Andrew... "unless our birth rate turns around"

yes.. indeed.. u could have gone one back from there, to "Unless we think less about materialism and more about family, we are in dire straits."

You could add, "Reward families who contribute to the bringing down of our average age by having more children." Perhaps when balancing the cost of supporting an aging population against assisting young fertile families, we might be better off doing the latter ?

Now.. I have just 'got' to dig you about this comment...

"Personally, I'm not a big fan of any religion. Many of them have great ethical frameworks, but I don't see the value of the supernatural stuff"

I broke out into a smile like the joker when I read this. I immediately had 2 mental images in my brain.."Andrew and the alchohol fueled parliament issue" and "Andrew reading his Bible that morning, having a quiet time with God, and putting thoughts of indulging in substances which could effect his capacity to think clearly totally out of his mind " :)

I guess that based on your comment about 'religions' I won't be seeing the 2nd one any time soon, but.. I know God is able to reach into peoples lives in dramatic ways.

But let me encourage you with this: we all make stuff ups.. not you alone. I've made my share... just not quite so publically. I must confess that when that incident occurred, I was a little cocky, but it was more related to policies which I find great difficulty in relating to than anything personal.

I think the main point of separation between Dems (and Greens) and 'the rest' is where you mob start referring to the UN rather than our own national/cultural interest. That is the point where you totally lose me and many others.

You guys need to accept that you are a small minority party, representing not that many people. The Senate should NEVER be used for such a small interest group. Its there to protect states rights.
A useful contribution would be to de-party the Senate.

Thankyou Andrew for your responses. It's so good to be having this debate. On a couple of points you made I would like to say the following:

On the topic of more babies from an aussie women's point of view (please listen BOAZ):
At the moment I believe women are not attracted to childrearing for the following reaons:

1. It's incredibly expensive (at least $300,000 to raise one child)
2. We are concerned about the environment and overpopulation, and until that issue is resolved, we will continue to have less children no matter how many baby bonuses are thrown at us.
3. It's incredibly tiring and draining and goes for 24 hours a day so why pay money to be tired all the time?
4. It can put a serious dent in our careers, and after all the money and work we have put into our education, this is serious consideration.
5. We know that marraige is unreliable and the reality is that a lot of us will have to become single mothers. A single mother with more than one kid is a lot of hard unpaid work.

May I suggest that politicians start giving women some real incentive to start having more children instead of a measley $3000 baby bonus that is completely laughable when you consider that it costs at least $ 300,00 to raise one child.
For example,
1. Free child care so women (or spouses if thats is the case) don't have to compromise their careers. This will encourage more educated women to have them.
2. Salaries equal to what they were earning in the workforce for women or men who do want to stay at home and be full time carers.
3. Improved salaries and conditions for professional child care workers.
4. Children to be tax deductible.
5. Free education and free educational expenses.
Those that choose not to have children could be taxed at a higher rate to help foot the bill.

Minuet get over yourself!

You have a bloody duty to the next generation, you have a bloody duty to all those who sacrificed for us to have the freedom we do. Where else would you want to live?

Your career? - you'll be dead soon enought and the time and fertility you sacrifice for a bloody corporation won't amount to bugger all.

You're tired all the time? You're bloody tired? Are you going to make me bring up all the wars fought for freedom over the millenium?

We have nothing to die for and clearly nothing to live for, given our fertility levels.

What was the 'standard of living' or 'lifestyle'(I hate that word with a passion) of our parents? They chose children. And you and I breathing now have them to thank for that.

Ohhh ours is pale pale sick culture when we talk this way.

Precious bloody plasma TV's precious bloody 4WD's.

Read the articles to do with demographics and civilisational death

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

And read Mark Steyn NOW

http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/its-the-demography/

As for marriage - girls court smarter

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17232182%255E5001167,00.html

Have lots of babies Minuet, trust me you'll be fine.

To Davo:

"You would find that even if immigrants were to be settled in rural areas initially, they would still
find themselves in major cities"

That depends on how you select your migrants. I can think of plenty of migrants, who have happily lived in rural, regional areas all their lives, happy to be out of the ratrace. That includes me. I've lived outside of cities for umm about 30 years now.

"Skills shortages are overcome by telling the kids to come home, not importation (a lazy, short
sighted option"

Davo, get used to it that when kids turn 18, they can do as they please and you can't tell them anything. They are not your slaves either. Meantime there are actually people around who would be happy to live in a regional area and work in an abattoir for instance, generating export $ for the country. Its just a question of migrant selection. If they have worked on a work visa first for 4-5 years doing that job, they will probably stay there.

Froggie
There is definitely room for another political party, based on real sustainability, obviously including low immigration. In fact there is an absolutely yawning gap in Australia’s political spectrum. Not even the Greens come anywhere near it. Yes I think the interest, as demonstrated on this forum, could very quickly exceed the membership of both the Democrats and the Greens.

Alternatively, either the Democrats or the Greens could see the light and adapt accordingly. But for the Demos to do this, they would obviously have to undergo some pretty big policy reversals. It’s a bit beyond them I think. Perhaps it’s not beyond the Greens, although Bob Brown is not exactly a big-picture sustainabilityist.

So when are we going to form the SOS (save our society) party?

.
Welcome to OLO Bucko. An excellent response tying your local experience with population growth into Australia’s migration policy.

.
Well said Daggett.

.
Andrew, you wrote; “Environmental sustainability has to be central to any policy. Everything else – our economy, society, culture – is dependent on this (this is also long-standing Democrat philosophy).”

Glad to hear it. But for the second time I ask how then can you possibly justify continuous high immigration / population growth pertaining directly to sustainability?? Can you please give us a full explanation of this essential point. Thankyou.

Just for the record young Andrew seems to be a little entheomania prone. Those at OLO who insist on promoting Andrew should know that Senator Andrew Bartlett resigned from the leadership of the Democrats in November 2004. Senator Lyn Allison was elected leader of the Democrats, a position she still holds. After her election to the position of leader she toured Canberra city in an open top car to the cheers of thousands.

Andrew Bartlett is not leader of the Democrats. Perhaps his immigration policy is as confused and muddled as his self-assessment. Or is he suffering from oneirataxia?