On Thu, Oct 21, 2021, The Age carried the following letters to the editor, under the heading, "POPULATION"
Fewer people for our health and environment I read with alarm the article, “Migration quota may rise to aid recovery” (The Age, 20/10), and realised how little we have learned from these past two years.
Some leading economists have presented strong arguments that immigration’s supposed effect of increasing wealth is a mirage: yes, it increases gross domestic product but only because there are more people, not because there is increased wealth for individuals.
Just months before the pandemic arrived, the media ran many stories and letters about Melbourne’s population growth being out of control, that the CBD was overcrowded and that public transport was unable to cope with so many people. Now the focus is on climate change and our need to reduce our carbon footprint.
But none of our decision makers are connecting the dots. Australia could have learned so much from the pandemic: we could have appreciated the need for fewer imports and more self-reliance; we could have understood that big is not better and in fact, our relatively smaller population helped to save us from the worst of COVID-19; and that our quarter-acre blocks are better living spaces than high-rise apartments. We could have learned all Australia’s advantages in staying near zero population growth, for the sake of our health and our environment.
But our decision makers learned nothing. We seem condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Pam Cupper, Dimboola
Putting the needs of business before the people The lord mayor is dreaming to believe the recent population forecasts give the council a strong basis for planning the city’s recovery – “Melbourne’s heart will find its beat again” (The Age, 20/10).
The forecasts are built on very shaky ground, namely that international migration will return to pre-pandemic levels. But immigrant numbers are determined entirely by government decisions, and will and should be hotly debated.
Does the community want 144,000 new residents, in the next 19 years, squeezed into its CBD? They will clog the city’s arteries rather than improve its heart beat.
Both the forecast and the lord mayor’s reaction perpetuate a business-win, people-lose scenario.
Ian Penrose, Kew
Recipe for more ecological degradation and conflict
According to Josh Frydenberg, to maintain Australia’s living standards, we need to ensure the population keeps increasing through migration. However, population growth is linked to increased demand for food, water, housing, energy, healthcare and transportation. More humans mean more ecological degradation and conflicts and a higher risk of disasters, including pandemics. A government with any capacity for leadership and innovation would recognise this scenario and come up with a technology-based solution that utilises our existing population.
Leigh Ackland, Deepdene
Will Parliament meet its obligation to discuss Julian Assange?
The following is posted to Assange chronology at KellieTranter.com :
Kellie,
(I think this is my fourth attempt to post here since 2:11AM this morning.)
Thank you for this most useful resource.
However, I think you should also point out somewhere in this chronology that, whilst millions are protesting around the globe for Julian Assange, both the Australian Government and the Opposition have apparently colluded to prevent any substantial discussion of Julian Assange on the floor of our Parliament. One example is Labor MP julian Hill's motion. He first foreshadowed, on 15 June (four and a half months ago), the following motion:
This has yet to be put. Whilst I had naively thought that a motion only needed a mover and a seconder to be put, apparently any motion not formerly put by the Government or the Opposition is designated a "Private Member's Motion" (PMM) which must pass through an arcane set of procedures, before it can even be put. However, a PMM can only be put on Mondays in a time period of less than 2 hours. In that period, that PMM and all other PMM's approved of by the Parliamentary Selection Committee the previous Wednesday must also be put and debated.
So far, not one motion concerning Julian Assange has been approved by the Selection Committee. Greens Senator Andrew Wilkie has, so far, made two unsuccessful attempts.
Whilst this motion, if put, might not be carried, I think that a full debate on the floors of our Parliament at least would greatly raise the profile of Julian Assange and make may more people understand the facts behind his illegal imprisonment and torture. Furthermore, the Australian public and the rest of the world, as they are entitled to, would know where each and every one of our elected members of the House of Reprentatives and the Senate stand in relation to this outrageous treatment of Julian Assange.
The fact that nearly all of our Parliament seemingly fears any discussion about Julian Assange is most revealing.