Malcolm 'Paddy' King

So it seems that you agree immigration does noting to improve our culture (or whatever improvements have occurred are insignificant compared to the Americanisation of our culture, and the loss of national identity).

Environmentally, it would be farcical to even think that increasing the population is best for our rapidly declining natural environment.
With huge areas now facing salt inundation, one of the worst rates of wild-life extinctions in the world, loss of native bushland near towns and cities due to encroachment by real estate developers etc.

Economically, our real GDP per capita has levelled out by rapidly increasing the population, as well as increased state and federal government debt.

Politically, our governments are just a shambles, and mass immigration has done nothing to improve them, and public confidence in them seems to be rapidly declining.

But you remain optimistic about food?

With a loss of biocapacity of 1% per year, Australia is about to face a future when the natural environment cannot replace what is being taken from it. Our food will become much more expensive in the future as we have to import more fertilizer, to replace the nutrients being pumped out to sea via sewage pipelines.

So adequate production of food is not that reliable.

And certainly not if we attempt to double the population in 40 years, to satisfy the very few (maybe the 1%) who want to bring in more immigrants so as to increase consumption.

One way for people to let the political parties know their feelings about high immigration is a 'write-on'. Simply write Reduce Immigration on each ballot paper. If you do not obscure the numbers the vote is valid.See reduceimmigration.wordpress.com/

Malcolm 'Paddy' King "Remember Erik Von Daniken and his alien conspiracy theories in the early 1970s?"

WTF?
And the award for Best Non-Sequitur in a Political Debate goes to...

"Reducing the number of democratic participants" does not reduce democracy.
It's still one person, one vote (regardless of how many persons).

Not all critics of immigration want to also reduce reproduction.

I personally think a society of only-children would be a nightmare!

Birth order studies show middle and later children are more creative risk-takers than first-borns.

I say stop immigration, but either have no children or *lots* of them.

Good answer, Incomuicardo

King is completely ignoring future risk. Here is what the UN says about global population growth. It clearly isn't all about Africa. King ignores demographic momentum.

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-world-population.aspx

Malcolm King’s statements can be compared to what SPA’s and SPP’s policies actually are:

http://www.population.org.au/sites/default/files/public/SPA_Population_Policy.pdf

http://www.populationparty.org.au/Population-Party-Policies

<Is it not odd that a movement that allegedly supports democracy actually wants to reduce the number of democratic participants?>

True. No sensible person thinks that population can go on growing forever.

<It is not bizarre that as the speed of Australia’s population growth slows, that the SPA/SPP (same thing) want to drive birth numbers even lower than the 1.7 per female average? (they want a one child pop of 7 million).>

Lies. SPP wants to ultimately stabilise at 23 – 26 million. SPA just calls for stabilising the population. There is nothing at all about 7 million as a goal. Neither organization supports advocates or supports coercive efforts to reduce fertility. Neither advocates a one child policy. Both do call for the withdrawal of government incentives to have 3 or more children, i.e., that it should stop coercively taxing people to boost the population, but note that they also want the government to stop using immigration as a mechanism to boost population growth. The fertility rate would obviously need to ultimately rise above what it is now for a stable population. Personally I am not concerned about large Australian families so long as the overall fertility rate is not above replacement level. It is a half-truth that our population growth is slowing, as it has gone from 1.8% to 1.7%, still very high.

<Is it not the height of audacity that a bunch of blokes with science and engineering backgrounds want to meddle in women’s contraceptive rights and sexual health?>

Lie. SPA and SPP don’t support coercive family planning policies. It is forced pregnancy that is coercive, not making contraceptives available to people who want them. A science or engineering background has the nasty effect of making you numerate and putting you in touch with reality. Try it, Malcolm.

Ah Divergence, the queen of not building houses or apartments for young people in our cities. Why? They eat, consume energy and breathe. I could go Matt Moran or Kanck on the 7M source. I'll go Kanck:

Sandy Kanck, as former Pres of SPA said in The Advertiser on April 22, 2009 that "slashing population by limiting families to one child was the only way to avoid "environmental suicide ... Clearly population stabilisation and then reduction has to be part of a suite of measures that ensure the cuts in emissions that the Government has promised." Mrs Kanck has proposed a national population target of seven million. (end)

Your old mate Roy Beck is in some trouble in the States. You may have seen the NBC expose. Also, re the SPA and SPP's racist diatribe that immigrants take Aussie jobs, being a numerate sort of person, you'd understand the Lump of Labour Fallacy. Beck doesn't understand it and neither does the SPA/SPP (same thing).

This fallacy assumes there is a fixed amount of work in an economy, to be divided up among the pool of workers. It treats the demand for labour as a fixed state, when it is not. In all world economies, the number of hours of labour per day has always been, and always is, subject to Price Variation.

Can you explain why SPA membership monies, which is tax deductible, is being used in political campaigns?

As I wrote when we discussed the issue of high density in existing suburbs, I blame the politicians, not the young people, for creating the problem. People are entitled not to have their lifestyle arbitrarily degraded (in all the ways I discussed) by cramming in too many people too close together, just so more bankers and property developers can go on the BRW Rich List. No one forced the politicians to set immigration so high or to abandon decentralization.

Sandra Kanck is entitled to her own opinions, but it is clear from the organizations' policy statements that neither SPA nor SPP supports a target of 7 million or a one child policy. I certainly don't and haven't encountered anyone else who does. So what you have said is a lie, because you ascribed it to SPP and SPA, not Sandra Kanck.

Roy Beck is standing between some very rich, very evil people and a big pile of money, so of course he will be attacked.

The "no lump of labour" claim is another half-truth. Migrants do create jobs as well as taking them, but we can't assume that the net effect is neutral, especially if the labour market is being flooded with people faster than the economy can absorb them. We have been acquiring 5 new people for every new full-time job.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/skilled-newcomers-flood-fulltime-jobs-market-20130614-2o9vm.html#ixzz2i3tNxUVR

According to Roy Morgan Research, 20.1% of our working age population is now unemployed or underemployed. The 2006 Productivity Commission report that I quoted above says that mass migration depresses wages, and this is consistent with the 2008 House of Lords report on immigration in the UK:

"72. Most of our witnesses agreed that there is some negative effect of immigration on the wages of low-skilled workers."

"93 ...Although the evidence is limited, there is a clear
danger that immigration has some adverse impact on training
opportunities and apprenticeships offered to British workers."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

See also this article by Prof. George Borjas (Economics, Harvard)

http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature