Population, immigration, asylum seekers et al:

David Hand writes: Re. “Re-election reality hits Afghan and Sri Lankan asylum seekers” (yesterday, item 1). Bernard Keane, whatever view one may have about boat people in the current time, matters of principle drive both sides.

The advocates of an open door such as David Marr, Bernard Keane et al, seem to take the view that anyone who arrives by boat is a refugee and we should simply usher them to the nearest immigration office to hand them their permanent residencies.  Though I consider this point of view naive, I have no doubt about their sincerity or the legitimacy of their view.

The opposing view is that boat people are probably economic migrants.  They have a habit of losing their passports and struggle to produce any identification at all, even a receipt for their mobile phone, making it as difficult as possible for immigration officials to positively identify them.  This lack of identification, coupled with the fact that their boats seem to suddenly blow up or sink the moment an Australian ship arrives on the scene, gives one the uncomfortable feeling that we are being had.

In my view, this is why so many people feel strongly about boat people as opposed to those who come by plane.  The view that many boat people are queue jumpers, climbing over the inhabitants of refugee camps around the world, is where much of the electorate seems to be and in my view is quite legitimate.  The opposing viewpoints are therefore reconciled by finding out who the asylum seekers really are and ushering in the refugees while sending the economic migrants home.

In contrast to these principled though opposed standpoints, The Rudd government’s decision simply not to process asylum seekers is a craven shallow act of political bastardry as well as an admission of massive policy failure.  For once I share the apoplectic rage of the bleeding heart left. Whatever spin they put on it, leaving thousands of asylum seekers in indefinite limbo for the purposes of re-election is gob-smackingly cold hearted and inept.

Rudd is surrendering any fig leaf of principle and selling his soul for re-election.  It seems like an episode of The Hollow Men, where Rudd has worked out that because the electorate likes politicians with firmly held principles, he consults a focus group to find out what principles he should firmly hold.

The bleeding heart left takes a principled view to show compassion to refugees.  The xenophobic right takes a principled view that economic migrants must be stopped.  The Rudd Government takes the unprincipled view that it will do whatever it takes to get re-elected, throwing thousands of desperate people on the bonfire of its re-election campaign along with its last shred of moral legitimacy.

Saint Kevin is no more.

Niall Clugston writes: Bernard Keane wrote: “While the numbers of asylum seekers trying to reach Australia by boat remains small, the political impact is growing.”

Well, if responsible media outlets like Crikey continue to have this kind of lead article, it’s hardly likely to change.

Justin Templer writes: Re. Friday’s editorial. Crikey posits a couple of supposedly unpalatable truths regarding the current population debate, of which one is: the majority of Australians want political refugees refused entry. To describe this as an “unfortunate attitude” is just simplistic rubbish.

The palatable truth is that the majority of Australians realise that it is unfair for political refugees waving a $10,000 traveler’s cheque to obtain a short cut into Australia while somewhere in the world a small child is dying unnoticed in filth and squalor.

This is not an unfortunate attitude — rather it is a testament to Australians’ sense of justice and fair play.  We cannot save everyone but those who are saved should surely be the most needy?

Robert Veerman writes: Apart from all the other arguments I think it is morally reprehensible to lure well-qualified people away from developing countries where they are needed. It is well known that there are many doctors, lawyers, and architects working in this country as taxi drivers etc.

Although they may earn more money here and eventually get their families here as well, such menial work represents a huge waste of talent to both societies. Despite the huge social difficulties, fixing the aging disparity, may be more equitably achieved by a program of adoption of third world orphans, if it could be made to work.

I do however have a radical alternative plan: Resort style Retirement villages, aged care facilities and nursing homes for Australians could be built in developing countries.

This would provide the labour force that we cannot supply here, at a price Aussies can afford. Adjacent hotels would provide simultaneous holiday and parental visits by children of those cared for. A variation is foreign owned and crewed cruise vessels (of course not island hopping at full speed).

Clive Banson writes: Legislating child numbers is dumb — it worked well for China: NOT. Our world awaits the day that a critical mass of people reflect enough and are honest enough to concede that the elephant in the room is not population alone but the combination of population and consumption.

Theoretically population could double if each of us were half as greedy. We, who can, feel entitled — it’s our right — to consume as though there’s no tomorrow. It’s good for the economy. And commonly the elderly among us are the worst offenders — think the “Grey Nomads” with their huge Winnebagos towing four-wheel-drives.

We have to start somewhere with a reasonable chunk of the population actually lowering its living standards. The young are not at fault and should be left to get on with their lives – they’re going to get it between the eyes anyway, unfortunately, within their own lifetimes (see Lovelock).

Fear not, I have the answer. Once we turn fifty we all get an ultimatum. We can go behind the shed and do the world a favour or reduce our living standards to the level of the age pension — all of us, bar none.

That’s our choice. It should work.

Paying for news:

Adam Dunsford writes: Re. “Kohler: Rupert wrong … distribution, not content, is king” (Friday, item 18). I disagree — content is king. You get what you pay for (mostly). I have money and the only content I buy is Crikey (I would be buying the SMH and AFR too, but they can’t deliver to my house, so I only buy them when I remember on my dog walks).

This is the whole reason I subscribe to Crikey (and not The Australian) is content. Crikey gives me new and interesting information that is not available from any other source (as far as I can find).  It’s sort of like Wikileaks as told by Bob Debus.

Just like New Scientist is a window into the world of science with all of the hideously boring dry unfun detail removed. There is some value-add.  I can read Crikey and get the same thrill as hanging out in Parliament, Reserve Bank Board Meetings, secret political meetings, etc.

NewsCorp doesn’t offer me anything above bland background noise.  The only way to get paid for muzak is to be the monopoly provider.  The internet has put an end to monopolies on information (as long as Steven Conroy fails).  I guess this is why Murdoch hates the ABC/BBC == they provide a baseline for free news == if you want something better … then pay.  Something that most people will do.

The truth is that The Australian and News Ltd papers like the  Courier Mail are a mix of propaganda and opinion.  Either it’s just PR dressed up as news; or is the musings of various crazies/fossils.  As much as I like a good Laugh in the morning, the combination of Dennis Shanahan, Greg Sheridan, Paul Kelly and that young comedian Caroline Overington is very tiring.  I can watch the YouTube compendium of Troy McClure and Abe Simpson clips and get the same amount of actual content (it too is very tiring the 2nd time).

People will make money out of distribution — a percentage of the total — printers, paper mills, Apple, TV stations. But the money is made in the exchange of content for cash (or cash equivalent — adverts).

NewsCorp now longer generates any real content. I guess this is why Alan Kohler writes for himself (Eureka) and Crikey rather than a flagship like The Australian.

Private vs. public:

Ross McOmish writes: Re. “Public versus private life: no contest when it comes to what pays” (Friday, item 10). It is a middle class obsession to worry about what others are earning. But the answer for our pollies is simple. Pay them what they are worth!  Not a complex suggestion I would think. But as always the devil is in the detail.

Of course many (most?) pollies think they would oust Marius Kloppers for a job  if they had not so magnanimously decided to dedicate their lives to improving the lot of mankind. Perhaps Rudd and Turnbull may have done so. But, many of them would not get a job at BHP as a bellhop. Assuming BHP  employ bellhops.

All other professions, industries, careers etc provide great variation in reward. The problem with pollies is standardizing  reward. If they were paid what they were really worth in  “private life”  this would not happen. Why not have an independent commission of recruitment agents decide what each pollie is reasonably owed by the Public for their commitment to public life? That way their individual educations, work experiences and abilities can be appropriately recognized in their remuneration. Just like it is for most in Private Life.

Is saying this I accept that the remuneration of some CEO’s etc is hard to justify. But that is another issue that should not be confused with what pollies ought to be paid. An independent remuneration commission that individually assessed each pollies pay would I suspect rid us of the professional young career pollie we are now having to endure (people with negligible life skills and experience) and encourage successful people into politics. Don’t forget that “Success breeds success”.

Thanks for the insight of your articles. They often help me balance what I read in the orchestrated press.

Locals v the machine:

Stephen Luntz writes: Re. “Contest in ACT comes down to the ALP machine versus genuine locals” (Friday, item 11).  Bernard Keane’s outline of the ALP preselection for Fraser was fascinating, but I couldn’t quite get past the opening line. Is it right that there are only 236 preselectors? If so does this represent some privileged subsection of the ALP membership in the area, or that really all there is

An average of 236 members per seat would put the national ALP membership at 35,000 — a little below published estimates, but credible. However, Fraser is one of the safest Labor seats in the country. It’s also the sort of highly educated electorate that usually attract a large number of members to all political parties. These factors alone would have led me to expect a membership above 500. On top of this the ACT must be richly endowed with Canberra-based staffers, policy advisers and public servants who would be far more likely than most to join the ALP.

If the figure is correct either not all members are getting to participate – something that might have been worth explaining – or the ALP’s membership problems are much worse even than Mark Latham made out.

Fairfax:

David Imber writes: Re. “Fairfax ignored warnings over Melbourne Weekly distribution problems” (Friday, item 4). As a resident of Melbourne suburb Elwood I’ve not received a copy of the Emerald Hill Weekly in my letter box all year. And judging from what I see when I walk around my local area, neither has anyone else within several blocks of my place.

As a local paper that has a strong history of covering social affairs stories extremely well, I have missed its weekly arrival and have had to search for it at shops and real estate agents, often missing an issue if I can’t find one available.  I have complained to the distribution phone number and the only response I got was a vague mention that my address fell “between distributors” but no explanation of what that means and when I’ll see the paper in my letter box again.  I even got the impression that Elwood may get the insipid Bayside Weekly instead of the more feisty and political Emerald Hill Weekly.

Despite making clear my displeasure and providing my name and contact details I have heard nothing from Fairfax since my call.  Now I freely admit some self interest here- I’ve been quoted in that paper in my roles at the Tenants Union and VCOSS and often encourage and assist my non profit clients to seek coverage in the paper, so my interest is far from a passing one.

However I believe that if not for the Emerald Hill Weekly (formerly Emerald Hill Times) there would not have been the sort of coverage and debate of social affairs issues locally.  Which is why I am concerned that a rival publication funded and managed by real estate agents may not provide the sort of quality journalism that local residents have enjoyed for many years.

Will articles about poor real estate agent practice, let alone ones calling for better standards for rental properties, ever grace the pages of this new publication?  Will there even be any articles that aren’t simply advertorial for local hair and beauty outlets, dog walking businesses or cafes?  Will there be any journalism at all?  For good journalism is not just a concern for journalists and media junkies it is a concern for everyone who cares about local democracy.

I want a local paper that pushes Governments of all levels to respond to social issues and not just be a collection of shameless advertorials.  I have often enjoyed the irony that articles outlining the struggles of low income renters have been published in a paper funded by the vendors of multimillion dollar properties and the ads their real estate agents have placed.

Which is why I’m pleased that the quality of the Port Phillip Leader has lifted and is now carrying more local social affairs stories (So thank you News Limited).  But it is disappointing that the the (now sadly fading) separation between editorial and advertising at newspapers may be about to be dealt a further blow by a new publication whose owners will be even more concerned about the bottom line than the by line. But the bottom line for local residents is that our local papers keeps us connected to our local area in a way that other sources rarely can.

My local council funded newsletter is not going to tell me the full story about my council in the way that a local journo will (and it certainly won’t quote me criticising my local council like my local Leader newspaper recently did).  And while I don’t really care who is Grade 6 captain at the local school and why they are excited about winning the science Olympics I’m glad that their parents get to see them experience their 5 minutes of fame funded by the commission that their agent gets from their rent or the sale of their property.

Bottom line for me though is that I miss my home delivered EHW and cannot understand why a company at serious risk of losing millions of dollars of advertising cannot even ensure that the paper that currently contains those ads gets delivered to everyone.  Please explain Fairfax!