NSW Premier Bob Carr has strong opinions about the state of our planet - in his view environmentally ravaged by a rapacious and rapidly replicating human population. Locally, he worries about Australia's immigration rate, and the future development of Sydney and regional New South Wales. In this interview Carr makes his case for a negligible migrant intake, resistance to increases in rural populations, and Australian foreign aid tied to population control policies. What sort of population can Australia sustain? Well, all I'm saying is that - I'm not a demographer - all I'm saying is that my position is at the more cautious end of the spectrum. Ten million? No, I'm not going to nominate figures. I'm just saying that I'm at the cautious, the very cautious end of the spectrum. Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock talks about 23 million by 2040, suggesting that the Federal Government is happy with that sort of figure. Well, I don't think it would be a tragedy if we were below that figure. Certainly I am angry at people who say let's go for 50 million. That's what business is saying.. That means 10 million people living in the Sydney basin. It's hard to move in our traffic as it is; they want to more than double the population. Some academics argues that unless we have a sustainable immigration rate over time then the population will seriously decline anyway. Than we've got the perfect control that is the immigration tap, so we've got an opportunity to prevent that happening. I'm arguing against the people that want 50 million. I'm arguing for discussion to take place around the more cautious end of the spectrum. I'm doing so because of the incontrovertible evidence that Australia comprises an arid inland with a narrow coastal fertile strip, we are not like North America, we are more like Northern Africa. Regional perceptions How do you think
that sort of policy stand is going to be read in the Asia Pacific region? It's enormously popular with Australia, let me make that clear. It's easy for me to command support with this. Our neighbours, when they think about it, know that Australia's is a desert continent. But there is enormous pressure, isn't there, in terms of the immigration issue and refugee problem. There is pressure on Australia to be more lenient in that regard. I'm not aware, its never been raised with me by any of the diplomatic representatives in the visiting heads of government, when I meet representatives of Hong Kong, Indonesia, the Chief Minister of Utter Pradesh who I met at Davos. They are not saying you are duty bound to take more immigrants from Asia, that has never been raised. But there's a memory in the region of the White Australia policy - they do see us in that light? I don't think its an accurate view of Australia. I don't think its widely held. Our achievement of a multi-cultural society, and 40 years of a non-discriminatory immigration policy, have really settled that. Rural communities What about Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson out in the bush trying to talk up the lack of population in the bush, and sell higher immigration? I'd just ask him a question where is the water? and where are the jobs? What's the program for the acute environmental problems of the Murray/Darling basin I'd put those questions on the agenda for John Anderson. So you'd see building up rural populations as worsening the problems? I think we should work towards building our inland centre, but a more ambitious immigration policy results in people settling on the coast and in the Sydney basin. People who want a population of 50 million in Australia want the total urbanisation of the east coast. With a population of 50 million there wouldn't be room for many National Parks. Between the mountains and the sea there would be wall to wall urbanisation, they want Mountain to Sea urbanisation on the east coast of Australia I don't. I want to retain much of the beautiful coastline, I want to protect Jervis Bay for example, I want to retain the coastal wetlands and the National Parks. I think they are a glorious advertisement for Australia and I definitely do not want to see a steadying increase in the population of the Sydney basin. How are you going to manage this population growth the population of Sydney is likely to continue rising? The answer is by arguing for modest rather than ambitious immigration targets. Any Premier of New South Wales worth his or her salt will argue that case. Foreign Aid Where should Australia's foreign aid be directed? towards major development programs, or should we be listening to what the environmental lobby's criticisms of these projects? Development, environmentally sound development, helps. There is a tension between say, the arguments raised on the BBC's Against Nature program about third world development projects, and what the environmentalists argue? Well, I've got my own position on that I don't have to sign up to a position taken by an extreme environmental group. My position is that environmentally sustainable development for the third world helps. It helps the cause of reining in population growth. The tragedy is that in much of the Third World there isn't economic development. They are going backwards, and that supports my case. Black Africa is not enjoying economic growth, most of the economies are going backwards, the social and economic indicators are getting worse. In India, where another 500 million will be added to the population by the middle of the century, all the social indicators remain stubbornly tragic. So what sort of things should they be doing? What should Australia be doing to help? Well, all our foreign aid has got to be made dependent on population control policies in these countries and on the empowerment of women. The most useful nexus here is the empowerment of women, their empowerment through legal rights, legal entitlements and education. That's the indicator that most effectively curbs population, and we've got to think about this. We are all citizens of this planet, there is no other planet and NSW is not a region of the Federal Republic of Mars. State leaders are quite entitled to discuss global warming because in the end it affects us all. Greenhouse emissions What about greenhouse gases - are the reforms happening fast enough in New South Wales? Well, we're in front of all the other states in energy conservation, our carbon trading, our plantation activity, our protection of native conservation - a very controversial policy in our last term. There's proof that we are moving on all fronts, but I'm a bit pessimistic as to whether Australia can do something that is going to be respectable by world standards. The Federal Government's dragging the chain? They don't seem interested. Why? Is it because of the business pressure upon them? I think they are probably sceptics. Sceptics about global warming? Yes, but anyone who has read the evidence in the last 10 years knows its firmed up. You think there is no doubt at all that Global warming is inevitable? There is now a scientific consensus. In 1990 there was still a wide area for debate, but now even business isn't resistant. Major companies have pulled out of an anti-Kyoto protocol lobby in the US. Third world You've also argued that people in the Third World can't have First World standards. I didn't say that. I'm an advocate of trade liberalisation and economic growth in the undeveloped world that's the way forward. The trouble is, they are not reaching it, and the difficulty is, even where they do reach it, it is not providing the handy cure to global over-population that some of the optimists predict is happening. But they have to feel that in their own countries that they are capable of having First World standards - Well, who can argue against them. But it does mean that China and India are going to build an enormous number of coal fired power stations. You believe that India's family planning program is a failure? A spectacular failure, no-one says that it is a success. So what should India do? Well, I'm not an expert and I haven't had time to weave my way into how its failed. But it's the cutting edge of its problem isn't it? Of course, and they will overtake China as having the world's highest population. India is already more densely populated than China, and has a child mortality rate and a literacy rate equivalent to some of the poorest countries in Africa. But I'm saying if they failed in India and they failed in China then - I'm not saying they failed in China, I think the jury is still out on that. They have a very authoritarian program. Well, I'm not an expert on that, I'm not responsible for that. All I'm doing is highlighting the trend lines, and they are not optimistic, and the demographers who say that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds aren't persuading me. More on Carr's Views: Bob Carr's articles on population and environment, plus other articles and book references which support his view, can be accessed through www.nsw.gov.au/population.html
|
