EcoRadio

Category: Population

  • Population policy: ‘Civil war’ talks over city growth

     

    What’s it like where you live?  Tell us using the form below.

    Mr Brown was speaking at a population summit – in the city’s west – which was also attended by Prime Minister Julia Gillard.  Population is shaping as one of the defining election campaign policies.

    When it was her turn to speak, she said it was time to rethink whether more and more people could be sent to western Sydney and southeast Queensland, also home to marginal seats crucial to Labor’s re-election chances, or whether those areas were full.

    Speaking on radio this morning, she has denied she is putting up the “house full” sign, but instead has said she just wants to make sure the nation gets the right people going to the right places.

    “I don’t want to look at Australia and leave undisturbed a situation where in some parts of the country we’ve got high youth unemployment -more than 10 per cent, 15 per cent, sometimes 20 per cent – and in other parts of the country we are crying out for skilled labour,” she said.

    The summit heard about gruelling commutes from suburban population centres into CBDs and a lack of infrastructure in the areas where most people actually live. 

    “The government is about to spend $40 billion on an internet network.  What are the benefits, aside from faster porn and pirate movies?” said the Australia Institute‘s Richard Denniss.  “They say it’s going to come in handy, but if you want to build some trains, that’s going to be (too expensive).

    “I will know we are ready for a big population when I see spare seats on the train, when hospitals are not stretched to capacity.”

    Ms Gillard told the audience it was time to “take a breath” on population policy, something she said soon after ousting Kevin Rudd to become prime minister. 

    Mr Rudd had said he was a “fan” of the idea of “Big Australia” in which forecasts put the national population at 35 million in the next couple of decades.  Ms Gillard has said we should not “hurtle towards” a target like that.

    “Surely it is time for governments to ask this question: Can we really ask western Sydney to keep absorbing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people without regard for the key issue of quality of life,” she has said.

    The same debate is going on in other growth areas, including southeast Queensland where the state government is planning three new centres to be developed between Brisbane and the Gold Coast.

    Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has also rejected a push to populate.  He has said he doubted the “Big Australia” push months ago and Ms Gillard has only caught up recently to improve her chances at the federal election.

    But his predecessor and current eastern Sydney MP, Malcolm Turnbull, told the summit Ms Gillard’s comments showed her “moving forward” slogan was rubbish.  He has said growth is inevitable and a good government should be able to manage it properly.

    Business groups want more skilled migration to fill skills shortages around the country in certain industries.  Woodside and National Australia Bank chairman Michael Chaney has warned that “paranoia” on asylum seekers is spoiling a sensible debate.

    “We need a growing population to fill jobs in our growing economy,” he said.  AGL Energy chairman Mark Johnson said: “If continued economic growth is a goal of ours, population growth should be part of that.”

    – original reporting by Vikki Campion

    98 comments on this story

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/population-policy-civil-war-talk-over-city-growth/story-e6frfllr-1225894885005#ixzz0uJUkVG7k

  • Gillard first to pull population lever

     

    Can you imagine the outcry if John Howard had talked like this?

    Gillard is explicit about the turning point she envisages.

    “In 222 years of European settlement, Australia has never had a sustainable population strategy,” she said yesterday.

    “That is something that has to change — and it will change, if the government is returned on August 21.”

    This sounds like a decisive break from the past.

    But what does it mean?

    Ms Gillard is deliberately vague to maximise her freedom of action yet her signals are a pollster’s dream.

    To be fair, Ms Gillard has not committed the Coalition’s folly of wanting a population cap.

    So far, she has resisted the absurd notion of defining a population “carrying capacity”.

    She has, however, pre-judged the issue of sustainability.

    Her entire pitch is to achieve better services and better quality of life by taking “a breath” from population growth.

    She says the election should be a referendum on this issue.

    Ms Gillard does not say that the 36 million population assumed by the Treasury at 2050 is based upon a slower population growth anyway.

    Since its inception the immigration intake has been determined by economic need.

    Labor now seeks to change this principle to “sustainability”.

    It is bound to be popular but Prime Minister Gillard has a responsibility to spell out what her idea of “sustainability” actually means.

  • Gillard dodges migrant intake question

     

    In doing so she became the first prime minister in decades to question the notion that a growing population will drive economic growth and prosperity.

    Asked on Sydney radio station 2UE today whether this meant she wanted to pare back the nation’s immigration intake, Ms Gillard, a Welsh migrant, refused to be drawn.

     

    Related Coverage

    “I think that’s a question not just about numbers but where they are going,” she said.

    Ms Gillard said the issue was not as simple as simply putting up the house full sign in western Sydney.

    Instead, it was time for the nation to take pause and ensure communities had proper infrastructure and services and that growth happened where there were adequate services to cope with its impacts.

    “Let’s just get it all right,” she said.

    “Let’s have skilled migrants go where we need them.”

    She said councils in western Sydney did not want “Just to see a rush to a big Australia” but that councils in other parts of the nation which suffered labour shortages were “crying out” for more people.

    Ms Gillard also rejected concerns from business that her Fair Work Act, put in place to replace the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation, needed to be amended.

    Asked about recurring concerns that the regime prevents teenagers from obtaining after-school jobs because of prohibitions on shifts of less than three hours, the Prime Minister, who as Industrial Relations Minister introduced the laws, said they were balanced and fair.

    “I believe the Fair Work system is right,” she said.

    “We worked hard to get the balance right and I believe the Fair Work Act is right.”

    She also again warned that an Abbott government would reintroduce the worse aspects of Work Choices and erode basic entitlements.

    Referring to a series of conflicting statements from Tony Abbott about his workplace law plans, Ms Gillard said: “He gets all his words mangled because the truth is he believes in Work Choices,” she said.

    The Prime Minister will campaign in western Sydney again today, with a visit to a Blacktown car dealership, followed by a speech to a nurses’ conference in Randwick.

     

    6 comments on this story

  • Gillard to make population pitch

     

    Both parties are set to target marginal seats in the outer-metropolitan areas of both Queensland and New South Wales where there are concerns over congestion and immigration issues.

    Labor holds several seats in the state on a margin of less than 5 per cent.

    Earlier today Ms Gillard’s first stop in Brisbane on the campaign trail was to hug babies at a family day in Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan’s electorate of Lilley.

    When Kevin Rudd was prime minister he said he made “no apologies for a big Australia” but Ms Gillard has already made it clear that she is not in favour of that.

    Today Ms Gillard will use a speech to the Eidos Institute in Brisbane to state Labor’s case for a sustainable population that would support people’s quality of life.

    She will say that it is “no surprise that people living in the suburbs of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and the Gold Coast are concerned by the talk of our population rushing to 36 or 40 million.”

    Just days after she took over the prime ministership from Kevin Rudd, Ms Gillard changed the title of Tony Burke’s portfolio from population to sustainable population.

    This morning Mr Burke told ABC1’s Insiders that there are serious issues of congestion in Australia’s cities.

    “There has been a practice for years in Australia that will just keep packing more and more people into the same handful of cities,” he said.

    “The word sustainability actually gets us back to the core principle of asking the question, it’s not just about constant economic growth driven by property prices continuing to soar.”

    Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has told Sky News the Government is panicking on the issue.

    “Julia Gillard says she is against Kevin Rudd’s big Australia. She never said that when Kevin Rudd announced it,” he said.

    “It does look like a panicked change of policy with the election in the offing.”

    Mr Abbott also says a Coalition government would take a different approach to the immigration intake.

    “I’m not against a higher population,” he said.

    “What I completely reject is that we should just take for granted that we’re going to bring in 180,000 or 300,000 [immigrants], which are the current figures, year in year out, come what may come 2050 and beyond.”

    Mr Abbott did not specify what he the immigration intake would be under the Coalition but said it should be reassessed each year.

    Tags: immigration, population-and-demographics, government-and-politics, elections, federal-government, federal-elections, australia

    First posted 4 hours 47 minutes ago

  • Big business controls population policy- Brown

    18 July 2010

    Big business controls population policy – Brown

    The fact that Australia’s population is now 800,000 above earlier
    projections is due to big business demanding a huge influx of business
    and skilled immigrants to match the mining boom in recent years
    Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

    “We will not get a sustainable population if government bends to big
    business demands like that,” Senator Brown said.

    “We should be skilling our own workers to meet demand.

    “Now that Julia Gillard has backed down to mining interests there will
    be billions less in tax revenues to do that.

    “The consequence will be yet more demand for further immigration.

    “For every boat person, a hundreds of wealthy immigrants have come to
    Australia.

    “Labor has a lot to explain,” Senator Brown.

    Media contact: Erin Farley 0438 376 082
    www.greensmps.org.au

    Erin Farley
    Media Adviser
    Senator Bob Brown | Leader of the Australian Greens
    Suite SG-112 Parliament House, Canberra ACT 
    P: 02 6277 3577 | M: 0438 376 082| F: 02 6277 3185
    http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/| www.GreensMPs.org.au
    <http://www.greensmps.org.au/> 

  • Of course population is still a problem

     

    While admitting that world population may increase by another 2 billion or so by midcentury, he dismisses this increment as a “time-lag” problem.

    Earth to Fred: 2 billion more people is a lot of people to a world that is already struggling to feed 6.8 billion people. It’s a lot of people to a biosphere that is threatened with what leading biologists refer to as the Sixth Mass Extinction. And it’s a lot of people to a planet that is already threatened with the effects of climate change. And while “population momentum” (i.e., large numbers of people entering their reproductive years) may account for some of the projected increase in human numbers, much of it is being driven by the fact that fertility rates in many developing countries around the world are still well above the “replacement rate.”

    Yes, Fred, we must do something about consumption. Unless we in the developed world do more to curb our consumption of fossil fuels and scarce minerals, the world is headed for an ecological and humanitarian disaster. We need to lower our per capita consumption of fossil fuels and other scarce resources. A lot. But I don’t see the G8 or the G20 putting their heads together right now in an effort to lower consumer spending. Really, I don’t. Neither do I see anything happening with respect to climate change.

    And that’s why it’s especially important to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the U.S. and other developed nations. Sorry, Fred, it doesn’t matter that America’s fertility rate is right around the “replacement rate” or that Europe’s is well below it. A baby born here or elsewhere in the developed world will still consume a disproportionate share of the world’s resources and contribute disproportionately to the world’s environmental problems.

    It’s also important to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the developing world. The reasons, however, are different. It really doesn’t matter whether global fertility rates have dropped sharply; they remain unsustainably high in many of the least developed areas of the world. Yes, Fred, fertility rates have come down sharply in Iran and Bangladesh, but women in Afghanistan and Somalia and other desperately poor countries are still having four, five, or six children on average. Some poor countries, like Uganda and Niger, are on track to triple their populations over the next 40 years. Africa’s population will likely double by mid-century.

    Looking ahead, Fred, will these countries be able to feed themselves? Will they have enough safe drinking water? Will their lands be deforested or their rivers polluted? Will their maternal mortality rates and infant mortality rates remain unacceptably high? Will they be caught in a demographic poverty trap? Will they become failed states? If you have good answers to these questions, please let me know. Because if you don’t, then we need to ensure that women in these developing countries are given the information and the access to contraceptives that they need to prevent unwanted and unintended pregnancies.

    Someday we will be able to declare victory. Someday every woman will have access to family-planning services and reproductive health care. Someday world population will be in decline. Someday world population levels will pose no danger to the health of the planet. But that day has not arrived. Not yet. In the meantime, your breezy dismissal of the “population problem” does an enormous disservice to the planet and every living creature that calls it home.