Population is the debate Australia has to have.

I think that we are finally going to get it, with the profile that this enormous issue deserves. The subject keeps popping up on OLO, as it should, given that our current population policy is of enormous concern or should be to everyone.

But the announcement of a new political party that will concentrate on pushing for a stable population brings the issue right into focus.

Please see this article of 18 Feb 2010 by William Bourke:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-many-is-too-many-australias-people-problem-20100218-ogfp.html

< At the next federal election, we will finally have the choice between a stable, sustainable Australia, and a future Australia that we won't recognise and I strongly suspect we don't want.>

I'd leave it to the discretion of every cluster of cities (as they are now almost touching together) to decide if they have too many people.
I'd imagine the Sydney/Windsor/NewCastle/Woolongong/Camden/Blue Mountains zone would probably get a resounding yes, judging alone by the sheer volume of traffic jams during peak hour (something many reasonably large (by our standard) European countries don't have at all).

Having said that, I wouldn't vote a federal party whose only purpose is to 'control the population'- I'd simply refuse to elect anyone that wants to artificially encourage population expansion federal or state- and only elect city councilors who were a little more sensible-minded regarding land development and community consultation.

Ludwig

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It would be nice to have a stable population political alternative without a redneck tarnish. Nick Xenophon was successful with an anti-pokie platform, and my guess is that population is at least as strong as a political issue.

every cluster of cities (as they are now almost touching together)
King Hazza,
There are obviously many Australians who want it like that. Why else wouldn't they vote against it.

there should be plenty of disgraced scientist ready to do some population research after the global warming scam. Not all of them can continue telling lies like Tim Flannery and co. No doubt the usual spin about not having enough water and food will be at the height of this parties dogma.

I agree that we need to go to zero net immigration but this bloke will need to get a move on if he wants to form a party and register it before next election.

From memory, he will need 500 members to register the party. a big job to organise everthing before the next election and stand candidates.

Is everyone aware that there is agreement between the Libs and labor NOT to debate immigration. That is why is is never an election issue. We are denied discussion on the matter.

This bloke will need plenty of money behind him as well because he won't get much free press. The MSM favour the two big parties because they are the ones spending the big bucks on advertising. Big business also favours high immigration because it means more consumer goods sold.

I wish them well but they have a job ahead to get the issue raised let alone get people elected.

This is great news. I have been watching this issue grow over the past few months. Increasingly it is being discussed on radio, newspapers etc. There is a website which has alot of information, sustainable population australia I think.
I believe many of our present concerns could be reduced by reducing population growth. We are just like any other animal, in that if you place too many in a confined area you get more competition, which means more stress, more violence, more wastage of resources, etc. The smart countries of the world are not greatly increasing their populations. Immigration adds very little or no benefit to the host population. This was recently demonstrated by some of the top economists in the UK including Lord Layard from the London School of Economics. Unfortunately we have too many uneducated people here that fall for the Politicians scams in that we need more people to support our ageing population. What a load of rubbish. Recently I heard one of the Politicians stating that we had an obligation to the rest of the world to ease their population pressures. I say we have no such obligation. Our first obligation is to our fellow Australians to help us live in peace and harmony. It is not our job to solve other nations problems, not at least at our expense. Let us set an example for many nations by limiting our population growth.

Runner

There are real world examples of the infrastructure burden of high population growth rates, and demonstrable benefits from giving people control of their fertility. Iran is a good example, where a high growth rate was causing significant problems. Offering family planning greatly improved things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_Iran

So much so that the Iranian President wants the service removed: He wants the population to double as he wants a big army to fight you know who. I mention this not to liken you to the Iranian President, but to demonstrate the foolishness of relating an opinion on population growth to one's morality.

Banjo

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the media. And if you think the media had anything to do with Hanson's decline (I dont), then in my view they have done the nation a big favour. Look at the situation in the UK where you have the neo-nazi looney Nick Griffin and his BNP poisoning the debate. Hopefully the new party will be able to stay out of the gutter and stick with the facts. Plenty of those.

It will be interesting to see what the Greens come up with for the next election. I suspect they will remain silent on population sustainability, they are too scared it will impact on other aspects of their humanitarian philosophy. It shouldn't in theory, population sustainability is very much a humanitarian issue but can easily be turned into a racism issue or an issue about multiculturalism.

With poor water resources, continual deforestation and growing infrastructure problems in our cities it should be an open and shut case but if OLO is any indication it probably won't be.

If the Stable Population Party remains a one-issue alternative it might get up in the Senate but it will also need a clear set of policies on all vital areas such as economy, environment, health, education, transport, trade etc if it wants to win seats in the HOR.

Zero population means zero growth, sounds like another AU 1st party to me.

Ludwig,
one of the problem issues with a single issue and the concept is that without specific methods it is beyond the capacity of some to understand. They (I think you know what I mean [A]) tend to see issues overly simplistically or overtly parochially consequently it frightens the bjesus out of them, siege mentality and conspiracy theories ensue.
Without a larger philosophic focus it attracts those who are closet xenophobes.

Fester,
I was not being pessimistic. Just a real and objective look at the situation.

Yes the media had much to do with the rise and fall of Pauline. Firstly they took items out of context and made up much of what they wrote. Then did not print anything that was reasonable, like policies.
They were working at the behest of the two major parties.

All journalists felt it ok to say whatever they liked and did.

During that period my opinion of journalists fell dramaticly, as did my opinion of some polies that I had previously held in high regard.

Back to topic. There are some very powerfull people that support high immigration and the two major parties are in their pockets. The MSM will support these because of the money spent on advertising, especially during election campaigns.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

So any new party is up against it, even to get the administrative work done beforehand and then will have to say some radical things to get any press attention. If they do not form branches and so on, they will be alleged to be non-democratic, when they get public support.

The greens will not publicly support them either because they want Labor preferences to gain Senate seats. Greens are hypocritics.

Take it from me, that is the situation even as I support the objectives of the new party.

Banjo

My own view of Hanson's political odyssey is one of alienating anyone who wasn't white, and I thought she did that with little assistance from the media. Have a Google of Nick Griffin and the BNP: I get the impression that this group with its alienating and hateful agenda has poisoned the debate in the UK. So I guess that we will have to agree to disagree about Pauline.

But it is a good example of how people can draw very different conclusions from observing the same event. And on this tack, while you and I might have big concerns about Australia's population, there is no guarantee that many will have similar concerns. Sure, there are people with vested interests in population growth, like the urban fringe koala exterminators keen to sell their shoddy housing estates, or infrastructure providers keen to build the likes of toll roads which would be unnecessary without the massive immigration. But the truth is that many people without a vested interest in population growth may be unconcerned about issues like infrastructure debt, water, congestion or housing affordability. And as an opinion is only as good as the evidence it is based on, they might even be right.

"Back to topic."

Exactly. I hope that a Sustainable Population Party maintains a conservative stance and focuses on the economic implications of high population growth rates. Any diversion from this and they will become irrelevant and give the major parties a green light for mass immigration for yet another decade. What will succeed in changing policy is well reasoned arguments. And such arguments will only succeed if people find them reasonable and relevant to their interests.

From Ludwig's link:

>>Michael Danby, chairman of the Federal Parliament's joint committee on migration, recently wrote that "a long-standing 'vibe' has prevailed in both major parties that population growth is good for the nation". <<

As soon as I read this, a picture of harmonic resonance flashed in my mind. It's where two vibrations exacerbate each other to give an out-of-control vibration like happened in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge disaster. The danger is that if both parties continue to reinforce each other's ideologies, Australia's population will exponentially balloon out to the point where there is some kind of crash.

It's probably about time common sense prevailed and the Australian public got the politicians to dampen our current overall immigration intake. if in doubt, Oz should take a breather for about a decade - ie slow down immigration - and then reassess the situation then.

It does not matter what the government says or does we will either
have a sustainable population or a declining population.

Without an increase in energy nothing can grow or expand.
We are not looking at an increase in energy, we are looking at a few
years of stable everything followed by a sustainable population and
industry if we can get our energy transition done carefully.

The trick will be to increase our alternative energy sources for
transport by use of electricity and keep our power plants running
whether on coal or some other base load plant such as geothermal.
Wind and solar is just not going to do it.
Reports from Europe are increasingly pessimistic about wind.
The overall cost and efficiency is becoming unsupportable.
The problem in Spain is that the feedin tarrif which is being
subsidised by the government has added a large sum to their financial
problem within the Euzone and is about to present a similar problem to
the Euzone as Greece has. Spain has a very large alternative energy sector.

The upshot is we reduce our energy demand or manage a transition,
or we go down the gurgler with a really big depression.
Population increase has no part in that scenario.

Ludwig
What policies would you like to see?

Thanks for asking Peter.

I’ve said it all before a bunch of times on OLO, but repetition is the nature of the beast.

I would like to see immigration reduced to net zero until it is lowered to something in the order of 30 000 per annum.

So in the first year, it would be reduced to about 80 000 as this is currently about how many people emigrate each year.

As the immigration rate drops, so will the emigration rate. So the following year would be down to something in the order 60 000, I guess.

With an intake of 30 000 we would still have some essential skills, family reunion and a considerably increased refugee intake.

The baby bonus should also be terminated forthwith.

This is all we need to do to direct our national population growth towards a stable level of not more than 25 million….. and to stop the pressure on our environment and stressed resources from constantly worsening.

There is nothing difficult or draconian about it.

Ozzie:

I for one agree wholeheartedly with this subject of accepting a stable population growth, and for the reasons that you stated in your response.

I did notice that until now, no one person has acknowledged your particular response, which could bring me to make to a very "unsavoury" observation and ask the following question,....how many participants on these Threads contribute purely for the sake of seeing their own names ( pseudonyms ) and / or simply wish to push their own one-eyed narrow-minded opinions, rather than entering into a stimulating and well-balanced exchange of views.

I will expand this statement further by quoting my many experiences with my many "contacts" participating in their own type of ongoing communication via the Internet, which inevitably day by day is a mind-blowing plethora of inane and repetitive jokes, cartoons and quips, however when any attempt to formulate a more sensible communication with them, based upon a reasonable standard of compository exchange, one is rewarded with either a deathly silence or another mind-numbing worn out "joke" of yesteryear!

In essence it appears that the average Internet "contact" is simply abusing the opportunity to utilize this mode of relatively cheap and simple communication, due to his or her apathy, or simple lack of communicatory skill or intelligence!

I myself whince when trying to develop a reasonable exchange of information with contacts with whom I spent my school years ( at the same school and in the same Form ) and find myself having to accept a meaningless short response accentuated with mis-spellings and very poor composition, without any address to the original subject, and followed shortly after by another of the many well-worn and idiotic "jokes"!

I close this comment by saying to you "well put! Ozzie!"

Ludwig:

The rapidly approaching danger that we are now facing is that with such a large percentage of Immigrants now residing in Australia, the balance is obviously becoming weighted towards increasing the Immigration and Asylum Seekers by these same people who are going to encourage more of the same, thus we are facing a snowball effect of increasing population by a changing voting public, rapidly becoming comprised of ethnic self-interest groups!....one only has to look at the Public Notices in the major newspapers and take particular note of the number of applications for persons to practice as a "Migration Agent" to illustrate the extent of an out of control migration industry!

While I think that single-issue political parties are usually a waste of one's vote, they do occasionally perform the useful function of focusing the electorate on important issues. In this case, so long as the mooted 'Stable Population Party' can avoid being taken over by the xenophobic and/or racist ratbag element, they may provide a voice for those voters who wish to express their concerns at Australia's current rapid population growth, which is unsustainable in both ecological and infrastructure terms.

However, I'd rather that the Greens bit the bullet on population sustainability and develop policies similar to those espoused by William Bourke and his nascent political party.

Ludwig, what's your rationale for this statement?

<< As the immigration rate drops, so will the emigration rate. >>

On what basis do you make this claim?

Other than that, I agree generally with the measures you propose.

As i have said before, the biggest problem for this new party will be for them to get their voice heard.

Bob Hawke brokered a deal between the major parties not to debate immigration issues and that still holds. Unless this deal is broken then the issue will be ignored by the majors and any questions simply padded away. The majors have always implied that it is too complicated for us mere voters to understand.

The MSM will go along with their biggest advertisers.

So unless the new party has the funds to buy lots of advertorials then they will find it most difficult.

While it would be nice to keep the debate reasonable, and on economic grounds, I can assure you that the partys opponants will not be reasonable. It wll be claimed that they lack economic sense and have other agendas, anything to undermine your credibility.

Good luck. Best be aware of how the game is played.

CJ
People involved tend to build little power bases and will defend them viciously. Consequently those with the power will not be prepared to take the severe political hit that this policy would have.
They will among other things argue you can't influence parliament if you're not there so why commit political suicide on a principal that will never get up. An you imagine the head lines morgue the Australia Party circa 1968.
This is the nature of the press and people's self interests (see my new post) and your read why.

Ludwig,
The above doesn't mean it shouldn't be done it simply means that there's more to it than just cutting migration.
Sending home NZers finding the overstayers. Working out a way to maintain our economy its built on continual growth with out it we disappear, So the theory goes. It involves cataclysmic change see the movie ZPG.That is token of the issues.

<< “As the immigration rate drops, so will the emigration rate.”

On what basis do you make this claim? >>

CJ, I make this claim on the basis that we currently have an emigration rate of around 80 000, whereas we had a much lesser rate a few years ago when we had a considerably lower immigration level.

It is hard to quantify, but emigration does mirror immigration to a considerable extent. Higher immigration leads to higher emigration, presumably due to a fair portion of immigrants deciding that they like their home country better or a want to try another country of residence after having experienced Australia for a while.

So, as the immigration rate drops, the emigration rate will drop, all else being equal, to a point of balance. I don’t know what that point might be. I’ve tried to sus it out on the Sustainable Population Australia Popforum, but it seems to be an unknown quantity.

However, a total intake of 30 000 per annum seems reasonable to me or a higher level if the point of balance proves to be higher, so that immigration matches emigration and thus takes immigration out of the population growth equation.

I think that the way to approach it is to simply lower the immigration level each year to match the emigration level of the previous year until it evens out.

Now Ludwig, a good scientist like yourself ought to know that correlation doesn't imply causation.

<< Higher immigration leads to higher emigration, presumably due to a fair portion of immigrants deciding that they like their home country better or a want to try another country of residence after having experienced Australia for a while. >>

Are you suggesting that most emigrants are former immigrants? While that could be true, it's the first time I've ever heard it. I'd be very careful about making that assertion without some evidence. Can you point me towards some?

It's not a big deal in itself, however it may point to some pretty rubbery reasoning going on among the Sustainable Population Australia folk.

CJ
Venus doesn't want Pauline back . :-)