Marks response on Roel’s blog of the a graph of refugees/nation got me thinking.
Does the fact that other countries are also struggling with the refugee situation excuse Australia, I don’t think so. One of the most interesting things is the very high number that China is taking!
The recent announcements by the federal gov’t make me wonder! An order for 54 additional attack aircraft! Who are we kidding? 54 such aircraft aren’t going to defend our huge land mass, in fact thinking about defending our landmass by military means is stupid! Another reason given was about improving Australia’s standing in the eyes of other powers! Even if it worked, is it important? How much work is that going to generate for Australians vs the USA. Is our stand on refugees impressing anyone?
We have some industry sectors, was mining construction, now mining need more employees, as well as health, etc. In essence some economists argue Australia still needs to expand its population. That is in stark contrast to most European countries or India and China, who are more generous in their take of refugee, yet our Gov’t is turning away refugees.
Australia takes the cream of educated, trained and experienced people from other often 3rd world countries when it suits them, but won’t entertain retraining and reskilling not only our own population nor refugees.
Now we are being told that due to improving health and people living longer they must now work a lot longer, another 8 years to 73! What is the point of improving health and longevity, if its primary purpose is making the already wealthy even richer. Do you imagine that any of the pollies want either themselves or their children to work for someone else in a crap job until they are 65 let alone an extra 8 years. Why become a more affluent nation, if that doesn’t apply across the board, ie, only to the already very affluent? Federal pollies are in the top 2% of Australian Incomes, federal Ministers in the top 1%, ie, some the most highly paid public servants!
I don’t see this gov’t doing much to improve employment for high quality jobs! Slaves perhaps, but apart from refugees while they are getting new skills, who is to be at the beck and call of retired pollies? Who is going to clean their windows, do their cooking, housework, gardening, servicing the car, house decorating and improvements, serve them in cafes and shops. They clearly aren’t going to do this themselves! These service sectors are the growth employment areas!
On the other hand teaching and training refugees are high quality jobs, so why aren’t we developing that area of employment. Processing refugees are high quality jobs, why aren’t we expanding these jobs? Refuges are a growth sector that no other nation wants, Australia could be experts, world’s best practise. With NBN, Australia could do a large part of that here.
If the latter was the Australian way, every non refugee immigrant might then have to demonstrate their value to Australia, against the lost value of replacing another refugee and the employment it provides of processing and training them. One of the poorest areas of training is the English language skills of Australian immigrants; for a country so dependent on immigration, I would have thought they would have least mastered that one area, but they clearly haven’t. Many immigrants not just refugees have very poor oral and written English skills, even after a few years of living here!
I needed that rant!