For Labor, the population debate is no political parlour game about whether Kevin Rudd was verballed when he spoke about a population of 36 million. The ALP are playing for keeps on the issue.
This flyer was distributed in the outer-Sydney/Blue Mountains electorate of Macquarie where Labor’s Susan Templeman, replacing Bob Debus, is taking on Louise Markus, who has shifted from Greenway. Part of this electorate includes the outer-suburban fringes of Sydney, exactly the areas Julia Gillard has targeted with her message that some areas can’t cope with continued population growth. The flyer was a thick, glossy, personally addressed mailout — expensive to print and dispatch.
It achieves the rare feat for political advertising of attacking the party itself, or at least the party under that crazy man Kevin Rudd, he of “big Australia” and “arbitrary targets” (despite Rudd repeatedly insisting there was no target, merely a projection based on historic levels of immigration). Indeed, Rudd gets name checked in the document for explicit rejection. It’s now usual for NSW Labor to casually dispose of leaders, but it’s relatively novel that they should then campaign against them once they’ve been removed.
Like the language selected for use? “Stop and take a breath”. “Sustainable nation”. “Don’t hurtle towards a big Australia”, alongside the pleasantly smiling features of the new PM. Oh, and the “36 million” number that Gillard generously rounded up to 40 million has been left uncorrected.
If a leaflet bearing a similar message from John Howard had been dispatched in years past, he would have been savaged for dog-whistling — an act apparently beyond a Labor government even when it shifts to the Right on population and immigration issues.
The race to see who can be the party of Little Australia is on.
It is pleasing that the message from the cities of Australia finally seems to have reached Canberra. It has taken some time to get there. Now, when and by how much will the ALP reduce the immigration intake?
Troy C, I believe the population target will be reduced by campaiging to reduce the birth rate by making birth control products free of charge under the PBS. Still like it?
Or how about: all immigration from Europe and North America will be banned. Still like it?
How about we kill off skilled migration instead of humanitarian visas? Still like it?
Why does a smaller population have to be made smaller by targeting immigration from countries of people with dark skin? In other words, that’s the point that proves the dog whistle.
Yes, it is notable to see such a public acknowledgement of policy change.
However wanting our population size to match our ability to provide education, transportation, medication, food, water and housing is not bigotry. It’s common sense.
Think about that next time you’re sitting in traffic, paying your exorbitant rent / mortgage, mourning the loss of another native specie, waiting in an emergency room or listing your child’s name on a waiting list for a therapist.
Brett de Hoedt, Melbourne.
Back in 1960, Australia had just over 10 million people. Now we have just over 20 million. We’ve coped fine with that increase and we’ll cope find with a further increase to 40 million – as long as we plan for it, which is what Kevin Rudd tried to do. For example, better public transport in our cities.
With the greying of the population, we need to import more young people to keep this nation going. And skilled migration is a great way to import the sort of good people that every economy needs to grow.
Scot: They can please themselves. I won’t lose any sleep over how it’s done, so long as it gets done.