Many thanks for finding a positive amongst the negatives. What a dreary contest it was.

Who ? Mr 3% ? Who really won the North Sydney by-election ? With 3% ?

In your dreams :)

Joe

Great article! Sustainable Australia is concerned that growth, both of population and per capita consumption, is exhausting the limits of our finite home leaving nothing for our children, later generations or other species. With supporters coming from across the political spectrum, Sustainable Australia has the vision and commitment to boldly step out and offer leadership on the most critical issues of our time. Congratulations William Bourke. Sustainable Australia is a party to look out for in 2016.

Loudmouth,

Of course Sustainable Australia didn't win, but this party was only registered in 2010. Considering that they started with less than 0.1% of the vote in their initial elections, I would say that 3% and beating all the other minor parties was very promising. It takes time for a new political party to build support.

Hi Divergence,

Good luck then at the next elections. If the Labor party fields a candidate, you might pick up another 2%.

I'm puzzled by this strange belief that Australia's population is growing too fast - have I got that right ? Without migration, our population would be close to ZPG, and, apart from the fact of people living longer, could soon be declining. And without skilled migration, migration of relatively young people, our economy could soon reach similar static levels, and also shrink.

Europe and Japan's populations are either static or shrinking, or would be if it weren't for the simple fact that people are living longer. In other words, birth-rates are not keeping up.

Africa's birth-rate is declining. China's is, of course, close to static, and will decline over the next century.

The sky might be falling, but not for anything to do with population. sorry.

Joe

Interesting article.
One issue though was neither canvassed by the writer nor by the media generally: why was the by-election, which could have been avoided, not avoided?

Let's assume that Turnbull was agreeable to giving Hockey the plum job in Washington DC as a 'thank you' for disappearing from the domestic political radar.

Mr T could say, "Yes Joe, your wish is my command, but understand that it's a poor look to stiff the taxpayers up to $1m for an unnecessary by-election. And if you think the Liberal Party will spend, say anything up to $1m to shore up votes in North Sydney, you've got another thing coming'.

Surely Turnbull could call the current ambassador (whose term is up in February) and extend his stay by say one year. By then an election would have been held.

Soon after the results are in, Hockey could scoot off to Washington. That could mean that Beazley may serve most but not all of his extension.

Then again, why not allow the former member for Brand (WA) to continue serving Australia with distinction for a full one more year?

Let's not forget, this is a guy who was appointed by Rudd and has his term extended by Abbott. And if I recall correctly, was spoken of favourably by Howard.

One impressive individual.