Good article ..

How easily the people are fooled by savvy media teams and jingoism.

"This is our future we’re talking about – it’s not something that should be taken lightly." yet the media applauded the 2020 best and Brightest festivities. I think the short temr thinking of the ALP is poisonous to Australia, at least PM Howard had vision, whatever you thought of it, the ALP only sees power and the next election.

Let's face it, we're a shallow people easily maniulated by "media managers", look at Queensland and NSW, and now the federal arena is becoming the same.

PM JWH nailed it when he asked what it was the ALP wanted to do with power. It's an opportunity to do something for the country, not just your mates and yourself.

Meanwhile there was no real systematic infrastructure planning or expenditure by the Howard government.

Indeed as far as I know, much of our infrastructure deteriorated during the Howard years. While at the same time billions of dollars were given away as middle class welfare.

In the mean tine Bernadi is an advocate of the more is better, never ending growth and expansion school of short-term thinking.

The "market" will provide.

Very good, Cory Bernardi.

Rudd has certainly stuffed up the population issue good and proper.

The Coalition could hardly fail to capitalise on this to some extent. But unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be to a sufficiently big extent. Abbott certainly doesn’t inspire me in terms of sustainability, balance, population stabilisation or protecting our future wellbeing.

It seems that the best the Coalition could come up with is a somewhat lower but still very high rate of immigration and a somewhat but hardly significantly better planning regime to cater for this influx.

What we desperately need is a population policy that will progressively wind down immigration to net zero over the next few years so that the national population can reach a stable level of not more than 26 million.

And we need a Coalition government (or perhaps a Labor government minus Rudd and with Kelvin Thomson as leader) that will stand up against the likes of Saul Eslake (see his article on population growth on Online Opinion on 3rd May) and other economists and business leaders and espouse an economic regime that is based on a steady state rather than never-ending expansionism.

Could I ask you Cory;

To just what extent would you have your party wind back immigration?

Do you want us to head towards a stable population or are you just in favour of a somewhat lower population level by 2050 than is now projected with it continuing to grow indefinitely after that?

This is rich, coming from an ideologue whose idea of planning for the future is to let the free market rip. Senator Bernardi is one of those Minchin-following fundamentalists, who is forced by his neo-liberal ideology to deny the evidence on global overheating, because to do otherwise would be to admit the unthinkable - that the free market sometimes gets it wrong and needs intervention. In this case, the free market has got it so wrong, the very existence of our species is threatened. Its malfunction could hardly be more profound, yet Bernardi and his Liberal mates blunder on, blinded to the idea that their free market "let it rip" ideology may be much more damaging to Australia than any planned immigration in conjunction with emission regulation. Go away, Senator. Your party had its chance. And in 12 years in power, the best you could think up as a contribution to infrastructure was to spend the profits of the minerals boom by awarding tax cut after tax cut to the rich.

Ban the Burqa Bernardi has done it again.

http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/for-australias-sake-we-need-to-ban-the-burqa-20100506-ubun.html

I would have thought that this guy needs to find another portfolio. The media adviser who wrote this has effectively committed the Libs to stopping all immigration, cutting the Baby Bonus and parental leave.

That's good say the anti-pops! That's bad say the Liberal Party election strategists.

Of course Bernardi (and Abbott) does have an interest in population - mainly controlling women's reproductive rights.

My question is, when people start stating population numbers they believe our country can sustain (Ludwig- 26 million, as well as many others), do you assume the current level of consumption of resources? I note that this number always seems to be close to the current population, I wonder why?

If so, does this mean if somehow Australians were to half their consumption of resources, then this number could double (eg. 52 million)?

It seems the main problem is the excess consumption of resources, rather than the number of people.

Honorable Mr. Bernardi, where were you in the days of insane, cruel, conservative Liberalism?

Where were you when the ‘business migration Law’ regulated the intake of migrants and the ‘Privacy Legislation’ came about to further diminish honesty in Australia?

Rudd did not win any election. People just had a bellyful of your malevolence, Mr. Senator Bernardi.

No one has won an election in Australia since Curtin’s death.

Besides, what at present is an election if not a fraudulent carnival, an orchestrated illusion of Democracy?

I am sure you do not know what Democracy is, I am sure because if you knew, you, an honorable man, would not be a Senator.

Only the Nation where the vote, as unit of political Power, is in the pocket of Mr. Citizen at all times, can call itself Democratic.

In a Democracy, the ones who, like you, wished to occupy a position in the running of affairs common to all Citizens would have to disclose their qualifications, experience and possessions for the candidature.

Mr. Citizen, the boss, would need to assess not only your eligibility and the time within which you can accomplish the task to be undertaken but also wishes to retain your possessions as security for your bona fide.

No more drolleries just clear equitable business.

This is all.

"It seems the main problem is the excess consumption of resources, rather than the number of people."

Brilliant point, Stezza. If we stuck every Australian in a chook cage and provided a diet of porridge, I reckon 100 million would be a cinch. But this policy would have several drawbacks aside from the probable reluctance of potential migrants to live in a chook cage: It would also be likely that boat people would prefer the luxury chook pens on Christmas Island to standard chook pens in Australia.

What proponents of lower consumption should realise is that the reason we have mass immigration is to boost consumption. Why do you think that government is sinking in massive amounts of debt to provide infrastructure for more people, yet only mention the cause of the debt in favourable terms? Maybe they hate koalas, but perhaps to find a reason you might sart by asking who is benefiting from the increased migration.

“Our country needs to be able to absorb a growing population and the consequences that come with it. This will require considered, intelligent planning, adequate infrastructure and resources, and a competent Government that is not afraid to make the tough decisions.”
Tough decisions indeed: The tough decision the author seems to be mulling over is just what date should be chosen to arrive at a population of 36 million, or any other number greater than the present. And then continue expanding to some new time frame and number.
And if, as he states, we need to be able to absorb a growing population now – then we will need to be able to absorb a growing population at any time in the future.
Under his government’s direction we are sure to fit in: when our present 26 million becomes 52 (in 35 years at present growth rate) just cut our consumption in half – or more, if productivity of our land continues to decrease. With the population still growing, as required by Cory Bernadi, just halve consumption yet again. And halve it again after that, and again, and again. She’ll be jake, mate the anti-people population boosters tell us: Whether it is for Australia or for the world, just keep tightening the belt, and plundering the resource base - people's lives are meant to be miserable in Australia, in the world.

Utter Hoggwash! To make matters worse, the Liberal Party has no plan to provide for future productivity, sustainability and 'live-enable-bility' of life-quality needs.

Out of touch: If the Liberals were serious for just one moment they'd present just one policy we could take seriously as a "liberal" policy.

It is sad to see such insincere "Liberal" Australian Hogwash bantered each day, A costly nonsense of the ridiculous taken out beyond the outreach of the ridiculous. Too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Falsehood and deception, a hecklers noise based on meaningless childlike squibbles reducing any progress, debunking the best efforts to nation building, confidence, anti-bullying, at a time when Australia needs vision and social influence, accomplishment of a common task from its [leading] opposition.

PM Rudd by contrast sets example with a ALP team that for the very most is geniune and sensitive to the need for REFORM, for CHANGE, for a GREATER HUMANITY, regardless of the heartless processes, crazy-fired blockage of good policies shifted through reductionism in todays game of devil made platforms, in Liberal politics.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

www.hans-hass.de/Englisch/index_english.htm
Cheryl,

have a read of the above link. To the women of the world.

let's get it straight. Both major parties want big time population growth. Don't worry about what the opposition says, they just spent ten years talking up the big Australia just to dump it when KRudd began the discussion.
The two party system that we are caught in is where our problem lies. We need a shake up in the political system. After 12 years of the Howard nationalist administration of no infrastructure, no public spending, anti worker and super pro business the Rudd administration is looking weak. Give it a chance to work, the Howard government looked ordinary after their first term as well and if we remember they lost the popular vote at that election. You can site the GST but whose idea was that?
Population growth is a disaster for this country economically, ecologically and socially. Growing the population now is only putting off the inevitable and covering for the ever greedy and spoilt baby boomers. The country can not support 35 - 40 million people. We don't have the social infrastructure or the agriculture to sustain these numbers never mind the water resource. The economic system that is so poorly structured that any variation to the norm such as a mining tax sends the whole economy into a spin. Socially we have seen the brake down of the balance in social standards and harmony with over population of our cities and very poorly executed immigration policy again based on business needs not the interest of the people.
We really do seem to have a problem remembering that business should serve the needs of the community not the other way around. We need a restructure of our nation, start with setting a population based on the ecological limit and social balance that we love and has made this a great nation, then build business and the economy to fit those needs and maintain the social health of our nation.
Let go of greed and remember that Standard of living is not Quality of life.

You can site the GST but whose idea was that?
Nearbe,
I presume you mean cite ? Anyhow, who's idea was the GST ? Well, 147 countries had the GST before Australia got it.
Btw, I agree with everything you state in your post.

Cory Bernardi, I always thought you were not very smart and this drivel proves it once more.
My suggestion is stick to your Senate duties and do not bother writing anything in public forums.
Interestingly I am also from SA and don't find your ideas even remotely attractive.

Stan

Individual,
Thanks, always was an ordinary speller. That great education system of the 1970's.