Australian Media Misleading on Immigration Population Growth
The mere mention of population and immigration in Australia brings emotional and sometimes hysterical alarm, because it’s true, or how data is presented?
Australian media outlets, especially of the centre, see immigration and population growth in mostly negative terms, but only through some sloppy data analysis.
How can highly educated journalists demand evidence for any claim made by others, and in their own often excellent analytical work, but when it comes to immigration and population, their lack of clear thinking and clarity would embarrass a year 12 student?
“From Tim Colebatch Fairfax: Australian population to exceed 40 million by 2060.
Almost 10 million migrants over the next 50 years would swell Australia’s population to more than 40 million people by 2060 and more than 50 million by 2100, under dramatically higher new projections by the Bureau of Statistics.
The bureau’s new projections, the first for five years, envisage tens of millions more people crowding into Australia’s capital cities over the next 50 years, overwhelmingly due to migration…..
By Leith van Onselen at Macrobusiness: Australia’s century of old age.
Yesterday, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released its long-term population projections, which provide population projections….
….. Based on the ABS’ projections, the calls for Australia to increase its immigration and/or birth rates in order to mitigate the impacts of an ageing population appear to be misguided….
… Think about these facts the next time a population booster argues for a higher immigration intake to alleviate pressures arising from an ageing population.
Earlier this month, Business Spectator’s Rob Burgess published an article strongly supporting his boss, Rupert Murdoch’s, plea that Australia maintain its high immigration intake, which he labelled an economic “no brainer”. Burgess’ evidence-free arguments were debunked comprehensively by me, which I hoped was the last I would hear from him on this issue….
… As noted earlier today, the only way to mitigate the effects of population ageing is through: (1) greater productivity growth; (2) higher workforce participation; (3) tightening eligibility requirements for entitlements, such as the aged pension, aged care, and subsidised health care; and (4) reducing superannuation concessions for higher income earners.
Perhaps Burgess should think about these facts the next time he proposes to write an article arguing for a higher immigration intake.”
In the above articles neither Colebatch nor van Onselen make any distinction between permanent immigrants and temporary residents such as 2nd year backpackers, students, 457 visa workers etc., i.e. they are all deemed to be ‘immigrants’, which suggests they are permanent? (importantly the major component of net overseas migration are temps who will never draw a pension etc.)
One suspects they are using or have been influenced by Dr. Bob Birrell’s “immigration research” which does the same, and has been strongly criticised and condemned by Australian Health Workforce, using adjectives to describe his analysis of overseas trained doctors report as ‘inaccurate, misinterpreted, misunderstood, incorrect, simplistic measures’ etc. They should be alarmed that Andrew Bolt and John Maranauskas of News Corp’s Herald Sun, Alan Jones etc. also prefer Birrell’s “research” which encourages “dog whistling” (because we are not racist!), how?
1. Through history bigots and nativists the world over have created alarm about immigration and population growth through ‘inflation’ of data, which makes for a better headline.
2. Through media and social discourse using language in a prejorative manner to emphasise a negative connotation e.g. ‘boat people’, ‘queue jumpers’, and nowadays in anglo world, ‘immigrants’ and ‘population growth’.
3. This is done by ‘conflating’ definitions so that not just permanent immigrants are counted as ‘immigrants’, but also temporaries, who are caught up also in the NOM net overseas migration data through the 12/16+ month rule (which came in 2006 for Australia, I think), so NOM = Permanent Immigration, very misleading and comparing apples with oranges.
Where did Birrell (+ Kelvin Thomson et al) learn how to do this?
“The Social Contract Press (TSCP) routinely publishes race-baiting articles penned by white nationalists. The press is a program of U.S. Inc, the foundation created by John Tanton, the racist founder and principal ideologue of the modern nativist movement. TSCP puts an academic veneer of legitimacy over what are essentially racist arguments about the inferiority of today’s immigrants.” SPLC
Of course Birrell et al at Monash University’s Centre for Population and Urban Research have contributed to and liased with Tanton’s Network, especially The Social Contract Press.
Australian journalists, try to be objective even if it is tempting not to be for a hot headline…..