Rudd's Enclaves

Tue, 2009-04-28 23:57 by Tigerquoll

Roger Beale AO and Senator Penny Wong co-chairing the population session at the Rudd Labor Government's 2020 Summit back in April 2008. [Image courtesy of the Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet]

The first summit of the Rudd Labor Government was the 'Australia 2020 Summit' held in Canberra on 19th and 20th April 2008, just five months in from Labor's federal election win. It was intended as a positive open engagement by the new government with selected intellectuals "to help shape a long term strategy for the nation’s future."

A critical issue of the Summit was that of the impact of population on Australia. But this was watered down by being lumped under the Summit's discussion category entitled: 'Population, sustainability, climate change, water and the future of our cities'

The session was co-chaired by Roger Beale AO and Senator the Honourable Penny Wong; neither holding academic qualifications or having employment experience in population studies or the social sciences. Roger Beale an history/law/economics graduate with experience as a federal bureaucrat in the Department of Environment and Heritage. Wong a graduate of Arts/Law with labour union experience and a background in forest policy.

Thus arguably, neither convenor appropriately qualified in population studies nor the social sciences to informly chair such a pivotal national topic as population and immigraton policy. The Summit was all about 2020, so by assumedly its purpose was to offer intellectual insight fronm communty leaders about what Australia's population and immigraton policy ought to prioritise for the next twelve years - Rudd optimistic of three 4 year terms.

The Summit session specific to 'POPULATION AND CITIES' must have been quite short, given just two days for this specific forum to discuss population amongst the broad and complex issues of sustainability, climate change, water and the future of our cities'. It always smelled of a token talkfest.

The final report from this Summit specific to 'POPULATION AND CITIES' identified the following 'AMBITIONS' for Australia to aspire to by 2020:

AMBITION 1: (same as Ambition 3)
-----------------------------------------
"Cities will be sustainable and offer all residents access to employment, education, transport and affordable housing. They will be prosperous, diverse, creative and connected."

AMBITION 2: As population increased, consumption will decrease
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Australia will have a sustainable population and consumption policy: while the population grows, net consumption should decrease. "

AMBITION 3: Social equity
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Australian cities will be among the most sustainable in the world underpinned by the principles of social equity. This will mean:

- opportunity for all in terms of jobs, education and affordable housing prosperity, creativity and diversity

- cities are net contributors to energy and water supply

- all homes and buildings are carbon neutral

- all people in major cities are living less than 800 metres from access to mass transit public transport

- clear performance goals and targets for sustainability

- the population is fully educated in relation to sustainability."

It all sounds wonderful, but pessimism aside, what are the key ideas emmanating from the new government's selected intellectuals? [Was the selection criteria ever made publicly transparent?]

The main 'IDEAS' relevant to population policy were:

3.16 "There should be a national agenda to plan for cities and population through establishment of a planning commission type organisation that sets goals and targets for cities. It is important that there be a re engagement by the national government in planning for cities and examining the potential role of the Council of Australian Governments and federal funding to drive change across jurisdictions.

3.17 Transport and infrastructure: to redirect federal funding from roads to public transport—passenger and freight. There should be a focus on driving compact and efficient transit oriented developments across all Australian cities as a means of supporting population growth at the same time as not increasing our ecological footprint.

3.18 A national building and sustainability system which creates an emissions reduction program for all new and existing buildings. The system would use measurable, reportable, verifiable methods. This would enable Australia to be a world leader, provide global leadership, and support innovation. This was seen as a breakthrough idea.

3.19 Education: develop a national school-level strategy that includes a broad public awareness program on how to be sustainable. Need to work with business to create incentives and achieve a fundamental shift in people’s thinking and behaviour.

So what progress has there been on each of these ideas and where can the public find out?

Two years hence, the reality of population in Australia's most populous and migrant popular city, Sydney, is described by Urban Affairs Reporter in the Sydney Morning Herald in the article 'Growing suburbs running on empty' (24-Apr-09) page 5 as follows:

"THE Sydney suburbs experiencing the state's largest population growth are among the worst for public transport and employment infrastructure, planning experts say, and the result is likely to be rising unemployment and increased social problems.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released yesterday show that the populations of the Blacktown, Baulkham Hills, Parramatta and Liverpool local government areas grew by nearly 16,000 people in the 12 months to June last year, accounting for about 20 per cent of the population growth in NSW.

The areas were characterised by high rates of childbirth and a steady flow of migrants, but according to the NSW president of the Planning Institute of Australia, Julie Bindon, they will struggle to cope with the extra growth because of a dearth of transport infrastructure.

"Those areas are among the worst affected by the State Government's decision to shelve the north-west and south-west rail links, and the Parramatta to Epping line," Ms Bindon said. The Rees Government's own submission for funding under the Infrastructure Australia Fund predicts that large sections of major traffic arteries such as the M2 and M5 will be over capacity by 2016, while some roads, such as the M2, are already at breaking point.

"A spokesman for the Transport Minister, David Campbell, said yesterday that the Government was committed to delivering transport solutions to western Sydney, including 143 new buses.

"The Planning Minister, Kristina Keneally, said the region would also be well catered to in terms of employment infrastructure, thanks to employment hubs in the north-west suburb of Riverstone and Oran Park town centre in the south-west.
But the director of the University of Western Sydney's Urban Research Centre, Phillip O'Neill, described these hubs as "ad hoc and badly lacking in supporting infrastructure", predicting that unemployment in the region would rise significantly during the recession.

"Firms will only locate in western Sydney when there is a high level of amenity and different kinds of employment spaces [such as] business and high-tech IT parks, and that has simply not been planned for," Professor O'Neill said.

"It's a simple equation - there are areas of Sydney such as the south-west corridor that have high population growth, no infrastructure and amenity and no transport infrastructure. If these issues aren't addressed then there will be a rise and intensity of social problems such as higher crime rates, health problems [and] household distress and increased rates of family break-up."
[SOURCE: http://www.smh.com.au/national/growing-suburbs-running-on-empty-20090423-agu5.html]

So despite the hype of Rudd's popularist summit promises, the population pressures of Rudd's mass immigraton policy are defaulting to a neglectful under-resourced migrant underclass across a sprawling western Sydney. Many metropolises like Sydney have shown that government immigration policies that encourage high intake volumes over short time frames and that neglect necessary resourcing, infrastructure, services lead to migrant communities forming ethnic enclaves.

In about ten years time, with these factors blantantly evident, are we set to see Sydney's west descend into Rudd Enclaves? The social problems are already emerging.

Topic:

population

Comments

Jose (not verified)

Thu, 2009-05-07 16:11

Permalink

Our governments have a conflict of Interest!

Our leaders are quite prepared to use the lazy and short-sighted route to boost our economy and our country's coffers.

Higher population means more taxes, revenue and Stamp Duty for the States. Our leaders are quite prepared to use the lazy and short-sighted route to boost our economy and our country's coffers. They are not interested in "sustainable" anything, and people have become not citizens but economic units and consumers for their own ends! The stress on infrastructures, housing, transport, power, and climate change all fade into insignificance as our present politicians will have retired by the time the worst of our over-populated States fully impact! They would be happy to families living in high-rise apartments, fueled by nuclear power, and see our living standards similar to that of Russia and Europe. The massive unemployment in Europe should be a warning that this is where we are heading.

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-05-07 23:31

Permalink

Rudd's Flood

Jose, yes I take your point about the lack of sustainable goals and the culpable neglect to set and apply transparent standards for Australia's population policy. The myth that increased population growth promises increased government revenue and so by deduction must be good, warrants independent academic challenge. What needs clarifying is the total net impact, economically, socially, environmentally, of the impact of population increase - a stepped quantity of say 100,000 would be start. A core problem with Australian federal immigration policy is that its stops after clearing customs, and hand balls the social, environmental and economic consequences and costs to the States. The States are grossly underfunded and ill-prepared to deal with - evidenced by the chronic shortfalls in State public services and infrastructure to cope. The bandaid accomodating of the flood of immigrants is seeing the rise of suburban ethnic ghettos in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The Cronulla Riots of 2001 were and early warning of pending systemic problems. But the immigration department says this is not its responsibility. Immigration is encouraged under one man's noble Christian idealised 'samaritan' gesture that has become simply Rudd's Flood. I remain unconvinced that population growth presents and asset to a country, and tend to see it being a liability. The following article from 'The Australian newspaper by Demographer Bernard Salt dated 30th April, 2009 is relevant reading: "No room to be smug as population peaks" "THERE has been a recent suggestion from what I am sure is a well-meaning environmental group that the preferred population of the Australian continent should be 7 million. The population at present is 21 million. This means 14 million would need to be wiped out (by attrition, I am sure) to achieve what is claimed to be a sustainable population for the continent. I see real merit in this concept. Not because I agree with its crazy objective but because it raises the issue of a long-term population policy for Australia. The world population is 6.7 billion and this number will rise to breach the 9 billion mark in about 2050 and will continue to rise before it subsides in the 2080s. At the end of the 21st century, planet earth is projected to contain 9.1 billion people. The real pressures in terms of access to water, food and energy to feed and sustain this humanity will not come late in the 21st century. By the 2080s, world dominance, trading blocs and alliances will have been established in the Resource Wars 40 years earlier. In other words, three decades after reaching peak population, the planet's component interests, let's call them countries, will have sorted out how to divvy up the world's resources. Sounds all very civilised but the fact is this need not be a fair and equitable divvying process. The real pressure for resources will come as the world transitions from 6 billion to 9 billion and quite possibly during the final and tumultuous decade of this 50-year process. Imagine: our planet is 4 billion years old and humanity reaches peak population during the lifetime of more or less anyone under the age of 50 today. The bottom line in this equation is that the world will add 3300 million people over the next four decades. In this time, the Australian population is projected to rise from 21 million to 34 million. Our share of the global population increase will be 13 million out of 3.3 billion. My argument is that a world approaching peak population and with limited resources will be a dangerous place. Australia's interests in such a world are undoubtedly best served by snuggling up to the prevailing superpower. But then this is what we, Australians, are really good at. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Australia was inextricably linked to Britain, our great protector. This changed in December 1941 when, fearing Japanese invasion, the Australian prime minister made an impassioned plea for US support "free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom". If China is the dominant global superpower in the 22nd century, will Australia dump the US and sidle up to the Chinese? I think "probably, yes we will". And if this is the case, then Australia will do whatever it takes to remain "on side" with China over coming decades. In either case, the global situation by the 2040s will be dire. The world population will then be close to 50 per cent greater than it was at the turn of the century. In this environment, what advice do you think the Australian nation might have for the rest of humanity? "I understand that things are tough where you come from and we'd really love to accommodate a high level of immigration to alleviate the pressures. However we are terribly concerned about the quality of our environment and so we would really rather you lot stay where you are." At this point it would not be unreasonable for the rest of humanity to consider Australia's "lot". Australia is the only nation on the planet to claim sovereignty over an entire continent. We claim also the land (and sea) resources of numerous offshore territories to the east, west and south, including a suspended claim to more than a third of the Antarctic continent. Not a bad ambit land grab for 34 million people at a time when much of the rest of humanity is scrambling over dwindling resources. Maybe, just maybe, there will be a view, somewhere, that the Australian nation should accommodate a far greater share of the world population. This might come from those who envy our lot. (Hitler justified expansion into Poland as the pursuit of lebensraum or living space.) It might come also from our allies who, bowing to pressure from other interests, might suggest it is a tad unrealistic to want moderated levels of immigration at a time of peak global population. There is a case to say that before the middle of the 21st century, global geo-political forces will compel the Australian nation to accommodate a much higher rate of overseas migration, regardless of the environmental impact. In fact, the notion of Australia wanting to be some special "green refuge' might even pique the ire of those who envy our resources and space. Why wouldn't our enemies say at this time "the white Australia policy has been replaced by a green Australia policy; after all they are both designed to prevent the sharing of resources". Sovereign Australia must navigate the next 30 years carefully and part of this process involves laying a foundation of accepting overseas migration from a wide range of countries. This is as much an investment in the politics of our future as it is an investment in the skills and taxpayer base of our country today. " Bernard Salt is a KPMG Partner; [email protected]; www.twitter/bernardsalt

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-05-08 11:20

Permalink

Salinisation of population policy in Australia

Steve, Bernard Salt reads better with a lot of salt and preferably wrapped around some nice fish and chips. Did you not have a faint unease in reading Bernard Salt's bland assertions about what is 'our' share etc.? I see that you also have formed the impression that the States have no control over immigration to Australia. This is a widespread misconception. In fact the reality is dead opposite. Most or all of the States have their own immigration departments and they are constantly touting for high immigration numbers over the internet. They do this because they have become infiltrated by property development interests to the degree that no-one in Parliament even dares to criticise these trends. Bernard Salt and KPMG have been making money out of predicting and driving population growth trends for business to speculate on. I became aware of them in about 1993, through advertisements in the press for a report they sold then for around $300 or $400 to businesses. Mr Murdoch's press owns a huge property dot com and, frankly, I cannot tell Murdoch Press interests from KPMG and Bernard Salt interests, seen from a sociological perspective. Finding out where exactly the Murdoch Empire has invested its money is a task beyond my ability but I would be surprised if our daily news were not daily producing attitudes to bolster those and the many similar investment vehicles which unfortunately dominate the Australian landscape - physical and political. This is a good argument for legally requiring full disclosure of all financial interests including corporate investments on a daily basis in all media organs. If you actually analyse what Bernard Salt says you would possibly feel, as I do, that there is little objective reason to publish him for his originality, intellectual rigor or philosophical leadership. What you will find if you google Bernard Salt is that he is always spruiking for population growth and housing, using whatever reasons come to hand. Sometimes the rationale is as crude as suggesting that growth will only stop when the reasons to grow run out - i.e. the Queensland coast is completely ruined. The industry he represents along with other growth lobby spruikers has no concern for democracy and, in my opinion, represents the greatest threat (along with the mainstream press) to democracy and security in this country. Mr Salt is not alone and the industry is extremely well organised and funded via a political monopoly on the use of taxpayer funds. The industry has successfully pressured states for new laws which severely erode Australians' ability to self govern. The industry has a population policy and influences Australia's population policy to the degree that I would say that there is no difference. Australia does have a population policy, but the electorate was never able to vote on it and the subject is rigorously suppressed from the electoral agenda. (See Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties and "Courier Mail, ABC back Department of Main Roads land grab" of 29 Mar 09, "Why the Brisbane Mayoral elections should not have been 'boring'" of 23 Mar 08, "Courier Mail provides 'boring', yet unbalanced, coverage of Brisbane City Council elections" of 17 Mar 09.) Our political elite are engineering Australia to grow according to the dictates of the property development industry and to ignore the wishes of the electorate. In the 2020 Summit Mr Rudd basically rammed that policy through officially. In Victoria and most states there are appalling objectives for unsustainable population growth. I really wonder when it is going to get so bad that they will need to bring out the tanks to stifle the protests. However they manage pretty well by keeping the public confused with the unstinting cooperation of the commercial and ABC media (which runs a lot of Murdoch Journos these days and others, like Geraldine Doogue, who are members of Growth Lobby organisations, like Australia Unlimited of the Globalisation Foundation.) Could I suggest that, when you quote card-carrying growth-lobbyists, like Mr Salt, you do so with ... um... a grain of salt :-) On candobetter's "On the dark side", we have a page devoted to his propaganda Check out The Growth Lobby as well, since Bernard Salt is only one of many organs and ideology promoters in Australia. We often forget to classify these growth lobbyists under all the headings, but another heading is "a href="http://candobetter.org/PropagandaWatch">Propaganda Watch, which contains some gems. Sheila Newman Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Tigerquoll

Fri, 2009-05-08 23:51

Permalink

Immigration Tide Tables

What is lacking in Australia’s immigration policy is the federal government’s failure to gather, disseminate and engage in open dialogue about the statistics on immigration and the short, medium and long term triple bottom line quantitative and qualitative impacts on Australia over time. All such information ought to be readily available and kept current on Australia’s Immigration Department and Citizenship website – so all Australians can get the facts ('tide tables' if you like) on immigration, so then we know the reality of Australia's population issues. The current available statistics merely show how many from where and what state they settled and the type of employment category they fit within. The Department's website area is at: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/ By 'immigration' keeping the full impacts secret, serves no-one. The article ‘Rudd’s Flood’ I published 7-May-09 includes a full text quotation from demographer, Bernard Salt, in his recent article in The Australian: ‘No room to be smug about population peaks.’ My purpose by including Salt’s article on the back of mine, is because his adds to my message that Australia faces serious immigration pressures. Further, Salt substantiates his case by presenting stark population statistics. While I supported Salt’s highlighting of the threats and implications of excessive population growth, for the benefit of the population sociologist, Sheila Newman, (above reply) I do not agree with Salt’s two contentions. (a) “Australia’s best interests are best served by snuggling up to the prevailing superpower”. No, Australia’s maturity, wealth, influence and size is sufficient for it to be its own master, developing networks of alliances is more effective to deal with pressures of global population growth and redistribution. How would closer ties with the world’s most populous country, China, mitigate population pressures on Australia? Conversely, it would likely encourage more Chinese to move to a more democratic and Australia with our higher standard of living. (b) “The Australian nation should accommodate a far greater share of the world’s population”. Why should we? Australia’s land mass is large yes, but most of it is uninhabitable. A key metric ought to be to gauge what natural resources are required to sustain a set number of the existing population at the current living standards and which are sustainable (economically, socially and environmentally) in the long term? By long term, a fair estimate is three generations, which is typically how long it takes for new migrants to fully assimilate into the community without special treatment). Let’s suggest 100,000 people as a useful number. What parts of Australia can accept 100,000 immigrants to meet the two tests (1) maintain Aussie living standards and (2) achieve triple bottom line long term sustainability? Our existing population can’t achieve either, let alone add to the pressures! However, why I included Salt’s article with mine is because I support Salt highlighting the following immigration pressures facing Australia: 1. There is a need for long term population policy for Australia 2. “The real pressures in terms of access to water, food and energy (natural resources) to feed and sustain this humanity” are just a few decades away. “the global situation by the 2040s will be dire”. “World approaching peak population and with limited resources will be a dangerous place” 3. Before 2050, pressures from “global geo-political forces will compel Australian nation to accommodate” higher immigration – that doesn’t mean we have to but the pressures will be immense. 4. “Sovereign Australia must navigate the next 30 years carefully” – hard to argue against this. 5. Laying a foundation for accepting migrants “from a wide range of countries” is more sensible than just letting high numbers from a narrow range of countries – e.g. China, Lebanon, United States, Sri Lanka. Salt’s article in The Australian newspaper constructively promotes the immigration and population debate in the mass media, which is where the debate should be if the broader community is to be better informed. The broader community holds most influence to effect government immigration policy. Having read Sheila's reply above, I ask how does Sheila's response objectively add to this immigration policy debate?

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2009-05-09 01:36

Permalink

Debating population policy in the mainstream

Steve, You write, "Salt’s article in The Australian newspaper constructively promotes the immigration and population debate in the mass media, which is where the debate should be if the broader community is to be better informed. The broader community holds most influence to effect government immigration policy." Well, I don't think that 'debate' is possible in the mainstream press because they don't play fair; they manipulate perception; they prevent 'debate' because it is not to their advantage to allow growth to be questioned - especially not in the current financially desperate circumstances. Since Salt has been repeating the same thing for years and the mainstream press have been printing the same things for years, to humour him and them [i.e. to take them seriously] is simply adding to the problem. How can you have a debate when it is scripted by a media which is addicted to the inflation produced by population growth and the spokespersons are in the business of selling population growth? It is the mainstream media which has constructed the monumental ignorance of the public on the subject of population policy and immigration. Only the alternative media has some chance of deconstructing that pernicious influence. To encourage any trust in their management of the subject of population numbers is, according to my experience, akin to expecting a fox to put the welfare of hens ahead of his own appetite. I guess I also think that it is counterproductive to cite the overexposed Salt without showing where his investment interests lie. Most people are not aware of them and they need to be told. That is, in my view, the main story. Population growth in Australia is driven by the commodification of resources and the bringing about scarcity. People need to hear that again and again because they have been misled that it is all about something quite different. The Growth Lobby (inc Bernard Salt) took up Tim Flannery's 1994 and then SPA's cry of "Let's have a population policy" (which I used to call for as well) and used it to their advantage, constructing a big population policy. They have run conferences and summits ad nauseum on the pretext of having a 'population policy' and 'having a population policy debate', but all that ever happens is that they put journalists, hired guns and politicians on stage, who tell us we are desperately in need of a big population. I thought your criticism of government immigration stats was good. I like the idea of an immigration tide. Australia and France both had unusually good and continuous population statistics dating back to 1788 and 1789, but the Howard Government changed the collection and definition processes, thus interrupting a 200 plus years series. The government has also been running dodgy partial series, but we could still fall back on the total in and total out in overseas migration. It has become far more difficult now and one assumes this was done on purpose to keep us all totally confused. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2009-05-09 12:23

Permalink

Salt's sprinkle

What Salt is saying is a recipe for inevitable gross overpopulation of the relatively small habitable part of Australia (even tho we occupy "an entire continent") and the obliteration of arable land and natural areas near the coast under dense housing . Salt makes no reference to the actual nature of our continent- only giving the impression that it is large. The impression one gets from what Salt writes is that Australia needs to accommodate a proportion- in relation to its area of the 3 billion extras to arrive on the planet in the next few decades. How many would this proportion be? As Australia is about 5% of the total global land mass, by my estimates Australia's "share" would be 150 million of these 3 billion quite apart from Salt's implication of the obligation also to accommodate a proportion of the present population on the basis of the square kms. of our continent which is largely uninhabitable! - These are the figures he appears to want us encompass. If this is our future, then I think we should warn the current population that they are facing disaster either for themselves or for their descendants and if they can possibly migrate elsewhere they should do so. The rest of us who have no rights to migrate to a country outside Australia should seek refugee status in the country closest to Australia that seems to have a long term future. Australia certainly won't . Salt is attempting to make his audience think in terms of these large projected global population figures in order to discredit the 7 million population figure which I understand was mentioned to a journalist by Sandra Kanck as a possible long term sustainable population for the dry infertile continent of Australia.

Topic:

Comments

Our governments have a conflict of Interest!

Rudd's Flood

Salinisation of population policy in Australia

Immigration Tide Tables

Debating population policy in the mainstream

Salt's sprinkle

Add comment

Filtered HTML

Tags in Topic

Help save injured wildlife

Recent comments