A Provocate press release dated Thursday 20 January 2022 claims that Australia has just passed two million official Covid cases today (Thursday), with one-in-10 New South Wales and Victorian residents now living with a diagnosis leading into the upcoming Federal Election, according to "the latest VaxEnomicTM Forecaster from C-suite strategy group."
Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 Is out-of-date, old-fashioned
(30/10/14 - SP) MRRA: If the government now thinks SPP8 – the policy it promised to retain – is so out-of-date, so old-fashioned, it's the fault of the government which has had 4 years to fix it, and honour its election promise to put it in place as State policy. Red Alerts Say No To Suburbia Noticeboard
When elected in 2010, the State government promised to protect Macedon Ranges by reconfirming the 40 year policy – Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, Macedon Ranges and Surrounds – as State planning policy.
See also: Issues that should be decided at the 29 November Victorian State elections (14/10/14).
On 18 November, the Melbourne Age reported in Greens campaigning hard on East West Link in Melbourne inner-city seats:
Ellen Sandell, Greens
Victorian voters could on Saturday 29 November begin to take back their state Parliament from the vested interests that are now running Victoria.
If presented with open, informed discussion there is every reason to hope that a far larger proportion of Victorians than in previous years will vote for good independent or small party candidates and not for either of the two major parties.
Moreland residents seeking to divert funds for the East West Toll Road and Tunnel into public transport initiatives will gather together with groups and individuals from across Victoria for Saturday's 1pm Trains Not Toll Roads rally outside the State Library at La Trobe and Swanston streets.
2014 stand for. We believe that the implementation of the polices listed below would serve the interests of Victorians and would be supported by the overwhelming majority of Victorians if they were asked. however, few of thel of the policies listed below, are publicly supported by any of the major parties contesting the Victorian State elections to be held on 30 November 2014.<.p>
We expect that there will be candidates from other small parties and independent candidates, who support these policies. Where candobetter becomes awaer of such candidates, we will do all that we can to promote the and support them.
In late May 2014 the Syrian Girl debated on UK's Islam TV the legitimacy of the recently concluded elections. She debated on-line from Australia, two supporters of the terrorist insurgency who were present in a London studio. Whilst the moderator deserves credit for allowing the Syrian Girl to put her view, he also showed himself to be biased in favour of the insurgency. In the limited time available to her, the Syrian Girl again showed a very good grasp of the complexity of the Syrian conflict and effectively rebutted the claims made by the other two participants.
In an enlightened move for the Greens, the party in SA is actually acknowledging the strong and obvious link between living standards, environmental conservation and climate change – something that shouldn't be so obscure for the rest of the party with an environmental focus!
As Australians we pride ourselves with the presumption we live in a democracy, benefiting from the universally accepted principles of 'equality and freedom'.
The following article is a welcome relief from the near unanimity of the Canadian newsmedia in regard to immigration. However, I did have two minor concerns in an otherwise helpful and informative article. I have addressed these by adding footnotes to the article. - JS, 21 Sep 08
Rather than climbing over each other promising to increase the number of immigrants to Canada, party leaders should acknowledge that levels are already too high.
James Bissett, Citizen Special
Published in Ottawa Citizen: Thursday, 18 September 2008
We sometimes complain about politicians who don't do what they promise to do after they get elected. Ironically, it is sometimes much better for the country when some of these promises are broken.
Let's hope, for example, that the promises made by our political leaders to raise immigration levels and provide more money for immigrant organizations are not kept.
Either our political leaders do not know that Canada is facing an immigration crisis or they care more about gaining a few more so-called "ethnic voters" than they do about telling the truth about immigration.
There is only one reason why our political parties push for high immigration intake and that is they see every new immigrant as a potential vote for their party#main-fn1">1.
Canada is taking far too many immigrants and the leaders of all the parties are promising to take even more.
There are already close to a million immigrants waiting in the backlog to come here. They have all met the requirements and by law must be admitted. There is also a backlog of 62,000 asylum seekers before the refugee board and even if these are not found to be genuine refugees most will be allowed to stay. In addition, there are between 150,000 and 200,000 temporary workers now in the country and here again it is unlikely many of them will ever go home.
Despite these extraordinary numbers, the Harper government wants to raise the immigration intake next year to 265,000. The Liberals and the New Democrats have said they want even more, as much as one per cent of our population, or 333,000 each year.
These are enormous numbers and even in the best of times would place a serious burden on the economy and on the already strained infrastructure of the three major urban centres where most of them would end up.
Let's face the facts -- when there is a turndown in the world economy and dire predictions of serious recession or worse this is not the time to be bringing thousands of newcomers to Canada. In July of this year Ontario alone lost 55,000 jobs -- so what is the rationale for more immigration? The fact is there is no valid rationale. There is only one reason why our political parties push for high immigration intake and that is they see every new immigrant as a potential vote for their party. This is not only irresponsible; it borders on culpable negligence.
There are few economists today who argue that immigration helps the economy in any significant way. Studies in Canada since the mid-1980s have pointed out that immigration has little impact on the economic welfare of the receiving country and similar studies in the United States and Britain have reached the same conclusion. Comprehensive studies by George Borjas, the world's most renown immigration economist at Harvard have shown that immigration's only significant impact is to reduce the wages of native workers.
Our politicians justify their desire for more immigrants by raising the spectre of an aging population and tell us immigration is the only answer to this dilemma, and yet there is not a shred of truth to this argument. Immigration does not provide the answer to population aging and there is a multiplicity of studies done in Canada and elsewhere that proves this.
(Second page of article begins.)
Moreover, there is no evidence that a larger labour force necessarily leads to economic progress. Many countries whose labour forces are shrinking are still enjoying economic buoyancy. Finland, Switzerland and Japan are only a few examples of countries that do not rely on massive immigration to succeed.
Productivity is the answer to economic success, not a larger population.
Most Canadians assume that our immigrants are selected because they have skills, training and education that will enable them to enhance our labour force but only about 18 to 20 per cent of our immigrants are selected for economic factors. By far the bulk of the immigrants we receive come here because they are sponsored by relatives or because of so-called humanitarian reasons and none of these have to meet the "points system" of selection#main-fn2">2.
This is why over 50 per cent of recent immigrants are living below the poverty line and why they are not earning nearly the wages paid to equivalent Canadian workers.
It also explains why a study published this year by professor Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University revealed that the 2.5 million immigrants who came to Canada between 1990 and 2002 received $18.3 billion more in government services and benefits in 2002 than they paid in taxes. As Prof. Grubel points out, this amount is more than the federal government spent on health care and twice what was spent on defence in the fiscal year of 2000/2001. Isn't it time our party leaders were made aware of this study?
In the discussions about immigration we never hear from our political leaders about the serious environmental problems caused by the addition of over a quarter of a million immigrants each year. Most of our immigrants are coming from developing countries of Asia where their "ecological footprint" is tiny compared to the average Canadian but within months of arrival here the immigrant's footprint has increased to our giant size.
We have already experienced the impact mass migration has had on the health, education, traffic, social services and crime rates of our three major urban centres. It may be that cutting the immigration flow in half would do more than any gas tax to help reduce our environmental pollution.
If immigration is to be an issue in the election campaign then let us insist that the real issues be discussed and that our politicians contribute more to the debate than promising higher levels and more money to immigrant groups. Canadians and immigrants deserve better.
#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ James Bissett may have overlooked the "growth lobby". The growth lobby was the subject of Sheila Newman's 2002 "Master's Thesis The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France". Look for it on candobetter.org/sheila/. Paradoxically, as members of societies such as Canada, become, on the whole, more impoverished as the overall available natural resources, including land, have to be divided amongst ever larger numbers of people, a minority, principally land speculators, property developers and related commercial interests profit at the expense of everybody else. It is members of this growth lobby which are the most generous donors to larger political parties in countries such as Canada, Australia and the U.S. and who these parties principally serve once in government.
#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ This may be problematic point for opponents of high immigration in that it can appear to run counter to another argument often made against immigration, that is, that being that it is immoral for first world countries to set about poaching skilled workers at the expense of other countries, particularly poor third world countries. This has been the acknowledged policy of the pro-population growth Labor Government of the state of Queensland in Australia. Either one or both of current Premier Anna Bligh and former Premier Peter Beattie (I am not sure which) openly stated that they "shamelessly" recruited skilled workers from other countries. In theory, it's possible for a country to gain at the expense of another through immigration, if the component of skilled immigrants is high enough and others within the receiving country are not displaced by the skilled immigrants, but, in practice, both countries, as well as the whole planet nearly always lose.
Those Australians uncorrupted by the ubiquitous US media, are gobsmacked by the utter tastelessness that passes as attractive in US presidential candidates. Sarah Palin, the latest republican candidate for USA Vice President, epitomises this trend.
Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper recently posed the question "Have these been the most boring elections?". This triggered an exchange of e-mails which began when Independent Mayoral candidate James Sinnamon wrote an open letter to the Courier Mail's City Hall reporter.
From ABC online news of Posted 25 October 2007
The Mayor of Naracoorte and Lucindale in south-east South Australia, Ken Grundy, wants voters in the federal election to write the words "reduce immigration" on the top of the ballot papers, to pressure political parties to restrict population growth.
Mr Grundy says Australia cannot handle a massive influx of people because of scarce water resources, increasing pollution and stressed electricity supplies.
He says he recently heard a target of having 50 million people in Australia by 2030 and says that is unrealistic.
"The other day we saw somebody over in Britain and Ireland begging people to come here," he said.
"I just think at the moment we just need to look at sustainability. We look at it in every other field, why don't we look at it with population?"
The Australian Electoral Commission says writing on top of the ballot paper will not make it invalid, as long as it does not obscure any other important information on the ballot form and no name which could identify the voter is written.