Population, migration et al:

Charles Berger , Director of Strategic Ideas, Australian Conservation Foundation, writes: Re. “Stop migration and risk wage inflation and interest rate hikes” (Tuesday, item 4). In a superb demonstration of hyperbole, Peter McDonald claims that we can’t “stop” migration, because that would lead to a shortage of labour and wage inflation,  which would bring development projects to a halt and would ultimately “cut the living standards of tomorrow’s Australians.”

But no major voice in the debate is calling for migration to be “stopped”. Those who are concerned about the environmental and social impact of an Australian population which is growing faster that India’s have called for a return to more modest levels of migration.

And in assessing his claim that development projects will be held up by labour shortages, we should bear in mind the CSIRO’s analysis that “most of the primary mining sectors are capital intensive and employment poor.” CSIRO found, for example, that the natural gas sector provides 65% lower employment generation than investment in other sectors of the economy. Bauxite is 50% below average, and iron ore and black coal are both 65% below average as well. These are not industries that employ large numbers of workers; their claims of “skills shortages” are mostly aimed at lowering their own wages bill.

In fact, lowering so-called “skilled migration” would create a better environment for Australian workers, by ensuring that we invest in domestic skills training and offer workers decent terms and conditions. So-called “excess demand” for labour is not a bad problem to have, if you’re an Australian worker.

McDonald’s claim that fewer development projects would “cut” our living standards is indefensible nonsense. No serious economist has claimed that lower migration would result in a falling GDP per capita — at worst, it might slow the rate of growth, though even that is highly contestable.  The Intergenerational Report found that the economy would continue to grow even with lower migration and lower population growth. So that’s not a “cut” — that’s just getting richer a little bit slower.

The best way of ensuring good “living standards” for future Australians is not to mindlessly pursue resource-generated profits at any cost, but rather to focus on preserving what’s genuinely at risk: the health of our natural environment, and a good work-life-community balance for Australians.

Martin Copelin writes: I think the proposed population growth mainly through immigration is disastrous. You have to look at where the immigrants are coming from and it appears overwhelmingly they are non white. This is changing Australia far too rapidly and will lead to a very divided nation which in times of war will be disastrous. Who on Earth would want to be in the trenches with many that are coming in.

I believe we should not be taking any more than 100,000 per annum including refugees — and the latter should include white South Africans. In fact South Africans, particularly the Afrikaners, would be perfect, they would actually fight for Australia if allowed in unlike most others.

Because Australian women are reluctant to have babies in the numbers needed, we must put our hands deeper into our pockets to reward those that do have them. This is expensive but necessary.

Also those allowed into this country should sign a contract to be settled into the country areas, those that have infrastructure anyway to avoid the expensive and artificial increases in the size of our capital cities.

Craig Brown writes: Re. “AFP flying close to the wind — again — on Tamil case” (yesterday, item 17). With the ongoing frenzy about refugees, I’m somewhat surprised at the lack of a back story — I don’t for a moment believe that people smugglers are so versed in Australian immigration laws that this has been the sole driver behind the sudden rise in boats setting off in search of new homes.

I gather from what I’ve been able to glean that many of the current rush of asylum seekers are Sri Lankan, and I’m guessing that with the recent conclusion of the war between the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil Tigers, and their resultant massive internal refugee problem.  There have of course been some dark rumours about goings on there, particularly with the Red Cross being barred from one of the biggest camps in June last year.

I’d be interested to know how many of the current wave are coming from Sri Lanka, and more importantly, why that particular angle of the story, and follow up on Sri Lanka after the defeat of the Tamil Tigers, are being left untold.

Q&A:

Peter McEvoy, Executive Producer Q&A, writes: Re. “Q&A watch”, “Media briefs: Abbott’s mate on Q&A … SMH readers the most prudish? … the first iPad reviews …” (Tuesday, item 21). Nice to see you can Google but it’s still a shame that you don’t get the point of Q&A. Contrary to Andrew Crook’s claim, we will not be weeding out party members and supporters from the Q&A audience.

As I explained last time Crikey got this wrong Q&A encourages people to get involved in politics — form opinions, form a group, lobby for change and even join a party. We don’t want people to stay political virgins. That’s not a precious gift. We want them to get involved and have fun, so it would be a  bit weird to exclude people who are politically active.

What we do instead is work hard at getting a diversity of views represented in each Q&A. We collect information from people about their political views and activity before we invite them to join the studio audience. We knew that Kieran Morris was a party member before we invited him to Q&A and those who heard his question on Q&A would pick up straight away that he’s a Tony Abbott fan (our audience is pretty smart and Kieran’s views were pretty obvious).

Lots of the questions on Q&A come from a point of view. Our audience are citizens, not journalists and they’re entitled to express opinions while they ask their questions.  Anyone who watched Monday’s Q&A with Tony Abbott would have recognised that there were plenty of Tony Abbott critics as well as fans.

Google is a good way to collect information, but if you want to understand what’s going on, you’ll have to pay attention.

Counselling:

The Australian Association of Social Workers writes: Re. “Crikey clarifier: the regulation of counselling” (Tuesday, item 16). We takes the issues raised in the Four Corners program on April 5 — followed up by Crikey on Tuesday– very seriously.

While doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists cannot practice without being registered, nothing prevents someone from hanging up their shingle, calling themselves a social worker or counsellor and seeing clients the next day, even if their qualifications are shaky and their motives suspect. Governments have acted to register and regulate plumbers and mechanics. All governments need to show that they are as concerned for the wellbeing of vulnerable Australians as they are for their drains and cars

Thousands of vulnerable Australians pay for services from unregistered counsellors every year. The lack of regulation of counsellors by state/territory and federal governments means there is little that can currently be done to prevent substandard or even unethical professionals continuing to ‘treat’ clients. The only recourse is legal action by a victim, and even where this occurs, the offender can re-open their business elsewhere under a new trading name, with impunity.

Social work is the largest Allied Health profession in Australia and social workers provide counselling services in both the public and private sector. The AASW is concerned for the many vulnerable Australians who visit “counselors” each year but who currently have little protection from unqualified and unregulated practitioners. The Association is also concerned about the reputation of its members all of whom are tertiary qualified and bound by a strict code of professional ethics.

The AASW is calling for a national registration scheme for social workers (modelled on the current national Registration and Accreditation scheme for health professionals). This would include:

  • The creation of a board of registration with which all practitioners would be required to register;
  • Protection of title for social work (identifying what qualifications and expertise is required in order to call yourself a social worker);
  • A complaints resolution process that is transparent and supports clients, with sanctions (ultimately) to remove the right of a professional to practice anywhere in Australia;
  • Mandatory Continuing Professional Education for all practitioners to ensure they stay up to date (currently there is no obligation for a psychotherapist to ever update their skills).

Practitioners like the one in the 4 Corners program can only operate because there is no national or state regulation of the sector.

Malcolm Turnbull:

“Cato the Elder” writes: Re. “Wentworth: the Liberal Party form guide” (yesterday, item 4). It is being said that Malcolm Turnbull’s parliamentary career was spectacularly short lived. Yet so far as the seat of Wentworth is concerned his tenure was not all that fleeting.

In the 36 years since 1974 Wentworth has been represented by six members.  The length of Turnbull’s stay in Wentworth easily met the norm.

Tasmania:

Peter Lloyd writes: Re. “Bartlett will make history, but the writing may not be on the wall” (yesterday, item 3). I wish to add to Bruce Montgomery’s observations on efforts of the Tasmanian Liberal and Labor parties to avoid forming government.

While I find little to disagree with in his analysis, he is perhaps being naive to suggest it ‘incredible’ that the Tasmanian media has no stomach for analysing the constitutional nuances of Bartlett’s manoeuvrings.  The media has long been willing to debate public issues in terms dictated and framed by the major parties, though during the election there were encouraging signs of possible change.

First, you have to understand that any MP from the Labor and Liberal parties under the age of 50 is only there for window dressing.  They have little power, limited intellectual abilities, and limited ambition.  Behind them, on both sides, are the crusty old powerbrokers who’ve been in parliament since Pearce was on the run, or who have retired but retain power and influence, often because of their surname.

In most cases these men are happy to keep to one side, pulling the levers.  They will pop up occasionally to defend a smear campaign claiming the Greens want to give children heroin, to accuse Rebecca Gibney of being a blow-in mainlander, or to defuse earnest questions about poisoned drinking water with a flurry of apparent confusion and senility (anyone who saw Joh Bjelke-Petersen do this would know what I mean).  These men are as one, which is why it was so easy to get four ex-Premiers together just before election day to warn of the horrors of voting Green.

The young men like Bartlett and Hodgman do not have the skills nor support to govern with the Greens, and the success of such an arrangement would undermine the message the party Old Guard have espoused for years.   This is the real story that affects all that occurs in Tasmanian politics, but the media here will not touch it.

This is especially sad, because right now Tasmania’s forest industries and economy need to move forward so our industrial practices become acceptable to foreign companies who are demanding Forest Stewardship Council certification before they will buy.

Negative gearing:

Dr. Gavin R. Putland, Director, Land Values Research Group, Prosper Australia, writes: Re. “Kevin, will that be two terms, or four?” (yesterday, item 16).  No, Nicholas Gruen, don’t cap negative gearing, because no matter how generous the cap is, the speculators will still scream about reducing the supply of rental housing and pushing up rents.

Instead, call their bluff by allowing negative gearing only if there is a tenant in place — not if the property is merely “available” for rent.  What about rorts such as interest carried forward?  Just ignore them.  The bigger the rort, the more desperate the rorters to attract tenants in order to maintain the rort!

Under those arrangements, there would be no justification for grandfathering existing mortgages.  But new buildings could be exempted for five years as Gruen suggests, in order to encourage construction – the downside being a reduced incentive to attract tenants to those buildings within the five years.

If course, if property were taxed according to the imputed rental value of the land alone, and not according to the actual rental income derived from the land plus buildings, then every owner of land would be maximally motivated to build on it and attract tenants, because all those activities would be tax-free.  Any debt against the property could be handled by treating the mortgagee (lender) as a part-owner.

In other words, as the borrower would pay tax in proportion to equity in the land, rather than the rent, so the lender would pay tax in proportion to the debt rather than the interest.  But that would be too much like common sense.

Rundle in the UK:

Matthew Lee writes: Re. “Rundle’s UK: Game on” (yesterday, item 2). Guy Rundle writes that David Cameron, in launching the Tories’ election campaign, said “These people — black or white, rich or poor, straight or gay — do the right thing,”.

However it has been noted that Cameron actually forgot the line “straight or gay”. Barely worth a mention, except that it would appear to contradict Guy’s assertion that “a failure in the basics” is leaving him short as a journalist.

I would argue that, by missing the action due to a hangover and making deadline by copy and pasting a press release, Guy has actually excelled in the practice of “journalism.”

Don Argus:

Matthew Auger writes: Re. “BHP chief calls it a day: is Don, is (somewhat clouded) good” (yesterday, item 22). Adam Schwab raises an interesting point about Don Argus’s role in NAB buying Homeside.  I would speculate that NAB having to sell Homeside to Wa-Mu in 2001 probably saved NAB from the greater disaster of Homeside getting its margins right early in the decade, staying in NAB ownership and then being sucked into the US housing bubble and bust.

Imagine the damage that Homeside, if still owned by NAB, would have done to NAB’s share price in over the last few years. Even if Homeside lent prudently, the stockmarket sentiment against US housing loans would have hammered NAB even more so than ANZ, CBA and WBC. It goes to show sometimes a company can be saved by its own incompetence.

Numberplates:

Raoul P Dunk writes: Re. “Is this an example of e-Bay opportunism?” “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 8). I am not surprised that there have been no bidders for the NSW radio station numberplates. About 10 years ago, I knew someone who registered the numberplate FOXTEL in South Australia and drove around with it on his car.

When I asked him what Foxtel thought about it, he said he had tried to sell the plates to them, but they told him they didn’t mind him driving around giving them free advertising!

Mix it up PM:

Bev Kilsby writes: I would love our Prime Minister to have a meal or afternoon tea with people who live in public housing. Even though I own my own flat, and I work, years ago life had a new twist for me and as a result ended up I visiting people living in commission flats.

There, I had a friendly chat and afternoon tea — and to my amazement I enjoyed their company and saw the emptiness and compassion lacking from my life. I then went and enjoyed eating at Sacred Heart Mission in St Kilda, and at the end I could hardly wait to get there for a chat and a nice meal. I am glad I had these experiences because it has taught me not to be judgemental about people.

I would love for our Prime Minister to mix with all types of people from all walks of life, because it’s a good way to find happiness in your soul.