Politics STABLE POPULATION PARTY - Australia's sustainable choice ???

[evo]

Putting the population increase of Victoria in perspective.

The world is getting ever more crowded and people gotta live somewhere so we shouldn't be surprised if a number of them are going to want to live on the least densely populated continent on earth.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Putting the population increase of Victoria in perspective.

The world is getting ever more crowded and people gotta live somewhere so we shouldn't be surprised if a number of them are going to want to live on the least densely populated continent on earth.

They don't want to live in Broken Hill though.

 

[Scotland]

*Perth set to pass 2m this year.

Surely not.

Perth's ****ed already, we don't need any more people.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

What difference does it make to the bloke who can't find a seat on the 7.44 at Clayton how many people are living in Shenzhen?

And why do you persist with referencing Australia's density as a continent? If our growth was centred in the Nullarbor this might be relevant but you know as well as I do that the vast, vast majority of population growth in Australia takes place in the cities.

Four cities in particular.

 

[Scotland]

Yeah, Adelaide. Pick up the slack.

 

[evo]

What difference does it make to the bloke who can't find a seat on the 7.44 at Clayton how many people are living in Shenzhen?

* shrug*.

I don't really base my views on what some bloke at Clayton station thinks. Like my favourite Greek, Diogenes, I'm a kosmopolitês so have a wider perspective.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

* shrug*.

I don't really base my views on what some bloke at Clayton station thinks. Like my favourite Greek, Diogenes, I'm a kosmopolitês so have a wider perspective.

Should a national government be making decisions on cosmopolitan principles?

Personally, I think not.

 

[Power Raid]

Australia's population is too low but Sydney and Melbourne are too big. Maybe we should have high property taxes in these states to promote migration of people to towns with populations less than 1m people.

 

[skilts]

Australia already has a stable population, mostly sheep, but with a few goats thrown in for breeding purposes.

 

[blackcat]

<keynes when facts change quote>

<dont want demagogues and lobbyists and IPA voting for me on this but>

 

[blackcat]

Australia already has a stable population, mostly sheep, but with a few goats thrown in for breeding purposes.

some cattle too. the sheep never realised they were making a rod for their own back, protesting live meat exports to the indos.

cattle needed to get decapitated in indo. not an australian limbo for an abbatoir

 

[blackcat]

Australia's population is too low but Sydney and Melbourne are too big. Maybe we should have high property taxes in these states to promote migration of people to towns with populations less than 1m people.

banker
high taxes
my oh my, wowee (thnx BT) thort id never see it

 

[Tas]

Our population is too low, but it is too high in the major cities. What we need to do is encourage some regional areas to build up more.

They should cut immigration but grant conditional immigration which allows people to settle in regional cities and towns, would also mean our infrastructure spending needs to improve.

I had a look at housing prices in places like Ballarat, at the price they are asking it is not really worth moving if you live in Melbourne, unless you prefer the regional lifestyle.

We also need to stop selling/leasing our farm land to foreign countries, chronic mistake.

 

[skilts]

some cattle too. the sheep never realised they were making a rod for their own back, protesting live meat exports to the indos.

cattle needed to get decapitated in indo. not an australian limbo for an abbatoir

It is exceptionally rare, in my experience, for cattle to dance the Limbo, especially at an abattoir. It may be a way to prolong their lives if they can though, by joining the circus.

 

[Aed0s]

I'm entering the discussion a little late and have only read a page or so of comments.

As for government making the difficult moral decisions regarding the demographic future of our country I'd like to see a sustainable immigration intake and a steady fertility/birth rate and national and federal governments applying the correct policies in order to satisfy our needs.

Then there are the moral debates surrounding immigration policy and I'll cite one brief example; Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in, let's say 40-50 million homeless Bengalis. However, what happens if the Norwegians say they would rather not take them in? Is it racist or self-protectionism/determination?

What direction demographically do we want to see Australia heading towards 100 years from now because this is what it's all really about, isn't it? Are we perfectly fine with allowing to keep our borders open to those who can not adequately sustain or maintain their own populations and societies? Are we going to pay a price for being such an open and tolerant society?

With so many millions of people of the constant move even the great-hearted are becoming edgy.

 

[Power Raid]

I'm entering the discussion a little late and have only read a page or so of comments.

As for government making the difficult moral decisions regarding the demographic future of our country I'd like to see a sustainable immigration intake and a steady fertility/birth rate and national and federal governments applying the correct policies in order to satisfy our needs.

Then there are the moral debates surrounding immigration policy and I'll cite one brief example; Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in, let's say 40-50 million homeless Bengalis. However, what happens if the Norwegians say they would rather not take them in? Is it racist or self-protectionism/determination?

What direction demographically do we want to see Australia heading towards 100 years from now because this is what it's all really about, isn't it? Are we perfectly fine with allowing to keep our borders open to those who can not adequately sustain or maintain their own populations and societies? Are we going to pay a price for being such an open and tolerant society?

With so many millions of people of the constant move even the great-hearted are becoming edgy.

I guess it is all about balance and sustainability. Otherwise we will end up just like the nations the people are fleeing.

Like it or not, many nations have already built up unsustainable populations which can only be resolved through war and famine. So do we watch them implode or do we go down with them? I would prefer we do something in between and be part of the solution without becoming dragged into the problem.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Our population is too low, but it is too high in the major cities. What we need to do is encourage some regional areas to build up more.

They should cut immigration but grant conditional immigration which allows people to settle in regional cities and towns, would also mean our infrastructure spending needs to improve

You mean like the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme?

 

[Tas]

You mean like the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme?

I meant more for settlement than for just work sponsorship.

 

[Fletched]

We could sustain 100 million but we can't because governments won't get it right some of their decisions in country Victoria have been abysmal, in the middle of the worst drought in our recorded history they destroyed lake Mokoan. That also destroyed the only flood defense for Benalla which the next year flooded 3 times. They are out to destroy agriculture in Australia, how about them cutting off live exports to Indonesia the NT will never recover from that. I just pray the labour government never gets in again or it could be the end.

 

[Pie eyed]

23 to 26 million by 2050? WTF?

In a society with a social safety net in terms of health care and pensions you need to continue to grow in order to meet your future obligations.

Thats to say nothing of the complete curtaling of consumption growth that comes from a growing population

They are basically adovcating for no more growth for 40 years. Australia is a vast landmass and can carry a much bigger population, would prefer a focus on establishing and developing other population centres within Australia rather than just the capital cities.

Only until the Baby Boomers shuffle of the mortal coil.
If we don't bite the bullet now the increase in population to sustain growth only perpetuates the need for more growth.

 

[Carmo]

Wow, never thought I'd see a thread like this here!!

I'm a bigfooty poster, mainly on the Adelaide board and I was doing some research today into Sustainable Australia (formerly known as Stable Population Party) and during a google search this thread came up.

I didn't think such a non mainstream concept such as population self regulation would have found its way into a forum for footy fans but there you go!

Its funny to see how the world has changed since the start of this thread, there has been another election which Sustainable Australia contested in a few seats but went relatively poorly, there is growing anti-immigration sentiment here and abroad. Environmental degradation has continued and I'd say climate change has become more of a focus. There has been growing global skepticism about the sensibility of the prevailing economic paradigms as well.

Is there anyone around here still interested in the population / sustainability issue?? Disclaimer: I am a Sustainable Australia supporter, I support non prescriptive self regulation of the population, regulation of immigration, efforts to support energy security via renewables, looking after our ecosystems in general, caring for people in general and reform of democracy, such as increasing transparency, putting politician benefits in line with the general population etc.

Man, I sound like such a geek alternative enviro hippy....I'm not like that at all, so straight laced and unremarkable you wouldnt believe....

 

[skilts]

Even if the population were to be capped at only 26 million by 2050, you'd still need a huge bloody stable.

 

[skilts]

Wow, never thought I'd see a thread like this here!!

I'm a bigfooty poster, mainly on the Adelaide board and I was doing some research today into Sustainable Australia (formerly known as Stable Population Party) and during a google search this thread came up.

I didn't think such a non mainstream concept such as population self regulation would have found its way into a forum for footy fans but there you go!

This is the best excuse I've read for bumping a 3 y.o. thread. Good onya. I fear your lack of knowledge of this board is common among the site's membership. Other members who might be tempted to have a squiz and make a contribution can be put off by the sometimes fierce arguments generated, so it's not for everyone, but some fun can be had here. Some valuable information and links to articles and the like have occasionally been disseminated.The quality of the opinions expressed by posters tends to vary wildly.

As for the topic at hand, some of their platform has some appeal, but they're way too idealistic and unrealistic to take off. What would I know though? I thought Pauline Hanson was dead and buried.

 

[BirdPerson]

My first impression of these guys was that their priorities lay more with maintaining 'real (white) Australia' than any pursuit of a more sustainable society. But after another look a lot of it seems pretty reasonable:

"10 policy priorities:

1. Secure jobs in a more diverse economy, underpinned by small business
2. Environmental restoration with a renewable energy revolution and better protection of biodiversity
3. Housing affordability for first home buyers and renters
4. More public transport to help ease road congestion
5. A sustainable population with slower population growth
6. Saving our suburbs and towns from overdevelopment
7. Affordable education with lower HECS-HELP and TAFE fees
8. Better primary and preventative health care including diet and exercise
9. Celebrating healthy ageing and recognising the contributions of older Australians
10. Regional and rural revitalisation with fairer trade and Australian ownership of agricultural land

*Slower population growth would include lower immigration, from our current record annual permanent immigration program of around 200,000 (which we say should be lowered back to the long term average of 70,000), not Australia's humanitarian intake of 14-20,000 refugees (which we support)."

I'm not really on board with urgent immigration cutbacks but it's nice to see the population issue getting raised by a group that looks to have legitimate environmental policies, doesn't make the issue about refugees, and realises it needs to be tackled globally (redirecting a significant amount of foreign aid to "female rights and education, including opportunities for women and couples to access reproductive health and voluntary family planning services to help prevent unwanted pregnancies").

 

[BirdPerson]

In saying that, I can't see them getting anywhere