|
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Accepting more refugees into Australia should be a non-issue.For years we have been accepting over 110,000 immigrants(not counting refugees) per annum,purely for economic reasons and to the detriment of our fragile environment.Under the Howard government,immigration levels have risen alot compared to previous governments.He does this at the behest of big business,while at the same time staying in favour with the public by knocking back a handful of refugees.Howard is a master at sleight of hand.
Because most of OZ is uninhabitable,and our cities do not have enough water to go around(they predict sydney will be at 6 million within 10 years,totally insane),we will have to seriously look at cutting down immigration within the next couple of years.The falling birthrate could've been a blessing,and many independent scientists believed a population of 15 million was the maximum we could have without turning the corner into environmental mayhem(which is happening in Sydney and some rural areas).The business sponsored scientists envision 40 million,but that is TOTALLY unsustainable in a place like this.We have to accept that it is better to live in a good environment with average economic conditions rather than try and emulate the big(rich) nations through a bigger population.Those who suggest we go to 40 million,and say that we can do it if we change our lifestyle,do not realise that this is unenforcable,just like water restrictions in sydney are not truly enforcable(what is the dam at now,45%?).To cope with 40million our lifestyle change would be so great that it would possibly have the reverse effect,and have people leaving en masse for the USA,Europe or Asia. We have to serious look at reducing immigration numbers within the next couple of years,perhaps to 10,000(non-refugee) and increase,YES increase the refugee intake to double what it is.......so as to just reach replacement rate.It is our humanitarian obligation to accept less economic refugees and more refugees who are in real hardship,just like it is our environmental obligation to the continent and indigenous people to make sure we dont TOTALLY strip the land for the sake of a slightly higher GDP. I'd prefer to live in a nation of 20 million with an average GDP and quality of life(we're doing well on that compared to most as it is anyway according to the UN) rather than try and become too big for our boots and living in a super rich,yet environmentally doomed continent.Those who say we need 50 million to ward off Indonesian/Chinese armies wanting to take over one day need to remember this is the 21st century,and wars arent fought as much with standing armies.......we need to look towards the Israeli/high technology model(as we are doing). It is likely,even if we restrict immigration within a few years,that we will reach 25 million anyway(especially considering the baby bonus).Once we stop mass immigration,NZ can take its turn at higher rates until it gets to 10 mill or whatever it needs to.Australasia with 35 million antipodeans will be a successful enough place,both militarily and financially.Auckland will one day join Sydney and Melbourne as being an 'international city',and these three big cities will be enough for our economic zone. That being said,i wish all current day would-be immigrants the best in getting here,but i probably wont be saying the same thing to would-be immigrants 5 years from now:P. What was this thread about again?Off on a tangent eh. |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Well said Damon. Too few people realise Australia's population is very much a slave to potable water supplies. Desalination is extremely expensive and I wouldn't willingly drink artesian bore water.
In saying so, reverse osmosis desalination can pump out water at something like $2.20 a megalitre which is cheaper than setting up an average sized dam (say, Warragamba or Tinaroo). I'v been lead to believe that initial costs for the desalination plant itself are high. |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by MikeStanton
On the refugee front, it's interesting to compare UK, Oz and Canada - for each refugee, how many non-refugees in each country:
UK ~1:330 (ie one refugee per 330 non-refugees in the UK pop'n) - and UK has one of the lowest intakes in Europe - contrary to what the Daily Mail claims Canada ~1:400 and yes, you guessed it, in the land of the 'fair go' it's one of the lowest: 1:800* (*from Refugee Council of Oz) And I thought that 'heaven' had its doors open to everyone... Why are you sarcastically calling it 'heaven'?Who in the world would think of Australia as heaven considering our reputation under Howard?Heaven for right-wingers? |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by Ulujain
Well said Damon. Too few people realise Australia's population is very much a slave to potable water supplies. Desalination is extremely expensive and I wouldn't willingly drink artesian bore water.
In saying so, reverse osmosis desalination can pump out water at something like $2.20 a megalitre which is cheaper than setting up an average sized dam (say, Warragamba or Tinaroo). I'v been lead to believe that initial costs for the desalination plant itself are high. |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by damon
Accepting more refugees into Australia should be a non-issue.For years we have been accepting over 110,000 immigrants(not counting refugees) per annum,purely for economic reasons and to the detriment of our fragile environment.Under the Howard government,immigration levels have risen alot compared to previous governments.He does this at the behest of big business,while at the same time staying in favour with the public by knocking back a handful of refugees.Howard is a master at sleight of hand.
Because most of OZ is uninhabitable,and our cities do not have enough water to go around(they predict sydney will be at 6 million within 10 years,totally insane),we will have to seriously look at cutting down immigration within the next couple of years.The falling birthrate could've been a blessing,and many independent scientists believed a population of 15 million was the maximum we could have without turning the corner into environmental mayhem(which is happening in Sydney and some rural areas).The business sponsored scientists envision 40 million,but that is TOTALLY unsustainable in a place like this.We have to accept that it is better to live in a good environment with average economic conditions rather than try and emulate the big(rich) nations through a bigger population.Those who suggest we go to 40 million,and say that we can do it if we change our lifestyle,do not realise that this is unenforcable,just like water restrictions in sydney are not truly enforcable(what is the dam at now,45%?).To cope with 40million our lifestyle change would be so great that it would possibly have the reverse effect,and have people leaving en masse for the USA,Europe or Asia. We have to serious look at reducing immigration numbers within the next couple of years,perhaps to 10,000(non-refugee) and increase,YES increase the refugee intake to double what it is.......so as to just reach replacement rate.It is our humanitarian obligation to accept less economic refugees and more refugees who are in real hardship,just like it is our environmental obligation to the continent and indigenous people to make sure we dont TOTALLY strip the land for the sake of a slightly higher GDP. I'd prefer to live in a nation of 20 million with an average GDP and quality of life(we're doing well on that compared to most as it is anyway according to the UN) rather than try and become too big for our boots and living in a super rich,yet environmentally doomed continent.Those who say we need 50 million to ward off Indonesian/Chinese armies wanting to take over one day need to remember this is the 21st century,and wars arent fought as much with standing armies.......we need to look towards the Israeli/high technology model(as we are doing). It is likely,even if we restrict immigration within a few years,that we will reach 25 million anyway(especially considering the baby bonus).Once we stop mass immigration,NZ can take its turn at higher rates until it gets to 10 mill or whatever it needs to.Australasia with 35 million antipodeans will be a successful enough place,both militarily and financially.Auckland will one day join Sydney and Melbourne as being an 'international city',and these three big cities will be enough for our economic zone. That being said,i wish all current day would-be immigrants the best in getting here,but i probably wont be saying the same thing to would-be immigrants 5 years from now:P. What was this thread about again?Off on a tangent eh. The Israeli model is also heavily reliant on US venture funding. Britain and Australia are more culturally risk averse than the US so some changes would be needed in attitude to finance. Definately an area government should look at. More migrants here will have an environmental impact but the current environmental state is also due to a myriad of other factors such as mining, forestry, farming etc. To think QLD wanted to tear down the Daintree is incredible. With a much cleverer more efficient use of resources there is plenty more room. Tax breaks for environmentally destructive industries should be eliminated and research focus should be moved away from resources and towards "greener" living. Anyway all waffle and opinion but my point is the house is not full and as a force Australia needs population and strong alliances. |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by bondipom
Nowadays the EU is a single market of over 350million people. 35 million people in a trading block would be an impotent force. Will be interesting to see what the reopening of ASEAN to Australia will bring. 35 million antipodeans versus 250 million Indonesions would not be pretty in a military way.
The Israeli model is also heavily reliant on US venture funding. Britain and Australia are more culturally risk averse than the US so some changes would be needed in attitude to finance. Definately an area government should look at. More migrants here will have an environmental impact but the current environmental state is also due to a myriad of other factors such as mining, forestry, farming etc. To think QLD wanted to tear down the Daintree is incredible. With a much cleverer more efficient use of resources there is plenty more room. Tax breaks for environmentally destructive industries should be eliminated and research focus should be moved away from resources and towards "greener" living. Anyway all waffle and opinion but my point is the house is not full and as a force Australia needs population and strong alliances. Militarily,we spend more on defence than Indonesia,on top of funding part of their budget.Troop numbers mean little when you have no means of detaching them,and they'll mean even less 10 years from now.Our priorites are mostly a strong navy,which is more than adequate in regards to Indonesia.The question of nukes is a touchy one,but it is inevitable that we will pursue it more,unless the Americans do go ahead with a proper base here.The Israeli model is workable,and we dont need outside funding.What we couldnt handle is a threat from a cranky China,but at the same time we cant let them talk us out of remaining close to the US.We have to always be careful with China,the 70 billion dollar gas deal was a show of good faith on their part,and i highly doubt we will ever take the moral high ground with them on any issue,especially Taiwan. On the environmental issue,there is no reason to believe we will go greener under labor or liberal,the corporations that drive the economy and run both parties arent going to get a conscience all of a sudden.They'd sooner see us turn into a bigger Nauru then run off with the cash.Alot of damage has already been done.Your ideas should've been of top importance 15 years ago,we are way further down the track than anyone likes to admit.There is a point where you go so far that it is irreversable and we may already be there.I'm not an expert but i think this needs to be addressed.....yesterday,most importantly to Sydney which was buckling at 3.5 million.The very fact that solutions like yours arent even on the radar of public thought is a worrying sign.We either get bigger and richer,for a short amount of time,or try and find that middle ground that is sustainability.I'm not a 'greenie' either. :p |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by damon
I wasnt suggesting that Australia and New Zealand become isolationist in regard to trade.We're doing 'ok' at the moment,impotent compared to Europe like we always will be,no matter what.As a nation of 50 million,it would be debatable whether that would make us more or less potent.There's a balance,and i believe we're getting close to 'as good as it gets' in regards to our economy.
Militarily,we spend more on defence than Indonesia,on top of funding part of their budget.Troop numbers mean little when you have no means of detaching them,and they'll mean even less 10 years from now.Our priorites are mostly a strong navy,which is more than adequate in regards to Indonesia.The question of nukes is a touchy one,but it is inevitable that we will pursue it more,unless the Americans do go ahead with a proper base here.The Israeli model is workable,and we dont need outside funding.What we couldnt handle is a threat from a cranky China,but at the same time we cant let them talk us out of remaining close to the US.We have to always be careful with China,the 70 billion dollar gas deal was a show of good faith on their part,and i highly doubt we will ever take the moral high ground with them on any issue,especially Taiwan. On the environmental issue,there is no reason to believe we will go greener under labor or liberal,the corporations that drive the economy and run both parties arent going to get a conscience all of a sudden.They'd sooner see us turn into a bigger Nauru then run off with the cash.Alot of damage has already been done.Your ideas should've been of top importance 15 years ago,we are way further down the track than anyone likes to admit.There is a point where you go so far that it is irreversable and we may already be there.I'm not an expert but i think this needs to be addressed.....yesterday,most importantly to Sydney which was buckling at 3.5 million.The very fact that solutions like yours arent even on the radar of public thought is a worrying sign.We either get bigger and richer,for a short amount of time,or try and find that middle ground that is sustainability.I'm not a 'greenie' either. :p My point about market size is that population growth alone is not the answer and a true single market with NZ is not enough. The Israeli model alone is not enough and they are an economy dependant on migrants despite rising unemployment. Sydney politicians have started to realise its silly suburban expansion without funded infrastructure is suicidal. As you say the residents seem willfully ignorant of the need for change and still want huge multi bedroom Mc Mansions in outer suburban estated with few facilities. Recent iniatives to charge 30000-50000 for land converted to residential use is a start as long as that money is used for infrastructure. As you say too little too late. 3.5million is a small city compared to what is out there in the world. Good planning can see a few more million in Sydney but steady as she goes. |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
I remember back when Bankstown was as west as it got,and you could drive from the eastern suburbs to the furthest west and it would take you 30 minutes,without freeways.That was endearing,not because of the smaller population,but because it actually felt like a city.Now even thinking of the great suburban expanse gives me a headache.We're at 4.1 million now,if we're going to hit 6 or 7,and keep going west,when do they stop saying it's still part of Sydney?We're already the biggest,geographically speaking,city in the world.I think the Sydney line should be drawn at Leichhardt,anything west of that in no way resembles being part of a city.It should be called something else altogether.
|
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Indonesia has its own problems. Aceh, West Timor, Irian Jaya, Maluku, et al. I don't ever foresee Indonesia being a threat.
|
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by damon
Accepting more refugees into Australia should be a non-issue.For years we have been accepting over 110,000 immigrants(not counting refugees) per annum,purely for economic reasons and to the detriment of our fragile environment.Under the Howard government,immigration levels have risen alot compared to previous governments.He does this at the behest of big business,while at the same time staying in favour with the public by knocking back a handful of refugees.Howard is a master at sleight of hand...
Environment aside, Oz has a couple of major medium/long term economic problems. Firstly, like most of the west, its population is ageing and living longer. Native-born Aussies do not meet the replacement levels i) to stop the population from declining and ii) to provide the tax base to support their aged parents - creating an increasing strain on those that are working. Hence Oz needs immigrants. Whether these immigrants are via a standard visa route or as refugees depends mainly on politics. Secondly, economy-wise, Oz is still living in the 1950s. It needs to become much more focussed on producing higher value-added goods - not eternally ripping stuff out of the ground and flogging it. Part of the problem is wrapped-up in the anti-intellectualism that exists in Oz culture (ie 2 fingers up to R&D). Oz needs to change quickly, not just because of the environmental damage : also because without it, Oz's relative standard of living will continue to decline. ~1960, if I recall correctly, Oz had the highest standard of living in the world - now, it is at - what? - 10th? 12th? Like many countries, Oz's standard of living may need to decline greatly, before the government gets it shi* together. |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by Ulujain
Indonesia has its own problems. Aceh, West Timor, Irian Jaya, Maluku, et al. I don't ever foresee Indonesia being a threat.
|
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by damon
Interesting stuff.I'd be happy if the issue was debated in the public domain in some way,most people would be like 'desali..wha?'It needs to be addressed,even more than Jana Pittman's knee. :p
Having said that with the majority of Australia's larger cities being coastal based i am surprised that this is something that has not been looked into. Mind you the Ruler of Dubai is massively wealthy and with the Emirates about to run out of oil in 5-7 years they have had to boost the tourist industry, to do this they needed golf courses etc, golf courses need water so i suppose the Desal plant was a necessity rather than a luxury. Still strange to think that living on the largest island in the world water supplys are an issue. TOTAL SIDE ISSUE: Potable water is usually pumped through stainless steel pipe to make it fit for human consumption, with steel costs going through the roof this is maybe another reason whu desal plants are to expensive to consider? |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by damon
,most people would be like 'desali..wha?'It needs to be addressed,even more than Jana Pittman's knee. :p
Stuff the knee. Did you hear about THE FAMOUS HORSE who had an operation a couple of days ago, man........ :rolleyes: |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by damon
Accepting more refugees into Australia should be a non-issue.For years we have been accepting over 110,000 immigrants(not counting refugees) per annum,purely for economic reasons and to the detriment of our fragile environment.Under the Howard government,immigration levels have risen alot compared to previous governments.He does this at the behest of big business,while at the same time staying in favour with the public by knocking back a handful of refugees.Howard is a master at sleight of hand.
Because most of OZ is uninhabitable,and our cities do not have enough water to go around(they predict sydney will be at 6 million within 10 years,totally insane),we will have to seriously look at cutting down immigration within the next couple of years.The falling birthrate could've been a blessing,and many independent scientists believed a population of 15 million was the maximum we could have without turning the corner into environmental mayhem(which is happening in Sydney and some rural areas).The business sponsored scientists envision 40 million,but that is TOTALLY unsustainable in a place like this.We have to accept that it is better to live in a good environment with average economic conditions rather than try and emulate the big(rich) nations through a bigger population.Those who suggest we go to 40 million,and say that we can do it if we change our lifestyle,do not realise that this is unenforcable,just like water restrictions in sydney are not truly enforcable(what is the dam at now,45%?).To cope with 40million our lifestyle change would be so great that it would possibly have the reverse effect,and have people leaving en masse for the USA,Europe or Asia. We have to serious look at reducing immigration numbers within the next couple of years,perhaps to 10,000(non-refugee) and increase,YES increase the refugee intake to double what it is.......so as to just reach replacement rate.It is our humanitarian obligation to accept less economic refugees and more refugees who are in real hardship,just like it is our environmental obligation to the continent and indigenous people to make sure we dont TOTALLY strip the land for the sake of a slightly higher GDP. I'd prefer to live in a nation of 20 million with an average GDP and quality of life(we're doing well on that compared to most as it is anyway according to the UN) rather than try and become too big for our boots and living in a super rich,yet environmentally doomed continent.Those who say we need 50 million to ward off Indonesian/Chinese armies wanting to take over one day need to remember this is the 21st century,and wars arent fought as much with standing armies.......we need to look towards the Israeli/high technology model(as we are doing). It is likely,even if we restrict immigration within a few years,that we will reach 25 million anyway(especially considering the baby bonus).Once we stop mass immigration,NZ can take its turn at higher rates until it gets to 10 mill or whatever it needs to.Australasia with 35 million antipodeans will be a successful enough place,both militarily and financially.Auckland will one day join Sydney and Melbourne as being an 'international city',and these three big cities will be enough for our economic zone. That being said,i wish all current day would-be immigrants the best in getting here,but i probably wont be saying the same thing to would-be immigrants 5 years from now:P. What was this thread about again?Off on a tangent eh. I'm a closet economist/ free-thinker/ liberal. Aus can support a much larger population - the only significant problem is water. So put the population where the water is. Or desalinate more cheaply. Both are real possibilities. Eg a 10 million population city in the Cairns-Townsville area is perfectly possible and water isn't a problem. Plenty of other countries have 'artificially' relocated an important city to the sticks, (say) Madrid, Brasilia, the new S Korean capital. Living conditions in Cairns-Townsville area are rather good.- better than Singapore IMHO and just a tad worse than Brisbane which (if I were living in Aus) would be my city of choice. There's another 2000-4000 kms of coastline/ rainfall where another 25 million people would fit in nicely. |
Re: Asylum Makes a Comeback
Originally Posted by MikeStanton
You are kidding, aren't you? Based on what evidence? The Bali bombing - deliberately targetting Aussies - was a shot across the Australian government's bow. Oz has an uneasy relationship with Indonesia - and given there are 10 Indonesians for every Aussie, only the naive or hopelessly optimistic would never see them as a threat.
Simply having a population superiority does not equate to a military one. The Bali bombing was performed by terrorists, not agencies of the Indonesian Govt. Indonesia has an uneasy relationship, as you put it, with many of its neighbours. It disputes territory with Malaysia, for starters. Indonesia is also beset by internal strife with breakaway movements in a number of places. So, Indonesia has more to be worried about than some rivalry with Australia. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:12 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.