The articles linked in my 14/1 entry generated a flurry of letters to The Age. (I did not send one as I seem to have fallen out of favor – the last few I emailed were not published.)
15/1:
Migration’s drain on public purse
Michael Danby justifies our having the highest per capita immigration program by saying it brings in extra tax revenue (Comment, 14/1). A single year of migration like 2008, he claims, can “add more than $800 million to the tax base in the first year”. So what? If this is to be Danby’s economic case for high migration, then surely he needs to ask: do recent immigrants contribute more to the public purse in taxes than they take from it in direct costs and subsidies?
Back in the 1990s, answering this question set the economist Russell Matthews a massive task of disaggregation. His findings are discussed in my book This Tired Brown Land. Professor Matthews found it took the average immigrant about 10 years to become (like the average older resident) a net contributor to the public purse; and the highest costs occurred in the first two or three years after arrival. It seems that the average net cost to the public purse per immigrant back then was some $34,500 – a result so unwelcome to the government that it never funded a follow-up study.
The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figure for annual net migration is 285,000. A very rough calculation suggests this intake might be a net cost to the taxpayer of $9.7 billion – without counting environmental costs or the loss of urban amenities through crowding.
– Mark O’Connor, Lyneham, ACT
Cancer that kills the host
I do not feel reassured that Michael Danby and his parliamentary committee colleagues believe we can cope with population growth. Population policy in this country does not consider the greater good of existing citizens or the long-term suitability of a higher population, but is driven by what suits the electoral cycle and vested interests.
The Government’s contention that Australia was unique in avoiding the global financial crisis does not mention that it was largely on the back of increased demand from population growth. This growth is also artificially propping up house prices, now considered among the highest in the Western world. Business naturally wants more consuming units for its products. The biggest cheerleaders are developers and builders, with the Master Builders Association (“Green wedges lost in the woods”, Online, 14/1) implying that building more McMansions in the urban wastelands on the fringe of the city is an altruistic public service.
It is time citizens demanded a voice on this issue, which is being decided behind closed doors. We live in a mostly desert land that is getting hotter and drier. Experience tells us that governments never provide good planning and appropriate infrastructure to support a higher population, only ad-hoc freeways and energy-guzzling desalination plants as an afterthought. Growth should not always be the goal. The only thing that keeps growing is a cancer – until it kills its host.
– Chris Owens, Lysterfield South
Fix the problems first
How out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Victorians is the MBA? It is interested first and foremost in builders making money. It says it supports a larger population because Victoria should sustain more people. Why should it? So the MBA can build more houses and make more money? Victorians do not want continuing urban expansion and do not want to be battery hens locked up in tiny apartments. The MBA dismisses congestion and scarce resources as a management issue despite the fact that it is a huge problem with no solution in sight. I would like the MBA to first sort out these problems and then it can push for the population to grow ad-infinitum. Probably until the whole country is covered with housing.
– Greg Delaney, Amaroo, ACT
Growth that is gentle
Proponents of perpetual growth may not realise that we do not have to abandon all growth. While unchecked economic/population growth is not sustainable, we can indulge ourselves in intellectual growth, humanitarian growth, growth in compassion, demolishing the poverty industry and dissolving the billionaires’ club. The list is endless. This generates employment and income and is gentle on the environment.
– Margit Alm, Eltham
On the home front
While I concur in general with Terry Barnes about consumerism (Comment, 13/1), I do not agree with his convoluted solution to limit the size of houses by imposing a surcharge based on floor space per person.
The problem of the ever-increasing size of private residences has been created in part by the tax-free status of owner-occupied houses irrespective of size or market value. This has resulted in the family home being the best “investment” one can have and in reality forms part of one’s superannuation.
A quick reality check would be for the Federal Government to introduce a capital gains tax on properties over a nominated value, say, $1 million, which would change with inflation. This would no doubt lead to loud dissent by the better off, but would create a fairer system.
– Barry Robinson, McCrae
Recipe for high debt
Let’s debate what is really contributing to rising household debt and not just consider fringe issues such as McMansions and entertainment systems.
In 1996, approximately 30 per cent of an average weekly income was needed to pay off a 25-year mortgage on a median-priced house bought by first home buyers in Australia. This figure was more than 80 per cent in 2008 and will probably be higher again this year. The increasing size of new houses does not explain these figures.
Stopping this debt madness will require tough medicine, including removal of an unfair taxation system and supply policies. Ironically, people who have enough money to buy houses enjoy significant tax benefits on capital gains; what’s more, if it is an investment, the taxpayer helps finance it through negative gearing.
Couple this with a cut in the supply of public housing and a rising population, and you have a recipe for spiralling housing costs and rising household debt.
– Linda Brownstein, Wangaratta
Michael Danby’s view that population growth is required to “maintain our generous care of seniors” (Comment, 14/1) fails to acknowledge that such growth generates future dependency by new generations of seniors, in greater numbers, who will in turn require a growing population to support them.
– Luke Hooper, Northcote
16/1:
Michael Danby (Comment, 14/1) believes we can manage our environment while continuing to grow our population. In medical terms this is called palliative care.
– Kyle Matheson, Mont Albert
Just because economic gurus don’t know how we can grow richer without a simplistic growth in population doesn’t mean it is impossible.
– Guido Stavenuiter, Balmain
“ ‘Don’t pander to greenies’ ”, The Age, 31/12/2009. I sent a letter in response to this, but it wasn’t published:
Mr. Gadiel’s objection to “extreme environment groups“ being enabled to challenge governments in court is hardly surprising, seeing as he is part of the property development industry – a group not known for its regard for the environment or residents’ rights. Hopefully the law changes that reduce the court costs for activists will be implemented, making it more difficult for greedy developers to get their way.
Some that were:
1/1:
Brownwashing the environment debate
Comments by property development group Urban Taskforce Australia (The Age, 31/12) demonstrate the importance of looking beyond the intemperate views of such groups in developing government policy.
Aaron Gadiel provided a scaremongering assessment of recommendations in the Hawke review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. He suggests that reinstating provisions that remove cost barriers to parties seeking injunctions against environmentally contentious projects will “drench Australia in American-style litigation culture”.
However, only four such injunctions were granted under the act from 1999 to 2007, before the provisions were repealed.
It is disingenuous of UTA to paint environmental groups as not-in-my-backyard activists. Most serious environmental litigation is undertaken by those with more altruistic motivations such as species protection and safeguarding the planet for future generations. This may be contrasted with not-in-my-back-pocket industry groups, which, acting on behalf of their constituent members, are principally concerned with financial returns.
Removing cost barriers to the courts promotes access to justice opportunities, enhances scrutiny of government decision-making, and has potential to advance the rule of law in an area that the scientific community suggests will determine the future of the planet.
– Gregor Hupser, Public Interest Law Clearing House (Vic), Melbourne
Bring it on
Aaron Gadiel complains that legislative changes would give people who want to complain more of a voice in court, reducing “opportunities for Australia to get the urban development it needs”. Bring it on. I’d love to see what happens when locals have as much say as people whose only interest in the community is to make money from the community and leave.
– Graham Parton, Stanley
