Bit firstly, what are you proposing? Tell us what you would do?
Hi TC
- Reduce the baby bonus and other forms of MCW - we don't need more babies! No problem if people want to have them though, just don't support that decision financially...
We can then rely on our affluence to decrease our own birth rate by itself. All the research points to the increasing wealth of a country decreasing its birth rate, at least in the absence of MCW.
- Yes, a material increase in humanitarian intake to a reasonable number. To me that's around 50,000 genuine refugees per year for a nation of our size and means. And don't wait for them to get on a boat before they come here...
- Reduce the skilled migration program. I know from personal experience that 457 visas are all too easy to come by. If a large employer asks - they get. So why would they bother training their own people? I've seen plenty of junior engineers get looked over for training and senior roles because experienced people can be so easily imported. Why would an employer bother training someone in that case? Take away the easy option and watch how fast they figure out ways to grow their own senior staff.
- I'm also comfortable with a 200,000 to 300,000 total in the short to medium term. I'm not advocating wholesale changes at once - I'm actually reasonably comfortable with the status quo but we still need to plan 10, 25, 50, 100 years out. A plan that shows where our revenue will come from and what infrastructure is required and in what areas. For example, I would support a plan that reduced taxation in key regional areas to encourage population growth where it's needed.
- On other topics, yes a simple carbon tax along GST lines alongside reduction / elimination of other taxes.
In short, it is in our own interest to demonstrate to the rest of the world how we can help them reduce their own population (ie we should be part of the solution rather than part of the problem) and light the path to a more sustainable means of accomodating that population (energy being the most critical part of that problem).
And how do you get westerners to lower their standards of living, move into multi-story units, sell the boats, lower energy use, stop driving cars and going on holidays, and stop eating meat? Any government that tries to do this will get voted out.
Over the last century democracies have shown themselves to be up to the major challenges they have faced - like two World Wars for example. But people need to know the facts and the reasons behind the decisions that have to be made. We have only just started this discussion on a national level really so we can't expect too much too soon. Nevertheless, when push comes to shove (eg peak oil) I'm confident we will make the hard decisions - after all we will have no choice! The question is how far ahead of the curve can we get ourselves, rather than waiting for decisions to be forced upon us in potentially less than desirable circumstances.
With the baby boomers dropping by the wayside and some less selfish generations following, you may be surprised!
Just track the Green vote...
As far as I can see, by increasing our population to 60 million we are committing 100 million or more africans to starvation. They are heading there anyway no matter what happens, but it will just happen a lot earlier.
Ummm, those extra 40 million we take in will no longer be living in Africa but here? The same number of people are in the world and the same food supply is available if we do it right - they just live here rather than in the third world. We might have to drink flat whites instead of cappuccinos as a result but those 40 million people who came here will end up having a lot fewer babies than they otherwise would have. So there is much more food available than the "business as usual" path as there will be fewer people in the world.
Not sure if I read your thinking correctly on this one?
