Asylum seekers:

James Burke writes: Re. “Government has lost control of the asylum seeker debate — but can the Coalition profit from it?” (yesterday, item 3). Much of the current population “debate” draws its heat from one astonishingly dumb attempt at spin by Kevin Rudd = his declaration that he was in favour of a “Big Australia”.

This vapid utterance not only showed contempt for those sensibly worried about the effects of massive, rapid and apparently endless population rise — whose concerns have been voiced by  Bob Brown, Dick Smith, and Kev’s own comrade Kelvin Thomson — it also handed the xenophobes a club with which to belt the government  every time the issue arises

The main drivers of recent excessive immigration were the “skilled” migrant and international “student” rorts brought in by the Howard government, designed to drive up property prices and provide Australia’s lazy and rapacious bosses with cheap, malleable labour. (All the while distracting the yobs by exploiting their irrational hatred of marine refugees.)

Those who claim there are vast and inevitable forces driving “labour shortages” ignore the massive increase in so-called “service” industries over recent years. Twenty years ago there simply wasn’t a need for mobile dog grooming services, organic juice bars, adjunct human resources (creatives and innovators) technicians* and 24-hour McCafes.  A cynic might suggest there still isn’t. Labour shortages are mostly artificial, created by our seeming inability to resist consumption at all times and places.

It’s to the government’s credit that they’ve moved to stop the rorts, but had they been quicker to shake off the melodious mantras of the business lobbies, and cannier about publicising what they were doing, they could have saved themselves a lot of grief.

By the way, could the overpopulation boosters please develop a consistent argument? Is a stable population headed towards the dread fate of moribund Japan, or towards ever higher interest rates? It can’t be both, surely.

*I made that up, but barely.

Alan Kennedy writes: As the opposition cooks up a very ugly brew of xenophobia, racism and ignorance with its boat people/migration debate let’s get one thing clear. Being “tougher ” means killing asylum seekers whether by neglect or by direct action of our naval personnel. Tony Abbott says he will turn them back  How?  He can’t just say, “off you go you’re not wanted here”. So  the navy will have to tow the boats out of Australian waters or fire on them to make them turn back.

If, as  usually happens, the boat is  scuttled or it falls apart under tow and people end up in the water what are the Navy’s orders then? If we are to believe Tony Abbott,  the orders will be leave them in  the water to drown. He will be cheered on the ignoramuses of talk back radio and their loyal band of followers. But it’s time for Tony and the  original  Sutherland Shire Bogan Scott Morrison to own  up and admit that turning back means murdering the asylum seekers.Of course it won’t be them getting blood on their hands. It will be the young men and women of our Defence Force asked to do this.

Perhaps to spare them this horrible task  Tony, Scott and their gibbering mates in the media could run asylum seeker hunting parties. Hadley could advertise them on his radio station. Make a change from  following the Kangaroos on a tour of England.

Finally let’s remember, there have been just 30,000 people arrive by boat in the past 30 years. It’s pathetic that this issue can still get the traction it does.

Les Heimann writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. I for one am grateful to Crikey for running a number of pieces covering many angles involving the entire migration debate. Population is a strategic matter for this country — probably the most important issue we face.  In plain speak — Australia needs to sort out just what sort of country and life style it wants including what population it wants to aim at and how to go about achieving the whole thing without wrecking ourselves in the process.

Xavier Herbert, in his book Poor Fellow My Country (excellent as a door stopper) used the expression “Australia Felix”. He saw Australia definitely as part of Asia and its future people as “light brown”. We are too much concerned with sameness — we fear the invading horde and too many politicians play on the demons within us — just as too many politicians haven’t the guts to lead us away from divisiveness.

Individually one must sincerely hope, perhaps expect, that cheap and popular positioning over so called illegal immigrants stops and is replaced by rational debate and a genuine airing of all the issues.

People migrate to Australia essentially for two main reasons:

  1. They want to better themselves (read immigrants).
  2. They or their families will be killed unless they get out from where they are (read refugees).

So let’s get the terminology right to begin with and let us do what we can to achieve an objective discussion on the whole bloody thing.

Ken Lambert writes: Re. “Mungo: asylum seeking — the rhetoric is hotting up” (yesterday, item 18) & “Malcolm Fraser: we should be proud of our record as a migrant nation” (yesterday, item 13).  What could you learn from Malcolm Fraser and Mungo McCallum about asylum seeker arrivals?

Well for a start you could learn that these fellow travellers of the left regularly spray their *holier than thou* missives of moral superiority over the great unwashed who are very uneasy about boats arriving every second day.  Malcolm, while disappointed by Mugabe, still thinks he is eminently qualified to pontificate on race relations and immigration.

You might learn that M&M happily dismiss the obvious and common sense moral problem of this new self-select method of immigration — the $10,000 it costs to get to Oz by people smuggler.

Could Malcolm and Mungo enlighten us as to the moral difference between setting up a window in a place of refuge overseas with a sign which says “those who have $10,000 please come forward, and the Australian Govt will speed your passage to Australia”?  “You will be regarded as one of our ‘refugee’ intake and the rest of you poor bastards who don’t have a razoo can watch these $10,000 tourists take your place”.

“Oh and to make sure you are enterprising enough — you must take a seven day dangerous boat ride to qualify”.

Of course Malcolm never studied comparative morality in his political education — but we should be thankful that he never claimed (Rudd-like) to have phoned and apologised to his partner immediately on waking up in his jocks in a colourful Memphis motel.

Malcolm Turnbull:

Andrew Haughton writes: Re. “Turnbull departs — but where is his party heading?” (yesterday, item 1). Farewell Malcolm Turnbull, too bright by far for the average Canberra politician.

Welcome Andrew Robb who will add a broad splash of beige to the colour on the Opposition front bench. His press conference yesterday reminded us that he has all the warmth and charisma of a bathroom tile.

We look forward to more of the same in the coming election campaign.

Counselling:

Sophie Li, PhD, Clinical Psychologist, writes:  Re. “Crikey clarifier: the regulation of counselling” (yesterday, item 16).  I would like to express my concern regarding this article. The public is currently very confused about the difference between psychiatrists, psychologists, clinical psychologists, counsellors and therapists (to mention only a few) and I agree the terms require elucidation.

However, the definitions provided are not only subjective but also misleading. I believe it promotes counselling and counsellors when there are many people that require more clinically focused (and heaven forbid, empirically supported) interventions.

The information provided will only further confuse people who have accessed more factual information, and mislead those who use only this information to access services.

Qantas

Joe Boswell writes: Re. “The media miss the mark on the real problems with Qantas” (yesterday, item 12). Ben Sandilands wrote:

This prima facie criminal failing on the part of Jetstar was followed by NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION by the ATSB. There is something rotten in the public administration of air safety in Australia, and the government, the Opposition, and the general media are complicit in ignoring the situation.

Yes, there’s something rotten, but let’s not blame the ATSB. It has no role or function of enforcement. It does not apportion blame. It cannot because the legislation under which it operates does not permit it.

As the ATSB says:

Under the TSI Act, it is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or provide a means for determining liability. The ATSB does not investigate for the purpose of taking administrative, regulatory or criminal action.

The rot exists because the state and commonwealth governments are completely confused about whether (in general, not just air transport) to deal with safety by proactive advice, by inspection and audit, by licensing and permissioning, by reactive investigation and reporting, by enforcement including prosecution of regulations or by some incoherent combination of these.

That’s still ignoring the bigger question of whether safety is separate from environmental regulation and how these relate to broader political concerns about public good and infrastructure security.

Neither do the governments have any clear idea how to handle the conflicts of interest that arise by giving agencies a combination of these functions or how to deal with the overlapping roles of multiple agencies all involved in the same things.

On top of that, there’s confusion about whether such agencies should really be independent of political control and whether they should be financed by the industries they regulate. And let’s not forgot the entrenched problems of the Commonwealth trying to take over matters which constitutionally belong to the states.

It’s all been so rotten for so long most people cannot detect the stink.

Jeremy Davis writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 70. Crikey published the tip: “When wondering why Qantas is flying ever closer to the edge, one of the important but seldom-mentioned issues is the age of its fleet.”

The following information was found at www.airfleets.net for a selection of international carriers that operate to and from Australia:

Average fleet age in years, (oldest to youngest):

  • Air China – 14.8
  • United – 13.6
  • Delta – 13.5
  • Aerolineas Argentinas – 12.6
  • Thai – 12.6
  • Hawaiian Airlines – 11.7
  • British Airways – 11.5
  • Qantas – 10.8
  • Garuda – 10.3
  • Korean – 10
  • Air NZ – 9.8
  • Air Canada – 9.8
  • JAL – 9.7
  • Virgin Atlantic – 8.6
  • Vietnam Airlines – 7.4
  • China Southern – 7
  • China Eastern 6.9
  • Singapore – 6.7
  • Emirates – 5.8
  • Pacific Blue – 4.5
  • Jetstar – 3.9
  • V Australia – 1

The Qantas fleet is by no means geriatric. In any case most of the “incidents” reported in the current Qantas feeding frenzy have involved some of their youngest aircraft — the A380, A330 and 737-800 series.  I have no particular loyalty to Qantas and more often than not choose to fly other carriers.

Job figures:

Marcus L’Estrange writes: Re. “Business as usual: Jobs ads slow here, while it’s boom time in the US, especially for bankruptcies, jobs and cars …” (yesterday, item 23).  Why Glenn Dyer uses the ANZ job survey figures is beyond me.

The latest Job Vacancy survey from the ABS found that we had 107,000 vacancies nationally with 600,000 unemployed chasing those vacancies, that’s if you are silly enough to believe the monthly “Labour Force” (LF) figures or one vacancy for every 20 plus 2 million unemployed if you believe the real unemployment figures in the “Persons not in the labour force survey” (PLFS).

Either way you have one vacancy for every 5 plus unemployed (LF) or more realistically one vacancy for every 20 plus, according to the PLF survey. The ABS Vacancy Survey is far more reliable than the ANZ survey because it surveys all employers, not just those employers who advertise.

When wombats attack:

Jackie French writes:  Re. “Wombat assaults man outside his caravan“, news.com.au, April 6. News published:

Jeff McClure from the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) said it was highly unusual for a wombat to attack a person.

“Wombats that are in an advanced stage of mange will become very agitated from the suffering and the irritation of the mange,” he said.

He said if wombats are approached or feel threatened they will rush towards someone.

“But it’s not known that they will push the attack to where they would physically attack someone.”

Wombats attack. Not often. Most wombats will growl, hiss, lunge or shriek, but not attack. Yet anyone who  lives with wild wombats for more than a few years  will know at least one wombat — sometimes elderly, and cranky, though more often a female with young — who will attack if a human comes within a few metres.

Out of more than 200 wild wombats, I have known three who  appeared to seek out humans to attack — two wild wombats, another human reared, who had learned that humans provide food, and became angry when that food did not arrive.

As I write this wombats are being culled under permits from the NSW National Parks, on the pretext that wombat populations — somehow, in the past 20 years of drought- have grown to pest proportions. In South Australia Southern Hairy Nosed wombats are being culled by bulldozing over their burrows, so they slowly die from thirst and hunger.

Neither culls have even the most remotely relevant scientific data to show that they are needed.  We know all we need to about wombats. They eat roots and leaves, push holes in fences, and make excellent supporting actors on TV, especially if dead and stuffed.

There are no broad scale studies of wombat numbers in Australia, beyond  counts of road kill — no true guide to wombat numbers, as in droughts wombats may travel ten  kilometres or more   to eat the green pick on the sides of the road. Private studies, such as my own, reveal widespread dramatic declines in wombat numbers leading to local extinctions, both from loss of habitat and from mange.

Mange in wild wombat populations can be controlled, but the only attempts to do this are private, with the relevant departments showing neither interest nor commitment … nor even the knowledge  that a wombat will attack, especially if you tread on it, as was the case with the recent attack in Victoria.

A terrified animal tried to retaliate when it believed it was being attacked from above. It is a tragedy for the people involved,  as well as the wombat. The ignorance of the various State Departments is the most tragic of all.

Disclosure: I am a director of The Wombat Foundation, but the views expressed above are my own.