Quote of the day:
“I don’t think this is a immigration debate…I think it’s bringing into play issues about water, about soil, about city planning, about infrastructure and services, about getting skilled people where we need them.”
— Prime Minister Gillard speaks to Perth Radio about the population debate (sans actual numbers) that has thus far dominated the campaign.
Peter Hartcher slams the PM for her tenuous talk on this issue in today’s Sydney Morning Herald. “This is not a policy, and it’s not even a debate about possible policy. It’s just a placebo, a sugar pill for the electorate to suck during an election campaign, to keep it happy and quiet.” Suck on that.
Immigration isn’t (just) about immigration – it’s about infrastructure per head. Frankly, in many places, there isn’t enough of it. We can tackle that by lowering the population (unlikely, frankly) or we can tackle that by building more infrastructure, which will cost money (unpopular). But are there other alternatives? Apart from doing nothing and complaining (very likely, and quite popular)?
Water has to be a major consideration in any population or immigration discussion
It is the element which is essential for life.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard is quite correct to widen the discussion which has been captured by those who see a huge Australia as a great opportunity for business.
If we had a population as large as many European countries we would need desalination plants all round the coast and reconstituted sewerage for rural areas (incidentally using about the same amount of energy to process).
Modern infrastructure is certainly necessary for a decent standard of living but Water is essential and it is time the discussion took place and was not just shoved aside as Peter Hartcher desires.
Residential water use has been pretty flat for years, despite increasing population, and despite what all the save-water-ads imply.
The big consumers of water are industry and agriculture.