Geoff Dowsett writes that he received a pathetic response from the Greens re the letter he sent to the Australian Minister for Immigration. He invited people to comment on the Greens response. Inside find some apt responses from Jane 0`Sullivan, of Sustainable Population Queensland. The responses are inserted in a different colour, email style.
Hi All. A pathetic response from Greens Senator Sarah
Hanson Young to my Dutton letter. Your ideas for a
response are very welcome. Geoff Dowsett.
you for contacting the Australian Greens and providing us the letter you sent
to Mr Peter Dutton MP, in relation to the government’s migration programme and
its impact on Australia. As the Greens spokesperson for Immigration &
Citizenship, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has asked me to respond to you on
behalf of the Australian Greens.
Greens believe that environmental impact is not determined by population
numbers alone, but by the way people live. According to the Greens
policy on sustainable populations “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
JANE O'SULLIVAN: The
Greens address "the way people live" in most of their other policy areas. Why
does the Population policy not say "Environmental impact is not determined only
by the way people live, but also by population numbers"? They didn't even bother
to include the word "also" in the current version - it is entirely dismissive of
the number of people. Nor is there any recommendation under that policy which
would stabilise Australia's population. Nor is there any acknowledgement under
any other policy, such as energy or transport, of the impact of population
growth. This policy statement has one purpose only - to bury the population
The Greens do not accept that population growth is a problem in or
for Australia. It is only recognised as a Global problem. I asked a Greens
Senator if she thought Australia had a right remain less overpopulated than
anywhere else on earth (i.e. to limit immigration from any more crowded place)
and she said "No." Despite us having no say over how other people breed, she
said we have to put their resource needs ahead of our environmental
That's the crux of it - if Australia can't contain its own
population independently of the rest of the world, then it also can't preserve
its unique biodiversity and ecosystems. How green are the Greens
Is it even possible for a nation to encourage others to "achieve
a globally sustainable population", while supporting rampant growth in that
nation? How could that work?
issues that you raise in your letter are not issues that can be tackled
individually, and are not as simple as dramatically reducing Australia’s
migration programme to subsequently reduce our population. Australia has a
wonderful tradition of integrating cultures into our community, and this was
especially important to our recovery post-World War II. Immigration is still
important today, and is designed to meet Australia’s economic and social
JANE O'SULLIVAN: Actually, there is nothing
simpler than the Federal govt adjusting immigration quotas. They doubled them,
without so much as a statement in Parliament or a press release. They could
halve them just as easily. We already turn away far more prospective immigrants
than we accept, so nothing would change on that front, except the criteria would
There is not one iota of evidence that immigration today meets
Australia's economic and social needs (let alone that it is designed to do so).
There is abundant evidence that it has negative economic and social
The touchy-feely argument that multiculturalism has made a major
contribution to Australia's wellbeing is at best an ambit claim, that says
nothing about the required levels of future migration. There are plenty of
countries which made spectacular post-World War II recoveries without
immigration. To say that we are better and happier for multiculturalism is to
devalue the largely more homogenious societies from which our migrants come.
Cultural tolerance is important for the harmoneous integration of a lot of
diverse immigrants, so it is a very good thing that Australia has nurtured
cultural tolerance. But it says nothing whatever about whether that immigration
benefited the incumbent population.
Greens are the only voice in parliament providing a real alternative to the
current status quo. The problems you have outlined for the current government
are issues that the Greens wish to tackle as part of their broader values as a
party. Australian Greens members of parliament are campaigning and
advocating for these alternatives on a daily basis, and were elected to
parliament for these very values. Our ability to explain the entirety of that
platform in the media is somewhat limited, but you will see that these values
are integral to Greens’ policy responses on day to day
JANE O'SULLIVAN: What
a lot of hubristic nonsense. If the Greens were going to tackle these issues as
part of their broader values, they would have been doing it already. They've
been doing the opposite - vilifying people who raise concern about high
immigration, and turning every discussion on immigration into a discussion about
refugees - deliberately generating misconceptions in the public to support
are welcome to read more about the Greens policies on population here, although I note that as you are a member of
the NSW Greens Population & Sustainability Working Group, you would
already be aware of them and are able to put forward your views on these
matters to shape this policy directly. We hope that you continue to do
well, we've read them, we've criticised them, and nothing changes.
the Department of Immigration has a link on their website where they seek
submissions and papers on policy initiatives. You can access the site here.
you for your contribution to this important conversation, and thank you once
again for forwarding this to the Greens Members of Parliament and
ASSISTANT & OFFICE MANAGER
OF SENATOR SARAH HANSON-YOUNG
GREENS SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA
7 / 147 Pirie St, Adelaide, SA 5000
+61 8 8227 0425 PARL +61 2 6277 3430
| FAX +61 8 8227 0426
Liz (not verified)
Thu, 2016-01-21 11:37
We need better educated Greens candidates
[Comment republished from Geoff's email correspondence - Ed. Candobetter.net] Geoff. Quite right about what you write, but her response is not pathetic, it is the best her quietly persistant IQ can do; bless her for hanging in there, and lets get some really sharp candidates who understand economics and numbers and the fact a 3.5% growth rate in an ALSO unsustainable lifestyle, is to ruin our fragile world and reduce comfort for Western Sydney people in schools, hospitals, roads so they vote liberal..blaming the migrants but the wrong ones.
Liz, Byron Greens
Ps growth is driven also by interest rates embedded in everything, income transfer to the 1%. which demand 40% of effort and resources see Ellen Browns website. Hurray for Bernie Sanders!
Peter (not verified)
Thu, 2016-01-21 11:39
Greens confused on growth stats and more
[Comment republished from Geoff's email correspondence - Ed. Candobetter.net]
Pretty ridiculous how they think a reduction in immigration will lead to a population reduction, when clearly all it will do is slow the increase.
In fact that entire paragraph is quite pointed. She refers to integration of cultures, but I’ll bet you she claims to be in favour of multiculturalism. Conflating the two terms is something the pro-immigration lobby all do. Yet the difference could not be more stark: under multiculturalism, whether a country has a consensus culture the people can rely on (such as a default language) becomes entirely dependent on which culture has the greater numbers. Whole suburbs become effectively excluded from incumbent Australians as a dominant culture takes over.
They also all love to invoke nostalgia surrounding the Snowy Mountains Scheme (which is what she mainly refers to in “recovery post World War II”). Not that there ever was a post-war depression in Australia in the first place. In fact war always provides opportunities for industrial nations not deeply involved in the conflict to supply one side or the other with weapons and other equipment, as well as rebuild afterwards. War was not something this country needed to “recover” from. “Recovery” here is a term economic rationalists like to use, because they believe economic growth is the single highest ideal Man can strive for. “It lifts all boats” they say, when really it’s been shown time and time again that in the long term it does little more than increase the divide between rich and poor and degrade the environment - making us all poorer. The Snowy Mountains scheme itself by the way, may have engendered a lot of nationalistic pride, but it didn’t meet expectations for power production, has left the Snowy River a mere trickle, and severely impacted that watershed and its ecology. It’s not something to celebrate. What’s more the post-war influx of immigration also created Sydney’s first urban sprawl.
The other bit of nostalgia the immigration lobby love to use is reminiscing about the “cultural diversity” immigration has brought us. Sure, we now have cuisine we didn’t have before, but those effects are a one-off. Bringing in more migrants from those same cultures isn’t going to introduce more novel delights. Instead we have what has been referred to as the “MacDonalds-isation” of culture: the same everywhere you go. True diversity is what the Aborigines had: countless tribes with over 1000 different languages, each with a different culture necessitated by the different environments in which they lived. Yet it was immigration that snuffed all that out.
This leads to a very profound question regarding the nature of community. Communities are relatively small groups, functionally (often geographically) separated from the surrounding population. You don’t get a sense of community when people are crowded together. Instead Homo sapiens natural response is to become competitive, rather than cooperative. This is why there is so much social decay in this country; our population policies have created an “every man for himself” mentality.
The Greens believe in what has been termed “decoupled” economic growth. That is, growth in production without the attendant “throughput” of pollution and increased use of finite resources. The truth is, the larger the population, the harder it is to accomplish such a task. Renewable energy can only achieve so much. Ultimately it is self defeating, particularly when you consider that economic growth is inseparable from consumerism.
This is why I’m disillusioned with the Greens. If they’re the most progressive, forward-thinking option we’ve got, we’re doomed.
Prue M (not verified)
Thu, 2016-01-21 11:40
Switch from Greens to Sustainable Party Australia
[Comment republished from Geoff's email correspondence - Ed. Candobetter.net]
I admire your forthright efforts to communicate with Minister Dutton, and Sarah Hanson Young. I was enthusiastic about the Green political movement until I realised that the issue of immigration control was at odds with persuasive voices in the Green party who firmly believe in the right to migration ie anyone who wants to migrate has a right to do so.
These voices had major input into the Greens policy on sustainable population and cried rascism if people disagreed with them. The Greens policy on sustainable populationn avoids all mention of reducing immigration rates.
Whilever the right to migration voices have a strong influence on Green's policy (particularly from the multicultural working group) I feel you may be beating your head against a brick wall.
The way I have found to deal with this is to vote Sustainable Australia in the federal election as the Federal Government is responsible for immigration and visas and Green in the State election where decisions are made regarding mining and energy exploration, and environment, transport etc.
Sustainable Australia is on the same page as yourself and it is a relief to read their literature.
anon (not verified)
Thu, 2016-01-21 12:27
Left must have open borders
There a deeply ingrained ideology that the Left must advocate for an open-door policy and that nations that restrict entry to anyone is "racist". To accept that Australia's population growth rate is unsustainable, and inherently connected with the environment and demands on natural resources, would be a contradiction in terms for the Greens. So, they must greenwash away any thought of limiting population as the route to sustainability. Where humans are concerned, their rights are paramount, over the environment. It troubling and inconsistent of the Greens and they are caught in their own trap. No wonder they are stuck as a protest party, and never seem to really bloom. To many contradictions.
Thu, 2016-01-21 16:01
ABC's 'Macca' reads Epstein population letter on air
This letter was read by Ian MacNamara (Macca) on Australia All Over, Sunday 20th January ABC 774.
In relation to population growth, plenty of recent newspaper articles have been making the assumption that Australia will have on-going high levels of growth. It is hardly a surprise that big business is pushing for and celebrating high population growth, as the resulting housing shortage pushes up prices, a boon for developers, banks, estate agent – a false economy. and others.. There are also increasing numbers of people looking for work, so there is no incentive to increase wages, and many businesses depend on it to increase their profits – a false economy on a finite planet. Politicians are happy to jump on board, but financially, environmentally and in many other ways, we are worse off than we were 50 years ago when one wage earner could comfortably afford to buy a house for their family.
The costs associated with rapid population growth are not only a challenge – they are a real threat to our current and future well-being. Every aspect of our lives is negatively affected by a burgeoning human population. Massive Infrastructure and maintenance costs for roads, and everything else required for new suburbs and infilling are already biting hard, so there is little left for equitable health and education systems, managing parks and biodiversity, or research and innovation to develop new and better ways of using our diminishing resources sustainably.
We seem to understand when kangaroos, rabbits or koalas are over abundant, as the impact on our (their) environment is obvious, but we appear to be blind to the impacts of humans. We are so lucky to have a wonderful diversity of people in this country – their cultures and traditions enriching our lives, but the sheer human numbers, here and globally, means that our quality of life is diminishing along with many of the other species of animals and plants with which we share our country.
A shame we cannot use our intelligence to stabilize our population in a fair, equitable and respectful way so we all have a future to look forward to.
Little River, VIC.
George (not verified)
Thu, 2016-01-21 20:37
Poaching of skilled from overseas and deskilling in Oz
Good letter, Geoff.
What appalls me is that we import “skilled”, trained migrants from third-world countries – let these poor countries bear the burden of training – and a the same time we strangle Australian training institutions such as TAFE.
Yet another example of siphoning money from the poor to the rich.
Liz (not verified)
Thu, 2016-01-21 20:40
Overdevelopment, more cars, impacts on bush and humanity
We only have to look at where I live to know that we are over populating our cities.Mike Baird has turned his back on his electorate in order to satisfy developers needs. Some of the developments have been thoughtful.....however the roads are now heaving with cars and no real discussion on Public transport as that does not suit the roads mentality. Surely governments need to plan accessibility and think through impacts on bush and humanity long before they state that we need millions more living here
Cheers Liz . Greens Member Sydney
Fri, 2016-01-22 09:56
Greens push their views for social acceptance
The Green party, as do most other parties or groups, are driven by an innate human need to gain social acceptance amongst peers and build reputation and status. This drive underlies much of what people do.
The Greens are a party whose members and supports belong to a social milieu in which this type of moral signalling gains status and esteem. It just so happens that the Cultural Left do this by signalling their willingness to put the "other" before their own and give away what Western Civilisation has gained. They call this "progressivism" but it's nothing new, similar notions have existed in religion before. Just as before, people displayed their religious piety, their abstinence from sin and vice and denouncement of "heretics" for social status and inclusion in an almost exact manner in which people today display their Liberalism, their dislike of natural social and familial orders and denouncement of "racists" and "bigots".
Sarah Hansen Young cruising the Mediterranean to allow illegal entry of Africans into Europe is the ultimate in moral signalling.
Just as anyone who said anything which could be remotely interpreted as challenging to religious canon was a "heretic", so too do people today find those who say anything which could be remotely interpreted as challenging the religion of Political Correctness be branded a "heretic". Even the language used to justify this attitude is the same. The way that the religion is hostile to any interpretation of facts which doesn't fit their worldview is the same.
In the past, politicians have exploited religion to get the masses to do their bidding. The politicians using open borders mentality to support big business and Capitalists is the same.
That is to say, Sarah Hanson Young is adhering to a religion. In the past, many intelligent people supported theocracies and religious persecution. In a way, if doing so gained favour of those who had established power, this made sense, (in a social sense, not in a truth and reason sense).
grinja (not verified)
Fri, 2016-01-22 11:50
Humanist support for open borders could destroy our environment
Well said Dennis K. I think this goes a long way to explaining the confusion that many environmentalists feel when confronting the Greens seemingly conflicting policies on humanism (which is what they really stand for now) and environmentalism and sustainability (now second fiddle). It's quite likely that the approval they gain from their peers has now overtaken any real ideology that drove their original party line. It doesn't help that we have senators like Hanson Young driven purely by emotion rather than logic and rationalism. This is extremely dangerous for politics.
It's sad that the open borders ideology, which is the globalization of humanity and humanism, fits in so nicely with the Lib/Labor party big growth mentality, which is increasingly driven by economic globalism through things like free trade.
Fri, 2016-01-22 21:37
The views will be shafted when they are no longer useful
The rise of the "far right" and "far left" in Europe interest me greatly. The media dismiss this as just radicals, malcontents and rabble rousers scapegoating and succumbing to crude propaganda.
I don't believe this is the case. Religions are eventually dumped when holding them becomes too much of a liability. This is happening in Europe. Quite simply, the social economics has changed. Up until recently, there was a greater cost in being non-Politically Correct, than in addressing issues of migration. With the large migrant intake and social division and low level assault, the cost of breaking the Politically Correct moral code is now LOWER than in not addressing the problem.
It's simple economics, and it's for this reason that far right groups are seeing a surge, why Germans are rapidly losing their timidity to express anti-immigrant views due to guilt about WWII and why this radicalisation will pick up.
Likewise any inane political or social idea will eventually die, not because it's been proved wrong, but because holding it has become too large of a liability. Humans rarely change views due to objective rationality and logic, but change them due to their social and economic benefit. This is probably why people don't change their views, despite facts and reason presented to them. People aren't interested in an idea because its true, but whether holding that idea will benefit them socially and economically.
Auntie Jack (not verified)
Mon, 2016-01-25 10:29
ABC highjacked by growth lobby
This morning I heard that 774 digital will doing a program about how a higher population is the answer to prosperity for Australia. This will be from 11.00 a.m. I don’t know who is kicking this off , I imagine it will be talk back. How dare they take advantage of the Australia day weekend for this propaganda? It’s obviously not our ABC.