Moran, if you know what it takes to deliver housing here you may have some clue.

Pericles

I must confess I got it wrong. I do hope you will find it in your big heart to forgive me.

You are absolutely right, you don’t live in Wahroogna, where the highest house price in the last 12 months was $6,900,000.
You actually live in its sister suburb Willoughby where the highest house price in the last 12 months was only $6,400,000.

And despite your protestations they are not yonks apart but a mere stones throw away from each other. Certainly a lot closer that the dusty overcrowded under-serviced western suburbs of Sydney where most of the new migrants seem to end up.

I remember you telling us a number of years ago that you lived in one of those prestigious leafy upper north shore suburbs.
And in my comment I initially wrote Willoughby but had later changed it to Wahroogna

But finding this set me right again
“Unfortunately, this man Hockey represents me in parliament”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5806#79015

For those from outside Sydney this is a map of Joe Hockeys electorate
http://www.joehockey.com/north-sydney/page.aspx?p=32
Some of Sydneys most prime real-estate

Now that we have cleared that up. Back to my point.

It is highly hypocritical for someone like you Pericles living in an affluent area known for its clean leafy streets, stately homes and high property prices with hundreds of surrounding parks and reserves, to like some latter day Malcolm Fraser, tell rest of suburbia they've never had it so good, stop whinging and squeeze a few more million migrants in, because silver-tails like you need cheaper factory fodder.

Dallas "Moran, if you know what it takes to deliver housing here you may have some clue."

I do, and it's population growth that's making it impossible - the tax base can never keep up with rapid population growth - hence the growing homeless.

In an increasingly automated world, we do not need the labour - so loss of jobs, and we've off-shored most of our productive jobs, factories are closing down.

Put simply, if you want to solve the housing crisis, then it starts with slowing population growth - there simply is no other way.

Failing to do this simply means you end up with growing numbers of disenfranchised and homeless. There are only so many resources to go around, in the end you have growing inequality and a totally destroyed welfare system.

Can you think of a single problem that will be harder to solve with slower population growth or a stable population?

Perhaps read some of my earlier comments which illustrate why the tax base cannot keep up with artificially pushed up population growth.

<< …you make a point of misinterpreting everything, which makes discussion doubly difficult. >>

Pericles, you know full well that this is a false assertion, and that I am doing my damnedest to have a proper straightforward debate with you, without deliberate misinterpretation, sophistry, personal attacks or any of the other BS that some posters resort to.

<< My observation concerned choice, not desire. >>

Oh. So what you are really saying is that what you said about it being either koalas or human wellbeing, is not what you meant at all?

Hmmm.

<< Go read it again. >>

Have done. Now how about you reading it again and giving some thought to about how I or anyone else would interpret it.

Alright, getting back on track…..

It is amazing that you see no need to justify your rapid population growth stance – and it IS rapid, not moderate. It is currently close to the highest level of growth that we have ever had, and Australia is right up there near the top in the rate of population growth amongst developed countries of the world. So stop calling it moderate, for goodness sake.

The current growth rate needs justification just as much as a slower growth rate or a stop to growth or negative growth.

You DEMAND full justification for heading towards a stable population in the near future, but you continue to give NO justification for your position.

Sorry Pericles, but in the absence of this, you lose the debate. That’s it. Game over…….unless you do what I repeatedly request – give us some valid reasons why the current growth rate should continue.

I wrote:

>> Stable population with a healthy resource base and environment = low level of government control. Large and continuously growing population = ever more government intervention. <<

You replied:

<< That absolutely does not follow, outside your imagination. >>

Oh yes it does! This is a critical point. Think about it.

You're still not getting it right, KarlX. I'd give up on the detective stuff if I were you, you're pretty hopeless at it, Willoughby is still way too far out of the city.

I suppose by a process of guesswork-by-elimination you might eventually get close. But you still won't know whether I live in a big house or a tiny apartment, whether I am surrounded by parks and gardens or just by a concrete jungle, or even whether my street is clean and/or leafy.

It's somewhat sad, though, that this is apparently very important to you.

Ludwig, please stop misinterpreting.

>>Oh. So what you are really saying is that what you said about it being either koalas or human wellbeing, is not what you meant at all?<<

Here's exactly what I wrote, to Matt Moran.

"Putting the survival of animal species ahead of the well-being of humans, verges on self-hatred in my book. Where do you draw the line? That's a serious and entirely germane question, by the way."

And here's your reaction:

>>Obviously the desire is for a balance between human habitation and healthy koalas living in a secure healthy habitat.<<

The two views are entirely compatible. It is possible to desire a balance, and at the same time, entirely consistently, to express concern where animal welfare is put ahead of that of humans. Which, you must agree, would indicate a complete *lack* of balance.

>>It is amazing that you see no need to justify your rapid population growth stance – and it IS rapid, not moderate.<<

That's where we disagree. You say rapid/excessive etc., I say moderate/reasonable. Hence I don't feel the need to justify a position on "rapid", because I don't accept that it is "rapid".

>>...do what I repeatedly request – give us some valid reasons why the current growth rate should continue.<<

I'm beginning to lose count of the number of times I have replied to this. My reason is, quite simply, that we have an acceptable rate in the context of maintaining a solid economic performance, one that benefits all Australians.

Not just koalas.

""Putting the survival of animal species ahead of the well-being of humans, verges on self-hatred in my book. Where do you draw the line? pThat's a serious and entirely germane question, by the way.""

we're not doing either Pericles in case you hadn't noticed. Our immigration program is not about the well being of the majority of Australians and we have very few habitats left for Koalas.

What I'm saying is we should not put economic growth ahead of the survival of all species including our own.

I'm unsure what you mean by quality of life, but presumably, the things we're discussiog don't affect you so it's probably a waste of time debating with you.