Sustainable population

Andrew Lewis writes: Re. “Now we’re picking on New Zealanders” (today’s Campaign Crikey morning edition, item 1). Bernard Keane writes that “Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott can’t be for a sustainable population and for higher fertility at the same time.”

Well no, by any measure their half arsed policies deserve to be made fun of, but yet again Bernard shows off his lack of understanding of ‘sustainable’.

Sustainable means sustainable, it doesn’t mean less, it doesn’t mean more, it just means that we have found an equilibrium where we aren’t destroying the planet around us while we live. The actual figure for a sustainable population for Australia, well nobody knows that, but at the moment it isn’t anywhere near Stephen Mayne’s laughable 100 million. While the science is complex, it can be reduced to a few fundamentals, such as how much water do we have (not much and likely less) how much food we can produce with that water, and how much damage we do to the environment along the way. Sustainability is also a function of technology. It’s like the NAIRU, everyone is pretty sure it exists, but no-one can say exactly where it is. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away.

Bernard continues to conflate two entirely separate issues, sustainability and immigration. Once again, Bernard (and Richard Farmer) they are two separate issues, and their lack of nuance and subtlety of intellect to understand this is perplexing.

Gillard’s mental health not so strong

Melissa Sweet, of our Croakey health blog, writes: Re. “Keane’s Talking Points: Gillard as robotic as Rudd when repeating soundbites” (today’s Campaign Crikey morning edition, item 2). Just for the record, Bernard Keane is wrong to say that Tony Abbott’s mental health announcement prior to the election “appropriately won universal praise”. I raised concerns in Crikey about this being funded by scrapping the government’s reform agenda plans for an Independent Hospital Pricing Authority and the primary health care organisations known as Medicare Locals, as well as cuts to e-health and infrastructure funding to general practice, specifically GP super clinics. Elsewhere others have raised concerns about the lack of a population-based approach to mental health service planning.

Not that I’m defending the Government’s record on mental health. Its failure to make under-served areas the central focus of reform is deeply disappointing.

Gay marriage

L M McIntire writes: Re. Dr Gauld (comments, yesterday) wrote “One of the worst breaches of human rights in the World today is for two consenting adults to be denied the right to grow old together and marry”, I hate to think how Macquarie Grammar students argue if their principal does so so poorly. Being denied the right to grow old together is one alleged breach. Being denied the right to marry is another.

So he is arguing that there are two breaches of human rights, not one. In Australia no-one is (any more) denied the former right. In fact anti-discrimination laws in every jurisdiction prevent anyone from denying two consenting adults the right to grow old together. So he is wrong in fact. Perhaps he was trying to say that he thinks it is wrong that the Australian government does not allow gay marriage. If so that is what he should have said.

The joys of Citizens’ Assembly

Tony Kevin writes: Re. “Gillard’s climate policy in brief” (July 23, item 9). I do not necessarily agree that a 12-month Citizens’ Assembly and supporting expert commission on climate change policy is bad policy. Climate policy is in such a corrupted mess after the past few years of lies and shabby compromises with special interests all round, that we may need just this as a public circuit-breaker to move away from the discredited ETS approach to a simple, returnable-to-citizens, carbon tax. I don’t know if that is where Gillard wants to go: I don’t know if she is just following the tactical advice of the same party minders who gave us Rudd’s corrupted ETS that this is best way to keep the climate change issue safely out of the election, or if she might have a larger personal climate policy vision for after the election. I hope the latter – but a Greens strategic minority in the Senate will be the best way to ensure this.

By the way, Tamas Calderwood (comments, yesterday) misrepresents statistics and truth when he writes that only 12% of Australians put climate change in the top three policy issues that concern them. He left out Bernard Keane’s essential qualifier, “in considering how to vote” in this election. Of course, in an election contest between a climate change delayer and a climate change denier, one would not rate climate change policy highly as a vote determinant. It does not follow that a large majority of Australians are not very concerned about climate change. We are, and this will show in an increased Green vote; and as for the rest of voters who will still vote major party, they will look to whoever wins this election ( on present indications, Labor) to get serious fast about climate change policy.

Bungling bungles

Charles Richardson writes: If Greg Williams (comments, yesterday) still thinks the home insulation scheme was an obvious bungle, let me refer him to Possum Comitatus’s very thorough discussion of the subject some months ago. And if he has a suggestion for how to recast the relevant sentence using the word “Labor” rather than “Coalition” (“non-Coalition” is his term, not mine) while preserving the meaning, I’d be quite intrigued to see it.

Bennelong

David Havyatt writes: Re: “Bennelong dispatch: McKew serves it up to ‘good looking’ JA” (yesterday, item 11). So Joe Hockey thinks John Alexander has “runs on the board”. Despite the cricket analogy, it is tennis that you’d think was John Alexander’s area of expertise. As Sam Stosur was making it to the final of the French Open, Alexander made his way onto lots of radio — always to first say he was breaking into his campaigning for Bennelong. Everywhere he said that Sam would do better at Wimbledon because “grass was her surface”. Fascinating that when the lady herself was bundled out in the first round she said at the press conference that she preferred clay.

Perhaps that’s an indication of how out of touch Alexander is — he’s all about his prejudiced view of what Australians are (grass court players) rather than what they really are (a diversity).

Lobered puns

Virginia Gordon writes: Re. Campaign Crikey’s editorial today. What has happened to Kate Legge? She’s behaving like a 13year old schoolgirl. Honestly, this is the sort of crap you get in junior years in girls boarding schools. Hope she’s joined Julia’s Facebook page dedicated to her ears. Must send her some tunnel jewellery, makeup for the Walkley she won’t be receiving. Don¹t remember her story on Abbott’s ears from in the past.

Who gives a f-ck if Gillard has big ears, or someone has an odd shaped head. What does it have to do with their ability?

As with Rudd discussing Latika Bourke’s outfit rather than responding to her as a good journalist and answering her question, it is beyond me in 2010 why these gender issues wash in and out, other than to show how old some of these boomers really are.

Hispanic studies not so loco

Tim Forster writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 6). Contrary to yesterday’s University of Melbourne insider’s comments, the University’s Spanish language program is alive and well.

I am one of approximately one-hundred students in a brand new third-year Spanish course. Admittedly in my first year, we were informed that a transfer to La Trobe would be necessary to continue beyond “Intermediate” level (second-year) Spanish. However, enrolments have been doubling annually in the last three-or-so years (a figure heard from within the university, take it with salt grains aplenty). Either way, the popularity has meant that Spanish is practically the only humanities discipline at Melbourne to increase its staff and broaden its offerings, no mean feat in these times of sweeping subject cuts. It seems a Hispanic Studies-oriented Head of Languages is actually quite the logical choice.

Nauru

Toria writes: I am amazed that no one has pointed out that the island of Nauru was once mineral rich, then the universal miners moved in and striped the land, paid no tax and now we have this island standing on the side line of the world with a tin cup begging for the worst sort of trade that in human bondage, surely this is what the mining tax is trying to stop. The Liberals should read history or we will repeat it. What is wrong with these people?We have the minerals and we have the universal miners stripping our country, what do we do then?

Damn you Crikey and your debate coverage

Carolyn Whybird writes: Your articles continue to be a joke. Watch the Sky channel. All but the dedicated Laborites thought Tony Abbott won the debate. You are again a big joke. Gillard’s delivery was more polished as Tony Abbott was naturally a little nervous. Abbott won because he was honest and replied in full to all questions. Take a look again this time not through your Labor eyes.

Wonder how you will report Kerry O’Brien’s hopeless journalistic skills? He was pathetic. He wasted time going over and over the same thing. Tony Abbott withstood his hopelessness. How about an honest review. Where is your integrity. Did you ever do journalism? There is such a thing as professional ethics. Do you actually know that? Truth in reporting for a change wouldn’t be bad.

All Labor can do again, is spend big, say “copy, copy” re Liberals policies, set up expensive committees and spin.

I dare you to report my thoughts i.e. the truth!