New South Wales Greens MP Jenny Leong’s recent New Matilda article entitled “Fascism Might Sound Like A Joke, But It’s No Laughing Matter” strengthened my view that the Greens actually sustain One Nation.
In the article, Leong absurdly lumps the political party I founded, Sustainable Australia, in with Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and Pauline Hanson to represent ”the rise of fascism”. Why?
Because like the National Roads and Motorists’ Association (NRMA) and other transport experts, Sustainable Australia links immigration (the main driver of population growth) to traffic congestion. Presumably these experts are also to be thrown into Leong’s basket of fascists.
To be clear, Leong is wrong in both fact and logic. The Sustainable Australia campaign poster that Leong referred to in New Matilda actually called for “better public transport and lower immigration” to help ease road congestion, as we are supportive of a holistic approach that prioritises public transport investment over roads. But the opportunity to smear a centrist party was obviously too great for Leong. She wanted to create a perception that Sustainable Australia simply blames immigrants for traffic congestion.
Sadly for Leong, we don’t. We actually blame Coalition, Labor and Greens politicians for mismanaging this country and arrogantly dismissing complaints about declining living standards as fascism. Leong’s elitism actually breeds this discontent and drives people into the arms of the right-wing parties we now see gaining or regaining interest from middle Australia.
Some claim that our rapid population growth would be manageable if only we invested in ever more mass public transport. But that laudable goal is unrealistic.
Firstly, humans love the convenience of cars, and Leong has not convinced people to abandon them to get to work, the shops or to their kids’ sporting fields on a Saturday morning. And secondly, “diseconomies of scale” in our built-up suburbs has created a situation in which major new infrastructure is unaffordable due to its skyrocketing per unit costs.
This is particularly important as it is the Greens’ pet project to densify our existing suburbs with more apartments, in response to also unsustainable sprawl. We cannot cost-effectively drop in new hospitals, schools, recreational green space, train lines and roads throughout existing suburbs. We would need to sell off our public assets, increase rates and charges, cut back services and destroy our environment in a futile attempt to pay for such things … Oh wait!
But supply and demand economics goes way above the idealistic head of Leong.
When the Australia Institute reviewed all Victorian political parties’ — including the Greens’ — state election promises on public transport, it concluded that “it was evident no party had based its promise around meeting passenger demand induced by population growth”.
So how did the modern party come to this?
Green Left Weekly reports that we have to go back to the 1990s when the original Greens members supported exactly the same population policy that Sustainable Australia does now: “stabilising” population numbers (hence the same call for lower immigration).
For fear of being branded racist — or perhaps even fascist — by the far left, the Greens cleared the path for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation by vacating the middle ground on immigration numbers. It allowed John Howard to double immigration (more customers and cheap labour) for big business while using the distraction of stopping asylum seeker boats. The Greens have been played like a fiddle on immigration.
Most people agree that the community division exacerbated by Hanson’s comments about minority groups is highly regrettable, and it certainly rails against Sustainable Australia’s inclusive values. But polling shows that the community is overwhelmingly opposed to Australia’s rapid population growth. If our political elites refuse to address issues of importance to everyday Australians, more and more will turn to political alternatives. Cue Pauline Hanson from stage right.
For political advantage, when it comes to immigration, all Greens politicians ever want to talk about is refugees. This is bizarre given the fact that refugees only make up around 10%t of Australia’s record permanent immigration intake of over 200,000 per year, and also given the environmental origins of The Greens. Sweeping 90% of the immigration issue and our growing population growth pressures under the carpet not only betrays sustainability principles, it builds legitimate community frustration.
The Greens should now join Sustainable Australia in calling for lower immigration, from 200,000 permanent migrants per year back to the long term average of 70,000. This would have no impact on our refugee intake, and indeed could make room for more.
I agree with Leong that fascism is no joke, but when it comes to the environment, it’s the Greens themselves that are threatening to become one.
Well said Will. I just don’t think that the greens are green at all. More population, more congestion, more urban sprawl, more carbon to the atmosphere …. how is that GREEN
I couldn’t agree more with this article. The sad thing is the current level of immigration has nothing to do with aulturistic goals but all about profits for big business. Continuous economic growth is unsustainable particularly when it has to be fueled by population growth!
In my view Sustainable Australia’s attitudes on this matter coincide exactly with those of every biologist and ecologist in this country. You could not find a less fascist-oriented group. What a confirmation this is of the truly tragic level of basic knowledge of the globe, and how it works, displayed by mainstream politicians. Sustainable Australia has taken over the mantle that once belonged to the Greens before they simply became social engineers who keep a historic and now irrelevant name – not that I disagree with the content of this engineering at all. Unfortunately, to become mainstream the Greens abandoned rationality on the effects of population increase, particularly its rate, and joined forces with the two parties that are the political equivalents of Coles and Woolworths. So much of the recent blight on most people’s lives, particularly in Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne arises thus, quite overwhelming the impact of the Green’s worthwhile social efforts.
IAC
So you’re saying that the Greens push to invest in medium density cities with new affordable housing and new infrastructure down transport corridors is pushing potential voters to One Nation? Presumably not because they read the proposal and came to a thoughtful conclusion, but because they come into it with an assumption about being swamped by the unworthy masses from across the river. And your argument is that their instinct is right, competition from foreigners is indeed the cause of “middle Australia’s” suffering.
If it’s a real problem, what you’ve identified seems to be that the Greens aren’t sufficiently elitist, they’re too willing to share our boundless plains with those who’ve come across the sea. Based on your argument it seems that it’s so called “middle Australia” who are seeking a party to support their elitist dream of a walled garden for the lucky few.
I think the root problem is really an instinctive reaction to the injustices of corporate liberalism. The first instinct is to remove the competition (scrapping free trade, nationalism, elitism) but that would only be a temporary solution to ease competition without changing the system. What we need, and what I think the Greens are shifting toward, is radical reorientation of the market and public sector to benefit humankind rather than reaching arbitrary economic metrics. In other words a “people before profits” ethic where the market is seen as one of several tools to improve life, and not an end in itself.
You represent the modern Greens perfectly. No real education in their original principle – ecological sustainability.
You could rack and stack people like sardines – if you want to lower quality of life. Most people don’t. Sustainable Australia is simply bringing attention to a central sustainability issue that others don’t want to think about. As the article mentions, the founding Greens had a stable population policy, just like Sustainable Australia’s policy platform.
My comment was clearly addressing the elitism question in particular, that is that the argument as stated above seems to really say the Greens aren’t elitist or exceptionalist enough for potential One Nation voters. I happen to believe that a “people over profits” ethic necessitates environmental sustainability. Giving women control of their reproduction is the only solution to the planet’s population issues: and it is a planetary issue, not one we can contain within our own borders by fencing ourselves off.
As an atheist, I agree in your general direction — the only argument against reproductive rights happens to be religious, which is silly. But you’re equally silly.
Setting aside for a moment that reproduction happens to be most stifled by education levels, and not extensive and subsidised networks of abortion clinics, what you’re suggesting is that we somehow influence other countries, even ones which aren’t democratic, to democratically vote for reproductive rights. Good luck with that.
Since I hope that phrasing illustrates why your proposal is silly, maybe we should invade and impose our reproductive beliefs on all foreign countries? Perhaps give the UN a mandate to do so? Because it’s not like they’re dealing with real issues of genocide??
Or maybe we can seal off the borders, solve the problem in our own patch of dirt, and not import someone else’s problem by enabling it.
The problem is ecology knows nothing of imaginary lines drawn on a map, there is not much point in a sustainable australia while the whole world burns.
Phoenix Green, perhaps you are unaware of the NSW Greens actual position on “new affordable housing and new infrastructure down transport corridors.’
They are against it. The NSW government has proposed exactly that just that along the route of the new metro to Bankstown, and the just announced West metro to Parramatta. The Greens call that “a free-kick to developers” and “overdevelopment”.
If you don’t believe about their opposition to metro rail, I’m happy to paste slabs of Mehreen Faruqi’s (NSW Greens Transport spokesperson) stridently Nimby-ish press releases.
I’m not sure who her party think is going to build the affordable housing they are demanding, or run the trains and light rail Sydney’s new residents will need. But whoever or whatever – the Greens are against it.
I don’t agree with The Sustainable Australia’s party’s opposition to immigration – I happen to like living in a multicultural society – but William Bourke is correct to point to the Greens’ elitism as being a problem. They represent some of the richest electorates in Australia – Balmain and Newtown in NSW – property owners who are hugely benefitting from Sydney’s overinflated property prices. It’s hardly surprising they want to protect and enhance their supporter’s asset wealth, and that’s what all their Nimby-ish posturing about construction “in their backyards” is all about.
“I don’t agree with The Sustainable Australia’s party’s opposition to immigration”. The article clearly states: “The Greens should now join Sustainable Australia in calling for lower immigration, from 200,000 permanent migrants per year back to the long term average of 70,000. This would have no impact on our refugee intake, and indeed could make room for more.” How is that “opposing” immigration?
SAP don’t oppose immigration, they oppose high levels of immigration that are economically, environmentally and socially unproductive and unsustainable.
There are over a million un- and underemployed Australians, property prices are some of the highest in the world and infrastructure is creaking and overloaded, yet still we pour more and more immigrants into the country.
Can’t say I know much about the NSW Greens approach, except that they took a $5 billion transport package to the election. I know that in WA Scott Ludlam funded from his own pocket technical plans for a network of transport corridors around Perth in his “WA 2.0” plan; the ACT Greens required that government build light rail as a condition of forming government, construction of which is now underway; Tas Greens required construction of light rail, expansion of the bus fleet and exploration of passenger trains as part of their 2010 deal; Victorian Greens support Skyrail and directly campaigned on the inadequacy of the rail network there; QLD Greens are actually proposing a subway for Brisbane and (mostly) free buses; SA Greens want tram expansion, rail electrification and several new lines; and the national Greens made public transport funding a condition of their support for the fuel excise levy, they pushed High Speed Rail “before the penguins beat us to it” and have pressed government to support Canberra Light Rail stage 2, Brisbane Cross River Rail, Hobart Light Rail, Sydney light rail connections, Airport Rail in Melbourne, MAX Light Rail in Perth, AdeLINK tram network and that’s just the projects they’ve named.
So tell me again about how the Greens oppose public transport.
The population and sustainability debate in Australia has been dominated by the extremes: business lobbies seeking more customers and anti-immigration groups promoting intolerance. The Greens are destroying any chance for a rational and mature debate with their attempt to smear Sustainable Australia, giving the media an opportunity to suppress debate and force high population growth by stealth. The Greens are silent about Australia’s record immigration intake, and its impacts on basic needs like health and education services, affordable housing and job security for semi-skilled workers.
It is no surprise we are failing to make headway on key environmental issues. The Greens rapid population growth agenda inevitably leads to high rise AND sprawl. I for one, have had enough of their ecologically and economically illiterate greenwashing!
Mr Bourke is absolutely correct. How green are the Greens really?
Sustainable Australia is a joke you know, they have no real policies beside keeping out as many of the great unwashed of the world as they can.
They are not a political party, have never won more than a half a percent of any vote anywhere and are entirely an actual waste of time and space. They claim with an ever growing global population that Australia is full and should start reducing – it’s virtually a call for genocide.
Your comments are totally false and full of straw man arguments. Perhaps educate yourself before posting such rubbish. Sustainable Australia have 24 policies and one million people voted for them in their top 6 senate choices this year. Take a look: http://www.votesustainable.org.au/
Susan, some disclosure might have been proper. You are on the National Committee of the Sustainable Australia Party, are you not?
Sustainable Australia is a joke you know, they have no real policies beside keeping out as many of the great unwashed of the world as they can.
SAP is a centre-left Social Democracy party with a policy position essentially identical to the Greens. About the only place they differ is putting hard numbers on immigration rather than the Greens’ “sustainable levels”.
Which is why anyone calling them “fascist” just comes off looking like an ignorant fool.
There is nothing in The Greens policies that supports a rapid or large population growth. It is rather lacking in dealing with non-refugee intakes, but that does not mean support for rapid growth or large numbers.
I agree and make this comment frequently as well.
However, their lack of any opposition to the massive immigration intake over the last decade or two is a major issue IMHO.
It’s my understanding that internally the party is fairly evenly split along “let everyone in” vs “manage immigration to benefit the country”, hence the lack of any concrete statements in policy.