Yesterday The Age had some articles focused on immigration:
“Migration rules set for revamp”. There are a huge number of temporary residents (600 000!), competing for jobs with citizens.
“Want job, will travel”. Australia has one of the highest population growths (1.9%) in the world, a disturbing exception to most other developed countries, and much of it attributable to immigration.
Graeme Hugo, professor of geography at the University of Adelaide, says Australia faces a dilemma. “It is clear there are significant population constraints and we’ve seen that with water issues in recent times and the discussions about climate change,” Hugo says. “But on the other hand, 42 per cent of our workforce are baby boomers and over the next couple of decades they are going to be exiting the workforce.”
Migrants are needed to replace those retiring workers, he says, but whether the migration program needs to be as big as it has been is another question.
[…]
He says stopping population growth in itself is not a magic bullet to solve environmental issues. “It’s complex and it hasn’t been addressed in a comprehensive way in Australia. If we do have to have significant numbers of migrants, we have to have strong environmental policies.”
But stopping growth will certainly alleviate a lot of these issues.
“Workforce ripe for the picking”. Some employers prefer to employ immigrants as they are a source of cheap, compliant labor (the immigrants daren’t complain about inappropriate working conditions).
The consequence of so many temporary overseas workers and students seeking PR visas is that employers have a compliant labour force at their disposal. It also means more competition for a shrinking number of jobs, and more risk of the undercutting of Australian wages and conditions by this desperate workforce.
I am not anti-immigration as such, but anti-excessive immigration, which Australia – and many other countries – are having huge problems with (and inciting citizens’ resentment). Ideally, the immigration and birth rate should not outpace the death rate, as in a steady-state economy, but governments and businesses are obsessed with growth, and refuse to admit the negative consequences of this.
Published letters from the last 2 days. 31/8:
This is not planning, it’s pressure
Population growth and urban sprawl are out of control around Melbourne (“Housing estate pushes urban sprawl limit”, The Age, 29/8).
The decision to situate a large housing estate ostensibly belonging to Melbourne but outside the proposed new urban boundary 50 kilometres from the city at Wallan, to avoid infrastructure taxes, makes it clear that planning is not remotely to do with ensuring that Melbourne and its suburbs work well now and into the future.
“Planning” in Victoria is a misnomer. The Brumby Government’s pursuit of increased population for Victoria places immense and increasing pressure on Melbourne and its environs and is irresponsible.
– Jill Quirk, East Malvern
More of everything
Like Tony Jones (Letters, 29/8), I was taken aback by John Brumby’s interview on ABC radio, where he expressed actual enthusiasm for continuing population growth. So much for the once “most liveable” city and our “garden state”.
Now, as most people realise, overpopulation is at the root of almost all of Melbourne’s major problems, from water worries to road rage. Government and business interests may welcome the hordes of new arrivals, but our quality of life deteriorates quite dramatically, almost by the day. Gardens become concrete. Green becomes grey. What we lose in trees we gain in traffic lights. Commuting time doubles. Parking is a hassle. Air quality decreases and, across the bay, the horizon is, more often than not, a smoky blur. Violent crime is out of control. Depression and stress are common afflictions. We have a real sense of being hustled along in the proverbial rat race. Bigger, faster, greedier, richer.
Is this what we really want? Do economic imperatives really condemn us to this? Even if we have no choice but to cope with a burgeoning population in our once fair city, do we have to actively encourage it, as Mr Brumby seems eager to do?
– Vivienne Player, Beaumaris
1/9:
Think environment, then population
I am pleased to hear that Immigration Minister Chris Evans wants to have a “a more sophisticated debate” on immigration (“Migration rules set for revamp”, The Age, 31/8). Excellent. So let’s not worry about where they come from but with where and how we are going to house them.
What we do need is an environmental impact assessment. In light of climate change, does it make sense to grow our population at all?
We also need to debate what sort of society and built environment we want. Do we want a sea of buildings as far as the eye can see, as in New York and New Jersey? The State Government’s population growth-at-any-cost policies are leading to the disappearance of coastal caravan parks. Why? Because councils need to keep a 10-year land supply for housing. Where, then, can those less well off have their beach holidays?
Unfortunately, these issues will not get discussed because we see immigration through economic eyes. Immigrants are resources we use to further stuff up an already stuffed environment.
– Mark Axton, Somers
It doesn’t add up
Now that Melbourne is beginning to realise that it suffers an increasing problem of overpopulation, it seems ridiculous to seek to “solve” the problem by trying to overpopulate rural and regional centres.
Regional mayors trumpet how good it is living in their towns exactly because they don’t have the crowding that cities have. Then in a spectacular twist in logic, they advocate for a higher population. Meanwhile, the Federal Government insists that what we really need is more immigrants.
– Graham Parton, Stanley
