Good grief, What is it about Australians we seemed to have taken the lifestyle thing to extremes. "Lifestyle" is used to sell everything from women napkins , cars, drinks to houses and as an excuse for the most ridiculous reasons(NIMBY to plain old selfishness and Xenophobia). Are we truly a nation of I wants and to hell with everyone else. has our national motto gone from (does anyone know, I do) to 'Caveat emptor' the media certainly paints it that way.

A front page item in Qld.....A group of people are claiming that a proposed 4 bed 2 patient hospice will destroy their house prices?!
One woman claims there will be wall to wall hearses...for 2 people?
Another claimed that even if they used discreet vans this would still up set the charm of the street? I can see the bumper sticker now "Caution stiff on board!" perhaps changing the name from "Gloria's cottage" to "Ghosts training Academy".

On a site about injustice there were over 60 posts from around the world the only negative posts were from....Australia....they were essentially life style interruption to the western world.

Then there are those who want the public to build a squillion $ bridge so that 3000 people (men women and children) who chose to live on an island can cash in on the increasing house prices because of the increased lifestyle advantages.

One electorate changed its member because the govt closed 15% of Morton bay (X bigger than Port Philip) from fishing to protect fish breeding sites.....Their complaint was that the law's... you guessed it interfered with their "lifestyle".

Even in that Sydney outer suburb the objection to a church school. Why it interfered with their lifestyle. Less that 40+ houses?
The environment sustains life but lifestyle?

Even religion is now pushing the 'lifestyle' as justification for their exclusivity and power.
Are we being conned blinded from the realities by the newest created "Human Right" LIFESTYLE. Is this the the measure of what we are?

Yes.
Sad, innit?

Hey Max and Examinator. Can you break it down for me?

Lifestyle means where you live, where you work and what you do with your spare time?

Lifestyle seems a new word they use but this is more a person saying “I don’t want change”? Not for someone elses benefit or especially not for someone elses benefit?

If you look back into it a little bit, examinator, you will probably find that the 'interference with lifestyle' objection is one that has been brought into being as a consequence of the spurious rights purportedly bestowed upon the 'community at large' at the same time as the long-standing and previously well-recognised rights of individual landowners have come to be denied by such legislation as, for example, the (NSW) Environmental Protection and Assessment Act 1979.

Just because a piece of legislation proclaims itself as 'protecting the environment' does not mean that that is what it actually does.

It is hardly surprising that land-use legislation so dismissive of individual rights and legal precedent blows up in the face of that part of the community that was taken in by it when it was first proposed. Let what you see now be a warning to you as to what to expect if the same spurious 'rights creation' is attempted in any so-called 'Australian Bill of Rights'. It all makes for a very ugly society.

I suspect that a significant number of the Moreton Bay electors that recently changed the member that represented them were not so much voting to protest restrictions in fish-breeding areas of the bay, as delivering payback to a political organisation that was seen as being responsible for the population and developmental pressures that imposed the need for the restrictions in the first place.

Although not all people may be articulate, the lack of this quality does not mean that they are necessarily fools. They can see, and will use, the very weapons created by such control-freak legislation in attempts to vent their spleen against what they come to see as an unwarranted threat to their lifestyle. After all, they have been told it is now their right, haven't they? You, and many others, to the extent that you may have supported the introduction of this sort of legislation, are now reaping what you have sowed. This control-freak legislative environment is a major reason Australia is coming to a grinding halt.

Good Morning Examinator,

Should 'lifestyle' be a dirty word?
Not if there's equity or a
reasonable balance in our society.

Most Australians today enjoy more material
comforts (i.e. they own more things) than
ever before.

As Australia has become a wealthy country with a
high standard of living, we've all enjoyed the
benefits of having money to spend. And in our
great admiration for the 'good life,' many of us
want to protect our lifestyles and we end up
spending more energy in working at getting things
than in appreciating their use. With that
problems have been created - as a result of our actions.
For example, the disposal of waste has caused
such serious problems that recycling has become a
necessity.

Also, as much as we'd like to deny it, there are
still many Australians who are not well off.
Being poor is no less unpleasant in a rich country
than in a poor one, and in spite of our affluence,
there are still many in our society who need more
help then they're currently being given.

If a 'fair go' has become part of our accepted notions.
And as class distinctions become less obvious with
increasing wealth, the demands for equality should
extend further - so that every one will get to live
a reasonable "life-style," not just a select few.

Nowdays, moe than 90 per cent of the total Australian
population live in towns and cities. The tensions of city
life - noise, pollution, vandalism, peak-hour traffic,
over crowding, competing with one another - should make
us examine the way we're living and consider solutions to
the problems of city living. Whether towns grow upwards
(skyscrapers) or outwards (suburbs) may not be the question
we need to ask - it's whether they should grow at all.

The Federal Government should look at projects
that encourage people to move from major cities and work
and live in regional centres.

We need to re-think our lifestyles - and their effect on
not only ourselves, but others - and what we can do to
improve conditions for everyone.

Interesting discussion, Examinator.

I think "lifestyle" has been hi-jacked, by many factions in order to retain or change whatever it is people feel threatened by.

For myself, I have no objection for people wanting to live in big houses, drive fast cars, own motor boats...

BUT (now I know you'all were waiting for the 'but')

Not at the expense of others, by that I mean, where people are homeless (insufficient public housing), cannot afford dental work, depletion of energy reserves, pollution of environment, salary inequities (CEO compared to lowest level employee), I find it very hard to hold much respect for someone swanning by in a Bentley.

Where a choice of lifestyle impacts on life (us, our planet), that just translates to myopic greed.