Australia's overpopulation problem

Why has a Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group Member been vilified as racist and sexist and harassed with threats of expulsion for sticking up for our wildlife against needless rapid population growth? Read what Geoff Dowsett wrote and the response he got from candidate Tamara Ryan (included in the article).

This is what he wrote, asking Greens to circularise Greens candidates:

GEOFF:"As a candidate for John Kaye's Upper House seat how about a strong statement and policy improvement suggestion from you to address the desperate need to stabilise Australia`s population growth? The current "economic"---middle class so called skilled (non refugee) immigration rate of 500,000 per year including 457 Visa (a world record high intake) is not sustainable. Sydney's population is growing by 83,000 net pa under the Liberal Govt's Immigration scam. It is causing excessive impact on inadequate infrastructure-impact on natural eco-systems through urban growth and consumer demand. Increased traffic congestion in our major cities - sky rocketing housing prices. Of course the immigration rate is just what big business wants particularly the housing industry while our quality of life, natural environment and urban environment goes down the gurgler. The immigration rate is also closely linked with the insane growth economy which is addicted to continuing growth in consumption. It is HYPOCRISY of the Greens to have a policy of sustainable economy without a policy for a substantial reduction in immigration. Priority should be humanitarian i.e. for political and environmental refugees NOT wealthy middle class business migrants. When will the Greens members such as yourself bite the bullet on population ? I won't vote for you unless you make a statement indicating a clear commitment to reducing Turnbull's excessive Immigration and 457 Visa intake."(Geoff Dowsett. Member. Hornsby Kuringai Greens. Population/Sustainability Working Group Member. Statement above does not represent the views of all of the working group.)

What do you think of this response?

TAMARA: "Geoff. I understand your membership is being collectively reconsidered for your frequent racist and sexist comments like these Jeff. Your views on climate action via controlling immigration have no place in this party.represent the Environment

I don't care about your vote, but I do care fiercely about advocating for women's autonomy over their bodies, rejecting racism and opening borders. Capitalist structures that promote continuous growth and waste by corporations and governments are responsible for stifling efforts on climate change, not people seeking a place and way to live.

Read more here if you would like some more education on this :) 　Neoliberalism Poisoned Climate Action And Renewables Are The Antidote (2/8/2016) Mew Matilda

Tamara Ryan Candidate

The implied accusation of sexism seemed to be linked to some idea that Geoff was trying to interfere with women's rights to control their bodies. I cannot see anywhere where Geoff suggests this should happen. I also cannot see any reference to race in what Geoff wrote. Tamara makes gestures of support for the unemployed and working class, but for some reason, she doesn't seem to mind the super-rich being imported in hundreds of thousands to Australia as planned invited economic immigrants. Or does she have no idea of the actual numbers and how they are chosen? Does she think all immigrants are actually refugees? Tamara seems to be in favour of completely open borders, not just humane treatment of refugees: "Close the camps, open the borders, free all refugees." (https://www.facebook.com/RefugeesSurvivorsAndExdetainees/videos/1215228178517319/)

Is Open Borders official Greens policy now?

Ms Ryan's unpleasant response to Mr Dowsett seems sexist itself, with an unfounded slur of 'racism', and an implied threat about his membership of The Greens being 'collectively reconsidered'. This is not the only time I have heard of Greens members in population working groups being intimidated, for I have suffered by it personally.

Personal experience

As a committee member of Prosper Australia, around the time of the formation of its ‘green’ Earthsharing brand, I personally experienced, with another committee member, similar treatment from a cluster of new members, vocally hostile about our affiliation with Sustainable Population Australia (SPA). This hostility manifested as a very threatening warning from one of them following a small rally of oddly assorted pro- lifers and claimants to be refugee advocates outside a perfectly innocent but important public meeting on democracy in Australia which we as members of SPA were holding at the premises of Prosper with the blessing of the Prosper committee. As it transpired, our treatment was part of a hostile takeover by Socialist Alliance members of the comparatively wealthy NGO. We had to leave. Some of these people later have thrown their weight about in the Greens on population issues.

I later joined my local Greens, far away from Prosper, but at the mention of population, (myself and) another member (an immigrant from Cairo whom I had only met in that branch) and I were sent to Coventry by a then recent blow-in from the Labour Party, who took over the management of that branch of the Greens email list. No-one now would dare discuss the obvious problem of high immigration, with its huge contribution to high population growth, and the impact on wildlife and the green wedges of expanding suburbs.

Here is someone else’s experience

A few years ago I heard the following tale, which has now been written down for the record:

"This is my recollection of working with a team within the Greens on revising the Population Policy. At that time many of the Greens’ polices were being reviewed by working groups. About eight of us met several times in the city after work to focus on the policy and to improve it.

As I recall there was little or no friction or disagreement within the group on any of the points. We were all focused on sustainability and environment and did our best to reflect this in the alterations to the then policy. This work resulted in a document noting changes on which we all agreed. As I understand , this document was sent to Adelaide for a committee to consider it. As I understand, also, it was rejected completely as it had too many amendments from the original policy. That is what I was told.

Some time after this I was also told that at a large, possibly national Greens gathering or convention in Carlton, that when the issue of population came up, there were very loud intimidating aggressive voices raised to silence anyone who wanted to wade in on the topic. One of the people who had been part of the working group emailed the rest of us after attending this event, saying that he had no further wish to pursue this any further in view of the threatening tone of these people at the meeting. I never heard from this person again and the working group effectively dissolved at that point."

Greens Crucible

[New video version here since last one taken off-line.]

Such censorship and bullying control by people dominating in a group reminds me of Arthur Miller's The Crucible, a play about witch trials in 17th century America. It is a play which has often been studied by high school students with the glaring lesson that free speech can be snuffed out by irrational alliances within the dominant doctrine. It sometimes seems as though the Greens are increasingly defined by people who have taken the role of Puritans accusing anyone they disagree with of witchcraft, except they accuse them of sexism and racism, where none exists. But the implications are similarly terrible, in that they are designed to stigmatise, ostracise, and disempower those they target, thereby silencing their views. In Miller’s Crucible the accusers were themselves guilty of playing at sorcery. They became fearful of being denounced themselves as sinners, and defend themselves by accusing others of attempting to bewitch them.

If this is so then The Greens have gone down a blind alley and philosophically seem to have reached a dead end. What are they about if they cannot tackle the main threat to “green-ness”, environmental sustainability and conservation of nature and wildlife, which is human population numbers in situ?

What are the elders in the Greens doing about the stifling of discussion within the ranks of the party? What do they think of the association between their members, so-called socialist groups and the violent Antifa, who are paid to riot?[1] [No insult intended here to real socialists or anarchists.] They seem to be standing back or even approving while the intimidation grows. [2] Are they in fact also the product of unexamined ideology? Do they agree with its effects, which are to keep Australian political debate confused and unrepresentative, bogged down in imagined racism and sexism (while real racism and sexism continue) and overpopulation and overdevelopment turn our environment into concrete. Are they all globalists? Do they really agree with massive, developed, urbanized import-export economies which destroy the diversity of hunter-gatherers, herders, tribes and nations for this?

What can people who really are environmentalists do when the party that bears their flag provides cover for materialistic land-speculating nature-destroying neoliberalism for which population-dependent economic growth at all costs is God? What can they do about the growing violence and intimidation in the Greens?

NOTES

[1] Internationally: Wrong kind of green.

[2] https://newmatilda.com/2016/02/29/far-right-group-accidentally-confuses-greens-senator-with-random-vaguely-similar-looking-woman/

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/greens-show-their-true-colours-are-a-shade-darker-than-theyd-have-you-believe/news-story/f434f2265f775b5e8016beb21723c024

Mercurius Goldstein is a current candidate for the Legislative Council Preselection in New South Wales. Because overpopulation via mass planned invited economic immigration is a very big concern in Australia, and people wonder why the Greens downplay or even suppress this concern, we have published Goldstein's views on population numbers with an analysis by Jane O'Sullivan.

Mercurious Goldstein's views on population [1]

"Briefly I believe that:

1) Anyone who isn’t serious about equality, empowerment and education for women and girls globally, isn’t serious about population.
2) Anyone who isn’t serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy for NSW, Australia and the world, isn’t serious about population.
3) Anyone who isn’t serious about implementing sustainable agriculture such as the Greens NSW policy in this area, isn’t serious about population.
I think it’s obscene that we live in a world where lumps of coal, new cars, or live sheep, can more readily cross borders than human beings.

The liberty of people can be arbitrarily denied and they can be indefinitely detained and abused by governments, but we are told we must not restrict the flow of fossil fuels, live animals in misery ships, or any form of cross-border corporate power. That’s the “logic” of neoliberalism, and we need to dismantle it.

I hope the above can serve as a general response to the question."

Jane O'Sullivan's analysis

This is a very interesting response, in a population-denialist psychology sense.

Before looking at the substance of what he is saying, the tone is aggressively condescending. It reads as a put-down to the people raising the population issue.

It uses the same rhetorical device that the Greens' population policy by-line uses: appearing to introduce balance between population and other factors, while actually deflecting and belittling any attention to population.

(That policy by-line says, “Environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live.” It does not say, "Environmental impact is not determined by consumption patterns alone, but also by our population numbers." The wording the Greens have chosen might be argued to be saying the same thing, but actually it is falsely accusing those who raise the population issue of claiming it is the sole determinant of environmental impact, at the same time it completely dismisses population by failing to include the word "also" in the final clause.)

Mercurius' three points use the same trick of reversing the points. It makes it look at first glance as if he is "serious about population" - indeed, more so than all those shallow, naive people who raise the population issue, because they, by implication, don't put sufficient weight on equality, carbon emissions or sustainable agriculture. His logic seems to be that if you are not way too busy pursuing equality, renewable energy or sustainable agriculture to even think about population, then you're not "serious about population".

Of course, he's not serious about population at all. He doesn't seem to have any awareness of the issues, other than that the people raising it often want to reduce immigration and therefore they are evil and dangerous in his view. He does seem to be serious about silencing the population issue within the Greens agenda. That's what this statement is designed to do. He hopes "the above can serve as a general response to the question." It doesn't "serve" as anything, it just deflects the issue.

To illustrate, would it be acceptable to anyone, if the Greens said "Anyone who isn't serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy isn't serious about equality"? Would people really accept that these issues are linked to the extent that we shouldn't actually do or say anything about equality until we have achieved a carbon-neutral economy? Of course not. We can and must do both at once. But apparently not when it comes to "population".

However, it would be entirely valid to say:

1) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about equality, empowerment and education for women and girls globally. (The fact is, family planning programs, through both their direct impact on changing attitudes toward women and their role, and by reducing the burdens of childrearing and the crowding of schools through population growth, has enabled far greater empowerment and education for women than any non-family-planning agenda to help women in high-fertility countries.)

2) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy for NSW, Australia and the world. (Do I need to explain this one?)

3) Anyone who isn’t serious about population, isn’t serious about implementing sustainable agriculture. (Regardless of whatever the Greens NSW policy in this area is, agriculture can't be indefinitely intensified to feed indefinitely more people - and its further intensification comes with greater environmental costs.)

Sheila [Newman] asks [2] "Are the Greens actually an open-borders party?" Certainly, there are quite a few Greens members who appear to support open borders. There are a great many more who wouldn't actually support open borders if they thought a lot of people would use them, but delude themselves into thinking that the refugee inflow will remain a mere trickle, and the economic migrants will continue to be only those we really need to fill skills shortages (as if they ever were), even if we let anyone come and stay for ever and access our welfare system if that's what they want to do. Such nonsensical beliefs are cultivated by ensuring that there can be no open and honest discussion about the implications of "open borders".

To emulate Mercurius,
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about democracy.
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about protecting the environment.
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about indigenous rights;
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about housing affordability and homelessness;
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about a welfare safety-net;
Anyone who supports open borders isn't serious about decent pay and secure jobs.

Perhaps these statements could be taken as "hypotheses" which the Greens should either disprove, or openly distance themselves from advocating open borders. That means, they have to actually come up with workable policies on immigration, not just heap scorn on the government's position.

NOTES

[1] The context of statement from Mercurius Goldstein is explained in this email: On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Geoff at Eco Bushwalks Sydney wrote: I received this email below the dotted line today from the candidate. It was as you can see addressed to the group via me. [...]"
.................................................................................................

[...]
As you may be aware, I am currently a candidate for the Legislative Council Preselection that is being run.

For the information of members of the group, could I please ask for this opportunity to share my views on population?
I was asked about population recently in another forum, and this is the answer I gave then, and it remains my view.
I have also cc:'d a couple of other GNSW members for whom this matter may be of interest.

Briefly I believe that:

1) Anyone who isn’t serious about equality, empowerment and education for women and girls globally, isn’t serious about population.
2) Anyone who isn’t serious about developing a carbon-neutral economy for NSW, Australia and the world, isn’t serious about population.
3) Anyone who isn’t serious about implementing sustainable agriculture such as the Greens NSW policy in this area, isn’t serious about population.
I think it’s obscene that we live in a world where lumps of coal, new cars, or live sheep, can more readily cross borders than human beings.

The liberty of people can be arbitrarily denied and they can be indefinitely detained and abused by governments, but we are told we must not restrict the flow of fossil fuels, live animals in misery ships, or any form of cross-border corporate power. That’s the “logic” of neoliberalism, and we need to dismantle it.
I hope the above can serve as a general response to the question.
---
With thanks for your consideration,
Yours sincerely,

MERCURIUS GOLDSTEIN
New England Greens (Glen Innes Region)
I live and work on Ngarrabul land and pay my respects to Elders past and present.

[2] Sheila Newman (Researcher and editor of candobetter.net in correspondence with Geoff Dowsett about Mercurius Goldstein's statement) wrote: "Is this guy a globalist? Does he agree with massive import export economies and with destroying the diversity of hunter-gatherers, herders, tribes and nations for this? What is his timeline for educating all women and how does he reconcile this with the problem of suburbs being built over our bushland and the rights of other species? Are the Greens actually an open-borders party?"

[a] Due to a garbled email, I erroneously gained the impression that Mercurius was the convenor of a population working party in the Greens, but he is not.

Co-author of Climate Code Red and the author of the 2015 Breakthrough paper Striking Targets, seasoned Melbourne based environmental campaigner, Philip Sutton, is known for his comprehensive and well-researched presentations.

Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian and Tasmanian branch)
Annual General Meeting
Saturday September 10th at 2.00pm

Hawthorn Library meeting rooms 3-4, 584 Glenferrie Rd, Hawthorn VIC 3122
*Please note change of venue from past years*
NOMINATIONS for COMMITTEE POSITIONS: If you wish to nominate yourself or others for any committee positions or have an agenda item you wish to add, please email before 28th August to [email protected] or write to RETURNING OFFICER, SUSTAINABLE POPULATION AUSTRALIA, Victorian and Tasmanian branch, PO BOX 556 Hawthorn 3122.
ELECTION OF OFFICE BEARERS: All financial members of SPA Vic/Tas can take part
Following the formal proceedings, we are delighted to present our guest speaker,
Philip Sutton-The growth economy- is there another way?

Philip Sutton is co-author of Climate Code Red and the author of the 2015 Breakthrough paper StrikingTargets. He is Manager and Strategist for RSTI (Research and Strategy for Transition Initiation). Philip is one of the leaders of the current campaign for the declaration of a climate emergency and has just written the national Climate Emergency (Restructuring and Mobilisation) model Act. Philip is a past president of the Sustainable Living Foundation and of the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics. He was the architect of the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act passed in Victoria in 1988 and initiated the campaign that led to the banning of nuclear power in Victoria in 1983.

Philip’s talk will be followed by discussion and Q&A. Our meeting is public and all are welcome, so please invite friends and colleagues to hear his important address.

Referring to the HILDA Report, the author suggests that, if immigration were reduced, a precipitate decline in house-prices could probably be adequately buffered by local buyers who currently cannot afford to enter the grossly inflated housing market.

Yet another report about homelessness in Australia

Melbourne University Faculty of Business and Economics this week released a report entitled,"The Household, Income and Labour dynamics in Australia survey," (HILDA for short).

The main disturbing and most publicized finding on the day it was released was that home ownership in Australia is in steady decline and the steepest decline is in the state of Victoria. In Victoria I see the extreme manifestation of this trend, homelessness in the streets of Melbourne, every time I venture to the city or inner Melbourne areas such as Carlton. I actually know personally two people, one older and one young, who have experienced homelessness in Melbourne.

It seems obvious that for home ownership levels to recover, growth in house prices urgently needs to slow and stop. For the good of our society, prices even need to fall. Author of the HILDA Report, Professor Roger Wilkins, offered as a solution to the catastrophic decline in home ownership, the very meagre suggestion of an abolition of the capital gain tax discount, presumably as a disincentive to investment in housing. I would however maintain that people will still want to invest if a certain capital gain is to be had, even if they do pay tax! They would still be ahead!

Would a decline in Australian house prices be a concern?

For home owners with only one property and who are mortgage-free, a drop in the $ value of their houses really wouldn’t matter as long as it were part of a general, overall decline in property values. For those who are servicing a mortgage, a significant drop in property prices could be a problem, as their equity becomes less as a proportion of the amount owing.

So, can we escape a populating growth fueled housing Ponzi nightmare without collateral damage?

Initially, stabilising the $value of houses would not be as painful as a sudden decline.

I will take it as read that house price increases are due to a greater demand than there is supply. Demand has increased as net overseas migration has increased. A dramatic increase in Net Overseas Migration (NOM) dates back to John Howard’s time in power and has hardly let up. This number needs to come down.

One can also base the potential housing demand on the number of young adults in the population. In the 'best of all possible worlds, local young adults will want to establish their own households, whether singly or as couples, or with friends or siblings, as a first step. Immigrants, young or old, all need accommodation immediately on arrival.

If, for young Australians, buying a house is manageable and they enter the housing market (for many it is not affordable now) then that will actually increase demand from that age group. So reducing immigration dramatically would not be the only factor affecting prices. Lower immigration would have a downward effect and local young adults entering the market would tend to keep prices buoyant. The two effects would not necessarily at all be equal to one another and this balance would depend largely on the amount by which net overseas migration decreased.

In 2015 there were 1,054,565 people in Australia in the age group 24-26 (inclusive). At this age let’s assume young people have finished their post school education and are ready for the work force. They really need to leave home and either buy a house or rent. In 2011 (https://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129552283) 29% of young people 18-34 were still living at home. All the young adults still living at home with their parents are potential home-grown consumers of housing.

Are vacancies as a result of deaths an adequate source of housing supply?

In Australia there are about 150,000 deaths per year. Not all these deaths release accommodation, as not all deaths are of people living alone. Some may leave a family behind! But even if 50% of them did result in a house coming for sale or rental, i.e. 70,000 houses or apartments, then there is still that potential demand from 1,054,565 people in the 24-26 age group alone (2015 ABS) and, if the cost of housing stabilized, maybe all young people would be seeking accommodation away from the family home. Even without immigration, there is still, from these figures, a much higher potential demand for housing than there is existing housing which may become vacant. This is because the present age group needing to establish themselves in their adult lives is much larger than the older group. For example, in the Baby Boomer age group in 2015, arbitrarily aged 60-63, there were 775,971 people (2015 ABS) . This is a much smaller number than the potential house hunters in the 24-26 age bracket. Even then, people in their early 60s can expect another 20 years of life and will need their homes in the interim. Even if they left their houses there would still not be enough houses for the more numerous early 20s group. If one were to expect an imminent bonanza from the group 20 years older than the Baby Boomers, one would be disappointed because there are only 223,430 in a three year age bracket in their early 80s!

Where does demand for housing come from?

1. Emerging young adults needing housing away from the family home either as newly formed couples or other arrangements. The actual number depends on which age group is selected but it is a larger number than in the age brackets where downsizing or death are likely

2. Net overseas immigration – about 200,000 every year 3. Investment – local or overseas. 4. Holiday houses or units.

Of the investment properties, many of them will be available for rental. Although this does not help home ownership, at least it means, if rents are affordable, that people may be housed.

If foreign investment in Australian real estate were prohibited and net overseas migration reduced to levels say of the 1990s - 70,000 to 90,000 or lower, it would take extreme pressure off house prices. Then local young people might have a fighting chance of getting into the housing market. Young Australians who are now living at home with a parent or parents would get an opportunity to enter the market which would keep prices buoyant but not in the extreme.

Further demand for housing in Australia is surely waiting in the wings from people now sharing dwellings who would prefer less crowded arrangements. They would, in fact, become a new market for house sellers. The housing market would become more stable and gradually Australians could get used to a climate where a house was somewhere to live and not a speculative investment. The housing sector does not need to worry. If houses are on the cusp of affordable, I maintain there are local customers who will want to buy them or rent them. People would start to be able to exercise choices with respect to housing.

We are now in a dangerous cycle of price rises and of buyers, possibly in a defensive move, taking on enormous debt (relative to income) because they expect prices to go ever higher. A crash in prices would be wonderful for some and catastrophic for others, but I believe this situation can be avoided in Australia even with a significant cut to demand from overseas because of the age distribution of the population and the 'pent up' demand from young adults in the population.

World population Day was established by the UN in 1989 to highlight concerns as the planet’s population went past 5 billion. It is now at 7.4 billion and rising by about 80 million every year, so the problems are even more intractable (despite the rate of growth declining). Medium scenarios produced by the UN estimate the world population could be between 9 and 10 billion by 2050.

It may surprise some that Australia has one of the highest population growth rates in the developed world. We are adding about 325,000 people a year, with about 55 per cent from net overseas migration and 45 per cent from natural increase at the present time, although it has stood at a 60/40 ratio for a number of years.

Population is a notoriously difficult subject to discuss in public forums, partly due to the complexity of the subject and partly due to the political and emotional nature of the issues. These issues can go to the core of people’s philosophies and values and include notions of freedom and human rights, compassion, religion, progress, ecology, and economic imperatives.

In Australia, people often get confused between sometimes competing issues like refugees and asylum seekers, racism, border protection, defence, economic migration, colonial guilt, and sustainability. These tensions are not unique to Australia, as we can see from debates in Europe and the US in recent times.

What the European, American and indeed Australian problems show is that sovereign states should not consider themselves immune from population pressures in other parts of the world as desperate people will have little regard for borders or dangerous sea crossings.

To that extent, not-for-profits like Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) are continually lobbying governments to increase foreign aid to the developing world to help it gain control over unwanted and harmful population increase. Unwanted population growth can largely be curtailed through a mixture of education, the provision of modern contraception, safe emergency abortion, and the alleviation of poverty – although some people like to argue about which is more important.
Regardless, the empowerment of women is vital.

So purely from a selfish point of view it is in Australia’s interests to maintain a reasonable level of foreign aid, in concert with the rest of the developed world, and targeted to voluntary family planning programs that we know can be successful. Unfortunately Australia’s foreign-aid budget has been shrinking lately in a retrograde and myopic fashion.

But leaving the more obvious global problem to one side, Australia is long overdue for an open debate on the benefits and burdens of domestic population growth and where these benefits and burdens fall.

A recent survey commissioned by SPA found that most Australians did not think we needed more people; and a survey by SBS in May found that 59% of people thought that the level of immigration over the last 10 years had been too high*.

Proponents of a ‘big Australia’ are mostly business barons and their hirelings: the wealthy gain the most from population growth and can largely insulate themselves from its negative effects like sky-rocketing real-estate prices, long commutes to work and infrastructure shortfalls.

Meanwhile, the average person, but especially the young and the poor, suffers the most – from unaffordable housing, general congestion, and competition for access to education and health services.

More unseen problems tend to harm everybody: these include biodiversity loss, increased greenhouse gases and climate change, the reduction in fresh-water availability, and the steady increase in all kinds of pollution.

While unpopular among elites, especially economists, there needs to be a conversation about the direction our society is going. The privileging and mindless pursuit of GDP growth might not be the best option on a finite planet where limits to growth seem obvious to all those not blinded by dogma. Rather, the pursuit and monitoring of such things as general wellbeing and happiness might be a more rational strategy, especially if that means a more equal sharing of what wealth can be generated in an ecologically sustainable fashion.

If we adopt the latter planned approach, we might well find that a stable rather than an ever-growing population is more sensible. The alternative may well be an unplanned population correction that no one would find enjoyable.

*[http://tapri.org.au/?page_id=2 ]

In the article the writer questions the whole idea of governments making top-down decisions about the size of a country's population.

A question that often comes up when discussion population related matter is, "What should the population be?" or "What level of immigration/growth do you think is suitable?". I don't have an answer to that question, and I don't intend to provide one.

At issue: Is population size really a matter for the state?

In "What a Population Policy means to a People" we discussed the dangers of having a population policy. A government which imposes a population policy is doing more than simply deciding how many people exist within the geographic areas that it governs, its also making a determination on the composition of the population, which becomes unavoidable when any other population target than that which would have been arrived at naturally must involve. As we are subject to population policies which seek to increase the population, this means that the immigration program must unavoidably act to the detriment of the original populations, diminishing their representation and power in order to achieve an abstract target. The issue isn't whether a government decides to increase the population, decrease it, or keep it constant, the issue is the belief that the government has a right to decide this matter in the first place. The issue is the belief that population size is a matter for the state, and like interest rates, tax rates, tariffs and the number of taxi licences issues, is a matter for a bureaucracy to decide.

Also flawed is the idea that a government can set population targets democratically, if it puts forward its policies before the electorate and allows the population to vote for one which they prefer. This assumes that there are sufficient options put before the public, that the parties are given equal treatment in the media, and that the population vote according to their own interests and reason, instead of how the establishment pushes them with scaremongering and propaganda. This isn't what we observe, so if our democracy is anything less than perfect in offering a full spectrum of choices, each of which stand a change, we can't rely on a vote. But even if we were to vote, we still have a population policy in the first place. We still legitimise the right of the state to set a policy, which can very quickly and easily turn pathological. Even a sensible population policy doesn't solve this problem, as we are still ceding to the state the right to manipulate us, to displace and diminish us, or otherwise make judgements on the suitability of us as the population of the nation.

People vote democratically with their wombs

The alternative is to allow the population size to be set by the people by the most democratic means available, the individual reproductive choices that we all make. With cheap and readily available birth control, we more or less are capable of choosing or ourselves how many children we have. The birthrate of the nation is therefore nothing more than the accumulative decision making of all people manifesting itself. If people think the population is too low, they will choose to have more children, and the population will increase. If they think the population is large enough, and we don't need growth, they'll have fewer children and the population will stabilise or even reduce. Below replacement birth rates in the Western world are an indication that the people have voted with their ova and sperm, and don't perceive the need for a 'populate or perish' mindset. [This idea of below replacement is abused a lot by our masters. I suggest removing the 'The' which makes it sound like a widely established phenomenon, and just having 'Below replacement' which doesn't suggest such statistical dominance.]

So what should be the role of the state?

So where does the state fit in? It is the role of political and economic leaders not to force a population outcome that they desire or which suits their own objectives, but adapt that that chosen by the people. The low birthrate is only an issue because our political and economic ruling class cannot handle or adapt to this new reality. We have growth forced upon us because the dominant political class refuses to adapt, refuses to implement new solutions, refuses to reform and instead asks us to adapt and even to destroy ourselves, for their own security and posterity. In short, if a stable or falling population is a problem for the political and economic ruling class, then it is the ruling class which is deficient, which has the problem, not the people.

Immigration rate should be in line with birth rate

Immigration therefore has to fit in with this. As population policy is largely implemented through the immigration floodgates, and immigration is used to override the peoples' wishes, immigration policy therefore has to be synchronised with birthrate. Therefore, a sensible immigration policy would be in-line with the birthrate, and not seek to counteract it. Ideally, it the net population intake through immigration would be a function of the total birthrate. If the birthrate rises, then the immigration rate increases and conversely, if the birthrate lowers, then the immigration rate lowers. Immigration could be set at a fixed percentage of total births, where it represents at most, a small percentage. In Australia at the moment, immigration account for more than half of all additions, which is way to high. A better figure would be about 10%, allowing some people to enter Australia if they need to, but not being significant enough to override Australias chosen birthrate.

For those concerned about future population growth, such a stance should be acceptable, because birthrates being just below replacement in Australia (1.93 births per woman as of July 2016),[1] this should act as a limiting factor for future growth. Further measures can be taken to lower the birthrate by removing government incentives.

For Australia's pattern up to 2013 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Previousproducts/3301.0Main%20Features42013?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3301.0&issue=2013&num=&view=

A new front has opened in the student-migration scam, whereby the Turnbull Government has opened the door to international primary school students and their guardians to access Australian schools and purchase Australian property ahead of achieving permanent residency. From SBS News:

[Republished here with permission. Originally published at http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/category/featured-article/. Published by the Unconventional Economist at #comment-2636816">http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/06/turnbull-opens-new-student-migration-scam-floodgate/#comment-2636816]

From July 1, students aged six and above would be able to apply for student visas regardless of their country of citizenship – and their guardians can also apply for Guardian visas (subclass 580)…

These visa-rule changes, which were announced during Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s visit to China in April, also mean non-residents can buy several new properties or one existing property…

Dave Platter, from the leading Chinese international-property portal Juwai.com said there has been a nearly 20 per cent jump in inquiries for properties in Australia since Mr Turnbull’s announcement…

Estate agents Vera and Geoffrey Wong have hosted an open home in Sydney’s Eastwood.

Most of their clients are either Chinese or South Korean investors, and Mr Wong says when they were choosing a property, there is no doubt their children’s education is considered most important.

He said buyers are planning purchases that cater for their children’s entire education.

“Schooling … that is – I can’t emphasise it enough – is one of the main factors,” he said.

“Our clients, I would say over 70 per cent, (are looking,) at schooling and the university afterwards.”

Unbelievable. Primary schools in “good” catchment areas are already bursting at the seams. Meanwhile, Australia’s biggest cities, which is where most migrants arrive, are already struggling to digest a decade of rampant population growth (immigration), which has clogged their roads, trains, and reduced residents’ overall amenity.

And yet the government wants to add more immigrant fuel to the fire, just so that it keeps a floor under Australia’s already ridiculously expensive house values.

Where is the additional federal investment in schools and infrastructure to keep up with the migrant influx? And where is the consideration of impacts on Australia’s existing residents – especially young families struggling to buy a home and put their children through schooling?

Is this what Australia has been reduced to: flogging land, houses and visas to wealthy Chinese? Is this what Turnbull really means by his “innovation agenda”? Surely we can do better.

unconventionaleconomist AT hotmail.com

For the past ten years Australians have been subjected to an exceptionally high level of population growth and now they are losing patience. (Article first published on June 13, 2016 at the Australian Population Research Institute. Republished here for the second time owing to recent data loss from site.)

The graph shows the steep increase in numbers since 2006 (data from here). If this continues the population will grow from 24 million today to around 41 million in 2061 (see the 2013 ABS projection series 29 and 41).

In November 2015 a survey commissioned by Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) found that 51% of voters thought Australia did not need more people. Then in May this year a survey done for SBS TV found that 59% of people thought that the level of immigration over the last 10 years had been too high.

The SPA survey asked respondents to give reasons for their opinion. Many of those who thought we did not need more people said our cites were overcrowded (with too much traffic)—consequences of rapid growth all too apparent to urbanites. Others spoke of job competition. And many worried about the effects of growth on Australia’s fragile environment. Concern about too much cultural diversity and migrant enclaves was also high on the list.

The SBS survey focused on immigration and found that dissatisfaction with immigration was even higher than with growth in general. It asked about multiculturalism and 46% of respondents said that this had failed. It had brought social division and religious extremism to Australia (43% of those who were immigrants themselves agreed).

It was reasonable for SBS to focus on immigration because this accounts for the major part of the current population boom — around 58%.

Immigration is a product of government policy. It’s the outcome of decisions made by political elites, prompted by lobbyists for property developers, employers, and other businesses that profit from population growth. The two surveys show that the electorate is fed up with the unwanted growth that this power elite has wished upon them.

The record numbers of migrants in the 2000s were partly justified by the push to keep affordable skills coming during the investment phase of the resources boom. But since 2012 that justification has evaporated and economic growth has slowed. Despite this, Governments, both Labor and Coalition, have kept immigration high. Now the motivation is to keep the housing and development interests happy. They continue to profit from a stream of new customers, a stream which also keeps the construction industry going and creates the appearance of a busy economy. But this strategy has not increased per capita income. Quite the reverse.

It’s not just that forced population growth leads to clogged infrastructure, cultural disruption and environmental deterioration, it is also comes with financial stress.

Leith Van Onselen writes that:

While headline GDP growth across Australia has held-up reasonably well over the past decade, thanks to high immigration, per capita real GDP is trending down so sharply that it has fallen to levels not seen since the early-1980s recession. … #_edn5" name="_ednref5" id="_ednref5">

While real GDP has been rising since December 2011, net disposable income (NDI) per capita has been falling. See graph below. (NDI is explained here.)

Urban voters are also angry about the level of densification forced on them by undemocratic planning authorities determined to accommodate developers. Groups such as Planning Backlash,#_edn9" name="_ednref9" id="_ednref9"> BRAG (Boroondara Residents Action Group),#_edn10" name="_ednref10" id="_ednref10"> Save our Suburbs, RAGE (Residents against Greedy Enterprise) and the Carlton Residents Association all express deep frustration about over-development, loss of heritage and declining quality of life.

So far the growth lobby has been able to keep on profiting from ballooning numbers, partly because few voters fully understand what is being done to them. They know that conditions are getting worse but they don’t fully understand the key role played by population growth.

The SPA survey tested respondents’ knowledge of demographic change. The minority (16%) who had a good understanding were the most likely to say that Australia does not need more people. But 82% knew very little. Though they were unhappy about time-devouring traffic jams and ugly new high-rise apartments, they didn’t always know why these miseries were being wished upon them, or why they felt so powerless.

But their unhappiness has political effects, effects which can explain why governments have been toppling so fast. Kelvin Thomson calls this the witches hat theory of why governments fail. Mark O’Connor summarises it thus:

[S]taying in power, and keeping the electorate happy is a little like an advanced driving course, one in which a government is required to thread a kind of slalom course between a series of witches’ hats — meaning the orange inverted cones that mark out the course. These hats, which the government, like the driver, needs to avoid knocking over, include such things as keeping electricity and water costs down, reducing hospital queues, keeping housing affordable, preserving the environment, providing full employment, restricting inflation, etc.
And the faster a country’s population is rising, the harder it is to do this… It’s like trying to negotiate the course at double speed.

As Thomson himself puts it:
[W]hen politicians … look in the mirror and ask ‘Why don’t they like me?’, the answer might well be that they are driving the car too fast and knocking over those witches’ hats. They should slow the car down and focus on solving people’s real-life problems.

It is not surprising that Dick Smith, outspoken critic of mindless population growth, is now the most trusted public figure in Australia. Or that mainstream politicians are among the least trusted.

 

Right now the UK is politically divided on whether or not to leave the European Union and the mood in many quarters is ugly. It seems that there is a very strong chance that the forthcoming Brexit referendum could swing in favour of the Leave vote, something that seemed unimaginable a few years ago. The main reason for most people wanting to leave is because they are concerned with the UK’s rapid rate of population growth. This article is by Michael Bayliss (President of Sustainable Population Australia Victoria and Tasmania Branch) and Mark Allen (Population, Permaculture and Planning)

A proportion of the blame can be placed on those who have a narrow vision of what it is to be British in the 21st century and who are often misled by those parts of the media that take a more sensationalist approach.

However, the left also need to bear some of the responsibility because they have for far too long placed the topic of population in the politically incorrect basket. With net migration last year coming in at 300,000, people have a right to be concerned, especially when there is no end point to this rate of growth in sight. What is all the more concerning is that the refusal by many on the left to engage on this important issue has allowed the right to exploit this to their advantage by peddling all kinds of fear and untruths. Sadly it appears to be working.

So what lessons are there to be learned here in Australia? There is a parallel because we too are experiencing rapid population growth with net immigration in 2015 at 168 000, so the impact here is larger on a per capita basis.

While it may appear that this would be tempered somewhat by the sheer size of the Australian landmass, this population growth is centered mainly around the Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane conurbations. Until there are jobs, infrastructure and the political will, our boundless plains will continue to be just that. Considering that these plains are mostly desert and rangeland, there is an argument that they are mostly not suitable for new urban settlement anyway, so the focus is very much on our narrow strip of green along the Eastern seaboard. To put this in perspective, the populations of Sydney and Melbourne are growing by 1600 and 1760 a week respectively and people are beginning to feel it.

Meanwhile the government (and just about everyone else) are currently doing a good job of keeping our high rate of immigration away from the public radar. Instead we keep reinforcing the association in the minds of many people of migration with refugees. As John Howard famously promoted this very misunderstanding when he said on the radio 2014:

“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...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.”

However, the wool cannot be pulled over our eyes forever as the negative consequences of population growth only keep intensifying. Eventually more and more people will join the dots and it is then that we face the threat of the fear- mongering far right taking a foothold.

Do we really have to wait until then? If we engage in sensible rational discourse now about what constitutes a sustainable rate of growth we can avoid all of this. This means that the left have to come to the table. If the issue continues to be ignored we could end up with a situation similar to what is going on in the United Kingdom and it will leave the topic in the hands of those who feed off fear and hate.

This issue is only going to get bigger as Australia's population continues to grow by a new Adelaide approximately every three years. People of compassion need to be the ones who set the tone for the conversations that will ultimately come. If the compassionate fail in this responsibility, they will create a void where people with bigoted views will take centre stage.

Australia is a multicultural country with a proud tradition of supporting refugees and this needs to be the central message on the left. We do not need to be an apologist for the rapid population growth that is being used to justify an economic ponzi scheme.

It is time to put left and right ideologies aside and focus thoughtfully on delivering the most equitable and compassionate outcomes for all people and the earth as a whole. How rapidly we grow our population and how we distribute that population should be part of that discussion.

The views in this article do not necessarily correspond with the views of Sustainable Population Australia

Today I received an email from GetUp recruiting volunteers to hand out how to vote cards. They referred to success stopping destruction of the Reef (by capitalists), promoting renewable energy, etc.... Everyone who believes in population growth supports a traditional right wing agenda. This includes GetUp, the Greens and all the major political parties. Does GetUp even know what it means when it refers to right wing and left wing? Open Letter to Paul Oosting, Level 14, 338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000. Paul, Your latest email rant entitled: “Our new weapon against right wingers” implies that you think you, and GetUp, are left wing? Excerpts from Wikipedia below provide a context to the absurdity of your confusion:

The left–right [political spectrum] is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies, and parties. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another. In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order."[1][2][3][4] The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate. Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.[5][6][7] Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.[8] Progressive Progressivism is a philosophy based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[1] Sociologist Robert Nisbet defines five "crucial premises" of the Idea of Progress as being: value of the past; nobility of Western civilization; worth of economic/technological growth; faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason; the intrinsic importance and worth of life on Earth.[2] The term is often used as shorthand for a more or less left-wing way of looking at the world. Beyond this, the meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives.[3] The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and industrialists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.

The definitions above generally describe a left winger as a progressive anti-capitalist. The fundamental flaw in all of this hypothetical mumbo jumbo is the driving force behind economic development, economic inequality and environmental devastation. That driving force is population growth. Since population and economic growth (a direct consequence of capitalism) are inextricably linked; anyone who supports the former is by definition right wing. GetUp and the Greens are right wing as are all Australia’s political parties with the exception of the Lower Migration party. Australia’s annual GDP growth has averaged 3.2% since Federation. Population growth has averaged 1.6%. Over the last 2 decades GDP growth has declined and population growth has increased to around 1.8%. The numbers may seem irrelevant to a relatively innumerate left wing activist who jumps on scientific evidence to support a climate change argument but chooses to ignore it when confronted with the facts about population growth. But these scientific facts are essential for developing coherent political objectives and humane ideology. Since left wing is described as anti-capitalist you are clearly not left wing. The fuel for capitalism consists of two things. These are currently hydrocarbons and population growth. Each and both are directly responsible for climate change. It is not just hydrocarbons which are causing climate change. Had Australia’s population growth been zero since Federation only a compound rate of GDP growth of 1.6% would have been required to create the same per capital financial wealth. But because of population growth, environmental damage and infrastructure expansion has occurred. The primary beneficiaries are big business (capitalism), government and government bureaucracy. Hence all political parties support it. But the trend has changed. The cost of infrastructure and its expansion is no longer covered by GDP. The reason in Australia is primarily driven by population growth which costs more to support than the economy can generate. It is over. The era of left wing and right wing is over. It is legendary and farcical in the 21st century. There is only right wing or population stabilization; because the latter is the only way to deliver the benefits the left wing cannot deliver with this element missing from its agenda. GetUp is neither progressive nor anti-capitalist. It targets only specific consequences of its own political agenda. There are only two “developed” city states on the planet with comparable rates of population growth to Australia. These are Singapore and Qatar. Both are authoritarian regimes with far lower costs of infrastructure, and infrastructure expansion, than Australia. Their population grows due to expatriates, who have no claim on social welfare and no rights to citizenship in these city states. The only other countries with similar rates of population growth are under developed. Most are in Africa where GDP per capita is roughly 4% that of Australia’s and the birth rate per woman is roughly 6. Australia stands out as a country retaining a reactionary, non-progressive, mass migration policy which makes no ethical, environmental or economic sense. Another example of GetUp’s right wing extremism is support for refugees while actively promoting a political agenda of mass migration of the relatively fortunate; who all cost the economy more than it can afford to support them. So GetUp’s delusionary and allegedly “left wing” dogma drives the displacement of Australians from jobs using a skilled migration program which is a reactionary policy dating back to Federation. This same policy displaces genuine refugees from the opportunity to enter Australia. All political parties, including the Greens, are right wing according to universally accepted definitions of right wing. They display common agendas with their support for migration-based pro population growth extremism: • Pro capitalist extremism • Reactionary defence of the status quo • Conservative defence of the status quo • Anti progressive • Anti Green Please explain to me how GetUp’s support for migration based pro population growth extremism meets any of the traditional definitions of “Left Wing”. I respectfully refer you to my blog which might provide information of value in your educational development: /blog/310 Thanks and yours sincerely, Michael S.

The Sustainable Australia Party's slogan is "Better not bigger" and presents a welcome relief to big business's, Turnbulls and Shorten's "Jobson Growth".[1] Inside find candidate Georgia Nicholls' stump speech.

NOTES

[1] A popular play on words in Victoria parodying the repetitive mantra of "Jobs and Growth".

People often ask me why I campaign on population and the reason that I give is that it is an issue that is often overlooked by the environment movement and by the wider world at large. I feel that by ignoring this topic, so much of the other great work done by environmentalists and campaigners is in danger of being severely compromised. Rapid population growth is a worldwide issue and it is also an issue here in Australia. One reason for this is because Australia has one of the highest migration rates in the ‘developed’ world. Due to the way our infrastructure is distributed this is a major reason why an average of 1760 people are added to the population of Melbourne every week and 1600 are added to Sydney. (More by Mark Allen at http://candobetter.net/taxonomy/term/7484)

As a town planner I cannot ignore the impact that this growth is having in terms of how we can create long-term sustainable communities. This is why I run workshops on suburban sprawl and inappropriate high density and the impact that it has on our changing climate.

With my work I am asked a lot of questions, many on a reoccurring basis, so I thought that I would give my best shot at providing written responses to a number of written questions and comments that I have received over the past twelve months.

Where better to start than the issue of reducing population growth and xenophobia?

Population is not the right factor to focus on. It's a slippery slope to xenophobia and not directly linked to sustainability. It is also very dubious on ethical grounds, no real policy levers, and divisive all around. My suggestion would be to focus on sustainability if that's your objective.

I do understand why people are put off by the topic of population because there are so many people who have hijacked the issue with xenophobic intentions. This is all the more reason why we should embrace the topic with a critical, thinking mindset so that those with narrow minded views can be quickly called out. It is reasoned and rational discussion that will prevent a descent into xenophobia, not ignoring the topic and leaving it in the hands of those who feed off irrational soundbites.

In the meantime, if we continue to ignore the issue here in Australia, we will have to accept that suburban sprawl and unsustainable rates of high density development will continue until the current system breaks. By then we will have greatly reduced our ability to adapt to a low carbon society and we will be left with an environmental and social legacy that may take generations to reverse.

Eventually migrants will want to stop coming here due to the increased commutes and expense as well as services becoming increasingly inaccessible. This is already starting to happen (see The root of Sydney and Melbourne’s housing crisis: we’re building the wrong thing – Bob Birrell The Conversation).

If we wait until migrants stop wanting to come, we will make it so much harder for those migrants who need to come. In short we have to get our planning back into the hands of people who want to build communities.

Population growth has not been sustainable since the Howard era when it was massively increased to increase GDP with deliberately little fanfare. This kind of growth fuels the worst types of development; the type that forces generations of people to live lesser lives, all to justify short term profits. We need to shift our population policy away from growth for the sake of growth model towards one that does what is the most sustainable and the most equitable from a global perspective.

This means using some of the money that would otherwise be spent in trying to reduce the massive infrastructure debt that accompanies rapid population growth to help other countries stabilise their population in a non-coercive way. This money could also be channelled into partnering with them to create permaculture based communities as a way of adapting to and helping to combat climate change.

Secondly, by slowing population growth we can better utilise land that would otherwise be developed to house a rapidly growing population to sequester carbon through regenerative farming practices.

Thirdly, most of our population growth is directed towards the fringes of our cities or in ribbon developments along the coast. As well as being some of our greatest areas of biodiversity, these areas are also have some of our most fertile soils. Therefore slowing population growth in Australia may help us to increase global food security or at the very least reduce our reliance upon importing food from areas of the world who will likely have food security issues of their own.

Lastly, slowing our current rate of population growth will allow us to engage in the slower more considered method of planning that is required to create resilient and meaningful communities that will benefit everyone including incoming refugees and other migrants.

High immigration to Australia doesn't add to net world population so it seems right that Australia should take some of the load.

When you consider that the population of the world is increasing by 80 million a year, the effectiveness of Australia in helping to more evenly distribute global population growth is negligible and it does nothing to stabilise the rate of growth in those regions that are struggling to adapt. It is a reactive approach rather than a proactive one. The fact that Australia’s population centres are situated in some of the most ecologically rich and fertile areas of the continent coupled with the fact that we have a planning system that puts profit before resilience, means that this is having a massive environmental and social impact.

Most of us agree that we need to be reducing our emissions rapidly. Therefore the last thing we need to be doing is compromising our capacity to reduce our food miles by pouring huge amounts of carbon intensive concrete over our inner suburbs and urban fringes. It makes much more sense to reallocate the money that would otherwise be required for all the additional infrastructure into helping people in their own countries adapt to the climate crisis and importantly to partner with them to reduce that crisis. Otherwise we only help a small number of people at a massive environmental and long-term social cost.

We want to be in the best position to provide sustainable resilient communities for those people who cannot stay in their own country for one reason or another. Otherwise incoming refugees will be blown like feathers in the wind into the social isolation of an ever increasing suburban sprawl.

Why not just change the planning system?

We need to work hard to change the planning system and work towards reducing GDP driven population growth. If we do one without the other we will fail because deliberate high population growth is the driver of fast paced suburban sprawl style development as well as prefab concrete apartment developments that are quick to build and quick to age. It is a never ending vicious circle. I saw this with my own eyes when I worked as a planner. Sustainable planning takes time as it is about regenerating wasteland, increasing medium density in the post-war middle suburbs and building new village communities complete with recreation, services and capacity for permaculture. This requires a slower rate of population growth for a slower more considered rate of development.

You seem to be advocating for more development in the middle suburbs. This is where much of our food security could lie and we could end up losing this if we are not careful.

Many of the houses in the middle suburbs are being demolished because they do not meet the perceived needs of 21st century living. Also, because most of them lack heritage appeal, very few people feel the inclination to retrofit them. The middle suburbs (unlike the outer suburbs) are much more connected to public transport and much of the housing stock is within walking distance of public open space. Many of these houses have large backyards. Some of these are well utilised while many are not. So the question is, should we see this 'outdated stock' as an opportunity to encourage increasing the density of these areas (as much of it is likely to be demolished over time) in order to reduce the pressure on the urban fringe? Or should we instead regard these backyards as an underutilised resource which will become all the more relevant as we move towards a low carbon, steady state economy?

Could it be that the larger backyards of the middle suburbs will one day provide the food security that other medium density settlements cannot provide? If so, how much of a willingness is there for the occupants of these areas to become urban farmers? In reality most people see their garden as something that simply needs mowing but resilience is all about the ability of communities to adapt to new social and economic circumstances. In which case those backyards could be seen with a new perspective. I really don't have any firm answers. I believe that we can potentially increase housing diversity in the middle suburbs without threatening their potential as permaculture communities but I know that with the current planning system in place, this will not happen. In reality it will be ad-hoc and many good gardens will be lost and much more besides. Increasing housing diversity in the middle suburbs does make a lot of sense but the potential of these areas to grow food and contribute to local self sustaining economies could be critical in the future. We need to tread very carefully (for more on this issue check out the co-founder of Permaculture, David Holmgren's youtube videos and forthcoming book on retrofitting the suburbs)

Are you not just some privileged white guy trying to protect his way of life?

Anyone who thinks that we should be protecting our way of life is in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later as we are currently living well beyond the planet's capacity to absorb our lifestyle. The only thing that we should be trying to protect is our potential to create sustainable resilient communities that are adaptable to energy descent and that can absorb population growth sustainably. The demographic of the inner suburbs of Melbourne has changed a lot in the past few decades as more and more Greek and Italian migrants are displaced by a white middle class demographic. The irony is that it is this very same demographic that is rejecting a suburban model of living that originated and is still championed by white culture. This will continue under the current paradigm as multicultural areas such as Footscray and Richmond become increasingly gentrified through modern apartment living, all of course under the greenwash banner of urban consolidation*. This forces more communities to be dispersed into the social isolation of the urban fringe. We need to prevent the further gentrification of our existing suburbs while ensuring that new communities are built around a village model, as this is the most socially, ecologically and economically sustainable method of creating communities.

*Urban consolidation (the act of increasing densities within the existing built form as a means of reducing urban sprawl) does not have to be greenwash if:

a) It is not perpetual and ongoing. In other words if the high density is not being constructed to house the endlessly growing population that is needed in order to prop up an over inflated housing market.
b)If a substantial proportion is affordable and within financial reach of those people who would otherwise live on the urban fringe where land is cheaper.
c) A substantial proportion of the units are large enough to be viable for families. This includes being within close proximity to services that are within walking distance, including childcare (most inner suburb areas currently have waiting lists of over a year for childcare services).
d)The apartments are resilient and will last for generations.This includes high quality finishes that will not require constant maintenance and trips to landfill.
e)Apartment developments are incorporated into the fabric of existing neighbourhoods in a way that they do not become the dominant built form and that that their presence is subtle and not detrimental to the overall streetscape. Maintaining the village like feel of our suburbs, including the green spaces within them is essential for long term social and environmental resilience.

Much of the urban consolidation currently taking place in Melbourne fails on all of these points and as result does nothing to reduce urban sprawl whist also compromising much of the existing urban landscape.

You support the Greens policy of increasing our refugee intake but in the future there could be many more refugees as climate change worsens. Where do you draw the line?

Assuming that we do not end up becoming refugees ourselves due to climate change (especially as most Australian cities lie on the coast while the interior is becoming increasingly dry) we could theoretically house an increased number of refugees without increasing sprawl or over developing our existing neighbourhoods. We won't have the economic or environmental justification to build many new towns so the focus will be on retrofitting what we already have and part of this would be retrofitting existing housing stock. In Maroondah alone, at the time of writing there are 3000 empty homes. These are artificial “housing shortages” created by speculators and developers to inflate the value of their investments. Therefore we can provide asylum for people without compromising the ability of our cities to adapt to a low carbon world but of course we have to change the paradigm.

Preserving our capacity to provide food close to and within our cities will however be critical. This is why we need to be focussed on retrofitting what we already have as opposed to creating new development on our precious soils.

New research shows that Melbourne's "food-bowl" supplies 41 per cent of all fresh fruit and vegetables to the city but that is set to plummet to just 18 per cent by 2050 thanks to urban sprawl. It is a similar situation in Sydney.

A major component of reducing our environmental footprint lies in sustainable town planning and that just cannot happen at the current rate of population growth because it is quicker and cheaper to build new estates on the fringe or the unsustainable prefab concrete apartment blocks that we are increasingly seeing in the existing suburbs.

Surely population growth is good because it stimulates change and innovation?

There are some areas of Melbourne that in combination with sound planning and urban design principles could be enriched by a modest increase in population. This however is an issue of poorly distributed growth as opposed to it being an issue of there not being enough growth. Many areas within the wider Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane conurbations are growing much too fast while there are some areas that could benefit from the modest amount of growth that is needed to generate commercial activity (helping to decentralise jobs) while making public transport more economically viable. Therefore we need a slower rate of growth coupled with an improvement on the way that growth is distributed.

We have an ageing population so we must increase our population to compensate.

The drain that older people have on services is over emphasised. Many older people contribute to society well past retirement and if we need to create more jobs to support them, then no problem. It might mean fewer jobs running and maintaining poker machines, a few less real estate agents perhaps, a few less loggers and a few less property developers. And how would we pay for it? The last time I looked there was 452 billion dollars from big corporations and millionaires in Australia that are not being taxed (source: Getup). It is also worth considering that:

1)The average age of a person migrating to Australia is 30. That means they are 30 years older than a newborn baby, which has the affect that in 30 years time the ageing population problem will be even worse than it is now.

2)It is worker-to-dependency ratio that matters, not youth-to-elderly. Australia's un/underemployment is probably over three million people.

3)Demographer Dr Jane O'Sullivan has estimated that it may be costing thirty times more in growing our population to offset ageing than our ageing population is costing.

Migration policy is not the only way of achieving a sustainable population.

Very true. For the answer to this question I will quote Michael Bayliss who is the president of the Victorian/Tasmanian branch of Sustainable Population Australia.

“I envision a future where families with no children are respected as being the societal norm just as much as families with children, and where adoption is seen as a viable and accessible alternative to couples 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 due consideration given to the environmental impacts of having children. 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 medical subsidies.”

The questions and answers written above form part of a booklet that is available in electronic format by emailing [email protected]. It is also available as a hard copy from the New International Bookshop in Carlton, Melbourne.
Feel free to contact me at that same email address with your feedback.

Mark Allen is an ex-town planner and environmental activist with a particular interest in population. He runs workshops on Population, Permaculture and Planning across Australia and runs a Facebook group of the same name.

Sustainable Australia says the Turnbull Government has no chance of making good on the Prime Minister’s announcement that he wants to build so called “30 minute cities”, where everything people need is within a 30 minute commute. Sustainable Australia’s Senate candidate in NSW, William Bourke, says that the Prime Minister’s vision of a congestion free future is delusional, while immigration continues to run at record levels.

Mr Bourke says, “The Prime Mister’s plan has three parts, each as preposterous as the next.

“First, he wants to pay a group of bankers $50 million to tell him what to build, and where.

“Then, he wants to borrow another $5 billion for new road and rail projects. That’s on top of the almost $500 billion of government debt racked up over the last 8 years.

“And thirdly, he wants to make the grandchildren pay off that additional debt, by raising the $5 billion by selling 30 year bonds, which will be honoured by a future generation of taxpayers, long after the PM is gone.

Mr Bourke says it is absurd for the Prime Minister to suggest that the government could build its way out of a congestion trap, and borrow its way out of a debt crisis.

“Sustainable Australia says there is only one way to fix congestion. It is decent public transport and a lower immigration intake of 70,000 per year, back from the current high of 200,000 per year.

“The truth is our high population growth is the real reason for our daily traffic jams, and overcrowded trains, buses and trams.

“If we want an Australia that is better, not bigger, then we need to lower immigration”.

View Sustainable Australia’s “30 minute cities” Video Here:

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/VoteSustainable

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/VoteSustainable

“When discussing population, let your starting point be about finding the issues that you have in common. It could be about congestion, climate change, loss of heritage, the list goes on. It is not about us pushing our view of the world onto people. Instead it is about helping them to see population in a new light by showing how it connects to the issues that are important to them.” This article is based on Mark Allen's speech to the Victorian Branch of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) Seminar: Attitudes and communication in population and the environment on 23 April 2016. Videos of the event will be available soon. Mark Allen started Population Permaculture and Planning. He has a background in town planning.

It is nice to be reminded about how well the past year has gone and what a great journey it has been and it wouldn't have happened without a lot of support. I would like to give special mention to Sheila Newman, Jill Quirk, the candobetter.net website and all the folk at the permaculture village at Confest (which is where I held my first workshop during Easter last year). I would also like to thank Michael Bayliss for his unwavering support.

Connecting with these people and others has been invaluable in terms of helping to build the Population Permaculture and Planning movement that began with that first workshop. One of the reasons why I have managed to engage with so many people since then is because I have tried to take a more collaborative approach with no fixed outcome and with no expectations other than a passion to make real change....so far it seems to be working and I will discuss more about that as we go on.

Working in collaboration with people can take you to places where you never expect to go and I mean this in a good way. It can be very constructive if you get it right. You can help to bring the best out in people and they can help to bring the best out in you but if you get it wrong it can have the opposite effect.

I have been involved in activism to a greater or lesser degree for quite a number of years and I have seen a lot of activists come and go along the way. Many have burnt out, many became disillusioned and overall, despite our best efforts and some great wins along the way, the trajectory in terms of making the world a more ecologically and socially sustainable place has generally been downwards......which is quite depressing.

Part of the reason for this is because people have a tendency to bring their agendas and egos into movements. After a while it becomes all about protecting identities and valuable energy that should have been used to create systemic change is wasted in internal fighting. I am sure that you can all relate to this to a greater or lesser degree. For example I have seen animosity between vegans and non-vegans in the animal welfare movement to the point where I sometimes wonder whether the animals would have been better off had we all just gone home and watched TV.

So over time I have learnt that creating real proper decent long-term change requires more than going out and fighting the good fight so to speak. There is also a need to create underlying whole-scale cultural change from within. A great philosopher once said that you cannot overcome an addiction with the same mindset that allowed that addiction to manifest in the first place.

If we want to lift ourselves out of the very real climate emergency that we are currently facing and achieve so much more, we have to change the record; we have to re-examine our approach so that we can achieve real progress with our activism as well as ensuring that what we achieve is effective and durable.

This was my intent when I started Population Permaculture and Planning or PPP as I shall refer to it from now on. For a start...... the fact that I was taking on the issue of population knowing very well how divisive and emotionally fraught this topic can be, I realised that I had to approach it in a way that could make it as accessible to as many people as possible.

I started PPP in part because I could no longer ignore the population issue, especially knowing the impact that it has in terms of how we plan our cities (or not plan as the case may be). I had entered into the town planning profession because I thought that was the best that I could do in terms of contributing towards making the world a better place. Basically I thought that I could change things from within.

Obviously I was a bit naïve but it was worth studying planning because while my education didn't turn out to be of much use to me in a professional context, it did teach me to think critically and to understand that many issues are often more complex than they first appear. Ignoring this complexity can lead us into all kinds of problems.

For example so many planners are caught up in the high density is the solution to suburban sprawl dichotomy that they ignore the fact that high density can actually help to increase sprawl by pricing people out of the inner suburbs. One distinguished professor in WA even went on to say that the answer to this problem is to lower the quality of high density development in order to make it more affordable to people on lower incomes. I think that if we lowered the standard anymore here in Melbourne many new developments would actually start to become uninhabitable but that’s another story........

So because my drive as a planner was to try and create sustainable communities, it became increasingly apparent that we cannot ignore the topic of population growth. With Melbourne increasing in size by more than a thousand people every week, it is becomes impossible to engage in the slower more considered planning that is needed to create long term viable neighbourhoods.

The vicious circle of planning for engineered population growth

It is a case of more hastily built prefab concrete apartments and continuous sprawl beyond the urban fringe. This rapid rate of population growth of course is used to justify this type of development and this type of development is in turn perpetuated by politically engineered population growth. It is a vicious circle spinning perpetually downwards as our potential to create socially and ecologically sustainable communities continues to decrease.

What makes this fact all the more poignant is that there is an urgent need to rapidly reduce our carbon emissions and it is imperative that this starts with town planning. If we get this wrong everything is so much harder, no amount of divestment from fossil fuels will be of help if we continue to build on our food bowls and green spaces and increasingly have to rely upon sourcing our food from further and further away... and that is just the start.

Creating resilient communities is about being flexible and adaptable to changes in society that we cannot even perceive at this point in time and we are living in extremely uncertain times.

It may just be that we will come to value the larger middle suburbs that are currently targeted for subdivision and that we will look towards retrofitting them as permaculture communities. There is good soil out there that has been lovingly enriched over the decades by generations of Greek and Italian migrants and we have the infrastructure already in place to produce a good proportion of our fresh fruit and vegetables from this under-tapped resource. The cofounder of Permaculture, David Holmgren, has a new book coming out later this year that is about all of that....... but I am digressing.

So I came to realise the important interconnection of permaculture and town planning and population in terms of creating long term viable sustainable communities and that by discussing the three in context I could make the issue of population so much more approachable to so many more people.

This inspired me to start running workshops and by doing so I began to draw people in who otherwise may not have been interested in discussing population as a subject in its own right. Importantly this had to be a collaborative effort. When we engage with people about population or indeed any other subject for that matter we must try to connect with their world view, to see it from the prism of their perspective and use that as a starting point.

I always begin by brainstorming ideas with the participants at the beginning of each workshop and that way they are better able to feel as though they are part of the creative process and to share some of the ownership of the outcome. It is not a case of me lecturing to people how they should view a particular topic. Instead it is a step by step process and this always leads to an understanding that our current rate of population growth is something that has to be questioned. I am not saying that everyone comes out of the workshop agreeing that there is an urgent need to reduce population growth but almost all come out knowing that population is an important consideration and that it is ok to discuss it, especially when looking at its importance in a wider context. This means that the next time they hear the population issue brought up in discussion, they will be more open minded.

This is why I believe it is important that we help people to think about population without challenging their values or their political identity. Some people come into a workshop believing in the principle of open borders for example and they come out continuing to believe in that principle. However they also come out agreeing that in the mean time we need to slow our rate of non-refugee migration so that the communities we do create are socially and environmentally viable over the longer term.

They no longer see population as a fixed black and white issue, that it is in fact fluid depending upon the circumstances. A belief in the free movement of people is strong among many young people on the left and if we want to connect with them we must acknowledge these ideals and by doing so they will more likely acknowledge that there are many steps that need to be undertaken before that kind of thinking can be put into practice.

There may come a day when the world is so balanced politically, socially and environmentally that we could have open borders across the world without it leading to sudden influxes of population from one country to another. It doesn't look very feasible at the moment but who is to say that we shouldn't work towards that ideal. It is an ideal that I would like to work towards no matter how out of reach it may feel. We don't have to smash people's dreams in order to persuade them to consider reversing a migration policy that was put in place by John Howard in order to boost gross domestic product.

We need to slow the rate of population growth as it is right now and, for want of a better word, start an intelligent and ongoing national conversation about the rate in which our population should grow (or shrink) and how we should plan for that to happen. Right now that is all we need to be trying to achieve. As population activists, we ourselves need to acknowledge that we all have differing values and that we should be comfortable with the fact that we do not all need to share the same values in order to bring about change.

The important aim of the workshops that I hold is that they do not run to a particular agenda other than to help people connect to the three issues of population, permaculture and planning. This attitude I think needs to form a wider approach in terms of how we work with other activists, that we work towards finding those areas where we can connect and that in turn allows us to feel comfortable with different values and perspectives.

We need to see our work as being part of an ongoing conversation that will always be greater than the sum of one person's perspective. That way we don't get bogged down in internal politics and because our agenda is fluid, our values do not become threatened. In turn, by taking this approach we can have a profound influence on the people with whom we interact. They pick up on this sentiment and they themselves become more open-minded and become more open to challenging assumptions as well as seeing things from other perspectives.

We need to work together to find areas where we can connect rather than focussing on the games of ego that occur through issues that divide us. That is what got us into this mess. We need a different kind of thinking to let us get out of the mess and to stay out of it.

So when discussing population, let your starting point be about finding the issues that you have in common. It could be about congestion, climate change, loss of heritage, the list goes on. It is not about us pushing our view of the world onto people. Instead it is about helping them to see population in a new light by showing how it connects to the issues that are important to them.

This is the kind of thinking we need in order to create a truly sustainable and resilient world. We need to think outside the matrix and to help others do the same.

It was a hot night and twelve of us approached an impressive spread of endangered sea-creatures at a large table under cover outside. It was Don's birthday party. We had met him a few months ago at the local squash courts, and we only recognised four of the other guests, also squash players. I looked around me carefully. Would we all get on and have a laugh, reach furious agreement on something important, or would my friend and I be silenced in the face of others’ opinions in our effort not to make waves? Worse, would my friend open his big mouth? Unlike the 'old days' when it was so exciting to meet new people, on this particular evening I was plagued with doubt because of the strong political divides that are appearing in Australian society.

You may be wondering why I would approach this seemingly ordinary and benign situation with what appeared to be almost dread, or you may, to the contrary, have experienced a similar dinner.

I have thought about why I was so uncharacteristically shy about talking to new people and here is my explanation.

Winners and losers

Some of you may remember the 1990s. This was when I noticed that the concept of “winners and “losers” came into the vernacular. I remember at the time, a teen-aged friend of a friend declaring with great assurance that the world was divided into “winners" and “losers" and nothing in between. I remembered thinking with unease that this was a very unattractive, inhumane ideology.

Twenty years later, this young lady seems to have been right in practice! Australia is no longer a country where we earn our respective livings by being useful to other people and to the society in exchange for a fair reward. Now everything is so polarised with some making a killing in the 'right' industries with others just getting the crumbs and struggling with unfriendly working hours in low paid pointless jobs which did not exist thirty years ago.

It did not take long into the dinner conversaton before I had a feeling that I was sitting down to dine with some of the 'winners' that the intervening years had produced and that I might not like how they had come to win.

The first disturbing declaration, quite early in the evening was from 'Travis'. His shaved head and bling-cufflinks reflecting the light from the charcoal patio-heater, Travis told all assembled that he made his pile by helping with websites to assist overseas buyers to purchase property in Australia. "How lovely” most murmured in appreciation of his entrepreneurship. He also added that he assisted business /entrepreneur migrants to get their visas to enter Australia. Once more there was a generally appreciative and admiring response from those present. I remained silent as I was overcome with the certainty that I was dining with the enemy. This person was helping people from overseas to exploit Australia and to make housing unaffordable for locals, I thought! To me this is a disservice to the community. This braggart was making himself a “winner" at the expense of all the poor “losers” especially young first home buyers.

Travis then got onto the subject of possums and how none of us would want to know what he had "done with some of them”. His cruel remark revolted me and I felt almost panic stricken! This opportunist was not only cheerfully assisting the overpopulation and densification which displaces urban possums, he was further (and illegally) punishing the hapless marsupials.

How did I end up at the same dinner table as this monster?

When social capital still punched above greed

I guess, thirty years ago, unimaginative and insensitive creatures like Travis would have found their own level in ordinary jobs on modest salaries. Today's system, however, is geared to making winners out of those for whom the money ingredient is everything.

A drink or two later, pleasant looking Bernice offered her opinion on the negligence of the current state Labor government in not building a particular controversial toll road. Yes, she declared , Melbourne would need this toll road as we will soon be a city of 7 million. There was not a hint of regret at all that Melbourne would lose in this transition even from the overgrown chaotic, under- serviced, dysfunctional metropolis of 4.5 million that it is now. My throat was now so constricted that I failed to chime in that if we keep going at the current rate of growth we will be 20 million in a few decades. Actually that wouldn’t have fazed others present as one of them was from London, an already a bloated megalopolis.

I prudently remained silent but was inwardly seething as I was thinking of all that would be lost with new road following new road road to accommodate ever increasing traffic in a vicious circle but never managing to do so.

This same woman further warmed to her topic. “I think Melbourne should be more like Dubai.” she declared. “In Dubai they just go ahead and build things! They get on with it and don’t get bogged down in red tape, do they Roger?” Roger joined his wife in commending the way things are done in Dubai and asking rhetorically why Melbourne could not be more like it.

Why did they care so much? I wondered, but I knew if I started an actual discussion, that we would come to blows.

Red tape

I am grateful for any red tape that remains in Melbourne that gives those affected some slight chance to fight back against the destruction of their surroundings, especially from multi-storey developments and other infrastructure to cater for never-ending population growth.

I checked my phone to see the time and nudged my friend under the table. “Can we go home now!” I wailed inwardly!

These people would have been OK (apart from the possum sadist) had I met them in a different era, but now, in this era of winners and losers, I actually identify more with the losers and am out of place at a dinner party where people have done well out of the prevailing system.

We said good night and left the party, emotions churning at this near perfect demonstration of the increasing and undesirable divisions of wealth in our society. It reminded me of visiting a banking friend in Indonesia years ago, when we dined with friends of the then government. At the time it was like visiting some laughably unselfconcious members of an exotic corrupt power-elite, but the same kind of corrupt values are now reaching further and further down into Australian society and it isn't amusing close-up.

“So, increasing the population – fast population growth and poor planning – they’re like a vicious circle. When I worked as a planner, I’d go to VCAT and, quite often, development applications would be turned down by councils and the developer’s argument would be, ‘I know, ideally, this isn’t the best place to build this development, but you do know that Melbourne’s population is going to double by 2040-something and so, therefore, we’ve got to start building high-density in areas where we wouldn’t normally build it, because, you know, unless we’re just going to sprawl outwards forever…’. But both are going to happen, so we’ve got to understand that rapid population growth and developers who are making sure that they’re taking control of the planning system - they’re intertwined.” Mark Allen, former planner, of Population, Permaculture and Planning in a speech at the Sustainable Living Festival in Melbourne, 14 February 2016.

Mark Allen of Population Permaculture and Planning asks: Is it possible to accommodate a growing population without unacceptably high density living and urban sprawl? If so, what rate of population growth should we be looking at and what types of community should we be creating? This workshop discusses the merits of village style living in combination with permaculture principles and asks the question, where do we go from here?

"God, Sydney’s just unmanageable now. The traffic is beyond control. The roads just can’t cope! I’m not against growth but there’s not enough room on our roads for all the traffic!”

The young woman was inviting her friend in Melbourne to visit her in Sydney.

“We have the same problems here." her friend replied. "The traffic is so terrible that if you head off to do something in a particular suburb, chances are you will have to change your plans due to traffic. You never know really where you are going to end up. One night recently I needed to cross to the other side of the city to meet friends for dinner and I had to just give up and go home. I didn’t even make it to the city, let alone out the other side. I was in gridlock. Of course, I’m not against growth either. How could one question it with all the benefits even though, I must admit, it’s hard to see what they are.”

"I do wonder myself," her friend from Sydney mused. "But they say we must have it." She continued: “They’re constructing a new major road in Sydney for the traffic overflow and people have had to sell their houses to the government and, you know, they don’t even get market prices for them! I’m not against growth but…"

"Yes, it’s the same here in Melbourne. Houses belonging to people who had lived in them for 60 years were acquired by the government to make way for a new tollway but then, with the change of government, it did not go ahead. It was too late for some people as they had moved on but many were very relieved to be able to stay. But then they will have to go through it all again with another change of government as the Libs are determined to build it. If or when it is built it will go right through Royal Park which will be a terrible pity, it will wreck it, actually."

" Oh that's terrible to put it through a park, although I'm not totally surprised."

"I don't live near Royal Park, but it is still upsetting. Nearer to home most of the houses in my area that come up for sale are bought by developers. Then they're demolished and replaced with high density living. We're even getting high rise towers. No wonder parking in the local shopping centre is almost impossible now! But that’s progress isn’t it? And neither of us is against growth.”

"No of course not!! But the same problem afflicts our suburb in Sydney. All the gardens near us have gone. We used to have lots of birds but we see very few now. I used to really enjoy hearing them in the morning. It’s sad but I guess we have to live without a few things we used to enjoy. Oh well, we can’t have things all our own way I suppose and you can't stand in the way of growth."

“I guess it’s all very well for us to say this but what about the kids? There are not enough schools in and around Melbourne and what about the poor train and tram commuters? The trains are terribly overcrowded, by about 50% over maximum capacity. It can’t be healthy to be crammed in like that.”

“Yes it’s the same in Sydney. It’s really not as nice a place to live in as it was when I arrived from London with my parents 12 years ago.”

“Well if it’s anything like Melbourne, it will have grown by about a million people since then. They have to be packed in somewhere!”

"I guess our family have been part of all this! Oh well, at least we subtracted a family of five from London but then London’s kept growing too! Where will it end? What will it be like in 50 years? “

"It’s too far ahead to think about really, but it’s happening so fast in Melbourne and we can see it happening. Maybe we don’t have to worry about 50 years from now but we sure as hell need to worry about five or ten years from now! Already it’s not as good as it was when I was a kid and it sounds as though it was much more free and easy when my parents were young and Melbourne was not so huge”

The two young women pause , deep in thought for a moment.

“If things are not getting better in Melbourne and they certainly are not in Sydney, then something is wrong!"

Neither of us opposes growth but this actually seems to be the problem! What do you have when you don’t have growth? How does that work?"

(Both together) "Oh God! This is doing my head in!”

"Don’t worry about it now , let’s go and have a drink and start planning your trip to Sydney. Oh!! that’s where this whole discussion began wasn’t it?!”

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.

Dear
Geoff,

Thank
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.

The
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
same.”

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
issue.

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
custodianship.

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
really?

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?

The
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
needs.

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
tighten.
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
impacts.
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.

The
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
issues.

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
massive immigration.

You
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
so.

Yes,
well, we've read them, we've criticised them, and nothing changes.

Furthermore,
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.

Thank
you for your contribution to this important conversation, and thank you once
again for forwarding this to the Greens Members of Parliament and
Senators.

Kind
regards,

HAYLEY
PEARSE  EXECUTIVE
ASSISTANT & OFFICE MANAGER

OFFICE
OF SENATOR SARAH HANSON-YOUNG

AUSTRALIAN
GREENS SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Level
7 / 147 Pirie St, Adelaide, SA 5000

TEL  ADL
+61 8 8227 0425  PARL +61 2  6277 3430
|  FAX  +61 8 8227 0426 

Bearing in mind the recent Crib Point tragedy - a suspected arson attack, with wildlife loss yet to be detailed, one home destroyed and one home damaged plus several sheds destroyed, we have to be more vigilant about how and whether we develop our bushland neighbourhoods more densely. Planning laws allow property owners to remove large amounts of vegetation without permission from their land citing their reason as 'fire protection'. After the vegetation is removed, those property owners may apply to the council for permission to intensify development on the land. Council usually does not deny permission for individual cases. But such individual cases mount up and create a danger which councils and planners may not have seen. The risk is that the granting of denser housing development in a bushland area means that, if there is a fire in the remaining bushland, there will be an increased number of residents needing to evacuate. Increasing population density means that more roads are needed to cope with a fire emergency evacuation. However, densification is being allowed to happen in an ad hoc, case by case fashion, without the building of roads in advance of significant development. No-one is overseeing the total impact.

Vegetation clearing on days of total fire bans

477 Waterfall Gully Rd Rosebud 3939 Victoria.

Clearing took place on Friday 15/1/16, Monday 18/1/16 and Tuesday 19/1/16 thus far.

To date up to 45 trees and shrubs have been removed, including 4 manna gums. One which was a hollow bearing tree and one on a neighbouring property. Most of the other vegetation removed was coast tea-tree.

I called the Mornington Peninsula shire council's planning department, on the 18th and 19th of January about the clearing of vegetation. The officers I spoke to on both days confirmed that there are no permits for either vegetation clearance or an application permit for a building extension/residential development. The planning department said that the vegetation clearance was legal without a permit. As the vegetation in question was within 10 meters to the residence or 4 meters within the property boundary.

As the primary reason that fire regulations allows for the vegetation clearance. I have raised the following concerns;

No 477 Waterfall Gully residence has been unoccupied since November, when it was sold. That the first action of the owner is to remove all trees and shrubs from site would suggest it is being cleared for a development - an opinion shared by the professionals clearing the vegetation and by the surrounding neighbours.

Two of the three days the vegetation being cleared were days of total fire ban. The 18th and 19th of January were days of total fire bans. The use of multiple heavy industrial petrol operated equipment on days of total fire ban, I believe, makes a mockery of fire prevention laws.

The planning department understand my concerns and have been as helpful as they can. However there is nothing they can do to address this issue due to current regulations. So I ask your assistance in addressing flaws in the fire regulations that allow developers to exploit them. These flaws are:

To ban activities such as clearing vegetation or activities that could cause fires on days of total fire bans,
Close loop holes that developers use to clear vegetation under false pretences, which cost the Shire revenue.

Further considerations on this matter

Neighbourhood character

The character of a neighbourhood defines the people and families that live in an area. Many of these people who live in community make real value contributions to the neighbourhood character by volunteering their time. It is of great disappointment that potential developers ( who more often than not, do not live in the neighbourhood) use inequities in planning laws to change a neighbourhood character for financial gain.

Health and Wellbeing

Waterfall Gully Rd/ South Rosebud is a bushy area and as such creates a certain atmosphere to the suburb. Residing in a beautiful neighbourhood therefore contributes to a mentally healthy state of its residents. The removal of trees for more dwellings creates a heat island. As our population ages heat stress related illnesses is becoming a more of an issue. Noise pollution from vegetation clearance and building is another factor of having a major impact on health and well being.

Overdevelopment and emergencies

Planning laws allow property owners to remove large amounts of vegetation without permission from their land citing their reason as 'fire protection'. After the vegetation is removed, those property owners may apply to the council for permission to intensify development on the land. Council usually does not deny permission for individual cases. But such individual cases mount up and create a danger which councils and planners may not have seen. The risk is that the granting of denser housing development in a bushland area means that, if there is a fire in the remaining bushland, there will be an increased number of residents needing to evacuate. Increasing population density means that more roads are needed to cope with a fire emergency evacuation. However, densification is being allowed to happen in an ad hoc, case by case fashion, without the building of roads in advance of significant development. No-one is overseeing the total impact. Most people who choose to live in bushland area would not approve of significant intensification of development. They would need to be alerted to any plans to build new roads for a planned increase in population and would probably object to significantly increased population plans. They are not being alerted, the roads are not being built, but the densification is happening in an unplanned fashion. This is dangerous. If a fire emergency was to threaten South Rosebud, Jetty Rd is the main route to escape!

Wildlife

Even though wildlife are protected, there never seems to be any enforcement to protect them. Up to 45 trees and shrubs were cleared at 477 Waterfall Gully Rd. What happens to those animals who have now lost their home?

Dear Minister Dutton.
Australians are sick of your government's excessive and irresponsible immigration rate and 457 Visa intake levels. This is clear by studying recent polls, Mark O'Connor's book Overloading Australia, and monitoring social media. Of particular concern is the dreadful impact that the your resulting unsustainable and damaging population growth rate is having on our local urban and natural environments.
(This letter has been sent today, 17 Jan 2016, to the Hon Peter Dutton MP. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The author encourages others to copy and forward to other Lieberal MPs. The author, Geoff Dowsett, is a member of the Hornsby Kuringai Greens and a member of the NSW Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group. Headings have been inserted by the editor of candobetter.net and some minor typos have been corrected.)

Australia has among the world's highest population growth rates, due to mass immigration

Australia, now under your government has one of the world`s highest population growth rates which is destroying our capital cities and Australia`s delicate ancient eco systems and over stressing infrastructure and public services at an alarming rate. When are you going to recognize this and reduce Australia`s damaging, irresponsible and unsustainable immigration rate and 457 Visa intake ? When will you wake up to the fact that Australian`s are aware of your obvious hypocrisy in your treatment of desperate refugees while at the same time you import 260,000 pa net well off -middle class - aspirational economic migrants a year to flood our labour force to drive down wages and working conditions to third world levels. All for no better reason than to create consumers for Frank Lowy`s vile shopping centres, consumers for Harry Trigabuff`s battery hen appartments, while Melbourne and Sydney real estate prices sky-rocket out of reach of ordinary Australians? Our urban environment, quality of life, standard of living and heritage are now seriously compromised. I believe that your government is indulging in a giant Ponzi scheme which is rapidly leading to Australia`s and your government`s demise.

The 'skill shortage' is a furphy

The skills shortage is a complete furphy. It`s corporate and Liberal Party propaganda. A billion dollar industry all designed to mislead and deceive the Australian public. The reality is that it is corporations demanding high population growth for the purpose of lowering wages and working conditions and to create more consumers to boost their already obscene profits while your corporate masters laugh at the idea of any responsibility to employ Australians or pay taxes in return for the damage they do. This is pushing Australian living standards and over-stretched infrastructure down to third world levels. Your Governments propaganda is that there is a skills shortage. There isn't. The Baird Government in NSW is closing down and cutting funding to TAFE, public schools, and universities, when it should be training young Australians free—no fees. This tactic of reducing Government spending on needed infrastructure is all designed to keep big business happy. They are the big donors to the Liberal Party. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The non sense that we need more population to pay welfare costs is in reality more lies from your government`s propa ganda machine and the corporate media who finance your party.

Wealth distribution

The biggest welfare recipients are the big corporations who pay no tax and the very rich who avoid tax. Why should low income earners foot the welfare bill ? Australia`s growing problem is your government`s out dated irresponsible Social Darwinist economic policies which are widening the gap between rich and poor. Your government is one of robbing from the poor to pay the rich. An intelligent, socially and environmentally responsible tax system would tax BADS: gambling, alcoho, 4x4 gas guzzlers, McMansions, conspicuous consumption, and re distribute revenue into public infrastructure, free medical, free education, particularly to give women the freedom to choose to have smaller families, and free public transport. All of these civilized measures are the case in advanced intelligent countries such as Norway, Sweden, France,Italy and Cuba where population growth has been reduced down to responsible levels.

Most immigrants aspire to increase their consumer lifestyle

The bulk of your 260,000 pa well off middle class: aspirational, materialistic, high carbon and high eco-footprint immigrants are from the well off countries such as the UK and NZ. A smaller number of the well off so called “business” elites from India and China is increasing. They are not desperate refugees escaping death: war, flood, famine. If they are "skilled" then they are a brain-draining their home country. They come here to get rich: to indulge in high consumption lifestyles, just as the Liberal Party`s corporate donors want. More consumers = more consumption = more obscene profits and the wealth only trickles down to the masses, since your government has been instructed by your corporate masters to allow them to destroy Australia TAX FREE. This is nothing less than corporate welfare on a massive scale--unprecedented in our history. This is the foundation of the uncontrolled capitalist system we and the planet are suffering and which you are promoting. You have no mandate for this destruction of Australia. Your immigration policy and high birth rate policy is causing for more environmental problems increasing IMPACT on Sydney and other capital cities and the Brisbane Gold Coast growth corridor, increasing demand for high density housing, and increasing impact on Australia`s fragile ancient ecology.

Australia has the second highest carbon and eco-footprint per capita on the planet

Immigrants come here to get rich and to indulge in high consumption at the planet`s and Australia`s expense.
Baking a bigger cake in a finite world through increasing GDP Growth isn’t the solution. We must progress to a Steady State Economy and end our imprisonment by the Growth addicted capitalist behemoth and it`s addiction to constant increases in economic growth which demands constant population increase.

The Hon Kelvin Thomson MP, member for Wills is the only MP in Australia it appears who is prepared to criticise your Govt`s horrendous immigration rate and 457 Visa rort which fuels developers` destruction of Australian cities and fragile ecology and heritage. The population explosion is pay back for corporate bribes/donations to the Liberal Party. We are being SHANGHAI`D ( Dick Smith`s term ) by big business sociopaths – environmental criminals who care nothing for Sydney`s heritage, quality of life, infrastructure meltdown or sky-rocketing house prices out of reach of working families. Youth suicide and unemployment can also be attributed to the import of so called skilled workers and 457 Visa workers who work for third world standard conditions and wages.

Non-stop immigrant invasion

Your insidious immigration program deliberately favours middle class, aspirational, materialistic, right wing "business"/so called "skilled' immigrants who are not threatened with death, disaster, war or starvation, but who are brought into Australia to feed the insane capitalist, debt ridden, profit and growth-addicted destructive economy, while our standard of living, quality of life, urban heritage, infrastructure, fragile ecology hotspots and precious wildlife habitat, is bulldozed for more high rise and high density housing to house the non-stop immigrant invasion of Sydney and Melbourne.

I recommend you go to #10;<p>I suggest you acquaint yourself with the global movement for transition to the Steady State Eco responsible Economy. Your type of government is now irrelevant to the needs of Australia, which is facing terrible environmental challenges and social upheaval in the 21st century.</p>&#10;<p>It’s time to move away from the policies of the 1950s and try to find a way this country can live so as to preserve high standards of clean air, water, soil and biodiversity, whilst maintaining some semblance of community, rather than chasing the likes of Beijing and New Delhi into a nightmare of pollution and social polarisation.</p>&#10;<p>I don`t believe you understand your responsibilities in terms of inter-generational and intra-generational equity. Future generations will view your government actions as a vicious attack on Australia, its natural capital and social fabric.</p>&#10;<p>Geoff Dowsett. BA Dip Ed. Pennant Hills.</p>&#10;</body></html>">

Australian comedian Barry Humphries' humour identified and targeted a world of pleasant streets and gardens that is now under threat. We've stopped laughing, but is it too late?

I was raised on the humour of Australian comedian, Barry Humphries, when his main alter ego was the suburban sage simply known as "Mrs Edna Everage” and his eastern suburbs commentary issued forth in the monotonous narrow viewed but well-meaning drone of Mr. Sandy Stone. Barry’s characters described a world which was very familiar to me, although I lived in neither the now famous Moonee Ponds nor in the apparent epitome of Melbourne mediocrity, Glen Iris. The adults in my family all found the Humphries humour hilarious, despite, or maybe because of the fact that their lives were being held up to good humoured ridicule. I shared this delight and amusement with them.

Barry Humphries' targets were mediocre, commonplace and rather petty preoccupations such as lawn mowing, sandwich making, wall colour, general domestic decor and associated status symbols. It was all so familiar and we laughed our heads off all the more, delighted to be laughing at ourselves and our nearest and dearest. Or if it wasn’t us it was someone we knew. The humour rested on an assumption of self- satisfied comfort and safety, devoid of outside threat. Our laughter and Barry’s merciless assault is an indication of how quickly we forget and how short each stage of our lives really is. Barry was born in 1934, safely clear of any expectation of participation in WW2 or The Vietnam War. He emerged as an adult in the postwar comfort and optimism of the 1950s and played to an audience where young couples were settling into their suburban Shangri -la’s. "The Australian dream” of the house and garden was alive and well and not under any threat. This situation continued for a few more decades but on a downward trajectory in terms of general accessibility, that is to say, affordability.

Fast forward to the present day and what was once a source of relaxation, pleasure, security and comedy, the suburban family home, is now turning into a tragedy.

The undermining of the family home and garden in concept and reality has been under way for at least 30 years. It began with soft rumbles, the odd newspaper opinion piece advocating the end of the 1/4 acre block and the beginning of a rhetoric very negative and critical of the way we lived. People started to parrot these opinion pieces and preach knowingly at dinner parties, that we couldn’t go on living as we were as though cleverly seeing into the future. Then they would go home and continue living as they were, no doubt thinking that it was people in the future who would have to live differently, not they. The point was that they did not express any feeling of being under threat. Yet they were. They are!

The sacred, yet hilarious homes of our parents and of us are now being demolished, at a frightening rate. The honest workmanship of the Californian Bungalo and the 50s triple fronted cream brick veneers is being replaced with nondescript non- architectural multi dwelling, fence to fence arrangements , devoid of of any reference to the humanity of those who are expected to dwell within. The subject of Barry’s whole comedy career is being pulled down in front of us; a new cavernous car park excavation appearing near where I live each week. That is the reality on the ground. In the media , a past Victorian Planning Minister, Justin Madden who now works for developers was given space for a whole article about the need and desirability, nay imperative, of demolishing 60 year old houses in a ring of Melbourne suburbs about 15 kms from the CBD. There’s always a new angle in the scramble to fit ever more residents into Melbourne (which grows by about 80,000 people p.a.) Developers who can get their hands on these unsuspecting little houses on their “1/4 acre" blocks (I understand they never were as large as 1/4 acre, really) can make a killing by demolishing and redeveloping to fit in more residences.

It seems to me that people are now really getting upset by all this. They see their local neighbourhoods in a constant state of transformation. They are living perpetually in a construction zone. Trees, houses and gardens go, roadworks and construction abound and there is the constant shock of empty blocks of land either totally cleared and levelled or exposing raw bedrock 3 metres deep, previously covered with a few tonnes of earth and rocks and iced with pleasant house and garden.

But what has this to do with Barry Humphries? Well for a start, the much derided but rather enviable and almost egalitarian Melbourne suburban way of life is swirling down the plug hole and will be gone before you know it. The people of Melbourne did very little to protect it when it was first under fire and now it is probably too late. Were we asleep at the wheel? Did Barry Humphries unwittingly lull us into a child-like sense of security about our home city?

What does Barry say now when, in actual fact what is happening is that our precious gardens are being used to accommodate an ever higher population? Had we been asked 15 or 20 years ago if we minded someone building in our backyard, we would have said, “go and find you own land!” but that is what we are being forced to do now. People move out of garden-surrounded houses into units with token amounts of land and end up with only a little bit of change from the exchange. Collectively, what is happening is that others are building in our gardens!

Barry Humphries’ jokes about the scourge of thrip on the roses (or was it the tomatoes?) will be incomprehensible to future Melbournians. How can this joke be funny when the “problem” is foreign to you?

In 2005 John Howard had been Prime Minister for nearly a decade and didn't look particularly vulnerable. But then he decided to ramp up Australia's migration intake. Net overseas migration jumped from the 100,000 it had been in 2004 to over 200,000 in just a couple of years. In 2005 migration overtook natural increase as the dominant driver of population growth, and we entered an era of rapid population growth, which we are still in. Our population now increases by a million people every three years.

The era of rapid population growth has also been one of great political instability. John Howard lost the 2007 election and indeed lost his own seat. His successor, Kevin Rudd, maintained and even increased net migration. When he was questioned about rapid population growth in 2009 he declared he was in favour of a Big
Australia. His personal approval ratings had been high until that time, but then they started to fall. He was replaced by Julia Gillard in 2010.

Julia Gillard was aware of the damage that "Big Australia" had done to Kevin Rudd, and said she was not in favour of Big Australia. But she did not change the migration intake much and the problems of rapid population growth persisted. She was replaced by Kevin Rudd in 2013, and he in turn lost the 2013 election and the Liberal
Party came to power with Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. Tony Abbott maintained Australia's net migration intake at over 200,000 per annum, and rapid population growth continued.

Now just two years later Tony Abbott has been replaced by Malcolm Turnbull. Australia has been described as the democratic coup capital of the world, and our political instability has been the subject of international comment. Now of course there are many factors at work in every political setting. I acknowledge the role of Workchoices in the demise of John Howard. I acknowledge the role of internal undermining and the difficulties of managing the hung Parliament in the demise of Julia Gillard. I think that Tony Abbott made a Faustian deal with the devil by promising that there would be no cuts to health, education, or pensions when he was Opposition Leader, only to renege on these promises in the 2014 Budget.

But those factors are insufficient to explain the political instability of the past decade, especially when you see it going on at a State level too. In Victoria and Queensland we have seen right wing governments elected then defeated after just one term, with the elected Victorian Premier toppled in his first term by his own Party, just as
happened to Kevin Rudd and as has just happened to Tony Abbott.

In 2011 I gave a speech which I called the Witches’ Hats Theory of Government. Having studied a lot of countries around the world, I had come to the conclusion that countries with large and rapidly growing populations had more political instability than countries with small and relatively stable populations. I compared governing a country, with various public policy problems you have to solve, to an advanced driving course, where you have to navigate a road without knocking over strategically placed orange traffic cones known as Witches Hats. Each public policy failure -
education, unemployment, aged care, planning, represents a witches hat knocked over.

If you knock over too many Witches Hats, you fail the test, that is to say the electorate, or your party, votes you out. I noted back in 2011 that if a country was stable or only growing slowly its leaders seemed to have fewer problems, and more time to solve the problems, a more content population, and much better political longevity.

But if a country was growing rapidly, problems such as traffic congestion, housing affordability, planning disputes and infrastructure shortfalls generated political instability. It is like driving the car at great speed. Inevitably you are going to hit more hats. Infrastructure is a particular difficulty. A country or community growing at 2 per cent has double the infrastructure task of a stable community, which is why pensioners and retirees feel particularly under the pump from utility charges in a rapidly growing population.

The Abbott Government had little support from young people, who are the victims of job insecurity, housing unaffordability, and rising student debt. All of these things were made worse by rapid population growth. When the jobs at Seven Eleven and numerous other retail outlets are all going to easily exploited temporary migrant
workers, how are young Australians supposed to become financially independent and get entry level work experience?

The Abbott Government also lost the support of older people with its broken promises over cuts to education, health and pensions. It was looking to find money to deliver on Mr Abbott's promise to be the Infrastructure Prime Minister, and avoid a Witches Hat which would not have been there if our population growth had not been so rapid.

So the Witches Hats have claimed another victim. I offer the same advice to Prime Minister Turnbull and his incoming Government as I have freely offered to his predecessors. If you want to last, stop driving so fast!

Source:
The Hon Kelvin Thomson, Federal Member for Wills
Thursday 17 th September, 2015

A Social Democratic Party that Lost Its Way: Once-upon-a-time Canada’s New Democrats knew that there were Limits to Growth. They knew about the Club of Rome, about Silent Spring and about the Population Bomb. They knew that resources were finite and that their unrestricted extraction would cause irreparable damage. They knew that “growth” was the ideology of the cancer cell. Yes, in the 1970’s the environment was very much on the agenda. Party academic and scholar Charles Taylor spoke of “the politics of the steady-state” and John Harney ran his federal leadership campaign on those kinds of issues.

Here’s what the British Columbia NDP stated in 1972:
a. “An NDP government will undertake a study of the effects of continued exponential growth in the Province of B. C.
b. “Such a study of the exponential growth in B. C. would investigate the possibility of taking all steps deemed necessary to deal adequately with the situation.
c. “The Environmental Control Committee of the provincial NDP will study the adoption of a steady-state economic policy, the concept of progress and limited growth, and the party’s stand on this matter.”
d. “It is recommended that a federally-sponsored permanent research group be established to investigate all aspects of growth and to submit recommendations for action. Such a research group would be required to submit reports within two years of its establishment, and at subsequent two year intervals.”
e. “An NDP government will give top priority to environmental problems with particular emphasis on population control.”
f. “An NDP government will encourage all means which will bring about voluntary limitation of population.”
g. “Immediate steps will be taken to educate the public in the urgent necessity of halting population growth.”
(From Policies for People, Policies of the B.C. NDP 1961-78, p.30)

So what happened to all of this? Somehow the NDP lost its vision. Its prescient grasp of the impending ecological crisis slipped away into the hands of those who would have us believe that we can “have our cake and grow it too”. That we can have Economic Growth—“development”—and environmental integrity at the same time. They reconcile these contradictory goals with self-delusional, trendy oxymorons like “sustainable development” and---my personal favourite—“smart growth”. The NDP has become a party not just about dividing up the economic pie more equitably—but about “growing” the pie too. “Grow the pie to grow the revenues, and increased revenues will allow us to fund and maintain an endless laundry list of social services. Growth is not the problem you see. The problem is that the poorer among us are not in on the action. Apparently the NDP has not heard the terrible news: We’re living on a finite planet.

As I wrote in 2008, when the NDP was led by Jack Layton and the federal Liberals by Stephane Dion,

“In this they are not to be distinguished from any other party. Even the Greens, beneath their rhetoric, are committed to Economic Growth, because their leader Elizabeth May shares Layton, Harper and Dion’s goal of boosting Canada’s population to 40 million plus via immigration (http://www.greenparty.ca/index.php?module=article&view=85). That's right folks. Greens and so-called 'environmentalists' somehow believe that you can add another Metro Toronto to Canada's population every decade without negative ecological impacts! Yeah, and you can eat a liter of ice cream every day and lose weight too. Immigration accounts for two-thirds of the country’s population growth, and it is that, coupled with per capita consumption rates, which drives economic growth. And economic growth is eclipsing wildlife habitat and spurring greenhouse emissions.

No Jack, it’s not about driving Green cars, or building windmills, or retro-fitting houses. It’s about stabilizing our population level, limiting economic growth, and finally establishing what we talked about 35 years ago—a steady-state economy.”

Well that was then and this is now, September of 2015, when the country is in the midst of a federal election campaign. A campaign where, once again, contending leaders employ histrionics and fake outrage to give the impression that each offers the voters a radically different choice than their rivals. And once again, many voters are buying it. Harper is the devil incarnate or he is the one man who can be trusted to guide us through tough economic times. The fate of the world hinges on stopping Stephen Harper or re-electing him. That is what rhetoric can do to peoples’ brains.

But if there is indeed a difference, it is, as Freud would have put it, “the narcissism of small differences”. The differences are so petty that each leader feels obliged to inflate them to stake out a distinctive position. All parties support continued hyper-immigration-driven rapid population and economic growth, but some are careful to couch it those aforementioned oxymoronic euphemisms like "sustainable growth", "sustainable development", and drumbeats, "smart growth" (smart extinctions? smart clear cuts? smart carbon emissions?).
The only difference between the Opposition Parties and Harper's Conservatives is that the former are more adept at Greenwash. Nothing better illustrates this point than the absurd contention of NDP leader Thomas Mulcair that he is committed to getting the oil sands oil to market, but will ensure that it will be extracted and delivered safely and responsibly in accordance with tougher environmental regulations. What Mulcair doesn’t get is that it is not how the oil is procured and shipped to market that is of crucial importance, but the fact that once “marketed” and received, customers are going to actually BURN it. How is Mulcair and his party going to “green” that? And this is the party that accused Stephen Harper of not being serious about tackling climate change.

No doubt Mr. Mulcair took his cue from the newly elected NDP Premier of Alberta, Rachel Notley, who shortly after assuming office this summer, declared that the oil sands project was a “tremendous asset” and an “international showpiece”. That’s quite an abrupt transition for a party that once regarded it as the planet’s most conspicuous environmental blight, and insisted that the oil sands was in reality the “tar” sands. Funny how that works.

Funny, except that Mother Nature is not laughing.

Tim Murray
September 8, 2015

(Video inside.) Once again Nick Folkes and his Party for Freedom have come up with a very effective way to protest against foreign ownership and overpopulation through invited economic immigration and its impacts.[1] Other groups would do well to imitate these democratic initiatives especially if they differ with Party for Freedom on issues of multiculturalism but care about housing affordability and democracy, rather than simply trying to shut Party for Freedom up and, in the process, allow the growth lobby to destroy Australia. In this video Folkes and his Party continue their campaign to make real estate agents and property developers think twice about selling built property to foreign nationals. They focus on the preponderance of Chinese foreign nationals purchasing Australian property. This cannot help but get attention since the Australian mainstream media constantly popularises this issue, although it does not promote any effective way of countering it. (Note that Fairfax and Murdoch press are heavily invested in property dot coms that market Australian real estate to the world: www.realestate.com and www.domain.com). In the video inside this article Mr Folkes engages effectively with people who show both positive and negative interest in the protest for which he is a spokesperson. What next, Mr Folkes, a protest at an Australian international airport, or on the road towards it?

Party for Freedom's press release with this video

"On Saturday, 29th August 2015, Party for Freedom members and supporters will be carrying out protests at auction sites objecting to foreign nationals purchasing Australian residential property.

Last Saturday, 15th August we held protests or flash mobs at three auction sites. The response was amazing with real estate agents and onlookers totally shocked seeing patriotic Australian arrive with placards and Australian flags reminding both real estate agents and foreign buyers that it is illegal under Australian law to sell existing property to foreign nationals.

Thousands of properties have been illegally sold to foreign nationals yet our government does nothing to stop the buy out. It is economic genocide to transfer assets and wealth to foreign nationals. Also, the impact on housing prices and rentals is huge with Australian property prices being some of the most expensive real estate in the world due to foreign ownership coupled with mass immigration.

Both NSW and Victorian state governments are addicted to stamp duty and will continue to encourage foreign ownership. Last year alone, the slippery NSW Treasury raked in over $7.4 billion in stamp duty. No doubt much of this stamp duty money is ‘dirty money’ from China. The CCP Politburo is on an anti-corruption drive in China so many Chinese nationals with connections to the ‘Chinese Communist Party’ are keen to get their money out of China. China has rules in place restricting the export of undeclared money yet does very little to stop the outflows to Australia and other Western and Asian nations."

The press release also claims, without supplying documentation for the statement, that,

"The Chinese government wants to establish ‘Chinese satellites’ throughout the world giving it control and prestige in many nations. The Chinese government has secret plans to move millions of Chinese nationals out of China to help establish these new colonies.

The press release continues:

The people of Hong Kong have seen their small city-state overrun with mainlanders, this has pushed up property prices and demolished wages and job opportunities. Australia should take notice what is happening around the world and take action but we know that our government is too busy getting intoxicated on lure of easy money."

"It is now up to the people of our nation to take action, and this is exactly what we did last Saturday when we arrived unannounced at three auction sites. The first auction site we arrived at was Chatswood. The real estate agent and prospective buyers weren’t happy seeing us arrive when we reminding them that we do not want to see our nation sold out. Our action caused the auction to be cancelled. Our intention is not to stop or interrupt auctions but to exercise our democratic right of protest and remind all present that it is illegal to sell existing property to foreign nationals. We have a right to be angry and annoyed at seeing foreign nationals steal our economic sovereignty.

The second auction site was Turramurra. Again, the real estate agent and onlookers were totally shocked with some rowdy neighbours calling us “racists’ and “bogans”. There were even more neighbours who quietly gave us support and openly spoke about their own opposition to Labor and Liberal’s foreign sell out. These good people hold the same reservations as we do when it comes to our pimpish real estate industry and government who are more than eager in flogging off our nation to foreign entities."

NOTE

[1] Despite my admiration for the effective democratic protest these Australians are making in defense of housing affordability and Australian sovereignty, Party for Freedom's previous website featured some articles and comments about aboriginals and muslims with which candobetter.net does not agree and with which I cannot agree on anthropological grounds personally, speaking as a sociologist specialising in population, inheritance laws and land-use planning. Furthermore, I think that these comments are antithetical to the Party for Freedom's arguments for sovereignty - which is actually best achieved with a fair dose of endogamy. Here is my reasoning:

These comments and articles use 'scientific' theory against specific groups of peoples. For instance, one article discusses a high rate of cousin marriage in a particular people as if it were unusual or hazardous incest. That is a popular view that does not take into account the widespread role of endogamy in preserving land within a people, and other factors that need to be taken into account when assessing cousin marriage. In fact, a high rate of endogamy need not be genetically damaging; it can be beneficial, both in terms of preserving control over territory and in strengthening positive traits. Depending on the public relations, where one highly endogamous group can be stigmatised for 'inbreeding stupidity' another may be famous for 'inbreeding genius'. When assessing the impact of marriage and land-tenure traditions on genetic inheritance, environment and changes to economy, diet, and social organisation also need to be taken into account. See http://candobetter.net/node/3197 about the importance of dynasties in modern power. There is also a comment on the Party for Freedom site suggesting that a particular group of people have lower average I.Q.s that other people. IQ tests are not reliable when dealing with culture and language differences and this theory also does not take into account mass dispossession and changes to economy, diet and social organisation - and the impact of drugs and alcohol. It's a pity that the Party for Freedom does not seem to be able to see how fighting between groups weakens the ability of Australians to stand up to the powers that have overtaken national control of land, housing and economic benefits.

Despite these reservations, I do not want to fall into the trap of enabling wedge politics, which makes people afraid to learn from positive efforts by other groups on the grounds that those groups also hold opinions of which they disapprove. If I were to engage in wedge politics, I would not publish the Party for Freedom's video, on grounds of my differences with their opinions about issues from endogamous marriages - which are, ironically, also widely held by the general political, scientific and citizen community.

Mark Allen from Population Permaculture and Planning locks horns so to speak with West Australian Planning Professor, Professor Newman, over Melbourne's apartment proliferation, in discussion on the Conversation website relating traffic congestion to GDP rather than to population growth, and where the professor has suggested that increasing low cost, low quality, high density appartments would solve housing unaffordability. (If you wish to contribute on The Conversation site, please hit 'newest' on the 'Comments' section to read the latest dialogue at: https://theconversation.com/dont-panic-traffic-congestion-is-not-coming-for-our-cities-45154)

In a post in Mark Allen and Peter Newman's ongoing discussion Peter Newman has written that he believes that housing in-affordability created by urban consolidation can be solved "by building more high density housing at lower cost." He goes on to say that:

"Many people, perhaps you are one, prevent this as they only want to see high quality high density housing. They have been very successful at stopping high rise in Melbourne especially. This means the rich are moving in and the poor out."

So, does Professor Newman mean that if we build cheap low quality high-rise, we will solve all of our social inequity problems?

Mark Allen (Population, Permaculture and Planning) responded:

Very little of the massively overpriced high density in Melbourne is of high quality. Ironically the very few cases that I have seen of affordable housing have appeared at least, to be better quality, possibly because the architects had more to prove in terms of persuading planners and the community that affordable housing would not "detract" from the neighbourhood. If the standards of high density development in Melbourne were to be reduced any more, we would literally be building slums. Please do not assume that the high prices in Melbourne's apartment market translates into higher quality development. Property developers are using the urban consolidation mantra as an excuse to build high density, mainly for the overseas market and property investors. It is a build 'em quick, sell 'em high mentality. There is absolutely zero incentive for developers to market high density to people on lower incomes here in Melbourne and the investors that are being marketed to do not want prices to be brought down by cheaper units being built. Therefore I have learnt that urban consolidation can only work if a major component is, like you suggest, "social housing". I have also come to the conclusion that higher density development should not be constructed to such a scale that the character, heritage value and green spaces of our inner suburbs are adversely effected. I believe that greater emphasis should be placed on constructing European style medium-density town housing in the middle suburbs where many of the houses built in the 50's and 60's are coming to the end of their lives. There also needs to be a greater emphasis on increasing densities on the urban fringe by building TOD urban villages rather than low density suburbs (admittedly without the public transport but at least there would be an economic reason for it to come, even if it means waiting a few years). Finally we cannot ignore the issue of population growth. There needs to be an open and honest debate about how quickly our population should grow and whether slowing it would allow us time to plan more effectively as opposed to trying to keep up with accommodating ever increasing numbers. To promote urban consolidation as a magic bullet solution without looking at the wider context can therefore I believe, lead to really bad planning outcomes as is happening here in Melbourne.

Here is the full exchange:

Mark Allen

Thank you for the article Peter. I am concerned however that Australian cities do face an increased congestion problem. Here in Melbourne the population is increasing by around 100,000 a year. In fact our infrastructure will need to be doubled in the next 30-40 years. The government's solution is to house this growth by means of urban consolidation, in this case large amounts of apartments close to railway lines. The idea is that people will use existing infrastructure; utilise the train or tram on their doorstep and car usage will be greatly reduced. The reality is sadly a bit more complex. Every new apartment is provided with a parking space for at least one car and many people utilise that space because while having a train on your doorstep is handy for some trips, it does not cover all of them by any means. So by building transport orientated development we are increasing car- usage in the inner suburbs and ironically as the focus is on creating origins rather than destinations along the public transport network, (i.e apartments rather than facilities and places of recreation etc) more and more car journeys are going to be needed as businesses and places of leisure are displaced by apartment building.

Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University, in reply to #comment_739929">Mark Allen

Its not what happens. If you build up densities around stations the main thing that happens is that people use local services much more as well as the transit system. The whole area becomes more walkable and less car dependent. Transit services go up and more local economic activity comes to the area. The cars are mostly left at home and eventually some households get rid of them altogether. It would be much better to have fewer parking spaces available from the start but that is often driven by fearful councillors not wanting people to park on the street.

Mark Allen:

Its 'not what happens' in theory but there is a growing body of research to show that this is what is happening here in Melbourne. The high price of real estate is such that many of the services currently available in transport nodes are being displaced by residential development to the extent that walkability is being lost. I agree that nevertheless people living in apartments in the inner suburbs will and are making far less journeys by car than those in the outer suburbs, but when you take into account the large numbers of people living in these transport orientated developments, you are looking at an overall increase in congestion by the sheer increase in the volume of people. This is despite the fact that per capita car-use is decreasing. I am not against urban consolidation as long as it is not dictated to, as it is at present, by the market. There has to be a component of affordable housing in the mix or else the construction of new apartments only goes to gentrify the areas in which they are constructed. This forces people on lower incomes to the urban fringes where car use is almost essential. Also, 95% of new apartments constructed in Melbourne are one bedroomed and therefore aimed at a narrow demographic which puts additional pressure on the urban fringe for those people who want to start families etc. Unfortunately I believe that the "increased densities around stations" mantra is being exploited by developers (etc) precisely because it is too simplistic and that it hasn't been subjected to enough scrutiny. I recommend that you strike up conversation with Professor Peter Buxton from RMIT in order to learn more about Melbourne's urban consolidation woes. Thank you for your insights.

Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University

I am not talking theory I am telling you what we have measured happening. I am aware of the discussions in Melbourne and the fear of density being generated. I dont see anywhere that those fears have actually led to what you fear.

Mark Allen in reply to Peter Newman:

Professor Kevin O'Connor from Melbourne university recently made a damning assessment of the way urban consolidation is being carried out in Melbourne, citing the Docklands as a prime example. This follows in the footsteps of a similar assessment by Professor Peter Buxton. I am not talking about my fears here. I am basing my assessment on what academics in the field such as yourself, are saying. I understand that your claims are based upon measurements but the parameters are changing all of the time as the apartment boom continues to accelerate. Of course those parameters also vary massively from city to city.

Mark Allen

By coincidence, this article was published on the Domain website today: Low-income renters are being forced to Melbourne's outskirts with areas that were once affordable now out of reach.

Low-income renters forced further to the outskirts of Melbourne

"The biggest drops in rental affordability over the past five years in Greater Melbourne were in the east and south-east; in the Mornington Peninsula, Frankston, Latrobe and the Yarra Ranges municipalities, according to the Department of Health and Human Services rental data.

Melton, Casey and Greater Dandenong – areas traditionally seen as some of Melbourne's most affordable – also recorded a significant decline compared to the rest of Melbourne.

The analysis echoes a similar finding in 2013, which showed Frankston, Greater Dandenong and Casey registered the greatest decline.

The data from the DHHS March Rental Report shows that the majority of Greater Melbourne's 32 municipalities had less than 60 affordable rentals".

Because the apartment boom in Melbourne is aimed at people in the higher income bracket without any thought for affordable housing, suburban sprawl is accelerating. It is a massive oversimplification to say that increasing densities in the inner suburbs stops suburban sprawl. If it is developer driven, it increases it.

Peter Newman in response to Mark Allen:

The issue of affordability in TODs or redevelopment in general is a universal one. You can address it by requiring a certain proportion of social housing or by building more high density housing at lower cost. Many people, perhaps you are one, prevent this as they only want to see high quality high density housing. They have been very successful at stopping high rise in Melbourne especially. This means the rich are moving in and the poor out. It does mean that the rich are driving less, and this is why we are seeing peak car, but our cities are becoming less equitable due to the anti-high rise movement.

>

Mark Allen in reply to Peter Newman:

Very little of the massively overpriced high density in Melbourne is of high quality. Ironically the very few cases that I have seen of affordable housing have appeared at least, to be better quality, possibly because the architects had more to prove in terms of persuading planners and the community that affordable housing would not "detract" from the neighbourhood. If the standards of high density development in Melbourne were to be reduced any more, we would literally be building slums. Please do not assume that the high prices in Melbourne's apartment market translates into higher quality development. Property developers are using the urban consolidation mantra as an excuse to build high density, mainly for the overseas market and property investors. It is a build 'em quick, sell 'em high mentality. There is absolutely zero incentive for developers to market high density to people on lower incomes here in Melbourne and the investors that are being marketed to do not want prices to be brought down by cheaper units being built. Therefore I have learnt that urban consolidation can only work if a major component is, like you suggest, "social housing". I have also come to the conclusion that higher density development should not be constructed to such a scale that the character, heritage value and green spaces of our inner suburbs are adversely effected. I believe that greater emphasis should be placed on constructing European style medium-density town housing in the middle suburbs where many of the houses built in the 50's and 60's are coming to the end of their lives. There also needs to be a greater emphasis on increasing densities on the urban fringe by building TOD urban villages rather than low density suburbs (admittedly without the public transport but at least there would be an economic reason for it to come, even if it means waiting a few years). Finally we cannot ignore the issue of population growth. There needs to be an open and honest debate about how quickly our population should grow and whether slowing it would allow us time to plan more effectively as opposed to trying to keep up with accommodating ever increasing numbers. To promote urban consolidation as a magic bullet solution without looking at the wider context can therefore I believe, lead to really bad planning outcomes as is happening here in Melbourne.

Please hit 'newest' on the 'Comments' section to read the latest dialogue at: https://theconversation.com/dont-panic-traffic-congestion-is-not-coming-for-our-cities-45154

I am a member of the Hornsby Kuringai Greens, NSW and a member of the Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group. On July 18 I emailed all Senate NSW pre select candidates to ask them what they would do, if elected to the Senate, about Abbott's high population growth position, with reference to immigration, 457 visas, and growth economy addiction. I received encouraging responses back from Amanda Findley and Brad Orgill. Whilst I, like many, think it would be a great loss not to have Lee Rhianon in the Senate. She was almost frightening when she hammered home the seriousness of what we are facing with Abbott: TPP, giant coal mines etc., attack on renewable energy; but she won't budge on her position regarding population and immigration. I had a chat with her and James Ryan later and her point was that we are going to be facing thousands of people from the Pacific Islands who have been washed out of their homes by sea level rise and increasing storm frequency and intensity so how can we argue against the current rate? Also she seemed to be saying that it's too complex because of global population reality etc. Below I have published the responses I received to my Population/Immigration/addicted to growth Economy concerns.

Dear Greens Senate NSW pre select candidates.

I`m about to cast my vote for NSW Greens Senate candidates pre selection.

I cannot vote for a Senate candidate who does or says nothing about Australia`s horrendous immigration rate.(and population growth rate.) Greens worthy and humanitarian policy towards environmental and political refugees/assylum seekers is contradicted by a lack of action for a reduction in immigration back to pre John Howard levels - about 50,000 pa. The current rate of 260,000 pa is totally un-sustainable, irresponsible and is resulting in downward pressure on wages, infrastructure failure, sky rocketing city house prices,traffic chaos and threats to delicate ecosystems - eg. North Coast Koala habitat. It is the fuel which fires the developers' and construction industry greed for constant building in Sydney causing excessive demolition of our heritage and increasing population density. More profits for capitalists who bribe the Liberal Party with obscene electoral donations but a down ward spiral in our quality of life and standard of living for ordinary Australians. Greens policy should be in agreement with progress to a Steady State Economy to end the Addicted-to-growth mentality which is destroying life on the planet. Stabilising Australia`s population growth rate is a necessary corollary of this goal among other goals to reduce our eco-footprint per capita and total Australian eco-footprint. Genuine refugees yes, but well off, aspirational, middle class immigrants - we don`t need 260,000 pa. Also their emmigration to Australia represents a brain drain from their own countries. Australia's so called "skills shortage" is a furphy. It's corporate-speak for cheap internationalised labour from non-unionised compliant countries. ie non-unionised - aspirational - compliant - immigrants. The former safe Labor seat of Penrith has swung to the Liberals. John Howard's quadrupling of the immigration rate is the reason. It is Liberal Party social engineering of the electorates. I look forward to your reply in terms on what you will do in the Senate to pressure the Federal Government to reduce population pressure on Australia and in particular to reduce the excessive immigration rate.

Regards.
Geoff Dowsett.
Member. Hornsby Kuringai Greens.
Member. Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group.

Responses from Greens senate NSW pre-select candidates

An encouraging response from Amanda Findley

Hi Geoff. Tough question for an economic immigrant.

I migrated to Australia in 1982 as a 12 year old with my mum, dad and brother - we were escaping poverty and the troubles ofNorthern Ireland. I didn't want to leave my country of origin or my large family, but I had no choice.

My fathers 'family application' was accepted as he did have skills in the info tech area that Australia at that time didn't have. I amvery grateful for the opportunity that I and my family have had- the migration level then was substantially lower and the processwe went through quiet vigorous even though there was still the hangovers from white Australia policy and British Citizenswere given a green light much easier than other NESB people.

So I struggle internally with the debate on immigration as I don't want to be a hypocrite who benefitted and then locked the door -so to speak. My response(Geoff) to the above - If we`re not Aboriginal then we are all part of the on going invasion of Australia.One way of compensating for the destructive impact that we and our ancestors have had on the indigenous humanpopulation and on the forests - wildlife and what was an incredible bio diversity is to stop the destruction now by reducingAustralia`s population growth which continues to cause havoc on the delicate and ancient eco systems of the continent dueto our high human foot print - total and per person.(Geoff)

That being said do I think we have issue - yes indeed. The fixation with the growth at any cost model will be the ruination of ourspecies /planet /ecosystems.

I agree that the current rate of immigration is obscene considering the structural difficulties that we currently face in every cityacross the brown land and even more obscene given our Governments current position of refugees. Absolutely Amanda (Geoff)

I don't support the notion of a big Australia - as a farmer I have an understanding of carrying capacity and I don't think humans fare any better from a feed lot existence than other animals do. We have a long way to go in convincing people to live more frugal lives and that is part of the key to reducing our stress on the planet.

I am certainly interested in promoting steady state economy, but this is not my current area of expertise.

I hope this brief email gives you some insight into my thinking - I will be attending the Hornsby Kuring Gai Greens event on Sunday18th if you would like to have a chat in person.

Regards Amanda Findley

An encouraging response from Brad Orgill

Hi Geoff, I agree with you that inward immigration levels of skilled applicants (as distinct from refugees) have been unnecessarily high. I dobelieve that this has exacerbated the unemployment and underemployment rate and I wrote about this in my published book('Why Labor Should Savour its Greens'). I think the 457 visa scheme in particular has been materially overused. I enclose a scannedextract of the couple of pages from my book highlighting this.

I also believe that high immigration puts downward pressure on wages (and benefits) and increases the need for, and cost to alltaxpayers of, government spending on infrastructure and services. I think (and I also said this in my book) that the governmentfocus on GDP is simplistic (in many ways) of which one is a complete disregard for the more useful measure of GDP PerCapita. The result has been that high immigration has delivered GDP growth but depressed GDP per capita, at a cost to existingAustralians. Business and those deriving their income from invested capital derive benefits from a rapidly increasingpopulation but most Australians do not.

I think housing costs are driven by a variety of factors of which negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions are important. Sotoo is the paradigm for setting interest rates (where the RBA mandate to set rates off CPI ignores housing price inflation). Inwardimmigration and especially the ability for foreigners not immigrating to buy property and circumvent rules has also been amaterial factor. Our governments have been negligent in addressing this (and other factors) to ensure housing costs are contained.We have been notably behind the curve relative to Vancouver and HK where restrictions and explicit taxes have beenimposed.

We need to link the discussion on immigration with a more nuanced discussion on foreign investment as some types of foreigninvestment (such as direct investment in manufacturing or R&D facilities involving technology transfer are of major benefit)but buying the existing housing stock has no benefit.

I think the issues of immigration and foreign investment bring into sharp focus; the question of 'who is the Government governingfor?' and if not for the majority of Australians but rather say - business or lobby groups or relative minority groups withspecific beliefs or agendas - then democracy as currently working in Australia, is failing us.

I hope this gives you an insight into my views.

regards,
Brad Orgill

Dr. Arthur Chesterfield-Evans' Response.

Hi Geoff, You raise a lot of issues.

We need a sustainable world population and sustainable policies for the whole planet. Affluence and a decent life makes people have less children. I am not sure that forced sterilisation works. A new economic system must have a role for everyone in a cooperative rather than a competitive model. This requires a huge paradigm shift.
I am not sure we can merely halt Australia's population growth without thinking about the rest of the world. A small selfish nation will not stand up forever. We took a lot of migrants after WW2, the most in the world for our population. But all the people who came had jobs and all the kids went to the same public schools, not the poor ghettos we have now with unemployed parents.

More global thinking is needed.

Cheers Arthur Chesterfield-Evans

My response to Arhur

Thanks Arthur.
Greens policy correctly prioritises I believe--our humanitarian responsibility to asylum seekers and environmental refugees which we are likely to see thousands of from the Pacific as sea level rises and as weather events intensify. Abbott`s policy of prioritising well off--middle class, aspirational so called "skilled" immigrants who move into the Lend lease and Trigaboff McMansions and swing the formerly safe Labor seats in Sydney and Melbourne to the right and push up demand for Sydney houseprices should be reduced. Their emigration to Aust represents a brain drain from their own country. The dreadful high rise "developments" Sydney residents are now faced with are based on the assumption that population will rise. I believe that a Greens Senator should combine forces with the Member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson and expose the dangers of the Abbott Government's reckless high population growth economy. Use the question time debates - what ever tactics - instruments - are available to Senators. Senator Larissa Waters has expressed her opposition to Australia`s excessive population growth rate at

Regards. Geoff Dowsett

Lyn Maciver's response

Thank you, Geoff, for your strongly expressed views on Australia's current Immigration policy.

As I am sure you would realise Immigration has been a hot topic since colonial times and "policy" development has been erratic and kneejerk at worst with slogans such as "Populate or Perish" to zenophobic "the yellow peril and white Australia" policy.

There have been times of rational diplomacy and some strategic intelligence in our combination of Education and Immigration insights such as the Columbo Plan.

This resulted in having leaders of neighbouring countries educated at Australian schools and universities.

As for the laissez-faire mess we are in just now with full fee paying students and investor parents and too many wanting to have afoot in Australia and another in Asia or elsewhere!!!!.

My position is to require citizenship as basic requirement for ownership of residential property. Business "investment" needs different criteria, especially rural and agricultural land.

We have a big country and it is richly resourced but water and arable land are not at present inexhaustible.

As someone who has studied Permaculture, I am aware that even deserts in time and with careful husbandry can become arable but growth for growth's sake and just expanding into the stratosphere with multiple high rise development is not the way forward in my opinion.

I favour regional development and opportunities for residential and employment hubs networked throughout regional and ruralAustralia instead of current coastal clustering of unsustainable development.

All these alternatives require Imagination and Political Will to enable the best use of our entire land mass. Many people would love to get out of Sydney to cheaper housing, cleaner air, open spaces and less frenetic lifestyle but they need to know they have access to good ongoing educational and locally based employment opportunities and access to reliable and state of the art medical services.

Not rocket science but the emphasis will have to be on promoting life beyond the major cities.

Enormous potential for all Australians.

I do not think numbers are the main criteria. We need to slow down and plan for the future in stages. There has been too much haste and too little intelligent planning for living, sustainable communities to create happy, healthy and creative centres of population all over the nation.

Will require good positive communication to all Australians, selling decentralisation with big benefits.

We are a multicultural nation and that is not going to change. It is both a challenge and a strength in creating diversity and depth of cultural experience for us all.

Hope this gives you some idea of my thinking on the subject.

Best wishes, Geoff. If you would like to discuss with me further, just give me a call on 0457 812 653. I am free now if you want to call.

Just realise that as a Greens Senator for NSW, I would not be a lone ranger, but one of a team, whose decisions are based on stated Greens policy which is not set in concrete but which neither is it ad hoc and policy on the run.

My response to Lyn.

Hi Lyn,

Thanks for your response but I don't think you are aware of the seriousness of Australia's excessive population increase. Decentralisation is not the answer due to our globally significant eco hot spots, delicate and vulnerable eco systems/wildlife habitats - aboriginal heritage and environmental impact per person that is too high in marginal areas away from cities. There would also be vast communication and transport costs. There - poor soils - drought - global warming impacts etc.

Our impact on the environment is absolutely linked to the population size---Are you familiar with Paul Ehrlich`s equation Impact=Population x Affluence x Technology ? I =PAT ? Australia's eco footprint per capita is one of the highest on the planet. We must reduce our population growth rate. Japan now has a negative growth rate. Europe and Scandinavia- no population growth. See some of Dr. Haydn Washington's slides from recent Nth Side Forum talk on Population attchd.

Australia is now in an unprecedented biodiversity crisis (see "Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment, 2002"; NHT Report). Yet instead of urgently addressing this life threatening crisis, our governments are not only ignoring it, but their policies are clearly designed to exacerbate it. They are driven by ideology and economy that is completely divorced from the natural environment and the benefits of its ecosystem services on which all life on this planet depends. Our Federal and State govts have been hijacked by sociopathic corporations that have no concern for the impact of the population growth on - Australia's threatened bio-diversity natural habitats - quality of life in our cities - meltdown of urban infrastructure - traffic chaos - sky rocketing house prices - a downward spiral in our standard of living and quality of life. Who will profit from Australia's population boom? Answer: Only the capitalist class at the expense of the environment,our quality of life as our infrastructure is stretched and delicate ancient eco systems are destroyed . This is massive corporate welfare as corporations pay no tax to support the need for up graded infrastructure and pay nothing to counteract the environmental collapse --and reap the obscene profits as population increases. Solution---Cut population growth immediately by cutting immigration and closing down Abbott's 457 Visa rort.

Cheers. Geoff Dowsett

James Ryan`s Response

Geoff I agree with you about limiting growth in the traditional economic sense and protecting our environment. As you might be aware I am currently taking Land & Environment Court action to protect the bushland nesting habitat of the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater.

I am particularly concerned about the increasing rates of consumption per capita in our society and the implications that has for our footprint on the planet.

Happy to talk to you about these issues.

James

Geoff Dowsett, Member of Hornsby Kuringai Greens has questioned the Greens NSW Senate pre-selection candidates and provides the following graphics to put Australia's population growth into political and demographic perspective.

The only political party that provides an alternative to business as usual is the Sustainable Population Party.

Update: See note [1] on where candobetter.net's values differ from those apparent on Party for Freedom site. John Ajaka, the NSW Minister for Multiculturalism's indignation at Nick Folkes's (Party for Freedom)[1] protests against foreign property ownership in Australia would ring truer if Ajaka distanced multiculturalism from the billion dollar property development growth lobby that has captured the multicultural tag. See Background on the Australian Multicultural Foundation. Instead he sounds like a hypocrite attacking an Australian who tries to stand up to this Goliath.[2] Unfortunately multiculturalism has become code for mass migration and a political shield for a powerful global network of engineers, banks and financiers, property developers, government departments and academic propagandists, represented by numerous peak bodies of which the Property Council of Australia is probably foremost. The Fairfax and Murdoch Press are members of this growth lobby with strong vested interests in their own huge property dot coms, realestate.com.au and domain.com.au. The major political parties are similarly invested, with the Labor Party's stake best known, but it is no Robinson Crusoe.

The multicultural cloak has been given unmerited authority and power by vested interest and protection from political figures. Nick Folkes is a working man attempting to lead protests against mass dispossession of Australian citizens by virtually unregulated foreign property buyers who are outbidding Australians and contributing to an overpriced Australian housing market.

The multiculturalist Goliath is well-organised to maintain and increase focused financial benefits from high immigration, but the Australian public, which wears the cost of mass immigration and land-speculation, has great difficulty organising to combat it.

This disorganisation of the masses is largely due to the way the Fairfax, Murdoch and ABC media manage 'public' debate to reflect the opinions of the big end of town whilst pretending to reflect those of the majority. Although population growth is a constant topic in the mass media, the media usually only publishes criticism of the growth lobby if they can pretend such criticism is laced with innuendos of racism, NIMBYism or can be stigmatised as 'ignorant'. Whilst Tony Abbott is cocooned by his party and the mainstream media against public criticism for wearing his foot in his mouth, we can expect that Nick Folkes will be afforded no such protection for speaking plainly against narrow financial interests that cost most Australians.

There are huge sums of money involved in the population growth and foreign investment that uses multiculturalism to censor criticism of its projects and muzzle those it disadvantages. According to the Foreign Investment Review Board, China overtook the United States as the biggest source of proposed foreign investment in Australia in 2013-14 and may soon 'pump $60 billion into housing' here. The ABC reports that Knight Frank property developers and realtors 'showed Chinese investment in the Sydney and Melbourne property markets doubled last year and that Chinese investors spent more on Australian real estate than on properties in London and New York for the first time'. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-29/chinese-invasion-leaflet-campaign-slammed-as-idiotic/6506412

Numbers and wedge politics

It makes you think that Pauline Hanson's speech writer was on to something when he had her say in 1996 that Australia was in danger of being 'swamped' by Asians. Americans and Canadians are still not far behind though in driving up housing prices, resource demand and development expansion over Australia's fast diminishing green spaces.

In 1996 Australia's population was 18,300,100. At 31 May 2015 it had grown by 5,306,010, that is, by more than a quarter, and was 23,838,210 (Source). From 2009 planned invited economic mass immigration of between 250,000 and 300,000 per annum far outweighed Australia's natural increase (births minus deaths) of 150,000 per annum.

Every effort has been made by the authorities to confuse the public about the numbers. In 2006 immigration statistics became uncomparable with those before 2009 after the statistical method was changed.[3] There have been concerted mediatised wedge politics to

(a) confuse planned invited economic immigration and paying foreign students with refugees and asylum seekers, and
(b) stigmatise asylum seekers and refugees as overwhelmingly freeloaders and criminals

This confusion has divided the community, journalists and political party members.

A better informed public could unite against overpopulation that is inflating the cost of living and housing here and the illegal wars that are creating huge numbers of refugees and economic immigrants as economies and nations are destroyed by global investment in war and 'development'. Instead the wider community has been relegated to a passive and worried audience as mass media anointed 'community leaders' pontificate on the imminence of terrorism and the need to retreat into a police state or engage indefinitely overseas in wars against terrorism. (See, for example, David Kilcullen, "Blood Year,"Quarterly Essay, No.58, May 2015).

Leaflets distributed by Nick Folkes say, "Aussie battlers are being pushed to the fringes of our cities while foreign intruders are reaping the benefits of our hard-working previous generations." "The new dispossessed or forgotten people will one day be remembered as the 'stolen generation' priced out of their market by invading Chinese foreigners." He might have rephrased his proposition more 'correctly' as a complaint that organised mass migration was inflating the property market, without pointing at particular national or ethnic beneficiaries, but he wouldn't have received mass media coverage then by taking advantage of the mass media headlines which said exactly the same thing:
"Cashed-up Chinese are pricing the young out of the property market".
"Sydney house prices driven by Chinese 'bolthole' buyers".
"Chinese investors are pushing into Melbourne and Sydney."

Although some put it in triumphant economic terms:

"Real Estate: Vendors delighted as Chinese buyers flock to Glen Waverley and Mt Waverley."
"Chinese property investment through the roof: What it really means."
"China's $60 billion Australian property splurge"

It didn't matter whether the media put its articles about Chinese investment in positive or negative terms, property agents still advertised close to these stories. The developers and investors, including the newspaper property dot coms cannot lose in this globalised market as long as there is population growth.

Politics and power

Ecological groups have for years earnestly and soberly criticised trends to overpopulate Australia by citing immigration statistics and the impact of overdevelopment on Australia's environment and ecology, hardly making a ripple in the mainstream media or the awareness of the general public, despite the fact that population growth is the number one topic in the mass media. The fact is that the Australian public have been sensitised by commercial and public mass media to multiculturalism and economic terms and desensitised to ecological and scientific terms. A political movement that succeeds in mobilising Australians against population growth is likely to use the terms the public are most familiar with and those are the ones that the mass media consistently use. This is the case with Nick Folkes's Party for Freedom.

Nick Folkes is trying to register his Party for Freedom as a political party. Success could be dangerous. Tony Abbott, then parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs , organised the Australians for Honest Politics Trust in 1996, which financed litigious activity culminating in the jailing of Australian politician Pauline Hanson in 2003 on the grounds that her party was improperly constituted. See https://newmatilda.com/2012/12/11/how-abbott-funded-fight-against-one-nation. Although sentenced to prison for three years, Hanson was freed on an appeal which found that her party was in fact legally constituted. But the message had been delivered to Australian citizens and residents that if they criticise mass immigration and the industries that cultivate it, punishment will come from the top. John Howard, the Prime Minister in 2003 explained to Lateline, "It's the job of the Liberal Party to politically attack other parties," but actually, it looks as if the top job is to protect the growth lobby. Tony Abbott is now Australia’s Prime Minister.

NOTES

[1] The title of this article was originally, "Nick Folkes a David standing up to a Multicultural Goliath," but we have changed it, regretfully. Even though Mr Folkes shows some courage in standing up to power, in the form of the multicultural property development lobby, his website features articles and comments of which we don't want to appear to approve. These comments and articles use 'scientific' theory against specific groups of peoples. For instance, one article discusses a high rate of cousin marriage in a particular people as if it were unusual or hazardous incest. That is a popular view that does not take into account the widespread role of endogamy in preserving land within a people, and other factors that need to be taken into account when assessing cousin marriage. In fact, a high rate of endogamy need not be genetically damaging; it can be beneficial, both in terms of preserving control over territory and in strengthening positive traits. Depending on the public relations, where one highly endogamous group can be stigmatised for 'inbreeding stupidity' another may be famous for 'inbreeding genius'. When assessing the impact of marriage and land-tenure traditions on genetic inheritance, environment and changes to economy, diet, and social organisation also need to be taken into account. See http://candobetter.net/node/3197 about the importance of dynasties in modern power. There is also a comment on the Party for Freedom site suggesting that a particular group of people have lower average I.Q.s that other people. IQ tests are not reliable when dealing with culture and language differences and this theory also does not take into account mass dispossession and changes to economy, diet and social organisation - and the impact of drugs and alcohol. It's a pity that the Party for Freedom does not seem to be able to see how fighting between groups weakens the ability of Australians to stand up to the powers that have overtaken national control of land, housing and economic benefits.

[2] "The man behind a letterbox campaign warning Sydney's housing market is under threat from 'Chinese invasion' is an idiot, New South Wales' Multiculturalism Minister says."

[3]#txtNf2"> ↑  "Technical note: '12/16 month rule' methodology for calculating net overseas migration from September Quarter 2006 onwards." In itself this was a tragedy because Australia shared with France the distinction of havg the longest set of comparable demographic statistics in the world.

At the 2000 Sydney Olympics, Australia’s population was 19 million, and will reach 24 million in late 2015. That extra 5 million people means a 25 per cent increase in just 15 years, or another Sydney.

The federally registered Sustainable Population Party says the Intergenerational Report’s predicted doubling of Australia’s population to 40 million by 2050 will deliver greatly reduced infrastructure services for ordinary citizens.

Why can’t infrastructure be doubled?

“The doubling of our population demands a doubling of our infrastructure, but this will be impossible to deliver in Australian cities. The increasingly obvious reason is that our cities have reached diseconomies of scale,” said William Bourke, President of the Sustainable Population Party.

“Diseconomies of scale are the forces that cause governments to produce infrastructure - like schools, hospitals, road and rail - at increasing per-unit costs.

“In short, governments do not receive enough proportionately extra tax from each new citizen to provide for this disproportionately expensive infrastructure.

“It used to be easy to deliver infrastructure when the government owned the land, but because our major cities are already planned and built up, there is no room to retro-fit new infrastructure without expensive additions like land buy-backs and tunnelling.

“Consequently, projects like Melbourne’s East West Road Link and Sydney’s North West Rail Link now cost $18 billion and $8 billion respectively. That’s an astounding $350 million to $1 billion per kilometre. The impact on government budgets is clear. According to The Grattan Institute, state and territory borrowing for capital expenditure over the last seven years drove their finances backwards from $37 billion in the black in 2006 to $69 billion in debt in 2013.[1]

“Huge infrastructure costs then force unpopular asset sales, increased debt borrowings and austerity. The ongoing failure to deliver infrastructure leads to congestion and lower productivity.

“Sustainable Population Party rejects the bipartisan political agenda to double Australia's population to around 40 million by 2050. We support a target of around 26 million.

“Sustainable Population Party is #RedefiningGrowth to secure a prosperous economy, healthy environment and better quality of life for all Australians. Real growth means better, not bigger.

“We call on the federal government to urgently hold a national population summit, closely followed by a referendum-style vote,” said Mr. Bourke.

[1] http://grattan.edu.au/report/budget-pressures-on-australian-governments-2014/

ACOSS has come to the amazing and unprecedented conclusion that for "an increasing number of Australians, housing affordability is a serious problem that affects their ability to work". A quarter of people battling with housing stress regularly skip meals in order to pay their rent.

"There's a lot of overcrowding, people are bunking up, living in inappropriate forms of housing which are not good for anybody," chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service Dr Goldie said. (Article republished from comment to front page article.)

Surely this explosion of logic, the profound cognitive process that drew to this conclusion is well overdue? The conclusion is surely obvious, that homelessness is more than a product of "domestic violence" as it's usually portrayed.

Our cities are becoming hostile to our living standards, and the vulnerable are the first to fall between the cracks.

Our real estate and housing-construction based economy means more congestion, and negative social impacts. On any given night, more than 7000 people sleep in crisis accommodation, while more than 105,000 identify as homeless. This is in a country that touts our living standards and wealth all over the world, to lure more people to migrate here!

Dr Goldie, instead of addressing the major cause of poverty, unemployment and unaffordable housing - population growth - she's endorsing funding for the homeless, and urged a bipartisan commitment to increase housing supply to help vulnerable people afford a place to live. To "increase housing supply", or putting more heat on the housing market frenzy, won't produce "affordable housing". With budget constraints, and heavy cut-backs to public services, there's nothing set aside for more social housing either.

ACOSS have no population policy, but their methods are more funding, more more more - of fixing symptoms and not addressing the cause - greed and growth!

Housing affordability driving homelessness SMH