The people you would think champion social equality are doing the exact opposite

One normally thinks of the Greens, GetUp and humanitarian and environmental NGOs in general as something called "Left Wing". The traditional stereotype for left wing politics is one of compassionate support for social equality and the environment. Analysis of recent political history in Australia challenges whether the opposite is actually true.

Let's start with some traditional definitions:

• The meaning of right-wing "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies." According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy
• In left-right politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality

This all sounds simplistically correct. The socialists are the humane good guys and the conservatives want to maintain the hierarchy of rich and poor.

But when it comes to extreme population growth in Australia, isn't the so-called Left Wing its own worst enemy?

How can social equality on a global scale be served by the Greens or Labor if their main political policy is pro population growth extremism? Have they even thought about it?

Both these parties support extreme population growth. Admittedly the Greens would quite reasonably prefer that the majority, not the minority, of migrants are refugees, and humanitarian arguments fully support this logic.

At present the vast majority of migrants are not refugees. But even with the current rate of migration of the relatively fortunate, the economy seems to be struggling.

If the cost of migration in Australia exceeds the ability of the economy to pay for it in the medium to long term, is the objective of global social equality properly served?

We need a public inquiry into the optimum rate of population growth for Australia in order to determine whether current policy settings are socially or economically responsible.

It really isn't a question of left wing or right wing, because all the major political parties currently advocate extreme population growth. To determine a democratic basis for the size of the migration program and the proportion of refugees within that program open public policy debate is required - not camouflaged and confused political agendas that fail to address the real problems.

For example there is little evidence supporting the logic of a foreign student being granted permanent residence in Australia and then taking a job that a refugee might also have taken. This person may have been fortunate enough to have his Australian education financed by a relatively wealthy family. He may then return home, marry a wife and bring her back to Australia with him. Meanwhile two refugees remain in desperate conditions outside Australia with little hope of ever being granted asylum.

In the long term the rate of population growth may need to be moderated and the priority of refugee migrants will need to be elevated. This has to occur in the context of social equality and how Australia's wealth can achieve the most humanitarian outcome. None of this can be achieved without open public policy debate.

Please consider signing this petition:
Australia requires a public inquiry to determine a basis for the optimum rate of population growth