crises and how to handle them

There is little doubt to anyone in Australia that our population is becoming an issue for us. While our (most vocal) neighbors may perhaps wonder just why this is (when looking at raw statistics) with our population being only a nudge over 20 Million.

Surely it would be possible to have more in all our space.

Well firstly I'll say maybe not and secondly I'll say why do we want to? If keeping up with the Joneses (population) gives us a neighborhood like this


then I for one don't want to live that way.

Then there is the small matter of deserts (like the Simpson) which take up a vast area of the middle of our continent.

I've marked in red on this figure the extent of desert lands in Australia.

If people could live there easily, then I guess that they'd already be doing it now ... wouldn't they?

So this leaves us with some major issues such as water and a land mass which statistically seems big but has some unfortunate facts about it which make it less livable than the environments our neighbours live in ... which of course clouds their perception of the facts.

In coping with our population problem, it would seem that the typical political response to this looming crisis is mouthed well by Anna Bligh who recently said to the effect of

"we can't stop it we can only manage it"

my words not hers, but if you read her above essay "Lets get real on population" you'll get the that picture.

Now maybe from a particular viewpoint that's true. There are other view points however.

One such viewpoint was put forward by Graham Bradley in a column in the Australian. He seems to take the view that the Australian government has had this philosophy of "grow the population" for some time, he writes:

In the early years of our nation there was strong community agreement that Australia had the potential and the need to increase its population. The idea of Australia Unlimited was embraced.[Circa 1901]

...

Later, prime minister Billy Hughes told a population of about seven million Australians in 1937 that "Australia must advance and populate, or perish".

...

The post-war years saw Australians adopt a bipartisan policy of rapid population growth supported by high immigration to enable great nation-building projects such as the Snowy scheme.

and perhaps at 7 million that may have been true. Certainly the Snowy River project was aimed at importing skilled labour.

Now however we have an interesting problem, as we seek people from anywhere and we do not wish to seem biased towards one nationality or another ... dreadfully unfashionable that right now.

A point was raised by one of the respondents to Mr Bradley (who by the way represents the Australian Business Council) that:

The BCA conveniently plays down the serious costs of high population growth - environmental degradation, water scarcity, increased pollution and congestion, and lower housing affordability - claiming that these issues can be easily managed. Yet current Federal and State Governments have failed dismally in providing for the existing population, let alone an extra 15 million citizens!

What will be the BCA's solution in 30 years time when these immigrants grow old, retire and need taxpayer support? More immigration and an Australian population of 70 million? The current population drive is nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme.

Now, if you are not familiar with what a ponzi scheme is, let me quote from Wikipedia:

The term "Ponzi scheme" is a widely known description of any scam that pays early investors returns from the investments of later investors

Of course the reason why its a scam is that the later investors (in this case our children) are always left holding the debts and depreciated values.

Wikipedia has of course multiple languages, its interesting to note the picture of Charles Ponzi in the English wikipedia article:



and in the German, Spanish, Italian and Finnish ones its this:



Looks less like a businessman in there doesn't it. There are quite a good many comments to Mr Bradley in that article, I suggest you read them and see where you sit with the.

Back to handling crises:

So, if our government is taking a Colonial holdover attitude to this problem it causes us problems in the future. We can't just exploit and grow, we need to consolidate and plan.

An interesting example of this is India.

Many suggest that England simply exploited India, that's a matter for conjecture. However what they did do is leave a great legacy of railways infrastructure.

Now that this is in the hands of the later generations (with a massive and increasing population) it is falling into disrepair because they can not afford to keep it maintained even though they need it.

You don't need to travel far in India on the railways to see stations in dreadful repair carriages which are filthy and dangerous conditions everywhere.

We are having troubles right now with our infrastructure, and it does not look like easing. Throwing more people in to the mix (to provide more taxes) will only stretch the rubber band back further. Making the snap back hurt more.

Water and power provision are but two issues facing us right now.

The current government solution to water problems in Australia is to build Desalination plants, which use huge amounts of Electricity and cost billions (of course that would be on a loan...).

When Traveston Dam, the last remaining piece of a water infrastructure package, was blocked by the federal government, Ms Bligh reluctantly proposed construction of costly desalination plants in Brisbane and on the Sunshine Coast from 2016-2020.

...

"We have a number of scenarios, and what we will do is set aside the land that is necessary for new desalination plants," Ms Bligh said, promising that the region would not be put at risk by any decision to delay the construction of the desalination plants.

take a drive to Tugun and ask any local what they think of theirs... a quick google on it will show how much of a disaster that's been ... still that's for our kids to sort out isn't it.

Well, even if they solve the water crisis with Desal plants, we are running short on power to operate them ... which of course can be fixed with spending more (of your and my) money: $100bn needed to keep power on, government warn:

The government has warned of brown-outs and national power shortages akin to the water crisis if $100 billion is not spent on generators in the next 10 years, guaranteeing steep rises in electricity bills.

Power price rises have also been linked to the cost of connecting renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines, to the national electricity grid and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said at the weekend that the investment required to avoid power rationing and increase renewable energy "can only be paid for with higher electricity prices".

interesting wording up there ... akin to the water crisis ... perhaps there's a relationship.

So ponzi scheme is starting to be a theory which fits the observable facts.

The difference between the British Colonial Government in India and us is that we don't get to pull out and leave the mess behind (as the Brits did), we (and our children) will be left holding the bag.

Getting back for a moment to the increase of population and my suggestions about preferences; I feel we have swung the pendulum the other way from the "White Australia policy days" to one where we are afraid to say "no, we don't want that" ... allowing us to not discriminate.

Discriminate is not only a dirty word (although the Apartheid era in South Africa shows it certainly can be). Do you choose when you go to the supermarket? Do you not discriminate between one brand or another, making a personal choice based on preference or information?

Applying some discrimination in processing applications for residency is actually a current practice, look at the skilled migration scheme for instance. If you were educated that was a point in your favor. Not a bad thing, but perhaps there is more needed here ... like social values.

Morris Jackson in the comments to the above article makes an interesting and valid point:

Most Australians who were born here and come from families who were here at least in the 1950s do not care where new arrivals come from. BUT they do care about their ability to support themselves without dependence on a decreasing tax base. They also expect new arrivals to understand and accept that the predominant values of Australia are based on Anglo-European liberal democratic ones.

which I think is fair. Thinking back to the Snowy River scheme we got our skilled workers from Europe.

We are told that the rules for migration to Australia are strict and include being able to support yourself and your family. If that is the case, why have we seen increasing numbers of new arrivals who need social security and healthcare cards that entitles them to free medical care while ordinary Australians get squeezed to pay for it.

I would answer his question with the suggestion that perhaps these people are comming from our commitment to refugee intakes.

I think we should have some serious public debate on this issue. If we are going to be doing this there should be agreement on it, there should be understanding of it, and the costs should be clear.

Clearly the Government by itself is doing little to address this issue, so perhaps some pressure must come from the electorate back to our pollies to let them know this is a significant agenda point for us.

I recommend at least reading this interview with Dr Katherine Betts, if not reading her book. She makes an interesting assertion is that main stream Australians have their views sidelined by the "academic set" who argue that we who are "the parochials are just primitives who can't understand the benefits of population growth."

But of course Anna Bligh is right, "The Government" can't just build barbed wire fences and "stop it" ... you can't just turn off a tap suddenly.

Further I believe we live (in Australia) in a democracy, where the Government are not our rulers like ancient Kings but the public servants of the citizens of Australia. So, we need to make clear what our will is on this issue, and set in place the actions which the Governemnt then needs to act upon. Without that it'll be like a tractor going round in the paddock with noone at the steering wheel.

The Australian Government has a history of being a poor reactive machine. Their shameful reactions to the crisis of Japanese invasion in WW2 with the "Brisbane line" was pure gutlessness.

General Douglas MacArthur subsequently claimed that the line was to run from Brisbane to Perth

They rationalized (from Brisbane no doubt) that there was nothing worth keeping up in Qld or West Australia and would have given it away.

Imagine if the Japanese had taken that, with their access to resources and land the pacific war would be changed and if they now had territorial ownership of all the mines in Queensland ... coal, bauxite ... nope, nothing worth keeping up there.

Short sighted is the polite word for that.

Solving our population and environmental management crisis of right now is something which is no less urgent and pressing for all Australians. It takes time careful planning and thought. But we need to start thinking and discussing this now.

I think that much of our policy and future directions needs to have a re-examination. If we don't we may find ourselves in a situation where we have huge debts, social disarray and increasingly degrading our environment (and yes, I mean the urban one too).

tourism: an industry?

Somehow the idea of Tourism managed to transform itself into an industry.

Compared to any product I can think of this so called industry is filled with more shonky operators and rip-off merchants than anything I've ever encountered (and that includes the "ingurishu" {that's English if you didn't recognise it} schools in Japan or Korea)

Reading this article about a new campaign "There's Nothing Like Australia" just causes me to cringe.

As someone who has lived on the Gold Coast for many years (isn't that enough to put you off) I have witnessed rip off after rip off of tourists. It seems that the underlying philosophy is:

"because you won't get repeat business just maul their wallet"

I have been stunned at the treatment some of my Asian colleagues and friends have received in package tours.

I have sat stunned at the rubbish served to poor bastards hauled around in buses through the hinterland on "tours" getting their "Auzzie experience"

I've watched as world heritage areas like Fraser Island are turned into some never ending beach volleyball BBQ for backpackers (who don't give a flying fck about the pristine conditions and drop cigarette buts and feed the dingo's). Not that the locals or other Australians are any better ... walk in the dunes for 100meters and see how many tooth brushes, meters of fishing line, disposable nappies ... you find.

Just ask the police about the amount of accidents that unskilled in-experienced 4WD drivers have in their rented 4WD's going up and down the beach in a hurry. They are on pressing tight tour schedules so can't wait for the tide or anything like the environment.

When you consider that Tourism and National parks have a common history (why else do you think Yellow Stone was created?), it seems almost predictable that another Colony (recalling that USA was a Colony of England) would find yet another way to exploit the natural resources.


Now, before anyone cries JOBS JOBS JOBS ... its all good for us, let me ask "do you work in tourism?" I bet you don't because if you did you'd be likely to be more cynical than me.

And really ... what kind of jobs does it generate?

• servants for "hospitality"
• supply chain for the goods and services in hospitality
• bend over backwards for "the always right" customer

its interesting that when "guests" are staying in the hotels long showers and excessive use behavior are the norm, I mean after all, they're paying for it ... right?


Sustainable tourism ... hmm ... Sustainable Forestry anyone?

border patrol

Somehow the Customs inspections staff in Australia seem to be confused about the fact that while they are charged with an important duty they are not required to cease being polite and courteous.

Wouldn't it be nice if they had the attitude of "To Serve and Protect"

I read (yet again) about a sad case of some poor tourist getting their Iced Tea mistaken for drugs. I'm certain they were harassed badgered and treated with the presumption of guilt by the investigating officers. If the "Border Security" mockumentary is anything to go by.

As an Australian who travels frequently I can say that there are far too many officers in the Customs Staff who need sincere attitude re-adjustments and perhaps some education in Chemistry and Physics. They seem to forget that the tools of investigation that they use not magic and are strictly indicators.

Its all the more tragic that this person will receive only $5000 in compensation for spending 5 days in custody (which must be horrible in itself) and probably missed much of her intended travel time.

More galling is that she is yet to get any apology.

This is in my opinion a central issues, the officers who made the call should be required to show personal responsibility for their actions and apologize. If not then really, what mechanism prevents them from becoming arrogant and aloof.

According to the SMH

The AFP and Customs and Border Protection last night said the incident was 'regrettable' but it had acted immediately after full testing to drop the charges.

how magnanimous of them they dropped the charges. No I'm sorry, no we'll look into our procedures, nope; just move on.

The average Australian has really little idea on what goes on, holding some ideas in their heads about how our guys are perfect and doing a hard job while everywhere else are idiots and incompetent. For instance while everyone was busy screaming about the treatment of Schapelle Corby not much was said about Tikka Honda.

Recent accusations about the Victorian Police and their behavior towards Somali (probably bad) boys in Victoria suggests attitudes and behavior more consistent with the Rum Rebellion colonial troops than a modern democracy.

I think we need to move out of our Colonial past and modernise ... unless we're after more slams from the rest of the world about us being racist.

the case of the Muslim Cleric

I don't only want to the tone of this blog to be only bashing Australia, after all I was born there, lived most of my life there and I love the place.

It was a great place to grow up, bush was never far from the city and we could as kids be dumped in places like this without our parents wondering if we would be abducted, robbed or raped by some kiddy porn "jason".

Things have changed in our society heaps since then, that's for sure.

I'm thinking that part of the reason thing were safe is that we had a society which was more or less run by the moral standards of our families and that our community was not massively divided.

As I grew up I wanted to explore and experience more than was provided in our small town, something new. Moving to explore the capital cities of Australia (like Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney) I found there was great diversity in many parts provided by migrants to our country.

Now diversity does not equate to divided.

I was reading that the Muslim Cleric (Mansour Leghaei) who is presently in strife about a number of things has currently the threat of deportation hanging over him. No small problem, but before we cry foul lets look at why. The reasons for the seeking of his removal from our community are based on some ASIO assessments of him being a threat to our security.

There may be some doubts about the ASIO assesments (unless made public who can be sure) however what is more certain is his attitudes towards Australians. It has been alleged that he wrote letters to the families of deceased Australian Service Persons saying things such as:

In one case, Sheik Haron is alleged to have written a letter to the family of killed serviceman Gregory Sher, saying: "I feel bad that you have lost your son but I don't feel bad that a murderer of innocent civilians has lost his life."

emphasis mine

If this is true then I feel like this is exactly the sentiments we do not want in Australia.

Now, forgetting for a moment if Australian Service personnel should or should not be in Aftanistan, the point is that it is not the role of individual soldiers to make these decisions. That rests with the Government and the Army. How dare he violate the home of the grieving, who's family were lost in doing their job, with this sort of shit.

If you don't agree with what the government is doing then take it up via the appropriate channels.

This is not diversity, this is dividing.

He was accepted into our community as a migrant, yet his focus remains on the things he left, the places he left. Why leave them if you feel its better here?

If you feel that its better here, well, perhaps there are reasons for that, perhaps there is something wrong with where you left?

He claims to speak words of peace and love but delivers poison to the hearts of who ever is not a Muslim it seems.

There are some expectations we can have of our visitors, respecting our ways and respecting our lifestyle is among that.

So I ask Chris Evans ... why shouldn't he be deported?

growing pains

further to my recent question about the benefits of our national growth I see the that SMH reports that NSW may be forcing the market to move faster on making more room for people by forcibly acquiring private lands for resale:

THE state government is rushing to prepare laws to create a development authority with sweeping powers to compulsorily acquire and rezone privately owned land for resale to developers

looks like tough love from our Nanny who loves to protect us with laws. Its strange how I don't feel so protected. Well, anymore than my Aunt's sheep on their property feel protected by her.

Sadly I think that the machinery of Government is still following its colonial origins while the reality is we have not been a colony for a century.

Still, if the machine is not actually reprogrammed, it will keep following the sane program.

Its nice that you can't even keep your own land to yourself even if you resist the offerings of developers, to hold on to your bit of eden, they'll just take it from you it seems.

Ask the Aboriginals about it, we may be next (if we were ever regarded differently).

housing bubble or population trouble

There is often talk of a housing bubble in Australia, and comparisons made to the USA. However a fundamental difference is ignored, which is that the population growth is quite different between the two locations.

Australia has significant population growth which can only do one thing when it come to housing: require more of it.

Some sources suggest that our population is "growing the fastest since the 1960s and double the global average. Net immigration accounted for two-thirds of this people boom".

According to that we had 511,000 new arrivals last financial year. Give or take, that's a population the size of the Gold Coast just sprouting up.

No wonder there is pressure on housing. I heard recently from a friend of mine that its common practice in some parts of Australia for landlords to require 4 months rent in advance on propertys.


There is the viewpoint that we need to grow our population in Australia, this seems popular among the 'leadership' who live in cities and seem to be unable to grasp the broader issues.

Land clearing causing destruction of Koala habitat in the name of further urban sprawl are simply "problems" which need creative solutions. The trouble is that there are usually no solutions and problems roll and expand on while lots of hot air gets expelled discussing "we need to solve these problems".

This seems to be creating a groundswell of 'grass roots' negativity expressed in the "fuck off we're full" stickers adorning the bumpers of "utes". While this is hardly helpful, it is a strong indicator of problems.

This is the growth in the population of 3 major cities since between 1911 and 2001.


These three cities account for nearly half the Australian population.

To explain the graph a little I put Brisbane on a different scale to the others because unlike Sydney or Melbourne (which over the period have increased in population by around six times) Brisbane has had its population grow by nearly twelve times since 1911 (From 139,480 to 1,650,422)

This represents a startling management challenge, which I think anyone who lives in these cities may feel has not been entirely well performed.

Also, anyone who lived in any of these cities has seen amazing changes in how life is in those cities every 10 years.

When I moved to Brisbane in 1983 it was a nice but largeish country town. There was not insane traffic and you could get out into the countryside quite easily.

At that time the population was 1,028,527 ... but when I left in 2001 it had swollen to 1,619,280 and you could really notice the difference. Traffic was worse, public attitude was more strained and road rage and other less than ideal social problem was on the rise ... so lifestyle was certainly not better.

I imagine Sydney has undergone similar changes (although perhaps not as straining as Brisbane), and watching any movie filmed on the streets of Sydney in the 1980's reveals quite a difference.

But I wonder if this is in our interests in Australia ... I mean really.

Firstly Australia has a really poor record of environmental management, and I'm not just talking about how we manage our natural heritage (which should be a national shame), I am talking about how we've been managing our agriculture and forestry practices. Look at the Murray Darling crisis for just a start.

Our politicians espouse protecting our lifestyle, but seem to be busily facilitating its erosion.


If you like fishing, you can kiss good by to this area as the great fishing spot it once was ... mangroves are going and so too are the breeding grounds for fish. Not to mention the increased pressure on fishing created by the increasing population. As boat traffic is manic (along with the jetSki's I can't even enjoy sailing there anymore.

The urban sprawl is encroaching inland too, and what were previously lovely areas (habitat for wildlife) are being cleared to become just another urban wasteland.

Its like this all up and down the coast, from Coffs Harbour to Rainbow beach. Matter of fact its pretty built up between Coffs and Sydney ... and I'm willing to bet its not empty between Sydney and Melbourne?

Used to be that my family and I could live in a place where we could go fishing and enjoy walks along the shore.

Photographs like this were of a lifestyle we enjoyed as recently as 10 years ago, but is now fading into memories.

Once we could find wildlife not far from our homes ... now we seem to live in urban enclaves which have streets that are empty of humans and are filled cars instead. This has a number of impacts, including that our children can't ride bicycles to school and mum needs to start the Prado up to take them 2Km to school.

Sights like this emu walking along a country road (once familiar to my parents) are almost impossible to see.



this image was taken in a park just out of Ipswich ... there will not be any Roos there now as its in the middle of an urban sprawl now.



Our lifestyle is fast disappearing ... my question is

"what are we doing to ourselves and for what benefit?"