What's what?
"...It's a very simple equation: more people means more economic activity and that gives the government of the day an easy way to keep crowing on about good economic management."
I think this is the worst part of it. Listening to the fuckwits from all colours rattle on about how we should be grateful for 'their' good management. It's painful.
Andy M, I notice the quotation marks, but that's quoting from what/where? Can't see it in that first article.
In the comments?
Hang on, your Macro Business stuff? Of course!
But wait, we may be able to tie some observations/obsessions together here. Join-the-dots. Maybe.
Let's go back to what Shorten proposed.
A bi-partisan taskforce that would look at temporary work visas, infrastructure development, service delivery such as health and education and settlement policy.
That's a lot to unpack. If you just look at TWVs, there's a lot to unpack. Historically. Were they ever needed? What regulations around them were relaxed or just plain 'de-regulated'? Who by? For whose benefit?
Another interesting angle that always gets a run. The international education and training sector. Actually, let's just focus on the university sector. Again, who pushed for full-fee paying international student participation, whilst de-funding the sector? Again, what regulatory frameworks were relaxed or abandoned? Who benefits?
And that's not opening the bigger can of VET worms! Who fucked TAFE again? Whilst allowing dodgy private providers in, out, and about?
De-regulation as an end in itself isn't healthy. The much-fought against banking RC shows us that in stark terms.
I don't know about spittle-flecked abuse, but "creating a bi-partisan population taskforce that would outline recommendations both parties could accept, and that would look at temporary work visas, infrastructure development, service delivery such as health and education and settlement policy" seems reasonable to me.
As Shorten wrote in the letter to the PM, "population policy runs the risk of being politicised by those seeking to divide Australia, and (who) see political opportunity in polarising opinion in the community”.
Yes?
"But my friends we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."
(Refos, nah, immigrants, well, nup, un-regulated and exploited backpackers, dodgy and exploited TWVs, dodgy and exploited OS students, dodgy OS private training providers, dodgy OS labour hire, yeah?! And all whilst bashing TAFE, unions, unis, and 'un-Australians'!!)
Yes, brothers and sisters, all roads lead back to the 'Big Un-Australian'!
John Winston Howard.
And to know thine enemy is to defeat them.
Point is Facto , that both sides have wet dreams about a 100 million population in Australia. Shorten has openly and vigorously declared he is all about a big Australia, whilst the LNP are at the behest of their business masters that also demand a big Australia.
So what Bill is saying is that both the majors are keen and the rest of us can go and get fucked. In fact , they’re so keen that they want a formal declaration of truce on the subject so that neither of them can ambush the other with an anti- high immigration policy . As they know such a policy will lead to a virtually uncontested victory.
See how the democratic process has been smothered ? Both parties reach a consensus therefore declaring that Australians don’t get to take their opinions to the ballot box.
Shithouse situation.
PS Whats your deal with Howard and another quote?
Howard is irrelevant. How we got to this point is irrelevant. How we extricate ourselves from it is what matters.
Except in that article, he's not saying that, is he?
Over-reach. And confirmation bias.
One other thing that I find weird.
Labor detractors claim they're in thrall and at the constant beck and call of the 'unions'.
Yet these 'unions' are also against dodgy TWVs, dodgy labour-hire, dodgy training providers, the death of TAFE, and corporatised universities?!
What gives (in the real world)?
Oh yeah, have a read. Some nuanced, complex, and informed opinion.
https://theconversation.com/au/topics/is-australia-full-39068
What is there left for him to say ?
Both the ALP and the LNP positions are widely known to be pro big Australia. Any uncertainty is being posited by yourself alone. If I’m wrong , I’ll apologise. Till then we’ll run on form .
Strictly speaking, Shorten didn't say that.
But what do you think the chances are of a bi-partisan taskforce white-washing any discussions?
Umm, pretty good.
As for your other links....whatever.
The capitals are bursting at the seams . I know cause I drove through both Sydney and Melbourne in the last week.
There’s not enough water. Australia is fragile.
What is your point ? Are you pro Big Australia ?
I read an interesting analogy recently.
So your sink is overflowing. Some are arguing that it’s not too much water ( population pressure ) and that it’s only overflowing because the drain is blocked ( infrastructure not adequate) well either way , you’ve got to stop the flow of water till the sink is unblocked or else the problem is going to extend all over your kitchen ie everything will be fucked.
Actually, I'll throw this out there. Immigration of all stripes stripped back. The gains as you see them from whatever perspective you espouse and/or share?
Who is pro Big Australia? What is pro Big Australia?
Serious question. But run with the first part if you wish. The gains as you see them.
Good night and good luck.
The data for an informed discussion is here
Takeaway from above.
NOM= Net Overseas Migration.
POPULATION GROWTH RATES
Australia's population grew by 1.6% during the year ended 31 March 2018.
Natural increase and NOM contributed 37.8% and 62.2% respectively to total population growth for the year ended 31 March 2018.
All states and territories recorded positive population growth in the year ended 31 March 2018.
Victoria recorded the highest growth rate of all states and territories at 2.2%. The Northern Territory recorded the lowest growth rate at 0.1%.
NOM = almost double the natural increase.
I'm reluctant to derail this little convo, that actually appears to be getting somewhere...for once...
But...
....whilst the 'Swillnut School of Education' may have its shortcomings...at least they didn't fall for this little ruse...
"....The paper that was published in Gender, Place and Culture seems downright silly. “Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon” claims to be based on in situ observation of canine rape culture in a Portland dog park. “Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender?” the paper asks...."
The academic journal - Gender, Place and Culture
I can think of a few possible subcrubers on here...
Then this...
“Rubbing One Out: Defining Metasexual Violence of Objectification Through Nonconsensual Masturbation,”
I can think of a few adherents to this little paper too. Is it conflict of interest to partake in that which you abhor?
Or would that just make you a wanker?
"...By the same token, many leftists are willing to grasp at straws to defend journals and fields of inquiry that they regard as morally righteous. Some have dismissed Sokal Squared by pointing out that many disciplines, from economics to psychology, have in the past years also faced crises of confidence. Others have simply cited the conservative instrumentalization of Sokal Squared as a reason to ignore it. “Academics,” Alison Phipps wrote on Twitter, “please stand by colleagues in Gender Studies/Critical Race Studies/Fat Studies & other areas targeted by this journal article hoax. This is a coordinated attack from the right.”
That too is intellectually dishonest. For one, Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian describe themselves as left-leaning liberals. For another, it is nonsensical to insist that nonsense scholarship doesn’t matter because you don’t like the motives of the people who exposed it, or because some other forms of scholarship may also contain nonsense. If certain fields of study cannot reliably differentiate between real scholarship and noxious bloviating, they become deeply suspect. And if they are so invested in overcoming injustice that they are willing to embrace rank cruelty as long as it is presented in the right kind of progressive jargon, they are worsening the problems they purport to address...."
Yep Yep Yep
I think the bigger question this all raises, is why three academics from the 'liberal left' felt the burning need to do it?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
It's interesting (and telling) that even that hardcore old lefty Noam Chomsky claims that far from offering radical new ways of conceiving the world, Postmodern thought serves as an instrument of oppressive power structures.
Oh the irony!
Some say that this kind of thought knowingly peddles bullshit to a readership that expects, as Michel Foucault once admitted, a mandatory “ten percent incomprehensible.”
Grab your popcorn and watch the implosion.
Just back on the population and employment topic, blowin asked about Labor’s position yesterday.
It’s worth mentioning that by the time the federal election rolls around next year, Labor will have been in power for less than 6 years of the previous 23 years of government.
As Christopher Pyne so proudly boasted, the Coalition “are an election winning machine”
Just in case anyone is wondering which side of politics is largely responsible for the position we find ourselves in relation to population growth and employment opportunities for our own citizens?
Labor’s Shadow Employment Minister spoke at a press conference this morning on PM Morrison’s latest idea of restricting new migrants from settling in big cities for 5 years, the use of temporary visa’s, the population issue in general.
Be good to hear any comments about his views from blowin or others?
Here’s some of what Brendon O’Conner had to say..........
“One of our concerns about Scott Morrison’s recent thought bubble is that he will not consider the implications for Australian workers.
Let’s look at how many temporary work visa holders there are in Australia currently.
Currently we have 1.6 million people holding temporary visas in this country.
At the same time we have over 700,000 unemployed Australians, and we have 1.1 million Australians looking for more work.
That is over 1.8 million Australians looking for any work or looking for more work.
And yet we watch the government continue to allow the explosion of temporary visa holders to 1.6 million.
So firstly before we look at this plan, this recent thought bubble by Scott Morrison, we should consider what we are doing with these temporary visa levels.
Clearly when you look at youth unemployment in this country, it's just over 13%. We have too few young workers getting into the labour market.
One of the reasons for that is they are being displaced, or indeed superseded by the overuse of some of the temporary visa holder categories.
So when we’re examining congestion or examining job opportunities for the under-employed or unemployed in this country, we need to consider whether in fact the government has properly ensured that we use these visas properly?
And clearly with 1.6 million visa holders there is a real strain on opportunities for unemployed and under-employed Australians to get into the labour market and the government needs to do something.
But don't hold your breath.
Scott Morrison likes the idea that this drives wages down. If you have an oversupply in certain areas you drive down wages.
That's why this government has presided over the lowest wage growth in 5 years.
Certainly one of the reasons for that is indeed the misuse, overuse and abuse of temporary work visas.
It’s unfair to those who are exploited and it's unfair to the local worker who misses out.
If they look at Scott Morrison's history it is clear.
He voted against labour market testing when it was introduced in the last year of the last Labor government. He is on the record opposing any restrictions on temporary visas and skilled visas.
Indeed as Shadow Minister for Immigration he wanted to open up the 457 visa arrangements to make them easier not harder to access. So he looks overseas first and denies local workers their opportunity.
As Prime Minister he is a hypocrite if indeed he continues to argue he's concerned about congestion and infrastructure strain when he turns his back on Australian workers who can't find enough work.”
It sounds like Labor is on the same page as you in regards to the 457 visa issue blowin?
.
Forces inside a true Labor party would surely balance economics with environmental concerns of the every increasing Titanic wrecking model of required high growth both in population, economy and destruction of of natural resources.
Of course this is not even a consideration never has been ever since humans removed themselves from the food chain and by association from the natural environment which from there on has only ever been viewed as a resource (yep you lot are all guilty) any claims made by surfers as to connecting with nature is of course total BS and delusion.
@ifocus
'... any claims made by surfers as to connecting with nature is of course total BS and delusion...'
Me and you and Albert Camus; why the cynicism? Who do you hang out with for inspiration?
The great Duke Kahanamoku would probably excoriate that one, albeit tactfully like the modest man he was. Sure there has been a disconnect - no denying it - but many surfers around the globe are reconnecting with nature - and it's not some onanistic hippie chimera.
There's shit loads going on. Globally surfers are connecting to protect the maritime environment and its fauna and concomitantly raising awareness. Surfers and more progressive aspects of the sector/industry are also innovating like never before in clean board design, organic surf wax and limestone based natural wetsuits. Sure we are all products of what is a consumptive and at times degrading market economy, but there are many people who actually do give a shit and try to live more simply relative to their situation. But make no mistakes, we are inextricably linked to nature.
This is a good understated starting point:
https://briantissot.com/the-surfing-ecologist-a-new-synergy-for-surfers-...
@spuddyjack you will have to put me on ignore :-)
I admire those that are at least thinking about the issues and discuss unfortunately there is no data world wide on any aspect to with what I said that is changing the trend, none, zero, nada.....it is only ever increasing in speed
Here you go Sheepy
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/10/labor-mass-immigration-killing-...
Macro Business.
Interesting site, and business.
Relatively recent mover & shaker start-up by Leith van Onselen and others. Interesting battle over the journey for differentiation and market-share in the 'economics/property' web-site/blog space.
And he seems to have found his niche. All things immigration. Has got him media gigs now with the usual suspects, including the Sky After Dark roster. Bolt in particular.
Anyway, have a squiz.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/25/australians-are-ge...
"...we do not feel like they’re getting any richer, and we’re looking around for people to blame. Australians are indeed, on some economic measures, getting noticeably poorer. One explanation is that we haven’t quite worked off the hangover from the mining boom: as the economist Ross Garnaut predicted, the end of the boom has led to stagnant incomes and a restless electorate. In addition, as Greg Jericho has argued, unions that used to fight for wage increases have become weak.
However, other people have taken to blaming Australia’s high immigration rates for the slide. Leith van Onselen, for example, on the Bolt Report, noted that Victoria, which has seen the highest immigration rates in Australia, has seen the lowest per capita income increase in the country since the global financial crisis. Isn’t that evidence that immigrants are lowering our living standards?
The problem for Van Onselen is that he’s got his economics wrong, and he’s measuring the wrong thing. Changes in gross state product per capita – the indicator they’re using – can’t tell you anything about the impact of immigration on living standards.
It’s like comparing oranges in 2009 with a mix of apples and oranges in 2016.
Let’s call one group of people the “original” group – people who were already here in 2009 – and the other the “immigrant” group, who’ve moved here since then. Van Onselen compares the living standards of the “originals” in 2009 with the living standards of both originals and immigrants in 2016. This tells us nothing. What we want to measure is the change in the living standards of “originals” from 2009 to 2016 (and, if you like, the change for immigrants, but this would mean finding out what those were in their country of origin).
This is much harder to measure, but there is some evidence to suggest that if you did the analysis properly, it would change Van Onselen’s conclusions.
Data from the 2016 census shows that income for recently arrived immigrants in Melbourne is on average substantially lower than it is for Australian-born residents. This means that the recent arrivals will “drag down” the average, even if they’re better off than they were before moving to Australia, and even if they’ve had no impact on the living standards of those who were already living in Melbourne.
The academic literature supports the idea that immigration is not likely to make non-immigrants any poorer. Studies suggest that, on average, immigration has little to no impact on wages. On employment it’s much the same: the consensus of research is that, statistically, immigrants either create more jobs than they “take”, or that they have no impact on jobs at all."
The 'dismal science', hey?
K.I.S.S?
"Actually, I'll throw this out there. Immigration of all stripes stripped back. The gains as you see them from whatever perspective you espouse and/or share?"
So you you want continued unbridled immigration then , Facto ?
You think this is a good thing ?
Unbridled?? Huh? Where? What?
Anyway, you're one of the 'ills of immigration of all stripes' proselytisers. Here's your platform.
That’s twice you’ve dodged a simple yes or no answer to the same question.
KISS.
PS I enjoyed the way you questioned MacroBusiness’s credibility even though the article consists virtually entirely of links to sources that you can’t summarily dismiss . Including your beloved ALP.
And then you linked to The Guardian !
Guffaw !
Tell you what , I’ll return the favour and reveal the extent of The Guardian for editorial quality. How’s this from today - https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/oct/09/queer-the-leads-and-unleas....
Oh yeah !
Ho hum.
Newsflash: corporate media is a business. And they follow the money.
Macro Business also had articles previously where they didn't push this 'immigration' barrow so hard. They've found a niche now and it's paying dividends. Surprise!
The Guardian do the same, especially post GFC. Anti-Sanders. Anti-Corbyn. Or rather pro-Clinton. And pro-Blairite. And here in Oz? Believe it or not, pro-Malcolm, especially with Katherine Murphy at the 'political editor' helm.
Lemme guess, you haven't read any of my 'Media Lens' proselytisin', have you? You don't even know what I'm talking about? Use your search-engine expertise! Google is your friend!
So, corporate media is a business. Does it negate all of their articles? Of course not. Even the most partisan of media outlets like The Australian has stuff worth reading.
Critical thinking and critical reading ain't rocket science, is it??
Anyhoo...
OK, you don't read. We've established that.
Maybe go back to my previous posts highlighting the utter hypocrisy of the one-side of government that actively creates 'skills shortages', encourages and promotes 'immigration' (but don't call it that!) to fill this spurious gap (hey! it's all good for business!), whilst at the same time vilifying asylum seekers and immigrants (those real ones that stick out!), and waving flags about, and playing up good ol' boy oi! oi! 'nationalism' and what is and isn't 'Australian/un-Australian'.
You frame a question that is narrow, simplistic, wrong-headed, and that is part of the problem.
Have a think, and give us something that outlines YOUR position on immigration, what it is (to you), why it troubles you so, and how 'fixing' it will work for us all.
Here's your platform. We're interested.
Whatever , mate.
You’ve dodged the question spectacularly. Again. Everyone else seems to be able to explain their position very clearly. Do you support the current levels of immigration : Yes or no....it’s that easy .
And as for my not reading ....I’ve discussed this topic that many times on here that I could basically cut and paste my old posts and every time I’ve been extremely unambiguous.
So Are you really not sure on my position regarding unsustainably high levels of immigration ?
Hint : The answer is within the question. Notice I use the term “ unsustainably high “.
Ha ha! Wait, let me get this straight-ish.
You want me to trawl back through your voluminous output (I assume it's so...you seem to be on here every day) on this thread (or whatever number of threads that have touched upon this topic, let alone any specific ones?!) to find your position on immigration (that you're too reluctant to share at this time even though it seems to be your big issue/bête noire), what immigration is (to you), why it troubles you so, and how 'fixing' it will work for us all?
Right........
What will I find I wonder? Can I be really be bothered? (You do realise you can just google your name 'Blowin', 'Swellnet', and whatever term you like - say, immigration - to find your previous comments?)
"Hint : The answer is within the question. Notice I use the term “ unsustainably high “."
Hmmm, you're not a Pauline Hanson supporter, are you??
Yes , I was .
I think I’ll be voting https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au next time.
Funnily enough haven't been on SN at all today, was just looking for candidates in Vic election for our area, came across Sustainable Australia site - they are updating candidates now. Here are their policies:
https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/policies
and the Environment one:
"How? Transition to renewable energy; Moratorium on all fracking; Better manage our water security; Increase conservation management funding and employment; Enhance biodiversity and native species programs; Protect animal habitats from housing and farming land clearing; End old growth forest logging; Minimise factory farming; Reduce waste production; Slow population growth (so all of the above isn't undermined); & more."
That sounds very appealing. Say hello to the real green party.
Brendan O'Connor, ALP employment spokesman:
"“…we have over 700,000 unemployed Australians, and we have 1.1m Australians looking for more work.”
“That is over 1.8m Australians looking for any work, or looking for more work, and yet we watch the government continue to allow the explosion of temporary visa holders to 1.6m.
“So firstly, before we look at this plan, this recent thought bubble by the thought bubble boy Scott Morrison, we should consider what we’re doing with these temporary visa levels. “Clearly, when you look at youth unemployment in this country, it’s just over 13 per cent.
“We have too few young workers getting into the labour market.
“One of the reasons for that is they are being displaced, or indeed superseded by the overuse of some of the temporary visa holder categories.
“When we’re examining congestion, when we’re examining job opportunities for the underemployed or unemployed in this country, we need to consider whether in fact the government has properly ensured that we use these visas properly, and clearly, with 1.6m visa holders there is a real strain on opportunities for unemployed Australians and underemployed Australians to get into the labour market, and the government needs to do something.”
“If you have an oversupply in certain areas, you drive down wages,” he said.
Looks like the ALP ship is slowly changing course, after the ETU and AMWU criticised their support of the TPP, with the latter union threatening to pull funding. Major union pull funding from the ALP. Wow.
As Yorkesurfer said, "It’s worth mentioning that by the time the federal election rolls around next year, Labor will have been in power for less than 6 years of the previous 23 years of government."
They've been changing course - as you put it, Velocity Johnno - since Rudd mk1.
Another thing that is of genuine interest to me, and revisiting Yorkesurfer's post:
"Scott Morrison likes the idea that this drives wages down. If you have an oversupply in certain areas you drive down wages.
That's why this government has presided over the lowest wage growth in 5 years.
Certainly one of the reasons for that is indeed the misuse, overuse and abuse of temporary work visas.
It’s unfair to those who are exploited and it's unfair to the local worker who misses out.
If they look at Scott Morrison's history it is clear.
He voted against labour market testing when it was introduced in the last year of the last Labor government. He is on the record opposing any restrictions on temporary visas and skilled visas.
Indeed as Shadow Minister for Immigration he wanted to open up the 457 visa arrangements to make them easier not harder to access. So he looks overseas first and denies local workers their opportunity."
(Not to mention the dismantling of TAFE, under-funding of universities whilst pushing the full-fee paying OS student. 'Skills shortage' anyone?)
A vote for Hanson (an ex-Liberal, remember) has always just been a vote for the coalition, back then and especially this time round. She sides with them, and votes with them, always.
She is anti-worker.
Forget the struggle, the cognitive dissonance is real!
https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/policies
"Say hello to the real green party."
Indeed! An "independent party from the common-sense political centre", comrade??
Motherhood statements aside (and 'realpolitik'), a lot to admire. In fact, the differentiation with the Greens ain't much.
Death to CD, all hail the CD!
Are the Greens a environmental party or more social issues party?
What about The D Z®© Party?
Education policy:
I believe in the edumacation of little kiddies who can’t spell or read good, or do other stuff good either. I want them to learn. To learn not to be ignorant. I want them to rise above the patheticness of their lives and aspire to greatness, like me. I want them to have perfectly chiseled minds like I have perfectly chiseled features. I want them to know what healthy self-esteem feels like, just like me. I want them to be able to read Fashion Weekly and not just look at the pictures, even though that’s still pretty cool. I want our kiddies to learn to be creative and not just buy their clothes off the rack.
If you build it, they will come, and, you know, learn. The Derek Zoolander®© Party will build special learning buildings all across the country where little kiddies can come and be carefully moulded into professional humans. I’m out of ideas now, but you know what I mean. Just think of great ideas yourselves and that’ll probably be exactly what I was thinking all along.
Facto - If you’re going to try and have a go at people for their voting choices , at least get a little background on why before you sling your incorrect assumptions around.
BTW - Are you familiar with Shatner’s Bassoon or maybe Talking Turkey ?
"Are the Greens a environmental party or more social issues party?"
The greens were an environmental party. Then they became a 'more social issues' party. Isolating their supporters in the process.
Sacraficeing your traditional base for identity politics...where've seen that one before?
What could possibly go wrong?
My prediction for the next election, greens are gonna get slammed, becoming insignificant. And the sustainable australia party will make an absolute killing.
...despite being racist xenophobes or something like that...
win win.
Except the green vote will be so dispersed we'll probably end up with no power.
The greens are fucked, dead, dying. Like labor they don't deserve a vote. No matter how woeful the liberals have proved themselves to be, a vote for the greens or labor is an approval of what they've been up to for the last decade or two.
I don't approve. They can get fucked.
The greens idea of environmental protection is to fill Australia to the brim with people regardless of effects on the ecosystem.
So yeah , there is a gulf between them and Sustainable Australia.
Geez Facto , for a fella that obviously prides himself on his intelligence you’re not real bright.
Let me go out on a limb here...
a couple of you fellas haven't read anything?
Well, nothing like this:
https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/policies
https://greens.org.au/policies
Compare and contrast the suite of various policies. Have a go.
Actually, chuck them all in.
https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan
https://www.alp.org.au/media/1276/2018_alp_national_platform_-_consultat...
https://www.onenation.org.au/policies/
https://reasonvic.org.au/policy/
(and a special one for Sypkan)
sypo, come on mate, i know what you are saying but you have to ask, who can we lobby the best and the greens can be persuaded to change some of their points of view, the other mobs can't.
blowin, " to the brim"- wow a newscorp journo would be envious.
i checked out suss australia party and got excited, then disappointed.
i too have shaken my head at the greens and wondered where i could get the yarni they are tokin, but i reckon oz needs them to remain a force so that a bargaining chip can be utilized.
my example is based on the tweed shire where they were just loose as, but have grown into a very aware group with a figurehead that understands symbiotic evolution.
make no mistake, if we do not embrace symbiotic evolution soon, things will change in a way we will not like.
so i will not be having a protest vote like normal at state or federal, but will be on the greens case to get their shit together- but old mate ego seems to be running amok and whether they listen, only the process will reveal.
of course we could always form the rave party where sups and jet ski's in the lineup are oulawed and bodysurfers get to take the best set waves.man, i'm gunna go buy myself a suit and a box of cee-gars!
"The greens idea of environmental protection is to fill Australia to the brim with people regardless of effects on the ecosystem."
Have you actually read that, or does it just fit your pre-conception of them?
I've brought this up a few times, even pointed people towards their ACTUAL policies, and it doesn't change a thing, you guys just keep regurgitating it.
good 'ol andy reckons
' A number of my "ermagrant" Indian friends are stuck driving taxis - holding fine engineering qualifications and unable to utilise them.'
'Just drop me at the airport pronto, get a move on, ya 'stuck' sucker, I gort a jet to catch!!!'
'And don't drive through them stinkin' cities!!!'
'Just hurry up, finish and deliver me troopy ta the garden of eden aye!!! Or I'll send ya down the mine!!! I 'need' it ta go postin' in ya 'loopy' cunts!!!!'
How do you like them apples taxi drivers!!! Might as well chuck bus, train, tram drivers in that 'stuck' lot too!!! Not to mention factory workers, cleaners, delivery drivers, laborers, shop assistants, etc, etc, etc. What a great system!!! phil and liz, the kids, cousins, aunties uncles... and the corgi's and cobbers brainchild!!! lil' jack howard's boy petey reckons fuck ya's, slave till ya drop ya cunts!!! And, if you make it, we'll fleece yas and beat the crap out of ya's in the nursin home!!! Bow ta the queen of the world!!!
The whole thing is a joke. A sick one. You can get out but, in the 'lucky' country, if ya work hard, like phil and liz's lot!!! Pave the way for another stuck cut to fill the gap!!! Always more 'stuck' cunts needed.
Sick fucking joke. Advanced??? Who needs trees!!!! Slaves only need a cubicle!!!
Piss the whole show off. There's way better ideas.
‘Irene Watson, a Tanganekald and Meintangk Boandik legal scholar and professor, points out that crises such as climate change are a call for a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigneous Australians and our environment. She shows how Indigenous moral and relational values provide a sound basis on which to build those new relationships.‘
‘Victoria Grieves, a Warraimaay historian, foresees a Republic of Australia based on the sovereignty of Aboriginal peoples. She says:
Australia could achieve absolute decolonisation and shared sovereignty and live up to the reputation we like to have, as a nation deeply concerned with human rights and social justice.
It is wrong-headed to think of “embracing” Indigenous peoples. Those with a western heritage must relinquish their arrogance, rewrite the distortions of their history, and place Indigenous interests at the forefront of social, economic and political concern.
We need to look beyond symbols to restitution: compensation, reparations and resource sharing. Indigenous peoples, through seeking a treaty, invite us to share in building an honourable future. Surely we can agree that Australia is worth it.‘
https://theconversation.com/indigenous-treaties-are-meaningless-without-...
80,000 years of political success, or 200 odd of inequality and endless bungles. Time for change.
There's some that love exploiting 'stuck' cunts but... aaye mmmaaaayyytee... in a nutshell... again... and again...
Never, ever, underestimate the power of conditioning!!! Ever!!! And don't trust the sleezy, catholic church, pedophile priest protectors as far as you can drop kick em. In a nutshell.
No Stu , I haven’t actually read that.
What I have read is this : https://greens.org.au/policies/population
A couple of ambiguous statements with no real gravity or intent behind them and always outstripped by repeated caveats regarding our obligations to multiculturalism and migrants. I believe that to them , people that wish to move to Australia have as much right to do so as those already living here. Which I think is fundamentally wrong.
I’m sure the Greens do place great importance on the environment, but they are all too keen to accommodate virtually anyone that wants to come here. Which migrant class do you think they’d be willing to limit to diminish current migration levels ?
Do you think they wish to diminish current migration levels ? I don’t think they do and judging from snippets I’ve heard they are all too willing to still hamper genuine debate on the topic with ad hominem racist accusations.
Here is where they turned the corner - https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greens-change-their-immigration-policy
( check the population projection ... 23M by 2040 ! )
Contrast this with the unambiguous aim of Sustainable Australia to slow the growth of Australia’s population. Night and day.
This issue is central to the way I cast my vote. If the Greens were genuine in restraining rampant population growth then I would gladly vote for them as I’m all about the rest of their policies. But they arent so they don’t get my vote.
The greens like other parties have a controlled immigration policy, but they also have a uncontrolled immigration policy as in regard to refugees they wouldn't turn any away and they wouldn't put any in detention, so it's uncapped.
People often try to predict numbers that may arrive and down play or up play things but the reality is nobody knows what numbers could snow ball over time, especially with the guarantee of resettlement (hence no risk of rejection if legitimate refugee/asylum seekers) and the fact that basically legalising the people smuggling business would encourage more people smugglers to operate and with competition would come lower prices making it accessible to a much greater number of refugees.
The best indication we have had is when Rudd trialled an open border type policy and we pushed over 20,000 arrivals by boat in one year, he then panicked and did a complete back flip.
You can see the effect of different policy in numbers here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Solution#/media/File:BoatArrivals.gif
The irony of the Greens uncontrolled immigration policy is that it goes against all the reasons we have some of the most strict quarantine measures in the world and would put our fauna and flora and agricultural industry's at great risk.
The timely discussion around sustainable population appears to becoming a front and centre issue at the NSW state level.
Today it was reported that the NSW Premier Gladys B wants to reduce NSWs annual intake from 100 000 to around 45 000 per year.
I wonder if she got Alan's approval first?
https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/premier-doubles-down-on-calls-for-mi...
And federally what's with the leaking of Ruddock's religious freedom review? Someone's out to do the PM a mischief...especially before the Wentworth by-election...and a prominent and independently dangerous gay candidate!
A government in total disarray...still!
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/religious-freedom-review-gay-kids-could-be-r...
The Greens policy on refugees is for Australia to abide by the UN Refugee Convention to which it is a signatory. Offshore detention as currently practised is an underhand way to avoid the responsibilities we signed up for. Taking refugees does not oblige a country to give them citizenship or permanent residency though in Australia's case, when we have done this it has usually worked out well.
.
I think it's more about rich people buying citizenship than poor people sneaking in the back door.
You're probably right daverave, but you've gotta ask what have the greens actually done in the last 5 to 10 years? I reckon fuck all.
Besides climate change - dont dare mention growth!!- they barely talk about the environment at all.. They're like labor, lost their own identity in a minorities maelstrom.
I reckon a shaky coalitions of looney independents can achieve more than the greens. They neo-liberalised themselves a little too much.
AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING KALEIDOSCOPIC JOIN-THE-DOTS/ADULT COLOURING BOOK EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT IN NARCISSISTIC/ONANISTIC BIG PICTURE PARASITIC FORUM BLEEDING.
LIKE POLITICAL LIFE, PARTICIPATION IS WELCOME, ENCOURAGED EVEN, BUT NOT NECESSARY.