Katharine Murphy reports at the Fairfax papers:
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is poised to unveil a significant cut in Australia’s annual migration intake as he tries to outflank Labor in the politically sensitive territory of boats and population.
Polling shows the community has now linked population pressures with boats and immigration more generally.
Mr Abbott faced a number of questions at his Perth press conference about his intentions. He replied: ”We will have an announcement in the next few days and you will know exactly where we stand. What you won’t get from us is the kind of fakery and fudging that you’ve had from the Prime Minister.
”She says she’s conscious of population pressures but she won’t do anything actually to reduce them,” Mr Abbott said.
He accused Ms Gillard of continuing Kevin Rudd’s ”big Australia immigration program” – and claimed migrant entries had risen during the term of the government despite the economy slowing.
”I think it’s very important to ensure we don’t think immigration is necessarily a solution to all our labour market problems,” he said.
Does anyone doubt that an election whose only discernible issue is so-called “population policy” would end up like this?
NB: Previous discussion at LP is here.
Update: Bernard Keane.
Update: Here’s the transcript of the Abbott/Morrison/Bernardi press conference.
The LNP are running a truly bizarre campaign. It’s like they’re brought out some UK BNP interns to do their strategy. They are heading for a train wreck.
But it’s all ok now. Abbott’s announced he likes women so it all evens out.
One question…does he like boat people if they are women?
Need. Poppies. Now.
This simply validates my position on Labor. Labor moving to right on a number of things such as its Pacific Solution now makes it possible for the Libs to come out with more harsh policy or more weird policy and have it seem not so extreme.
Gillard is helping validate this type of stuff through her own language and policy.
Gillard’s non policy and time machine to the past on climate change policy also helps validate the Liberal position and now helps with the rhetoric that we shouldn’t do too much until others do and so forth.
This however is not Gillard being clever try to win the centre right or wedge the Liberals, this is her natural position.
We might blame Abbott and the Libs for a race to the bottom, but it is Gillard that has fired the gun.
Yes. Thomas – this is the wrong header, it should be Gillard’s race to the bottom. I was deeply upset when Gillard got in with the support from the right, and no one should be surprised by this. After barely surviving 11 years of Howard, I gritted my teeth at Rudd’s appeal to social conservatism, esp continuing the appalling “intervention”, killing the human rights bill at gestation, denying ssex marriage and the pathetic approach to climate change but with Gillard it will be much worse- all the above plus a swing to the right on aslyum seekers and immigration.
As a previous commenter said- all we have left now is industrial policy. That and a more sensible approach to the GFC. Like so many, I put in 100′s of hours of activism to help defeat workchoices and elect a Rudd Govt. I have received emails from my union to get involved in this campaign – I can’t rouse my self to even press delete. Yes I know a Coalition Govt will be much worse on all counts – and I will be voting Green / ALP . But how much longer before we really can’t tell the difference?
Oh, forgawdsakes. Tony Abbott releases a deliberately reactionary policy, and people on this blog blame Julia Gillard and threaten to vote Liberal as a result. This is carrying moral equivalence too far.
And at any rate: (1) is it assumed that The Greens support a higher rate of net immigration than the ALP? (2) what is so progressive about a high net migration policy?
The difference is that The greens will never be held accountable for having contradictory population policies, whereas the ALP, as a party of government, has to deal with the contradictory demands that it faces.
Has Smuggles informed the bidness community of this policy? I seem to recall they want more immigration.
Our Jules should just tell the punters that less immigration means less demand for housing means lower house prices. Aspirationals don’t like any policy that reduces their perceived status.
Terry @6, (1) no, we support a higher refugee intake but the net immigration rate will be determined by sustainability. To me, that means less.
(2)It’s not progressive, just dopey.
There’s nothing contradictory about Greens population policy. It’s based on sustainability and humanitarian variables while Lab/Libs policies are based on what business wants while conning the electorate that they are reducing numbers by clamping down on boat people or that we need skilled migration for all the vacant positions business has.
Terry is right, there’s a lot of opposition to a high population in the Green-style ranks on the grounds of “environmental issues”. Like Terry I am bemused at “ALP not perfect, vote Liberal!”. Please.
Pauline Hanson wants to re-join the Liberal Party. Remember she was ever only elected to the lower house as a Liberal on the ballot. Vote for / preference to this filth if you want; it’s your choice.
Salient, Australia should have a large immigration intake of all kinds. Sustainability is best addressed through means other than limiting immigration.
@ 10, No it shouldn’t.
Sustainability is BEST addressed by reducing population AND Reduce, Reuse and Recycle consumption.
After the news that Labour is pulling funds from solar for the clunkers program, Tones just needs to put up a decent cut to the skilled immigration rate to get my preference ahead of Labour.
Action alert: Go here and click “no” to the poll “Do you support Tony Abbott’s decision to cut Australia’s migrant intake by 130,000 people?” http://bit.ly/9mQJrs H/T Rob Corr, Ben Pobjie and a Nonymous Lefty.
I’m in a rush and don’t have time to find a link, but every ABC news bulletin is saying that immigration is scheduled to fall to 145,000 pa in the next few years anyway, below Abbott’s target.
Can someone check it out?
Two links I did find yesterday. First, the Brisbane Times:
On RN Nick Sherry debating Helen Coonan
Unless Gillard has said something else the ALP position seems clear enough. If she has changed policy on the run or misspoken I hope her minders tell her what the implications of that would be.
But I’d like to hear it out of her mouth in direct quotes, not what journos or opposition pollies said she said.
“Sustainable” can mean any number of things, and we could discuss population policy another time. My primary concern is the propensity on this blog and elsewhere to sheet every hard-right Tony Abbott policy back to Julia Gillard and the ALP. Remember that Abbott and his cronies rolled more moderate elements in their own party in order to get power, some of whom may now be reflecting on their decision to vote out Turnbull and vote in Abbott.
Laurie Oakes points out that the “reduced intake” is simply the BIS Shrapnel forecast of immigration numbers.
Terry @ 14, I’m worried about that too. The press have been braying for Julia to be specific about population. Mark tells me that the panel(s) of experts were set under Rudd. So Gillard is supposed to pre-empt the outcomes on the run because the press are getting a bit bored with this deliberate democracy stuff.
Mark tells me the Fin Review have some quotes that show the ALP is all over the place, but he’s chucked it out. My wife had just gone down the shops to buy the thing, but I may not have time to check it out until tonight.
Thanks for that link Helen, just registered my YES vote along with the other 75%.
Salient Green @ 11, you put a cheap price on your vote, IMHO.
http://www.roymorgan.com.au/
“Julia Gillard has rejected the drive for a bigger Australia instead talking about wanting a more sustainable Australia – sharing the view of most Australians. The majority of electors – 78% – want to aim for a population of less than 35 million by 2040 according to a special telephone Morgan Poll on immigration and population conducted over the last two nights, July 20/21, 2010.
However immigration per se is not the problem in the minds of the Australian electorate – the majority (58%) being comfortable with immigration remaining the same (47%) or increasing (11%) while 40% want immigration levels reduced and just 2% can’t say. Importantly, more Australian electors believe immigration has a positive effect on Australia (33%) than a negative effect (30%) while 21% believe immigration has little effect and 16% can’t say.
Not surprisingly, the vast majority of Australian electors support both Skilled migrant immigration (88%) and Family reunion migration (75%).
However, given the broadly negative debate about Muslims and Asylum seekers – it is perhaps surprising that a majority of Australian electors support both Muslim immigration (54% support vs. 35% opposed) and Asylum seeker immigration (52% support vs. 39% opposed).”
I’d like to add my voice to Terry’s in demanding an answer to the eternal question, “WTF?!!?” Tones is desperately playing the race card because he knows he’s doomed, and it’s Julia’s fault? Hanson is reported to be considering joining the LP, and people here will put the libs above the ALP if they just cut the immigration intake?
I’m driven to strong language by this kind of crap. It’s so stupid there are no arguments against it. It’s like arguing with a weird left-wing version of the mania that has my dad seeing gypsies behind every social problem.
Read this slowly and reconsider your vote: It is not Julia’s fault that Tony Abbot is a cock.
That’s really interesting, hd @ 19.
The COALition are simply unelectable.
Laura Tingle, I think, started professional life as an economist. She certainly spent many years reporting on financial markets before she adopted a broader role as a political journalist.
Last week she said that neither Abbott nor Hockey made any sense at all talking about where their $47 billion of savings was coming from. Hockey’s offering was a joke about Paris Hilton.
Andrew Robb was the only one who could explain it. The only problem there, according to Tingle is that he was talking risible rubbish. What Swan said about there figures was entirely justified.
With that sort of competence on the Treasury benches, you couldn’t assume they’d do anything they promise.
I heard on ABC radio news this morning that Abbott claims the reduced intake will be in the areas of student visas and family reunions. Given that student numbers were predicted to fall anyway, Abbott is somewhat predictably targeting humanitarian immigration while keeping his mates supplied with ‘skilled’ meatworkers, agricultural and mining workers.
Sheer lowest common denominator cynicism of course, but it’ll probably pay off in the polls, if not the election proper. It might make tonight’s debate more interesting though
A few random thoughts:
1. Rudd did see this one coming – there was a 14 per cent cut back in March 2009 permanent skilled migration program intake from 133,500 to 115,000 ‘in response to the GFC’. So the Libs are on weaker populist ground than they think here.
2. Its a sign of their desperation that they’ve played this card – it puts big business way off side, those one. Frankly, its the attempt break out of the Kessel.
3. Our longstanding eastern seaboard Labor state govt’s bear much of the blame for this issue – though you have to blame Howard some as well for not coordinating urban planning given the numbers of skilled migrants he brought in. There really is no “perception” problem about immigration levels if there’s investment in infrastructure and particular public transport. What people perceive is not being able to get places in their car like they used to. Despite our roads fixation, Public transport to outer suburbs is the only effective way to reduce traffic on the roads. But State labor let themselves sign PPP toll road contracts which forbid them to build public transport infrastructure to compete with private roads. Thats just one example of hundreds. It was massive breach of public trust.
4. Unlike Humanitarian quotas, I’m not 100% convinced skilled migration is a “progressive” or “reactionary” issue per se – its about economic growth. That’s why the LNP will have business bothered about their policy. But in Lib hands, of course, this is a dog whistle. Id caution progressive about automatically jumping on it without thinking about what “progressive” means here: I think it means improving our cities and their infrastructures rather than numbers. Burke is one of the few ALP ministers I rate.
I’m a supporter of the Greens [currently].
I will be voting Greens #1
And then ALP #2 because the racism/xenophobia in the COALition is worse than the racism/xenophobia in the ALP by a level of magnitude.
It is correct to identify and deplore the pandering to xenophobia of the ALP, to criticise the continuing shame of the NT intervention/invasion and it is equally correct to note that in both those cases the ALP policy is marginally better, less offensive, than that of the COALition.
Marginally.
But better.
We cannot put both parties last.
Numbers don’t allow that unfortunately.
I have a choice between bad and worse, I choose to put worse below bad.
So I will relegate the COALition to last place.
To attempt to avoid having their policies in this matter and several others be the shame of Australia as was the case for more than a decade and from which we are very very slowly recovering.
Bernard Keane:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2010/07/25/abbott-and-morrisons-desperate-ploy-on-immigration/
“We cannot put both parties last.
Numbers don’t allow that unfortunately.”
Exactly. Thats why we need optional preferential NOW.
The only way I’d support Greens preferencing against ALP is:
1. In a coordinated way, to force them to take a side on climate change, rather than vacillating.
2. With advance notice – for the 2013 election. With plenty of time to explain that our electoral system means the we have to vote for one of the majors in the end. Thus the ALP never has to do anything, or perform in any way, to get most Green prefs, so tends to chase votes rightwards. They only have to be marginally better than LNP.
3. Its a systemic problem with out electoral system – the only way to get them to perform for preferences is to place them under threat – take the the manacles the electoral system places on us to ultimately vote for one of the major parties, and drag them under via the chain they place on us.
3. Of course, if they gave us optional preferences – they’d have to work for the prefs. Thats all I want. There’s the easy way (make them optional) or the hard way (sorry , but the ONLY way the ALP will stop taking 70% of green prefs for granted is to pref against them).
But with all that out in the open – yes. I would totally support it if the ALP continues to ignore voters on CC. Its just more important than any of the marginal distinctions between the majors.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/election/lib-big-on-race-row/story-fn5zm695-1225896493004
Race to the bottom, or shift to the right? It probably amounts to the same thing, really.
Labor have shifted more or less to the centre; some of their policies e.g. immigration lean to the right, but that’s a reflection of where they see society’s “concerns” i.e. votes. (After 11 years of Howard, I guess some of it have to rub off.)
The Greens have positioned themselves on the left; they’ll pick up some staunch left Labor voters, but the preferences deal lets Labor have their cake and eat it too.
Having dumped the moderate Turnbull, the Liberals have group-thinked themselves well to the Right; it’s tough, it’s manly – it’s unelectable. By filling the moderate gap, Labor have given the Liberals a wedgie they’ll never forget.
So far, so predictable – what happens after the election should be interesting, though.
Tyro @ 28 – If you look at the Tele picture gallery of Barker’s Facebook page, I think the first image is why the Libs have forced him to remove it.
It’s nothing to do with his loopy Islamophobia and everything to do with his literal embodiment of a ‘Big Australia’, I reckon.
Good luck telling highly-skilled migrants that they can move to Australia but they can’t bring their partners and kids with them.
Absolutely!
The most appealing thing about Tony Abbott is that you really can’t believe a word he says. If he gets into power big business will tell him and his dopey mates not to touch the controls and leave all the driving to Uncle Ken or whoever takes over as Treasury Sec. Of course, there will be special deals for special interests (private health insurers, doctors, etc). But otherwise the ship of state will sail on pretty steadily for a year or two before Tone goes over the handle-bars of his bike and Malcolm takes over (and, believe me, Malcolm WILL take over).
My bet is that a Tone govt will exceed Johnnie Howard’s first term record of 6 (or was it 7) ministerial resignations. They’ll drop like flies. Centrebet should give odds.
Labor has no skin in this game. Since when was Labor committed to a high number of “legal” immigrants?
Abbott has attempted to wield the wedge but has merely succeeded in jamming it up his own clacker.
For a brief moment I thought that Abbott may loom as a dangerous opponent to Labor. In fact he is as impotent and as punch-drunk as Paul Blair.
I call on the Liberal corner-men to throw in the towel before their boy gets killed.
katz, no way is Abbott gonna do that – he’s in the ring with a girl. It’s gonna go down the WWF path by election day, with him swinging chairs, kicking the ref, throwing a snake in the ring and calling in his mates from the audience.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t start losing it from 6pm AEST tonight… he did last time, after all…
Just watching Abbott’s announcement on ABC 24. I wonder why Cory Bernardi’s standing next to him – the notorious Burqa banner.
Hmmm. Apparently he’s the shadow parliamentary secretary for population.
To stick Tyro Rex@25′s absolutely jaw-dropping link back on topic, did David Barker’s wife come into the country on the sort of family migration visa that the Liberals want to stop?
Just saw Abbott’s press conference on population and the announcement was bashed to death by the journos as they pointed out that migration numbers are already falling and his final figure is higher than the number projected in most studies. It was a disaster. Not a good day with the ca god bothering candidate in an unwinnable seat taking the limelight and Don Randall in the West opining on Godless Julia. He on the back foot all the time. And telling everyone that Labor will introduce a carbon price looks dumb as most of us wan’t a price on carbon. Who is running this campaign?
SG @ 20, Calm down there old boy, no one here said “they will put the libs above the ALP if they just cut the immigration intake?” Far from it if you just stop hyperventilating for a moment.
I said, “After the news that Labour is pulling funds from solar for the clunkers program, Tones just needs to put up a decent cut to the skilled immigration rate to get my preference ahead of Labour.”
He has not made a decent cut and it has not been to the skilled immigration rate. Chill out dude and have a good day.
how is “Tones just needs to put up a decent cut to the skilled immigration rate to get my preference ahead of labour” NOT “I’ll put the libs above alp if they just cut the immigration intake”?
Cos it’s got the words ‘decent’ and ‘skilled’ in it. Changes where I put my preferences to a major extent. If you can’t see the difference it’s your problem.
Ouch!!!!
I wasn’t there and I’m hurting.
Laurie Oakes demolished Joe Hockey this morning.
Here are a couple of snippets.
-LO: But we are talking about your policy and the front page of newspapers today trumpets that you’re going to slash immigration to a hundred and seventy five thousand. Right? That’s the figure.
JH: Well I’m not confirming.
LO: But that is what you want people to believe.
JH: That’s roughly.
LO: Right, well BIS Shrapnel forecasts that net overseas migration in 2010-11 will be a hundred and seventy five thousand people based on government settings now.
……
“LO: Make up your mind. Either I’m telling the truth and Tony Abbott is right you’re your policy is shonky.
JH: Alright. Well our policy is not shonky. Our policy is
…”
LO: It is another Abbott back flip, another weather vane thing. ”
…….
LO: So how do you respond to the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, who said last Wednesday that Australia has virtually no net public debt in the country at all in contrast to much of the developed world…
……..
LO: So the Reserve Bank governor doesn’t know what he is talking about?”
Here is the transcript.
http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7934644
Be prepared to feel sorry, or not, for Joe.
A cut to immigration is exactly what we need. It is not a race issue. We should make drastic cuts to the skilled migration program but accept more genuine refugees. We should invest in training our own doctors and nurses rather than stealling them from third world countries. Immigration to Australia is just another example of the rich west taking all the skills they can from the poorer countries who are crying out for skilled people. Australia is choosing not to have enough children ourselves. We should take the consequences of this rather than stooping to skill theft from the developing world.
It is very easy for inner city middle class citizens to be pro immigration, Move to the outer suburbs and see the strain on services. Middle class people rarely deal with the consequences of immigration.
I support a small Australia.
Also, being anti immigration is not right wing. It is entirely at ease with being an environmentalist. One could argue that the obsession with immigration has more to do with keeping big business and capitalism running. Supplying the market with workers and who cares about all other consequences.
and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Salient Green?
You’re willing to sell your vote to a a religious shonkster, economic vandal with ugly ears so that you can marginally cut down overseas competition for middle-class jobs in Australia?
Straight from the book of Bolt and Akerman. Also, complete rubbish.
oops. I think I just made a tag error… can I close it myself?
@47 – fixed.
Update: Here’s the transcript of the Abbott/Morrison/Bernardi press conference.
Good point Durutti – the only people in the whole country who think the ALP will introduce the carbon price everyone wants …are the coalition.
Its practically a cheer squad!
@46 ” It is very easy for inner city middle class citizens to be pro immigration, Move to the outer suburbs and see the strain on services. Middle class people rarely deal with the consequences of immigration.
Straight from the book of Bolt and Akerman. Also, complete rubbish.”
Actually i wouldn’t rush to judge. Many social services and some communities are really struggling to meet real demand. I couldnt stress more highly how we need continued focus on SAAP, mental health and general housing services.
Unfortunately serious debate usually gets polarised, and often legitimate concerns get high profile public airings in idiotic, emotive, and often racist ways. This makes it extremely hard for sane and decent people ( esp on the left) to acknowledge problems without being lumped in the redneck category, so they stay right away, leaving ignorant people of both sides to fight it out in the media.
@angela says: “Yes. Thomas – this is the wrong header, it should be Gillard’s race to the bottom. I was deeply upset when Gillard got in with the support from the right, and no one should be surprised by this.”
So how exactly do you think every other Labor leader (at least since the right had a majority in caucus) has been elected, including Rudd??
Abbott’s claim that (quoting from the fairfax stories) “migrant entries had risen during the term of the government despite the economy slowing.” is clearly a lie – as Oakes pointed out in his
demolition ofinterview with Joe Hockey immigration intake was 298,000 in 2008-09, but dropped to 230,000 in 2009-10 and is forecast to drop further.And anyone claiming they’re going to vote Liberal because of Labor’s stance on this issue clearly deserves an Abbott Government.
RE: inner metro vs outer metro – But as Waleed Aly said on Q&A the other week, actually the strain by ‘immigration’ on cities is mostly felt is in the inner metro areas. I go to the outer metro areas and I see a sea of Anglos. What the outer metro areas are having is a meltdown at the lack of state, and Howard-era federal, government investment in city transport and other infrastructure.
Also as an IT worker it’s one of the areas I know there’s a severe skill shortage. Our company just can’t hire fast enough – we don’t get good enough candidates even with all the newly onshore workers (their quality and experience is vastly improved over the ones we used to get 5 years ago). Yes I could selfishly demand skilled migration be cut and double my salary in the next five years. But then all of YOU would be competing against my wage in terms of buying property and other services AND you’d be feeling the massive decline in service quality that a paucity of skills in computing would cause.
Ahhhh, the middle aged latte lefties on this blog are at it again. Having bought their houses a long time ago, they usually give lip service to caring about the ties between high migration and expensive housing.
Here is what one crikey respondent said on the issue:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/07/14/the-alp-refines-its-outer-sydney-message-little-australia/
“However wanting our population size to match our ability to provide education, transportation, medication, food, water and housing is not bigotry. It’s common sense.
Think about that next time you’re sitting in traffic, paying your exorbitant rent / mortgage, mourning the loss of another native specie, waiting in an emergency room or listing your child’s name on a waiting list for a therapist. ”
But hey, lets resort to branding those that want lower migration (not lower refugee intake) as racists. And lets just take it as a given that high migration materially improves per person income or wealth without providing any proof. Because anyone who asks for proof is obviously a racist and/or just plain ignorant.
SG @ 45 “You’re willing to sell your vote to a a religious shonkster, economic vandal with ugly ears so that you can marginally cut down overseas competition for middle-class jobs in Australia?”
LOL, can’t argue with your summation of Tones. The reason you suggest is entirely wrong of course. A large cut in skilled migration is right for all the reasons given by Spana @ 44@45. It would be a far better outcome environmentally than anything the Labour party looks like achieving in the forseeable future.
Tyro Rex, what is your company doing to train it’s workforce? What did your company do 4 or 5 years ago to ensure it had people with the skills it requires now. This question goes to every business or corporation and especially mining companies who in screaming for skilled immigration are often poaching skills from overseas countries who can ill afford it, while weaseling out of their responsibilites to plan ahead for the future needs of their business.
In my business, training is an investment, not a cost. Obviously a bit too holistic for much of the short term thinkers in business today.
Dave, I don’t own a house, its a market I’m locked out of. Nor did I refer to anyone as racist.
And if the infrastructure can’t meet the population demand, why not make the infrastructure meet that demand, instead of reducing the demand? Why is the only solution to reduce immigration? We have almost no people per arable hectare of land, compared to every other nation, even Canada and the USA. Plenty of countries build adequate infrastructure in their cities, for their much larger populations, so why can’t we?
Its the inner city that bears the brunt of immigration, not the outer suburbs.
Salient Green; The point is, 18 months ago we had 10 or 12 staff, and all of these people are fully occupied with work, many of the straight-out-of-uni juniors we hired are now doing senior-level work, it just so happens we need to employ 30, 40 or 50 people, and there’s nothing that “training” can do about that.
In another job, after being frustrated with the paucity of experienced talent on the market, we frequently hired university graduates to be programmers. You know what? 1 out of 10 were suitable. All of those kids I hired at that company are now senior programmers there or elsewhere. However the other 9 out of 10 cannot be trained to be good programmers. Just not possible. Don’t have the talent to get to the starting line.
Don’t presume to lecture me about training.
My emphasis.
So Tones, what labour market problems are soluble by immigration?
Tyro Rex: Infrastructure is super expensive to build. Furthermore, infrastructure cannot solve all of the problems of excessive migration – there is only so much scope for new roads in the non-outer suburbs, and there is only so much they can do to reduce traffic. People can parrot all the want about public transport – no doubt good transport has its benefits but many people justifiably like a usable car road network.
heh yes, away from an election this topic is worth a thread in itself. Universities are not a good training ground for producing programmers (or even filtering out bad ones), but then I don’t think they really try to do or or for some even think its their role.
One thing I would point out is that if local programmer labor prices get too high then in most cases the job just gets offshored rather than salaries increase. Programming is one of the most portable jobs out there.
Tyro @ 57 get as snooty as you want about my advice but you still haven’t answered my question. What has your business, and the industry in general done in the past to ensure that universities are teaching the skills you require now?
Your statement “after being frustrated with the paucity of experienced talent on the market, we frequently hired university graduates to be programmers” says it all.
It says firstly that business expects experienced people to be available on tap, off the shelf with no effort on their part. It says the next best thing businiess expects is that on tap, off the shelf partially trained people will have the basics without any effort by business to ensure they have.
It’s not all the fault of business. Successive Governments have also taken the lazy way out because immigration suits the other purpose of “keeping big business and capitalism running” (thanks Spana) when so many jobs are going offshore.
“Programming is one of the most portable jobs out there.”
Management may think this is (or like it to be) the case, but in reality it is not. Programmers must be on site with the product owner. I’ve never met anyone – ever – who got even an adequate solution to a programming problem by sending “specs” off shore (and who creates that specification anyway – you need a programmer to do that). Nowadays those Indian off-shoring IT companies employ reams and reams of local staff to “manage” the clients expectations and produce specifications and documentation when they could be just employing programmers.
Its my experience that the difference between a junior programmer and a senior programmer or team lead is not technological savvy: usually those bright kids we get from uni have far more natural technology savvy that I do. The difference is about commitment to build systems and knowing how programming teams work (their context) and so on. But the difference between a poor graduate and a good one is usually about attitude and enthusiasm.
Salient Green: “Tyro @ 57 get as snooty as you want about my advice but you still haven’t answered my question. What has your business, and the industry in general done in the past to ensure that universities are teaching the skills you require now?”
But you *changed* the question. I told you we met our internal needs through training graduates and less experienced developers, but how does that scale our demand problems. Now suddenly this is about our little 12 person outfit influencing tertiary programs … something that takes years if not decades, to meet an 18 month demand spike! What rot. It’s clear to me you’ve actually got no idea what a programmer actually does or how they acquire essential skills.
Although if you ask me, the main problems remain. 1. business management have an unbelievably wasteful attitude to their management of their IT systems. 2. There is a shortage of truly skilled and talented staff which has to be met with a combination of attracting the right skilled migrants to the profession AND fixing what happens inside University computer science & engineering degree programs.
Slamming the gate shut to the rest of the world to me just sounds like a pathetic response to the challenges of that world.
PS, my union would agree you, but I don’t have to agree with it.
To sg.
Middle class inner city people (in Brisbane at least) do not feel the impact of migration. We have fairly wealthy Asian migration to the middle ring suburn of Sunnybank and surrounds and poorer migration from the Samoa, Tonga, NZ aas well as African and Burmese refugees in Logan and around to Inala.
I work with refugees. I see the settlement issues. I see the issues that arise from poor settlemtn policies and when large numbers of migrants are shoved into one area for the sake of convenience. There are big issues on both a social and personal level. I even know of migrants and refugees who move their kids to different schools because schools in these areas “have too many …….. kids”. This has been said by a refugee who can see the overloading in these places.
When I go to the middle class suburbs it is a different world. The white middle class in Australia have very little real contact with these issues yet it is them who tend to be most pro migration. I see it first hand. I am pro refugee but oppose most other migration.
I am not right wing like Bolt as you imply. I support refugees and work with them. But I oppose immigration.
Tyro, I changed the question only to clarify my point about what your business did 4-5 years ago to plan for it’s needs now.
It sounds like we are understanding each other’s position better. A small business can’t meet a demand spike locally especially when there has not been the effort and co-operation between Government and business to train for future needs.
It’s true I know nothing about computer programming and am comfortable with knowing shitloads about other stuff.
A mate of mine went to work for a fly in fly out mining company as a truck driver. He was also very experienced as an excavator operator but had no ‘ticket’. This mining company had an extreme shortage of excavator operators, but funnily enough also had an extreme shortage of excavators and trainers. They thrashed the operators they had but couldn’t find the time or supply the equipment to train someone under their nose who more than likely could have operated their equipment just as well without a ‘ticket’.
This attitude is rife among mining and support companies.
Going back over your posts I can see from # 56 that you have little understanding of the Environmental footprint of a city, the fragility and uniqueness of the Australian fauna and flora, the poverty of our ancient soils, the unreliability of our rainfall patterns, our fully and overexploited fisheries, our already extinct species – wonderful, unique creatures here no more – apparently teaching us nothing to avoid further extinctions.
The owners of this blog have kindly allowed free rein in the discussion so far and thanks for that. I would be interested to explore Tyro’s views on the environmental effects of population growth even though it’s not really on topic.
i.e. you are not interested in dialogue, just an ‘exploration of my views’. i am reasonably appraised of the “footprint” of a city and its environmental inputs and outputs, as a dedicated birder I can assure you i know a reasonable amount about the ecosystem too.
i would counter, you seem to understand nowt about engineering topics. sustainability is to my engineer’s mind, at least 50% an engineering problem.
what do you think about liquid salt thorium reactors, for example?
Tyro, I am a Fitter and Turner as well as an injection mould toolmaker. I think thorium reactors have potential to provide society with power for the long term provided society learns to become sustainable first. Population growth is not sustainable. Our current consumption levels are not sustainable.
I have an acute awareness of the ability of science to solve problems when some money is chucked at it. Science is not necessarilly holistic and can’t solve all problems. Most pro growthers can’t or won’t talk about the environmental restraints of population growth.
Ah yes, liquid salt thorium reactors. Now we’re smokin!
if you want to talk about the limits to growth; well, on more than one level humans are no different to the bacteria that eats away at the agar until all the food runs out and then dies off. its a form of humanistic hubris to really image we are any better than that.
on the other hand compared to the rest of the world we’ve (australia) still got lots of agar left. another strong possibility is it’s a closed system and when when the other exhaust their agar ours will be all gone too. in which case trying to ‘keep them out’ is futile. there’s also a good possibility we’ve worked out some ways to either make new agar or use less per bacterium. so the other part of the equation isn’t just population control.
frankly unless we have a space program we’re all doomed anyway, and likely doomed ultimately anyway as that big ol’ singularity at the center of the galaxy sucks us down with it.
If you’re going to use liquid salt, you may as well build a solar thermal plant.
Tyro, before we go down the black hole the sun when it is running out of gas will expand and we’ll just burn away. Not even a cinder left, I’m told.
I really should do a new post, but don’t have time.
In the Fin Review Geoff Winestock works some of the numbers.
Net overseas migration has shot up from 130,000 in 2005 to 302,000 in 2008.
Part of the reason is expatriates have been coming home from London because of the GFC. For the same reason our friends from across the Tasman have been coming here in greater numbers.
By far the biggest reason was the increase in student numbers. These grew from 150,000 in 2005 to 386,000 in 2009. But part of this was a statistical artifact (no idea how much). Up until 2006 a student staying here 12 unbroken months was counted by the ABS as a migrant. From 2006 that became 12 out of 16 months.
Post GFC more Kiwis are staying home, student numbers will probably stabilise at some point and more Aussies will head overseas.
Winestock says that the Treasury based it’s figure of 36 million by 2050 on an annual net migration rate of 0.6 per cent. The CIA Factbook tells me the population is about 21.5m. That makes an annual migration rate of about 129,000.
It’s interesting to see Tones blaming that increase since 2005 on the ALP, who were in power from – when – February 2007? Even if you assume 0 lag-time on immigration growth, it seems a bit rich to assume that the increase by 2008 was the ALP’s fault. Funny no journalists picked that up in the debate…
Brian Toohey also had an article on migration in the Fin Review. Frankly, I thought he was all over the place. The most useful bit was to remind us that the Govt had gone for three panels of experts to look at the whole sustainable population strategy.
The first is to be headed by Geography Professor Graeme Hogo which will look at “how our communities can become more pleasant and sustainable places to live”.
The second is to be headed by Heather Ridout which will look at productivity and prosperity.
The third will be headed by Bob Carr and will look at “sustainable development”. That would need to be expanded to make any sense, but Carr has urban consolidation in his DNA, hasn’t he?
sg, I thought it stuck out like the proverbial dog’s appendages and Gillard really skewered him with the numbers from BS Shrapnel.
Further to my comment @ 72, Toohey tries to paint Gillard as a dill and says:
I thought one of the main reasons for the sustainable population strategy was to look at the implications for infrastructure ahead of time and think about the optimal design of cities and such.
In another article by John Kehoe and Sophie Morris, much more competent and less tendentious, you get this:
Should she, ahead of the panels of experts?
They also point out that the following remark was in answer to a question as to whether the 270,000 annual migration intake should be reduced:
No it isn’t, it’s broader than that, as Malcolm Farr kept saying on Insiders this morning, but his fellow panelists had a hard time seeing.
In part Gillard doesn’t want to get into the numbers game. To do so would be entirely inappropriate at this stage.
Toohey also (mis)quotes, slightly, and puts it in a context that makes Gillard look a bit silly. Not Mark Latham stuff, but not responsible either.
OK, so until I left the Greens a few weeks ago I had the unpleasant experience of many months of interminable debates with a small group of members who were advocating rapid cuts to migration and population, given confidence by Bob Brown’s recent statements on the issue (which fall outside Greens policy, BTW).
It seemed to me that population could be the wedge that the major parties could use to force the Greens to the Right in the medium term, mainly because the party has no conception of alternative social organisation that could balance humanity’s relationship with nature. The Greens’ economic policies are a mish-mash of pop neoclassical and Keynesian ideas laced with motherhood statements about sustainability and decreased consumption. (My recent article on the Greens goes through this in more detail: http://bit.ly/ddQgs9)
So this debate is not new for me. I think there are a few things worth noting:
(1) The arguments around “limits to growth” (e.g. “the agar dish”) are flawed because they tend to see humans as standing outside the ecology and sucking it dry, rather than in a (currently grossly imbalanced) two-way interaction with the rest of the ecology, but as part of it. The starting point is that humans are parasitical on the natural world, with “pest-control” approaches therefore seeming logical.
(2) Limits to growth arguments also tend to presume that the social organisation of production under capitalism is unchangeable (even when they can see it might be the main driver of problems) and so seek to cut something else; e.g. population, individual consumption, etc. This is kind of reverse Malthusianism as applied to an exponentially-growing capitalism because the economic growth–which outstrips population growth–is then blamed on rising numbers of people and not the systemic drivers of growth. This, IMHO, is a reflection of the Left’s pessimism about real social change.
(3) There is constant resort to statements along the lines of “just because I’m against immigration/population I am not right-wing/racist”. These usually arise when worries are quite logically raised that these issues are often deployed for right-wing or racist ends in the public discourse. Such defensiveness misunderstands the issue while tacitly recognising there is a problem. In a society where historically concerns over immigration have been predominantly used by the racist Right, it is beholden on any Lefties who want to take a position to clearly demarcate *how* what they are saying is different, and how it can be kept from being misused. It is not enough to say “I work with refugees”, for example, because that may make the person’s individual bona fides clear, but not the bona fides of their argument. That is, Spana @43/44/63 is clearly *not* a racist, but the question remains open as to how one talks about limiting immigration without opening up to a racist discourse (there may well be a way, but it has to be spelled out).
Currently the population debate has *mostly* been used to dog-whistle on race, displacing justified worries about public services, environment and infrastructure into a discourse about “too many migrants”: http://bit.ly/a1oMM6
(4) I think that the pro-immigration Left needs to work on a more detailed response to this debate, but not one centred on business-friendly arguments. Bob Brown and others have attacked high immigration as only serving big business while ordinary Aussies suffer. There are good reasons why cutting immigration would do nothing to help local workers nor necessarily hurt business that much (in past decades big business has been in favour of migration cuts, for complex reasons). This is not really a (mainstream) economic debate, but a political one.
One place for us to start may be to drop the arbitrary distinction between political (asylum-seeking) and economic migrants. Is one really more deserving than the other, or are both seeking a better life than their country of origin? Phil Marfleet’s book “Refugees in a Global Era” opened my eyes to this with its detailed empirical and analytic account of capital and people flows, and the *contradictory* political responses to them by business and governments. Unsurprisingly, the Howard government features heavily!
Sorry about the length of that…
There’s a lot to think about there, Dr Tad.
Meanwhile just a couple of points.
My comment @ 70 indicates that the Treasury number of 36 million was just a projection based on past immigration levels of about 130,000pa. It’s hard to think an Australia of those or similar dimensions won’t happen.
Gillard/Burke I think realise this and rather than “hurtling towards a big Australia” blindfolded they want to do it in a considered and rational way that doesn’t set artificial limits.
Laura Tingle said the other day that the last piece of major infrastructure in Sydney, the M7, was completed in 2005. Hope I got that right. It would be astonishing if the place wasn’t progressively choking up.
In Brisbane from 1998 to 2000 I used to cross the Brisbane river near the city twice a day. During that time things got worse. But since then we have had a new bridge, a new tunnel, the magnificent Brisbane city bypass, a dedicated busway, a duplication of the Gateway bridge, another bridge near the university, a start on the northern busway, a new tunnel planned to take traffic from chronic bottle-necks around Toowong,where the population of a new city goes to QU every day, work on an airport link and much more. Near us they spent $25 million on Waterworks Road. People don’t die there as much now and the traffic does flow with a T2 lane in peak hours to give buses royal passage. River transport has been enhanced.
Getting around the place has improved, I think. We are getting to the stage where we can now make further progress, using better public transport and road user charges in congested areas. As a small example, on our road you could simply make the T2 into a T3 and lay on more public transport.
But we do need roads for the public transport and the service industries. I drive a ute and criss-cross all the major routes. Brisbane is full of utes and vans as plumbers, electricity workers, vans delivering stuff etc go about their business , mostly driving like their arse was on fire, because time means money. Less so now, because you can actually get to where you are going if you don’t have to pay a ruinous toll. For these people to sit in traffic hold-ups costs the economy. It will be possible, in a somewhat longer future to give people individual mobility with minimal emissions with such things as plug-in hybrids and a decarbonised grid.
But a myriad of problems need to be addressed. If you go in for urban consolidation, the sewerage has to go somewhere, for example. There have been distressing stories of it showing up in people’s basements where we have had urban consolidation.
In housing we have the largest living space per person in the world. I understand the Henry review was going to rejig taxes to change the incentives to encourage us towards more sustainable outcomes.
Labor is putting deliberative structures in place to wrestle with these complex problems. The COALition has flick-passed population to the Productivity Commission, where the neoliberals will almost certainly go for a big Australia. Except that they have pathetically and without checking what is going on trotted out a short term target for political purposes to get themselves elected.
On infrastructure near-term spending priorities you have the choice of a deliberative process set up by Labor in Infrastructure Australia or a return to pork barrelling. We’ve already had a promise of the Toowoomba bypass although a study initiated by the Howard mob shows the project is a dud.
Choose them at your peril.