Immigration and a sustainable population:

John Hunwick writes: Re. “Students, skills and sustainable immigration: Evans rings the changes” (yesterday, item 1). Yesterday, Bernard Keane wrote: “Thus the talk of how Australia — with one of the lowest population densities in the world — is fragile, running out of water and won’t be able to feed or house any more people.”

Unusually for Bernard, he overlooks explaining the term “sustainable population”.

The concept of sustainability can only be grasped when it makes reference to what is making something “UNsustainable”. If one chooses the amount of space available for people then of course we can increase our population by hundreds of millions. It is not space that is creating the demand for a rethink on what is “sustainable” population.

Take water — we can make enough water available to adequately deal with many millions of people living in this country — we could even clean up our own sewage for example — so a “sustainable population” is not just making enough water available. Keeping the discussion just focused on water, the idea of “sustainability” takes on the meaning “is an increase in population sustainable given the present situation with regard to water quantity and quality?”.

At present we are NOT coping with providing our present population with sufficient water as the situation regarding the River Murray clearly demonstrates. Are we managing the water we have presently? No. Are we spending the money necessary to make our present water supply adequate? No. Are we reserving a sensible amount of water for the environment and leaving it unallocated because we acknowledge the basic requirement to do so? No.

At the present rate of progress when can we expect the situation to be rectified? Don’t hold your breath — but let us say 15 years. The trouble is that by then the problem of quantity (let alone quality) will be greater than it is now (by several million people). Should we supply the needed quantity and quality of water, the basic two tests are — can we afford it (or put it another way — are we going to pay for needed changes?). AND can we do it while maintaining and improving our ecological situation so that it provides such water into the future sustainably?

The same line of argument can be used in relation to our health services, education, law and order, fire defence personnel, etc. And of course all this has to occur with a reduction in our carbon footprint.

The nub of the issue is: are we sustainably (economically, socially and environmentally) managing the population we have presently? NO. The amount of space for an increased population is irrelevant.

Andrew Lewis writes: Did Bernard Keane really write, in his weird rant on immigration, that “The normal solutions to such problem are, of course, provided by markets and price signals that direct investment to and reward innovation in areas of scarcity — an idea that’s anathema to the far left and far right.”

God I hope that Bernard doesn’t believe the economics 101 lesson he just gave us. Even the most obtuse among us would daily see the inherent waste of resources that is market capitalism (or socialism or communism, or any other human activity). While berating the far left and far right, he finds his own perfectly hollow middle ground ideology that puts him in the company of the tin-foil hat brigade. I couldn’t quite work out how exactly the market mechanism was going to solve future population problems, but those who are full of faith do not have to worry about practicalities.

Forgetting that non-sequitur,  my response is more about BK stating that immigration planning is dog whistling from the left, which it may be for some, but he implies that anyone that argues for sustainable population planning must be a racist. It’s a cheap shot from an otherwise thinking journalist.

Only somebody who lives in Canberra could think that unlimited growth would be just wonderful, what with all those roundabouts and parks everywhere.Another nail in the coffin of open debate in population planning.  Thanks Bernard. I used to think that I was a forward looking highly intelligent analyst who can see that the light at the end of the tunnel is actually a train coming to run us down.   Nope, just another dog whistling racist here.

Climate change, no wukkkers mate, just throw another 50 million people into Australia, and while our carbon usage soars, we won’t be using as much CO2 per capita.

Geniuses at work!

Shirley Colless writes: In his comments on the decision by the Minister for Immigration to limit immigration, Bernard Keane makes some interesting observations.  He dismisses those of us who are concerned about the availability of potable water to the Australian population and of water that can be used for food production;  that markets and price signals can deal with such a problem as the scarcity of water (tell that to Hughie);  and muddles the issue of skilled migration.

If John Howard could declare that Australia would decide who entered our country, then so can Chris Evans.  The difference is that Howard seemed concerned only with a handful of “illegal” boat people, while Evans seems more intent on getting rid of a considerable rort (with which Howard seemed quite comfortable) in permitting the inflow of “unskilled” people coming to Australia to gain one of an incredibly wide- ranging list of skills in order to gain permanent residence. Surely these people do not meet any criteria that might describe them as “skilled” migrants; and surely Australia is free to identify a range of skills which are important to the further development of both Australian society and the Australian economy.

And could I remind everyone who may read this, the 9/11terrorists did not sneak into some American backwater in a leaky boat but entered that country quite legally on commercial aircraft with a legitimate entry permit.

Allan Griffin writes: Before Bernard Keane has another fit over Australia’s population policies, he should read The Age article on 23 November 2009 by Paul Mees from RMIT on population density.

Attached is the table he presented at the conference in Perth on 25 November 2009.  This shows that Australia’s major capital cities (Sydney and Melbourne) are already densely populated when measured by reputable criteria and compared with North American cities.  His paper also gives comparisons with major European cities.

Keane’s discussion about measuring our population density using land in the less hospitable inland areas is just a distraction and provides no logical basis to attack those he calls extremists.

Tony Abbott and climate change:

Bill Darby writes: Re. “Mungo: Abbott meticulous about his jockstrap, no so on climate change” (yesterday, item 12). I have just read Mungo McCallum’s remarks which included info about farmers and biochar — the latest “solution” to climate change!

Every school boy was once told, during elementary chemistry lessons, that charcoal can be produced easily by heating wood. The simplest method used for many years involved building a heap of logs; covering this with turf and earth to control ingress of air, then lighting it. Controlling the air maximises the yield of charcoal. The vapours produced contain valuable products such as acetic acid, acetone and methyl alcohol but these either burn off, or pollute the environment, unless more sophisticated methods are adopted.

Has anyone explained:

  1. How farmers will produce “biochar”, i.e. which process and what is involved?
  2. What yield of char is expected- so that we can assess quantities of timber required?
  3. Amount of byproducts produced — and is there a market for the large quantities made?
  4. 4. What the pollution considerations are, and what measures are proposed to minimise these, especially if carried out on a large scale?

Neville McCloy writes: How is Tony Abbot getting away with calling the ETS a great big tax when his “model” is one great big tax?  The hypocrisy is astounding.  Is it because Australians are generally uninterested or don’t care what happens in Canberra from day to day?

Abbott has come up with two sound bites that are probably cutting through while the mortgage belt settles down for the nightly commercial news bulletins. 1) that the CPRS is a great big tax and 2) paraphrasing Keating’s “if you don’t understand, then don’t vote for it”, GST remarks.

It is one great big worry that something so complex and something that will so utterly alter the way we SURVIVE has been reduced to such a pathetic level.

Bev Prescott writes: You mob are so left wing that it wouldn’t matter what Tony Abbott did, you would still find something wrong. Take for instance the ironing “gaffe” — what gaffe? — get a life if you think it is wrong to say “house wife” when referring to ironing. Who gives a stuff?  Get a life.

I only skimmed your bit about Tony Abbott as I realise it would be all negative. I have seen a Crikey representative on Q&A and it is obvious where you stand as well.

Swine Flu vaccine:

Steve Lambert writes: Re. “The $120m sequel: swine flu II” (yesterday, item 2). Good on health reporter Bernard Keane for his insightful analysis of how the experts got it wrong on swine flu. His report is full of hearty classics like quoting from the external experts (who always know best! If only we could get some of their clear mindedness into Canberra) and railing against bureaucratic groupthink.

Perhaps my favourite line in the whole piece was “Crikey is not suggesting anyone involved in the Government’s response to swine flu did not address conflict of interest issues, if and where they arose, appropriately”, which happened to immediately follow a couple of paragraphs exploring that very issue.

The link provided for the championed critic Professor Nikolai Petrovsky makes it obvious he is disgruntled with the Commonwealth. Why? Firstly, because in the flawed and discouraging process all Australian health researchers have to go through for funding, he was unsuccessful. The link also quoted Prof Petrovsky complaining that the Commonwealth hadn’t provided his private company with funding to allow his vaccine to be released on to the Australian market. The outrage!

It is worth noting that, at that stage, according to the most cursory of checks of the company’s website, the vaccine had not even completed its first clinical trial in humans. Unexamined conflict of interest anyone? But obviously good talent if it fits with the Crikey narrative and provides a suitably controversial, lazy Sunday Tele-style (yes, all credit to them) opposing position.

Crikey, at the start of the pandemic, called for a rational discussion about the merits of the population-based vaccination program but proceeded to publish a series of articles that trivialised the severity of the H1N1 outbreak and focused on perceived problems of the vaccine or the program. There was, and continues to be, little-to-no presentation of balanced views or articles on the possible benefits of vaccination or solutions implemented to minimise perceived program problems. Given this unswerving commentary by Crikey and Croakey against the Commonwealth funded vaccination program, the irony of Keane complaining of groupthink in the health “complex” is deliciously breathtaking.

We look forward to Bernard’s next column, perhaps a hard-hitting exploration of cost-effective, evidence-based “winners” in other health domains for the Commonwealth to fund. Over to you, Bernard.

Declaration of interest: I am a public health physician and medical epidemiologist. I have a primary interest in the epidemiology of vaccine preventable and other infectious diseases. I have been a co-investigator on numerous industry sponsored vaccine trials since 1999 (including the recent CSL Ltd sponsored H1N1 paediatric trial), received fees as a member of industry advisory panels relating to vaccines, and received travel support to attend and present at international conferences by pharma companies.

The copyright industry:

Ian Farquhar writes: Re. “Conroy tells movie industry, ISPs to kiss and make up” (yesterday, item 18). In Stilgherrian’s item yesterday, he quoted Senator Stephen Conroy, who said: “What I would still hope is that we can bring them together to sit down and settle their differences, create a code of practice that actually protects both parties.”

Did anyone notice a missing party?  Shouldn’t Conroy’s first and overriding priority being the protection of Australian citizens over the corporate interests from the ISPs or the copyright industry?

Let’s face it, Conroy bangs on endlessly about protecting people. Clearly he’s only interested in protecting them from p-rn, but is quite happy to encourage cartel behaviour between the telecommunication industry and copyright monopolists which, based on historical precedent, always end up abusing citizens.

Again, I’m back to wondering if that department routinely lobotomises any minister who enters the place.

Indian students:

Ben Harris-Roxas writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. As you pointed out in yesterday’s editorial there is a very real perception problem about the attacks on Indians in Melbourne, regardless of debates about whether the assaults have in fact been racially motivated.  This was brought home to me through a recent series of email exchanges.  I maintain a listserv on a fairly esoteric subject and I circulated an ad for a job in Australia.  I received three responses, all from Indians rebuking me for trying to entice them to Australia. Here’s an example:

“Please don’t send any advertisements for job opportunities in Australia to any Indian, including me.  First change the hostile mindset of Australians towards Indians.  Whilst there is a need for secure and well paying employment, it should not be at the cost of our lives.  At least we are peaceful here…”

This email was from a senior academic at an Indian university.  Behaving poorly is not a uncommon characteristic amongst academics, but it’s less common to find them getting caught up in mass hysteria (if for no other reason that they’re rarely sufficiently tuned-in enough to hear about it).

This episode made me realise the depth of feeling, anger and mistrust Australia currently faces in India.  I think it’s important that the Commonwealth and Victorian governments realise this too.