Calls for Australian Immigration - to be Cut by one half

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Former NSW Premier and Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr has called for Australia to consider reducing its immigration intake by up to one-half before growing population density on the eastern coast changes the Australian style of living.

"I think the Australian people, if asked, would want immigration slowed," Mr Carr said at a press conference in Sydney on Tuesday. "We've got a third-world style population growth rate.

"If you bring 100,000 people into the Sydney basin every year, the price of housing goes up [...] people wonder why their youngsters can't get houses in the big cities... the answer is we are going for breakneck population growth.

Australia's population was officially declared to have hit 24 million people shortly after midnight on Tuesday, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

 

 

About 190,000 people will be admitted to the country under Australia's managed migration program this financial year, according to federal government statistics. About 70,000 were admitted in 1999-2000.

Mr Carr said Australia had the highest rate of population growth of any developed country and that the growth was undermining policies by governments to make housing more affordable and to improve infrastructure. "It's always never enough".

"By the middle years of this century we're going to have a huge concentration of the available land," he said. "We can go the way of other cities so that the basic unit of housing is a unit in a high-rise tower, but I would rather think a lot of Australians would believe we've lost something of ourselves.

"There comes a point … at 50, million, 60 million, 70 million before the end of the century where we have to start thinking again."

Mr Carr said new immigration would invariably be "crammed" on a "narrow coastal strip" in Australia's east, despite the fact the country is among the least densely populated on Earth.

"There's a case for pegging immigration back by easily one-third, perhaps even 50 per cent," Mr Carr said.

He said reducing overall immigration was compatible with federal Labor's plans to increase Australia's refugee intake.

Mr Carr said Australia's economy should focus on export-led growth and stop relying on an expansion in its domestic market.

Australia's "net migration", which subtracts the number of people leaving the country each year, has dropped from a 2008 peak of about 300,000 to about 200,000 in 2014. It remains at its highest level as a proportion of the country's total population since about 1965, according to statistics from the federal Treasury.

 

 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bob-carr-calls-for-australian-immigration-to-be-cut-by-onethird-20160216-gmv37n.html#ixzz40IYYEna8

[JockinTas]

We need some smart people in Australia to make some of the desert into agricultural land. The Israelis have done it.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/1987/0519/dsand.html

[starlight7]

Guess they'll only get their fingers out and develop that inner land when they absolutely have to and things are totally chaotic. C'est la vie.

[flag of convenience]

Carr, when Premier of NSW had the Sydney Full Up sign out to deter migration in big numbers to that state. He has remained true to his believes and most definitely voices good sense now. Australia is growing too quickly and Sydney in particular has grave difficulties housing its own people, let alone declining infrastructure and living conditions.

[flag of convenience]

We need some smart people in Australia to make some of the desert into agricultural land. The Israelis have done it.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/1987/0519/dsand.html

 

Sadly smart people tend to go elsewhere and few settle in country regions or desert that would enable such a policy to happen. I wrote a similar comment a long while back. The closest we have got is I suppose the Snowy River Project or The Ord River development.

 

Looks like we'll continue to bung them into the cities, although most appear to only want to go to Sydney or Melbourne anyway.

[Paul1Perth]

Sadly smart people tend to go elsewhere and few settle in country regions or desert that would enable such a policy to happen. I wrote a similar comment a long while back. The closest we have got is I suppose the Snowy River Project or The Ord River development.

 

Looks like we'll continue to bung them into the cities, although most appear to only want to go to Sydney or Melbourne anyway.

That great success story the snowy river project that has never paid for itself and costs millions to keep going. Is that the same one? To be honest there's thousands of miles of decent coastal land where there could be desal plants built, if you wanted ro copy what the Israelis have done. We only need to increase immigration when there's lots of work to do and a shortage of qualified people. In the meantime cut it back.

[northshorepom]

It's a debate that needs having, but it really needs having in the context of a debate around what Australia should be/look like in the medium-long term (20-50 years time)

 

The nub of Bob Carr's point is almost lost about 80% of the way down the page:

 

"Mr Carr said Australia's economy should focus on export-led growth and stop relying on an expansion in its domestic market. "

 

Exports of what? That's really where the debate should be, rather than just a numbers game. I don't mean a Stalinist plan for the economy, but a bit of future casting wouldn't be a bad idea. AQctually Australia isn't bad at doing that, the Intergenerational Report and the process behind it is one good example, and there is stacks of stuff done by CEDA, but it rarely gets an airing and for some reason the immigration question doesn't really get drawn into it - but that's where the discussion should be

 

At the moment I feel you have on the one hand a few fiscal structural issues (ageing demographic, imbalance between govt spending and revenue) being swept under the carpet by the political establishment because they all go into the "too hard" or "vote losing" basket. Immigrants generate more economic activity and pay a fair chunk more in tax than they take out in benefits, so it's easier for the parties to adopt a "do nothing" stance rather than grasp the nettle of the consequences of cutting immigration back. An on the other hand you have the "man in the pub" argument who sees it largely as a question of there being a relatively static stock of jobs and infrastructure and therefore thinks immigration means less pie to go around.

 

Neither are right or helpful

 

I'd like Australia to make a few long-term plans around what it intends to be - I reckon there is plenty of scope around the knowledge economy, particularly in IT and renewable energy (Australia has to be physically in one of the best places possible to maximise on this, with lots of wind, wave/tidal power, sunshine, space). Also I think the bridge between what will still (for at least a few decades) be a business world dominated by the English speaking US and the Asian nations led by China offers a mass of opportunity in financial and other service industries. This to be as well as (not instead) of the inevitable continuation of the resources sector.

 

Economic and social thinking for the medium term will/should inform what immigration policy ought to be

[Rossmoyne]

Surely the debate needs to be about who is migrating to Australia. By all means bring in people who are prepared to work and support themselves and their families.... then again you have people who arrive in our country and who are living with the compliments of Centrelink and have no intention of getting a job.

[northshorepom]

Surely the debate needs to be about who is migrating to Australia. By all means bring in people who are prepared to work and support themselves and their families.... then again you have people who arrive in our country and who are living with the compliments of Centrelink and have no intention of getting a job.

 

Do you? How do they get a visa?

[Rallyman]

Not sure how you get a visa and then automatically start claiming centre link ?

 

Remember Alan jones going on about getting water via a pipe line from NT to make areas of the desert fertile a few years ago but wax saying nobody had the foresight in government to see it through

[flag of convenience]

Surely the debate needs to be about who is migrating to Australia. By all means bring in people who are prepared to work and support themselves and their families.... then again you have people who arrive in our country and who are living with the compliments of Centrelink and have no intention of getting a job.

 

Just who arrives in Australia and goes on Centre Link? There is a period of time before benefits can be sought. I suppose you refer to the humanitarian intake, which include refugees, of which makes up a very small overall per cent of the total intake.

 

A more pressing subject being the abuse of 457's and the impact on working class and school leaving Australians.

[flag of convenience]

That great success story the snowy river project that has never paid for itself and costs millions to keep going. Is that the same one? To be honest there's thousands of miles of decent coastal land where there could be desal plants built, if you wanted ro copy what the Israelis have done. We only need to increase immigration when there's lots of work to do and a shortage of qualified people. In the meantime cut it back.

 

It should be reduced and 457's cut back. Ridiculous bringing in semi skilled labour to work in hospitality and meat works and the rest in times of high un/under employment.

 

I don't think there is enough will here for grand thinking. Israel has completely other dynamics at play while Aussies maintain an individualistic, self interest, greed driven concept, rather than create something in harmony for the national well being.

[Rossmoyne]

Do you? How do they get a visa?

 

So called refugees of the muslim faith I would suggest

[Que Sera Sera]

If you have children on a PR visa, you can get Centrelink when the wheels of the plane touch Tarmac . Family Assistance, Rent Assistance and Childcare payments.

[flag of convenience]

So called refugees of the muslim faith I would suggest

 

Your slip is showing Madam, or at least your ongoing prejudices towards the Islamic faith and more importantly refugees in general. I'd suggest being accepted for refuge from war zones is all deserving of assistance.

[flag of convenience]

If you have children on a PR visa, you can get Centrelink when the wheels of the plane touch Tarmac . Family Assistance, Rent Assistance and Childcare payments.

 

Yes although shouldn't be for a period of time at least. But unemployment benefits are not. At least Back Packers are not paid the dole these days unlike times past.

[Parley]

We are not going to be like America with cities all through the centre of the country and a population of 350 million.

 

Ridiculous to think we ever would do that.

 

Agree with Bob Carr, slow and steady controlled growth in the population is what we need.

 

There is not much reason to bring in hordes of migrants every year.

[flag of convenience]

We are not going to be like America with cities all through the centre of the country and a population of 350 million.

 

Ridiculous to think we ever would do that.

 

Agree with Bob Carr, slow and steady controlled growth in the population is what we need.

 

There is not much reason to bring in hordes of migrants every year.

 

Besides keeping your over inflated house price over priced. Not forgetting appeasing the business sector and financial and creating greater completion within and less security in the work place and to dilute old practices and increase GDP.

[northshorepom]

We are not going to be like America with cities all through the centre of the country and a population of 350 million.

 

Ridiculous to think we ever would do that.

 

Agree with Bob Carr, slow and steady controlled growth in the population is what we need.

 

There is not much reason to bring in hordes of migrants every year.

 

See, I don't mind this as a PoV. But the "future" question still needs to be addressed, even if it's only from a question of demographics

 

Australia has a high proportion of older people and with immigration (of mostly young, skilled people) reduced, this demographic position will only increase (and worsen, from a fiscal perspective)

 

If we did, say, halve the rate of population increase, what is that going to mean in 10, 20 and 30 years time for the tax & spending situation? It is going to mean more tax, or spending cuts, or both, but how significant would those cuts be and what sort of areas should they fall in?

 

At the moment Australia sweeps a fiscal imbalance issue under the carpet as it's masked to a fairly substantial extent with migrants

 

I could say the same about innovation and productivity as well. 3+% growth is much easier to achieve if your population growth is 2% - and more than that in terms of people engaged in the labour market. Knock immigration on the head and we have to have a serious discussion about productivity

[robfromdublin]

Australia desperately needs migrants to pay its social welfare bill.

 

Last year Oz needed $42 billion to pay for pension bludgers. By comparison, unemployment assistance was less than a quarter of this. How can we afford to pay for such largesse? More and more young people of working age, which migrants overwhelmingly are.

[Parley]

Australia desperately needs migrants to pay its social welfare bill.

 

Last year Oz needed $42 billion to pay for pension bludgers. By comparison, unemployment assistance was less than a quarter of this. How can we afford to pay for such largesse? More and more young people of working age, which migrants overwhelmingly are.

 

Nice try.

[robfromdublin]

By 'nice try', are you referring to the demographic issues much more eloquently explained by northshorepom? Or my use of the term 'bludgers' when referring to pensioners?

[flag of convenience]

See, I don't mind this as a PoV. But the "future" question still needs to be addressed, even if it's only from a question of demographics

 

Australia has a high proportion of older people and with immigration (of mostly young, skilled people) reduced, this demographic position will only increase (and worsen, from a fiscal perspective)

 

If we did, say, halve the rate of population increase, what is that going to mean in 10, 20 and 30 years time for the tax & spending situation? It is going to mean more tax, or spending cuts, or both, but how significant would those cuts be and what sort of areas should they fall in?

 

At the moment Australia sweeps a fiscal imbalance issue under the carpet as it's masked to a fairly substantial extent with migrants

 

I could say the same about innovation and productivity as well. 3+% growth is much easier to achieve if your population growth is 2% - and more than that in terms of people engaged in the labour market. Knock immigration on the head and we have to have a serious discussion about productivity

 

Australia has a high but not as high a population of elderly as most European nations. The growth of population over recent years just means ever more migrants will be needed to address the ageing of present intake in thirty years time.

Just how many of the richest countries have a 2% growth in population? We don't need ever more people. We need better educated and targeted people.

It is the developing world plagued by ever growing populations with serious social and liveability issues. South America is a good example.

[flag of convenience]

Australia desperately needs migrants to pay its social welfare bill.

 

Last year Oz needed $42 billion to pay for pension bludgers. By comparison, unemployment assistance was less than a quarter of this. How can we afford to pay for such largesse? More and more young people of working age, which migrants overwhelmingly are.

 

We need migrants for all sorts of reasons but not at any cost or number. Your 'pensioner bludgers' as you refer are paid a pittance in Australia , compared to Europe, with large numbers living in near poverty. Then those with assets get nothing at all. Of course it still costs money but what would you have as an alternative?

 

As for migration, the recent massive increase in numbers will only ensure the subject will still be up for discussion in thirty years time when this crop of migrants ages and is in demand of services. Hence migration to keep things afloat is something of a Ponzi scheme, requiring ever more over time to sustain costs for reasons given.

[Parley]

Would much rather each Australian woman had 3 kids rather than a bit less than 2 on average.