equanimity.blog

What’s Behind David Farley’s Gaffe on Immigration?

The Right are Conflicted. So are the Left.

How could a One Nation candidate forget the party’s signature policy? Before nominating with Pauline Hanson’s party, Farley considered running for the Labor Party and also expressed support for the Independent Michelle Milthorpe who is polling neck and neck with him (The Saturday Paper). His economic views are mainstream. He believes economic growth is prosperity, even if it is driven by mass immigration.

His gaffe is a form of cognitive dissonance. It is not unique to One Nation. In fact, there isn’t a party anywhere on the political spectrum that has resolved this conflict.

water Rights

The by-election in Farrer is centering around farmers’ riparian rights to the Murray River which are being pitted against environmental flows. These two competing realities of living in the Murray Darling Basin are being framed as political choices.

The Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) is the principal government agency charged with managing the Murray–Darling Basin in an integrated and sustainable manner. It is caught between a rock and a hard place. As demand for irrigation increases, it’s task becomes more difficult. Evidence of the rivers’ deterioration cannot be disguised. A 2024 ANU study reports that billions in taxpayer dollars and ’30 years of policy reform have failed to arrest the devastating decline in the health of Australia’s most important river system’.

The ANU study is easy for patriotic Australians to dismiss. It blames White people – colonizers, dam-builders, invasive species, climate change and farmers for the rivers’ woes. It doesn’t mention population growth. It is at pains to highlight the negative impact on ‘indigenous’ communities. Additionally, the findings are decidedly unclear, casting doubt on whether the basin has in fact deteriorated. It claims the government agencies and consultants responsible for monitoring the health of the basin were not independent enough and those that were, were underfunded. Claiming independence, the ANU’s own research found that not enough water has spilled out to rejuvenate floodplain wetlands and so the abundance of waterbirds is declining. The incidence of toxic blue-green algae blooms and very large fish-kill events is increasing. Access to adequate, safe drinking water is not being met in many towns. On the upside, ‘irrigation communities are not necessarily suffering economically from federal government buy-backs of water entitlements. For example, the period of most water buybacks coincided with marked increases in profits for irrigated farms. Populations of large-bodied freshwater fish are improving, coinciding with the end of commercial fishing. Pleasingly, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the Murray River have fallen.’

So is there really a problem? The study comes down firmly on the side of environmental flows. Historically, there has been an acknowledgement by governments that too much water has been taken from the system, primarily to irrigate crops. In 1994, State governments agreed to cap further licenses to extract water. To its credit, the ANU’s study points to John Howard’s 2008 “once and for all” reform, known as the Water Act, which aimed to reallocate water from irrigation to the environment.

There appears to be a consensus that a balance is needed, but it hasn’t prevented the competing demands from becoming a political football match.

This isn’t helped by the ANU’s suggestion that river ecosystems be mapped to ensure Australia meets its international obligations. Such an obligation is unnecessary political theater and further alienates patriots. Worse, it contradicts the Principle of Subsidiarity that our federation is founded on. This states that matters should be dealt with by the lowest level of government practicable. It is at the core of our federation’s effectiveness as an efficient form of government (see Prof. Anne Towmey).

Farmers aren’t bad people. Neither are environmentalists. It’s simply a matter of physics. The flow of water down the MD Basin is limited. Australia is the driest inhabited continent on Earth.

The left side of politics suffers an almost mirror image of the right’s cognitive dissonance. The Greens support environmental flows and high, indiscriminate immigration rates (Build a Ballot). Again, at the root of this cognitive dissonance is a denial of limitations. In the case of the Greens, it also includes limitations on what is socially practical.

The political discourse on both sides appears to be framed by what the other side isn’t, rather than what works.

What is missing is a lack of appreciation of what we have. On the right, a widespread belief in optimism and growth assumes our continent’s bounty knows no bounds. But they do appreciate Australia as a nation state. On the left, there is an earnest concern for the planet – its people and environment. But they harbor a militant cynicism toward the nation state and a tendency to blame the majority of Australians for the ills of climate change and social injustices everywhere. They also believe there should be no limit to empathy or its consequences, which, given its destructiveness, can only lead to the conclusion that their priority is a reputation for empathy.

Neither is a winning strategy for people and Nature.

A far more effective approach is to harness affection for our nation continent, our inheritance both natural and cultural. Out of that affection comes true appreciation for and acceptance of what is possible and what cannot be sustained. Fewer people means there’s more water to go around. Lower immigration improves social cohesion. Ambitions that are properly calibrated to our continent’s environment will bear fruit.

Eco-Nationalism

Eco-Nationalism takes the view that people will engage with sustainable practices more readily when they see that it is inextricably tied to and important to the country they love. We need the majority of Australians – citizens with a commitment and cultural connection to our country – to be concerned about every aspect of how we live. Not just economics. Not just the environment. Not just social justice. Not just cultural heritage. Ordinary people who love Australia are far more likely to care for our continent’s environment than the whole planet’s. It is only natural – indeed healthy – for caring to begin at home and emanate out from there. As long as patriotic Australians of Anglo/European descent are depicted negatively on the issue of environmental and economic sustainability, they are unlikely to identify with it. Political division will continue and our environment will suffer in the crossfire.

Only two parties come close to combining nationalism and environmentalism; Sustainable Australia Party and Gerard Rennick’s People First Party. Both are weak on cultural issues and Mr Rennick is in outright denial of climate warming. I still support the party because apart from having good local conservation policies, it will lower immigration significantly and restore the middle class, both of which will help the climate in the long run – see How a History Scientist Votes.