asylum seekers

Population is a big issue happening in the world today, with our numbers having increased massively from around 1 billion in 1850 to what now looks like 11 billion at the end of the century. Right now, the numbers of the world’s poor increase by 80 million each year and the number of unwanted pregnancies are 210 million per annum. Considering that human population predicts 88% of impact to other animal and plant species (according to the International Union for the Conversation of Nature) human population remains a huge, yet very controversial concern. (This article was written by Michael Bayliss as part of an information booklet with Mark Allen (founder, Population Permaculture and Planning) entitled: 'Why We Need To Talk About Population.' This booklet is designed to engage with a younger, left leaning generation including environmentalists and activists. It will be available at the Sustainable Living Festival Big Weekend at Federation where Mark Allen will also present on town planning and population issues. To find out more, click here.

Australia's population numbers

It almost seems absurd to extend these world population concerns to Australia. Australia's a population of just under 24 million (at time of writing) and a density of around 3 people per square kilometre seems minuscule when compared to the demographics of other (mostly densely overpopulated) countries. Surely with miles and miles of free uncharted space, Australia could take its fair share of the world’s load? Isn’t Australia one of the highest per capita fossil fuel guzzling and carbon emitting countries in a society awash with consumerism and materialism? Couldn’t we all consume less, replace those coal industries with renewables, and open up our borders to take in our fair share?

Ecological and logistical considerations

The problem is that when you look at our continent more closely, our vast land of plenty starts to look a bit wanting. Only around 6% of our soil is arable by world standards, with 80% of the land-mass arid or semi-arid. This means that we have an incredibly fragile ecosystem with a very low carrying capacity that has struggled with white occupation for the last 200 years and it is about to get another wallop through climate change. There is every good reason why the south-east coast of Australia is populated and the central and north-west are nearly vacant, and that having large numbers of people live in the interior of Australia makes almost as much sense as populating the Sahara.

Academy of Science opinion on our population

The Australian Academy Of Science has suggested that our capacity to sustain ourselves will be maximised by not exceeding 23 million (whoops, we’ve just done that!) with Jared Diamond and Tim Flannery, painting a bleaker picture - that Australia can only support around 8 million people in the long term for our society’s current level of per capita footprint. This means that to be sustainable, we need to find ways of reducing our per capita and overall consumption by 1/3 at our current population to be sustainable, according to these predictions. However, our population is also growing at a rate of an Adelaide every 3 years, and at this rate our population will double in 35 years time. This will mean reducing our per capita output by 1/6 of current levels in a very short amount of time. What happens after then?...

Breaking taboos

The topic of population has become a taboo in Australia over the past 20 years, partly due to the ongoing perception of us living on an empty continent, and partly due to the mass media promoting the social-demographic arguments of Pauline Hanson, One Nation and others to drown out rational ecologically-based discussion. While there are educated people with no xenophobic agenda currently championing for a sustainable population such as Kelvin Thomson and Dick Smith, there is still confusion in many people's minds between population numbers concerns and racial prejudice. When I ask my friends in the environment movement why they don’t think more about population, the typical reply is: ‘Every time we discuss it, it always ends up with a white guy in his 60s ranting about immigrants.’

Rational discussion

I would like a rational discussion about population to return to the conversations of progressive and socially minded people. Population numbers are intrinsically linked to our economy, and manipulated by our government to fast-track GDP growth (as I shall explain soon) so it is really difficult to talk about the end of neo-liberal capitalism without talking about population numbers at some point. It is hard to talk about cooperative self-resilient communities and eco-villages as the way of the future whilst our town planning system is trying to keep up with an Adelaide’s worth of growth in our major cities every few years. It is hard to share our environment with our native plants and animals for much longer if an end point to our population growth is never debated and if our only option to reduce our per capita footprint infinitely lower is unrealistic. Finally, higher population growth does not automatically mean greater diversity and better outcomes for refugees and asylum seekers. Under our currently societal structure, it can even be the other way around!

Three models and three ideologies

Below are three models of possible population growth in Australia, representing three ideologies, where I want to table the pros and cons with each model. The first is the ‘business as usual’ approach of our current system. The second is an open borders policy, and the third is a sustainable population model.

Model 1: Business as usual:

Business as usual with ~1.5% growth per annum, majority of growth policy regulated to raise GDP, and with a current tax system that allows people to pay less tax from owning property (negative gearing).

As can be seen from the chart, our current model of population growth is beneficial for government to raise money through more people paying tax. It is also very beneficial for employers, as it allows an environment for more applicants for jobs, placing downward pressure on wages and conditions. It is most certainly of benefit for those in the property and construction industries, especially for those who invest in property, where a growing customer base ever drives up the demand for the price of properties in established suburbs (for now).

Unfortunately, things become pretty much worse for everyone else. Whilst it is easy enough to deduce the negative effect of this kind of population growth policy has on young job seekers (for example) and in raising general costs of living, it may be surprising to note that refugees, both past and present, are adversely affected by this type of population growth. For example, past generations of migrant market gardeners have been priced out of their area as the urban boundaries of Melbourne and Sydney expand. Likewise, refugee immigrants are being pushed out due to the increased gentrification that comes with high density living in inner city Melbourne suburbs such as Footscray, Carlton, and Richmond that have traditionally been very viable hubs of strong migrant communities. In recent years, new arrivals through the humanitarian program have tended to settle in areas around Broadmeadows, Deer Park, Heidelberg Heights and Dandenong. A far cry from (say) Victoria Street in Richmond, current generations of refugees face social isolation and difficulties in accessing essential services, which makes establishing community or assimilation more difficult. The Multicultural Development Association has reported that refugees in current times are lacking access to essential information, such as what the swimming flags mean on Australian beaches! The fact that Broadmeadows has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country is telling.

Most people are surprised to find out that our humanitarian intake has gone DOWN since the Howard Era, as proportion of our intake, from 25% prior to 1996 down to current levels of around 5-10%. As Howard himself said on 2014 on live radio:

“One of the reasons why it’s so important to maintain that policy is that the more people think our borders are being controlled the more supportive they are in the long term of high levels of immigration. Australia needs a high level of immigration. I’m a high immigration man. I practiced that in government. And one of the ways that you maintain public support for that is to communicate to the Australian people a capacity to control our borders and to decide who and what people and when come to this country.”

In other words, the asylum seeker fiasco during the Howard Government era, Tampa crisis et al, was politically engineered so that people would be complacent to another kind of population growth that the government (and big business) prefers!

Imagine if we traveled to another planet and witnessed and alien society where the government, swayed by big business, had an immigration policy that was based almost entirely on making money for small sectors of society. Imagine this was at the expense of refugees, or people in desperate need from other countries. Imagine the government engineered a border crisis so that refugees were seen as a huge problem so that, once a tough stand seen to be taken towards them, the government used that ruse to bring in population growth policies from other avenues. Imagine, in this society, the the former leader could basically state this word for word and pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. Imagine, in the society where the left were disinclined to call the government out on these policies, for fear of sounding anti-refugee and xenophobic, even when the population policies themselves are discriminatory towards asylum seekers. Imagine if keeping silent perpetuated this growth as a component of the neo-liberalist growth-at-all-costs agenda and if keeping silent on this was a liability on environmental objectives. From an outsider point of view, I’m sure the whole situation would seem more than a little illogical and farcical.

Population has been a very prickly issue for us on the left, particularly in recent decades, with the shadow of Pauline Hanson and One Nation/Reclaim Australia, and particularly when population growth is generally equated in our minds to refugees and open borders policies. However, if we choose to not debate population at all, then our current social and politically engineered population growth policy will continue, the same one that unfairly disfavours refugees and asylum seekers in favour of migration programs that generate short term increases in GDP. This is, to my mind, a very cynical neo-liberalist ideology. We, on the left, have the obligation at the very least to be educated on population policy as it currently stands, and at very least, lobby for a change in policy in favour of the humanitarian program again, even for those of us who are pro-growth. There is also a strong argument that it is very important to support the anti-war movement to prevent the formation of refugees in the first place and that refugee crises are generated by arms manufacture, neo-colonialism and global conflict.

Even if one were recipient to the short-term benefits of this kind of population growth, it must be recognised that the positives are just that - short lived. Eventually, property becomes so expensive that it is not worth investing in anymore. This is called a housing bubble, and has happened to Japan in the late 80s early 90s and currently China and the USA. Coupled with an infrastructure deficit and environmental overshoot, this can only affect everyone in the long term.

So if the current model sounds unfair to most, one might consider a more egalitarian open borders approach. Let’s explore that below, with its associated pros and cons.

Model 2: Open Borders policy:

Open borders policy, no cap on humanitarian intake, no policy to mitigate natural birth rate or GDP fuelled migration (This is in spirit the policy of the Greens Party). This model assumes growth of 600 000 per annum (250 000 humanitarian, 250 000 GDP, 100 000 natural growth).

This model is conducive to the ideal for many who identify with the social left, as an open border policy provides an unbiased avenue of entry into Australia regardless of race, religion, socio-economic status etc. An opens border policy means that industralised countries such as Australia can play a more definite role in accommodating displaced people from abroad and the idea that everyone is free to move wherever they wish to worldwide. The idea of border restriction or control can be uncomfortable for many as this implies an exclusion from those living in the majority world from the relatively privileged position of Australia. From the political field, many Labor-Left and Greens politicians support this ideology, with perhaps Sarah Hanson-Young of The Greens being the most vocal and well-known advocate of this position.

However, in trying to write the above table objectively, I tried to come up with tangible Pros that were practical rather than ideological. This proved to be more difficult than I was anticipating, and had to put in a few question marks in the pros column as the practical benefits are either tenuous or are a double edged sword with associated cons.

Speaking of the Greens, I’ve observed that many Greens policies cry out for more and more infrastructure (trains, trams, social services, public housing etc). At the same time they generally do not support environmentally destructive mining practices, not least unconventional mining such as fracking. But then, where will all our infrastructure come from? Trains lines, schools, public housing, plumbing - these all require raw materials that need to be dug up from the ground, and processed into tram lines by use of fossil fuels. There really is no way around this unless we learn a way of making train lines out of renewable resources, which isn’t likely. So much of Australia’s per capita consumption is embedded within the town planning system - suburbia and high density apartment living are both inherently resource hungry. Separation of homes and workplaces, and our physical and economic separation from our food sources result in a reliance of our earth’s resources that no amount of wilful reduction of our per capita consumption will mitigate, unless our town planning system changes substantially. If it doesn’t, there is no way we can really put much of a brake on our dependency on resources, and with model 2’s annual growth rate at 600 000 per annum, this could only escalate within our current town planning system. Instead of being able to plan to change the town planning system to accommodate more people in a sustainable way, any government would probably be doomed to play an endless cycle of infrastructure catch up under our current system - at the environment’s expense, even more-so than under our currently system.

I doubt an open borders policy would be practical for any government in the long term. Without an opportunity to transition large scale to a better town planning system, the housing, services and infrastructure costs would be huge. This means either a steep decline in quality of life for residents, or huge taxes or government debt (most likely a combination of all the above). Voters tend to not like those things. Voters on the left would also feel alienated and lied to by a government that would be forced to continue to mine for resources to build the infrastructure with, even if the economy was completely powered by renewable energy. Finally, the huge population growth would have a massive and unavoidable impact to the environment, particularly habitats and water supplies near to the large urban conurbation, even if our per capita footprint were to go down. Any government being elected on an environmental platform would soon let down many of their voters. This is probably a realistic prediction of the Greens if they won government on an open borders platform - they’d soon be shot down. This is also a conundrum that I’m sure many of the left deep down struggle with. That environmental, as well as anti-capitalist objectives, are at odds, at some point, with a human population growth that is not sustainable. Government would survive better, in the long term, if there was some compromise and balance between open borders ideology and the realities of environmental objectives.

Open borders policy only works in the long term if we can work with the world to address the root causes of conflict and displacement that generate high numbers of refugees and asylum seekers. Without this, an open borders policy is great at helping individuals in immediate need for asylum, but can only serve to diffuse the larger problem into the long term. One example is the island of Tuvalu, which made a strong case for evacuating many of its people to Australia and New Zealand in 2003, due to land loss as sea levels rose. New Zealand now has a relocation policy which is very reasonable in those circumstances, however their population is expected to more than double from 12 000 to 28 000 in by 2050. This will mean an endless cycle of relocating people, unless there is a way for Tuvalu to be sustainable in its population growth. Fortunately, according to the UN, non-coercive population sustainability strategies work if women are empowered and educated, and when there is access to family planning and contraceptive strategies (often at odds with the predominating patriarchal religions in host countries). No need for one-child policies or for coercion by the west to the majority world! Mostly grass-roots foreign aid and proactive international cooperation is key.

One final concern with an open borders policy is consideration of the original custodians of our land. My instinct is that any policy to promote population growth without consultation of aboriginal people can be easily argued as more unsolicited colonization of Australia. This belief was certainly shared by some my Noongar identifying friends and community back when I lived in WA, many of whom would be very welcoming to a generous refugee intake, if only their people were consulted on policy. If aboriginal perspective on population issues is hard to find, I imagine this can be attributable to the many other uphill battles that their communities are fighting daily, and poor representation of both aboriginal perspective and the population issue in Australian society. For those willing to search however, there are references in the literature, perhaps most poignantly expressed in the Deaths In Custody Watch Report (1994):

‘Since 1788 the non-Aboriginal powers within our lands have taken upon themselves to increase the population by many millions, meanwhile our population became near to extinction...Australia’s population is bearable at this point in time but further ecocide of this country will leave nothing for no one...Ecologically our land is on its knees: with help it can survive and resuscitate itself, but with any major increase in population this land will die, and we will die with it.’

Model 3: Sustainable Population policy:

A medium term sustainable population numbers policy that promotes (1) fiscal policies that do not encourage large family sizes and (2) promotes policies where immigration = emigration (e.g. Between 70 - 80 thousand per annum), with priority given to the humanitarian program (intake of at least 20 000 per annum, with flexibility in times of crisis). An emphasis on foreign aid funding would go to empowering women to make their own life choices, including career decisions, earning capacity and family size.

No model is perfect, and although it is probably self-evident that I advocate for this third model, it would not be objective of me if I did not acknowledge the cons associated with the model. However I would like to highlight that most of the negatives are either risks arising from poor management of the model, or from short term changes as our society goes through adjustments. On balance, this model of population sustainability strikes me as one that allows for the best balance of long term economic objectiveness, environmental and pollution goals, town planning goals, whilst allowing for a defined but generous humanitarian intake. Keep in mind that refugees and asylum seekers would be better off adjusting to a country that had the capacity to provide them with the services that they required to participate fully in their new home. They would not need so much the additional burdens of suburban sprawl, un-affordable housing, and an unforgiving job market that many refugees, along with other disadvantaged groups, face in today’s growth-at-all-cost system. That’s not to say that these problems will disappear, but they will be less and so much easier to address and manage. Currently, many migrants who come to Australia in recent times report feeling very socially isolated in the outer suburbs and miss the greater sense of community that they had back home.

Not that immigration is the only way to a sustainable population - far from it. I envision a future where families with no children are seen as societal norms just as much as families with children, and where adoption is seen as a viable and accessible alternative to couple of all sexual and gender identities. The key, as always is through education, empowerment, and allowing people to make their own choices. High schools, for example, should educate young people into the pros and cons of having children, and with consideration of the environmental impacts of having children, and the implications for future generations with worsening environmental conditions. I do not advocate fiscal policies that reward large family size, instead this money should be spent on children’s services, such as schools and and medical subsidies.

With a sustainable population, more money and energy could go into grass-roots foreign aid instead of more and more infrastructure and more investment could go into transitioning our society and economy into one that less focused on growth and more focused on social and environmental resilience. If our town planning system were to reflect the ideals of eco-villages, intentional communities, and permaculture principles, we would be in a better position to accommodate our current population longer term. We may also be in a better position to assist people in need of asylum or refuge into the future.

Final Words:

I hope this article has helped to disentangle some of the confusion and assumptions that have been barriers for further discussion on population issues for Australia and abroad. Although my own views are currently for population sustainability at this stage, I acknowledge that there will be many differing views and ideas on this topic and I hope my ideas may help to stimulate further thoughtful discussion and debate. I have not yet heard a successful argument for long term high rates of population growth that can also account for positive outcomes for our cities, towns, environment and asylum seekers, however that does not mean that one doesn’t exist! Please let me know if you have any ideas =).

Inside is the text of the public statement issued by the UN expert panel on Arbitrary Detention, which you will not find in most mainstream publications, which are seeking to obfuscate the UN opinion and its importance, with their own opinions. Julian Assange is a Victorian-born Australian citizen and asylum-seeker, recognised as a refugee by the UN. The Ecuadorian Embassy in London granted him refugee status, but the UK government stopped him from going to Ecuador by taking his passport and surrounding the embassy with police, day and night. What did Assange do? Assange famously published, on his Wikileaks, authentic film of US soldiers hunting down civilians with helicopters and machine guns as if they were in a video game. (Film: 'Collateral Damge' inside this article.) The US was so furious at this (and other very relevant exposures of its criminal secrets) that it mounted an international persecution of Assange. The mass media helped the criminal US by defaming Assange and they are still doing it because their owners support war and propaganda. Assange has been openly threatened with assassination by at least two US politicians. It is clear that in the biased US justice system, he does not stand a chance. To their great shame, successive Australian Governments have done nothing to help Assange. To my knowledge, only Senator Scott Ludlam in South Australia has criticised this abject failure to defend a great leader in the fight to stop wars by forcing transparency in government. (Please let me know of any other politician who has spoken up.)

GENEVA (5 February 2016) – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the United Kingdom since his arrest in London on 7 December 2010, as a result of the legal action against him by both Governments, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said today.

In a public statement, the expert panel called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Mr. Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation (Check the statement:  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID=E)

Mr. Assange, detained first in prison then under house arrest, took refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy in 2012 after losing his appeal to the UK’s Supreme Court against extradition to Sweden, where a judicial investigation was initiated against him in connection with allegations of sexual misconduct. However, he was not formally charged.

“The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considers that the various forms of deprivation of liberty to which Julian Assange has been subjected constitute a form of arbitrary detention,” said Seong-Phil Hong, who currently heads the expert panel.

“The Working Group maintains that the arbitrary detention of Mr. Assange should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected, and that he should be entitled to an enforceable right to compensation,” Mr. Hong added. 

In its official Opinion, the Working Group considered that Mr. Assange had been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison in London, followed by house arrest and then confinement at the Ecuadorean Embassy.

The experts also found that the detention was arbitrary because Mr. Assange was held in isolation at Wandsworth Prison, and because a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty.

The Working Group established that this detention violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Check the Working Group’s Opinion on Julian Assange’s case (No. 54/2015), adopted in December: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx

NOTE TO EDITORS:
The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate.
The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights.

ENDS

Mr. Seong-Phil Hong (Republic of Korea) is the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Other members of the Working Group are Ms. Leigh Toomey (Australia); Mr. José Antonio Guevara Bermúdez (Mexico); Mr. Roland Adjovi Sètondji (Benin) and Mr. Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine). Learn more, log on to:  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/WGADIndex.aspx

The UN Working Groups are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Library/Pages/UDHR.aspx
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx.

The Hon Richard Marles, MP

The Hon Richard Marles, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, was a guest speaker at the Australian Institute of International Affairs Victoria, on 2nd July, 2014.

The Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) is an independent, non-profit organisation seeking to promote interest in and understanding of international affairs in Australia.

(124 Jolimont Road, East Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3002)

As advertised for the event: “Associated with potentially contentious debates around population size and labour market flexibility, international migration is an undeniable feature of Australian society and future economic development. As such it warrants careful consideration from economic, social and political perspectives”.

Background

Marles comes from competent and illustrious parents. He was born in Geelong, Victoria. He is the son of Donald Marles, a former headmaster of Trinity Grammar School, and Faye Marles, Victoria's first Equal Opportunity Commissioner and later Chancellor of the University of Melbourne.

He was also the General Secretary of the National Union of Students in 1989

He graduated from Melbourne University where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Laws with Honours. He started his career as a solicitor with Melbourne industrial law firm Slater and Gordon.

He was Federal Legal Officer, Transport Workers' Union of Australia (TWU) 1994-98; Federal Assistant Secretary 1998-2000.
Assistant Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) 2000-07.

Marles was elected member for Corio on 24 November 2007 in the election that returned the Labor party to office under the leadership of Kevin Rudd.

He is now the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.

Richard Marles MP spoke on "International Migration and Australia's Future."

This is a synopsis of some of what he said:

Without immigration, our population would cease to grow and then decline.

Marles concedes that the 457 visa program must come with protection, and local workers must come first.

A sustained and fair migration program means we all benefit. Investors want security. There is a visa for the wealthy, with $5 million, to invest in bonds, funds or Australian companies.
We need immigration to compete with international investors, and it has a strong role in our economy.

Australia also needs to promote cultural and social development in our region and the world. Working Holiday Visa is a key for Australia's youth. The reciprocal nature of it allows Australians to travel overseas.

Hospitality needs this flexible workforce, and cultural ties in our neighbourhood. It provides for Gap Years. More than 185,000 came to Australia on WHV and boosted our economy. Hospitality staff still need seasonal workers with temporary workforce, and it encourages the exchange of cultures.

Tongans worked in Cosco tomatoes. It's not just for business but has global impacts. Tongans got benefits for their communities.. Household poverty levels have increased. Migrants are the key to trade innovation and brings skills and perspectives. It should be a job creating activity, filling in the employment gaps.
There is an enquiry at the moment on 457 visas. They should not become industrial tools.
Attention is not the same as when we were in government. We will be watching it very closely.

There is care and horticultural sectors, such as child care, aged care and other areas in which temporary migration can work. These areas are where there are gaps, and employers embrace it. There needs to be agencies to drive it. There must be genuine labour shortages.

Some responses to questions from the audience, and predictably most of the discussion was about asylum seekers. While it's a contentious issue of human rights, and a global problem, asylum seekers granted visas account for only 1.2% of our population growth last year out of 59% due to migration )

-Asylum seekers:
Pre 2001, pre Tampa, we enjoyed a bipartisan situation with regard to migration. We were as a country able to deal with the problem of 7 million people seeking permanent migration to Australia. We must say NO to millions of people. Even if all the political parties were on the same page, it can become impossible to navigate.

We need a more bipartisan approach and take the politics out of it. We really need to return to first principle on the values that drive us, such as compassion, fairness, and generosity.

-We must ensure that multicultural aspects of migration can be extended and migration can be as seamless as possible.

-racism
-Process of globalisation has potential to reduce racism. We are more exposed to each other. Racism is not modern. Multicultural has been embraced well. Pauline Hanson distorted the political debate. We have to embrace it as what we have is as good as it gets.
Now, we have old throwbacks to the past, with knighthood and dames. Odd!
There was an attempt to change 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and the protection from the worst elements of racism. A campaign raged. Restoring of a sense of Australia as n outpost of the British empire is not the way. Our economic future is in S E Asia.

-Malaysia solution.
In 2009 there was a growth in the umber of people globally, and the number of people wanting to come to Australia. It was better not to close Nauru. More than 1000 people have lost their lives coming to Australia.
Significant proposal was in 2011. Turnarounds have now been reduced the numbers of asylum seekers. There cannot be more than 300 or 400 that have been turned around. We need to resolve this issue as a country.
As a country we must take some responsibility for loss of lives. Dismantling Nauru wasn't helpful.

-Why can't Australia tap into the skills of asylum seekers and contribute to the economy? Labor has never used the word “illegal”. It is not illegal to seek asylum. We opposed temporary protection visas. It puts people's lives in limbo. Labor disallowed it.
A High Court Decision meant that we can't close shop. The program needs to be implemented. People will then be able to be given work rights.

We need to deal with Manus to end suicides. We need a regional arrangement regarding displaced people. PNG arrangement is significant in reducing drownings at sea. Asylum seekers shouldn't be in hell holes. They need to provide humane, dignified and safe accommodation.

Lack of empathy and communication with Grass Roots

Marle's privileged upbringing and background has isolated and immuned him from struggles and contemporary issues that directly surround him. He exists in his broad landscape, imbued by the vocabulary of academia and political frameworks. He paints a broad picture, on a big canvas, with a wide brush. No details, or real world imperfections, are allowed to be focused on. His world is a global oyster. with rich pickings. He sees a world without limits, and pearls of endless resources for economic growth. There's nothing tainted by climate change, increasing scarcities, overpopulation and energy costs. His ideas have been incubated and absorbed from academic theories, political spin, economic and political ideals - and any contrary real-world limitation have been filtered out from his vision of cornucopia. There can be endless growth, and the benefits of the globe will come to Australia without any hindrances! Marle's policies are Kevin Rudd's “big Australia” but more subtle!

Previous statements by Richard Marles

In response to the government's hard-line approach to asylum seekers, Mr Marles put forward an alternative motion in the meeting, that “asylum seekers should be afforded safe, dignified and humane conditions while awaiting refugee status determinations”.

SMH: Labor MPs fail to reverse party's asylum processing stance

By 2030, it's expected that the majority of the world's middle class will live in our time zone in East Asia, in China, in India, in the ASEAN countries. And providing goods and services to them will be an enormous economic opportunity for this country, given that we are providing those sorts of goods and services to our own population.

The density of people, economic activities in the coastal areas, rich biodiversity, and natural resource based economies make ASEAN cities especially vulnerable to climate change.

NAB chief economist Alan Oster says
Australia's agriculture is too small to be a global powerhouse like the resources sector, therefore replacing the mining boom.

Nobody would question the benefits of immigration to Australia development and economic growth. Due to our unique history, immigration has brought skills, infrastructure, economies of scale and contributed to a great nation.

Anyone who's studied science or the natural world knows that there are limits, thresholds and constraints to any growth. More of the same does not guarantee more of the benefits, without fallouts. While immigration has been beneficial and welcome, now our cities, economy, jobs market, infrastructure demands and natural systems are straining under our population overload. Bigger is not necessarily better! Nothing can be filled forever without experiencing internal pressure, or the fallouts from spill-overs. The benefits we had in the past from high immigration are now forcing job losses, unaffordable housing, the extinction of iconic wildlife species, overloaded infrastructure, higher costs of living and lower living standards.

The 2006 Productivity Report, the one being ignored, concluded that ongoing immigration to Australia would benefit the immigrants, and capital owners – and little for the general public! he research of the Productivity Commission confirms the findings of many previous studies -- that the overall economic impact of migration is very small, but probably positive. And that the benefits mainly accrue to the migrants themselves.

Actually, per capita wealth growth has largely stagnated in Australia! There is a much greater gap between the well-off, and a growing poverty problem in our country.

Richard Marles, the opposition immigration spokesman in an interview with The Australian noted, “The ageing population is going to see the size of the labour force plateau and within decades that will start to shrink.”

------------------------------------------------------------
OPPOSITION immigration spokesman Richard Marles says "the ageing population is going to see the size of the labour force plateau and within decades that will start to shrink" ("Welcome bubs, you'll live till 2101 in a very Big Australia", 27/11).
Does he imagine that by projecting our population to double its size by 2075 will stop the population from growing old? There won't be any reduction in ageing. In fact, there will be an even bigger ageing population by then.

If we need skills, our human resources should be used. Why is it imagined that skilled migrants from Asia would be better than our own?
We have seen university budgets slashed, TAFE funding cut, apprenticeship disappearing, along with manufacturing and jobs.
An economy based on perpetual population growth is unsustainable. If our budgets can't provide for pensions and care for the next generation, how will people be provided for in the future when their numbers will be even greater?

Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights, Vic
The Australian: letters/population mirage

-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were no counter arguments, points of view, or debate at this event. It assumes that, while our economic development was promoted by migration, our “future economic development” must follow suit – in strange kind of extrapolation of the past used for future policy making. It's a cornucopia attitude that if growth is good, more of it is even better. No constraints, no contemporary influences, no limitations, no realities on the real world to hamper this cornucopia vision of endless benefits from immigration and growth! It's one foot in the past without any new strategy or focus on present day implications.

Immigration policy in Britain continues to reveal depths of incompetence, as Europe is under increasing pressure from illegal immigration. Government claims that they are tackling the issues will do little to reassure a worried public.

Migration has enriched many societies, but immigration and the growing cost to communities of accommodating large-scale inflows of people, in a now crowded world, raises many challenging questions. This is not a left or right issue or racist. It is about social and environmental sustainability.

Over 22,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in southern Italy alone in the first three months of 2014. Many more have entered Greece and Spain. Well over 100,000 African immigrants landed in the Spanish Canary Islands trying to gain access to the EU in the last few years. The EU and the media attempt to cloud the picture by calling them ‘irregular’ migrants and ‘undocumented workers’, but the growing consequences of these pressures will have profound impacts.

In 2010 the European Union's population topped half a billion. Of the 1.4 million growth from the previous year, 900,000 resulted from legal immigration alone into the EU. according to Eurostat in July 2010.

The number of foreign nationals given UK passports has soared. By 2050 the Government Actuary’s Department estimates the UK’s population could rise to 90 million, 70 per cent of this due to inward migration - enough to fill a major conurbation the size of Birmingham every five years in what is already the most densely populated country in Europe. Add to this, illegal immigration.

We now face a massive increase in population as our economy is struggling. Is this a sustainable policy supported by the environmental lobby? Is this a future we would vote for? We need to know but are still not being asked.

Displaying a mixture of complacency and incompetence the UK Government first lost control of the immigration and asylum system and then tried to spin the idea that large-scale immigration was vital to our economic interests. Growing evidence has shown this to be profoundly misleading.

What matters, not least to those in already vulnerable communities, is how immigration increases the number of people who are entitled to claim on the economy and the huge impact on infrastructure, schools, health, housing and the environment. The fact that the extra population cancels out any real benefit to the resident population was repeatedly denied until exposed by an investigation published in April 2008 by the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords.

In the last five years, with high unemployment in some member countries, net migration from the whole of the EU rose to about 36 per cent of total net migration into the UK, says MigrationWatch, so nearly two-thirds is still from outside the EU. The eurosceptic press ignores this. But there is much Europe could do.

Illegal immigration pressure builds in Europe

Instability in North African countries has seen a big jump in illegals trying to get into Europe. National authorities in the EU apprehend more than 500,000 illegal migrants annually. In addition, there were 335,895 asylum claims in 2012, according to the EU Home Affairs Directorate.

Five amnesties have taken place in Italy since 1986, involving more than two million immigrants; four in Greece, four in Portugal since 1992 and three in Spain. These amnesties confirm that such strategies do not solve the long-term challenge of dealing with illegal migration.

Immigration has also had a major impact on Sweden and Norway, with their generous policies to would-be immigrants. Of nine million Swedes, roughly 1,080,000 are now foreign-born with around 900,000 children of immigrants. The city of Malmö’s population is almost 40 percent foreign, with high unemployment, social-welfare dependency and crime. Now the government wants to spread the burden, pushing other EU countries to take their share of this Swedish generosity.

Illegal migration into the EU from high-fertility countries that do not provide enough opportunities for their people presents a huge challenge. Lobby groups like the Refugee Council demand that Europe should just roll over and accommodate these continual pressures. Merely, negotiating how many each EU country should take.

Do the media and politicians seriously think that Europe can take in the populations of sub-Saharan Africa and beyond? When will the line be drawn? Most developed countries are already unsustainable in terms of resource use and the environment.

Using conflict situations to override border controls will only worsen this trend. This is a legitimate concern for millions of people, whatever their colour and background.

Once refugees and illegals are given leave to remain, most apply for citizenship and few go back to their country of origin. This can’t go on.

A global people-trafficking industry is running rings around the EU’s ‘human rights’ approach. The EU needs to send a clear message that illegals landing in Europe will simply be sent back to their county of origin within days, not be accommodated and then allowed to move around Europe.

Part of the problem is that EU countries don’t have repatriation agreements with many sender countries, but this could be remedied quite simply, as just about all the sender countries in Africa and many in Asia are recipients of generous Western aid. We need to tell them sign the agreement or aid will not be forthcoming.

Today, only Syria currently has an acute refugee crisis, but even here there is no need to give often large families permanent access to host countries, with follow up ‘family reunion’ leading to chain migration. They could simply be given temporary leave to remain while the situation settled and aid should primarily be targeted cost-benefit wise on refugee camps in neighboring countries

A bigger picture

Some people applaud Australia’s immigration system. They fail to say that Australia is letting in more immigrants each year than the country’s total annual net increase in the resident population. This, in an arid continent with only six per cent of the country suitable as arable land.

Similarly in Canada, where much of the country is too barren to support people, the Government is letting in over 260,000 immigrants a year – over twice the country’s annual net increase in births - and wants it to reach 330,000. Nearly 80 per cent of immigration in Canada is now linked to large-scale family reunion and an asylum backlog rather than primary skilled migration.

In the USA there are believed to be over 12 million illegals in the country and half a million illegal entries into the United States each year. (Pew Hispanic Center).

Ironically, Poland opened its doors to workers from outside the EU in an attempt to ease labour shortages, as it finds itself short of skilled workers because they're flocking to Britain.

Well over a million young people are not in education, work or training in the UK. Yet the Government more than doubled the number of work permits to non-EU immigrants since 1997 - despite the unprecedented influx of migrants from Eastern Europe who do not need permits. British workers wages are being depressed for employer profit, while taxpayers pick up the cost of low-wage welfare payments.

In some London boroughs, which now have immigrant majority populations of over 50 per cent, the proportion of immigrant origin school children is far higher, with potential social implications for increasing alienation and parallel societies, in conflict over cultural values. Official figures show one in every four babies born in Britain in 2009 was to a migrant mother – the rate in England and Wales was one in three.

A report by MigrationWatch (UK) in October 2010 says more than half a million school places will be needed over the next five years to meet future demand. The cost of the 550,000 extra school places will reach £40 billion over the five-year period and rise to £100 billion between now and 2020.

The UK’s Local Government Association warned that “Councils find it difficult to provide services for growing populations that are not recognised by the official statistics and for which they, therefore, receive no financial help” Yet the Government says it is scrapping the 10-year Census to save money.

Even the Conservatives’ pre-2010 election plan to allow 20,000 asylum seekers plus their dependents to come to Britain each year is equivalent to building a town the size of Truro in Cornwall or Godalming in Surrey every year. This is still environmentally unsustainable in a country as densely populated as Britain.

Crime hits us all, not least in vulnerable communities. Research by the International Centre for Prison Studies shows the percentage of foreign nationals in prison in 2012/2013 was 12.8 per cent for England and Wales, 34 per cent in Italy, 31 per cent Spain, 30 per cent Sweden, 44 per cent Belgium, in Austria 49 per cent, Greece 63 per cent and Switzerland 74 per cent - putting huge strain on our prison systems.

These are things we must face in our efforts to tackle existing inequalities in our society, not bury them in the politics of denial. We need more than ‘band aid’ campaigns and must focus real political will on tackling global environmental loss, bloody turf wars and religious feuds, overpopulation and under-employment that leads to poverty and despair.

The safety valve of migration is part of our collective history, but large-scale migration now raises vital social, environmental and economic questions about where the world is going and how we deliver reform and a better life for people wherever they are born. Like most of the key problems of the 21st Century, time to find solutions is running out.

By Brian McGavin, April 2014

The term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ was coined in 1973 after a bank robbery and hostage situation caused hostages to bond with their captors and helped them fight off those who were there to rescue them. Ironically, there is a new brand of the syndrome in the country where it originated – Sweden. Only, it doesn’t involve a few hostages and hostage-takers.

The Australian Immigration Department has been left behind by other federal government operations in its monitoring of Australia's social media chatter.

Immigration was accused of ''spying on citizens'' and monitoring online political dissent after an internet row with a pro-asylum seeker activist last week, allegations the department denies.

Could we end up being gagged about immigration, as in Sweden?

People are complying with the destructive culture to avoid punitive action being taken against them. They are being held hostage not by empathy and sympathy, but by political correctness and laws against free speech.

In total, 115,845 immigrants arrived in Sweden in 2013, many from Syria and Somalia. The figure is the highest Sweden has ever had in a one-year period. The Swedish Parliament and Government aim to have a migration policy that protects the right to asylum, facilitates freedom of movement across borders within the framework of regulated immigration, and promotes needs-based labour immigration.

Citizens of the EU/EEA and Switzerland are entitled to live and work in Sweden without acquiring a work or residence permit.

Schools, law enforcement, jobs/unemployment, welfare and healthcare are being impacted by a heavily disproportionate number of immigrants causing problems and rising costs. It will mean the destruction of the welfare system in Sweden if this goes on. It's come to the point where the police refuse to respond to calls from certain areas, areas which incidentally happens to be filled with immigrants.

As a refugee you don't have to prove anything. This gives you the right to free healthcare, an apartment and free benefits for as long as you wish for and you don’t even have to learn how to speak the language. Nobody’s flooding Africa with Non-Africans and giving them free health care, affirmative action and special privileges.

(Paraphrase of the film)
When President Obama visited Sweden last year, he expressed admiration for the "Swedish model". This should make Americans, and the Western world too, nervous. A UN report says that in about 15 years, Sweden will be a third world nation, below Libya and Bulgaria. Swedes believe their country is "racing into the future" but critics warn that it's "racing to the bottom".

Sweden has been a laboratory of social experiments. They believe they are building a perfect society. They have been compared to other countries that have tried to build perfect societies, such as North Korea and the Soviet Union. If you don't like the way it's being done, you won't be shot like in North Korea, but your life could become very unpleasant very quickly.

A journalist visited the home of a professor who thought he made anonymous comments about immigration. Left wing hackers helped the newspapers track him down, and others like him. He was then exposed to the whole nation as being "racist". Another man, a manager was fired for views critical of immigration.

A cornerstone of their society is "multiculturalism". They have mass immigration from some of the poorest and most backward nations on Earth. Swedes who disagree with this plan, you are labelled "racist", "fascist" or even "Nazi". You must be "friendly" towards foreigners, and immigration. Once you are "proven" to be hostile to immigration, you are out of the game!

It doesn't matter that the model is failing, crime is increasing and standards in schools are plummeting. Jews are living in fear in some areas, and some migrants are fearful, but Swedes are supposed to learn from immigrants, not the other way around!

Assimilation is completely out of the question! "Assimilation" is a Nazi word in Sweden. Many Swedes have their opinions stifled in fear of being called a "racist". You could lose your job, no career, you might lose your family, There was a new newspaper to cover these issues, but Swedes were too intimated to have the newspaper "Despatch International" delivered to their homes. What if the neighbours saw it? They could think your were a racist, or hate Muslims! "Despatch International" now hangs on through donations.

Sweden has become a nation in which some newspapers are too dangerous to read. Parents warn their children not to participate in public discussions, not to express "radical" ideas about this or that, because they are afraid it will harm them. You can't solve problems because you can't mention the problems!

Sweden was a good, rich country, but while it won't become a third world country overnight, there's a risk that it will!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In 2012, the World Economic Forum ranked Sweden as the fourth-most competitive country in the world. There is an image of Sweden as tolerant and liberal and a nation that take freedoms seriously, and appreciates the importance of liberty.

“In Denmark as in Sweden, says social editor Kaj Schueler, “it is sometimes argued that there are only certain things that should be said, thought, and debated when it comes to topics like feminism, Islam, immigrants, cultural differences, crime, and multiculturalism. If you do not take a politically correct stance on these questions, it is said, you are excluded from the media.”

The Death of Free Speech in Sweden

The right to express and receive thoughts, opinions and feelings is an important right. And it is also important that it has been enshrined in Sweden’s constitution.

Sweden has long had a law against ‘objectionable or offensive behaviour’ ( ‘förargelseväckande beteende’). This law, which still exists today, was applied to anti-Semitic propagandists before the hets mot folksgrupp.

Hate speech in Sweden is now defined as speech that publicly and intentionally threatens or expresses disrespect or contempt for ethnic or other such groups by alluding to race, colour, national origin, ethnic origin, creed or sexual orientation.
Hate-speech laws, wherever they exist, are invariably justified in the name of protecting people. But what this means is that the state begins regulating peoples’ everyday verbal interactions.

Assar Lindbeck has been Sweden’s most influential economist during the post-war era, and is often referred to as “The Nestor of Economics in Sweden”. Lindbeck was a leading member of the Nobel Prize committee 1969-1994. Assar Lindbeck points out that it is “clear” that Sweden cannot have open borders, since the welfare state cannot afford the strain of unlimited immigration. asylum seekers are ill-equipped for life in the high-tech Swedish society. Employment statistics show that over 60 percent of the new arrivals and their relatives have a very “rudimentary education”, which means that many of them are actual or practical illiterates.

Two women in their thirties accused Assange of rape and sexual molestation during a high profile visit he made to Stockholm in 2010 – at the height of his website’s revelations of US military attacks on civilians in Iraq. The WikiLeaks founder has long argued that the Swedish investigation is politically motivated and backed by Washington as a way to speed his eventual extradition to the U.S., where he says he would be tried for publishing thousands of classified U.S. government documents - using "rape" as a smokescreen similarly in the way they use "racism" for any criticism of immigration!

There are a record number of 54 political parties represented in the Senate in these elections.
There are obviously glaring "gaps" in concerns and policies not being addressed by the mainstream parties, the ALP and the Coalition.
Each party below, and the list is not exhaustive, was searched for policies on:
wildlife
environment
population growth/immigration
animal rights
asylum seekers
(if any are absent it's because no policy was found)

Animals Justice Party

Animal Justice Party website
Environment
Foster sustainable animal habitats through upholding healthy ecosystems via revegetation and animal-friendly land practices.

Wildlife
Put in place the absolute opposite to institutional, commercial and recreational killing of innocent wildlife.

Animal rights
The Animal Justice Party will actively campaign at a government policy level against animal cruelty atrocities relating to wildlife destruction; factory farming; animal transportation; companion and domestic animals, pet animals and the use of animals for sport and entertainment.
We’ll advocate the toughening of animal protection laws; an increase in penalties for convicted animal abusers; the regulation and restriction in the sale and use of pets, and enhance education in greater awareness and appreciation of the needs of animals.

Population/immigration
A land use and population settlement structure, one that's sustainable for its inhabitants and ecosystems.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated

Australia First Party website

Population/immigration
Reduce and Limit Immigration. Immigration mistakes can be big long term mistakes. Immigration policy must take into account social cohesion, employment opportunities, urbanisation and environmental issues.

Abolish Multiculturalism. End the divisive, government funded and institutionalised policy of multiculturalism.

Asylum seekers
The boat-people and refugee intrusions began long ago, over 30 years ago, creating enclaves in Australian cities, no-go areas, crime. It resurfaced again in the late Eighties and in the early Nineties – and it has been a constant ever since. From a past emphasis on Asian ‘refugees’ (sic) it has become Moslem Middle Easterners and Central Asians, Tamils, Africans.
But the pace is quickening, towards a great noon, a flood. I call it nothing less than that. Masses of humanity are on the move.

There are today some 14,000,000 official refugees in the world. I use that term both in its accurate and scam aspects; but the numbers of economic refugees are limitless. The bright lights of European capitalism beckon to those ruined by poverty.

Warfare, some of it symbolised by the criminal wars in and in which participates, fuels it all. And what of the civil war in between the elites and the Communist Party of India (Maoist)?

If the latter wins the war, the escaping Indian rich-class is enough to drown your country. But the problem of refugee numbers goes deeper.
#Top"> Jump to the Top

Australian Christians

Australian Christians website
Environment
Australian Christians believes that environmental issues are important because the environment is God-given and sustains life. Humans have an obligation to responsibly manage the environment and to mitigate, where feasible, environmental change and pollution. Land use management which enhances environmentally sustainable development.

Wildlife
We believe in protecting natural biodiversity and areas of significance.

Asylum seekers
Regarding stopping dangerous boat journeys, we believe the Australia Government should investigate opening a refugee processing facility, in conjunction with Indonesia and under the governance of the UNHCR in Indonesia. This could be staffed by Indonesians, providing employment for the locals, under the management of Australia personnel, and jointly funded by Australia, UNHCR and Indonesia. 

Regarding refugee intake in general, we believe Australia should re-balance the refugee intake to reduce the number of Muslim refugees and take more persecuted Christians form various African countries.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Australian Democrats

Australian Democrats website

Environment
Policies on:
-Agriculture Policy
-Biodiversity
-Biosecurity
-Coasts_and_Oceans
-Farm_Management
-Fishing and Aquaculture
-Global Climate
-Invasive Species
-Population
-Rural Land Use and Management
-Salinity Soil Conservation and Land Clearing Policy
(Ironically, the one on Population is significantly missing!)

Wildlife
To ensure planetary biological diversity by restoring damaged ecosystems to health wherever possible; anticipating, preventing and stopping processes that threaten biodiversity; fostering greater ecological awareness and progressively addressing the underlying economic, institutional and social causes of the ecological crisis.

Animal rights
Yo ensure the sustainability of natural fishing resources and aquaculture industries by means of adequate research, management and enforcement with a mind to supporting a viable industry as well as conserving the environment. Research and development of organic farming will be encouraged.

Population/immigration
The Australian Democrats believe in a non discriminatory immigration program which gives priority to refugees and family reunion, the total number of which, when included with overall population trends will not impede sustainability of the nation's natural resources.

Asylum seekers

The Australian Democrats Queensland Lead Senate Candidate for the forthcoming election has commended the Prime Minister for his actions to save the lives of refugees on the high seas, but contends Mr. Rudd’s solution is in itself an exercise in “People Trading”.

Mr. Stevenson has called for a debate on the merits of Home Detention and integration as the way forward for refugee management in Australia.  “There are more than enough compassionate Australian families willing to take refugees into their homes, care for them and integrate them into the Australian way of life, as contributing citizens.” 
#Top"> Jump to the Top

Australian Greens

Australian Greens website
Environment
Good economic management means taking care of our earth — not treating our most precious resources like a giant business in liquidation: ‘everything must go!’.  The levels of pollution in our atmosphere mean that business-as-usual will no longer work if we want to avoid dangerous climate change. The future for Australia can still be a prosperous one if we build our economy on green principles rather than short-term self-interest.

Wildlife
The Greens' plan proposes a national grants program of $5 million per annum to support volunteer wildlife carers. The program would help subsidise food and medical expenses for sick and injured wildlife and assist with purchase of wildlife care equipment.
We would support training programs for our wildlife carers.
We would fund increased knowledge about successful wildlife care and rehabilitation.
The funding would support other activities such as 24-hour wildlife care advice hotlines and community education.

Recognition of the essential role played by mature forest ecosystems in wildlife habitat, carbon storage and water supply. Australia is recognised globally as "mega-diverse” - over 80% of our mammals, reptiles and flowering plants exist only in Australia. But Australia’s wildlife is facing an extinction crisis. Many of our famous and important animals and plants are classified as in danger of becoming extinct.

Fund comprehensive studies to identify and map important habitat nationally (including protected ecological communities, areas of critical habitat for threatened species and important wildlife corridors);

The Greens have a long track record of fighting for better protection for Australia’s wildlife and precious places. In this term of parliament, we secured the $1 billion Biodiversity Fund, a grants fund supporting local and regional groups to rehabilitate degraded habitat and restore wildlife corridors and ecosystem health.

Animal rights
The Australian Greens believe that:
1.Animals have intrinsic value, separate from the needs of humans, who have a responsibility to ensure that animals’ rights and welfare are respected.
2.Humans have a duty of care to minimise physical and psychological suffering of animals resulting from human activity.
3.Strong animal welfare standards are necessary.
4.Native animals and their habitats are at particular risk and require stringent protections.

Population/immigration
The Australian Greens believe that:
1.The current level of population, population growth and the way we consume are outstripping environmental capacity. Australia must contribute to achieving a globally sustainable population and encourage and support other nations to do the same.

2.Our environmental impact and ecological footprint is not determined by population numbers alone, but by a range of factors including per capita consumption patterns and levels, distribution of resources, agricultural practices for domestic consumption and export, levels and types of industrial activity, urban design and transport options.

3.Australia's population policy should be determined by its commitment to:
-ecological sustainability;
-global and domestic social justice and equity, including women's rights;
-intergenerational equity;
-multiculturalism;
-international human rights obligations; and
-decent wages and conditions for all workers.

4.Population policy should not be primarily driven by economic goals or to counter the effects of an ageing population.

5.An Australian population policy must consider the geographical distribution of human settlements rather than just concentrate upon population size at the national level.

6.Australia has an obligation to accept humanitarian migration including that resulting from climate change.

7.The continuing rapid increase in the human population has the potential to adversely affect national or international outcomes in environmental sustainability, human health and welfare, and other areas. Current rates of resource use are not sustainable and are compounded by inequitable distribution of wealth and power.

Asylum seekers

Only the Greens are a voice for compassion in this debate.
In their rush to the right, both old parties have committed to sending refugees into danger instead of giving them safer pathways to a new home where they can rebuild their lives.

Punishing refugees with deportations, detention and military responses doesn’t work. Asylum seekers had enough intimidation, enough fear and enough danger already — and cruel camps like Manus are no place for vulnerable people and their children. It’s time to shut the camps down.
The only way to help refugees is to make sure they don’t feel the need to board a dangerous boat in the first place — and that means setting up safe, official ways for them to seek asylum in countries like Australia.
We can do that today by:
funding safe UN assessment centres to quickly process claims in Indonesia
urgently resettling more refugees once their claims are approved
then building a regional solution like Malcolm Fraser’s government did.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Australian Independents

Australian Independents

Environment
The Australian Independents are for lifting the “Renewable Energy Target” to above 30% by 2020 and 75% by 2030.
The Australian Independents are for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.
The Australian Independents are for renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower and biomass.
The Australian Independents are for significant investment in the renewables industry.
The Australian I­ndependents are against Coal Seam Gas mining and are for an immediate ban on coal seam gas mining in Australia.
The Australian Independents are for banning gas-fired power stations, fuelled by CSG.
The Australian Independents are for outlawing uranium, its transportation and export trade.
The Australian Independents are for protecting residents from toxic waste.

Wildlife
The Australian Independents are for creative ways of dealing with bothersome native animals (i.e. kangaroos in Canberra), as opposed to mass culls.
The Australian Independents are committed to outlawing whaling, including whaling for "scientific" purposes.

Animal rights

The Australian Independents are for banning puppies and kittens being sold in pet shops (as most end up being abandoned).
The Australian Independents are against "puppy farming" and are for puppies and kittens only being sold by licenced, regulated breeders and animal rescue organisations.
The Australian Independents are pushing for the caging of large birds such as lorikeets and cockatoos to be outlawed.
The Australian Independents will advocate for educational programs to highlight the consequences of, and damage that can be done by, allowing predator pets to roam after dark.
The Australian Independents will push for programs to teach Australians about the importance of vaccinations and fertility control for pets.
The Australian Independents are for reducing oceanic noise pollution to prevent whales from becoming disorientated, stressed and beached.
The Australian Independents are for minimising human cruelty towards animals.

Asylum seekers
The Australlian Indpendents are for all refugees being processed in or near their own countries. The Australian Independents are for increasing the refugee intake to 50,000 per year. The Australian Independents are for asylum seekers boosting populations of small towns in rural and regional areas of Australia.

The Australian Indpendents are for asylum seekers securing employment in rural and regional areas of Australia (currently there are over 100,000 jobs that urgently need filling in outback Australia).

The Australian Independents are for all asylum seekers who arrive by boat to be transported back to their own countries by plane, for processing
The Australian Independents are for a wide-spread awareness raising campaign to inform asylum seekers of the locations of the processing centres in their own countries.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Australian Protectionist Party

Australian Protectionist Party
Environment
Save Australia from the ravages of over-population, which is causing environmental ruin, and instead create a sustainable future for our land. Introduce measures to develop ecological sustainability. Immigration must be reduced until the completion of scientific research that will determine the “environmental footprint” of our population.

Population/immigration
Implement a zero-net immigration policy, on a “one in, one out” basis. To have sensible immigration programmes that will be geared towards accepting into our country only those people who will readily fit into our society, primarily from culturally compatible countries. To seek a homogeneous society where we can all live in harmony, free from the ethnic and racial strife caused by social-engineering experiments. End Third World immigration and Muslim immigration, and offer economic assistance to those who wish to be reunited with their people’s homeland.

We recognize that a population’s impact upon the environment is caused not just from the water they drink, the food they consume, the roads they drive on, or the products they buy – an enormous environmental impact is necessarily caused by the very creation of all the consumables that those people use, whether this occurs on farms, in factories, or in shops.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Australian Stable Population Party

Australian Stable Population Party website
Environment
Australia should progress economically and socially using resources in ecologically sustainable ways to protect the environment and the natural world. The aim is wellbeing for all Australians, present and future, and to preserve the biodiversity of our ecosystems, with enough space and resources to live well and in balance with each other. A sustainable Australia starts with a stable population.

Population/immigration
The Stable Population Party is made up of Australians from all backgrounds who support an ongoing, balanced and flexible migration program. We also reject government interference in decisions regarding family size, including offering 'bonus' cash incentives to have large families. Responsible population policies are urgently required for Australia, in order to avoid draconian policies in the future.

Stabilising as soon as practicably possible will deliver us an optimum population target of around 23-26 million through to 2050. Australia's fertility rate, currently around two children per woman, and average life expectancy would largely determine the exact number. Population growth in Australia is a big problem but it is easy to solve, if our politicians have the courage.

Asylum seekers
Asylum seekers arriving by boat (recent annual average around 10,000-20,000 p/a) make up around 10 per cent of our immigration and around 5 per cent of Australia's annual population growth of around 350,000-400,000 people.

Stable Population Party supports an annual total refugee intake of around 14,000-20,000 - the highest per capita resettlement in the world

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

Christian Democrat Party website

Wildlife
The Rev Hon Fred Nile MLC, Leader of the Christian Democratic Party, has supported the 'National Parks and Wildlife (Adjustment of Areas) Bill 2010' in the NSW Legislative Council.

The Christian Democratic Party supports the National Parks and Wildlife (Adjustment of Areas) Bill 2010. Once land is reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 it cannot be revoked unless by an Act of Parliament. The passing of this bill will allow the revocation of land, which is sometimes necessary to address boundary errors and encroachments or to enable the development of public infrastructure that is not permissible under the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

Animal rights
"Without getting into a debate about the ideology of The Greens, they always seem to have great concern about protecting the life of animals, even unborn animals—I do not oppose that—but a lack of concern for the lives of human beings".

The Christian Democratic Party respects the advice and leadership of the Shooters and Fishers Party in the area of game and feral animal control. They have expert knowledge—far exceeding the knowledge of The Greens on this issue. The Shooters and Fishers Party are part of the self-regulation of this whole area of game management licences and that is why there have been so many improvements to the area of game and feral animal control in this State.

Live exports: The animals' throats were cut and allowed to bleed, under Islamic law. they regard it as retrograde, but the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils regards it as a positive step by the Federal Labor Government to promote sharia finance law and the introduction of halal food into Australia. However, the federation is not simply promoting that; it wants a whole system of certification that companies have to apply. Apparently the companies pay a fee that goes to the Islamic body.

Population/immigration
That the root causes of hunger, poverty and environmental decay are the breakdown of the natural family and political and economic failures, not human “overpopulation”;

We are pleased that the emphasis is on Australian schools. There has been a shortage of skilled workers in Australia, which is why hundreds of workers have been brought in from overseas on special visas to work in our industries. Ideally, we should be providing those skills from our own population and education system. The fact that we need to import hundreds of individuals from overseas on special visas highlights that our education system is not producing sufficient numbers of people with the skills needed to work in various Australian industries. As with the regulation of overseas students, we must ensure that we have the quality in our own education system to meet those needs.

Asylum seekers
CDP affirms that it is the sovereign right of any nation to determine who may enter its borders for temporary or permanent stay and that the operations of people smugglers should continue to be disrupted and frustrated.

CDP considers that Australia should continue to meet its international obligations to treat unauthorised arrivals humanely and expediently consider any claims they make for refugee status.  Persons who arrive illegally and make claims for protection that are proven false should be removed from Australia as soon as practicable.  Mandatory detention should continue for all persons without authority to be in Australia, although provisions for supervised release into the community for families with children should be considered.

Australia should continue to be a world leader in being a generous haven for genuine refugees through internationally supervised and orderly refugee resettlement programs.  Priority should be given to refugee applicants who are most likely to readily integrate into the Australian way of life, including those who are being persecuted for their Christian faith.
#Top"> Jump to the Top

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia website

Environment

“The ACF seeks to destroy Australia’s productive industries, and stop infrastructure development, because it is those things that support our human population,” Mr Isherwood pointed out.

“For example, it’s the ACF that has led the charge to shut down the Murray-Darling Basin, because it is our nation’s food-bowl.”

The green issue and climate change is a “fraud”. There is absolutely no scientific rationale behind Environment Minister Tony Burke’s opposition to letting starving cattle into national parks to feed.

As the Citizens Electoral Council exposed in its 2012 video ‘Ecosystems’: A Genocidal Fraud, the idea of the delicately-balanced ecosystem is a myth. Letting the cattle into the national parks to feed is no threat to nature; it is only a threat to the agenda of green fascism.

All Australians should demand that Tony Burke stop blocking this sensible approach to alleviating the present drought crisis.

“Who will save the farmers?” Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood demanded to know, following the Gillard government’s suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia for up to six months.
“This whole issue is Green/media bulldust,” he declared. “The government’s decision doesn’t suddenly ensure animal welfare. It doesn’t suddenly change the practices of small-time abattoir operations in Indonesia. As Four Corners admitted, Indonesians don’t have enough refrigeration, so they rely on the live export trade to allow them to buy their beef fresh. By denying them the trade, the Indonesian people are being denied precious protein which enables them to live longer and stronger".

Population/immigration
We must establish generous immigration quotas, for the same reason which the Labor Party welcomed the "new Australians" after World War II—to help build our nation. From the very beginning, Australia has been a nation of hope and opportunity for people of many nationalities and religious backgrounds. While the CEC is opposed to the pious fraud known as "multiculturalism", because it pits one group against another, we warmly welcome those coming here to make a better life for themselves and their families. They will help build Australia (which will suffer a severe labor shortage as the rest of this platform is implemented), just as other generations of immigrants have done.

Ehrlich expressed his pessimism about avoiding disaster and called, like the Royal Society report, for a massive redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor—a grand Second Law of Thermodynamics leveling that will lead to even more rapid genocide.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Country Alliance

Country Alliance website
Environment

Country Alliance believes that Government must state its commitment to addressing the actions and consequences of extremist environmental protesters, such as those affecting the forestry industry and others.
Government must clearly and concisely state what actions protestors can lawfully engage in, what actions or activities are illegal and proscribe specific and appropriate penalties for those activities. Due to the 'serial' nature of some protests, prescribed penalties should be compounded with each subsequent offence.

Country Alliance opposes the creation of more national and marine parks until the management of existing management parks is assessed as adequate.

Wildlife
The creation of a statutory authority in all states to manage and oversee the management of hunting of both pest animal species and game. The amendment of current legislation to permit the consumption or use of any animal or waterfowl, whether native or introduced, that is legally taken under a pest mitigation program.

The exclusion of ducks from current provisions in existing legislation is a contradiction and should be removed.

Country Alliance supports the continuation of recreational use of four wheel drive vehicles, rodeos, recreational fishing, recreational shooting and hunting and the opening up of public lands to public access.

Population/immigration/asylum seekers
The Country Alliance is not in Government and not concerned with matters outside it's area of interest and influence.
The Country Alliance prides itself on being a local party focussing on local issues which matter most to people in regional Victoria - issues like access to basic services and fair treatment.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Democratic Labour Party (DLP)

DLP website

Wildlife
The DLP will continue to support programs and organisations that operate to protect endangered species of Australian wildlife.

Population/immigration
Concentrated excessive growth and density in urban centres puts a great strain on the environment. To limit this, we must decentralise a large proportion of the projected growth from the major cities to provincial centres. As a general principle, whenever an area of native bush land is cleared for development, another equivalent area should be protected or created.

The need to protect native plants and natural beauty must be considered before any action taken toward development.

Asylum seekers
We must focus on what we can do to help the plight of asylum seekers in a balanced, dignified, safe and compassionate way. Rather than spending billions of dollars every year on keeping asylum seekers detained offshore, we should be spending this money within our domestic economy through an onshore processing solution. This will create jobs for Australian workers while treating asylum seekers with dignity. It will save lives and strengthen our economy.

We must work more closely with our regional neighbours, particularly Indonesia, to ensure our ability to help 30,000 refugees each year in an orderly and sustainable fashion and maintaining secure borders is not undermined.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Future Party

Future Party website
Environment
The preservation of the environment is necessary for a variety of reasons, such as to preserve our clean water, air and food sources, to avoid extinction of species and preserve genetic diversity, and to ensure that the world remains an enjoyable and comfortable habitat. The Future Party acknowledges, however, that humans have advanced by manipulating and controlling the environment and life around us. The Future Party believes that the existence of humans requires some impact on the environment we live in. It is important, however, that when a decision affecting the environment is made, options that minimise the impact on the environment should be given precedence where it is feasible to do so.
Policy: The Future Party believes that native forest logging should end.

Wildlife
Clearing of native forests threaten biodiversity and increase the chances of extinction of species. Land clearing also reduces the carbon stores of land, which add to the greenhouse effect. The Future Party sees native forest logging as being of low value to the economy, while having significant impact on the environment. Hence the Future Party is against the logging of native forests. The Future Party sees the future of the Australian timber industry being primarily based on farmed forests.

Population/immigration
The Future Party currently has no formal stance on how to prevent refugee deaths at sea. However, we do intend to increase refugee immigration intake significantly, regardless of policy with regards to irregular arrivals. We consider ourselves to be the most pro-immigration party in Australia.
James Jansson, party leader and Senate candidate, said “There is no evidence at all that the program is being exploited at the expense of Australian workers. The Government is attempting to rush through legislation for a problem that isn’t even real, let alone urgent. This is purely about acting tough on migrants for political gain.”

The Government’s own report on 457 visas shows that applications have remained steady at around 6000 applications per month since 2011. The visa grant rates appear to have actually reduced slightly in recent times, with only 5150 applications granted in April 2013. The rule will do little to change employment conditions in Australia. Many of those who obtain 457 visas go on to obtain permanent residency, becoming long-term members of our society.

The Future Party prides itself on its uniquely pro-immigration stance.  

Asylum seekers
As with increases in any form of migration, consideration must be given to the stresses that increases in population put on housing supply and infrastructure, and policies should be implemented that increase housing supply and infrastructure to ensure that migrants aren’t scapegoated for the failure of governments to plan ahead for increasing populations.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Katter's Australian Party

Katter's Australian Party website
Environment
Katter: “These national parks have been grazed by cattle throughout almost all of their entire history – indeed some wild ‘scrubby’ beasts still remain – so there will be no difference to the flora and fauna from allowing them temporary access to greener pastures. In point of fact, national parks in North Qld have actually become ‘nurseries’ for feral animals and weeds since being locked  up by governments who are obsessed with pandering to the greenie monster.

Wildlife
Mr Katter blamed governments’ “pandering to the greenie vote at the expense of human lives and safety” for the increasing populations of dangerous, destructive and disease-carrying animals such as feral pigs, flying foxes and crocodiles encroaching on human territory. Mr Katter said licensed shooters were far more effective and preferable to baiting, which was indiscriminate to species such as native carrion birds, or trapping, which captured young cassowaries.

Animal rights
Mr Katter said no one had accepted responsibility or been punished for the animal welfare breaches and suspension of trade, except the cattle men in Northern Australia and millions of Indonesians who were potentially going hungry. Federal Independent MPs Katter and Wilkie also want training for abattoir workers and the upgrading of abattoirs to ensure humane slaughtering of Australian live-stock is maintained to Australian standards, while working with Indonesian authorities.

Within seven days, they also want the government to deploy 60 stun guns, knocking boxes and video cameras with appropriate training measures.

Population/immigration
Australia's sovereignty and independence as a nation requires Australia to have a sufficient population and for that population to be so distributed as to demonstrate occupation, control and utilisation of our land, water and other resources. Australia needs to increase its population to achieve acceptable levels of economic, scientific, strategic and personal development. Government must develop immigration and birth rate policies consistent with these principles. In addition, the population growth needs to be distributed widely throughout Australia and especially into northern Australia.

Federal Queensland MP Bob Katter declared war on mining magnates lobbying for unskilled foreign workers to be flown in to fill job shortages in Queensland. Mr Katter said the move would take jobs from Australians and undermine the nation's wage structure.
Mr Katter slammed the Federal Government for considering the plan.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Liberal Democratic Party

Liberal Democratic Party website
Environment
Although some people view humans and the environment as distinct and separate, in reality humans rely on the environment in the same way as any other species. All animals and plants utilise what they need to survive and flourish, adapting to the environment and making it adapt to them. Inevitably, the environment changes as a consequence.

There is nothing inherently superior about the "natural" environment, a term that simply refers to that part of the environment man has not extensively modified, nor anything inferior about the man-made environment. The elevation by some people of the natural environment to semi-religious status is no more than a reflection of their personal beliefs and values. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) aims for a more balanced perspective.

Some people simply prefer the look of them and, because they have been here longer, many native species are also more practical because they are better adapted to Australian conditions. However, a lot of species introduced by Europeans are far more useful to humans. Indeed, Australia would not be able to support a fraction of its current population were it not for exotic species. 

The LDP supports a vigorous, sustainable forestry industry. However, we regard governments as unsuitable providers of forestry services, incapable of achieving the goals of forestry more efficiently than private owners. Moreover, public funding of government forestry bureaucracies has contributed to waste and poor resource utilisation for decades.

Population/immigration
The LDP would increase opportunities to live and work in Australia while carefully guarding access to welfare and citizenship. The LDP believes the free movement of people, within and between countries, generally contributes to greater prosperity.

 It believes immigrants contribute a net social and economic benefit to Australia and advocates expanding opportunities to live, study and work in Australia while carefully guarding access to welfare and citizenship.
 
The LDP also supports “Free Immigration Agreements” with certain countries similar to the existing agreement with New Zealand.
 
Asylum seekers
It is important that Australia provides a sanctuary for people who are fleeing political oppression and persecution, both on compassionate grounds and to demonstrate to the rest of the world the attractions of a free and democratic society. Such people can also become fierce advocates of freedom in Australia, having experienced its loss.

After paying the immigration fee a migrant will become a Permanent Resident. PRs will have the same rights to live and work as citizens except they cannot vote, they do not receive an Australian passport, they are not entitled to welfare income payments (though they may still use public health, education and infrastructure) and they may be deported if they commit crimes of a serious nature or are unable to support themselves.
 
Migrants will be free to remain in Australia permanently as PRs without ever applying for citizenship or returning to their home country at any time. The maintenance of a significant non-citizen population is common in many countries including Singapore, Switzerland, Dubai, Hong Kong, Korea and Japan.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

National Party of Australia

National Party of Australia website

Population/immigration
“By 2050, Australia’s population will balloon to 40 million mouths to feed. At the same time, the world population will explode to over 9 billion. And half of these people will live in the Asia-Pacific region, literally on our northern doorstep.

“The world is entering an era of food shortage and shrinking farm production as water and farmland are eaten up by urban sprawl. Australia must ensure we can meet our future domestic needs but also capitalise on ever-growing world food needs. Their solution is to build and settle the north of Australia".

Asylum seekers
If elected, a Coalition government will establish a military-led response to combat people smuggling and to protect our borders – Operation Sovereign Borders.

An incoming Coalition government will treat the border protection crisis as a national emergency and tackle it with the focus and energy that an emergency demands.

The scale of this problem requires the discipline and focus of a targeted military operation, placed under a single operational and ministerial command and drawing together all the necessary resources and deployments of government agencies.
#Top"> Jump to the Top

One Nation

One Nation website

Population/immigration
One Nation believes in balanced, zero net immigration (subject to review depending on economic conditions) and that coming to Australia is a privilege that must not be undervalued. We reserve the right of discretion in protecting our economy, social cohesion and cultural heritage.
This does NOT mean zero immigration.

The justification for our policy of not exceeding zero net immigration is that environmentally, Australia is near her carrying capacity. Economically, immigration is unsustainable and socially, if continued as is, will lead to a further ethnically divided Australia. Current policy is encouraging large numbers of illegal migrants and it is time Australia, while recognising the contribution made by migrants in the past, sends to the world the message that mass immigration has passed its “use by date.” 

Asylum seekers
We are losing control of our borders, and it is costing the Australian taxpayer billions of dollars. Australians wanting help with housing, health and services are pushed to the back of the queue because the illegals are more important. Remember we are on the world stage and Rudd and Gillard had to present themselves as leaders of a caring and compassionate country with regards to refugees in the eyes of the world.  

What we have here is someone coming into your home telling you they like your house better than theirs and they are going to live with you. You have to feed, cloth, care, and educate them while looking after their needs. Your children now have to share a room and you have to make the dollars stretch further to provide for them. They don’t have to work you are providing for them. If you don’t give them what they want they will complain and you will be forced to answer why you are so inhumane not to have them live in your home, that you worked hard for. 

A clear message from Australians is 'stop the boats'. Now we see Rudd and his Labor puppeteers, Bob Carr and Tony Bourke, espousing that they are economic refugees and have no right to come to Australia, after all these years and 46,000 boat people later. What a backflip and do they think Australians are that gullible?

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Palmer United Party

Palmer United Party website

Animal rights
Mr Palmer said that large sectors of the rural economy had been disrupted as a result of Labor’s inability to handle the issue of live cattle exports.
“They’ve abandoned the country because they are more concerned with their own internal politics and factions,” Mr Palmer said.
“This issue has been around for so long but nothing has been fixed – it’s a disgrace.”

Population/immigration
Over the last half century, in particular, Australia’s political, economic, social and cultural development has been expanded and accelerated by the migration of people from all parts of the world.
The success of modern Australia has been its ability to accommodate in harmony such diversity of backgrounds, and to find in that diversity not division but strength in the common acknowledgement of an Australian nationhood, its meaning and importance.

Asylum seekers
Revising the current Australian Government’s Refugee Policy to ensure Australia is protected and refugees are given opportunities for a better future and lifestyle. We spend Billions of dollars each year trying to deal with illegal entry into Australia. Our Navy is deployed at great cost and does
not now do what it should do and defend Australia. People are attracted to this country by many financial and other benefits that the government offers. Families of new arrivals are separated and kept in camps at the taxpayers’ expense and many people lose their lives while people smugglers make a fortune. While all this is going on the Australian People continue to suffer. We need to change things. It is the Australian government that creates the market for people smugglers to prosper.

If a person seeking entry into Australia was allowed to board a plane for $800 to fly to one of our airports such as Sydney or Brisbane they wouldn’t need to pay the People Smugglers up to $20,000 for illegal entry to Australia.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Rise Up Australia Party

Rise Up Australia Party website

Environment
To ensure that Australia’s natural resources (forestry, minerals, fisheries, agriculture, water, biodiversity etc) and unique environments are managed wisely in accord with rational science and not by ideological environmental mantras; we therefore advocate expansion of scientific research by Australians on such areas as the marine environment, ecosystems, timber, agriculture etc.

We believe in “climate change” – for thousands of years the climate has been changing and it will continue to change; the notion that anthropogenic emissions of the plant-food carbon dioxide have affected, or will affect, the macro-climatic changes that would have occurred anyway as part of nature (e.g. volcanoes, solar variations etc) is a quasi-religious hypothesis unproven by objective scientific facts. Computer modelling always involves subjectivity and should not be used as the sole basis for policies;

Population/immigration
To promote harmony, freedom and tolerance among Australians; specifically we oppose multiculturalism; we rejoice that Australia is multi-ethnic, and that people who come here are free to celebrate (at their own, not taxpayers’ expense) their own diverse backgrounds, while respecting Australian culture and complying with Australian laws;

#Top"> Jump to the Top

Socialist Alliance

Socialist Alliance website
Environment
Capitalist globalisation is destroying the earth. We live under the reign of a class willing to jeopardise our lives and those of future generations for quick cash.

Capitalism destroys habitat and renders species extinct, yet the survival of animal and plant life is essential for human progress and should not be counterposed to so-called "development". We are bombarded with chemicals in our food, water and air. We are assailed by poisons at work, at home and in our communities. In our hands, technology will be used for human progress; in the hands of capitalists, it is used to plunder our world. The destruction of the once-mighty Murray-Darling river system, the mobilisation of megatonnes of salt which threatens not only agriculture but many rural towns (and, in time, cities); the lunacy of open-cut and acid leaching uranium mines; the huge volume of asbestos released from decaying cement sheeting and insulation - these are disasters which may take centuries to rectify, even in a socialist Australia.

"Capitalism" and "sustainability" are mutually exclusive concepts. Only socialism is sustainable

Animal rights
While supplementing and eventually replacing live animal exports for meat production with Australian frozen processed meat exports, subsidising the creation of a market for feral animal products within Australian and internationally, including non-meat production live camel etc exports.

Population/immigration
The fear that immigrants will be used as cheap labour should be countered by recruiting them to unions and insisting that they be paid the same as other workers doing the same job.

In recent years, with the rise of the environmental movement, there has been a rise of environmental arguments for limiting immigration. Those who put forward these views argue that population growth is the main cause of environmental problems. Hence they say that limiting population growth is the key to saving Australia's environment. Immigration restrictions will supposedly enable Australians to have a good environment, even if the environment deteriorates in the rest of the world.

Those advocating these views want Australians to have a relatively privileged environment compared to the rest of the world.
Some environmental problems (e.g. global warming) can only be solved on a world scale. Limiting immigration to Australia won't help with these problems.

Other problems occur on a national scale (e.g. water shortage). But this does not mean that population control is the only or the best solution.
Australia's problems with water have little to do with population. Most water is used in agriculture. And since most agricultural products are sold on the world market, Australia's population has very little effect on the amount of water used.

A lot of water is wasted in irrigated agriculture. Water evaporates or soaks into the soil from open channels before it reaches the crops. These channels should be replaced with pipes.

Rice and cotton production in semi-desert areas uses enormous amounts of water. Production of these crops should be cut back and replaced by more suitable crops.

Asylum seekers
End the Liberal and Labor bipartisan policy of keeping refugees out of under the guise of attacking “people smuggling” and “border security”. Ending this policy would include the following measures:
a.Abolish the concept of a “safe third country” which is used to screen out those who would otherwise be assessed as refugees;
b.Return Christmas Island, Ashmore and Cartier islands and Cocos (Keeling) islands to Australia's migration zone, thus enabling asylum seekers arriving on these Australian territories to have the same rights as asylum seekers who arrive on the Australian mainland;
c.Immediately resettle all UNHCR-assessed refugees stranded in Indonesia and Malaysia, neither of which is a signatory to the UN refugee convention;
d.End the deals with the Indonesian, Malaysian and Sri Lankan governments to stop refugees coming to Australia under the guise of “stopping people smuggling”. End the practice of giving financial aid to the Sri Lankan navy to stop Tamil asylum seekers leaving Sri Lanka.
e.Abolish the legislation that criminalises people smuggling.
f.End offshore processing

#Top"> Jump to the Top

The Wikileaks Party

The Wikileaks Party website

Asylum seekers
In the Senate, the WikiLeaks Party will:
-Demand full access to asylum seekers held in detention for media, NGOs, and human rights organisations and agencies.
-Demand government accountability over treatment of asylum seekers, including support for:
Reversal of the Rudd Government’s PNG arrangement.
Processing of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by the Australian government.

A cap of 45 days in immigration detention for any asylum seeker, for initial health and security checks, with any extension requiring judicial approval.
Requiring the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) to report to Parliament every 6 months on its case load, processes, results, and the health of detainees.

Repeal of the excision of Australian territories from the migration zone.
-Demand accountability in the assessment of asylum claims, including:
Opposing any legislative change to restrict or obfuscate the legal definition of a refugee.

Ensuring the Refugee Review Tribunal is respected and adequately resourced as a judicial body, able to assess facts independently and free from executive influence.

Supporting measures to subject ASIO security assessments to comprehensive and expedient judicial review, including rights of appeal for asylum seekers.

-Support measures to stem the flow of asylum seekers at the source, by working towards a foreign policy based on human rights and international law, averting conflict from the outset.

#Top"> Jump to the Top

While our government is condemned as being heartless and lacking compassion for asylum seekers, it must be considered in a national and global context.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution’. People leave their countries and seek asylum for many reasons—political persecution, ethnic persecution and gender-based violence. Overpopulation isn't one of them! (Originally published 30 July 2013, 11:23:16 +1000)

When the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was established in 1951, there were approximately 1.5 million refugees internationally.    At the end of 2012 there were 15.4 million refugees.

According to the latest figures there were 28.8 million IDPs (Internally Displaced Peoples) around the world, and global number has steadily increased from a total of around 17 million in 1997.

The annual UNHCR global trends in displacement report highlights that last year 7.6 million people were newly displaced due to conflict or persecution, with a total of 45.2 million people around the world in situations of displacement, meaning that more people are refugees or internally displaced than at any point since 1994.

On an average day in 2012, 23,000 people were forced to flee their homes around the world, which is more than total number of people claiming asylum in Australia for the entire year.

Global population has swollen from just over 2.5 billion in 1951, to now 7 billion - and growing. There are no new frontiers to settle in.

Growth in numbers of refugees since Vietnam

The Vietnam War ended in 1975 but their troubles did not, and over two million people in Indo-China became refugees in the 1970s.

Over the next five years from 1976 there were 2059 Vietnamese boat arrivals with the last arriving in August 1981. From 1989  boats arrived at the rate of about 300 people per annum for the next 9 years—mostly from Cambodia, Vietnam and southern China. 

The number of asylum seekers seeking refuge in all countries, including Australia, began to rise again in 2006. This was due to the state of emergency that was declared in Sri Lanka in 2005 and the US troop surge in Iraq in 2007. Afghanistan remained the main country of origin of asylum-seekers (36,600 claims versus 36,200 in 2011). Syria was the second largest, the conflict there reflected in a jump from 15th place in 2011 and a 191 per cent increase in asylum claims to 24,800.

Atrocious conditions in Somalia and Sudan have generated huge refugee flows, but number of East African "irregular entrants" known to be in Indonesia is tiny by comparison with South Asians and Middle East people. The scope and range of refugee sources is widening.

The majority of asylum seekers arriving in Australia irregularly by boat in recent years have been from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Sri Lanka.
Forced displacement has become a defining characteristic of sub-Saharan Africa, obliging people to abandon their homes and seek refuge elsewhere, often at the price of serious threats to their welfare and rights. The African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, known as the Kampala Convention, breaks new ground in articulating the rights of internally displaced persons (IDPs), and the responsibilities of states, regional organizations, and other actors to uphold them.

With almost ten million people internally displaced across twenty-one sub-Saharan African states, the continent is home to one third of the world’s IDPs.
Kampala Convention

Australia's population growth

Australia's population in 1951 was nearing 8.5 million, and in 1975, Australia's population was less than 13.5 million people. Australia's current population growth of 1.8% is higher than that of the Philippines, Malaysia or India. 

Due to the tight regulation on asylum seekers, Australia receives relatively less refugees compared to other countries. As the world’s sixth largest country, in 2009, Australia only accepted 0.6% of asylum seekers in the world.
This must be inconsideration to our environmental resources, and high domestic population growth.

Australia is a small nation on a large landscape.  The allusion of having large frontiers, of boundless plains to share, and capable of inhabiting millions more people is attractive, but unrealistic.

The cost of supporting more than 40,000 asylum seekers expected to be in Australia next financial year is set to average more than $70,000 each person.

This is at a time our cities already are struggling with infrastructure short-falls. Lobby groups claim that the government needs to fund $500 billion debt for infrastructure needed due to population growth.

Papua New Guinea solution

The move to settle asylum seekers in PNG  is likely to see a significant part of the cost of the asylum seeker problem carried in the foreign aid budget. Australia has agreed to a significant increase in direct assistance to PNG as well as carrying the cost of resettling asylum seekers there. 

Mr Rudd said the policy was likely to be expensive in its early stages but would ultimately reduce the budget cost of asylum seekers over time as he anticipated it would lead to a drop in arrivals.

The capacity of the Manus Island detention centre will increase from 600 people to 3000 people. Mr Rudd signalled further facilities will be established in PNG, saying there would be
“no cap on the number of people who can be transferred to Papua New Guinea”.

2.3 percent population growth is a comfortable sounding figure but what this really means is that Papua New Guineans produce over two hundred and seventy thousand babies every year. It’s the equivalent of the entire population of the Chimbu Province. 

Papua New Guinea faces many challenges in resettling refugees given many of its people already struggle to find jobs and housing.

The Asian Development Bank estimates only 5 per cent of PNG's population is engaged in formal sector employment. Approximately 85 per cent of the population live in rural areas, where they live a subsistence lifestyle or participate in the informal economy.

The causes of displacement

When all a nation's agricultural land and natural resources are used up, and there are more people than there are jobs, water, food and resources, there are only three choices:
a) live in life-threatening poverty,
b) leave for greener pastures,
c) force others to leave. This last is 'persecution'.

Refugees aren't just fleeing intolerance in a vacuum. They are fleeing overpopulation, plus the greed of corporations and developed nations' predation for dwindling natural wealth.

The refugee convention is hopelessly out of date now, based as it is on 1950's world outlook following World War when there were thousands of genuine refugees after that appalling war. We are living through only the beginning of what will degenerate into a world debacle of people 'gatecrashing' countries where life may hold a better future.

Skilled visas accounted for 68 per cent of the 2007-08 migration program, and family reunion 31 per cent. We should be taking more proven genuine refugees, not making them into a political football with random arrivals! Our population growth is a political decision, not inevitable!

Stable Population Australia say:

    “Rather than aiming to resettle ever-increasing numbers of people, our policy aim should be to relieve the pressures that force migration in the first place, and help people live in peace and harmony in their homeland.”

Kevin Rudd recently observed that the world has changed since the UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention was created.

Then, potential refugee flows numbered only tens of thousands; now they are tens of millions.

Growing poverty in Australia – a political inconvenience

While Australia is viewed as a choice destination for asylum seekers, our cities are under considerable stress from being under resourced. According to ACOSS ,(Australian Council of Social Services )   Last year 2,265,000 Australians (12.8% of all people) are living below the poverty line after taking account of their housing costs.

Community groups decry the state of housing affordability and availability across the country. In Victoria, over 36,000 people are on the public housing waiting list. A report from Australians for Affordable Housing shows that Victoria has some of the least affordable housing in the country and highlights yet again the crippling impact that high housing costs are having on our community.

For the year ending December 2012, net overseas migration was 235,900. (not including the temporary migrants).   

Family Planning initiatives

Last year the Government of the United Kingdom and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with UNFPA and other partners, pledged $2.6 billion to make family planning available to 120 million women in developing countries by 2020.

Human displacement caused by conflicts from competition for dwindling resources can be avoided through sensible, global family planning.  Overpopulation denies people the living standards they need, and the ability to live in harmony with others.

The Greens are at the crossroads as a political party — should they focus on the wider concerns of the electorate, or should they stick to environmentalism? For instance, the humanitarian crying out for the suffering of refugees needs to be focused on what drives people to become refugees, like our engagement in unjust wars, environmental damage and over-population. Dr Peter Cock says they need to stay green. [Comment from Candobetter.net editor: Some of us here think the Greens need to rebrand if they don't become green, but we appreciate the discussion in this article, which targets our concerns.]

Article by Dr Peter Cock. Originally published at Independent Australia, posted by admin on 26 April, 2013

POLITICAL DISCOURSE in Australia is dominated by jobs, deficits, refugees and living costs — and how these affect individuals. To tackle them well is to win an election. So, if the Greens want to remain relevant in Australian politics, should they respond to the issues that get media attention?

They seem to think so, having recently announced a “softening” of policies in preparation for the election. It’s the wrong course for the party.

The Greens need to accept their role as an irritating and educating core that challenges the political centre. To do so, they need to remain dedicated to applying a “green lens” to political issues and focus on educating the electorate about the impact of any proposed policies on our ecology.

The most difficult task is putting habitat before species and species before individuals. This difficulty is multiplied when the species in question isn’t our own.

Environmentalism has mobilised concern for human injustice and redirected it to other species. Live sheep trade is a good example. We are only just making connections between the well-being of other species and ourselves.

After forty years of environmentalism, “green” issues surround us. However, the focus has been to protect environmental victims. This has limited environmental advocates’ ability to challenge the values and social structures that create them.

The challenge of environmentalism is to educate citizens about deeper, harder issues and then turn that into support. Most donor and public resources help alleviate the suffering of human individuals and groups. There is little left for habitats, other species or future generations. While important, focusing on individuals limits our ability to create real change.

When environmentalism enters mainstream politics in the form of the Greens, the “green lens” of public advocacy is too caught up in humanitarian actions without reference to ecological impacts. For example, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young’s focus is on immigration and refugees as a substrate of the primary question of a sustainable population.

Need to focus on unjust wars that drive refugees

The humanitarian crying out for the suffering of refugees needs to be focused on what drives people to become refugees, like our engagement in unjust wars, environmental damage and over-population.

The environmentalist aspiration is to make all political parties “greener” and not to claim it as their own. There are many shades of green, yet the Greens need to be accountable to ecological criteria as the basis for the assessment of all policies. The Greens’ point of difference as a party should be to make green criteria central to policy, whether this be gay marriage, a wealth tax, or hunting feral animals in national parks.

The natural care for our own species can be the main vehicle through which environmentalists promote caring about other species and shared habitats. If they are to make the few supporters into the many, they have to confront their attachments and lead them to connections between their individual interests, our species, and the role of other species in sustaining life.

Forty years of environmentalism have revealed a politics embedded in using accumulated resources to suppress change. However, there is increasing awareness that our relations with the earth are at a critical junction. While small groups are creating a transformative possibility, many despair.

Many people still may not grasp the arguments made by environment activists — that to have a chance of avoiding catastrophe, the human race needs to end its perceived war against nature and embrace change. The true challenge of environmentalism is to gain wide acknowledgement of the possibility for societal transformation and then achieve it, rather than just blaming particular groups or corporations.

As important as grassroots efforts, change at the top of green politics is necessary. Applying a “green lens” to policy is part of this. It has the potential to shape not only political discourse, but also to encourage environmental thinking in the general population. Doing so, they can be a source of hope and energy for transformation.

The Greens would be remiss to abandon their part in guiding the change, and inspiring the next wave of ecowarriors to bring it to fruition.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

During the high immigration Howard era- the fuss about the boats was a smokescreen for the fact that we were getting a lot of extra government induced totally legal non- refugee immigration which was putting pressure on absolutely everything- environment, roads, housing etc. . Howard was a high population PM whist pretending to be jealously protecting Australia’s borders. This hypocrisy and the same game still goes on with Julia Gillard although without “children overboard”.

In their second series of Go back to where you came from SBS Television convey the message that a large section of Australian society are really worried about asylum seekers, notably 'boat people' flooding Australia. It seems that those same Australians do not have a clue as to the real flood, which consists of hundreds of thousands of economic migrants and their families. It appears (from what Mr Reith said on Insight on Friday 31 August 2012) that governments believe that Australians are pacified simply by the being told by governments that immigrants are 'legal' and that the immigration stream is properly managed.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Truth about immigration in Australia

During the high immigration Howard era, the fuss about the boats was a smokescreen for the fact that we were getting a lot of extra government induced totally legal non-refugee immigration which was putting pressure on absolutely everything: environment, roads, housing etc. . Howard was a high population PM whist pretending to be jealously protecting Australia’s borders. This hypocrisy and the same game still goes on with Julia Gillard although without “children overboard”.

Asylum Seekers - Onshore or Offshore Processing; that is the question

The asylum seekers have the right to seek asylum. They are not “illegals” as Tony Abbott calls them. Whether their claims should be processed on or offshore is the main question. The numbers of people who arrive by boat are very low compared with the numbers of people who come in as immigrants under our skilled migrations scheme. The numbers the government plan to admit as permanent entries in the non-refugee "planned" migration stream this coming year is 190,000 up from 185,000 in the year 2011-12.

Think of all the additional houses, roads, cars, schools, teachers, doctors, hospitals needed for this extra population!

Australia brings in about 14,000 people under its humanitarian program and any successful applicants amongst the boat arrivals are included in this quota. I think the government has just recently increased this to 20,000.

Numbers in Australia

The ultimate carrying capacity for Australia is, I believe (from my reading of books and Internet) quite low. The Aborigines numbered less than one million when Europeans arrived. Australia now carries more than 20 times that number of people largely because fossil fuels enable our very infertile and intermittently watered soils to produce far more than they would without this assistance.

Australia is already overpopulated: immigration is now costing more than money

Australia is already overpopulated. This is clear from all the environmental indicators. See for instance, the 2008 State of the Environment Report for Victoria. All indicators are declining because of population pressures. These include waterways coastal areas, biodiversity...

Australia really needs to stabilise its population as soon as possible and then allow it to reduce. With no immigration at all Australia’s population would increase by about 150,000 p.a. for the next few decades due to the number of women of childbearing age in our population. Until there are fewer women in their child bearing years, as the population ages, without high immigration, the growth rate would remain around half what it is now, which would still be quite high.

See the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures for 2011 at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3101.0/

In other words- I do not get too worried about asylum seekers as a component of Australia's population growth when governments are significantly undermining our lives, our future and unraveling our environment through huge numbers of invited and economic immigrants, whether asylum seekers come or not.

I find it strange and somewhat alarming that apparently so many viewers of SBS do not have a clue about the problem of the growing numbers in the planned immigration stream. Why didn't SBS even mention this in their four nights of program on the subject of fear of asylum seeker floods?

Both sides of parliament are saying that the problem is asylum seekers dying at sea as they attempt to reach Australia. Other groups claim that we are "racist" and "xenophobic" for being heartless, and that we have the capacity for an open-door approach of the Greens. There are probably millions, if not billions of impoverished, persecuted peoples who see Australia as a "rich" country and an ideal soft target for resettlement. This is despite the pressure on jobs, housing, infrastructure, food security and environmental concerns. If we need to make a deal with Malaysia, or Indonesia, we should be free to do so. The solution is to discard our alliance with the UN Refugee Convention.

Julian Burnside: Australia does not want boat people, dead or alive

The Australian government is currently embroiled in a heavy debate over asylum seekers in light of the recent tragedy. Both sides of parliament are saying that the problem is asylum seekers dying at sea as they attempt to reach Australia but, "they just don't want boat people getting here at all, dead or alive," the Australian barrister Julian Burnside told ABC radio.

Of course our government doesn't want asylum seekers. It prefers the well-heeled and educated immigrants. Burnside says Australia needs to set up a fair dinkum, fair processing system in Indonesia with the co-operation of the Indonesian government.

The safe and off-shore selection of approved refugees being settled orderly into Australia is the obvious solution to the problem but one that doesn't want to be mentioned or accepted.

Other groups claim that we are "racist" and "xenophobic" for being heartless, and that we have the capacity for an open-door approach supported by the Greens.

According to a recent Monash report, the Australian Government is running a record-high migration program, which it intends to increase in 2012–13. Just over half of the migrants are locating in Sydney and Melbourne, rather than in the resource industry states. At the same time as the Labor Government is permitting employers to sponsor an unlimited number of temporary entry 457 visa holders.

It means we will have the highest annual permanent entry level since World War Two.

The 2012–13 immigration program: record numbers, city-bound by Bob Birrell and Genevieve Heard

Population pressure already on Australia

There are probably millions, if not billions of impoverished, persecuted peoples who vie Australia as a "rich" country and an ideal soft target for resettlement. This is despite the pressure on jobs, housing, infrastructure, food security and environmental concerns.
Already Australia has shortages of public housing, hospital beds, public funding for education, and health care. The "Lucky country" has been exploited for its full extent, and housing is either un affordable or people are under mortgage stress.

The carbon tax will exacerbate the heavy costs of energy infrastructure that continually must expand for our burgeoning population.

The Refugee convention

Australia is one of 147 signatory countries to the Refugees Convention. In the 2010–11 program year, the Humanitarian Program delivered 13 799 visas. This number included 8971 visas granted to persons offshore and 4828 program countable visas granted to people seeking protection in Australia.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres warned in May 2012 that factors causing mass population flight are growing and over the coming decade more people on the move will become refugees or displaced within their own country.

"The world is creating displacement faster than it is producing solutions," said Guterres.
Guterres said displacement from conflict was becoming compounded by a combination of causes, including climate change, population growth, urbanization, food insecurity, water scarcity and resource competition.

Australian political fixation with asylum seekers

Australia’s fixation with asylum seekers arriving by boat has cost taxpayers nearly $2.4b since 2000, according to Budget and ANAO documents. The expenditure includes spending to deter, process and most of all detain asylum seekers who have arrived by boat. The cost also does not include hundreds of millions spent on border security measures adopted under the Howard Government.

We simply cannot afford to increase our humanitarian settlement while we are forced to devote a disproportionate amount of resources to dealing with boat arrivals, which is a very expensive proposition. For the first four years of any increase in our Humanitarian Program, every additional 1000 resettlement places would cost the Australian Budget around $216 million. By extension, an increase to 20 000 would cost the Budget around $1.35 billion over the first four years. (Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen 2012).

If we need to make a deal with Malaysia, or Indonesia, we should be free to do so. The solution is to discard our alliance with the UN Refugee Convention. All the costs and debate could easily be solved.

Refugees in a changing world

The UNHCR said last year that 43.7 million people were displaced by conflict, poverty, famine and persecution — the highest number in 15 years. Our planet is not a series of endless frontiers, but a fragile spaceship with limited resources, already overloaded by humanity. There are no new colonies so settle in, no new frontiers to invade and conquer.

Mr Burnside said Australians seemed to be unable to accept the premise of the UN Refugee Convention which states that countries have some obligation to offer protection to people facing persecution and violence.
"Unfortunately, I think Australia has not quite worked out whether it's willing to carry that burden."

Mr Burnside is obviously speaking from a position of privilege and wealth! It's assumed that Australia is a vast brown and empty land with room to share for any millions of people! There's no consideration for our environmental "carrying capacity" - and social and economic constraints. Already we are under population stress, and we already have the record as the biggest wildlife exterminator in the world.

Australia should withdraw from outdated UN Refugee Convention

We need to withdraw from the outdated 1951 UN Refugee Convention. The UN should not dictate how we manage our diplomatic affairs. We are a sovereign nation. This is a relic from a different era when peoples were displaced by World War 2 and the holocaust.

The Vietnamese boat-people came at a time when Australia has room to spare and we were still a wealthy nation. Population pressure and globalization has eaten into and diluted our wealth.

The world today is a vastly different place than it was in 1951, and the ability of the Convention to address increasingly complex drivers of displacement and migration is limited. Many experts argue that the current framework is ill-suited to meet new drivers of human mobility, but the prospects of a new international agreement are few.

Need for a more equitable immigration system including humanitarian intake

In response to the demands of responsible global citizenship, and a more equitable system of immigration, we should slash our unrealistically high economic immigration levels, invest in skills training and tertiary education, and increase our humanitarian intake - selected off-shore only. The random arrival of boats, and the shipwreck disasters, would ultimately decline.

REFERENCES

Source for part of this information and opinion was an Age article, by Rachel Olding, "Asylum seeker impasse 'pathetic': QC's plan to stop the boats," June 29, 2012.

Wednesday 21st December 2011 - press release from Kelvin Thomson, MP.
You can reply here and you can reply on Mr Thomson's blog.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that, with the exception of Singapore, during the last 5 years Australia ran far and away the biggest per capita migration program in the world – 11.1 migrants per thousand people per year. After us came Italy, with 6.7, Canada 6.6, Sweden 5.8, Hong Kong 5.1, the United States and the United Kingdom 3.3, and New Zealand 3.1. In fact we could cut our migration program to 74,000, rather than 174,000, and we’d still be running one of the biggest per capita programs in the world – as big as the UK, Italy and Sweden, and bigger than the US and New Zealand.

I believe the Australian people are instinctively generous and good-hearted, but their tolerance has been stretched to breaking point by the quadrupling of the skilled migration program over the past 15 years, which has generated competition for jobs and housing and put pressure on family living standards.

As a consequence the debate about asylum seekers is very divisive. It is doing nothing for our sense of national unity and respect for each other.

We should not expect the Australian people to accept an increase in the refugee intake in isolation. It should be part of a package where skilled migration is cut by 50,000. There are many good reasons to cut our migration program, and one of them is that it is likely to lift public support for an increased refugee program, which I think it’s something we have to bring to the table when we are working with our regional neighbours on the asylum seeker issue. Furthermore the Australian people have said over and over that they think our migration level is too high, so cutting our massive migration rate is giving the Australian people what they want.

In fact we could cut our migration program to 74,000, rather than 174,000, and we’d still be running one of the biggest per capita programs in the world – as big as the UK, Italy and Sweden, and bigger than the US and New Zealand.

How many other "solutions", detention centres, unaccompanied children, unidentified entrants and money must be spent on failed policies to address the asylum seeker issue? The government is trying to please too many lobby groups - those who want the economic benefits of population growth, and those prefer to act with compassion and humanity.

The High Court made permanent injunctions preventing the removal of asylum seekers to Malaysia.

More "boat people" will come

Immigration minister Chris Bowen conceded that there would be more "boat people" after the High Court was convinced to block the "Malaysian Solution".

We have had many failed "solutions" to control asylum seekers arriving randomly on our shores?   The size of the "welcome mat" to take risky voyages and increase people smuggling has become larger.

Julia Gillard needs to show some leadership on our behalf. The reason for all the detention centres, unaccompanied minors, armed guards and the processing of claims is because we are enslaved to a relic of a different era with our agreement to the 1951 Refugee Convention. 

We are a sovereign nation, not a colony subservient of the UN, and we should be free to make our own policies, and decide who and how many people come here.   Malaysia is not a signatory.
The flow of "boat people" is a political smoke-screen to hide the real source of our population boom - economic immigration.

John Howard's asylum-seeker smoke-screen

Prime Minister John Howard claimed to have "stopped the boats", but there was no mention of any plans to increase overall immigration numbers, or whether the  meatworkers and fruit pickers, skilled temporary workers, were given preference over those with professional qualifications, like trained doctors or accountants.

Back in 1988 Howard said he didn't want to see the rate of Asian immigration increase any further.

Heart of the "Australian story" ?

Howard also said: To an extent greater than almost any other country, we are a nation of relatively recent immigrants. Immigration has been at the heart of the Australian story because, without it, the country we now know could not have come into existence.   What was the "heart of the Australian story" should not become an epic, or tomes to fill a library!  Our early childhood experiences and memories don't have to be lived and recreated throughout our lives as we reach maturity.   What was beneficial in our infancy is not necessary to continue, and can be detrimental. It's like trying to relive childhood, and retain the benefits of it instead of moving on to maturity.

Growth is only one stage of a community's or nation's lifecycle. Malignant growth continues.

All evidence shows that Australia as the “Lucky Country” has already gone into history. No politician is considering reviving or reliving this part of the “Australian story”.

So while Australians felt secure that our borders were tightly protected from "boat people", polls showed that they were relaxed and comfortable about immigration despite the substantial increase in the intake from under 100,000 to over 200,000 a year during Howard's era. The impacts weren't immediately noticeable, and the use of asylum seekers as a smoke screen to disperse the economic immigration debate worked successfully. 

By contrast, the return of significant discontent intensified with the Rudd Government’s further expansion of immigrant numbers to over 300,000 a year, relative reduction in the skilled proportion of the intake and, perhaps most significantly, loss of control over unauthorised boat arrivals. Kevin Rudd's popularity severely plummeted when he unapologetically supported a "big Australia"!

John Howard never wanted to talk about his booming immigration program. Kevin Rudd didn't want to either. Why not? Because it just doesn't fit. Immigration adds to the demands for labour as well as supplying it, and these families need food, clothing, shelter and all the other necessities. They also add to the need for social and economic infrastructure: roads, schools, health care and all the rest – requiring public funding.

Easy to obtain PR in Australia

It's actually very easy to obtain PR in Australia. The immigration
figures speak for them selves. We have the highest population growth in the developed world, and of course this is a magnet for those seeking a new country.

We already have our own displaced in Australia, with growing homelessness and poverty

The "immigration" debate is largely about asylum seekers, while the real source of our population growth is economic immigration - students, skilled workers, and family reunions. 

Small numbers of humanitarian refugees

Australia could easily disband on the UN's outdated refugee convention, and manage the surge of asylum seekers ourselves.  We could slash or disband our discriminatory economic immigration policy and increase our humanitarian intake – off-shore.

Our of our net migration of 185,000, only 14,500 are humanitarian - selected off and on-shore - yet they consume the "immigration" focus.

The government is trying to please too many lobby groups - those who want the economic benefits of population growth, and those prefer to act with compassion and humanity.

Our government only wants the ready-education and well-off to provide willing casual workers, and people to buy into property - not the displaced, unskilled, needy and poor.

New wave of asylum seekers could be coming our way

As the nation panics over a small number of asylum seekers, we're left to wonder how Australia will respond to the millions of anticipated "climate change” asylum seekers?  How are we to respond?

According to the Australian Greens, Australian society, culture and the economy has benefited, and will continue to benefit, from immigration of people from around the world.   We won't continue to benefit if immigration continues to drive our population growth beyond sustainable limits. The environment, and ecological forces, and Nature's devastating powers transcend humanitarian concerns and economic requirements of an economy that needs to be fed by constant growth. We still haven't, despite advances in science and technology, solved the limitations of nature, and we still can't harness extreme weather or reign in natural disasters.

The Australian Greens are being inconsistent with their environmental and climate change policies by supporting limitless population growth.

Australia's fragile food security

The Chief Scientist's report to PMSEIC (Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council Oct 2010) on food security, reported that we currently feed nearly 40 million people on top of our own 22.5 million. If our population grows to 35–40 million as planned, and climate change reduces food production, we can expect to see years where we will import more food than we export.

We can no longer rely on increased water, land and energy use to drive the transformation of food production systems.

The PMSEIC report suggests increased challenges to the important food exporting industry including land degradation, population growth, long-term climate change, competition for arable land in peri-urban areas, scarcity of water, nutrient and energy availability.

With the high level of foreign investment in agricultural production much of our food production is committed to overseas consumption. There are now a large number of properties owned by middle eastern companies using them as feed lots to prepare animals for the live stock export trade. WA is responsible for 50% of live animal exports. There is also feedlot livestock for export to Indonesia and the USA.

In 2008, following prolonged drought, our wheat exports dropped to nearly match the level of our domestic consumption. Wild fish catches are declining in Australian waters and productivity in the agricultural sector declining.

Status of Refugees – at present

According to the United Nations Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention), a refugee is someone who is outside their own country and cannot return due to a well-founded fear of persecution because of their:  This definition does not at present include those fleeing from climate change, overpopulation or natural disasters.

From the Australian Human Rights Commission webpage:
Governments have traditionally approached climate change as an ecological problem, or more recently, as an economic one. So far, the social and human rights implications of climate change have not been widely recognised .....As a signatory to the major international human rights instruments, Australia has an obligation to protect people against the threat that climate change poses to human rights. But the challenge is to develop a response to climate change that distributes rights and responsibilities equally.

...a human rights-based approach to policy development could, and should, be adopted to provide a standard for evaluating policy and resource allocation.

Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is a person with a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Environmental and climate change factors are largely irrelevant.  Will it be changed?

Surely there needs to be a lot more emphasis and policies, on "responsibilities" , not just rights.  There is a lot of talk and words related to "sustainability" and mitigating climate change, but little is being done in real terms, especially in Australia.

The Hon Tony Burke MP is Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. He is not a minister for Sustainable Population any more! There is a lot of use of the word “sustainable” but little action.

Australian Greens – “No human being is illegal”

The Australian Greens want an immigration program that is predominantly based on family reunions and other special humanitarian criteria as defined by international human rights Conventions.  They want migrants to be given access to a full range of culturally sensitive, appropriate health services including a comprehensive medical examination on arrival.

"No human being is illegal"

They are also lobbying for the planning for climate change refugees with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

It is vital that Australia needs to develop a considered, long-term approach to asylum seekers and refugees because many of them could be heading our way. 

Australian Greens Deputy Leader Senator Christine Milne thinks so. Australia is historically one of the biggest contributors to the climate crisis. Whether we are legally obliged to or not, we certainly have a moral obligation to help those who climate change will hurt or displace. However, we are not responsible for their over population, their unsustainable environmental use, or their cultures that encourage fertility. 

Environmental refugees set to increase six-fold

Norman Myers of Oxford University has estimated climate change will increase the number of environmental refugees six-fold over the next fifty years - to 150 million. 
Australian climate scientist Dr. Graeme Pearman, has predicted that a 2°C rise in temperature would place 100 million people “directly at risk from coastal flooding” by 2100.

Asia Pacific region

Most of the 22 nations in the Pacific are low-lying atolls, with limited land space, small populations and little financial resources. More than 50% of Pacific Islander people live within 1.5 kilometres of the shore. They are all under threat of natural disaster and rising sea levels.

The Asia Pacific region is home to over 60% of the world's people, of which according to the United Nations two-thirds of whom live in extreme poverty. With such large proportion of the current population living in poverty, climate variability already has a significant impact on the health and livelihoods of people across Asia.

Climate change will exacerbate natural disasters, health problems and threats to water and food security.  It  will undoubtedly affect the lives of those who are without social and economic resources to adapt to the changes in climate.

At the Copenhagen Conference in December 2009, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), António Guterres- G-Magazine report , predicted that climate change will become the biggest driver of population displacements within the not too distant future. The numbers we're talking about are astronomical. His agency predicts between 50 and 200 million people to have moved by 2050.

A report suggests billions of people will starve by the year 2050 - ABC online , unless farm productivity lifts around the world. 

Food production must be lifted or many people could go hungry, and there is a lot of pressure on food industries and farmers to increase their efficiency and output.  Australian food security expert Professor Peter Langridge has similar views. However, there are limits to what Nature can continue to provide.

Listen to the MP3

Norman Borlaug – the father of the “green revolution”

Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1970 for his "green revolution" that revolutionised food security for millions of people and for many nations. In his acceptance speech, he warned the world in the clearest terms that his breakthrough had not tamed what he termed the "Population Monster". He merely bought us about 40 years respite in which to do something about it.

"Big Australia"

With bipartisan support for a "big Australia" and ongoing economic immigration, there seems to be little empirical or pragmatic difference between the Australian Green's altruistic and moral justification for population growth, and the demands of our capitalistic economic growth argument.

Is it because Australia’s political elite, including the Australian Greens,  can no longer say ‘NO’ to immigration or accepting asylum seekers?   Our sovereignty is not being given due respect, or being sufficiently honoured.

Our first priorities should be to the Australian voters, citizens, our descendants, and any obligations to help other nations should be primarily through aid, crisis assistance, providing skills ( not poaching them!), health and family planning advice, training towards permaculture farming.

Who is a refugee?

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (and its 1967 protocol), to which Australia is a signatory, defines a refugee as:
Any person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.

However, the terms "refugees" and "migrants" are frequently used interchangeably. The two words refer to very different groups of people.

Boat people threats?

There's never been any credible evidence of a particular threat to national security. 
Five thousand arrivals a year by boat seeking asylum is a drop in the Pacific Ocean of a migration program of hundreds of thousands.

The number of refugees Australia accepts is set each year and has remained between 13,000 and 14,200 since 2003. This year the number will be 13,750, regardless of the number of boats that arrive.

Over 3 million people have arrived by plane in the last 20 and about 50,000 over-stayed visas etc thus making them illegal immigrants. Boat people in numbers terms are a lot less than numbers by plane for illegal immigrant status. The media and political parties play to the fear of “boat people” and illegal immigrants.

The illusion of control

An Australian born citizens who marries a foreigner will find it difficult to bring his/her spouse to Australia. This injustice enforces the illusion that Australia is seriously in control of who and how many people arrive at our shores.

Our politicians are deliberately making political use of the "security threat" from boat people and creating a smoke screen to hide the main source of our our population growth - skilled economic immigration!

The hype of the “boat people” and “border security” is a smoke screen to draw attention away from the real source of the drain on our resources, and an impediment to our obligation to the resettlement of genuine refugees – economic migration!

Challenges of settlement

Statistically, women from refugee backgrounds have the highest unemployment rates in the Australian labour market. Along with our own unemployed, and those who lack opportunities to gain skills, they need to be protected from being replaced by the skilled imported here from overseas.

Becoming economically integrated and maintaining financial security is difficult for newly-arrived immigrants to Australia, who in some cases are excluded from the social welfare system for a significant period after arrival.

Refugees tend to be in higher risk low skill jobs and tend to be employed in industries more affected by economic downturns. Some may have been tortured or experienced other trauma either before or during their journey.

There are also a significant number of entrants whose qualifications are not recognised in Australia and they need time to make adjustments. There is also the issue of learning English.

It is important that we recognise their specific needs and address these.

The challenge for Australia is to assist newly arrived refugees to process the experiences of their past and rebuild their lives in Australia.

In terms of global rankings, Australia comes in at 68th in terms of refugees per 1000 inhabitants and 77th in terms of refugees per gross domestic product per capita. In real terms, this is 1.1 refugee per 1000 inhabitants and 0.6 refugees per GDP per capita. This makes us mean-spirited and misers in regards to taking refugees.

According to the Green Left, nations like Australia need to throw open their doors and pay for the mass relocation of people who now have no choice but to abandon their homes to survive.

Climate change refugees

It is predicted that there will be millions of climate change asylum seekers in the future. Oxford University's Norman Myers believes that the number of climate refugees could be as high as 200 million by 2050. It will be the poorest countries that will be the worst affected. How many of these will also be from the impacts and direct consequences of overpopulation is also unknown.

More refugees will knock on Australia's door unless rich countries help poorer nations cope with climate change, a key UN scientist has warned.

Professor Martin Parry - a prominent UK scientist who chaired the last United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment of the impact of climate change - said wealthy countries such as Australia had “good, selfish reasons” to
spend money helping the developing world adapt to global warming. Not selfish, just realistic.

Professor Parry said there are likely to be significant population shifts away from areas severely affected by global warming, but the process will be "manageable" if it takes place over a number of decades. Really?

In July 2008 the World Bank warned Australia that future climate change refugees present the government with a major policy challenge. in August 2009, Pacific members of the Alliance of Small Island States (SIS) underscored 'serious and growing threat posed by climate change to the economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being and security of the SIS countries'.

In July 2009, an Oxfam report warned that:
By the year 2050, about 75 million people could be forced to leave their homes in the Asia-Pacific region due to climate change. Pacific island governments are already tackling climate change-related relocation and resettlement.

Policies based on Compassion?

Australia's system of immigration detention is failing on many fronts, and the Greens believe a more commonsense and compassionate approach is needed,
Greens Senator Hanson-Young said. However, environmental limitations don't respond to “compassion” but to “commonsense” and being responsible for keeping ecological balance.

Artificially replacing nature's bounties is energy consuming, costly or even undiscovered. There are limits to technology.

Our own carrying capacity could easily be compromised if we take the route of compassionate response and try to accommodate them all. Our environment, our ecological "services", have no obligation to increase their outputs, their bounties, to accommodate more people, no matter how urgent and pitiful their plights are.

Tight guidelines

Thus, we need some very tight and water-proof guidelines to how we treat asylum seekers to avoid the floodgates being opened, under the assumption that we have limitless land and resources here in Australia.

Politicians do not have the capacity to paint broad strokes even on such a large canvas!
The UN should be trying to advocate a global responsible human population challenge to limit family sizes, but the "sacred cow" of population growth still roams at large!

Clearly, our limits to growth are already being stretched, and we have a high reliance on oil and a globalised economy! Prime Minister Julia Gillard must make some tough, long term, policies and put the interests of Australians FIRST while maintaining a limited humanitarian intake!

Whose responsibility?

The problem is not just overpopulation, and it is not just of “non-whites”. It is a global responsibility.

The majority of Australia's growth, 66 per cent, was due to overseas migration, with the remainder, 34 per cent, due to there being more births than deaths. Australia's population growth is double the world's average!

People settling in Australia adapt our lifestyles, our consumption levels, and add to the local/global population pressures.

Carrying capacity

According to Paul Kelly, Editor-at-large of The Australian , the idea that Australia could not "carry" 36 million people is absurd, and the idea of a “carrying capacity” is loopy!

He believes that environmentalists will “construct principles that make this seem untenable”. Thus, environmental science is not tangible, substantive or concrete?

NSW premier Bob Carr has told a forum that Australia's population should be capped at 28 million. Back in January this year, Tony Abbott's “instinct” was “to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia.” Should such serious policies be left to “instinct”?

Professor Tim Flannery believes the long-term human carrying capacity of the Australian continent and Tasmania could be as low as 8 million people. It looks big on the map but its mostly desert and non arable land.

The idea of a “carrying capacity” has been buried by the growth lobby and other deniers of reality.

Whereas most farmers have an accurate understanding of the carrying capacity of their land, we really have very little idea of what level of population this land can support.

Solution?

The solution to the world's displaced is left for politicians driven by economics, philosophical and idealistic arguments. What we can deduce from our current knowledge is that our present population in Australia is already more than enough, indicated by our lack of fresh water, the demise of our food bowl, and lack of arable land.

What is the answer to the escalation of our looming humanitarian crisis of countless refugees?

We have no new colonies to plunder, and the capacity of developed countries to accommodate millions is doubtful. It's like changing the deck chairs of the Titanic. Once a vessel is full, it is reckless to keep adding more passengers.

Do we start to turn away the haunted, the rejected, the persecuted, the homeless? It's a serious ethical challenge, a dilemma!

The media froth and bubble over recent asylum seekers arriving by boat near Ashmore Reef mid ocean between Timor and the west Kimberley coast pales in comparison with the daily arrivals at Kingsford Smith Airport in the middle of Sydney.

The Australian newspaper on 2nd November 2009, tallied the total number of Christmas Island detainees at 1165.
Given the genocidal situation caused to the Tamils in Sri Lanka, that number is miniscule to what it could be.

Australia stood back while the Tamils were being slaughtered, when it could have as a joint member of the Commonwealth, like Sri Lanka , got involved in the humanitarian crisis there years ago. What is the point of having a Commonwealth of Nations when at time sof crisis with one of its members, the others turn a bilind eye. Regional Indian Ocean members Australia, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Mauritius, Pakistan, Seychelles and Singapore - what did they do to help Sri Lanka resolve the Tamil conflict by diplomacy? Nothing? Sat back and turned a blind eye to Rajapaksa's Sinhalese government inflicting genocide on ethnic Tamils?

Now, Australia claims it has an asylum seeker problem, mainly from Sri Lanka, but also from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Pull the other one! According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] in March 2009, estimates of the number of asylum seekers in industrialised countries increased by 12 per cent in 2008 to 383,000. In 2007 the figure was 341,000. Of those, just 4,750 people sought asylum in Australia in 2008, compared to 3,980 people in 2007. Now we have just 1165 on Christmas Island, or 0.3% of the global asylum problem.

I agree with the Australian Human Rights Commission that Australia has obligations to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how or where they arrive, and whether they arrive with or without a visa." Refugees in this small number don't even show on the radar of Australia's immigration problem. If the number was up about 5000 a year the issue would deserve closer scrutiny and policy review.

It is about time the Australian media frenzy over asylum seekers was exposed for what it is - racist incitement!

Whereas in fact, the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] has confirmed net migration into Australia for 2008-09 was 283,300. That is 776 new immigrants per day and most arrive into Sydney by plane. This is where the media should have their cameras - at Kingsford Smith Airport's International Arrivals gate on the ground floor. Again the issue has nothing to do with race, ethnicity or difference, but simply the sheer numbers arriving by the plane load daily.

This time last year, in December 2008, "the estimated population for Australia was 21.64 million - this represented an annual increase of 406 100 people (comprising the excess of births over deaths plus net overseas migration) and a population growth rate of 1.91 percent. This population growth rate was the highest since 1988."

Australia's Migration Programme

Why so high? Well, successive Liberal and Labor governments have persisted with a 'Migration Programme'. The planning level under the Migration Programme for 2009–10 is 168 700. It was originally going to be 190,300, but was adjusted down due to the Global Financial Crisis. 64% of that programme focuses on what the government calls 'The Skill Stream'

This Australian Government Skills Stream is killing off Australian jobs. It needs to be scrapped immediately. A skills audit needs to be conducted across Australian industry and the results channelled into the education and training sector to deliver appropriately skilled Australians into these skill shortfall areas. If there is a time lag, let's learn from why education has failed to deliver and fix the disconnnect.

Compare the 'Skill Stream' of 2007-08 to what it was in 1997-98:
'PERMANENT VISA OUTCOMES: 1997-98 to 2007-08'

So instead of the government investing in education and training to skill up Australians to meet skills needs, it invites immigrants to fill the skills shortages. It's a form of scab labour. What happened to Rudd & Gillard's 'Education Revolution'?

The Flood of Overseas Students

The Skilled– Overseas Student visa (permanent residence) is effectively an invitation to overseas students to come to Australia replacing local students in education and then displace local Australians in the workplace.
Since, the 1990s, Australian governments have deliberately reduced university funding. This has forced universities to seek alternative funding sources, most notably from overseas students required to pay full-tuition. Consequently, there has been a flood of overseas students driven both by education demand and massive international promotion by all Australian universities to the target countries. Not surprisingly, Australia has seen a considerable growth in the number of overseas students.

Way back in 1996, Ian Dobson from Monash University in his paper 'Overseas Students in Australian Higher Education: Trends to 1996' reported a 153% increase in overseas students in Australian higher education from 21,010 in 1989 to 53,188 in 1996. The Australian newspaper on 26th February 2009 reported the number in 2008 was a staggering 543,898. So on the 1989 base year, this represents a 2589% increase!

In the article 'Overseas student enrolments in Australia at record high' Federal Education Minister, Julia Gillard was happy with what's seen as 'international education' contributing $14.2 billion to Australia's economy in 2007-08, making it Australia's third-largest export behind coal and iron ore and "the rise in student enrolments from Asia - up 21.5 per cent - was recognition of Australia's ongoing relationship with its Asian neighbours and the strong awareness of Australia as a quality education destination."

Australia's Unemployment

Then we read today, the ABS announced Australia's Unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted) for November 2009 was 5.7%. This translates to 659,400 Australians that are unemployed.

People Dumping

Immigration is importing people and when it is on such a massive scale it is 'people dumping' just like import dumping of imported products on local markets. Australia needs to recognise, that it has local values to protect. Anti-dumping duties on low cost imports are imposed to fair up the pricing to protect local industries. In respect to Australian people and local jobs, displacing locals for overseas skilled labour is 'people dumping'.

I am convinced that Kevin Rudd is anti-Australian.

"No apology"!

Is this "Newspeak" for a decision the Australian PM feels uncomfortable about?

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he makes "no apology" for believing in a "big Australia". he also said " I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for taking a hard line on illegal immigration to Australia."

But Mr Rudd should apologise !

Rudd is socially-engineering Australia's population growth

He presides over a massive rate of population growth which his government has engineered. He should apologise to the present population and also to the future population that will be so much worse off than we are now as the Australian environment inevitably declines . Australia's environment right now suffers from population overload. It's the number of us and the way we live, the way waterways are interfered with for human activities, the way natural habitat is taken over for human habitation, the impact on our environment of human wastes both domestic and industrial, mining extraction and agricultural..... the sheer scale of our activities !

Optimism without foundation may doom Australians

Rudd's optimism reported by the ABC at the growing population seems to be founded on no real data. It appears as rhetoric, no more than a declared belief. The serious concerns of continuing population growth expressed by Treasury Secretary Dr. Ken Henry - water availability , biodiversity welfare of wildlife are waved away by Rudd as mere "challenges" (in "Newspeak" challenge =problem)

Australia is the driest inhabited continent on Earth with thin fragile soils and relatively little arable land.
Australia's environmental indicators- climate,waterways,land and biodiversity indicate stress right now from increasing human impacts.

.......but Rudd has set his reckless course and will not be diverted.

He makes no apology.

Orderly immigration or Organised invasion?

Would someone please fill us in about this claim that Australians have agreed to what seems to many to be an organised invasion of legal immigrants for the profit of the housing, finance and infrastructure moguls?

Sheridan writes,

"Paul Kelly argues in his The March of Patriots that there is a bargain between the Australian people and their governments. The Australian people accept a big, diverse and in many respects generous immigration program, so long as it is orderly and well controlled by the government." (Population growth lobbyist, Greg Sheridan, The Australian about his 'esteemed colleague' and fellow population-growth barracker, Paul Kelly of the Australian.)

I don't know anyone who was actually asked and the subject wasn't on the menu during the elections (which were mostly conducted by the mainstream press as usual).

This article "Boatpeople paint PM into corner" by Greg Sheridan is a rich source for a researcher into population growth lobby tactics and media propaganda.

Boat people and racio-ethnicity line a distraction from oversized legal immigration

Firstly we should note that boat people are again hitting the headlines, just at the time when MP Kelvin Thomson and others are coming out criticising high legal (but undemocratic) immigration and its unmanageable and disorderly consequences.

We've been here before.

This is probably no coincidence. It is useful to take our minds off the real issues.

Sheridan's article manages to talk about immigration at length as if the only real problems associated with it might be those related to asylum seekers arriving by boat. Never does it mention the terrible human overpopulation and infrastructure expansion stretching Australia's natural systems to breaking point. The comments allowed under the article favour the racial-ethnic criticism line, which sophisticated readers might be able to work out is a way for the growth lobby to stigmatise most discussion about high immigration as motivated by racial intolerance. That is, if you only publish comments objecting to the racial or ethnic composition of Australia's immigration stream, then you can give the impression that only racist Australians object to high immigration.

In other mediums like candobetter.org, there is, however, plenty of evidence of political and environmental pressure in response to high legal immigration rising like a bubbling stream of magma seeking the surface. The Australian, however, gives very little exposure to comments and protests about these impacts of legal population growth, thus giving a false impression to readers.

How to tell the difference between Rudd's and Howard's policies

Apart from the fact that Kevin Rudd and John Howard look different from each other - a child could probably tell them apart physically - the average adult might already have some trouble telling their asylum-seeker policies apart. In his article, Sheridan sets about trying to establish some difference, but the words are clumsy and unconvincing:

"Rudd is absolutely right to take a tough line against illegal immigration. Those who criticise him for doing so and saying so, such as the normally sound Labor MP Michael Danby, or those who cannot bring themselves to embrace the Prime Minister's language, such as Foreign Minister Stephen Smith in a remarkably evasive and feeble performance on Lateline, merely show how much better, shrewder and braver than the Labor Party Rudd is.

There is a reason this government is so dominated by its PM."

It doesn't matter if the job is hard and the materials poor. If you repeat that Rudd is 'right to take a tough line against illegal immigration' often enough, people will begin to think that this is somehow the crucial point of Australia's population policy.

There is a gem here, though, which you might miss if you began to nod off before you got to the end of the article (and who could blame you)?

Right at the end, Sheridan writes this amazing assertion, that Rudd is

"much better, shrewder and braver than the Labor Party"

What does this tell the alert observer? Well, it sounds to me like a message to the old Liberal-National voters who worry that the ALP has got in and that dear old Howard got the boot. It's telling them, "You don't need to worry. Rudd isn't really the Labor Party. It isn't really a Labor Government as long as Rudd 'dominates' it.

Clearly the Murdoch Press is pleased with Kevin Rudd's performance to date and they don't regret the departure of Howard, although they know that some of their readers still do.

On the other hand, what should Labor sympathisers think about this?

In my opinion, they should be worried! If they weren't already. But not because of Rudd's attitude to asylum seekers. They should be worried that Rudd is overpopulating this country legally to the satisfaction of the growth lobby. As if that were not bad enough, he shows contempt for refugees by allowing a gigantic stream of legal immigrants in but almost no refugees. If that doesn't tell you that the main interest the growth lobby has in immigrants is their money, then you are not reading the signs correctly.

At the same time we can see that Mr Sheridan has become an apologist for geographically distant refugee determination detention facilities because Mr Rudd is running into problems accommodating asylum-seekers.

"There are hard truths in this debate. Let me confess my own sins. When the Howard government introduced the Pacific solution, I was virulently opposed to it. I thought it was inhumane and wouldn't work. In fact, it did work. It also became clear to me the vast majority of people intercepted were not refugees but illegal immigrants."

Mr Rudd is also running into problems accommodating Australians, so perhaps we will soon hear that a few gulags will be built to house the more unruly homeless and unemployed, not to mention those who demand democratic government, under those Howard government terrorism laws that the Rudd government also embraces.

MEDIA RELEASE
22 October 2009

MORE REFUGEES - FEWER SKILLED MIGRANTS

Were Australia a compassionate nation, it would be taking in more asylum seekers and fewer skilled migrants, according to Australia’s only environment group dedicated to lower population, Sustainable Population Australia (SPA).

SPA National President, Ms Sandra Kanck, says Australia could double the number of refugees it accepts, providing that at least as many, if not more (which is SPA’s preference), were cut from the skilled migration program.

Australia's humanitarian program is currently 13,500 annually, while skilled immigration for 2008-9 is 115,000. Total net overseas migration, however, for the year ended 31 March 2009, was 278,200 persons. As well as skilled migration, this includes family reunion, New Zealanders and those on temporary visas.

“We have no moral obligation to the people coming here under the skilled migration program – they are not fleeing from war-torn states," says Ms Kanck. "They are taking places we could make available to real refugees.

“With 22 million refugees in the world at the moment, Australia cannot take them all, but we can accept more than we currently do – provided we reduce the skilled migration intake," she says.

Ms Kanck says that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s rebuffing of asylum seekers and attacks on so-called people smugglers are a diversionary tactic.

"Mr Rudd is responsible for one of the highest immigration rates in decades so his line on the current influx of asylum seekers is simply a smoke screen to avoid public discussion on the bigger issue of the immigration blow-out.

“Refugees have to wait in long queues for places to become available, while at the same time Mr Rudd has an open door policy to people who want to come here for purely economic reasons.

"Surely Australia can supply its own skills and not poach from other countries," says Ms Kanck. “If we got rid of the baby bonus we could put that money into training/retraining our current population and thus decrease our reliance on the skilled migration program."

Ms Kanck added that a multi-pronged approach was what was required in dealing with refugees. Diplomatic efforts could often diminish conflict that cause people to flee.

"For instance, what is Australia doing to ensure that the Sri Lankan Government is treating the Tamils fairly and humanely?" she asks.

Racism is:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, and that one’s own race is superior, and has the right to rule others.

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination, hatred or intolerance of another race or races

3: a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

(photo: from Wikimedia commons: Australian Government poster — "The Southern Cross, the call of the stars to British Men & Women" issued by the Overseas Settlement Office to attract immigrants).

Racism is a global phenomenon which is influenced by a range of historical, social, political and economic factors.

It takes different forms in different contexts and as a result has been defined in many different ways. In Australia, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1998) defines it as:
Racism is an ideology that gives expression to myths about other racial and ethnic groups that devalues and renders inferior those groups that reflects and is perpetuated by deeply rooted historical, social, cultural and power inequalities in society.

Institutional racism (or systemic racism) describes forms of racism which are structured into political and social institutions. It occurs when organisations, institutions or governments discriminate, either deliberately or indirectly, against certain groups of people to limit their rights.

Historical perspective

In May 1901, the Australian parliament met for the first time. Its first major act was to pass the Immigration Restriction Act. Under this policy, people from Asia and other "non-white" people were systematically kept out of Australia. The "White Australia" policy was the product of decades of racist agitation against Chinese immigration.

Henry Parkes, now venerated as the "father of Federation", was often at the head of anti-Chinese laws restricting where they could live. In 1857 his newspaper Empire railed: "Total exclusion of the Chinese from the goldfields should be the law”.

The first identified threat by white settlers was from thieving, dispossessed Aborigines, who were placed in the same category as Australian fauna. Racism included the removal of Indigenous children from their families and the denial of full citizenship rights to Indigenous people.

People with similar backgrounds naturally like to be together. The ideals of multiculturalism were welcome here in Australia when most people were Anglo background, and Prime Minister Bob Hawke promoted it well. Most people embraced it, and we have benefited from immigration both economically and culturally. However, in recent years, the numbers of immigrants has risen so high, a twist of racism has seeped in.

Immigration today

The Australian government, acting on behalf of their mates in the real estate industry, is effectively inviting foreign populations to move in and colonise parts of the country.
Australians are forced to carry the costs. They have to compete with rich foreigners for housing in a country already facing a chronic housing shortage. They have to pay their taxes just so that wealthy foreigners can simply move in and make use of Australia's public services and infrastructure.
(Eye on Immigration: selling Australia)

The Howard government left behind a robust immigration program of more than 120,000 net immigrants a year. The Rudd Government set a target of 190,000 migration places in 2008-09, a 20 per cent increase over the previous year's target. It increased the working visa program to double its size four years earlier. Not a word was said about this during the 2007 election campaign.

Racism phobia

Are we so terrified of the R-word, racism, so brainwashed by the thought police, that no dares mention skin colour any more? Not even the cops when seeking a
crime suspect?
Surely skin colour is just as objective as hair colour?

Hey Hey It’s Saturday ratings success has been marred by accusations of racism after a skit on the Red Faces talent segment featured a group of doctors in black face paint re-enacting a Jackson 5 song. Would a similar skit about ABBA have been racist if they painted their faces white?

Racism today

In the UK, Pakistanis are twice as likely as Indians to be unemployed. Two years ago, their government’s research showed almost half of British Asians and blacks arguing that there are too many immigrants.

Particularly following the September 11 attacks, both Muslim and Arab Australians have experienced a significant rise in Islamophobia and racism.

More recently we have witnessed race-based confrontations in Cronulla and now fears have grown over the perceived violence and gang culture of Sudanese immigrants.

There was a backlash against Sudanese immigrants and a move by our Government to attempt to justify a freeze on our African refugee intake.

Kevin Rudd scrapped the "Pacific Solution", abolished temporary protection visas, and let illegal arrivals get more lawyers. The Federal Police warned that this may increase the number of attempted arrivals to Australia. The dismantling of the Howard government's border protection policies has led to a surge in boats. 255 Sri Lankans asylum seekers, now bobbing off Java, are refusing to leave their boat. They now face detention in Sumatra rather than Nauru. Is it not surprising that Australia is their choice of refuge, knowing that we have the highest migrant intake in the developed world?

Our heavy intake of well-educated and well-off immigrants is a stark contrast to those that are turned away or places in detention.

The recent attacks on Indian students have thrust the issue of racism in Australia into the mainstream news bulletins.

Over populating Australia

Australia's population is forecast to surge from 22 million to well over 35 million in 40 years. . Our population this year grew by 439,000, or 2.1 per cent, the highest in the developed world.

In the past anyone questioning immigration to Australia risked being labeled racist. But now there's a new accusation leveled against anyone speaking against the massive surge in immigration to Australia. Now debate is being shut down by economic and political ‘correctness'.

Modeling by the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University shows each additional one million people adds 25 million tonnes of pollution to Australia’s greenhouse accounts.

“An increase in population to 35 million by 2050 would mean 325 million tonnes of additional pollution, costing us at least $10 billion a year in extra carbon pollution costs alone,” Mr Berger of Australian Conservation Foundation said.

GDP ignores the cost of the environmental damage done by immigration. Head hunting skilled workers from developing countries roughly doubles their greenhouse gas emissions, in the process making it all the harder for us to achieve the necessary reduction in our emissions. Our greenhouse gas emissions are rising, contrary to Kevin Rudd’s climate change commitments.

Immigration-fed growth in the economy is good only if it raises the real average incomes of the existing population. If it doesn't, we're running a high immigration policy mainly for the benefit of the immigrants who are able to earn more in our country than they were in their own country. Sharing finite resources means an erosion of the quality of life.

The
ABC's Four Corners program recently ran a piece on the 'new homeless'; families that couldn't find an affordable house to rent.
What do you do when you've lost your job, lost your home and you have three kids to feed? You end up in a motel cooking, eating and sleeping in one room at the taxpayer's expense. These are Australia's new homeless.

The narrator failed to mention one of the causes of the homelessness - the increased demand for housing fueled by high immigration levels.

Time for debate on immigration

It's time to drop the political correctness that for years has meant anybody who questioned immigration levels was labeled racist, or a supporter of Pauline Hanson!

One Nation was anti-immigration, anti-economic liberalization party. According to their web site, “One Nation is not, nor has ever been, a racist party. We are however a fiercely nationalistic party that puts the well being of Australia and it's people before anything else. It is obvious by the tens of thousands that came out to support us that there is a ground swell of ordinary people in this country who are sick of the self serving, on both sides of politics, that has been passed off as leadership for so many decades.”

There was no hint of racism, just a questioning of our high immigration and how it serves the interests of Australians. Racism was muddied by an immigration debate!
The issue now is not about race.
This is about numbers, and the future. (Herald Sun)

Capitalist leaders have always known immigration was a great way to permanently weaken unions and culture in favour of economics. Are our leaders deliberately diluting Australian-ism, patriotism, so we are accommodated into a global market? Already our real estate, many industries, tertiary education, job markets, consumer items and our population are being quietly globalised.

THE Rudd government must urgently rein in migration or tens of thousands more young Australians will miss out on their first jobs , a new report warns. (The Australian)

Already, 15- to 24-year-old Australians are bearing the brunt of burgeoning migration levels, their unemployment rate rising from 8.8 per cent to 11.7 per cent in the year to September, the study by Monash University academic Ernest Healy reveals.
Cut migrants to aid jobless:

India as a nation is faced with massive problem of unemployment. Unemployment rates for women are higher than those for men. The incidence of unemployment among the educated is much higher than the overall unemployment. If our definition of unemployment is defined to include any job which does not move an individual to living wages within one year, then India’s unemployment is not the official 7-9% but about 26%!

If our unemployed, or underemployed, or students went to India to access their tertiary education system and raided their limited casual or professional job opportunities, surely there would be a "racist" backlash!

Let's get back to some basic good old-fashioned Australian patriotism instead of all the globalisation that is being inflicted on us. Tertiary educational institutions should be funded to educate primarily Australian citizens, not internationals, and jobs should be for Australians, not outsourced overseas or for opportunist students hoping to stay here.

Australia’s population growth has been historically driven by immigration. Now we need to be stabilized and established as a distinct but multicultural entity.

The abuse of the word “racist” is manipulating us into silence and being used to enforce policies that were appropriate and beneficial in past decades, but are not appropriate for Australia in the 21st century.