PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGNS SEEKING SKILLED MIGRANTS & INDIA’S REQUEST FOR AUSTRALIAN URANIUM

PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGNS SEEKING SKILLED MIGRANTS

Following my expressing concern about reports in The Economic Times that Australia would be conducting a promotional campaign to attract skilled workers from cities in northern India, Australia’s High Commission has said the newspaper report was wrong, confusing a cultural promotion with immigration issues.  The Immigration Department says that it is not planning to hold ‘skilled migration expos’ in 2011-2012.

I hope my raising the matter has helped clarify this erroneous reporting, which also appeared in the Australian Financial Review.

I will continue to raise the need to reduce the level of our labour force migration program, which I believe is too high to be consistent with our humanitarian obligations to developing countries, our obligation to train young Australians and lift our workforce participation rate, and our obligation to focus on repairing our flood-damaged infrastructure rather than building new infrastructure to accommodate population increase.

INDIA’S REQUEST FOR AUSTRALIAN URANIUM

Reports about India’s endeavours to persuade Australia to export uranium to it constantly gloss over the fact that India refuses to sign the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has developed an arsenal of nuclear weapons, which the treaty does not allow it to do.

In 2009 I chaired an extensive inquiry by Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and one thing I learned from that experience is that the friction between the nuclear haves and the nuclear have nots is alive and well. Throughout the history of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the nuclear haves have stressed non-proliferation – that is, making sure no other country gets nuclear weapons - and the nuclear have-nots have stressed disarmament – that is, obliging the nuclear armed countries to get rid of their bombs.

The non-aligned countries – essentially nuclear have nots – are extremely frustrated by the lack of progress on disarmament. Too often this difference of approach has led to international stalemate.  Clearly we need to have action on both fronts – disarmament and non-proliferation.

Given the precarious state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)  there needs to be some carrot and stick – rewards for countries that observe it, and penalties for countries that don’t.

For Australia to export uranium to India would deal a crippling blow to an already fragile Treaty, and send a message to countries right around the world that we don’t take the NPT seriously.

Why would any rising nation – Brazil, Indonesia etc – stay away from developing nuclear weapons if countries  that develop nuclear weapons, in breach of the NPT, enjoy the same rights as countries which sign the NPT and abide by its provisions?

We cannot make decisions about nuclear issues in a vacuum. The United States and Russia developed nuclear weapons as a defensive strategy during the Cold War. Because they had nuclear weapons China, which at various times during the nuclear age has had poor relations with both America and Russia, developed nuclear weapons as well.  Because China had nuclear weapons, India felt threatened and developed nuclear weapons. Pakistan felt threatened and developed nuclear weapons. And the strength of religious fundamentalist terrorist groups in Pakistan has created an ever present and alarming risk that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of non-state actors – terrorists groups who have no respect for human life and will take no notice of ‘deterrence’ and ‘mutually assured destruction’ in the way governments might reasonably be expected to.

We must do all that we can to try to break every link in this dangerous nuclear chain.  This means supporting international efforts towards non-proliferation and disarmament, including the NPT. Exporting uranium to any country which is not prepared to be part of the NPT would be a step in precisely the wrong direction.

KELVIN THOMSON MP

Member for Wills

Australia Running Promotional Campaigns to Try to Attract Migrants

Yesterday I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard expressing concern about a report in The Economic Times,  that Australia intends to ‘target’ Chandigarh, Punjab and other cities in northern India with a promotional campaign in 2012 looking to attract skilled migrants.

I told the Prime Minister I do not want the number of skilled migrants to increase, and do not support Australia running promotional campaigns to try to attract migrants.

I cannot see how running promotional campaigns to attract skilled migrants is consistent with the Prime Minister’s pre-election statements that she does not believe in a ‘Big Australia’ and that ‘we need to stop and take a breath’.  I also think this pre-empts the Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia being developed by Population Minister Tony Burke.

I have three objections to the idea of recruiting our workforce from other countries. First, there is nothing humanitarian whatsoever about it. Workers with real skills in developing countries are more valuable where they are, and we should not try to strip these countries of their best and brightest for our own advantage.  Surely it is more humanitarian for us to have a more compassionate approach to those in refugee camps who are pleading for us to allow them to come here, than to poach and ‘target’ people who otherwise have shown no desire to live in Australia.

Secondly, our high skilled migration program comes at the expense of skilling and training young Australians. Broadmeadows, just to the north of my electorate, has unemployment in excess of 15%.  These people are entitled to our attention.  Our disability pension numbers continue to rise. The Prime Minister said last December that “we’ll need to decide that we seriously want to be a high participation economy….where everyone who has the capacity to work has the opportunity to work.”   “And we’ll need to decide we are seriously prepared to change the policies which stop that happening now.”  She is absolutely right, and a key policy which stops that happening, and which we need to decide we are seriously prepared to change, is the high skilled migration policy.

Third, the extent of the recent floods means we will have our work cut out rebuilding and repairing damaged infrastructure.  This is no time to be trying to be trying to meet the additional infrastructure requirements of a rapidly increasing population.

Numerous studies show that new arrivals come with a big infrastructure requirement – they bring their families with them, and all require houses, roads, schools, hospitals etc., and many require English-language and other forms of assistance.  One academic has found that population growth of 2% in a community doubles the infrastructure task of that community.  In the years ahead the building industry will have its work cut out for it in rebuilding flood hit towns and communities.  Nationally we’ve just had a flood come through the house. This is a time for replacing the carpets and the furniture and getting the power back on, not putting on an extension.

I do not support the increase in the skilled migration program under the Howard Government from 24,000 in the mid-90s to over 100,000 by the time of the change of government.  I believe the program should be returned to around 25,000 per annum.

I have asked the Prime Minister how many ‘promotional campaigns’ the Government is planning to run in 2011 and 2012 in relation to skilled migration, and what their expected cost is.

I have also suggested putting on hold plans for such programs until the Sustainable Population Strategy has been completed.

Martin Luther King Jnr Day

Monday January 17 was Martin Luther King Junior Day. America celebrates his towering contribution to his country with a national holiday, and the rest of the world pauses to reflect on his legacy.

As we do so, it is worth remembering that Martin Luther King Junior grasped with great clarity that one of the key driving causes of global poverty and misery is overpopulation.

In 1966 he said, “There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is solvable by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient  knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of billions who are its victims.”

His words are even more appropriate today than they were back in 1966. We are heading down a road by which in future more people will starve, not less, more people will die from water-borne diseases, and more people will die in wars caused by conflict over access to scarce resources.

Can we, as a part our acknowledgment of Martin Luther King’s Junior’s monumental life, resolve to do what we can to promote that universal consciousness of the problem” of which he spoke so eloquently?

SYMPATHY FOR FLOOD VICTIMS

SYMPATHY FOR FLOOD VICTIMS

On behalf of the electorate and people of Wills I extend my deepest sympathy to the victims of floods both here in Australia, and other nations around the world, and their families.

Queensland has suffered great loss of life and loss of life’s endeavours and prospects. We have been all astonished by the power of the floods and the scale of the havoc they have wrought, and moved by the personal tragedy and resilience of their victims.

We have seen hundreds, perhaps over a thousand lives lost in Brazil, devastation on a scale rivalling that in Pakistan last year, reminding us that floods around the world are getting worse.

In Victoria towns which I visited only recently are now underwater, and New South Wales and Tasmania have also been hit. Farmers and businesses face an uncertain future. Homeowners have lost everything they have built up over a lifetime.

There will need to be consideration of the causes and consequences of such fearsome phenomena- of the role of climate change, of planning where we live and where we don’t, of the role of insurance. But let us first support the victims using our own particular talents, and remember the words of John Donne:

No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as  if a promontory were; as well as any manner of thy friends or thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Kelvin Thomson, Federal Member for Wills.

Dr Jeff Harmer on Disability Support Pensions

The outgoing head of the Families Department, Jeff Harmer, is quite right to say the Government needs to explore policies to encourage disabled people and older Australians into work, to lift participation and productivity.

It is quite remarkable that on the one hand we are told there is a shortage of workers and high migration is needed to fill the gap, while on the other hand we have over 792,000 people receiving Disability Support Pensions – more than the number receiving unemployment benefits! Disability Support Pension numbers have grown over 30% over the past decade, now cover 5% of all Australians, and will cost $13 billion this financial year.

The first thing we need to do is to return the ‘skilled’ migration category to the 25,000 per annum it was in the middle of the 1990s. This will open up job opportunities for people not presently in the workforce, and lift our participation rate.

Dr Harmer is also right to say that there is a problem with middle class welfare, with family payments being made to people high up the income scale. Some of this money would be better spent in Universities and TAFES, giving people who are presently not in the workforce the education and skills they need to join the workforce.

Reports Confirm Melbourne’s Population Growing Too Fast

Two State and Federal Government reports confirm that Melbourne’s rapid population growth is harming our open space and leading to longer commuting times and declining housing affordability.

The Victorian Environment Assessment Council has told the State Government that open space per person will halve by 2026 for municipalities such as Melbourne, Hume, Whittlesea and Cardinia. The Council’s inventory of public land and open space in metropolitan Melbourne shows that rapid population growth is threatening the liveability of Melbourne suburbs as more people compete for public space such as parks and sports ovals. Its discussion paper shows that we will struggle to accommodate an extra 600,000 homes over the next 20 years, both in outer areas, with open space in Wyndham declining from 7.8 hectares per 1000 people to 3.3 hectares per 1000 people, and in inner areas, with open space in Moreland declining from 3.5 hectares per 1000 people to 2.9 hectares per 1000 people.

The Federal Government has been given a similar message. The Prime Minister’s Department’s incoming government brief has told the Prime Minister that “The perception that the quality of city life is declining is supported by declining measures of liveability (including from greater congestion and longer commuting times), declining efficiency, and a lack of affordable housing”…. “Without disciplined planning for growth, demographic pressures will negatively affect living standards, particularly in cities, as housing prices rise, congestion increases and it becomes more difficult to access services.”

These reports make clear that rapid population growth is damaging both our living standards and our quality of life. The Federal Government should reject the advice it is getting from property developers and big business, and cut Australia’s migration levels to those we used to have in the late 1970s. And the Victorian Government should not acquiesce in “Big Melbourne’ – it should protect our existing open space, both in inner Melbourne and at the city limits, and listen to the voice of residents concerning planning issues.

Comment on Sustainable Population Strategy Issues Paper

The release of the Sustainable Population Strategy Issues Paper is a welcome step forward in the national debate we need to have about Australia’s growing population.

Minister Tony Burke is right to say we shouldn’t have an arbitrary target, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a considered target. Otherwise we’ll stay on our present path, sleepwalking our way to an environmental disaster.

Minister Burke is also correct to say that sustainable population goes to “how much sunshine is left at the end of the day after a long commute.” It also goes to how much sunshine you get in your backyard if developers build high-rise buildings next door or behind you.

Unfortunately one of the Reports, by the Productivity and Prosperity Panel, shows no understanding of the downside of Big Australia, and trots out all the hoary, discredited old myths about the alleged advantages of population growth.

MYTH: “If it is balanced and managed well, living standards will rise with population growth, not fall.” (p.2)

FACT: A recent examination of the 100 largest US metropolitan areas from 2000-2009 found that faster population growth rates are associated with lower incomes, greater income declines, and higher poverty rates. Unemployment rates tend to be higher in faster growing areas. The 25 slowest-growing metro areas outperformed the 25 fastest growing in every category and averaged $8,455 more in per capita personal income in 2009.

MYTH:  “Population growth will help lift living standards, not make them fall.” (p.5)

FACT: If this were true, the wealthiest countries would be the most populous countries of Asia and Africa. In fact they’re the world’s poorest. The nations in the world with the highest living standards have small populations – eight of the top 10 nations in the world in terms of per person GDP have populations of less than 10 million.

MYTH: “A bigger workforce as a proportion of a larger population will mean more people paying taxes which will allow government to pay for essential services.” (p.5)

FACT (1): One of the reasons the smaller nations are wealthier is because they have a higher labour force participation rate. Because they’re not running big skilled migration programs job vacancies are filled by their unemployed.

FACT (2): The bigger the population the more essential services and taxes you need. Bringing in more people doesn’t make the task of providing essential services easier, it makes it harder.

MYTH: “The ageing of the population if ignored could produce labour market bottlenecks because there would not be enough skilled workers to go around.” (p.8)

FACT: Australia does not have a shortage of workers. Broadmeadows has an unemployment rate of 15.9%. An ageing workforce will help reduce unemployment, and provide opportunities for people with disabilities and indigenous Australians to enter the workforce. As Simon Crean recently pointed out, they should be our priority.

MYTH: “Slowing population growth would not make the infrastructure problems go away.” (p.9)

FACT: It would certainly help! The reason Zurich has a much better public transport system than any Australian city, even though it is just as spread out, is that Zurich’s and Switzerland’s stable population gives its policy makers time to address the needs. In rapidly growing cities infrastructure provision is like a dog chasing its tail, we never catch up. Jane O’Sullivan from the University of Queensland has calculated that population growth of 2% per annum doubles the amount of money required to maintain adequate infrastructure.

MYTH: “Slowing the rate of population growth will not make housing more affordable.” (p.9)

FACT: Yes it will! During 2009 housing affordability around Australia declined by over 22% due to a massive gap between the number of dwellings being built and the number of new people wanting housing. The Housing Industry Association said Australia’s fast growing population was pushing new dwelling requirements to record high levels. The inevitable consequence of this is rising house prices, rising interest rates and declining housing affordability.

MYTH: “The environment need not suffer from population growth.” (p.11)

FACT: But it has. In 2002 the Biological Diversity Convention pledged countries right around the world to stop the rate of biodiversity loss. This year, the International Year of Biodiversity, saw countries right around the world confess they had failed to stop the rot. Australia is no exception. We have hundreds of species of endangered birds, plants and animals, and every year their numbers deteriorate.

I encourage Australians who care about the future of this country and its beautiful wildlife to take advantage of the Government’s opportunity to provide comments on the issue, which is open until Tuesday 1 March 2011, by writing to:

Sustainable Population Strategy

PO Box 787

CANBERRA  ACT 2601

Or emailing sustainablepopulation@environment.gov.au .