On Dick Smith
Harry Wallace writes: Re. “Dick Smith shortlisted for Arsehat of the Year over his ABC dummy spit” (Wednesday)
Most disappointing that Emily Watkins attacks the man, Dick Smith, not his argument, thus persisting Crikey’s ignoring of growing population issues. Yes, Dick has a great knack for publicity, some for fun but others most serious. Yesterday the Current Account figures were released: $9.6 billion more spent in the June Quarter than was earned. Net international indebtedness over $1 trillion, inevitably increasing even without more population as we depend for most income from non-renewables and some of those will be exhausted in my grandchildren’s lifetime – with no alternates in sight.
As a farmer I know the limitations on renewables – and we already eat 40% of red meat produced. More people equals less exports. More people equals more imports: cars, clothing, food, etc. I too, have tried to get the ABC to correct the frequent statements that Australia is “rich”. Dick is rich because his income is much greater than his expenses. In contrast Australia has almost always spent more than earned, borrowing from smart countries to pay our way.
High population growth is the lazy politician’s way of positive GDP and some businesses, like banks, love it. And it defers the crunch of national long term strategy planning!
On Peter Dutton and the High Court
John Newton writes: Re. “Peter Dutton cancels visa a third time, undermines the High Court in under an hour“(Wednesday)
“I am not aware of any minister or government in Australia’s history moving so swiftly to react to an adverse decision of the High Court”. I am not aware of any minister less deserving of the rank and responsibility. How did we get to this?
On Hanson and the Burqua
Brian Watt writes: Re. “Was Pauline Hanson actually allowed to wear that burqa in Parliament?” (Wednesday)
You mention Gough Whitlam calling Paul Hasluck a “truculent runt”. This reference was actually made by Whitlam referring to the Attorney General, Garfield Barwick, in debate on changes to the Crimes Act in 1960. I’m not sure the description would be apt for Hasluck.
I defer to Jenny Hocking, who is the definitive expert on Whitlam. See page 212 of Volume 1 of her Biography of Whitlam “Gough Whitlam A Moment in History”. As you probably know she is the lead in the current case before the federal court for the release of the Kerr papers.
It is not “attacking the man” it is criticising his behaviour. Dick Smith told blatant untruths about the ABC. As the article points out, the ABC has given plenty of room for his opinions. When he was interviewed by the ABC the reporter asked about the Wilberforce Award’s connection to the slave trade. Not about racism. As for the current crop of politicians being worried about the ABC calling him a racist!
Nothing to do with balance of payments, immigration, or population control.
Harry, the story was about Smith and the inconsistencies of his positions (well hypocrisies actually), not about the population debate. The story did exactly what it purported to do.
I used to think Dick Smith was a ‘good bloke’, but his and others’ population debate comes across as navel-gazing to me. Is Australia really taking on more people than it can handle? Let’s get real. We’re only 24-plus million people on a whole continent. Some cities elsewhere are beginning to rival that.
Meanwhile, Tasmania is more than one-and-a-half times the size of the Netherlands, which has more than 17 million people to Tassie’s 520,000 or so. Both have abundant water and fertile soil, though they’ve obviously worked harder at it in the Neths.
Look, I’m all for keeping this beautiful continent to ourselves and letting the big bad world out there sort itself out, but then we should frame the debate in these terms rather than resort to spurious arguments about what the continent could ‘handle’. The rest of the world just laughs at that sort of thinking.
We really have an island mentality at times.
…umm, it’s not size that matters but the quality of the land, aka carrying capacity.
This country is one of the few that could feed itself – no country in the EU comes within a spat rat of doing so, even with massive imports of energy – well in excess of the calorific output.
Yep. Ad hominem arguments don’t work. The issues in relation to population and the agricultural capacity of the land to maintain our need for trade to have the goods and services we need. The mineral exports are a gift to taxdodging miners and overseas economies. The Malthusian argument is not racist, but a consideration; this is a frequent argument from the Club of Rome era, from my childhood. The arguments in relation to Australia’s climate and economy and production are worth considering.