Population: Numbers and faces

John Quiggin79 Comments

The question of Australia’s population is finally a matter of serious debate, after years of being settled by default and deceit[1]. As this surprisingly reasonable piece from Chris Berg of the IPA points out, even the Greens, who have generally been willing to “present clear policy where Labor and the Coalition just waffle”, have found this difficult to handle. Berg observes that the Greens are torn between general sympathy for those wanting to migrate and environmental concerns about the implications of population growth.

For Berg, a Big Australia advocate, the issue is simple. Environmental issues can always be fixed by economic growth and “high immigration … has been the fuel of the Australian economy for two centuries.” Implicitly, Berg asserts that more immigration will make current Australian residents better off. The problem, as Ross Gittins points out is that this generally isn’t true. Increased immigration doesn’t raise average income for those already here, and the need for lots of new infrastructure creates all kinds of economic and social stresses. Of course, the costs are even greater in the case of natural increase – Peter Costello’s fatuous suggestion that couples should have an extra child for the sake of the country was a prime illustration of his lack of any economic understanding, despite a dozen years as Treasurer.

So, there is no getting around the dilemma described by Berg. Considered in terms of aggregate numbers, we would be better off, economically, socially and environmentally, with a slower rate of population growth. But potential immigrants aren’t just numbers. They are people with a variety of good reasons for wanting to come here (to reunite with family members, or to take up a job to escape from persecution or just to get a better life). Refusing them admission hurts them as well as those in Australia (relatives, potential colleagues and employers, those who feel a moral obligation to help refugees) who want to welcome them here. There is no easy answer to this question, and the wishful thinking displayed by advocates of a Big Australia does not help to resolve it.

fn1. The most prominent example being the Howard government’s policy of ramping up immigration while playing on racist fears in relation to boat people. Under Abbott, the conservatives are at least consistently anti-immigrant. That makes them less dishonest, if no less ugly.

Do the math, Tony

John Quiggin70 Comments

Unimpressed as I am by Labor Julia Gillard’s Prime Ministership, they (and she) remain far preferable to the alternative. For an illustration of what’s on offer, let’s look at Tony Abbott’s claim (repated on quite a number of occasions) that a $40/tonne carbon tax will double the price of electricity. For coal-fired electricity, CO2 emissions are around 1 tonne/MWh for black coal (a tonne of coal generates about 2.5 tonnes of CO2, and also about 2.5 MWh of electricity), and a little more for brown coal. So, a $40/tonne tax implies an additional cost of 4c/kwh. Electricity prices vary a lot, but currently the standard retail rate in Queensland is around 20c/kWh, so the price increase would be around 20 per cent for households. Businesses that use large amounts of electricity pay lower prices and would therefore face a higher price increase, but since the generator cost of electricity is typically more than $40/MWh, no one paying a market-determined price would face a doubling[1].

What’s really striking about this is that it occurs in a context where Laurie Oakes is questioning Abbott about his credibility. The next question, referring to previous inconsistencies is “But, isn’t it important if you become Prime Minister, that Australians can believe what their Prime Minister says?”. Oakes is pretty good on who said what and when, but he lacks the basic arithmetic skills and policy background to call Abbott out on an obvious lie. And if Oakes doesn’t think it’s important to understand basic facts about the policy issues, you can bet the same is true of the rest of the Canberra Press Gallery, who hang on his every word.

fn1. Probably there are some aluminium smelters on cosy deals from the 1980s and 1990s paying prices below generator cost, but the odds are they would have tobe compensated in any case, whether or not this is justified economically or socially.

Creationists hijack lessons and teach schoolkids man and dinosaurs walked together

John Quiggin31 Comments
>”,”lbl2″:””,”x”:230,”y”:112},”Headline”:{“enabled”:1,”x”:0,”y”:0,”urlUp”:”headline-up.png”,”urlOver”:”headline-over.png”},”preloader”:{“radius”:25,”size”:6,”clr”:”0xae0b0e”,”speed”:15,”x”:158,”y”:65,”alpha”:0.5},”layout”:[“C”,”C”,”C”,”C”,”C”],”CustomItem”:{“bg”:{“clrUp”:”0xe2e7ed”,”clrOver”:”0xe2e7ed”,”alphaUp”:0,”alphaOver”:1,”w”:316},”btnWatch”:{“url”:”btn-watch-small.png”,”alphaUp”:0.8,”alphaOver”:1,”x”:8,”y”:55},”btnPlay”:{“bgUp”:”0x094f95″,”bgOver”:”0xae0b0e”,”arwUp”:”0xFFFFFF”,”arwOver”:”0xFFFFFF”,”lblUp”:”0xFFFFFF”,”lblOver”:”0xFFFFFF”,”alphaUp”:1,”alphaOver”:1},”separator”:{“url”:null}},”navPrevNext”:{“params”:{“enabled”:1,”x”:270,”y”:-23,”inc”:316,”interval”:5000},”bg”:{“clrUp”:”0xFFFFFF”,”clrOver”:”0xFFFFFF”},”stroke”:{“clrUp”:”0x626262″,”clrOver”:”0xae0b0e”},”arrow”:{“clrUp”:”0x626262″,”clrOver”:”0xae0b0e”},”lbl”:{“clrUp”:”0x626262″,”clrOver”:”0xae0b0e”}},”css”:{“title”:[“#094f95″,1,0,13,”_sans”,”none”],”title_hover”:[“#ae0b0e”,1,0,13,”_sans”,”none”],”body”:[“#000000″,0,0,12,”_sans”,”none”],”body_hover”:[“#000000″,0,0,12,”_sans”,”none”],”strong”:[“#000000″,1,0,12,”_sans”,”none”],”em”:[“#000000″,0,1,12,”_sans”,”none”],”dur”:[“#000000″,1,0,11,”_sans”,”none”],”dur_hover”:[“#000000″,1,0,11,”_sans”,”none”],”lbl”:[“#666666″,0,0,11,”_sans”,”none”],”lbl_hover”:[“#666666″,0,0,11,”_sans”,”none”],”views”:[“#000000″,0,0,11,”_sans”,”none”],”views_hover”:[“#000000″,0,0,11,”_sans”,”none”],”more”:[“#000000″,1,0,11,”_sans”,”none”],”more_a”:[“#094f95″,1,0,12,”_sans”,”none”],”more_a_hover”:[“#ae0b0e”,1,0,12,”_sans”,”none”]}}&htmlURL=http://www.news.com.au/national/creationists-hijack-lessons-and-teach-schoolkids-man-and-dinosaurs-walked-together/story-e6frfkvr-1225899497234″ name=”flashvars”>

via news.com.au

It’s hard to know what is most deplorable about this story, so I’ll leave it to readers to choose what they deplore most. For me, I think the comments from an Education Queensland[1] official supporting the teaching of creationism

Posted via email from John’s posterous

fn1. BTW, what’s with the reversal of English word order that has become the norm in bureaucracies these days? Not a good example for an education department (or Department Education I guess) to set.

Splitting the progressive vote

John Quiggin20 Comments

Whenever the topic of voting for the Greens comes up, the question arises of whether this involves “splitting the progressive vote” or “wasting your vote”. In large measure, this suggests results from confusing the Australian system with the “first past the post” (plurality of first preference) system that prevails in the US and Britain. In all Australian voting systems it is possible to vote Green with a second preference for Labor. Obviously, if you don’t do this (by preferencing the Lib/Nats or by exhausting your ballot where this is an option) the result will be to reduce the chances of a Labor candidate being elected. But are there any other cases where this is a risk?

For single-member constituencies, the most common case is where the Greens are sure to run third. In this case, their preferences are distributed, and a Green vote with a Labor second preference is functionally equivalent to a Labor first preference, although the views they express are different. In the rare cases where Labor is sure to run third, the opposite is true. The only interesting case is where the order in which Greens and Labor are going to finish is unsure. In this case, the outcome that gives the best combined Labor-Green chance is that the candidate with tighter preference flows should finish third. That way, there is less leakage of preferences to the conservatives. In practice, I don’t think this is a big deal, but to the extent it is at all relevant, it usually suggests that progressives should vote Green. But there is a problem with this, in that, if people really acted on this analysis, there would be a reward to the party whose voters were more likely to split their preferences.

Broadly speaking, the same analysis applies in the Senate. Most of the time, the total number of Green and Labor Senators elected will be the same regardless of how preferences are arranged between them. Given the complexities of the system, especially with voting both above and below the line, anything can happen, but since these complexities are almost impossible to predict in advance, they can’t really influence a decision on how to vote.

Race to the bottom

John Quiggin84 Comments

I restarted the blog so I could comment on the election, but I’ve found it too depressing to do much. The major parties are engaged in a race to the bottom in every respect, announcing silly focus-group-driven policies and appealing to the worst instincts of the electorate. The mass media have encouraged this, obsessing over trivial scandals and personality issues and disregarding our real economic and social problems. The only serious hope for progress on policy is the Greens but they remain marginalised. I’ll try to offer some discussion of the Greens policies on various issues but at this point, I think, there is little reason to follow the main campaign.