picked-up a lot of respondents from the Australian newspaper at one stage. The ABC audience has also been a heavy contributor, and various parties have probably tried stacking it over the years. When I’ve done surveys of their media usage most don’t appear to use OLO. The largest single group of respondents seem to be Greens [...] [...] We did use other quantitative surveys as controls to ensure we weren’t too far out of whack." [6]

Mr Young sent me a report about the Morgan poll, suggesting that its similar results bore out the reliability of the Australian Institute of Progress poll. I would have thought the opposite, however, because, if the Morgan poll was adequately randomized and numerous as it claims, it should not agree with the Australian Institute of Progress poll, which surveyed a population probably dominated by refugee-focused Greens, with a dash of right-wingers from The Australian, some ABC viewers and lacking working class people.

Young compared the Australian Institute of Progress Poll to the much wider based 2013 Australian Electoral Study (mentioned near beginning of this article) which does include the ‘working class’ which last year showed very different results from the AIP ones. (See graph at beginning of this article.) The Electoral Study results were that only 24% favoured an increase in immigration, while 41% favoured a decrease and 35% favoured no change.[7] The 2013 Australian Electoral Study also posed its questions as abstract concepts.

For a quite different picture from those provided by Roy Morgan and the AIP, read about the prompted perception of impacts of population growth in South East Queensland, 2010 survey by Queensland Government. There are many reasons to argue that the Queensland survey method was an order of magnitude more valid than the other polls discussed above.

NOTES

[1] From the 2013 survey at http://ada.edu.au/ADAData/questionnaires/ADA.QUESTIONNAIRE.01259.pdf
"Completing the survey
This survey should take around half an hour to complete and your participation is entirely voluntary. If
you choose to participate, you can complete online by going to www.srcentre.com.au/aes and follow the
links. To access this survey you will need the username and password located in the panel in the top
right hand corner of this page. Alternatively, you can complete and return this questionnaire in the reply-
paid envelope provided. Respondents who complete the Australian Election Study early and return the
questionnaire by 26 September 2013 will be entered into a prize draw to win $500 cash. In total 3 x $500
will be drawn. For those who complete and return the questionnaire by 25 October 2013 you will also be
entered into a prize draw to win $500 cash (refer to prize draw terms and conditions of entry at
www.srcentre.com.au/aes). To assist you there are some instructions before the beginning of the
questionnaire about how to fill it out. Remember, it is important that we get your personal views on the
issues outlined in the questionnaire as well as some general information about yourself.
Confidentiality
Your views will remain strictly confidential and will be reported only as part of the general findings from
the survey. The only identifying feature on the questionnaire is a barcode which is used to avoid sending
you reminders after you have returned the completed questionnaire. The link between this barcode and
your name and address is securely stored and is destroyed once the survey is completed."

[2] Saskia Edwards, "Australians deeply divided on immigration policy," 13 October 2015 and "Australia divided on migration issues", The Australian, 13 October 2015.
[3] “Today 57% (up 22% since July 2010) of Australians support an Australian population of over 30 million in 30 years’ time – a stunning increase from only five years ago. Only 9% (down 15%) support a population of under 25 million, a further 23% (down 9%) support a population of 25-30 million and 11% (up 2%) can’t say.

A clear majority of Australians 69% (up 11%) support immigration (of 210,000 in 2013/14) remaining the same 37% (down 10%) or increasing 32% (up 21%) while 26% (down 14%) want immigration levels reduced and 5% (up 3%) can’t say.

Importantly, more Australians believe immigration has a positive effect on Australia 37% (up 4%) than a negative effect 31% (up 1%) while 19% (down 2%) believe immigration has little effect and 13% (down 3%) can’t say according to a special Morgan Poll conducted over three nights last week with a cross-section of 647 Australians aged 14+.

Not surprisingly, a vast majority of Australians support both Skilled migrant immigration (89% cf. 8% oppose) and Family reunion migration (79% cf. 16% oppose).

In addition, the negative debate about Muslims and Asylum seekers has had little impact on how Australians consider these types of migration – 65% of Australians support Muslim immigration up from 54% support in July 2010, while 28% of Australians oppose Muslim immigration.

A large majority of Australians support Asylum seeker immigration (71% up from 52% support in July 2010) while 21% of Australians oppose Asylum immigration.”

[4] For a sample size of 650 people, one standard error would be 2.0; two standard errors would be 3.9 and three standard errors would be 5.9.

To calculate the standard error take the square root of the following sum: the proportion you are interested in multiplied by the proportion of all the rest divided by the sample size.

The smaller the 'standard error', the more reliable the measure. Multiplying by 2 and 3 to get two and three etc standard errors is based on a theoretical second and third sample, and applies some kind of standard deviation norm which gives you the reliability.

Reference: D. A. de Vaus, Surveys in Social Research, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, Allen and Unwin, 1995, pp. 151-2.

[5]

"[...] the survey sample has grown organically over the years. We picked-up a lot of respondents from the Australian newspaper at one stage. The ABC audience has also been a heavy contributor, and various parties have probably tried stacking it over the years. When I’ve done surveys of their media usage most don’t appear to use OLO. The largest single group of respondents seem to be Greens [...] [...] We did use other quantitative surveys as controls to ensure we weren’t too far out of whack." (Source: Email from Graham Young dated Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:56 AM.)

[6] “Our respondents are likely to be more strongly in favour of continued migration than the bulk of the population, as the 2013 Australian Electoral Study shows 59% favouring current levels or higher, and 42% favouring lower levels. This probably reflects the fact that our surveys miss working class Australians. (Table 1).” Source: http://aip.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/151013-AIP-Australian-Attitudes-to-Immigration-Report-FINAL.pdf, p.5.

[7] Here are the questions from the 2013 Australian Electoral Study that contain some relevance to population polls. You can download a copy of the study from: http://politicsir.cass.anu.edu.au/research/projects/electoral-surveys/australian-election-study/aes-2013

- Here is a list of important issues that were discussed during the election campaign. When you were deciding about how to vote, how important was each of these issues to you personally?

Issues Extremely important Quite important Not very important

1. Taxation ............................................ 1 2 3
2. Immigration ....................................... 1 2 3
3. Education .......................................... 1 2 3
4. The environment ............................... 1 2 3
5. Industrial relations ............................. 1 2 3
6. Health and Medicare ......................... 1 2 3
7. Refugees and asylum seekers .......... 1 2 3
8. Global warming ................................. 1 2 3
9. The carbon tax .................................. 1 2 3
10. Management of the economy ........... 1 2 3

- Still thinking about these same issues, whose policies—the Labor Party’s or the Liberal–National Coalition’s—would you say come closer to your own views on each of these issues?
- Still thinking about the same 10 issues, which of these issues was most important to you and your family during the election campaign? And which next?
Please put the number of the issue in the appropriate box below

Issue of most concern .............. Second issue of concern .............
- What do you think is the best way to handle the processing and resettlement of asylum seekers who come by boat and manage to reach Australian waters?
Process and resettle offshore .................................................................... 1
Process offshore but resettle in Australia .................................................. 2
Process and resettle onshore in Australia ................................................. 3
None of these options ................................................................................ 4

- Here are some statements about general social concerns. Please say whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each of these statements.

The death penalty should be reintroduced for murder .....
The smoking of marijuana should NOT be a criminal offence
People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences
Women should be given preferential treatment when applying for jobs and promotions
All boats carrying asylum seekers should be turned back
Same-sex marriages should be prohibited by law
White Australians are advantaged over others in applying for jobs
It’s a problem if people think of themselves mostly as members of ethnic groups rather than as individuals.
The government should increase opportunities for women in business and industry

- Do you think the number of immigrants allowed into Australia nowadays should be reduced or increased?

Increased a lot ........................................................................................... 1
Increased a little ......................................................................................... 2
Remain about the same as it is ................................................................. 3
Reduced a little .......................................................................................... 4
Reduced a lot ............................................................................................. 5

- There are different opinions about the effects that immigrants have on Australia. How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

Immigrants increase the crime rate ..... 1 2 3 4 5
Immigrants are generally good for Australia's economy ............................ 1 2 3 4 5
Immigrants take jobs away from people who are born in Australia ........ 1 2 3 4 5
Immigrants make Australia more open to new ideas and cultures .......... 1 2 3 4 5

What can we believe about mass-media reported surveys that give us counterintuitive information about how we are supposed to feel about high immigration and population growth? This article concludes that we need to check with each other, rather than rely on what the press 'reports'.

The publisher of On Line Opinion recently changed its name to The Australian Institute for Progress, as "part of a major change in direction for the organisation". Although they intend to "continue to publish On Line Opinion", they have announced that their "major work will be policy development." (Source: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=membership)

The new institute has come out with the results of an online survey of 1349 people which, it claims, showed that Australians were 'deeply divided' on immigration policy, notably regarding how refugees are processed and about immigrants from Islamic countries. These discourses suit the mainstream press because they are conflictual with each other.

The survey reporter noted that “Left-wing voters are humanitarian and see immigration almost entirely in terms of refugee policy,” and that Right-wing voters were more focused on economic and skills aspects of immigration.

It also claimed that 69 per cent of Australians 'support high migration'.

What is perhaps most reliable in this report is the fact that it got so much publicity. The mass media in Australia keenly supports any surveys that show support for high immigration. It is very difficult for groups or individuals who question high immigration to get any sustained publicity, whereas groups and individuals (for example authors of pro-immigration books) easily attract funding and publicity from that power-elite that derives focused benefits from high immigration.

We can expect a lot more propaganda for high immigration, confusing economic immigrants with refugees and giving the impression of growing support for high migration.

Commonsense, however, should give pause, since the 'developed world' is currently going through a period of extremely high and uncontrolled immigration and citizens in many countries are obviously very worried by this trend, despite attempts by the mass media to pretend otherwise.

We should be highly suspicious of reports that tell us that 'most of us' support high immigration. The correct way to ascertain what your fellow citizens really think is to talk to them.

In 2005 John Howard had been Prime Minister for nearly a decade and didn't look particularly vulnerable. But then he decided to ramp up Australia's migration intake. Net overseas migration jumped from the 100,000 it had been in 2004 to over 200,000 in just a couple of years. In 2005 migration overtook natural increase as the dominant driver of population growth, and we entered an era of rapid population growth, which we are still in. Our population now increases by a million people every three years.

The era of rapid population growth has also been one of great political instability. John Howard lost the 2007 election and indeed lost his own seat. His successor, Kevin Rudd, maintained and even increased net migration. When he was questioned about rapid population growth in 2009 he declared he was in favour of a Big
Australia. His personal approval ratings had been high until that time, but then they started to fall. He was replaced by Julia Gillard in 2010.

Julia Gillard was aware of the damage that "Big Australia" had done to Kevin Rudd, and said she was not in favour of Big Australia. But she did not change the migration intake much and the problems of rapid population growth persisted. She was replaced by Kevin Rudd in 2013, and he in turn lost the 2013 election and the Liberal
Party came to power with Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. Tony Abbott maintained Australia's net migration intake at over 200,000 per annum, and rapid population growth continued.

Now just two years later Tony Abbott has been replaced by Malcolm Turnbull. Australia has been described as the democratic coup capital of the world, and our political instability has been the subject of international comment. Now of course there are many factors at work in every political setting. I acknowledge the role of Workchoices in the demise of John Howard. I acknowledge the role of internal undermining and the difficulties of managing the hung Parliament in the demise of Julia Gillard. I think that Tony Abbott made a Faustian deal with the devil by promising that there would be no cuts to health, education, or pensions when he was Opposition Leader, only to renege on these promises in the 2014 Budget.

But those factors are insufficient to explain the political instability of the past decade, especially when you see it going on at a State level too. In Victoria and Queensland we have seen right wing governments elected then defeated after just one term, with the elected Victorian Premier toppled in his first term by his own Party, just as
happened to Kevin Rudd and as has just happened to Tony Abbott.

In 2011 I gave a speech which I called the Witches’ Hats Theory of Government. Having studied a lot of countries around the world, I had come to the conclusion that countries with large and rapidly growing populations had more political instability than countries with small and relatively stable populations. I compared governing a country, with various public policy problems you have to solve, to an advanced driving course, where you have to navigate a road without knocking over strategically placed orange traffic cones known as Witches Hats. Each public policy failure -
education, unemployment, aged care, planning, represents a witches hat knocked over.

If you knock over too many Witches Hats, you fail the test, that is to say the electorate, or your party, votes you out. I noted back in 2011 that if a country was stable or only growing slowly its leaders seemed to have fewer problems, and more time to solve the problems, a more content population, and much better political longevity.

But if a country was growing rapidly, problems such as traffic congestion, housing affordability, planning disputes and infrastructure shortfalls generated political instability. It is like driving the car at great speed. Inevitably you are going to hit more hats. Infrastructure is a particular difficulty. A country or community growing at 2 per cent has double the infrastructure task of a stable community, which is why pensioners and retirees feel particularly under the pump from utility charges in a rapidly growing population.

The Abbott Government had little support from young people, who are the victims of job insecurity, housing unaffordability, and rising student debt. All of these things were made worse by rapid population growth. When the jobs at Seven Eleven and numerous other retail outlets are all going to easily exploited temporary migrant
workers, how are young Australians supposed to become financially independent and get entry level work experience?

The Abbott Government also lost the support of older people with its broken promises over cuts to education, health and pensions. It was looking to find money to deliver on Mr Abbott's promise to be the Infrastructure Prime Minister, and avoid a Witches Hat which would not have been there if our population growth had not been so rapid.

So the Witches Hats have claimed another victim. I offer the same advice to Prime Minister Turnbull and his incoming Government as I have freely offered to his predecessors. If you want to last, stop driving so fast!

Source:
The Hon Kelvin Thomson, Federal Member for Wills
Thursday 17 th September, 2015

(Video inside.) Once again Nick Folkes and his Party for Freedom have come up with a very effective way to protest against foreign ownership and overpopulation through invited economic immigration and its impacts.[1] Other groups would do well to imitate these democratic initiatives especially if they differ with Party for Freedom on issues of multiculturalism but care about housing affordability and democracy, rather than simply trying to shut Party for Freedom up and, in the process, allow the growth lobby to destroy Australia. In this video Folkes and his Party continue their campaign to make real estate agents and property developers think twice about selling built property to foreign nationals. They focus on the preponderance of Chinese foreign nationals purchasing Australian property. This cannot help but get attention since the Australian mainstream media constantly popularises this issue, although it does not promote any effective way of countering it. (Note that Fairfax and Murdoch press are heavily invested in property dot coms that market Australian real estate to the world: www.realestate.com and www.domain.com). In the video inside this article Mr Folkes engages effectively with people who show both positive and negative interest in the protest for which he is a spokesperson. What next, Mr Folkes, a protest at an Australian international airport, or on the road towards it?

Party for Freedom's press release with this video

"On Saturday, 29th August 2015, Party for Freedom members and supporters will be carrying out protests at auction sites objecting to foreign nationals purchasing Australian residential property.

Last Saturday, 15th August we held protests or flash mobs at three auction sites. The response was amazing with real estate agents and onlookers totally shocked seeing patriotic Australian arrive with placards and Australian flags reminding both real estate agents and foreign buyers that it is illegal under Australian law to sell existing property to foreign nationals.

Thousands of properties have been illegally sold to foreign nationals yet our government does nothing to stop the buy out. It is economic genocide to transfer assets and wealth to foreign nationals. Also, the impact on housing prices and rentals is huge with Australian property prices being some of the most expensive real estate in the world due to foreign ownership coupled with mass immigration.

Both NSW and Victorian state governments are addicted to stamp duty and will continue to encourage foreign ownership. Last year alone, the slippery NSW Treasury raked in over $7.4 billion in stamp duty. No doubt much of this stamp duty money is ‘dirty money’ from China. The CCP Politburo is on an anti-corruption drive in China so many Chinese nationals with connections to the ‘Chinese Communist Party’ are keen to get their money out of China. China has rules in place restricting the export of undeclared money yet does very little to stop the outflows to Australia and other Western and Asian nations."

The press release also claims, without supplying documentation for the statement, that,

"The Chinese government wants to establish ‘Chinese satellites’ throughout the world giving it control and prestige in many nations. The Chinese government has secret plans to move millions of Chinese nationals out of China to help establish these new colonies.

The press release continues:

The people of Hong Kong have seen their small city-state overrun with mainlanders, this has pushed up property prices and demolished wages and job opportunities. Australia should take notice what is happening around the world and take action but we know that our government is too busy getting intoxicated on lure of easy money."

"It is now up to the people of our nation to take action, and this is exactly what we did last Saturday when we arrived unannounced at three auction sites. The first auction site we arrived at was Chatswood. The real estate agent and prospective buyers weren’t happy seeing us arrive when we reminding them that we do not want to see our nation sold out. Our action caused the auction to be cancelled. Our intention is not to stop or interrupt auctions but to exercise our democratic right of protest and remind all present that it is illegal to sell existing property to foreign nationals. We have a right to be angry and annoyed at seeing foreign nationals steal our economic sovereignty.

The second auction site was Turramurra. Again, the real estate agent and onlookers were totally shocked with some rowdy neighbours calling us “racists’ and “bogans”. There were even more neighbours who quietly gave us support and openly spoke about their own opposition to Labor and Liberal’s foreign sell out. These good people hold the same reservations as we do when it comes to our pimpish real estate industry and government who are more than eager in flogging off our nation to foreign entities."

NOTE

[1] Despite my admiration for the effective democratic protest these Australians are making in defense of housing affordability and Australian sovereignty, Party for Freedom's previous website featured some articles and comments about aboriginals and muslims with which candobetter.net does not agree and with which I cannot agree on anthropological grounds personally, speaking as a sociologist specialising in population, inheritance laws and land-use planning. Furthermore, I think that these comments are antithetical to the Party for Freedom's arguments for sovereignty - which is actually best achieved with a fair dose of endogamy. Here is my reasoning:

These comments and articles use 'scientific' theory against specific groups of peoples. For instance, one article discusses a high rate of cousin marriage in a particular people as if it were unusual or hazardous incest. That is a popular view that does not take into account the widespread role of endogamy in preserving land within a people, and other factors that need to be taken into account when assessing cousin marriage. In fact, a high rate of endogamy need not be genetically damaging; it can be beneficial, both in terms of preserving control over territory and in strengthening positive traits. Depending on the public relations, where one highly endogamous group can be stigmatised for 'inbreeding stupidity' another may be famous for 'inbreeding genius'. When assessing the impact of marriage and land-tenure traditions on genetic inheritance, environment and changes to economy, diet, and social organisation also need to be taken into account. See http://candobetter.net/node/3197 about the importance of dynasties in modern power. There is also a comment on the Party for Freedom site suggesting that a particular group of people have lower average I.Q.s that other people. IQ tests are not reliable when dealing with culture and language differences and this theory also does not take into account mass dispossession and changes to economy, diet and social organisation - and the impact of drugs and alcohol. It's a pity that the Party for Freedom does not seem to be able to see how fighting between groups weakens the ability of Australians to stand up to the powers that have overtaken national control of land, housing and economic benefits.

Despite these reservations, I do not want to fall into the trap of enabling wedge politics, which makes people afraid to learn from positive efforts by other groups on the grounds that those groups also hold opinions of which they disapprove. If I were to engage in wedge politics, I would not publish the Party for Freedom's video, on grounds of my differences with their opinions about issues from endogamous marriages - which are, ironically, also widely held by the general political, scientific and citizen community.

I am a member of the Hornsby Kuringai Greens, NSW and a member of the Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group. On July 18 I emailed all Senate NSW pre select candidates to ask them what they would do, if elected to the Senate, about Abbott's high population growth position, with reference to immigration, 457 visas, and growth economy addiction. I received encouraging responses back from Amanda Findley and Brad Orgill. Whilst I, like many, think it would be a great loss not to have Lee Rhianon in the Senate. She was almost frightening when she hammered home the seriousness of what we are facing with Abbott: TPP, giant coal mines etc., attack on renewable energy; but she won't budge on her position regarding population and immigration. I had a chat with her and James Ryan later and her point was that we are going to be facing thousands of people from the Pacific Islands who have been washed out of their homes by sea level rise and increasing storm frequency and intensity so how can we argue against the current rate? Also she seemed to be saying that it's too complex because of global population reality etc. Below I have published the responses I received to my Population/Immigration/addicted to growth Economy concerns.

Dear Greens Senate NSW pre select candidates.

I`m about to cast my vote for NSW Greens Senate candidates pre selection.

I cannot vote for a Senate candidate who does or says nothing about Australia`s horrendous immigration rate.(and population growth rate.) Greens worthy and humanitarian policy towards environmental and political refugees/assylum seekers is contradicted by a lack of action for a reduction in immigration back to pre John Howard levels - about 50,000 pa. The current rate of 260,000 pa is totally un-sustainable, irresponsible and is resulting in downward pressure on wages, infrastructure failure, sky rocketing city house prices,traffic chaos and threats to delicate ecosystems - eg. North Coast Koala habitat. It is the fuel which fires the developers' and construction industry greed for constant building in Sydney causing excessive demolition of our heritage and increasing population density. More profits for capitalists who bribe the Liberal Party with obscene electoral donations but a down ward spiral in our quality of life and standard of living for ordinary Australians. Greens policy should be in agreement with progress to a Steady State Economy to end the Addicted-to-growth mentality which is destroying life on the planet. Stabilising Australia`s population growth rate is a necessary corollary of this goal among other goals to reduce our eco-footprint per capita and total Australian eco-footprint. Genuine refugees yes, but well off, aspirational, middle class immigrants - we don`t need 260,000 pa. Also their emmigration to Australia represents a brain drain from their own countries. Australia's so called "skills shortage" is a furphy. It's corporate-speak for cheap internationalised labour from non-unionised compliant countries. ie non-unionised - aspirational - compliant - immigrants. The former safe Labor seat of Penrith has swung to the Liberals. John Howard's quadrupling of the immigration rate is the reason. It is Liberal Party social engineering of the electorates. I look forward to your reply in terms on what you will do in the Senate to pressure the Federal Government to reduce population pressure on Australia and in particular to reduce the excessive immigration rate.

Regards.
Geoff Dowsett.
Member. Hornsby Kuringai Greens.
Member. Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group.

Responses from Greens senate NSW pre-select candidates

An encouraging response from Amanda Findley

Hi Geoff. Tough question for an economic immigrant.

I migrated to Australia in 1982 as a 12 year old with my mum, dad and brother - we were escaping poverty and the troubles ofNorthern Ireland. I didn't want to leave my country of origin or my large family, but I had no choice.

My fathers 'family application' was accepted as he did have skills in the info tech area that Australia at that time didn't have. I amvery grateful for the opportunity that I and my family have had- the migration level then was substantially lower and the processwe went through quiet vigorous even though there was still the hangovers from white Australia policy and British Citizenswere given a green light much easier than other NESB people.

So I struggle internally with the debate on immigration as I don't want to be a hypocrite who benefitted and then locked the door -so to speak. My response(Geoff) to the above - If we`re not Aboriginal then we are all part of the on going invasion of Australia.One way of compensating for the destructive impact that we and our ancestors have had on the indigenous humanpopulation and on the forests - wildlife and what was an incredible bio diversity is to stop the destruction now by reducingAustralia`s population growth which continues to cause havoc on the delicate and ancient eco systems of the continent dueto our high human foot print - total and per person.(Geoff)

That being said do I think we have issue - yes indeed. The fixation with the growth at any cost model will be the ruination of ourspecies /planet /ecosystems.

I agree that the current rate of immigration is obscene considering the structural difficulties that we currently face in every cityacross the brown land and even more obscene given our Governments current position of refugees. Absolutely Amanda (Geoff)

I don't support the notion of a big Australia - as a farmer I have an understanding of carrying capacity and I don't think humans fare any better from a feed lot existence than other animals do. We have a long way to go in convincing people to live more frugal lives and that is part of the key to reducing our stress on the planet.

I am certainly interested in promoting steady state economy, but this is not my current area of expertise.

I hope this brief email gives you some insight into my thinking - I will be attending the Hornsby Kuring Gai Greens event on Sunday18th if you would like to have a chat in person.

Regards Amanda Findley

An encouraging response from Brad Orgill

Hi Geoff, I agree with you that inward immigration levels of skilled applicants (as distinct from refugees) have been unnecessarily high. I dobelieve that this has exacerbated the unemployment and underemployment rate and I wrote about this in my published book('Why Labor Should Savour its Greens'). I think the 457 visa scheme in particular has been materially overused. I enclose a scannedextract of the couple of pages from my book highlighting this.

I also believe that high immigration puts downward pressure on wages (and benefits) and increases the need for, and cost to alltaxpayers of, government spending on infrastructure and services. I think (and I also said this in my book) that the governmentfocus on GDP is simplistic (in many ways) of which one is a complete disregard for the more useful measure of GDP PerCapita. The result has been that high immigration has delivered GDP growth but depressed GDP per capita, at a cost to existingAustralians. Business and those deriving their income from invested capital derive benefits from a rapidly increasingpopulation but most Australians do not.

I think housing costs are driven by a variety of factors of which negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions are important. Sotoo is the paradigm for setting interest rates (where the RBA mandate to set rates off CPI ignores housing price inflation). Inwardimmigration and especially the ability for foreigners not immigrating to buy property and circumvent rules has also been amaterial factor. Our governments have been negligent in addressing this (and other factors) to ensure housing costs are contained.We have been notably behind the curve relative to Vancouver and HK where restrictions and explicit taxes have beenimposed.

We need to link the discussion on immigration with a more nuanced discussion on foreign investment as some types of foreigninvestment (such as direct investment in manufacturing or R&D facilities involving technology transfer are of major benefit)but buying the existing housing stock has no benefit.

I think the issues of immigration and foreign investment bring into sharp focus; the question of 'who is the Government governingfor?' and if not for the majority of Australians but rather say - business or lobby groups or relative minority groups withspecific beliefs or agendas - then democracy as currently working in Australia, is failing us.

I hope this gives you an insight into my views.

regards,
Brad Orgill

Dr. Arthur Chesterfield-Evans' Response.

Hi Geoff, You raise a lot of issues.

We need a sustainable world population and sustainable policies for the whole planet. Affluence and a decent life makes people have less children. I am not sure that forced sterilisation works. A new economic system must have a role for everyone in a cooperative rather than a competitive model. This requires a huge paradigm shift.
I am not sure we can merely halt Australia's population growth without thinking about the rest of the world. A small selfish nation will not stand up forever. We took a lot of migrants after WW2, the most in the world for our population. But all the people who came had jobs and all the kids went to the same public schools, not the poor ghettos we have now with unemployed parents.

More global thinking is needed.

Cheers Arthur Chesterfield-Evans

My response to Arhur

Thanks Arthur.
Greens policy correctly prioritises I believe--our humanitarian responsibility to asylum seekers and environmental refugees which we are likely to see thousands of from the Pacific as sea level rises and as weather events intensify. Abbott`s policy of prioritising well off--middle class, aspirational so called "skilled" immigrants who move into the Lend lease and Trigaboff McMansions and swing the formerly safe Labor seats in Sydney and Melbourne to the right and push up demand for Sydney houseprices should be reduced. Their emigration to Aust represents a brain drain from their own country. The dreadful high rise "developments" Sydney residents are now faced with are based on the assumption that population will rise. I believe that a Greens Senator should combine forces with the Member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson and expose the dangers of the Abbott Government's reckless high population growth economy. Use the question time debates - what ever tactics - instruments - are available to Senators. Senator Larissa Waters has expressed her opposition to Australia`s excessive population growth rate at

Regards. Geoff Dowsett

Lyn Maciver's response

Thank you, Geoff, for your strongly expressed views on Australia's current Immigration policy.

As I am sure you would realise Immigration has been a hot topic since colonial times and "policy" development has been erratic and kneejerk at worst with slogans such as "Populate or Perish" to zenophobic "the yellow peril and white Australia" policy.

There have been times of rational diplomacy and some strategic intelligence in our combination of Education and Immigration insights such as the Columbo Plan.

This resulted in having leaders of neighbouring countries educated at Australian schools and universities.

As for the laissez-faire mess we are in just now with full fee paying students and investor parents and too many wanting to have afoot in Australia and another in Asia or elsewhere!!!!.

My position is to require citizenship as basic requirement for ownership of residential property. Business "investment" needs different criteria, especially rural and agricultural land.

We have a big country and it is richly resourced but water and arable land are not at present inexhaustible.

As someone who has studied Permaculture, I am aware that even deserts in time and with careful husbandry can become arable but growth for growth's sake and just expanding into the stratosphere with multiple high rise development is not the way forward in my opinion.

I favour regional development and opportunities for residential and employment hubs networked throughout regional and ruralAustralia instead of current coastal clustering of unsustainable development.

All these alternatives require Imagination and Political Will to enable the best use of our entire land mass. Many people would love to get out of Sydney to cheaper housing, cleaner air, open spaces and less frenetic lifestyle but they need to know they have access to good ongoing educational and locally based employment opportunities and access to reliable and state of the art medical services.

Not rocket science but the emphasis will have to be on promoting life beyond the major cities.

Enormous potential for all Australians.

I do not think numbers are the main criteria. We need to slow down and plan for the future in stages. There has been too much haste and too little intelligent planning for living, sustainable communities to create happy, healthy and creative centres of population all over the nation.

Will require good positive communication to all Australians, selling decentralisation with big benefits.

We are a multicultural nation and that is not going to change. It is both a challenge and a strength in creating diversity and depth of cultural experience for us all.

Hope this gives you some idea of my thinking on the subject.

Best wishes, Geoff. If you would like to discuss with me further, just give me a call on 0457 812 653. I am free now if you want to call.

Just realise that as a Greens Senator for NSW, I would not be a lone ranger, but one of a team, whose decisions are based on stated Greens policy which is not set in concrete but which neither is it ad hoc and policy on the run.

My response to Lyn.

Hi Lyn,

Thanks for your response but I don't think you are aware of the seriousness of Australia's excessive population increase. Decentralisation is not the answer due to our globally significant eco hot spots, delicate and vulnerable eco systems/wildlife habitats - aboriginal heritage and environmental impact per person that is too high in marginal areas away from cities. There would also be vast communication and transport costs. There - poor soils - drought - global warming impacts etc.

Our impact on the environment is absolutely linked to the population size---Are you familiar with Paul Ehrlich`s equation Impact=Population x Affluence x Technology ? I =PAT ? Australia's eco footprint per capita is one of the highest on the planet. We must reduce our population growth rate. Japan now has a negative growth rate. Europe and Scandinavia- no population growth. See some of Dr. Haydn Washington's slides from recent Nth Side Forum talk on Population attchd.

Australia is now in an unprecedented biodiversity crisis (see "Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment, 2002"; NHT Report). Yet instead of urgently addressing this life threatening crisis, our governments are not only ignoring it, but their policies are clearly designed to exacerbate it. They are driven by ideology and economy that is completely divorced from the natural environment and the benefits of its ecosystem services on which all life on this planet depends. Our Federal and State govts have been hijacked by sociopathic corporations that have no concern for the impact of the population growth on - Australia's threatened bio-diversity natural habitats - quality of life in our cities - meltdown of urban infrastructure - traffic chaos - sky rocketing house prices - a downward spiral in our standard of living and quality of life. Who will profit from Australia's population boom? Answer: Only the capitalist class at the expense of the environment,our quality of life as our infrastructure is stretched and delicate ancient eco systems are destroyed . This is massive corporate welfare as corporations pay no tax to support the need for up graded infrastructure and pay nothing to counteract the environmental collapse --and reap the obscene profits as population increases. Solution---Cut population growth immediately by cutting immigration and closing down Abbott's 457 Visa rort.

Cheers. Geoff Dowsett

James Ryan`s Response

Geoff I agree with you about limiting growth in the traditional economic sense and protecting our environment. As you might be aware I am currently taking Land & Environment Court action to protect the bushland nesting habitat of the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater.

I am particularly concerned about the increasing rates of consumption per capita in our society and the implications that has for our footprint on the planet.

Happy to talk to you about these issues.

James

The policy and position of Australian government with respect to population issues is the most influential factor likely to impact on Australia’s future sustainability and hence the prosperity of current and future citizens. Because of the bipartisan government position on population/immigration numbers it is all but impossible to engender an effective public debate on these issues. I therefore welcome this opportunity created by the Productivity Commission to have this debate in a manner that is untarnished by vested interests and scaremongering about perceived xenophobia.

The current fertility rate for Australian women is hovering at around replacement levels.[1] This level decreased significantly in the decades leading up to 2000 and has substantially stabilised since then. I believe this choice by Australian families at once represents a level of confidence in future prosperity of the nation as well as a desire to ensure quality parenting that can be better delivered through smaller family sizes. Given a continuance of this statistic our population would stabilise at around 28 million. This is more than 20% higher than the level recommended by the Australian Academy of Science as a sustainable level while maintaining the current standard of living that all Australians expect to pass on to our descendants. The corollary to this statement is that our population growth levels are already such that they are compromising the prosperity of future Australians. Nevertheless, at this level the nation would be able to respond effectively to both positive and negative externalities that may impact on our future prosperity.

The major impediment in the way of us achieving this flexible and optimum outcome is our level of immigration. Immigration has been by far the most significant driver for Australia’s rapid population increase over the last two decades.

Population increase as a result of immigration impacts the country in a number of ways:
- Upfront impacts to infrastructure congestion and costs
- Increased impact on the environment
- Dilution of wealth creating resources over an increased distribution
- Increased disparity of wealth
- Erosion of amenity and culture.

Having a local market is now irrelevant

Whilst there is some truth to the idea of innovation being enhanced by diversity the concept that increasing population of itself somehow makes us all more wealthy is simply unsubstantiated spin, put out by vested interests. In the past, Australia has benefited from growth to our critical mass of population. This has facilitated domestic industries to develop where a smaller population could not have sustained these industries. Those days are gone. With global capital, communications and distribution networks industries will develop and flourish where they incur the lowest costs. Through the internet, individual consumers now, and increasingly so in the future, will purchase directly from the lowest cost supplier and the lowest cost distributer in the world. Whether we agree with it or not, governments are actively ensuring that no legal or commercial barriers can be used protect local industries. Having a local market is now irrelevant. As such, any petition that argues that increases to our population will enhance local market strength should be dismissed.

Infrastructure Costs

Wealth and wealth generation and our standard of living in Australia is supported by an array of public infrastructure, much of which is owned and controlled by government. A review of the value of the government portion of public assets across the three levels of government indicates a total current value of approximately $1.9 – $2.0 trillion.

It is reasonable to argue that any increase in population resulting from immigration will need to be supported by a commensurate increase in this public infrastructure. This equates to a value in excess of $83,000 per immigrant.

Note that the previous number represents a depreciated value of assets and not the current replacement value. It can be argued that migration necessitates the building of new infrastructure and so should be costed at the current value but I will ignore this argument for the sake of presenting a conservative position.

There are three major factors that impact on this argument:
- Higher population density will result in more efficiency in the utilisation of some assets.
- The cost of provision of supplementary infrastructure to provide additional capacity in an already built environment is significantly higher than the cost of the original assets ie. a tunnel costs far more than the above ground road it supplements.
- Provision of major infrastructure is almost always incremental. For a continually increasing demand, this results in an infrastructure complement that is always operating at either below or above optimum capacity. The more rapid the population change, the more severe the impact of this derogation in efficiency.
I believe in an Australia at the current time and with our current growth rates the last two of these negative factors will far outweigh the benefits of the first.

Environmental Costs

Australians currently are responsible for one of the highest GHG emissions of any country. On average we emit around 16T of GHG per person per year. The bulk of immigrants arriving here originate from countries with GHG emissions at a fraction of the Australian numbers. From a world perspective this flow of people therefore represents a huge negative impact on the effort to limit climate change.

Putting the world perspective aside and looking purely at the financial impact to Australia the immigration numbers will result in a significant increase in the costs this country will incur in order to meet our international obligations. Although GHG emissions are currently trading for around $20 per tonne it is expected that this value will rise to over $60 per tonne in order to meet the 2050 target of a 50% reduction. The price will continue to climb beyond this point.

Running an NPV analysis for a 30 year old on the basis of a GHG price of $40 per tonne will yield an upfront cost of approximately $16,000.

Note that this figure represents a small fraction of the total environmental cost of population increase but it is that portion that can be readily quantified and has a high degree of certainty in terms of our national cost obligation.

Dilution of Wealth Resources

A number of studies have been done in other countries to assess the net benefits of migration. Invariably these studies have determined that there was no net benefit to the existing population derived from immigration. The most definitive of the studies was conducted by the UK government that came to this same conclusion.

The most significant aspect where the Australian situation differs from the UK case is in the basis of the two economies. The UK derives most of its wealth through the leverage of labour whereas most of our core wealth is derived from exploitation of both renewable and non-renewable resources. The income that Australia earns from these sources represents around 80% of the amount we use to pay our way in the world.

The sources of this income are finite. The thinner we spread these income sources over our population the less there is for each of us to enjoy.

Assessment of the per capita value of national resources is quite a difficult exercise and subject to a range of assumptions regarding public and private returns from these resources. The diminution of per capita wealth through the dilution of resources cannot be ignored and should be the subject of a public enquiry by the Productivity Commission.

Total Financial Impact

Given the above factors each new immigrant costs the Australian public well in excess of $100,000 per person in public infrastructure, environmental and dilution of public wealth. If the government’s objective is to provide a net wealth benefit to its citizens through immigration, then this is the minimum that we should expect new migrants to return to Australian society.

Often there is an argument that new immigrants will pay back their upfront infrastructure costs through the taxes they pay during the course of their working lives. The trouble with this argument is, that the bulk of taxes simply go towards the costs of recurrent government expenditure. New infrastructure spending represents only around 4% of total government expenditure. Using this proportion and an NPV analysis on the tax payable by a 30 year old immigrant, in order to pay off the upfront infrastructure cost, they would need to pay over $95,000 (present value) per year in tax over the entire course of their working lives. This level of tax is unlikely to be recovered from even the top 1% of new immigrants.

It therefore makes sense to recover the upfront costs from new migrants upon entry thus allowing market forces to dictate those immigrants that will be in a position to make a positive financial contribution to Australia’s net wealth.

Increased Disparity of Wealth

The effect of population increase on labour prices can be analysed using the most well established economic tool, the cost demand curve. The greater the availability of labour in the economy the lower the price will be for that labour. Although we may want to pretend otherwise, the bulk of immigrants to Australia commence on the bottom end of the labour market. Even skilled migration applicants generally bring with them family members who will be taking entry level positions in the jobs market. It is undeniable that this will push down the price of the bottom end of the labour market.

At the same time there are substantial corporate benefits associated with increasing the population. Land development, banking, retail of consumer and whitegoods all derive the bulk of their profit growth from the growth in population. While in itself this is not bad. On a balanced playing field these profits would circulate into the economy therefore growing Australia’s overall net wealth. The trouble is, there is not a balanced playing field. There is a disproportionate ownership of most Australian corporations by foreign owners. The extra profits generated are not recycled back into the Australian economy but instead are siphoned off to overseas investors. There are some Australian owners of corporations that have derived substantial wealth from population growth, but as a general rule, the greater the rate we stimulate the economy through population growth, the greater the rate that profits generated are siphoned off overseas.

The use of 457 visas only exacerbates the above effect. I know for a fact that the 457 visa scheme is being rorted in the computer programming industry. Indian programmers are being brought in on 457 visas at a salary of around $25,000 per year. They have been used to replace Australian programmers who previously held these positions and earned around $60,000 per year.

The major companies involved in this rort are following the government procedural process to the letter. They are advertising the positions in the Australian market making the low salary offered for the position very clear. Naturally they receive no applications at these low rates. They then use this information to justify that they cannot acquire employees in the local market and hence the need to import labour through the 457 scheme. Virtually all of the salaries earned by these 457 workers is being repatriated back to India. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of experienced Australian programmers either working as unskilled labour or collecting unemployment benefits.

So an industry that was entirely self-contained, training and employing local people to generate wealth has been replaced by one that has a net effect of draining wealth out of the economy.

If this is the known case in this one field then it is very reasonable to expect that this same practice is being utilised across all industries. How is this scheme beneficial to the Australian economy?

Both the importation of low skilled labour and the 457 visa scheme is eroding the earning capacity of the less well off in Australia. At the same time these arrangements are benefiting corporate owners. This practice has already diminished the egalitarian nature of Australian society and will cause further deterioration if allowed to continue.

Erosion of Amenity and Culture

It is very difficult to put measures on amenity, and even more difficult to quantify loss of culture.

The argument for the correlation of higher population and the erosion of amenity is obvious. Congestion on roads and public transport, the need to live further from places of work, lack of provision of government services once taken for granted, the overcrowding of beaches, parks and recreation areas are all the direct result of population growth. The counter argument is that much of this loss of amenity is due to low infrastructure spending. Higher relative spending will certainly fix some of the problems, but not all. And, as indicated above in the economic analysis, this higher spending is simply not financially feasible without governments going into higher debt or a higher tax regime.

While I am sure the advantages of a diverse culture will be put forward by proponents of high immigration numbers, it is worth considering one negative aspect that is rarely discussed.

In the first half of the 20th century, Australia had by most standards a very homogeneous culture. Because of this homogeneity the various governments of the day were able to make bold plans for the future that were generally supported by a voting public that spoke with a single consistent voice. Over the last twenty years this capacity to make strong long term plans has completely disappeared from all tiers of Australian government. Politics is completely consumed by the need to satisfy small special interest groups rather than the focus on the general common wealth. Diversity of culture is not solely driven by immigration but immigration is the major contributing factor to it. Thus the capacity of governments to make consistent long term plans for the future has been significantly hampered by our growth in cultural diversity. The detrimental economic effects of this while indeterminate should not be ignored.

It is difficult to justify in a submission to the Productivity Commission the true value to the community of the freedoms we used to enjoy in this country. Freedoms that have been curtailed either directly due to the density of population or have come about as a result of necessary government rules and regulations to control society that has become both larger and more complex. It is these past freedoms that formed the core of what used to be Australian culture. Unfortunately, most such justification will be viewed simply as nostalgia.

I retaining an abiding wish to ensure that my grandchildren (as yet unborn) will enjoy the feeling of being Australian and proudly different from the rest of the world. These differences however, are being profoundly diluted as a direct result of the combined effects of immigration levels and the adoption of multi-culturalism. Through these policies we are consigning future children of our nation to be simply amorphous world citizens rather than uniquely Australian. That fact is deeply concerning.

John Roles

Queensland.

NOTES

Candobetter.net Editor's note: Sub-replacement fertility is a total fertility rate (TFR) that (if sustained) leads to each new generation being less populous than the previous one in a given area. In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman, but the threshold can be as high as 3.4 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates.[1] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement was 2.33 children per woman in 2003.[1] This can be "translated" as 2 children per woman to replace the parents, plus a "third of a child" to make up for the higher probability of boys being born, and early mortality prior to the end of their fertile life.[2]

Replacement level fertility in terms of the net reproduction rate (NRR) is exactly one, because the NRR takes both mortality rates and sex ratios at birth into account. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility#cite_ref-2

Update: See note [1] on where candobetter.net's values differ from those apparent on Party for Freedom site. John Ajaka, the NSW Minister for Multiculturalism's indignation at Nick Folkes's (Party for Freedom)[1] protests against foreign property ownership in Australia would ring truer if Ajaka distanced multiculturalism from the billion dollar property development growth lobby that has captured the multicultural tag. See Background on the Australian Multicultural Foundation. Instead he sounds like a hypocrite attacking an Australian who tries to stand up to this Goliath.[2] Unfortunately multiculturalism has become code for mass migration and a political shield for a powerful global network of engineers, banks and financiers, property developers, government departments and academic propagandists, represented by numerous peak bodies of which the Property Council of Australia is probably foremost. The Fairfax and Murdoch Press are members of this growth lobby with strong vested interests in their own huge property dot coms, realestate.com.au and domain.com.au. The major political parties are similarly invested, with the Labor Party's stake best known, but it is no Robinson Crusoe.

The multicultural cloak has been given unmerited authority and power by vested interest and protection from political figures. Nick Folkes is a working man attempting to lead protests against mass dispossession of Australian citizens by virtually unregulated foreign property buyers who are outbidding Australians and contributing to an overpriced Australian housing market.

The multiculturalist Goliath is well-organised to maintain and increase focused financial benefits from high immigration, but the Australian public, which wears the cost of mass immigration and land-speculation, has great difficulty organising to combat it.

This disorganisation of the masses is largely due to the way the Fairfax, Murdoch and ABC media manage 'public' debate to reflect the opinions of the big end of town whilst pretending to reflect those of the majority. Although population growth is a constant topic in the mass media, the media usually only publishes criticism of the growth lobby if they can pretend such criticism is laced with innuendos of racism, NIMBYism or can be stigmatised as 'ignorant'. Whilst Tony Abbott is cocooned by his party and the mainstream media against public criticism for wearing his foot in his mouth, we can expect that Nick Folkes will be afforded no such protection for speaking plainly against narrow financial interests that cost most Australians.

There are huge sums of money involved in the population growth and foreign investment that uses multiculturalism to censor criticism of its projects and muzzle those it disadvantages. According to the Foreign Investment Review Board, China overtook the United States as the biggest source of proposed foreign investment in Australia in 2013-14 and may soon 'pump $60 billion into housing' here. The ABC reports that Knight Frank property developers and realtors 'showed Chinese investment in the Sydney and Melbourne property markets doubled last year and that Chinese investors spent more on Australian real estate than on properties in London and New York for the first time'. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-29/chinese-invasion-leaflet-campaign-slammed-as-idiotic/6506412

Numbers and wedge politics

It makes you think that Pauline Hanson's speech writer was on to something when he had her say in 1996 that Australia was in danger of being 'swamped' by Asians. Americans and Canadians are still not far behind though in driving up housing prices, resource demand and development expansion over Australia's fast diminishing green spaces.

In 1996 Australia's population was 18,300,100. At 31 May 2015 it had grown by 5,306,010, that is, by more than a quarter, and was 23,838,210 (Source). From 2009 planned invited economic mass immigration of between 250,000 and 300,000 per annum far outweighed Australia's natural increase (births minus deaths) of 150,000 per annum.

Every effort has been made by the authorities to confuse the public about the numbers. In 2006 immigration statistics became uncomparable with those before 2009 after the statistical method was changed.[3] There have been concerted mediatised wedge politics to

(a) confuse planned invited economic immigration and paying foreign students with refugees and asylum seekers, and
(b) stigmatise asylum seekers and refugees as overwhelmingly freeloaders and criminals

This confusion has divided the community, journalists and political party members.

A better informed public could unite against overpopulation that is inflating the cost of living and housing here and the illegal wars that are creating huge numbers of refugees and economic immigrants as economies and nations are destroyed by global investment in war and 'development'. Instead the wider community has been relegated to a passive and worried audience as mass media anointed 'community leaders' pontificate on the imminence of terrorism and the need to retreat into a police state or engage indefinitely overseas in wars against terrorism. (See, for example, David Kilcullen, "Blood Year,"Quarterly Essay, No.58, May 2015).

Leaflets distributed by Nick Folkes say, "Aussie battlers are being pushed to the fringes of our cities while foreign intruders are reaping the benefits of our hard-working previous generations." "The new dispossessed or forgotten people will one day be remembered as the 'stolen generation' priced out of their market by invading Chinese foreigners." He might have rephrased his proposition more 'correctly' as a complaint that organised mass migration was inflating the property market, without pointing at particular national or ethnic beneficiaries, but he wouldn't have received mass media coverage then by taking advantage of the mass media headlines which said exactly the same thing:
"Cashed-up Chinese are pricing the young out of the property market".
"Sydney house prices driven by Chinese 'bolthole' buyers".
"Chinese investors are pushing into Melbourne and Sydney."

Although some put it in triumphant economic terms:

"Real Estate: Vendors delighted as Chinese buyers flock to Glen Waverley and Mt Waverley."
"Chinese property investment through the roof: What it really means."
"China's $60 billion Australian property splurge"

It didn't matter whether the media put its articles about Chinese investment in positive or negative terms, property agents still advertised close to these stories. The developers and investors, including the newspaper property dot coms cannot lose in this globalised market as long as there is population growth.

Politics and power

Ecological groups have for years earnestly and soberly criticised trends to overpopulate Australia by citing immigration statistics and the impact of overdevelopment on Australia's environment and ecology, hardly making a ripple in the mainstream media or the awareness of the general public, despite the fact that population growth is the number one topic in the mass media. The fact is that the Australian public have been sensitised by commercial and public mass media to multiculturalism and economic terms and desensitised to ecological and scientific terms. A political movement that succeeds in mobilising Australians against population growth is likely to use the terms the public are most familiar with and those are the ones that the mass media consistently use. This is the case with Nick Folkes's Party for Freedom.

Nick Folkes is trying to register his Party for Freedom as a political party. Success could be dangerous. Tony Abbott, then parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs , organised the Australians for Honest Politics Trust in 1996, which financed litigious activity culminating in the jailing of Australian politician Pauline Hanson in 2003 on the grounds that her party was improperly constituted. See https://newmatilda.com/2012/12/11/how-abbott-funded-fight-against-one-nation. Although sentenced to prison for three years, Hanson was freed on an appeal which found that her party was in fact legally constituted. But the message had been delivered to Australian citizens and residents that if they criticise mass immigration and the industries that cultivate it, punishment will come from the top. John Howard, the Prime Minister in 2003 explained to Lateline, "It's the job of the Liberal Party to politically attack other parties," but actually, it looks as if the top job is to protect the growth lobby. Tony Abbott is now Australia’s Prime Minister.

NOTES

[1] The title of this article was originally, "Nick Folkes a David standing up to a Multicultural Goliath," but we have changed it, regretfully. Even though Mr Folkes shows some courage in standing up to power, in the form of the multicultural property development lobby, his website features articles and comments of which we don't want to appear to approve. These comments and articles use 'scientific' theory against specific groups of peoples. For instance, one article discusses a high rate of cousin marriage in a particular people as if it were unusual or hazardous incest. That is a popular view that does not take into account the widespread role of endogamy in preserving land within a people, and other factors that need to be taken into account when assessing cousin marriage. In fact, a high rate of endogamy need not be genetically damaging; it can be beneficial, both in terms of preserving control over territory and in strengthening positive traits. Depending on the public relations, where one highly endogamous group can be stigmatised for 'inbreeding stupidity' another may be famous for 'inbreeding genius'. When assessing the impact of marriage and land-tenure traditions on genetic inheritance, environment and changes to economy, diet, and social organisation also need to be taken into account. See http://candobetter.net/node/3197 about the importance of dynasties in modern power. There is also a comment on the Party for Freedom site suggesting that a particular group of people have lower average I.Q.s that other people. IQ tests are not reliable when dealing with culture and language differences and this theory also does not take into account mass dispossession and changes to economy, diet and social organisation - and the impact of drugs and alcohol. It's a pity that the Party for Freedom does not seem to be able to see how fighting between groups weakens the ability of Australians to stand up to the powers that have overtaken national control of land, housing and economic benefits.

[2] "The man behind a letterbox campaign warning Sydney's housing market is under threat from 'Chinese invasion' is an idiot, New South Wales' Multiculturalism Minister says."

[3]#txtNf2"> ↑  "Technical note: '12/16 month rule' methodology for calculating net overseas migration from September Quarter 2006 onwards." In itself this was a tragedy because Australia shared with France the distinction of havg the longest set of comparable demographic statistics in the world.

The function of Australian mass media seems to be to inveigle listeners into complicity in the terrible transformation that is being visited on us in Australia (turning what were once pleasant capital cities where most of us now live, into dystopian megalopolises) by inviting them to 'choose' between distasteful solution A or unpleasant solution B.

I am fed up.

I am fed up with the fact that nearly all the air time on local ABC radio is filled with discussion of the symptoms of rapid population growth and human overpopulation with scarcely a passing reference to the actual cause. For example, today I caught a discussion of wind farms on the Basalt Plains in Western Victoria. A woman called Jon Faine’s program with a concern that there are only 500 brolgas left in the area and that wind farms impinge on the birds’ territory by around an 8kms margin from each wind farm. Host, Jon Faine as devil's advocate pointed out that the brolgas could go somewhere else as the wind farms were not really taking up a lot of space. The next caller ridiculed the brolga advocate with the opposite argument that if coal continued to be used to generate electricity then there would be no environment for brolgas or anything else. Neither caller mentioned that with increasing population, more and more electricity needs to be generated either by coal or by wind farms or whatever will do the trick. The human environmental footprint in Victoria is growing from a size 10 to a size 14 with no end in sight.

I’m also fed up that the Leader newspaper was delivered to my letter box this week with the front page headline “Please ease squeeze” plastered over a photo of South Yarra railway station exit/entrance presumably at peak hour in the afternoon as the crowds are walking away from the station. According to the article the station is a daily bun fight with too many passengers for the capability of the station. Prahran State Greens MP, Sam Hibbens “has lodged a Freedom of Information request with the department of transport to find out what improvements are being considered for the bustling hub.” This same MP in 2010 as a Federal candidate was invited to reply (both in writing and by phone) to a questionnaire on population for Sustainable Population Australia but no reply was received. In a nutshell, Hibbens is calling for improvements in the station to accommodate an “extra 5000 people expected to move into the Forest Hill precinct adjacent to the station in the next 15 years.” I feel exasperated to know that it is already overcrowded, so the improvement would have to provide an enormous increase in capacity if it were to accommodate the continuous increase in population which is expected. This increase in population ensures continued discomfort and stress for passengers. This is a big deal as it is an essential part of their daily lives and we only get one life each, as far as I know. Governments don’t seem to be about improving lives at all, only talking about it, staving off complaints, and controlling what should be uproar about the completely avoidable destruction of the reasonable lives we used to lead and could have continued to have led.

I am equally fed up with the articles in the daily media such as The Age in Melbourne (several this week) about booming population growth as though it is news. To me it is just a constant feed of reminders to the readership of a decreasing quality of life due to socially engineered population hyper-growth.

Turning to the radio, the function of chat shows especially on the ABC seem to be to inveigle the audience into complicity in this terrible transformation that is being visited on us in Australia (turning what were once pleasant capital cities where most of us now live, into dystopian megalopolises) by inviting them to feel they are being heard by calling in with suggestions and their views on whether they’d like distasteful solution A or unpleasant solution B. Alternatively, the programs feature trivial topics as a brief distractions from the reality of where we are heading. (As I write this, the program I can hear is dedicated to personal coincidences.)

I’d love to know what instructions the columnists of the daily newspapers are given to guide them in their articles on population growth. It must be something like “Make sure that you don’t let anyone know that high population growth is a government choice. Make it sound like a trend you are following and reporting on that has no rhyme or reason."

ACOSS has come to the amazing and unprecedented conclusion that for "an increasing number of Australians, housing affordability is a serious problem that affects their ability to work". A quarter of people battling with housing stress regularly skip meals in order to pay their rent.

"There's a lot of overcrowding, people are bunking up, living in inappropriate forms of housing which are not good for anybody," chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service Dr Goldie said. (Article republished from comment to front page article.)

Surely this explosion of logic, the profound cognitive process that drew to this conclusion is well overdue? The conclusion is surely obvious, that homelessness is more than a product of "domestic violence" as it's usually portrayed.

Our cities are becoming hostile to our living standards, and the vulnerable are the first to fall between the cracks.

Our real estate and housing-construction based economy means more congestion, and negative social impacts. On any given night, more than 7000 people sleep in crisis accommodation, while more than 105,000 identify as homeless. This is in a country that touts our living standards and wealth all over the world, to lure more people to migrate here!

Dr Goldie, instead of addressing the major cause of poverty, unemployment and unaffordable housing - population growth - she's endorsing funding for the homeless, and urged a bipartisan commitment to increase housing supply to help vulnerable people afford a place to live. To "increase housing supply", or putting more heat on the housing market frenzy, won't produce "affordable housing". With budget constraints, and heavy cut-backs to public services, there's nothing set aside for more social housing either.

ACOSS have no population policy, but their methods are more funding, more more more - of fixing symptoms and not addressing the cause - greed and growth!

Housing affordability driving homelessness SMH

Ref: RN Breakfast interview with Joe Hockey on 26 February 2015

Traitor: "A person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle." Substitute "a nation of people" for "friend".......

Fran Kelly's interview with Joe Hockey provides yet another example of the "don't mention the population growth" policy of Government, all the major political parties and the ABC. This betrays the principles set out in the ABC Code of Practice. This betrays a cause, which is impartial discussion of humane and sustainable solutions for Australia and its international conduct. This betrays a nation of people.

Is the ABC's conduct an attack on causes including:

• Objective assessment of what Australia can do to maximise it's humanitarian support for the world's most needy people using responsible economic management that incorporates detailed analysis of the economic impact of extreme population growth?
• Objective assessment of what Australia can do to optimise its strategy for reducing carbon emissions by considering the impact of extreme population growth on these emissions and on the means (economic and technical) available for their reduction?
• Objective assessment of the impacts of extreme population growth on the Federal Budget and what measures, if any, might be taken to address these impacts?

Australians are a "Weird Mob". In Australian schools in the 60s Australian history lessons made very little mention of the convict origins of Australian settlers and the dispossession of the Aboriginal peoples. Was this somehow due to shame and awkwardness?

Today we have Fran Kelly and her colleagues at the ABC using a far more destructive form of concealment and denial to bury the population growth issue. Are they ashamed and confused about the relationship between Pauline Hanson's perceived racism and xenophobic intolerance and the population growth management issue?

The interview with Joe Hockey displayed the contempt for logic we've come to expect from Kelly. She failed to ask Joe Hockey about a significant root cause of demand for real estate in the context of foreign buyers; which is extreme population growth.

The legacy of Pauline Hanson is a different issue to Population Growth Management for Goodness sake! Extreme Population Growth is like Convict Origins and Aboriginal Dispossession. It does exist!

There are three groups engaged in the population growth management debate:

• The inept, Pauline Hanson style, attacks on immigration which supported baser levels of resentment. This is analogous to an Aboriginal throwing a spear at someone from the First Fleet
• The ludicrous, ABC style, Government sanctioned, taxpayer funded, population growth denial
• The moderate, reasonable, scientific, humanitarian, intellectually competent group who may represent a majority of Australians who just want to see open, impartial, public policy debate of population growth management instead of an Intergenerational Report issued once every 5 years as a concocted justification for doing nothing to address the complex myriad of consequential issues

Without allowing the last group to have a voice on the ABC, Fran Kelly, and all who support her, are arguably traitors and criminals.

Politicians do not sign an oath of impartiality.

But the ABC is legally bound to act with impartiality and is therefore an unlawful organisation because it deliberately misrepresents or conceals (otherwise known as taxpayer funded fraud) what is arguably the most important humanitarian, social, environmental and economic issue facing modern Australia.

Migration is hardly a solution to world poverty and conflict, but the mainstream media predictably push this line. Even the Guardian, for all its purported democratic values, continuously pushes for open borders without disclosing that these also facilitate a right-wing agenda for cheap imported labour sources and the crushing of local industry and employment. Its recently issued 'special report' entitled, "Hardline Australia, confused Scandinavia and tense Russia: the global immigration picture" http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/hardline-australia-confused-scandinavia-and-tense-russia-the-global-immigration-picture has been described as 'an appalling, if predictable, piece of propaganda."

An appalling, if predictable, piece of propaganda from the Guardian.

Dr Jane Sullivan, of Sustainable Population Australia, writes

"The idea that immigrants actually might have a negative impact on native people is completely rejected, so that any ill-feeling is attributed to racism and far-right neo-nazi manipulation of the great unwashed (who are too lazy to do the work that the immigrants are doing).

No mention of population pressure at all - not in what is causing them to move, nor in the concerns of receiving countries. All immigrants are saints, all native people who don't welcome them with open arms are facists.

When the Guardian does actually refer to the size of the immigration flows, it is full of inconsistencies - China's welcoming attitude to immigrants is contrasted with the UK's meanness, having just said that China has only given 5,000 permanent residency visas since 1980!

Spain is claimed to have had a net exodus since 2010, but they give the figure of (positive) 600,000 as its net immigration for 2010-2014. The massive inflow to Spain, adding 10% to its population between 1999 and 2009, is not connected by the Guardian in any way with the massive unemployment now driving them away.

The Guardian makes a big thing of how silly it is for the Spanish to resist immigration when they have more people leaving than coming (if in fact they do), but completely rejects any idea that the Scandinavians or Australians might have justification given their high net inflow."

As for the piece on Australia, apart from greatly understating the size of our net immigration (it's been well over a million in the past 5 years, but they say 750,000), the author chides that the conversation is all about refugees and ignores the bulk of immigration, then proceeds to talk only about refugees and ignore the rest of our immigration.

Naomi Klein in This Changes Everything - good work but confusion persists

The same Guardian incoherence is to be found in the otherwise superb works of another Guardian writer and author, Naomi Klein. She writes in This Changes everything, Penguin, 2014, how international trade laws have effectively destroyed local employment and manufacturing initiatives, yet campaigns for open borders.

"One of the key provisions in almost all free trade agreements involves something called 'national treatment', which requires governments to make no distinction between goods produced by local companies and goods produced by foreign firms outside their borders. Indeed, favoring local industry constitutes illegal 'discrimination.' This was a flashpoint in the free trade wars back in the 1990s, precisely because these restrictions effectively prevent governments from doing what Ontario was trying to do: create jobs by requiring the sourcing of local goods as a condition of government support. This was just one of the many fateful battles that progressives lost in those years."

Naomi writes specifically about the contradictory impact of globalism on efforts to combat climate change, which she recognises as needing to be locally based. She is however unable or finds it unwise to criticise the same contradictions when it comes to citizens' rights to self-determination. It seems that where she comes from you can only tell so much of the truth - or perhaps this is mainly due to ignorance. After all, she has only just begun to realise how important our biophysical environment is. She can see how economic ideology conflicts with environmental health but she hasn't worked out how the politics of open borders conflict with democracy and citizens' rights.

On the issue of immigration, whilst she is vocal on Australia's treatment of asylum seekers, she apparently knows nothing of Australia's intake of vast numbers of planned invited economic immigrants in the context of changes to Australian industrial law, which now make immigrant workers a threat to local workers. Nor of how the issue of asylum seekers has been used as a wedge to prevent sensible discussion of population numbers.

"We drive down wages, ship jobs overseas, destroy worker protections, hollow out local economies, then wonder why people can't afford to shop as much as they used to. We offer those failed shoppers subprime mortgages instead of steady jobs and then wonder why no one foresaw that a system built on bad debts would collapse."

Whilst she talks about indigenous groups using their land-rights to fight against fracking and other carbon emitting processes, she also barracks for more open borders, which is antithetical to the survival of indigenous peoples and land, which is defined endogamously and territorially. She also uncritically endorses internationalist corporate 'environmental organisations' because they are 'large'. The ones she cites are known for their business models and to prioritise open borders over democracy, the conservation of natural ecologies and local self-determination - just like the capitalist globalist deregulators. It seems that, in this case, the author of No Logo, Picador, 1999, cannot tell the difference between brand names and actual products.

"As we will see, communities trying to stop dangerous oil pipelines or natural gas fracking are building powerful new alliances with Indigenous peoples whose territories are also at risk from these activities. And several large environmental organizations in the U.S. - including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the BlueGreen Alliance, and 350.org took stands in support of demands for comprehensive reform of the U.S. immigration system, in part because migration is increasingly linked to climate and also because members of immigrant communities are often prevented from defending thesmelves against heightened environmental risk since doing so could lead to incarceration or deportation."

Klein's work in This Changes Everything should not, of course, be dismissed for these failings. It is another great contribution to critical political literature.

The housing bubble is one of the the biggest financial threats to Australia, and is still inflating [1]1. Our banksters still refuse to admit that there is a bubble, preferring to state that there is just a bit of "froth" on the market.

"I don't think we have a housing bubble overall, but there's some froth in the Sydney market and some of the potential house purchasers need to be wary,"

says HSBC bank's chief economist for Australia and New Zealand Paul Bloxham.[2]
When you hear language like this, where euphemisms replace straight talk, you can be sure that you're being served buffet proportions of horse manure. Mr Bloxham is either lying or ignorant, and therefore either no longer feels it necessary to make an attempt to give legitimacy to the lie, or is so out of touch with our economy one has to wonder how he could have even have an entry level job at HSBC let alone be chief economist. It is not just mere coincidence that the West is struggling financially and in economic decline and that neo-liberal economists like Mr Bloxham are relied upon for advice and commentary.

Australia is now a one or two trick pony, relying on increasing private debt to keep our economy afloat (in this respect, we are not unique) and mining. With our banks greatly exposed to the real estate market, we cannot supposedly afford a popping of the bubble. So it is expected they will deny a bubble exists, no matter how ridiculous and laughable such a statement may be. The banks simply cannot admit there is a bubble, that would be suicide for them.

The Australian "property" market (these are our homes) has been in a bubble for years now and has defied, so far, predictions of a crash or severe correction. The fundamentals behind these dire predictions were sound, but didn't take into account Australia's specific peculiarities, or that the government would take further measures to prevent a correction. If this was any other country, the market would have corrected by now, but it hasn't, and this is due to the following factors.

• High immigration rates which push demand. There are many reasons for high immigration, but finding new debt fodder is undoubtedly one of them.

• Cultural obsession with property. Property has an image of being a guaranteed wealth generator and property investment is almost part of the culture. Criticising property as some kind of miraculous credit machine is tantamount to criticising the very core of Australias success and pride. Another aspect is that the industry conditions people to accept property and features which would be considered ordinary and banal overseas, as exceptional here, thereby giving the impression that a premium should be paid. Backyards, once typical are now attracting premiums and pushed as exceptional features than a basic fixture.

• Negative Gearing. Negative Gearing allows investors to bid up house prices, knowing that the tax payer will cover the shortfall. A property purchased for rental returns would have its value weighed up against its earning ability. With negative gearing, the property can be overvalued and the tax payer subsidises the overpayment.

• Lack of information and transparency. Banks, the media, the Real Estate Industry and the government itself have obfuscated the market, spreading misinformation thereby giving buyers misplaced confidence that prices are based on "fundamentals", and not based on debt and cheap credit. The media push articles to 'spruik' the market, using nonsensical phrases such as "sideways growth", "softening" as well as fear and speculation to push people into the market. The threatened removal of the First Home Buyers grant causes people to purchase before the grant ends to take advantage of it. The FHB grant has ended how many times now?

• Low interest rates. There are other reasons for this, but the necessity to keep rates low to allow people to afford a bigger debt cannot be overlooked. Rates cannot return to their historical mean without upsetting the market. Add to this, Australia's willingness to take on high levels of private debt and an odd lack of fear of doing so. We have among the highest level of private debt in the world.[3]

• Poor urban planning. This includes limited land release, poor planning of infrastructure and likely cronyism and corruption between government and developers.

• Escaping the GFC, which has enabled further cheap credit to flood the market and therefore allowed Australians to ignore the risks of taking on crushing debt.

Where to from here

So where will this lead? What will burst the bubble?

The most important factor here is the obsession with property, and the 'mania' that Australia, and its establishment have with it. It is from this, that the baffling continuation of Negative Gearing, sky high immigration rates and poor planning stems from. Any other market would have corrected itself by now, leading to a deflation of prices, but the irrational mania surrounding our market has prevented this, aborting sound analysis and realisation of the problem. The market is irrational, and its participants are determined to remain irrational.

Being blinded to the major financial risk and refusing to acknowledge the irrationality, we've chosen to march ahead. As Australians are unlikely to push for a political solution for various reasons, including apathy, acceptance of the Real Estate spin and fear, the situation will continue.

This leaves two possibilities from here on in.

The staggering propaganda effort regarding property will continue, as the Australian market is small and easily coerced in such matters. Concentration of media power, and lack of media diversity inhibits the flow of information, and complicity in most levels of power and influence keeps the message uniform and monolithic. Therefore a correction is unlikely to result from investors realising the risk and bailing out. The correction will be forced, that is, we will hit a brick will with regards to one of the fundamental drivers fuelling this bubble.

These drivers are new entrants into the market who can go further into debt to pay higher prices. Subdivision has done much to push this further along. Dividing traditional 1/4 acre blocks into units, each of which is priced carefully to be just within the level of affordability can keep prices at the "sweet spot", which is just within the level of affordability, just low enough to be affordable, with free standing houses priced high enough to be only within reach of investors. It is for this reason that the market is now largely investors, many of whom are subdividing. Free standing properties are largely unaffordable, and those who afford them subdivide them for profit, further raising prices. This could potentially go on as long until the last free standing property is remaining, but quite likely to hit a limit sooner.

It is important to note here, that subdivision is a self defeating investment activity. A property which is worth money to an investor (due to the ability to subdivide) is turned into a property in which investors are less likely to purchase, due to the fact they can't be subdivided further. Investors are relying on owner occupiers and new home buyers in the current market to purchase the produce of their investments, but the market is only worthwhile for investors to enter and not first home buyers (who may be better of financially renting). A ponzi scheme needs new entrants, and this market is shutting them out.

But prices can't go up too fast, not faster than the ability for people to service debts. That "sweet spot", which investors in a tight market can price their poorly built hovels at, has to go up fast enough to bring enough money into the market, but not too fast as to leave out home buyers. With stagnating wages, this leaves few other options for people. These are, assistance from parents and pooling with siblings and friend, both of which have increased in the last few years, a sure sign of an overpriced market. Also, foreign investment has kept the bubble afloat. Without foreign investment and the corruption and flouting of FIRB guidelines, the market may have corrected some time ago. Foreign investment makes up for a potential shortage of people able to go into debt Australia, be essentially off-shoring the debt creation. Foreign residents are doing the job Australians won't or can't do, that is go into ridiculous levels of debt for basic homes. This is also reliant on interest rates remaining low (they can't go up at all now), or lowering, which puts the RBA in a problem. They need to use the lever of interest rates to control the economy, but now can only go one way. Do not expect to see any significant interest rate rises. Interest rates will remain low until the next financial disruption.

Essentially, the bubble will continue until it hits a brick wall, when the rise in price finally pushes out enough home buyers. The crash will therefore be forced due to the inescapable financial reality, rather than a correction due to changing market conditions. It is not clear when this will happen, but there may be a few years left. The end result will be a disaster for Australia. Our banking sector will have lost much credibility and Australia has little going for it other than mining and the FIRE industries. Without prior economic reforms or economic restructuring, this burst has the potential to push Australia into very hard economic times. Also possible, is an external factor, such as a worldwide GFC, or economic trouble in China.

The second option is that the bubble will not burst, and that Australia will continue to subdivide, use mass immigration, and that social and cultural changes will occur. These are, smaller and smaller dwelling sizes, reduced quality of life, more and more house sharing, where multiple couples live under the one roof and a general decline towards third world conditions. Foreign investment, and a reluctance to enforce regulations with regards to this matter, could increase, resulting in us put into a situation where we are paying foreigners and foreign banks rent to live in our country (this is already happening now). Do not underestimate the level of treachery our officials will go to. In this scenario, rather than wear the cost of the housing bubble financially in terms of economic costs, the cost is worn through loss of quality of life and loss of sovereignty. After all, the massive prices and 'profits' is merely the selling of our future quality of life, with the proceeds of the sale being brought forward and pocketed by a few. All Australians are essentially giving up quality of life, having it liquidated and sold, and turned to cash profits for the investor/parasite class. This alternative scenario allows the bubble to remain, with the price paid for maintaining the bubble being the conversion of quality of life and of social cohesion back to money. Whereas previously we have spent money to improve the quality of life, we are now doing the reverse, converting that hard earned quality of life back into cash payments. It's easier to concentrate this wealth into a few pockets when it is in the form of transferable funds. We can sell social stability, community continuity, space, health, mental well-being, social mobility, pride, culture and freedom to prop up the bubble, which will transform Australia from an egalitarian society to one resembling the landlord/serf arrangement of feudal Europe, but with modern trappings and far better propaganda engineering consent from people. Lets hope this doesn't happen, but an indefinite continuation of escalating property prices will have far reaching, negative social consequences. While European countries can make landlord/tenant arrangements work (due to the ability to sign very long term leases and protections for tenants and a view of housing as a right), Australia doesn't have the culture to make such an arrangement successful here.

These two scenarios seem extreme, but the housing situation as it is today, is extreme, and extreme problems force extreme solutions, however they may end up being solved. If only Australia had the foresight or sense to keep the market in check. Either way, our economy cannot survive if the market is continually geared towards serving the parasitic class (specuvestors) over the productive class (workers trying to house themselves).

Possible Solutions

So how do we solve this problem?

I think that lobbying government by now is a useless endeavour. There is simply no way that politicians, who are personally profiting from property investment will take a personal loss, let along go against their backers and mates. It is indeed cute to see Australians who think that politicians may still act in their interests in this day and age, but there is too much at stake for any political solution to be considered feasible.

These are recommended courses of action.

Firstly, vote for parties which offer to resolve this issue by means other than providing cheaper built housing. This issue is not the cost of building nor dwelling sizes, but the economic and political conditions which are fuelling the bubble. Policies which promise to build low cost modest housing, or any policy which increases density will only drive prices higher and worsen the situation. By reducing dwelling size, the premium paid for land increases and land price increases. After all, the bulk of the cost is the land, as houses can still be built for under $200,000. The high land price due to flooding the market with credit and speculation, not the size of the houses built. So reject any policy about increasing density or providing smaller "more affordable homes" or any policy indicating the necessity of doing this to improve affordibility. Policies which consider increased density and smaller homes as a means of increasing affordability, only continue the problem, as it proposes an ameliorating measure as a solution. Look for parties which address the factors driving up house prices as listed earlier in the articles. Parties which address our globally high growth rates, tax concessions for investment (Negative Gearing, CGT Concession), debt based banking system and foreign investment. It is critical that the party recognises that it is land price, not house price which must come down to improve affordability.
In the current climate the only result of making dwellings smaller, is to make people take $600,000 loans for 2 bedroom units instead of three bedroom houses. The market will simply price the smaller properties at the same price as the larger ones they replaced.

The failure of providing smaller homes to ease affordability is clearly evident. Despite the proliferation of subdivided units and apartment towers, prices are still going up, and housing affordability is still degrading. Clearly, as evidenced by what is happening around us, making smaller, "cheaper" units to help people isn't working at all. Worse still, property spruikers convince investors who buy up decent family homes and bulldoze them to make units, that they are doing the market a favour by providing a 'cheaper' home.

This rules out Palmer United, the Greens[4], One Nation[5], and the Labor party[6] , and obviously, the Liberal party. The Greens do have a policy of partially implementing the Henry Tax review, but likely not to go far enough. The Sustainable Population Party have a reasonable policy and Family First do well highlighting the cause of the issue and provide good discussion and analysis, but with a simplistic solution. [7], [8], [9]
Secondly, the property mania should be undermined. Undermining the mania doesn't mean spreading lies, but exposing the problems within and giving buyers and investors a clearer image of the problems. This can involve attending open for inspections and auctions, and passing out flyer's highlighting the social issues, or highlighting the bubble nature. Information should be disseminated regarding the true extent of foreign investment, and the complicity of the Real Estate industry in turning a blind eye to possible flouting of our Financial Investment Review Board (FIRB) regulations.

Also as part of this, is reinforcing and publicising the fact that the current panacea to the affordability crisis, having investors bulldoze large homes to build multiple small ones, is not working at all and that subdivided homes cost more per square meter of space than the original free standing dwelling cost. Further to this, the subdivided property is not likely to be sold to an investor, who is the one most likely to be able to pay a decent price. The propaganda that is spread to people, that this activity helps people must be countered, and the argument put forward that activities to 'help' people into homes (such as buying investment properties to rent out, subdividing) have no evidence of them working and are doing quite the opposite. Many investors are suckered into believing that they are doing the nation a favour with this activity. This lie should be busted.

This will attract a lot of negative attention and accusations of people being 'bitter renters', or 'losers who are upset they can't afford a home', and suggestions that people simply move further out. There is enough information to demonstrate that the property market is in a precarious bubble, and people should stay on message and continue to disseminate this message, than get sidetracked answering spurious accusations. It may seem mendacious to engage in such acts, but the earlier the correction, the less the impact. That is to say, the sooner people come to their senses, the better for all of us.
Thirdly, the plight of young Australians should be brought to the fore. Most people my age and younger, are deeply concerned about house prices, yet despite this being one of the biggest issues we face, the media are conspicuously silent. At best, they put a tepid "we feel your pain" article every year which proposes no solution, nor even suggests that a solution should be sought or demanded. This silence has to be broken, and it will only be broken by forcing the media to address the issue, and this can be forced by creating media worthy events (such as activism at open for inspections, etc), or social media chatter too big to ignore. Unfortunately, prominent mass activist groups don't seem to care, as housing affordibility doesn't come under the typical repertoire of concerns that activists have.

Australia is in a reasonable financial position currently, as we should use this opportunity to bring a controlled correction rather than wait for an uncontrolled, chaotic and unpredictable correction. It would be far better for the government to use policy to deflate the bubble, as it would then be able to have some control over the process to minimise the disruption to people and the shock to the economy. Deliberately done, by phasing out Negative Gearing, various concessions, reducing immigration according to a timetable which is rigidly stuck to, those invested in the market would have time to adjust and plan from the transition from an economy based on speculation on property to some other, hopefully more productive model which will have other ancillary benefits. Investors could divest their portfolio on their own terms and those who have property as a nest egg would have time to consider alternative options. Banks could plan for the reduced prices. Without this controlled correction, we are essentially at the mercy of circumstance, with unpredictable results, and the chaos that would result from this.

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/breaking-news/house-prices-strongest-winter-in-7-years/story-fni0xqe4-1227043581623
[2] http://www.theage.com.au/business/spring-in-the-property-market-may-be-a-leap-too-far-20140829-109vrm.html
[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/household-debt-the-big-threat-to-australian-economy/5435844
[4] http://greens.org.au/housing
[5] http://www.onenation.com.au/policies/policies_housing.html
[6] http://www.alp.org.au/cm4_210813
[7] http://www.familyfirst.org.au/files/Housing-Policy.pdf
[8] http://www.vic-familyfirst.org.au/housing/
[9] http://www.familyfirst.org.au/files/Home-Truths-Revisited-May-2013.pdf

Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) today called on the Federal Government to undertake a complete review of immigration into Australia in light of claims of widespread rorting of the system.

This week, Dr Bob Birrell and Dr Ernest Healy from the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University issued a report called Immigration and Unemployment. In it, they claimed that the Department Of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) had not only issued record number of student visas to people who may not be considered genuine students, but had granted permanent residency to large numbers of skilled migrant applicants who did not have the appropriate skills being claimed.

According to the report, large numbers of cooks and accountants are being issued visas despite there being plenty of local candidates. It called for a halting the recruitment of migrant workers whose occupations are in surplus in Australia or for which there are available resident candidates.

National President of SPA, Ms Jenny Goldie, says both Labor and Liberal Governments have been so focussed on stopping “boat people” they have allowed rorting to continue in the much larger skilled program.

“Related to this is the 12-year high unemployment rate of 6.4 per cent in July,” says Ms Goldie. “Birrell and Healy have revealed that since 2011, migrant workers have taken 380,000 of the 400,000 net jobs growth. Young Australians, in particular, are missing out on jobs with unemployment for 15-24-year-olds hitting 14.1 per cent

The report revealed that visas were issued to 7000 foreign accountants in 2012-13 despite 7200 domestic students completing bachelor or higher degrees in accounting in 2012. The Department of Employment declared there was “a more than adequate supply of accountants”.

“You would think that the respective Ministers for Employment and Immigration would confer occasionally on what was in the best interests of the country, but apparently not,” says Ms Goldie.

House of Representatives Question No.0101

"Mr Thomson asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing on 13 May 2014:

Is he aware that past and current open ended population growth policy creates the inevitable prospect of imposing continual infrastructure projects on the public, each one more invasive and destructive of the social and natural environments?"

Mr Hunt's reply was a monument to obfuscation and unreality, surpassing anything you have seen on Yes Minister:

"Mr Hunt: The answer to the Honourable Member's question is as follows:

Setting a fixed population target can mask the complexities of the issue. For example, there are many aspects of population change in Australia, such as changes in fertility rates that cannot be accurately predicted or directly controlled.

The Australian Government has in place a range of commitments to infrastructure, services, jobs and the environment which will provide for Australia's currently growing population including a commitment to better plan for and sequence infrastructure development across Australia, and to develop a White Paper on the development of Northern Australia. These policies will support environmentally, socially and economically responsible growth and cultivate resilient, productive and fair communities."

Quark: "Not an environment minister's bootlace"

Candobetter's Quark's analysis of the logic involved was breathtaking:

Quark wrote: "Mr Hunt is making something sound more complex than it is.

It's as though Kelvin Thomson had asked if Mr Hunt was aware that if you add 5 to 6 you get 11 and Mr Hunt had answered that it is more complex than that because 2 and 3 make 5 and 2 multiplied by 3 makes 6 and 11 can be reached by adding 1 to 10, 2 to 9, 3 to 8 etc.

It also sounds as though endless infrastructure for Mr Hunt is a good thing

Mr. Hunt is not an environment minister’s bootlace.

I wonder what would emerge if Kelvin asked the same question over and over in different ways to try to corner the little ponce.

Jack Roach: "We should be very worried"

Jack Roach of Boroondara Residents Action Group (BRAG) wrote, in response:

"It is no wonder that Australia is headed for a massive jump in the rate of our population growth with woolly thinking like the Minister for the Environment’s attached reply to a question on our population growth. Our population is set to double within the next 30 to 35 years because we have no clear immigration policies. There is no set annual immigration intake and visas are issued with no limit as to numbers. (And most are issued by licensed agents not by the immigration department – where is the control?)

When a senior Minister says that “setting a fixed population growth target can mask the complexities of the issue” (refer attached reply to a question asked in Parliament on May 13) we should be very worried. He is falling back on the politician’s ploy of trying to confuse the issue by talking about “fertility changes that cannot be predicted”. That is not the concern, it is the number of new migrants that is the issue. The numbers just keep on increasing very year. In the late nineties and early 2000’s our immigration numbers were around to 70,000 to 80,000 but these have steadily but surely increased to 250,000 now and there is no indication that there will be any curbs in this increasing trend. In addition we also have in our country over a million long stay visa holders who put further pressure on our infrastructure. By a well understood visa swapping process they extend their stay and many eventually gain permanent residency.

And who pays for all this new infrastructure required to cope with this growth? Certainly not the new arrivals to this country, it is you the taxpayer that foots the bill. Who benefits from this massive population growth. The productivity Commission has issued a statement that it is not the existing general population, the main beneficiaries are the new arrivals themselves and, of course, the development industry.

Kevin Rudd’s BIG AUSTRALIA was a con but it is still being pushed by many of today’s politicians and the growthists. The time has come for an Australia- wide debate on our lack of any real immigration policy and the increasing rate of our population growth. What we need from now on is a properly planned rational and sustainable migration policy.

Send a copy of this [...] to your local state and federal politicians and demand a debate on this issue before it is too late."

https://www.change.org/petitions/petition-to-secure-australian-maritime-jobs

This is not a campaign based on racism or xenophobia but a campaign to ensure we have the same right as workers in every country - the right to work. Abbot has used secrecy, force and deception to stop starving refugees desperate to come to Australia for a better life but has opened the door for employers to fly in foreign workers to take our jobs.

Unless we stop these bad laws, Australian labour will be locked out of the offshore sector (both marine and construction). Tony Abbot will not stop there. He will continue to de-regulate the labour market in other sectors of the economy including stevedoring, construction, transport, manufacturing and hospitality.

The MUA are encouraging workers (regardless of what union they are in or whether they are in a union) to sign the petition. In addition, the MUA is encouraging members to get politically active to ensure we have a political voice to protect our sovereign right to work in this country. Members who want a career in the maritime industry should contact the Branch and request an ALP form so they can join the maritime branch of the Australian Labour Party. We need to ensure that we get a voice in parliament to protect our job security, pay and conditions.

It is important that you circulate this petition to workmates, friends and family. The only thing that will defeat us is complacency.

In Struggle

Chris Cain
MUA WA Branch Secretary

Candobetter.net Editor: All headings have been supplied by Candobetter.net and were not present on the original source, which is a speech in Hansard. For the original source go to Hansard, Wednesday, 4 June 2014, House of Representatives, p.15

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (10:24): In my 2014 budget reply speech I said I was going to devote more time to health policy issues and become more expert in these matters. In delivering on that, yesterday I had the opportunity to speak at some length about preventive health and today I want to make some observations about our health workforce. The Health Workforce Australia Abolition Bill seeks to repeal the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009 and absorb Health Workforce Australia's functions and programs into the Department of Health.

Australia’s complex health workforce arrangements

In 2006 the Productivity Commission report Australia's Health Workforce concluded that a more sustainable and responsive health workforce was needed. The report also highlighted the complexity of Australia's health workforce arrangements and the involvement of numerous bodies at all levels in health workforce education and training. In 2008 COAG agreed to the creation of a national health workforce agency that works across jurisdictions to establish more effective, streamlined and integrated clinical training arrangements and to support workforce reform initiatives. The Health Workforce Australia Bill back in 2009 established a national health workforce agency, Health Workforce Australia. Since its establishment Health Workforce Australia produced Australia's first ever national long-term projections for doctors, nurses and midwives with the publication in 2012 of Health Workforce 2025—Doctors, Nurses and Midwives. This report highlighted that under current policy settings Australia will face a significant shortage of nurses and a shortage of doctors by 2025.

Imported nursing numbers equal to number unemployed Oz nurse grads

Australia has become highly dependent on migration of international health professionals, particularly in rural and remote communities, as a consequence of a lack of sufficient attention to training young Australians to take up health workforce roles. In the 2013-14 budget the previous Labor government invested more than $344 million in Health Workforce Australia to support Australia's healthcare system and its workforce, especially in rural and remote areas. Health Workforce Australia has delivered an additional 446 nurses and allied health professionals to rural and remote communities. It is very surprising to me and quite unacceptable that Australia is one of the least self-sufficient nations amongst comparable OECD countries in terms of meeting our health workforce needs through domestic training efforts. It is even more remarkable that, despite this, what we are seeing today is skilled nurses finding it difficult to find work.

The proportion of international nurses who we bring into Australia each year on 457 visas is comparable to the proportion of nurse graduates who find themselves unable to find work. Seriously, how are Australian nurses meant to transition from graduate into experienced nurses if the opportunities to work, experience and refine their skills are not available to them? It is wrong and foolish and short-sighted that Australian nurses are not given employment priority.

Instead, hospitals and managers are getting bonuses for bringing in foreign nurses and getting them to sign up with universities to do masters and PhDs in nursing at great expense to the migrants themselves and at great cost to the wider Australian society. While this is going on, many excellent local nurses with years of experience are now unable to find work.
In a submission to the 457 Visa Integrity Review

the Australian Nurses and Midwifery Federation pointed out 'the sorry state of the employment prospects for new nurse graduates, with an increasing number struggling to find work, with many rejected for work by employers that use international recruited nurses under the 457 program'.

They urged the panel to resist calls for any deregulation that will remove or dilute current protections or safeguards, particularly to labour market testing, English language requirements and current obligations regarding wages and employment conditions. I believe the nurses federation is quite right to urge the government not to water down the 457 visa program. The underemployment of nursing graduates, despite the employment of large numbers of offshore nurses, is inconsistent with the key policy objective of the temporary migrant worker programs. There is a clear policy disconnect here that needs to be addressed.

Many Australian nurses unable to find work

The nurses federation estimates that, in 2013, 60 per cent of Tasmanian nursing graduates were unable to find work; in Queensland only around 28 per cent of new nursing graduates secured positions with Queensland Health; in 2014, only 600 of 2½ thousand graduates were employed; and, in 2013, 800 graduates in Victoria, 400 in Western Australia and 280 in South Australia could not secure positions. An online questionnaire of new graduates undertaken by the nurses federation revealed further troubling anecdotal evidence of large numbers of new graduates failing to find employment in their field; many graduates receiving numerous employment rejections —and in one case over 70; most graduates fortunate enough to obtain employment being engaged on a precarious basis through agency, part-time or casual arrangements; many graduates going to great lengths to obtain work—for example, by moving interstate and separating themselves from their families; most employers who were named in the questionnaire as rejecting new graduates using 457 labour; and, finally, and I think most seriously, most new graduates are saddled with a HECS debt and many are disillusioned that they studied at all.

No jobs but big student debts

Indeed, if this government gets its way in deregulating student fees and increasing the interest on student debts, young student nurses will be at risk of being in the demoralising position of having no jobs and going deeper and deeper into debt. I agree 100 per cent with the nurses federation that the current labour market testing requirements need to be strengthened to include employer obligations such as the need to advertise locally and nationally at market rates; offering relocation, housing and utility assistance where required; reporting on specific measures taken to employ disadvantaged groups, local job seekers and recently retrenched workers; and, where possible, making sure that new graduates have a reasonable chance of filling vacancies.

Graduate nurses are our future and we all need a secure future

Graduate nurses are our future. Initiatives need to be in place to ensure that they are placed in employment upon completion of their degrees, otherwise the future of Australian nursing will be one of shortages of nurses and dependence on overseas recruiting. Given the proposed changes to the federal budget, it is a bleak outlook for thousands of nursing graduates each year who are desperate to be employed but are often losing out on job opportunities to nurses recruited by hospitals and other facilities on 457 visas. The nurses federation is right when saying in their submission that, putting aside the demoralising and devastating effect that this has on new graduates who are unable to find work after undertaking a three-year tertiary course, it also represents a loss in investment in the education of professional health workers and a loss in the contribution of these potential workers to the health-care systems—absolutely.

Grim situation calls for seriously questions re 457 visa program

In the light of these facts, one has to seriously question how well temporary migrant worker programs like the 457 visa program are serving this country. I think it would be crazy to further liberalise the program. The only reason for doing this would be to undermine the pay and conditions of local workers. Yet, this is what the government with its 457 visa review seems to want to do.

The situation is so grim that there is an online petition circulating calling for a review of the issuing of subclass 457 visas for nurses in Australia which has over 27,000 signatures. Anyone interested can find the petition on the website candobetter.net.

Online comments by supporters of this petition include: 'We must give priority to Australian nurses over 457 visa holders; our future depends on it' and 'Destroying the reasonable expectations of employment of nurses born here is cruel, unnecessary and shameful'.

457 Visa workforce growing much faster than Aust employment generally

The 457 visa program, in my view, needs tightening to ensure that Australian workers and young people are given priority over temporary visa workers. Immigration department figures released in May show that there were over 110,000 457 visa workers in Australia on 31 March this year, up by over 6,000 or 5.9 per cent compared to 12 months ago. The 457 visa workforce is growing much faster than Australian employment generally. This is completely unjustifiable in the present jobs climate. It is a recipe for increasing unemployment with all the misery and hardship that accompanies that.

It is all very well for ministers opposite to say that everyone has to earn or learn, but how are you supposed to earn even after you have learned when we have over a million people in Australia on temporary visas, which give them no work rights—a docile workforce who employers prefer because they can be sent packing from the country if they speak out about their rights at work?

The Liberal government is allowing too many employers to access 457 visas without any obligation to look for Australian workers first and young people especially are losing out. Under the coalition,

around two-thirds of all 457 visas are not subject to any employer obligation to advertise the job and test the local labour market, and nearly half of all 457 visas are still going to younger foreign workers aged 30 or less.

Prime Minister Abbott promised 'no cuts to health' but the abolition of Health Workforce Australia through this bill is another example of that promise being broken. Labor established Health Workforce Australia to provide a national, long-term, coordinated approach to health workforce planning and reform to ensure our health workforce can meet the increasing demand for health services now and into the future. Health Workforce Australia has had a proven track record in national health workforce planning, which is crucial if Australia is to have a health workforce able to meet the health needs of Australians wherever they live into the future.

Health Workforce Australia has funded 8,400 new quality clinical training places for students across 22 individual disciplines. It has supported a 115 per cent increase in simulated education hours in 2012 through the Simulated Learning Environments Program. The Health Workforce Australia report Health Workforce 2025 shows the current medical training system is inefficient and there is an uneven distribution of the medical workforce, which of course particularly affects rural and remote communities.

A key policy action from Health Workforce Australia's report was to improve the national coordination of medical training by working with trainees, employers, educators and governments through the National Medical Training Advisory Network. A Medical Observer article following the budget quoted medical experts who condemned the proposal to merge Health Workforce Australia into the health department. It said that, in the view of the President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Liz Marles:

… the move would risk destabilising general practice training …

And in the same article the CEO of the Public Health Association Australia, Michael Moore, was said to have labelled the plan short-sighted. Mr Moore argues that the merged organisations would have neither the same independence nor influence if they were combined with the health department. Professor Simon Willcock, who sat on the board, also pointed to the good work Health Workforce Australia have done in developing databases and around workforce projections, and he lamented:

It would be a shame to see all of that work not continue.

So, if this bill is passed, this complex but important planning work will not occur on a national level, and the burden will fall to the states and territories.

I regret that this government seems determined to dismantle universal health care and consign our country to a return to a piecemeal approach to health-workforce planning. I am concerned that this will result in a boom-and-bust cycle in the supply of doctors, nurses and midwives. This scenario is unsustainable and unaffordable, and it will result in a health workforce which will not be able to meet the increasing demands for health care, now and into the future.

Illustration photo is used by a real agency.

Illustrations and commentary from candobetter.net. Although this article comes from a petition, (which already has 27,222 supporters) the article explaining it, by Esther Inglis of Brisbane, Australia is fantastic. I would only add to it that it is not just graduates who are suffering. This rort and scandal needs to be blown out of the water in Australia. The absolute shamelessness of careerists currently running hospitals all over the country, who dump on their colleagues and on students merits that you cut dead most people in hospital management on suspicion that they are part of this outrageous behaviour towards ordinary RNs and trainee nurses. Hospitals and managers are getting bonuses for bringing in foreign nurses and getting them to sign up with universities to do Masters and Phd's in nursing at great expense to the immigrants and enormous cost to wider Australian society. And while this is going on many excellent nurses with years of experience are now unable to find work. They cannot afford to compete with cashed up professional immigrants for post graduate university courses that have become quasi-mandatory to get some short term job in nursing. And, as imported nurses sit at their desks and do full time higher degree courses just in order to keep their positions and fulfill their contracts, the wards are filled with new rapidly trained kinds of 'care-workers', and a few overworked Division 2s, doing jobs that real RNs once did. Can this be good for anyone? Tony Abbott complains about the cost of health care, but he has nothing to say about this - naturally. I really don't think it is necessary to add that I have nothing against foreign nurses, however I will. What I am against is destroying the reasonable expectations of employment of nurses born here. It is so cruel, unnecessary and shameful. The unions are doing nothing, nor are the schools of nursing; they are just shamefully taking the money for membership and courses, like the cowards they are. So try signing this petition and send it around everywhere.

Article by Esther Inglis, first appeared on Change.org.

You can sign the petition here:

https://www.change.org/petitions/federal-government-review-457-visa-for-nurses-in-australia?recruiter=100529205&utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

Getting a job is competitive, getting a job as a graduate even more so. Faced with proposed changes to the federal budget, it is a bleak outlook for the thousands of nursing graduates each year, who are desperate to be employed but are often losing out on job opportunities to experienced nurses recruited by hospitals/facilities on 457 visas.

There was a shortage in nurses, but now even skilled nurses are finding it difficult to find work. Though this issue has many dimensions, graduate nurses are most at risk of losing out to foreign experienced nurses. Graduate nurses are our future, initiatives need to be in place to ensure they are placed in employment upon completion of their degrees, otherwise the future of Australian nursing will again be faced with shortages of nurses.

Click on the picture to see how Australia's 'nursing shortage' is being misrepresented to potential migrant nurses.

The federal budget will make unemployed life very difficult, especially considering that many nurse graduates are under 30 years of age and will not qualify for unemployment benefits for 6 months.

The proportion of international nurses on 457 visas hired each year is comparable to the proportion of nurse graduates who find themselves unable to find work. How are we meant to transition from graduate into experienced nurses, if the opportunities to work, experience and refine our skills is not available to us.

The federal and state governments need to work out where our health and employment system is falling short and failing graduate nurses, who previously had excellent job prospects upon graduation. Initiatives to hire graduates need to be implemented immediately, so we can get out foot in the door and have options for our futures.

We have studied and trained extremely hard to be there in your hours of greatest need… we know that you will help us now in ours. Please support our petition to have this issue reviewed and action taken by the government.

Nationally, a breakdown of unemployed graduates reveal the state of the industry:

SA: The ANMF estimates that in South Australia alone, 280 nurse and midwife graduates were unable to secure jobs after university last year.

QLD: Only 600 of 2500 nursing graduates were able to secure jobs this year.

TAS: 60 per cent of nursing graduates were unable to find work last year.

VIC: 800 nurse and midwife graduates were unable to secure employment last year.

NSW: The ANMF says the NSW public hospital sector is the largest employer of nurses on 457 visas.

(source Australian Federation of Nursing and Midwifery)

To:
Scott Morrison, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
Senator Eric Abetz, Federal Minister for Employment
Peter Dutton, Federal Minister for Health
Luke Hartsuyker, Assistant Minister for Employment
Kate Ellis, Shadow Minister for Education
Catherine King, Shadow Minister for Health
Lawrence Springborg, State Minister for Health - Queensland
John-Paul Langbroek, State Minister for Education, Training & Employment - Queensland
Curtis Pitt, Shadow State Minister for Employment - Queensland
Jo-Ann Miller, Shadow State Minister for Health - Queensland
Richard Marles, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
Review 457 visas for international nurses. In my home state of Queensland, only one quarter of graduate nurses last year have gained positions, this is a scary prospect for nursing students.

With the changes to the federal budget, we cannot afford to be out of work, especially as graduates with no experience. The age of entitlement is over, though many of us cannot even get a foot in the door to put food on our tables.

Whilst we value and respect the work of international nurses working in Australia on 457 visas, we need to make sure that we are not being passed over and have every opportunity to enter the workforce and build our skill base with valuable hospital experience.

The rate of graduate nurses unemployed is similar to the intake of international nurses, so we know the work is there, we just need our government to tighten the regulations on these visas and give us a fighting chance to start off our careers!
Sincerely,
[Your name]

This narrowly-based opinion is published and promoted as 'breaking news' by Australia's mass media as if it were a disinterested and unquestionable truth, but it comes from a person paid by a business corporation to spruik their interests and it is reported by media giants who also have massive interests in property development and finance.

Fairfax media and Murdoch media both have huge property dot coms that market Australian real estate. These are Realestate.com.au and Domain.com.au. Other media organisations also massage the property market with television lifestyle programs etc. The Australian public is utterly manipulated in this area by the media, yet the media continue to promote their own interests without declaring them in articles like the ones quoting Bloxham.


It could be that HSBC Bank really believes that what is good for their global banking business headquartered in London and which started in Asia [1] is good for Australia, but their chief economist shows extremely poor understanding of Australian demographics.

Misleading demographics

Paul Bloxham is actually quoted as saying that,

"Migrants are typically younger than the extant population." (!) To which he adds, "The ageing population means greater spending on healthcare and less revenue from the income tax system, putting strain on government budgets," Mr Bloxham said.

Such a statement assumes that Asian migrants must have the solution to eternal youth, and don't age one year every year like other people. It doesn't acknowledge that all immigrants to Australia are older on entry than those born here, tend to import elderly family (under family reunion terms) and thus to contribute overwhelmingly to a more rapid aging demographic in Australia. This has been shown by the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia (FECCA), who have been campaigning for special aged care funding geared to the higher rate of aging in immigrants. See, "Immigration speeds up Australia's rate of aging - FECCA" :

"From 2011 to 2026 ethnic people over 80 will increase by 59% compared with 29% in the Australian-born population." FECCA.

Even the mysterious Multicultural Foundation of Australia, founded by Bob Hawke in 1986, of which every recent Prime Minister and Opposition leader are members, funds research to deliver education on dementia for the rising proportion of aging immigrants.

"Culturally and linguistically diverse communities and dementia: Currently one in eight Australians with dementia do not speak English at home (Access Economics 2006).”
Source: http://amf.net.au/library/uploads/files/National_Dementia_Campaign_health_promotion_model.pdf

And Access Economics, in an August 2009 Report that the AMC and FECCA both rely on, states:

"Of people with dementia in 2009, the majority speak English at home (211,000) compared to a non-English (CALD) language (35,000). The prevalence of people with dementia speaking English at home increases 4.8 times to 1.01 million in 2050, with those speaking a CALD language at home increasing 3.4 times to around 120 ,000 in 2050. The tripling in the absolute number of people with dementia who speak a CALD language at home represents a very significant increase in the future demand for CALD trained dementia care providers and culturally appropriate services. "

Why don't HSBC suggest importing these immigrants to Australia, and sending them home when they retire?

A violation of self-determinism and human rights

Adding more people won't solve an imbalance of ageing people. Migration means ultimately that each generation will have an even bigger ageing population to cater for!

In a comment made todayBandicoot wrote, "HSBC finance mortgages and investment property loans. Migrants will want property loans, and bring in investors. This is propaganda thinly disguised as demographic advice to promote their interests, and expect the public to swallow it, and pay for it!

Surely the people of Australia have had enough of corporate control, and our population growth has been controlled for too long by vested interest groups? Population control, through tweaking of demographic trends for constant growth, is a violation of self-determinism and human rights."

Bandicoot is right and, what's more, Australia needs more bandicoots.

NOTES

[1] From HSBC's site at: http://www.hsbc.com.au/1/2/about/world

"Headquartered in London, the HSBC Group serves customers worldwide from around 6,300 offices in over 75 countries and territories in Europe, Hong Kong, Rest of Asia-Pacific, North and Latin America, and the Middle East and North Africa. With assets of US$2,671bn at 31 December 2013, the HSBC Group is one of the world's largest banking and financial services organisations. [...]

HSBC's strategic direction reflects its position as 'The world's leading international bank', combining the largest global emerging markets banking business and a uniquely cosmopolitan customer base with an extensive international network and substantial financial strength.

The Group's strategy is aligned with the key trends which are shaping the global economy. In particular, HSBC recognises that, over the long term, developing markets are growing faster than the mature economies, world trade is expanding at a greater rate than gross domestic product and life expectancy is lengthening virtually everywhere.

HSBC's strategy is focused on delivering superior growth and earnings over time by building on the Group's heritage and skills. Its origins in trade in Asia have had a considerable influence over the development of the Group and, as a consequence, HSBC has an established and longstanding presence in many countries. [...]"