Geoff Dowsett

When your party is going off the rails, don't you have the right to shout out the windows for help? Geoff Dowsett is a member of the Hornsby Kur-in-gai Greens' Population and Sustainability Reference Group. He has been growing increasingly concerned about the failure of the Greens to take the issue of environmental sustainability seriously and make positive changes to their population policy. Geoff’s resulting activism on the issue of population numbers in Australia has been received by some Greens members with hostility. He is not the first and will not be the last Green to suffer for his convictions at the hands of party members. A threat of expulsion relayed by Greens candidate for Eden-Monaro, Tamara Ryan, is now in train, scheduled for the August Ordinary General Meeting to be held on Monday 12 th September 2016 at 6:30pm at Hornsby Central Library, 28-44 George St Hornsby NSW 2077. (Entrance in Hunter Lane). We publish the motion about this that was sent to Geoff and we report on Geoff’s reaction in this article.

The motion

"The Motion is:

That, Mr. Geoff Dowsett’s membership of the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Greens should be cancelled on the grounds that the member has, as outlined clause section 6.5.3 of our constitution, "placed herself or himself outside of the Group" acted in contravention of clause 6.5.3.2 of our constitution, in that he demonstrated repeated disruptive behaviour within the Group and behaved in a manner that brought the group into disrepute.

Due to the confidential and personal nature of specific incidents underlying this motion, the details of these events will only be discussed at the meeting."

Geoff says that he rarely attends meetings, so he doesn't think that his alleged 'disruptiveness' could be about disrupting meetings. He says that he thinks that the objections are probably about his energetic, persistent lobbying, using emails and Facebook posts, addressed to Greens members and MPs. He has sometimes received responses indicating that some Greens see his population policy activities as insulting and counter to their ‘safe speech’ rules.

The motion above cites Section 6.7 of the Greens NSW constitution. Geoff believes this has to do with sharing information to people such as Jane O`Sullivan and Sheila Newman who are not Greens members. At this stage he thinks this concerns sharing Mercurius Goldstein's response to a question he circularised to candidates and encouraged others to send similar questions about candidates’ attitudes on Australian population policy.

Other Greens candidates who responded to Geoff’s question did so on Facebook so their comments were in the public domain, but Mercurius responded to the NSW Greens Population Working Group. Geoff told Mercurius that he was forwarding Mercurius' response to Sheila Newman (candobetter.net) and Mercurious wrote,

“It's nice of you to share my responses with Sheila Newman and I appreciate her interest in the NSW preselection -- is she a Greens NSW member? As an author I'm sure Sheila can speak for herself without your assistance and I'd urge her to contact me directly if she's interested in following up on any matters.”

It is hard to believe that there is a valid case against Geoff, but three members have apparently asked the secretary to arrange for Geoff's dismissal.

Geoff says that he has frequently been abused by some Greens members who don’t like his views on population numbers. (We published Tamara Ryan’s response to Geoff here:http://candobetter.net/node/4935.) A few Greens members have persistently described him as a racist, xenophobe and, more recently, as sexist, publicly breeching Greens safe speech protocols but without reprimand within the party, he says.

Greens candidates lack qualifications to make decisions on environment and population

Geoff has distributed an email to hundreds of NSW Greens MPs and members suggesting that none of the candidates for John Kay's now vacant Upper House seat are sufficiently qualified to represent the environment, quality of life, fauna and flora, or habitat of NSW. He came to this conclusion from their poor responses or failure to respond to a relevant question he sent to candidates [see below]. He said that the responses to this email 'displayed no knowledge, interest or inclination to admit that the Turnbull Government's record, high, excessive, unsustainable 457 Visa and middle class immigration intake should be returned to the long term average of about 50,000 net per annum from the current excessive 500,000 net per annum.’ With regard to the move to expel him, he has said that the Greens should read his message rather than shoot the messenger.

Text sent to candidates

This is the text he sent to the candidates:

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 per a 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.)

Shooting the messenger

We will be watching with interest and concern to see whether Mr Dowsett suffers injustice for his environmental activism. As noted in other articles on this site, e.g. ”Greens members harassed for expressing valid views on environment and population”, he is not the first Green to be pushed around for sounding the alarm on how rapid population growth and the intensification and expansion of human activity is threatening native animal habitat and quality of life in Australia. Geoff runs eco-bushland tours around Sydney national parks which are threatened by encroaching population density and its associated infrastructure and footprint. His blog on candobetter.net is at http://candobetter.net/blog/324.

Geoff Dowsett and the Greens, why and when he joined

Geoff says that he thinks he actually joined Hornsby Kuringai Greens about 10 years ago, but it could be more. He had been a supporter – letter-boxing – for instance and doing polling booth work for about 20 years.

He was friendly with an old Greens stalwart, Mervine Murchie, a Scotsman with trade union background--- who convinced him to join.

He finds that the Greens have changed a lot since then. They are very different. There were many more conservationists in the early days.

Geoff says that he has attended many community meetings organised by Greens and only one State Delegates Conference. He has placed Greens candidate placards in his front garden during elections and he has two Greens placards permanently in his front garden. One is high up in a tree and the other in ground. Have letter boxed----and handed out at polling booths. Meeting is 12th Sept 6.30 pm.

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.

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 

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.