When challenged on immigration yesterday, Julia Gillard ducked for cover. Unwilling to even admit the logical consequence of her concerns about sustainable population, that she would have to reduce immigration, she offered a distraction about “issues about water about soil about city planning about infrastructure and services.”
There’s a powerful constituency for high immigration in this country. Business strongly supports it. So too do a number of mostly conservative media commentators, and some libertarians. And for generations, both sides of politics have backed high immigration as well.
But throughout that time, despite the benefits of high immigration being manifest, they have failed to carry the case with the wider electorate, and convince ordinary Australians — most of whom, of course, either come from overseas themselves or who are descendants of immigrants — that maintaining high immigration is important.
State Governments in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, which have systemically failed to invest in infrastructure, and which have laid obstacle after obstacle in the way of a market response to housing demand, have also failed.
Now, if their rhetoric is to be believed, a new generation of political leadership is turning its back on high immigration with the aim of securing the support of voters disillusioned with long commutes, poor public transport and their inability to afford housing except on the fringes of our cities.
This is a colossal failure of policy, management and political communication, and it will have significant consequences for generations to come.
The logic is clear. Can the politicians not see that? And if they can, why don’t they do something about it?
But what can we ordinary mortals as individuals do about it when all that’s on offer this election is the choice between dumb and dumber.
Hopefully, as we still have some weeks to go and time for the reality to get through, our candidates will wise up.
Likely? I think not.
Surely in a pack of 22 million there are leadership candidates of vision and ability.
The UN population projections put the forecast papulation for 2050 between 7.4 billion to 10.8 billion from our present 6.1 billion. Of course there are many variables such as fertility rates, life expectancy etc etc.
Why wouldn’t an intelligent political leader inform and encourage reasoned debate on the impact of growing world population? Why would a future PM dumb the discussion down to border protection and setting the alarm clock earlier?
Are we so stupid that we let these political spin meisters treat us as if we are incapable of intelligent thought. Why do the redneck racists views matter so much?
Meanwhile, regional councils talk of not having enough people to fund a small town’s own essential infrastructure..
http://www.strathbogie.vic.gov.au/Files/Infrastructure_Funding_020710.pdf
and the Victorian auditor general finds 18 regional councils across the state are unsustainable due to a lack of populace.
forward moving certainly looks very backward in its approach
Because Pamela, Gillard is your typical lazy migrant with the attitude of “I’m here, you stay out now”.
And she panders to the others who feel the same way.
We all know it was only about kicking around the couple of thousand refugees.
I think Julia Gillard might already be realising that this was perhaps not a particularly smart genie to let out of the bottle.
Its all very well to beat the drum, but in the end you have to actually say whose rights you want to curtail to achieve a lower rate of population growth. Is it the rights of people to choose to have children, or those of already settled immigrants to sponsor family members, or businesses to hire the migrant workers they need to grow and earn profits for their shareholders?
Not so easy when you really look at it.