RETHINKING A HIGHLY EMOTIVE ISSUE

And in more detail...

Australia is a wealthy country with a stable society. We're a country of "haves" in a world with many "have-nots." And yet, for all our good fortune, our annual refugee and humanitarian intake hovers at around 13,500 individuals, with an additional 16,500 places allocated for Afghan nationals over the next four years[1]. The Good Party believes that's neither right nor fair. We want Australia to open its doors wider to the people fleeing political, ideological, or religious persecution. We want our humanitarian intake substantially lifted.

At the same time, the Good Party wants Australia's broader immigration program curtailed and with a sharper focus placed on migrants with needed skills identified by the Productivity Commission.  

If you're not an Indigenous Australian, you're either a migrant or a descendant of one.

More often than not, any discussion about reducing immigration is cut short by accusations of racism or some form of it, so the conversation we need to have about our migrant intake is never had. The reality is that, except for First Nations Australians, we're all migrants to this land or descendants of migrants. The Good Party has no issue with the current mix of ethnicity, country of origin, or religion of our migrant intake. Our concern is purely about numbers, and our objections are grounded in environmental, economic, and demographic realities.

Currently, Australia takes in around 320,00 migrants each year. Most end up living where most Australians do — in our cities. We seem incapable of attracting greater numbers of migrants to the Regions. The reasons are complex, but much of the complexity would disappear if federal and state governments proactively implemented plans for developing Regional hubs with transport, education, entertainment, and associated facilities and infrastructure.

Currently, Australia takes in around 320,00 migrants each year. Most end up living where most Australians do — in our cities. We seem incapable of attracting greater numbers of migrants to the Regions. The reasons are complex, but much of the complexity would disappear if federal and state governments proactively implemented plans for developing Regional hubs with transport, education, entertainment, and associated facilities and infrastructure

How many people can our continent's ecosystem reliably support?

In the immigration debate, little time or consideration is given to the environmental realities of our "wide brown land." Most of our continent's land mass is either unliveable or at least inhospitable. So, we cling to the coastal fringes, build on flood plains, encroach on forests, and endure ever-more regular reports of homes wiped out and lives destroyed by 1-in-100-year floods or fires that happen with disturbing and increasing regularity.

And for those living in our increasingly overcrowded cities, hardly a day goes by without service complaints from commuters or admissions of failure by the managers of either the busses, or the trains, or the roads, and often all three. Some people even complain that it's impossible these days to find a patch of sand for a towel at the beach on a hot summer's day.

Our current immigration program is more about fridges, freezers, and property prices

And yet the immigration programs continue, supported by one-dimensional claims of economic necessity such as "There are not enough people to fill the available jobs," or more prosaically, "We need more people to buy goods and services because that stimulates and grows the economy."

The jobs argument is spurious. At least a hundred thousand people would happily work if there were government programs to combat ageism. And more widely available subsidised or free training would also help. As for the stimulation argument, currently, with high inflation and interest rates, isn't what's needed reduced stimulation? And then there's the housing issue. There aren't enough homes to go around as it is. Bringing in hundreds of thousands of people only adds to the current crisis by supercharging demand for the increasingly limited supply.

Some maturity and pragmatism need to be injected into the immigration debate. Firstly, we must determine how many people the Australian environment can support. Water resources are essential, along with the availability of suitable land. Shouldn't we know that? Is there an optimal, sustainable population for this continent? And it's not just about people. We share the land with a multitude of ecospheres. Animals are becoming extinct at an alarming rate due to the stress the numbers of humans currently living here are placing on the environment with our insatiable need for land, water, and natural resources

We deserve a mature, pragmatic debate

Some maturity and pragmatism need to be injected into the immigration debate. Firstly, we must determine how many people the Australian environment can support. Water resources are essential, along with the availability of suitable land. Shouldn't we know that? Is there an optimal, sustainable population for this continent? And it's not just about people. We share the land with a multitude of ecospheres. Animals are becoming extinct at an alarming rate due to the stress the numbers of humans currently living here are placing on the environment with our insatiable need for land, water, and natural resources.

Whenever a new road, bridge, mine, or pretty much anything is built these days, an environmental impact study is undertaken. The Good Party would like to see a similar process applied to immigration. We need, sooner rather than later, a holistic and wide-ranging impact study conducted on the effect of immigration on the Australian continent — its environment, resources, and existing population. Only then will a truly workable, sustainable, and beneficial immigration be achieved.

[1] Australian Department of Home Affairs