the troubadour

Not one I would usually give much time for, but Peta Credlin's (former PM tony Abbott's Chief of Staff) latest spray this time questioning Australia's record immigration intake on Sky news, has finally seen her talk some sense.


She called for immigration to be normalised back to historical average, that being something in the range of 80,000 to 100, 000 a year.


Australia over recent years has experienced probably the highest population growth in the developed world. Most migrants, by far, naturally enough land in either Melbourne or Sydney. Hardly sustainable if any sort of life quality wanted to remain in these places.


Others may of course have differing views and agree with the concept of a 'Big Australia' , giving reasons why they consider that a good thing.


With the coming need for less workers, surely there is little justification for the massive importation of people?


Outside the usual vested interests doing very well from run away population growth, obviously excluded.

GarryP

Well, mass importation of the right type of people (intelligent, creative, educated) can still be the win. Not those that are going to end up being automation road kill.

Of course, the first step would be a business environment where those types could thrive - rather than the 'slow follower' mindset that actually exists.

Amazulu

Aka Germany's 1.5m Syrian muslims

Beoz

Holy smokes. I can't believe you actually said that.

Times are a changing round here.

the troubadour

What is more interesting is that somebody from the Right of the Conservative Party has brought the ridiculous policy to the public attention.


The matter has been largely ignored by the press, and supported by most political parties. Even The Greens have not challenged the sustainability not to say desirability of the program.


Her call for a vote on whether people want a 'Big Australia' is surely something worth considering.


The population growth of around one million every three years will change our cities beyond recognition.


Is there a need for such mega cities? is it desirable? Do we want multiple dwellings like Hong Kong? Perhaps a fair trade off. Crowded cities but more excitement, action twenty four hour places, fully prepared to pay the cost of that?

ozzieeagle

I see it primarily as the only way Australia will get the infrastructure it badly needs. Water Grid, InterCity hi-speed rail, and better roads. Also provides the potential for greening the more arid parts of Australia via the Water Grid. Ala, Israel and California.

the troubadour

Apart from Germany not having 1.5 million Syrian Muslims of course.

the troubadour

Another social commentator, one I normally have little to recommend did talk some sense.


Joan Sloane who was head of Productivity Commission in 2006 , which conducted a report on the impact of migration and population, found only modest, if any, per capita economic benefit from immigration. Although it does improve the lot of the migrant, it costs incumbent workers wages, congestion, housing affordability, environment.

the troubadour

But a million every four year increase, mostly through immigration, is almost the population of Israel. Its a bit like saying we'll start a fire in order to get a fire brigade, surely?


The thing is of course infrastructure has lagged way behind population growth and out pricing people from principle cities.


But of course another point of view thinking big is better......

Beoz

The people of Sydney have a good life despite this "out of control" population growth. 5 million can't be wrong.

Was it you that said people were leaving Sydney in droves, or someone else?

Either way I am confused by your messaging. Sydney is growing, we know that, but its not affecting quality of life and with it is jobs, good money, infrastructure (which creates more jobs).

Are those immigration numbers that bad? Well as Garry said, (must be a different Garry) the quality of the immigrant is very important. We seem to have a pretty good handle on the immigrant type we need these days and its certainly not affecting jobs nor housing for that matter. You can thank the Libs for that.

And for what its worth, automation has killed a few jobs over the years but created many. That trend is continuing.

GarryP

Right. Because removing "University Tutor" from the list of occupations is fully coherent with only providing visas for those who are "intelligent, creative, educated".

As we covered at the time, the list was decided on the basis of the greatest number of headings, and the lowest number of applicants. The appearance of action, without the desire to achieve anything significant.

The liberal party, in short.

Beoz

Not needed, no demand, however other occupations removed from the list were restored after consultation with industry.

Consultation over the tutor determined no requirement.

And thats what we want, a government willing to adapt and move when required.

What we don't need is immigrants are deemed "intelligent, creative, educated" sitting on the sideline.

GarryP

maybe you'd like to continue reading what I wrote

See, nuance.

Which is why liberal maladministration is the antithesis of good policy. They select for the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, on the basis of political game playing, not strategy or understanding.

Beoz

Nope. Incorrect. You select people as a first pass, then drill down into the detail and grey areas. Its a complex strategy covering a huge area. Its not something you get right first pass and nor should you. You work at it and evolve it.

If we followed your strategy it would be another Labor screw up. Never getting shit done. Your lot have a history of turning everything they touch into a pile of steaming turd. The other lot achieve. They do things. They make life good for the masses, not for the minor few who give very little back.

You can sell the Labor party all you like but they are just scum, and get worse with time. Get over it.

the troubadour

I can fully understand those with large mortgages cheering on mass immigration. Without substantial numbers coming in and not forgetting the all important overseas investors, the price would indeed correct.


Sydney lifestyle? Well if you think being the second least affordable city in the world adds to desirability in some way, it is an opinion, I suppose.(Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey)


Wasn't it a ASX listed global skills market place, that listed Sydney as being too boring and expensive a few years ago to attract young creative staff? Lock out laws featured as part of that.


You are not attempting to convince me that Australia gets only the brightest and best of migrant? Many in fact struggle, regardless of how good or not they are. Short term contracts . Than in itself leading to difficulties getting a bank loan, perhaps a rental, before even mentioning security.


Not to mention the high number of supposedly skilled people from abroad driving taxi's, buses, working in supermarkets and so on.


There is a reason wages are stagnating. Over flood a market with people and market forces will naturally dictate terms.