Tuesday, July 29, 2008

A reality check on immigration

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

A reality check on Rudd's rhetoric

Paul Sheehan
July 28, 2008

Could someone point out to me where, in last year's election campaign, Kevin Rudd or his Labor cohorts announced they were going to commit Australia to a gang-busters immigration program?

Where was Labor's policy announcement that Australia, with its stressed bread basket living from winter rain to winter rain, was going to increase its population by 1 million people during the three-year term of a Rudd government? I can't find it.

Last year, net overseas migration was 178,000, almost 30 per cent higher than the natural increase of the population (birth rate over death rate), thanks to a policy put in place by the Howard government. Total population growth was 315,000. Under the Rudd Government, it appears set to be higher this year. Then add the growing guest-worker program for people on temporary work visas.

This is the largely unmentioned elephant in the room in the debate about Sydney's housing affordability and availability, because Sydney is Australia's No.1 immigrant destination. The overseas-born population in Australia is already 25 per cent, the highest in history, and the Rudd Government is intent on increasing that figure. This puts Australia out of alignment with most other advanced economies, and is a major policy which the Rudd opposition did not mention during the election campaign.

I'm coming to the conclusion that our new Prime Minister is both dissembling and disingenuous.

*snip*

How is increasing the population by a million people every three years going to contribute to lowering Australia's carbon footprint? Don't ask big business, or the ALP machine, both addicted to "growth" defined by corporate fundamentalism, which means higher per capita consumption and more consumers.

Full article

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Immigration VS. quality of life

From Crikey.com.au:

Skills crisis v. housing crisis

Adam Schwab
Thursday, 20 March 2008

Perhaps an editor at The Age has a sense of irony, or more likely, politicians have a poor sense of economics. Today the broadsheet led with a story on Labor’s plan to relax working visa rules to "fast-track thousands of temporary foreign workers... to tackle the skills crisis."

On page three, an alarming headline stated that the Melbourne rental vacancy rate was below one percent and that the "home drought worst on record." The rental vacancy rate near the Melbourne CBD is 0.5 percent.

Sydney and Melbourne are suffering through dire shortages of accommodation, transport is completely overloaded, hospitals crowded while much of the southern part of country is experiencing severe drought. Not to mention carbon emissions which don’t tend to drop with a higher population. While doing little to solve those difficult problems, the Government is in fact exacerbating them by encouraging additional migration.

Further, the Howard government’s legacy of economic incompetence is again becoming apparent with the much maligned "baby bonus" increasing to $5,000 per baby on 30 June. The vote grabbing baby bonus is so ill-thought out it is an insult to pork-barrelling. For a start, there is no need for Australia to organically boost its population given that our major cities are already overcrowded.

Second, a Canadian study noted that 90 percent of recipients of Canada’s similar bonus planned to conceive anyway, so it was literally a cash handout which could go towards a new plasma TV. Third, if it the Government wants to actually encourage growth, the bonus should increase for subsequent children, rather than remain a flat rate.

The policy of increasing Australia’s population, by migration and organically beckons the question – what is a more serious problem, the apparent skills shortage or Australian’s rapidly diminishing living standards?

Full article


More on the housing crisis:

Migrants push up house prices

Renee Viellaris
May 29, 2008 12:00am

THE Federal Government has admitted that battlers could be squeezed out of the housing market by tens of thousands of new skilled immigrants.

A Senate budget estimates hearing has been told the extra 31,000 permanent skilled migrants will compete with local people for a place to live.

But Immigration Minister Chris Evans played down the issue, saying more skilled migrants would boost the nation's low housing stocks in the long run.

The revelation is bad news for many Australians who have been squeezed out of housing and rental markets by rising costs and a shortage of properties.

In the lead-up to last year's election, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd campaigned on delivering more affordable housing.

Migration deputy secretary Peter Hughes said increasing the permanent skilled migration program - which will stand at 133,500 in the next financial year - would reduce inflationary pressures and cut the cost of housing.

But the answer was not good enough for NSW Senator Marise Payne, who asked: "Where are they going to live? We are underbuilding by 30,000 dwellings a year already in this country."

Full article

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

A cut in immigration needed to cut Australia's carbon emissions

From the Herald Sun:

Immigration must be cut to tackle climate change, says study

John Masanauskas
July 23, 2008 11:52am

IMMIGRATION must be slashed if Australia has any chance of seriously tackling climate change, says a Monash University study.

The report said Australia's high population growth would be a major driver of greenhouse emissions, and would counter tough government measures to reduce carbon output.

But the Rudd Government and its climate adviser Ross Garnaut were ignoring the population issue at their peril, said the study, entitled Labor's Greenhouse Aspirations, by Monash's Centre for Population and Urban Research.

The nation's migrant intake is at record levels, with the Government recently announcing an increase of 37,500 places for 2008-09.

Given current migration and fertility rates, the population will increase by at least 10 million to 31.6 million by 2050.

Monash researchers Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy used computer modelling to predict the effect of population and economic growth on greenhouse emissions.

If no carbon trading scheme is introduced, Australian emissions will reach 797 million tonnes - or four times Labor's target - by 2050, the researchers found.

Emissions would only fall to 502 million tonnes if the nation managed to cut carbon intensity levels by one per cent a year under a tough cap and trade scheme.

"The problem with radical decarbonisation proposals is the limited political feasibility of these measures,'' the authors said.

"It is hard to understand why the population driver has been ignored in the recent debate, including the work of the Garnaut climate change review.''

The authors said that net migration would contribute to most of the 50 per cent increase in Australia's population over the next 40 years.

"Like all Australians they'll be living at twice the standard of living of current residents if the Government's predictions for per capita economic growth are correct,'' they said.

"Clearly, it's not possible to achieve the Government's target of 60 per cent reduction in emissions at the same time we add an extra 10 million people living at twice the current income level.''

The authors called for immigration to be slashed, and the population stabilised at about 22 million by 2050.

Prof Garnaut has predicted the population will reach 47 million by 2100.

The Monash report, which appeares in the latest issue of university journal People and Place, will be released today.

Source


More from ABC News:

Migrants to fuel emissions increase: researchers

Researchers have warned that greenhouse gas emissions will increase dramatically as immigration increases Australia's population.

The Federal Government is being accused of ignoring the role of population growth in Australia's increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Monash University researchers predict the population will grow to 31.5 million by 2050, with almost 10 million migrants making up the increase.

That is despite industry groups warning the workforce is set to shrink as baby boomers retire.

The researchers project emissions will grow to 800 million tonnes annually, about four times what the Federal Government hopes to achieve by 2050.

Dr Bob Birrell has told ABC Radio's AM that population growth is the main driver of emissions.

"It is a puzzle as to why the Rudd Government has made no reference, nor its adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, to this factor," he said.

"I can only deduce from their behaviour that although they would like to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it's a lesser priority than population building policies."

Dr Birrell says the environmental and economic effects of the population increase will eventually flow on to consumers.

"Every extra million associated with migration will add to economic activity and thus, greenhouse emissions, and businesses who are vying for permits will have to pay more because of the competition to get those permits," he said.

"That means of course passing on the costs to consumers, or struggling to compete against imports."

Source

Australia's segregated universities

From The Age:

Backlash feared over uni students' cultural divide

Sushi Das
July 23, 2008

A WIDENING gulf between international and local students has prompted warnings of resentment and a backlash on Australian university campuses, as overseas student numbers continue to grow.

The warnings come amid increasing concern over "fragility" in the sector arising from its dependence on international students. On average, universities derive 15% of their funding from overseas-student fees.

One of Australia's leading higher-education experts warns that despite the atmosphere on campuses generally supporting international students, there is "informal but real segregation" that could fuel tensions.

Claims of a divide have been backed up by student representatives.

Local students tended to work off campus and were not active in student life, while international students spent most of their time on campus, generally in the library, Professor Simon Marginson, of Melbourne University's Centre for Higher Education, told The Age.

"So you've got this odd situation with the local students half disengaged in a way I've never really seen before," he said.

"The international-student industry runs off the back of a reasonably strong local system which presumes a healthy relationship with the local students … all of that has become the marketing pitch.

"That's the flashpoint that worries me more than any other - that it could spring back into resentment."

National Union of Students president Angus McFarland said students were concerned about a lack of interaction.

Vice-chancellors had discussed with him how "cultural cliques" and "religious ghettos" could be overcome, Mr McFarland said.

Segregation was apparent in classrooms, with group discussions and teamwork being affected by the two camps tending to stick within their familiar groups, he said.

Mixing between groups in the classroom sometimes prompted complaints from both sides: international students complained they were being marginalised, while domestic students said poor language skills were adversely affecting group progress, he said.

Student associations - underfunded because of voluntary student unionism - could no longer afford to organise sufficient events to encourage social and cultural mixing.

Professor Marginson said local disengagement was not being tackled and international students were not being made use of as a bridge to Asia.

"We're not helping local students become more Asia-focused and more competent culturally. I think it's a real tension … there's no sign that backlash or resentment is occurring, but I think there's potential for that. It's a bit scary."

Professor Marginson said internationalisation of higher education was supposed to enrich universities by helping staff, students and institutions create strong cultural and intellectual links with other countries, as well as bring in much-needed revenue. But it did not appear to be meeting its aim.

Cuts in federal funding have forced universities to seek revenue from other sources, including international students. Meanwhile, growth in domestic students has slowed, while international student numbers have rocketed to 370,000.

International education is a $12.5 billion industry. In 2006, 65% of overseas students were from Asia.

Eric Pang, president of the National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia, said international students were not provided with a strong welfare system and were forced to rely on their peers for help and support, yet at the same time they were being accused of failing to integrate.

He said many overseas students had told the committee: "There's not much international students can learn from Australia in terms of culture or … English. After all, the standard of English of Australian students isn't high."

Professor Richard Larkins, chairman of the peak universities body Universities Australia, said despite a recent slowdown in the growth of foreign enrolment, "there is fragility about our sector in relation to its high dependence on income from international students".

Source

Friday, July 18, 2008

Welfare payments for illegal immigrants?

From the Courier Mail:

Dole payment plan for illegal immigrants

By Renee Viellaris
June 25, 2008 12:00am

TAXPAYERS would be forced to pay thousands of illegal immigrants the dole under controversial measures now being considered by the Rudd Government.

For the first time asylum seekers and illegal immigrants fighting to stay in the country would be allowed to work and claim welfare benefits while taking the Immigration Department to court.

The proposal will mostly apply to illegal immigrants on tourist visas who fly into the country and then claim asylum when ordered to leave, rather than the stereotype of people who arrive on leaky boats.

They are not in detention centres and are given a so-called "Bridging Visa E" until their cases are sorted out.

The latest figures show there are 5624 people on the visas but the number often swells to as high as 7000.

Although overstayers would pay taxes if they found a job, taxpayers would have to pay millions in Centrelink and Medicare payments to those unable to find work.

As well, taxpayers would have to foot the cost of appeals to the Migration Review Tribunal, the Federal Court, the full bench of the Federal Court and the High Court.

Some court cases last a decade or more. Sources have told The Courier-Mail of one case involving a man who arrived in the 1980s and claimed asylum who was finally kicked out last year after exhausting all his appeal options.

The Opposition has denounced Labor's plan, warning that without safety measures taxpayers would bear the brunt of vexatious claims. It also said illegal immigrants would target Australia if the law was relaxed.

Full article

Foreign student influx adversely affecting overall workforce conditions

From The Age:

Foreign students being exploited

Tom Arup
June 12, 2008

NEARLY 60% of international students in Victoria could be receiving below minimum wage rates, a study by Monash and Melbourne university academics has revealed.

Interviews with 200 international students drawn from nine universities across Victoria revealed that up to 58.1% of students surveyed were paid below $15 an hour, with 33.9% receiving less than $10 an hour.

The results from a $3 million Australian Research Council-funded study come just a month after hundreds of taxi drivers, many of whom were students from India, protested against conditions in their industry outside Flinders Street station.

The study also found:

■ International students are often pressured to take jobs not wanted by domestic workers.

■ At least a third work more than the 20 hours allowed under study visas, forcing them to take jobs "off the books" with no industrial relations protection.

The influx of international students working outside industrial relations controls adversely affects overall conditions in the workforce.

■ The problems started in 1991 when international students rights in the workplace were narrowly defined as the "right to work" by the federal government.

One of the academics involved in the study, Professor Chris Nyland, yesterday told The Age he was happy there were signs the Victorian Government was developing policy options. But he hit out at the Federal Government for its "protracted" reply.

"The Rudd Government has shown no sign of recognising this as an issue," Professor Nyland said. "There was a 94-page higher education discussion document (from the Rudd Government) that was issued. I have gone through that and there is lots of references to international education, lots of references to international student fees, nothing in there about international student welfare."

The office of acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard — who is also Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Education — did not return The Age's request for comment yesterday.

Victorian Workplace Rights Advocate Tony Lawrence said a number of complaints about exploitation had been made to his office by international students. He also said he was aware of some employers asking $200 for certificates verifying employment which is often needed as part of immigration conditions.

It is believed the Victorian Government is now considering a cross-departmental taskforce into international student welfare among other options. However, a spokesman for Skills and Workforce Participation Minister Jacinta Allan was tight-lipped yesterday on any future plans.

Source

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Questions for Kevin Rudd

From Sustainable Population Australia (SPA):

No Commitment to Sustainable Future by Rudd Government

Media Release 17 May 2008
Sustainable Population Australia

“With the announcement by Minister, Chris Evans, that Australia is opening its doors to a massive increase in unskilled migration, the last vestiges of any appearance that the Rudd Government is committed to environmental sustainability or social equity have been swept aside”, said Dr John Coulter, National President of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA), today.

“The total intake is planned to exceed 300,000, the largest intake since the migration scheme started in 1947 according to Minister Evans.”

Despite having been asked, Dr Coulter said that “Nowhere has the government answered the following questions:

• How does increasing our population by more than a million every three years make our climate change/greenhouse emission problem easier to solve?

• Every city in Australia is water stressed. How does increasing our population by an additional 5% every three years make our urban water problem easier to solve?

• It is doubtful whether in a climate changed, post peak oil world Australia can maintain water supply to its farmers. How does such rapid population growth make it easier to maintain our rivers, soils and food production?

• Australians have one of the highest per capita environmental impacts in the world. An increase in the Australian population has a larger global impact than the addition of a person just about anywhere else in the world. How does the Rudd Government morally justify increasing Australia’s demand on the global environment at the expense of many peoples far less well off?

• Australia has an acute housing shortage. More and more Australians cannot afford the rising price of a house or rent. One of the main drivers of this situation has been clearly identified as our already high immigration intake. How does Kevin Rudd justify making this situation even worse for ‘working families’?

• Australia has approximately 5% unemployment and another 5% of under employment. How does the Rudd Government justify bringing in unskilled workers when there are Australians unemployed and underemployed seeking work?

• There is a rapidly growing global food shortage. Increasing Australia’s population is leading to more and more high quality, well watered, food producing land going under housing and related urban infrastructure. Where is Kevin Rudd’s much advertised Christian morality?

Source

Friday, July 11, 2008

Australia facing immigration-induced housing crisis

From The Herald Sun:

Crisis in home building

John Masanauskas
July 01, 2008 12:00am

AUSTRALIA needs almost one million new homes over the next five years to accommodate the rapidly growing population, says the housing industry.

The Housing Industry Association said mass migration was driving up costs and failing to adequately plug skills shortages.

Victoria needed an extra 5000 houses above current annual production to meet demand, according to HIA data released yesterday.

HIA state executive director Robert Harding said that this translated to about 235,000 new homes over the next five years, with almost one million needed for the whole of Australia.

"Without a substantial increase in production there will almost certainly be a growth in the number of homeless, and further affordability woes," he said.

Mr Harding lashed out at record high immigration, saying federal government policy had to change.

"It's too big in the sense that it's not targeted," he said.

"We are not able to build to meet the demand of the present time, let alone the future demand the migration program is producing.

"We have spoken to the Government about a more targeted skills program, especially in relation to the building trades."

The Rudd Government recently announced an increase of 37,500 places in the 2008-09 program, bringing the total number of migrants and refugees to more than 200,000.

Full article

Thursday, July 10, 2008

More multicultural = less caring

From TheRealists:

The problem is, we won’t care

July 10th, 2008

Calling someone a turtle used to be imply that they were doing something in slow motion. That description may be in need of a revamp as members of multicultural societies bunker down and go into their shell instead of dealing with the outside world.

Members of multicultural societies have been likened to turtles because of the way they participate less in community events, shun the outside world and show less care and goodwill towards their fellow citizens.

Such a description will come across as apt for people living in modern multicultural Australia. We’ve all heard stories of passers-by not going to the aid of someone in distress; people feeling isolated in our big cities and of elderly people dying without anyone noticing for weeks or even months.

A more insidious issue is that this lack of concern by individuals also means that individuals become indifferent to the negative aspects of multiculturalism.

Put another way, the more multicultural we become the more we retreat from and the less we care about communities. The more this goes on (the more that community breaks down and the less people care about each other), the further we retreat into our shell and care even less.

Some Australians will choose to get out altogether - witness the ‘white flight’ from troubled suburbs in our major cities to new ‘greenfield’ suburbs on city outskirts or to coastal communities.

The end result is that we end up with less community and a breakdown of society; the problems of which are well known.

The people who can see these problems and speak out are branded as racist. The rest of the population are kept in the dark and encouraged to ‘celebrate’ diversity, even as it tears apart their neighbourhood.

Frank Salter summed it up when he wrote “…to induce people to be indifferent about their ethnic environment or to prefer diversity, it might be necessary to create an atomized, discontented, uncaring, divided, conflict prone, distrustful, and politically passive society”

Australians are witnessing the death of the Australia they once knew. As the Australian way of life that we grew up with slowly fades we’ll retreat into our shell, and we won’t care.

Source

More on the deleterious effects of immigration-induced diversity:

Ethnic diversity 'breeds mistrust'

Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent | October 10, 2006

ETHNIC diversity seriously undermines the trust and social bonds within a community, according to important new research that casts a gloomy shadow over optimistic theories about the benefits of the social melting pot in immigrant societies such as Australia.

The worrying findings about the effects of ethnic diversity were developed by Robert Putnam, a Harvard University political scientist whose previous research on community dynamics has been highly influential among policymakers in the US and cited by Australian prime ministerial aspirants Peter Costello and Mark Latham.
Professor Putnam has delayed releasing the results of his research for fear of the impact it could have on politicians and other policymakers, but he revealed its thrust yesterday in an interview with London's Financial Times newspaper.

His extensive research found that the more diverse a community, the less likely were its inhabitants to trust anyone, from their next-door neighbour to their local government.

People were even more wary of members of their own ethnic groups, as well as people from different backgrounds.

The impact of the research will be amplified because of the status of Professor Putnam, whose book Bowling Alone was closely studied by governments and academics around the world after its publication in 2000.

Bowling Alone spelled out the extent to which "social capital" has fallen away in recent decades as fewer people join the volunteer and community groups that have long played a role in social cohesion.

The title referred to Professor Putnam's finding that many people were dropping out of groups such as bowling clubs and spending time alone, rather than in social networks.

Both the federal Treasurer and the former federal Labor leader Mr Latham borrowed concepts from the book in speeches on social capital.

Professor Putnam, who is now working in Britain, told the Financial Times that, after several years of research, he had held off publishing his results until he could develop suggestions that might help compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that".

His most important finding was that "in the presence of diversity, we hunker down".

"We act like turtles," he said. "The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined."

His research was conducted in the US but he believes its findings are likely to be mirrored in other countries.

It will be studied closely in Australia and most European countries, where governments are increasingly struggling with the political and social fallout of immigration and ethnic and religious diversity.

Professor Putnam found that trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history", but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where "diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians' picnic".

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust.

Source

Sunday, July 6, 2008

"Hidden" immigration changing Australia's ethnic makeup

From The Australian:

'Hidden' migrants drive ethnic change

Ean Higgins
May 16, 2008

AUSTRALIA is undergoing an unparalleled movement of people and ethnic change through "hidden immigration", but lacks a comprehensive policy to deal with it, according to an eminent demographer.

Monash University professor Andrew Markus said raw immigration numbers masked the magnitude of a demographic revolution that had produced a population where one in four residents was born overseas.

At 24 per cent, the overseas-born proportion of the population is twice that of the US at 12 per cent, and three times that of England and Wales at 8 per cent, where racial tensions have flared again.

"Opinion polls in England in July 2007 and March 2008 indicated that immigration and race issues are the main concern of electors," Professor Markus said.

He said that while Australians had been tolerant and migrants committed to their new home, strong political leadership was required to convince the nation of the benefits to all of high immigration to avoid a backlash.

Professor Markus presented his analysis at this week's Australian Davos Connection Future Summit.

"The elements of a policy to promote social cohesion within communities characterised by diversity of language and culture are well known - and difficult to implement," he said. "At present, Australia lacks full clarity of vision, coherence and consistency - while the largest movement of people in the country's history is under way."

Speaking to The Australian yesterday, Professor Markus said that although many Australians regarded the rate of immigration as high, they probably had little idea that the transformation was far bigger than they imagined. The usually quoted "headline" number of permanent arrivals - people successfully applying each year for permanent residency from overseas - rose 67 per cent between 1999 and last year, from 84,000 to 140,000. But Professor Markus said this figure failed to include on-shore "conversions" from foreigners on student or temporary work visas to permanent residence.

That number rose from 15,000 in 1999 to 52,000 last year. Taking those figures into account, the annual increase in new permanent residents nearly doubled over the past nine years, from 99,000 to 192,000.

The number of permanent departures - Australians leaving the country without any immediate intention of return -- doubled from 35,000 in 1999 to 72,000 last year.

Many of those departing were taking highly sought skills to more highly paid jobs overseas, Professor Markus said.

Added to an ageing population, future economic growth would require filling Australia's skills shortage largely from overseas. But the result would accelerate the pace of ethnic change, and because immigration had been skewed towards "magnet" destinations, in some areas the transition would be extraordinary, he said.

"With the uneven distribution of the overseas born, this translates to 34.5 per cent of Sydney's population, 31 per cent of Melbourne's, and over 70 per cent in some urban localities," Professor Markus said.

He proposed several measures towards a national policy to make immigration work.

These included challenging disadvantage in education and employment, tackling institutional discrimination, and a "consistent set of policies to be implemented at the community level to promote inter-cultural understanding, bridge building and participation".

Source

Australia importing a new overclass

From VDARE.com:

Enter the Dragon: Australia Imports a New Elite

By R. J. Stove
November 26, 2007

As you have probably heard by now, Australia’s general election of November 24 swept from power Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard, who had held the office since 1996. It proved a triumph for his opponent, the Australian Labor Party’s new and largely untested leader Kevin Rudd, who has a 27-seat majority in the federal parliament.

Among the election’s issues: Iraq (to a very limited extent), the economy, tax cuts, national security, climate change, and quasi-generational change (Rudd is a youthful-looking 50 years old, Howard an increasingly tired-looking 68). Almost everything, in fact—except mass immigration, on which both candidates were locked in a bipartisan embrace.

Sound familiar?

Don’t expect the average Australian newspaper editor to notice, let alone to challenge, this state of affairs. There is a reason why VDARE.COM has a disproportionately high number of Australian readers.

But, happily, one Australian noticed it—and not only noticed it but published a whole book devoted to it before the election campaign started.

Peter Wilkinson, editor of the quarterly Independent Australian, brought out The Howard Legacy: Displacement of Traditional Australia from the Professional and Managerial Classes (Independent Australian Publications, Post Office Box 8, Essendon 3040, Victoria, Australia, 2007, 170 pp). A past president of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute , Dr. Wilkinson comprehensively knows whereof he speaks.

The Howard Legacy is entirely unmarred by the crank-pamphlet Gestalt. Its author has concentrated severely upon number-crunching (Steve Sailer will enjoy reading this study). It bears no personal rancor towards the Chinese immigrants whose invasion he chronicles. When a government is foolish enough and short-sighted enough to roll out the welcome mat regardless of the possibilities for long-term assimilation, then, as Dr. Wilkinson says, "Who can blame people for taking advantage of these policies if they can?"

In table after table, diagram after diagram, Dr. Wilkinson explains the trends. Once John Howard first obtained office in 1996, he immediately cut back on immigration from all sources. In the 1995-96 fiscal year 99,139 immigrants were admitted; the annual total fell to 85,732 in 1996-97 and then to 77,327 in 1997-98.

But then it crept up after Howard’s narrow victory in the 1998 election to a postwar peak of 107,366 in 2000-01. Another cutback followed this peak—the totals for 2001-02 and 2002-03 were respectively 88,900 and 93,914 immigrants. But by 2003-04 the total was ballooning again: in 2005-06 we had another postwar peak of 131,593. (A much more detailed statistical breakdown of immigrants’ arrival patterns over the last decade can be found here. [Settler arrivals 1996-97 to 2006-07 Australia States and territories (PDF)])

To give Howard credit, he remained tough on illegal immigration, ever since his deeds in 2001. It was legal immigration that he encouraged and increased to record levels. But his 2001 success meant that his opponent declared his own opposition to illegal immigration, too. [Rudd to turn back boatpeople, By Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan, The Australian, November 23, 2007]

Australia is famously "girt by sea," and is a luckier country than the US with no shallow, fordable Rio Grande River for immigrants to cross. Illegal immigrants are thus a minor element in Australian demographics. The real problem will always be those immigrants the Government allows and encourages to immigrate.

Whence come these immigrants?

One thing for which we can be (slightly) grateful: in Australia, the U.S.-style family-reunification racket is no longer the juggernaut it was. Skilled migration has become much more prominent. There are even, mirabile dictu, attempts made to demand from skilled-migration candidates a certain proficiency in English. So far, so good.

But note how theory breaks down against the seemingly irresistible onrush of open-borders practice. Theoretically, as Dr. Wilkinson explains, overseas applicants for university study in Australia need to have passed Band 6 of the International English Language Test System (IELTS), which declares them to be "competent" in the tongue. But if a migrant is already here and wants the so-called Subclass 880 skilled-migrant visa, he need only pass IELTS Band 5. Two-thirds of those migrants who qualify for Subclass 880 are, in fact, stuck at the Band 5 stage. How very reassuring if you are forced to depend on them for preparing your tax return, or removing your brain tumor.

And yes, naturellement, however far behind the eight-ball the ethnic lobbyists might be at actually writing or uttering grammatical English, there is one word which they have perfectly mastered the art of pronouncing, to good careerist effect. That word is, of course, "racist".

Dr. Wilkinson takes us on a guided tour of the giggle-house now euphemistically known in Australia as "university education", with its zeal for handing out degrees to even the most inept foreign students. He quotes the surreptitious—and, necessarily, anonymous—confessions of the academics faced with such students: such as "I give them 51% to get them out of my hair", and "An audit demonstrated that it was almost exclusively international students who appealed against penalties."

The little darlings are impressively gifted in plagiarism also. Encouraged, no doubt, by the plagiarism-mania already flourishing locally at the highest levels, thanks to the likes of David Robinson, former boss of Melbourne’s Monash University, who resigned after the third time he was caught committing plagiarism.

On and on it goes, with a particularly valuable rogues’ gallery of modern Chinese-Australian legislators, few of whom could be trusted on any topic more controversial than tomorrow’s sunrise. Most of them have nuisance value rather than anything more sinister. Some are downright amusing, such as one Peter Wong. Mr. Wong served in New South Wales’ parliament (from the 1999 state election to the 2007 state election) as representative for an anti-Pauline-Hanson operation, only to fall out with the party’s Jewish executive director by denouncing Israel.

The sole gallery member to make a national name for himself has been Melbourne’s mayor John So, subject of a reverential rap ditty called "John So He’s My Bro."

Mr. So’s more or less total inability to speak English, despite having lived in Australia since 1964, is the stuff of Internet legend. It briefly threatened to derail his chances of obtaining the mayoralty, when that office was thrown open to popular election for the first time.

An opposing candidate, Peter Shepperd, bravely raised the matter of Mr. So’s difficulties with the English language. Then, in Dr. Wilkinson’s words, "The dreaded cry of ‘racism’ was raised and Shepperd withdrew from the contest."

Clearly, no one has dared tell Mr. So about Tom Lehrer’s deathless epigram: "If a person can’t communicate, the very least he can do is shut up."

VDARE.COM readers will already have encountered the saga of Australian law professor Andrew Fraser, suspended from Sydney’s Macquarie University after he dared to question the prevailing utopian dreams of multiracialism. These ludicrous proceedings The Howard Legacy discusses at some length.

Dr. Wilkinson makes it clear—without actually saying outright—that the single most tragic element in modern Australian society is not the "racist" culture in which we are supposedly marinated, but rather, our complete lack of a First Amendment or anything like it. The anti-Fraser campaign was, after all, doing nothing more obscure than imitating the success of the lynching bee that 20 years earlier had forced the eminent historian Geoffrey Blainey out of his job.

Dr. Wilkinson’s interests are not confined to the Australian scene. One book to which he repeatedly refers is Amy Chua’s World On Fire, with its first-hand accounts of successful but locally detested Chinese in the Philippines, and its surveys of economically dominant but politically hounded market minorities (whether Chinese or other) elsewhere.

Malaysia has famously addressed the problems resulting from its own Chinese market minority by two methods:

1. mass murder, such as Kuala Lumpur’s May 1969 anti-Chinese rioting, which remains off-limits for public discussion in Malaysia;

2. a racial quota system, which Prime Minister Abdul Razak formulated in 1971 to give preference to Malays in education and bureaucratic employment.

Dr. Wilkinson is not, need one say, advocating such anti-Chinese maneuvers by Australian rulers. But one does wonder how far Australian administrative Caucasophobia has to continue before alienated and marginalized whites start pining for a Malaysian-type solution.

Thus far, The Howard Legacy has been totally ignored by Australia’s predominantly dopey Mainstream Media. Meanwhile, said media are happy enough to report with slavering enthusiasm such fatuous schemes as former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie’s demand that the country’s population be raised from 20 million to 50 million. And no, this is not an official bulletin from the Lyndon LaRouche brigade. This is reality, or what passes in Australia for same. ['We need 50 million Aussies', The Courier-Mail, September 04, 2007]

As for the November 24 election, its outcome combines with Dr. Wilkinson’s text to inspire the hope that the Liberal Party will be euthanized altogether. (Already the Liberal Party has proved unable to control any state or territorial legislature since 2001.)

A good precedent exists for this collapse: the annihilation during the 1940s of the United Australia Party. Since this movement was little more than a shill for Big Business at its stupidest—and had forced from office Sir Robert Menzies, its one leader of stature—there was no point in trying to revive it after it had been clobbered at the 1943 general election .

Instead, Menzies had the insight (even before that election) to start a genuine conservative movement from scratch. The movement which he envisaged—and which, after 1943, he very largely effected—would avoid the UAP’s dim-witted class warfare, and would focus on those whom Menzies himself called "The Forgotten People." In this respect, Pauline Hanson may prove to have been a harbinger.

Merely to read Menzies’ remarks is to realize anew how unthinkable they would be, from any large Australian political organization’s head, today. To find out exactly why they are unthinkable, we need look no further than Dr. Wilkinson’s painstakingly assembled statistics.

R. J. Stove lives in Melbourne and is a Contributing Editor of The American Conservative. The views he expresses are his own.

Source

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Immigrants worsening, not easing, skills crisis

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Migrants add to skills crisis: study

Harriet Alexander Higher Education Reporter
April 29, 2008

LESS than a third of people from non-English speaking countries who migrate to Australia on skilled workers' visas are gaining work in their fields and many of them are adding to the skills crisis they were brought in to solve, a study has found.

Those who graduated from Australian universities and were assessed as competent by local accrediting authorities were the least likely to find employment relevant to their qualifications, according to the report, "How are skilled migrants doing?", published in today's People And Place.

The authors, Monash University demographers Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy, have called for a freeze on skilled migration while the Government focuses on helping to bring the present crop of migrants up to the standard demanded by professions, in which they are qualified, through bridging courses.

"They're not contributing to the skilled workforce but they're contributing to urban population growth and housing pressure," Professor Birrell said.

Nearly 213,000 people moved to Australia as skilled migrants between 2001 and 2006, almost three-quarters of whom came from non-English speaking countries.

But while the majority of those who migrated from English-speaking countries gained employment in professional or managerial positions, only 29.3 per cent of those from non-English speaking countries did.

Among 20- to 29-year-olds from non-English speaking countries, most of whom were former international students in Australian universities, the figure was just 22 per cent.

Those who had degrees in information technology, engineering, education and accounting were more likely to be working in administration or sales.

The report said anecdotal evidence suggested employers regarded accountants from non-English backgrounds as technically capable but there was concern with their lack of English communication skills.

Accounting attracts the largest group of migrants, but only 25 per cent of 20- to 29-year-olds and 43 per cent of 30 to 64-year-olds from non-English backgrounds found employment in the field, compared to 80 per cent of migrants from mainly English-speaking countries.

Professor Birrell said it was also possible that older migrants had a greater interest in finding employment in their fields because they had families and more invested in their qualifications, whereas younger migrants were more interested in gaining permanent residency.

This was demonstrated by the surge of international students from information technology degrees to accounting courses when the Government changed its skilled migration priorities and made it easier for accountants, rather than computer graduates, to gain permanent residency.

But an accounting lecturer at Deakin University's business school, Tony Burch, said international students were also ill-prepared for the learning environment, which emphasised analysis and debate rather than memorising lecture notes.

His experience, also documented in today's People And Place, was that, compared with five years ago, students were less concerned with what they had to learn than with what they had to remember, failure rates had increased and more students were falling ill on examination days.

The Minister for Immigration, Chris Evans, said the report's data predated changes to government policy, which included work experience for former international students and an increased number of employer-sponsored visas.

Source

The case against immigration

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

An inconvenient truth about rising immigration

Ross Gittins
March 3, 2008

JOHN HOWARD never wanted to talk about his booming immigration program. It seems Kevin Rudd's lot doesn't want to either. Why not? Because it just doesn't fit.

For Mr Howard, it didn't fit politically. Didn't fit with the xenophobic rhetoric he used to win votes back from Pauline Hanson and to wedge Labor.

For Mr Rudd, it doesn't fit with any of his professed economic concerns - about inflation, about mortgage stress and about climate change.

You'd hardly know it, but we're in the biggest immigration surge in our history. According to Rory Robertson of Macquarie Bank, net immigration has exceeded 100,000 a year in 12 of the past 20 years, having exceeded 100,000 only 12 times in the previous two centuries

*snip*

The third point in Mr Rudd's five-point plan to fight inflation is to "tackle chronic skills shortages", and part of this is to do so through the immigration program. Clearly, the Government believes high levels of skilled migration will help fill vacancies and thus reduce upward pressure on wages.

That's true as far as it goes. But it overlooks an inconvenient truth: immigration adds more to the demand for labour than to its supply. That's because migrant families add to demand, but only the individuals who work add to supply.

Migrant families need food, clothing, shelter and all the other necessities. They also add to the need for social and economic infrastructure: roads, schools, health care and all the rest.

Another factor is that their addition to demand comes earlier than their addition to labour supply. Unemployment among recent immigrants is significantly higher than for the labour force generally.

Admittedly, the continuing emphasis on skilled immigration - and on the ability to speak English - plus the fact that many immigrants are sponsored by particular employers, should shorten the delay before they start working.

Even so, we still have about a third of the basic immigration program accounted for by people in the family reunion category. You'd expect the proportion of workers in this group to be much lower. So though skilled migration helps reduce upward pressure on wages at a time of widespread labour shortages, immigration's overall effect is to exacerbate our problem that demand is growing faster than supply.

The Rudd Government professes to great concern over worsening housing affordability. First we had a boom in house prices that greatly reduced affordability, and now we have steadily rising mortgage interest rates.

The wonder of it is that, despite the deterioration in affordability, house prices are continuing to rise strongly almost everywhere except Sydney's western suburbs.

Why is this happening? Probably because immigrants are adding to the demand for housing, particularly in the capital cities, where they tend to end up.

They need somewhere to live and, whether they buy or rent, they're helping to tighten demand relative to supply. It's likely that the greater emphasis on skilled immigrants means more of them are capable of outbidding younger locals.

In other words, winding back the immigration program would be an easy way to reduce the upward pressure on house prices.

Finally, there's the effect on climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases are caused by economic activity, but the bigger your population, the more activity. So the faster your population is growing the faster your emissions grow.

Our immigration program is so big it now accounts for more than half the rate of growth in our population.

It's obvious that one of the quickest and easiest ways to reduce the growth in our emissions - and make our efforts to cut emissions more effective overall - would be to reduce immigration.

Of course, you could argue that, were we to leave more of our immigrants where they were, they'd still be contributing to the emissions of their home country. True. But because people migrate to better their economic circumstances, it's a safe bet they'd be emitting more in prosperous Australia than they were before.

My point is not that all immigration should cease forthwith but, leaving aside the foreigner-fearing prejudices of the great unwashed, the case against immigration is stronger than the rest of us realise - and stronger than it suits any Government to draw attention to.

Full article

Friday, July 4, 2008

Public broadcasters silent on immigration

From Immigration Watch Canada:

The Conspiracy of Silence at the BBC, the ABC and the CBC

Tim Murray

Is there something endemic in state broadcasting in the Anglophone world which makes it taboo to discuss the population question and to air views that are critical of immigration? If so, where is it coming from: the journalists, the presenters, the researchers, the producers or the administrators? Is state media more a captive of political correctness than the private media?

In attempting to answer some of these questions, it is useful to look at two fascinating accounts, one about the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC), another about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) and finally to summarize the disgraceful record of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

In “The Treason of the BBC” , the late Jack Parsons argued that “The BBC has been systematically excluding virtually all material on the question of basic population policy.” For example, BBC reporters allowed Beverly Hughes, a former Minister of Immigration, to “blandly repeat, unchallenged, the government’s mindless policy of continued mass immigration to meet the alleged needs of the economy.” Also, it granted a free pass to former Home Secretary Charles Clark to say that there were ‘no obvious limits’ to net migration and rapid growth. At the same time, the BBC did not question the fact that “our present government has adopted a policy (without discussion or mandate) of deliberately increasing our numbers by about one million every five years,” making Britain the fastest growing country in Europe with a population density almost twice that of China.

Parsons asks, “How can BBC claims about the carrying capacity of the prison system and its “overpopulation” be made so openly, so effortlessly, so devoid of fear and moral opprobrium, while not the slightest hint can ever be allowed to slip out vis a vis the vastly more important case of the carrying capacity and numbers of the nation as a whole?”

He accuses those who run the BBC of “colluding in a very Great Betrayal, fostering the myth that human numbers have so little consequence that there is no need to take them seriously.” “The charge I am leveling at all executive levels of the BBC as a corporate body concerns what I am convinced is coercive, institutionalized bias which for years has prevented virtually all BBC news of, and discussion about, a literally vital object, the long-term balance between human numbers, resources and the quality of life…; this was not always so, but has been the case for at least 15 years."

The signs of population myopia were apparent to Parsons in 1967 when he asked the BBC why it was so concerned about the Tory Canyon Oil-Tanker Spill disaster, but so unconcerned about the doubling of the world’s population in 30 years. Since the early seventies, “a steady and insidious process among governing circles, opinion-formers, the greater bulk of the media, including the BBC, has built a powerful and near universal censorship, by consent…that the absolutely fundamental ecology question, the need for a sustainable balance between numbers and resources---is almost totally ignored. The sad corollary of this is that mass migration---since it has a major and obvious impact on the overall population situation---cannot be rationally discussed either.”

Parsons, in a letter to a BBC Complaints Unit, asks, “Dare one hope that, one of these days, someone in the higher echelons of the BBC will screw his/her courage to the sticking point and actually issue and follow through on a set of instructions that free the BBC---and hence the nation­from this appalling and near-totally disabling taboo.” He is given to wonder “Why does this large, wealthy, powerful, highly prestigious institution…cringe so abjectly at the very idea of free speech in the realm of discourse?” And why the taboo? “Has there been an explicit but secret directive to all producers to steer clear of the subject? Has this policy been built up by means of nods, winks and frowns on high; or does it stem from tacit acceptance by all concerned at the prevailing orthodoxy in the wider society?”

According to Parsons, four things are needed to reform the BBC. Firstly, there needs to be major change in ‘media Zeitgeist’ (thinking) that will permit an open discussion about population. Secondly, the BBC needs to “stop cowering beneath its cloak of political correctness” and, by honest analysis, foster the emergence of a mature, ecologically informed electorate. Thirdly, the BBC needs to hire reporters who are population experts. “Some BBC presenters, who have an overweening confidence in their qualifications, start laying down the law on those population topics which are allowed a mention, and in the process frequently display their ignorance…They pick up and mindlessly repeat half-baked notions about alleged labour shortages and pension problems, and swallow hook, line and sinker any free-floating opinions about how much better things will continue to become as numbers inexorably swell.”

Fourthly, it would be nice if the BBC followed its own Producer Guidelines. “Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All BBC programmes and services should be open-minded, fair and show a respect for truth. No significant strand of thought should go unreflected or unrepresented at the BBC.”

Until then, however, its Motto will remain that of the Three allegedly Wise Monkeys: See no population problem! Hear no population problem! Speak no population problem!

Mark O’Connor, poet and one-time Vice-President of Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population (AESP, re-named SPA), has made a similar assessment of the ABC. In his upcoming book, "Overloading Australia", O’Connor concedes that the ABC is critical to Australian democracy and is able to speak to the people---“and often does”. “But the ABC has in some parts of its news and current affairs sections failed to provide objectivity or fairness to portray debates or news coverage relating to population, immigration or economics." It is living the Comfortable Lie: that growth is good and sustainable, and that the mass immigration that fuels it must continue. “The fact must be faced. There is something deeply wrong in some parts of it.”

But O'Connor is unable to locate precisely where the fault lies. Whether researchers withhold information from presenters, or presenters refuse to use the research provided to them, or whether producers, strategy planners or management dictate programming, is a question outside observers can't answer. "But there certainly is a bias," he asserts.

He offers some examples of this bias. During those years when Australia had the highest per capita immigrant intake of any country in the world, the ABC refused to challenge propagandists who illogically and brazenly claimed that Australia's high immigration intake was "shamefully low" and "proof of racism". In addition, the ABC collaborated with both the government and the opposition party to promote high immigration by ignoring inconvenient facts like the one about Australia's high per capita immigrant intake and suppressing most of the debate. And while going after the jugular of the One Nation Party as if it were alone in its call for a zero net immigration policy, “among its many acts of censorship, ABC TV News suppressed the fact that the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Democrats (two other parties) had long been calling for zero net migration."

O’Connor speculates as to why the ABC behaves in this manner. “The ABC’s failure through nearly three decades to deal with population issues­the most important matter facing Australia today--- may have less to do with individuals than with a pervasive institutional culture.” Nevertheless, “if there are such persons blocking the debate, then it is assuredly time they were persuaded to move on to other areas where their biases will do less harm.”

He concludes, “The ABC has a problem with its news service and current affairs programs. It may not be able to rectify past unfairness, but it needs urgently to offer guarantees that the censorship will cease, and that at least in future those who disagree with high immigration or with ‘birth-bribes’ will receive equal time on its programs.” New ‘balance and accountability’ guidelines announced by management in October of 2006 “will not address ABC News’ pro-growth, pro-natalist, pro-conventional economic views.”

Can what has so far been said of the BBC and the ABC be said of the CBC as well? In one word, yes, and more. While some regional centres have attempted to bring more balance to immigration issues, CBC Radio, especially the National centre in Toronto and the Vancouver centre, have emphatically not. In general, the CBC (like the ABC previously) has refused to engage the public on the two questions that critics keep asking: Why is the government importing more people per capita than any other country in the world? And what effect is this infux, which gives us the highest growth rate of any G8 nation, having on our economic, cultural and environmental health?

Timidity and cowardice are not the exclusive province of CBC journalists, but the fact is that only the private media outlets have on occasion exposed abuses of the immigration system and questioned the country’s high immigration intake. The CBC, on the other hand, has done what it can to promote mass immigration on the basis of its misinterpretation of its 1991 legislated mandate to promote “multiculturalism”. Somehow, CBC logic equates the stated “CBC Vision” (to reflect “the cultural diversity of our people”) with support for mass immigration. In addition, to the CBC, the promotion of a diversity of cultures displaces the promotion of a diversity of opinions.

Those very many Canadians who voice negative concerns about immigration are simply denied airtime by the people they subsidize. As Immigration Watch Canada has noted, the CBC sees no contradiction between holding out one hand to ask for public funding while clenching the other in a fist to drive into the mouth of the taxpayer who dares to challenge the CBC line on immigration. Furthermore, the CBC allows generous airtime and interviews with pro-immigration groups, so that they may in turn, as a quid pro quo, advertise for the non-commercial CBC. So to partiality and deceit, one can therefore add corruption to the list of CBC immigration vices.

So what then is the remedy? Suffice it to say that the CBC’s commitment to mass immigration and multiculturalism comes at the cost of balanced, honest journalism. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage can obviously rectify this situation by ordering the CBC executive to answer for this conflict of interest. It can further help by demanding that the CBC terminate the corporation’s corrupt arrangements with the immigration industry, its blatant pro-immigration advocacy and the employment of its employees who engage in it.

Such measures would seek not to curb journalistic freedom, but to end shameless CBC journalistic abuse---and return public broadcasting to the public. As with the BBC and ABC, our National Broadcaster should be offering a forum where indeed “no significant strand of thought should go unreflected or unrepresented”. The exclusion of topics or the shunning of voices should be foreign to its corporate culture and democratic mission.

The BBC, ABC and CBC conspiracy to silence critics of immigration and population growth has been an insult to democracy and to the public that has had to put up with it. The conspiracy has to end now.

Source

Time for a national conversation about immigration numbers

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Sick of the congestion? Time to talk about immigration

Michael Duffy
June 28, 2008

The congestion problems in the news this week have the same cause as a lot of other problems that make the Herald's front page. They're due to our increasing population, or more precisely, our failure to make adequate provision for it.

This might seem obvious, but in fact Sydney is in a state of denial about population increase. We don't prepare for it adequately and seem constantly surprised that public services and infrastructure fail. When they do, we blame politicians, or climate change, or the greed of people (other people) for cars and houses and air conditioning. Anything but what is often the main cause, population growth.

This comes from births, migration from other parts of Australia, and immigration, but it's only the last category we have much control over.

This week the Bureau of Statistics announced that last year the nation's population grew at its fastest rate since 1988. The growth rate was 1.6 per cent, or 331,900 people. Net overseas migration contributed 56 per cent of that increase. As is well known, a large proportion of those people settle in Sydney. But for years, Sydney has just pretended it wasn't happening..

Water is a good example because it's so simple. A Water Supply Strategic Review prepared for the Water Board in 1991 noted that since Warragamba Dam had been completed in 1960, Sydney's water storage capacity had been increased by only 2 per cent. This was despite an increase in population from 2.3 million to 3.6 million. The report noted, given the projected future population increase, "if measures are not taken to provide Sydney with additional storage, early in the next century there will be a real risk of serious water restrictions being necessary".

The rest is history, but try to find anyone today who will admit our water restrictions are the result of population growth and the failure by governments to respond adequately. Much easier to blame drought and global warming.

The same thing can be seen with other issues. Just this week in the Herald there's been coverage of a report on road congestion by the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies. Among other things, the report advocates building more roads to keep pace with population increase. The Roads Minister, Eric Roozendaal, rejected the report as the work of "academics in ivory towers". He also rejected a proposal by the institute for congestion pricing of traffic.

So what do the streetwise guys in government propose as a response to population pressure on our roads? In relation to the size of the problem, just about nothing. When you consider the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics has predicted an 18 per cent increase in car use by 2020 due to population growth, maybe we need something better.

Why has the link between immigration numbers and the above issues been ignored? One reason is that state governments have no say in those numbers. And the Federal Government has no (direct) responsibility for most of the problems they cause. If Kevin Rudd knew that when he bumped immigrant numbers up he'd be responsible for all the extra schools, hospitals and roads that would be needed, he might think twice.

Another reason immigration has been ignored is because to question it is to be seen as politically incorrect, even racist. This could why the environmental movement has largely ignored it, despite its central role in the problems the movement talks about all the time.

The Australian Greens' record on this has been documented by author and conservationist William J. Lines. Writing with Natalie Stone in People and Place in 2003, he noted: "Originally promulgated in 1995, the [Green] party's population policy was revised in 1998 and again in 2002. With each revision the Greens altered their principles, lessened their commitment to limiting population growth … [and] replaced concern about population and environmental degradation with a social justice, global human rights platform."

Before the policy launch for the 1998 federal election, "the Greens' immigration policy proposed that 'Australia's voluntary immigration program be reduced as part of a strategy to achieve eventual stabilisation of the Australian population'. Subsequent policies dropped this strategy entirely and made no recommendation to reduce immigration. In fact the [policy] targets now openly encourage immigration".

Another rollover occurred in the Australian Conservation Foundation. In his book Patriots (UQP), Lines describes how in the 1990s "each successive leader [of the ACF] displayed an extreme reluctance to discuss population".

Barry Cohen, the former Labor politician, noted recently that it is bizarre to hold apocalyptic beliefs about human-induced climate change while supporting near-record levels of immigration.

It's time for a national conversation about immigration numbers. We'll be starting from a long way behind. At the moment the Government doesn't even have an overall number for immigration for next year, which is strange when you consider the Prime Minister's belief in planning and targets.

The issue of population was treated in a trivial manner by the 2020 Summit, which arrived at the following vision: "By 2020 we will have a sustainable population and consumption policy: while the population grows, net consumption should decrease."

Let's get real.

Steve Bracks, the former Victorian premier, has called for the premiers' conference to devise a population policy and then look at how the nation will cope with the resultant immigrant numbers. He wants the Commonwealth to give more money for this purpose to the states. Whatever figure is arrived at, this sounds like a sensible approach.

Source

Immigration driving housing shortage

From ABC News:

One million homes needed to keep up with immigration: HIA

June 30, 2008

The Housing Industry Association (HIA) says housing supply is not keeping pace with Australia's booming immigration intake and one million new homes will be needed over the next five years.

HIA says there has been record immigration growth but no accompanying increase in housing.

The head of the association's policy division, Chris Lamont, says the problem is exacerbated because there has been a decline in the number of people per house.

He says he doubts the demand for housing will be met.

"The skills shortages that are plaguing the industry, limited land release and the limited investment are playing havoc," he said.

"In the five-year period that we're looking at, we're going to see continued house price growth and continued rental growth unless we make a sizeable difference in combating the demand."

Source

Australia's population fastest growing in the developed world

From The Australian:

Migrants, births fuel rise in numbers

David Uren, Economics correspondent | June 25, 2008

A FLOOD of migrants and a continuing rise in the birth rate gave Australia its fastest population growth in almost two decades last year.

Queensland is leading the population boom, attracting migrants from overseas and across the border in NSW.

The number of Queenslanders rose by just under 100,000 last year, almost a third of the national population increase of 331,000.

The 1.6 per cent increase in the population lifted the national total to 21.2 million.

Australian National University demographer Peter McDonald said the rise made Australia the fastest-growing nation in the developed world.

"The United States has a slightly higher fertility rate but our migration rate is much higher," he said.

The population was boosted by an extraordinary influx of 410,900 migrants and long-term visitors from overseas, far in excess of the 226,400 long-term visitors returning and Australian residents leaving the country.

Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia were thebig magnets for overseas migrants.

Western Australia lifted its migrant intake by 24.6per cent last year to 28,880 people, while Queensland attracted 35,800, an increase of 19.1 per cent.

Professor McDonald said NSW was the big loser, as a result of efforts by former premier Bob Carr to close the state to migration.

"Over the last seven years, NSW's share of international migration has dropped from 42per cent to 29 per cent," Professor McDonald said.

NSW still accounted for 42 per cent of the people leaving the country, he said.

Western Australia was the biggest destination for British migrants, while Queensland attracted the most New Zealanders.

Victoria and NSW appealed more to Chinese and Indian migrants.

"South Australia has also achieved a remarkable increase in its migrant intake from 2000 five years ago to 13,000 in the last year," Professor McDonald said.

With about 24,000 people leaving NSW, mostly for Queensland last year, NSW had lower population growth than Queensland and Victoria.

Despite the resources boom, Western Australia failed to attract a significant flow of migrants from the eastern states, with only 3775 people making the trek across the Nullarbor last year. Queensland lured 25,650 people.

The fertility rate continued to climb, reaching 1.85 births per woman, up from a level of 1.72 four years ago.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics said this number might have been exaggerated by the new requirement that births be registered before parents can claim the baby bonus.

However, Professor McDonald said even accounting for that change, the fertility rate was above 1.8 births per woman.

The death rate also declined, from 6.6 deaths per 1000 people in 2002-3 to 5.9, the lowest on record, last year.

Natural population increase added 147,400 people last year, an 11.3 per cent increase from 2006, while migration added 184,400, a 16.2 per cent increase.

Source

Kevin Rudd's immigration plan

From The Independent Australian:

Chairman Rudd’s Secret Weapon

Editorial
The Independent Australian
Winter 2008 - Issue No. 15

Much has been written about the effect of the Budget on inflation. The general consensus of opinion seems to be that if the ALP were going to honour their election promises, the Budget would be more or less neutral. However the Government and the Reserve Bank are clearly worried about inflation in view of the rise in commodity prices, which are determined overseas.

They fear that there will be a wage breakout, forcing up prices, especially since they are repealing WorkChoices and relaxing pressure on the unemployed to get a job.

Their solution is to flood the country with a record number of immigrants (up nearly 40,000 to nearly 200,000) and temporary work visas, increasing the competition for jobs, forcing up unemployment and hence deterring workers from seeking higher wages. The Budget papers allow for an increase in unemployment and for a decrease in the wage share of GDP from 47.9% to 45.9%.

The media in general has not drawn attention to the significance of the policy, but there has been strong approbation from big business. A few unionists on the Left have expressed alarm. Most of them are silent, supporting the party ahead of the best interests of their members.

The social effects are of no concern to Chairman Rudd, headline interest rises are his major worry. Where are all the immigrants to live? Housing starts have fallen, rental accomodation vacacy is at the lowest in living history. Desperate seekers are bribing estate agents. In the middle of all this we have touching features about Chairman Rudd cuddling up to the homeless. Concern is no substitute for action. The main reason for homelessness is lack of accomodation for them at anything resembling affordability. Older houses in around the city that used to provide rooms for the homeless are being pulled down for blocks of units to house all the newcomers.

The Infrastructure Fund will allegedly help with the transport and other bottlenecks that Australia is experiencing. But it won’t start spending for a year or so and capital works like these take time to implement. In the meantime ordinary Australians will have to put up with crowded public transport, choked roads and clogged health services.

Now is the time to buy a rental property. With housing starts in decline and record immigration, rental rates must go up further. Tough on long standing Australians who can’t afford a house, but when did the ALP ever care about them? Uppermost in the minds of ALP long term planning is that immigrants tend to favour the ALP.

Source

Perth's population to soar due to immigration

From ABC News:

Perth's population to soar

ABC News
June 27, 2008

A new study predicts Perth is set for a population explosion far exceeding State Government forecasts.

A leading demographer says it is an early warning for the state to plan ahead or face traffic, health and housing chaos in coming years.

950 people move to WA every week and the unprecedented growth is set to continue.

Monash University demographer, Bob Birrell, predicts Perth's population will soar 43 per cent by 2021 to 2.1 million people.

"The big problem Perth faces is the pace of growth, that's why we're seeing housing prices in Perth at Sydney levels," he said.

An influx of 640,000 people over the next 13 years would represent the fastest rate of growth for any Australian city in history.

Dr Birrell says the impact will be felt in demand for housing, hospitals, schools and public transport.

"It would seem to me that the logical thing to do would be to slow the pace of growth down," he said.

"Let's slow the mineral boom down a bit.

"Those resources will still be in the ground in 20 years time, they'll probably be worth even more."

But the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Alannah MacTiernan is standing by the government's population modelling that predicts a 27 per cent rise by 2021.

"It is possible," she said.

"We would suggest that it's unlikely but either way perth is going to get much bigger and we have to be prepared to have a more diverse city if we're going to be able to deal with it."

James Pearson from the Chamber of Commerce has released a blueprint it hopes will keep the boom going longer.

It wants migration from China and India substantially increased to help fill 400,000 new jobs in the next decade.

"It makes sense to us that we should be looking towards Asia where our major trading and investment partners are a big proportion of those migrants," he said.

Source

Melburnians on the move

From the Herald Sun:

Almost a million Melburnians have upped stakes

John Masanauskas
June 27, 2008 12:00am

MELBURNIANS are moving house in huge numbers - with up to one-third shifting to other parts of the city and regional Victoria in the past five years, according to census data.

More than 900,000 city dwellers changed address between 2001 and 2006, as pressure from overseas migration pushed many locals towards the fringes.

About 500,000 people moved outside their local government area, while some 400,000 shifted to nearby homes.

The biggest single transfer saw 10,125 residents leave western suburbs such as Sunshine and St Albans for booming Melton.

There was a similar exodus from the Dandenong region to the southeast housing estates of Narre Warren and Berwick.

Dandenong has seen a major transformation, with the arrival of refugees and other immigrants, in recent years.

Daniel Willis, 22, said he and his partner, Rebecca Parry, moved from Dandenong to Narre Warren to escape rising crime and cultural change.

"We are going to have a family soon," he said.

"We didn't want to bring up a family in that sort of area."

City of Greater Dandenong councillor Jim Memeti said the area's cultural diversity was an asset and people moved because housing was cheaper further out.

Other areas with large outflows included neighbouring Clayton, which also has high immigrant settlement, and suburbs such as Box Hill, Pascoe Vale and Coburg.

Some areas with high outflows also recorded big intakes.

Boroondara lost 25,806 residents, but gained 23,237 from other areas.

Record high immigration and a rising birth rate saw the population rise across all council areas.

The data, prepared for the Herald Sun by the state Department of Planning and Community Development, revealed city fringe areas had the most internal movement.

More than 30,000 residents in the City of Casey, which includes Narre Warren and Berwick, moved within the area in the five-year period.

Other suburbs with high internal migration included Roxburgh Park, Sunbury, Frankston, Belgrave and Lilydale.

Planning department senior demographer Jeremy Reynolds said the trend to move small distances was common.

"The comparatively low numbers of moves across the Yarra in Melbourne, the harbour in Sydney or the Thames in London are indicative of this sectoral bias in migration," he said.

Head of Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research, Dr Bob Birrell, said poorer immigrants tended to settle in outer suburbia.

"Local residents in areas like Dandenong and Sunshine are tending to move out if they can afford to," he said.

Source

Immigration a strain on Australian cities

From the Herald Sun:

Migrant intake a strain on cities

Ben Packham
May 24, 2008 12:00am

MOVES to allow an extra 31,000 migrants into Australia each year will place huge pressure on already over-crowded cities, according to one of the nation's top population experts.

Monash University's Dr Bob Birrell said the jump in the migrant quota would worsen the housing crisis and environmental problems.

"They'll be adding additional demand to a market that is already in crisis," he said.

The Government lifted the skilled migrant intake in the Budget to 190,300 to try to cope with growing labour shortages.

It is also considering accepting unskilled guest workers in a radical policy shift.

Dr Birrell said the migration increase amounted to a new population policy for Australia.

Under the new quota, Australia's population would hit 32 million by 2050 -- five million more than previously estimated, Dr Birrell said.

Migration will account for 80 per cent of population growth in that period.

"The Government's No. 1 priority is to get extra labour here," Dr Birrell said.

"It will exacerbate housing affordability issues, it will exacerbate congestion and liveability issues in the major cities, (and) population growth is a major component of greenhouse emissions."

Source

Sydney's population to surge by another million by 2021

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

City to grow by a million people

Damien Murphy, Brian Robins and David Humphries
June 2, 2008

SYDNEY'S population will grow by nearly 1 million people by 2021 due to the Rudd Government's expansion of the immigration program - putting huge strain on the city's public transport, health, education and housing.

A leading demographer, Bob Birrell, said the immigration intake would pump up the city's population to more than 5.1 million, up from about 4.3 million now and 350,000 more than planners had expected.

His prediction comes on the eve of tomorrow's state budget, in which the beleaguered Iemma Government is expected to pour $58 billion into infrastructure over the next four years.

Dr Birrell, director of the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, said the Rudd Government was giving too much weight to Treasury Department advice that raising the intake of skilled migrants would prevent a wages breakout and help cap inflation.

"This is adopting a one-track mind to immigration, one that fails to recognise that Sydney historically absorbs about one-third of the people who arrive in Australia," he said.

"It also fails to recognise the fact that their arrival imposes such huge stresses on existing resources that without the allocation of further funds to accommodate them, it can end of costing taxpayers and governments plenty."

In its budget last month the Rudd Government promised to increase the migration program by 37,500 places to 190,300 a year. Of the additional places, 31,000 are slated for skilled migrants, to meet the need for workers in a tight labour market driven by the resources boom in Western Australia and Queensland.

Dr Birrell said the population explosion would come despite Sydney losing up to 30,000 people a year to other states. He said that, apart from the increased intake, Sydney's population explosion would be driven by newly arrived migrant groups who tended to have higher fertility rates.

The Iemma Government's announcement at the weekend of $46 million extra for maternity wards to cope with a baby boom illustrates some of the effect on state infrastructure of an unexpected population increase.

The Treasurer, Michael Costa, said yesterday that population growth was not just a matter for NSW. "This is a national issue," he said. "As the population grows, so does the demand for more services and infrastructure.

"We'll keep working with the Federal Government to ensure that an appropriate portion of the $20 billion Infrastructure Australia budget goes to addressing issues such as urban congestion."

The Federal Government's boost in migrant numbers and its impact on Sydney infrastructure will have little effect on tomorrow's budget, because the effect will take years to be felt. But it will heavily influence the NSW bid to the Loans Council, now that it has been restored as the controller of Commonwealth and state borrowing limits. And it will play a big role in the NSW bid to the Grants Commission for a bigger share of the GST revenue.

The dean of the Faculty of the Built Environment at the University of NSW, Peter Murphy, said federal governments generally took little direct interest in cities. If the Government wanted to pump up immigration, it needed to put money into state and local governments, "and that, typically, is where there has been a breakdown", he said.

Although Sydney's share of new migrants had diminished due to the cost of accommodation and other factors, he said, "the numbers are still large, and Sydney has the largest share of the Australian economy".


ON THEIR WAY

Immigration intakes

2003-04 110,000

2004-05 120,000

2005-06 140,000

2006-07 148,200

2007-08 152,800

2008-09 190,300

Source

Rudd Govt's immigration policy an invitation to chaos

From The Daily Telegraph:

An invitation to chaos

By Piers Akerman
May 21, 2008 12:00am

AUSTRALIA is about to see the greatest increase in its migrant population since the post-World War II immigration scheme began.

Last week, the Rudd Labor Government announced a lift in permanent and temporary migration for 2008-09 to nearly 300,000, and Immigration Minister Chris Evans has indicated that some of the rules will be eased to ensure those numbers are met.

Among the most important changes will be the easing of the need to have a knowledge of the English language, a shift in emphasis from skilled to unskilled workers and the decision to trial a pilot program based on the successful New Zealand model for guest workers from Pacific nations.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd sees this as meeting both foreign policy and economic needs.

So far, only senator-elect Doug Cameron, the former national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, has publicly raised any questions about the Rudd Government's plan, suggesting that an increase in the intake of low-skilled workers to solve labour shortages may strain social cohesion and create a fertile ground for recruitment to racist political groups such as Britain's National Front, which recently made its first real gains in the UK local government elections.

In truth, both Evans and Cameron have caught the Labor Government by surprise because Cabinet is not yet prepared to defend its radically changed policy settings.

While most Australians would accept the need to have an increased migration program, they might baulk at Evans' plan to water down the English language requirements and they might query the Government's ability to manage a guest worker program given the glaring failure of such policies in other Western nations.

Germany has huge problems with its Turkish guest worker population for the simple reason that the Islamic Gastarbeiters will not leave when their visas expire.

The French now have vast no-go areas around major cities, including Paris, where even police and military personnel will not go, leaving the largely African immigrants to exist beyond the reach of French law, and the British are not far behind, with areas of cities such as Bradford housing non-English speaking Muslim populations which honour Islamic tradition, not British common law.

The Italians are finding it difficult to police the growing number of Gypsy communities, and even South Africa has problems with Zimbabweans who have come to find a better life.

While there is no doubt that the skilled migrant program and the 457 visa program (which Labor and its trade union allies used to traduce) have increases Australia's economic prosperity, it is unlikely that any guest worker program would enjoy the same support should the economy go sour.

Unskilled workers, particularly, would be hit when the unskilled jobs they came to fill dried up, and their problems would no doubt be exacerbated because typically, unskilled workers lack English language skills, have a low education and less of an ability to adjust to the cultural differences.

Australians should also consider whether they want their nation to be known as a nation that no longer welcomes migrants' contributions and looks upon migrants, even temporary migrants, as potential long-term residents but just as so much work fodder, to be turfed out when the job is done?

Do we want to turn our back on the tradition that saw 70,000 out of the Snowy Mountains Scheme's 100,000-strong workforce welcomed as skilled migrant workers and long-term settlers?

Do we want to encourage the sort of person who is willing to leave his or her family for 50 weeks of the year to work here, and enjoy just one or two weeks of family life in a village in the Philippines or Thailand or Bangladesh?

There is also the reality that the guest worker with poor skills and little education is more likely to be exploited by unscrupulous labor contractors or employers, often of their own nationality.

The government has not been able to prevent the exploitation of skilled workers, how much harder would it be to police such practices among an unskilled guest worker population?

Then there is the issue of where such unskilled labor will come from. New Zealand has opted for Pacific Islanders but it seems that its scheme is operated at a very basic village level, where infringements by workers of their work or visa conditions are dealt with by giving their home villages collective responsibility, and reducing the available places allocated to miscreants' particular villages when transgressions occur.

Politically, it might be good policy for Australia to take guest workers from Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Tonga, but not Fiji, but great care would be needed to avoid offending any of our neighbours.

How the government intends to fast-track these changes through an immigration system which Evans says is ``creaking at the moment because it is unresponsive to new demands and new realities'' is not clear.

Rudd looks more uneasy than usual when he is questioned on the matter and ducked the issue when challenged on it last Monday, rambling on about skills training.

Australia needs leadership on this issue and it needs it fast.

In Opposition, the ALP and its supporters relentlessly claimed that the Howard Government was heartless and lacking in all compassion, but it never treated humans as commodities, as the Rudd Labor Government now proposes.

Labor's proposal will change the make-up of the national character by stealth.

It needs to be fully explored before the culture is manipulated by Labor to suit its political ends in the guise of building the economy.


Source