You are here

ABC News -Oz Overpopulation-Mark O'Connor of SPA

Film: Writer and environmentalist, Mark O'Connor says that this is the first time since the mid 1990s that the ABC has interviewed someone from Sustainable Population Australia for the environmental view on population problems in Australia. I can't wait for them to interview someone from In the mean time:
See also poll in The Age: "Suburban sprawl: Is a pause in extending Melbourne's boundary a good thing?" (Obviously the answer is "Yes").

The poll is obviously a response to public fury about DACS. In the Age today (Tuesday 5 January 2010) "Rethink on Outer Suburban Expansion" carries the news that Minister Madden appears to have done a backflip on the Extension of the Urban Growth Boundary. Don't hold your breath though: he will still try to build upwards and more densely, which is also unacceptable. Basically the government and developer induced growth must stop altogether.

Back to last night's ABC news

As numerous articles on attest, the ABC usually presents the population numbers in Australia in a biased way, which gives big business members of the growth lobby a free kick and assists the continuing decline of democracy in Australia as governments dispense with consultation and dance the growth lobby tune. Indeed, the amount of real-estate and property growth investment people frequently invited to speak on the ABC makes it look as if someone in the know is pushing growth via the ABC, perhaps taking advantage of the usual presenters not realising the vested interest of their interviewees.

On this interview, ANU demographer, Graeme Hugo appears. This makes a nice change from the usual ANU Demography talking head, Peter McDonald, who always talks up population growth, often in association with Australian ATSE, the Multicultural Foundation, the Scanlon Foundation. Hugo is usually good on the need to brake our population growth for environmental reasons. Here he talks about us 'needing to replace the aging population', but adds that in the long-term he expects immigration to be cut back for environmental reasons. I've heard him speak much more strongly against population growth.

We have yet to hear anyone official showing concern about democracy and forced population growth except the amazing Victorian environmentalist MP, Kelvin Thomson, who was not interviewed by the ABC news. Kelvin Thomson is standing up for democracy and the environement and kindness to our indigenous fauna, in a one-man crusade completely counter the Lebensraum-for-developers-uber al-ALP-culture. See more here. Thomson is a Federal MP in a Victorian electorate that is densely populated with old and new immigrants and they give him plenty of support!


My car radio is always on one or other of the ABC stations. Last night around 10.30pm I flicked it on as I started driving and caught part of a program where guest of Night Life, Peter Davidson- architect responsible for Federation Square in Melbourne was being interviewed on modern Australian cities.

A caller was questioning Australia's population growth trajectory or more exactly speaking against it. He had just dismissed the argument that Australia had to increase population because of structural aging and was in mid sentence when Peter Davidson cut in saying that aging of the population was immensely complex-(far more complex of course than any of the callers or listeners would be able understand? )

The city of Dubai was mentioned and the guest said he thought it would be terribly exciting to live there (obviously loves artificial environments)

I caught bits of the rest of it interrupted by putting petrol in my car.

A man from Perth rang in praise of Hobart where his delight was to be able to go to anywhere in the city on foot when he was visiting for business recently.

The presenter asked what could Mr. Davidson take from Hobart and inject into other cities. The reply was that it was the "diversity"- that lots of different things were "still" accessible close to one another in Hobart and that larger cities had lost that- so by implication we have been going in the wrong direction

Then a woman rang in with a very sensibly thought out question and concern re lack of space for children to play in cities that were progressively being "infilled" She was answered with a couple of minutes of patter about "diversity" and integrated spaces and how there was no problem about allowing land for children as long as developments were big enough and that those in Australia are too "piecemeal" One concern the woman expressed was about older children and teenagers hanging round shopping precincts and getting into trouble because they had really nowhere to play and they needed space at home and near home. Answer- no they don't need to be at home - they need to explore and places for this need to be designated and planned for. (which summons to mind engineered predictable spaces which are not generally exciting or diverting for children unless they can heighten the interest with an activity like skate boarding.)

The program concluded with a recommendation from the guest for more centralised planning - by implication an end to the role of local councils. (a recipe for uniformity of the urban environment rather than diversity?) The essential ingredient Mr. Davidson said was "aesthetic input " which I understood him to say we do not have now because planning authorities knew planning law but had no special understanding of aesthetics.

It was obvious from the discussion that our cities are being ruined through relentless growth and that this man knew it but he kept plugging on with his nonsense sounding more and more like a robot.

Having listened to many such programs on the ABC which include experts in design- it is always a matter of "could-a , would-a , should-a". i.e. "If we did it this way or applied this principle we would grow in a really sustainable, aesthetic, way and when our city has twice the population- if we did things properly we would be even better off than we are now." Then the guests go off into their ivory towers of design and presumably make models of pretend cities. Meanwhile the rest of us are left to accommodate unwanted population growth in our real cities losing those aspects that truly make them beautiful- those parts that have grown more organically in keeping with their immediate surrounds and which retain vestiges of the natural environment.

No amount of design can compensate for loss of natural amenity.

Well said, Quark! And, no amount of design can compensate for the loss of democracy either.
I think that such experts are truly deluded about the importance of their particular discipline and their personal importance. They obviously consider that their opinions are so much more valid than anyone else's - even if that means ignoring thousands or millions of people. Being an overpaid professional in a suit, with microphones in front of you tends to reinforce that delusion. The ABC has a responsibility which it is miserably failing. It is propping up and legitimizing a dictatorship.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist

Perhaps I missed something, but I actually thought that the Background Briefing show "Housing for millions" was good.

It did allow some dubious opinions to be put by dubious people, but I also think that it allowed the facts of the insanity of population growth to be abundantly obvious. I think they did about as good a job as one could expect from a program expected to give both sides of the story.

Of course, this is not true of the rest of the ABC.

Anyhow the transcript and podcast can be found here.

If the ABC does interview Candobetter then I hope you feed this little soundbite to the Australian public. Joel Butler:

"Free trade means free movement.

Kevin Rudd's proposal to implement an European Union-like organisation in the Asia-Pacific region is nothing short of insane... One of the basic structural processes operative in the EU is the free movement of people within the EU's member countries. In this day and age, free movement of people is a necessary underpinning for "free trade" ...

A European Union based model in the Asia Pacific region that allows free trade by allowing the free movement of people between member states would mean the end of Australia as we know it. It would be completely and utterly unworkable because it would see mass-migration of overseas workers into Australia at a level so completely unmanageable as to lead to the breakdown of the economy and the social infrastructure ...

Using the very crude equivalent measure of Poles moving to the UK after its accession to the EU with these figures, an EU-type organisation that included Australia and these three Asian countries (leaving aside all the other proposed members) would see a migration to Australia of about 21.256 million people."

You heard that right: 20 million Asians/Indians headed this way. Rudd is paving the way for the free movement of labour across our border. That's why Rudd welcomed the population forecast of 35 million by 2050: "I actually believe in a big Australia I make no apology for that". And that's why: "Senator Evans says Australia's immigration policy needs to be more responsive to Australia's skills needs. He's predicting a 'great debate' on the idea of bringing in more unskilled migrants."

That's why Rudd is not concerned with the comparatively piddly number of boat arrivals. That's why, when Rudd announced his Asia Pacific Community dystopia, he said: "In the 1950s, sceptics saw European integration as unrealistic. But most people would now agree that the goal of the visionaries in Europe ... has been achieved. It is that spirit we need to capture in our hemisphere. Our special challenge is that we face a region with greater diversity ... But that should not stop us from thinking big..."

Rudd is a big thinker. He is potentially the most radical prime minister we have ever seen. Right at a time when our environment and social cohesion are broken, he ignores all the warning signs, and thinks big. That's the sign of a blinkered ideologue: a radical globalist. Essentially, he's of the same cloth as the EU visionaries who's modus operandi is to subvert democracy and nationalism with their every waking breath.

20 million sounds too crazy to be true, but the European experience is that the open-borders/regionalisation movement has a momentum all of it's own. Once Rudd starts the movement, it will snowball. Sure, I can't see China opening up their borders. But I can see Rudd martyring our borders to build his dystopia as wide as possible. In Europe, they're now talking about broadening the EU into a Euro-Mediterranean partnership with the importation of 50 million Africans to solve a projected "labour shortage".

This is nothing short of a cult of globalisation. The cult of one-worldness. But diversity and the environment have limits, and we have already exceeded both. There is an urgent need for a political party that values both social cohesion and the environment. I don't see Labor or Liberal as fitting the bill. Abbott may be less radical than Rudd, but really we need a third position to vote for.

In the EU population densities and sizes are much more comparable to each other than between Australia and Asia. It was wrong for colonisation to force up population numbers in Asia and it is wrong for it to force up population numbers in Australia. We do not have democracy and neither does the rest of Asia.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

Thanks Moondance for the important, subtle detail that kept-in-the-dark, or less than politically aware Australians, rarely get to read.

Rudd and his side-kicks knew decades ago about Australians’ population and cultural displacement concerns, but we let the few of them ride collectively roughshod over us. We were made to shut up, wrongly labelled as "racists" (when the correct word is "culturalists") so we were subtly forced to restrain our minds and think according to political directive, or be driven through the courts.

That’s mind control of an entire population. The fashionable word "racism" is conveniently applied in a dramatically accusative context, for political control purposes. As a result, the wishes (and fears) of Australian people, in relation to population numbers and make-up, have been thoroughly trampled upon under the deliberate title of "racism". Anyone who resists cultural disintegration is cleverly embarrassed and quickly shut down under the "racist" label. We saw all this in The Netherlands, the UK and in other places where societies have irretrievably broken down as their prevailing cultures disintegrated, yet the plan is to do it here, regardless.

Election issues and campaigns are electronically entwined. We complain about politicians: "they are only after our votes". Well, that is democracy. Candidates will reflect in their campaign literature the goals that they estimate to be the wishes of the majority. They gear their promises to local population social research. Simple and fast, utilising collected statistics with convenient, fast electronic measuring techniques.

Australian culture should always have prevailed over and above any other political self-serving logic: "Australianism" in preference to the divisive "multi-culturalism". Our political masters are now hurtling all of us towards "globalisation" – code for surrender of national autonomy, national economy, national identity, national culture, trans-border ownership of resources, unrestricted immigration.

When world politicians get globalisation into full thrust, we'll see the biggest war of all - which ego is to be appointed King of the Globe? What are we leaving for our children? Asiatralia?

The rush to displace Australian culture through Rudd's highly questionable push towards another Asia Pacific regional outfit is to further guarantee the Labor immigrant gratitude vote, thus over time and with more “gratefuls” over-populating our previously unique and harmonious society, Labor governments will tighten their grip on all of us.

Social cohesion? It no longer exists. Some fringe areas of Melbourne and Sydney are "outsider" no-go zones where it is neither welcoming nor safe for outsiders like myself. Our family no longer attends Victorian sporting venues because of frighteningly unsocial behaviour, the sale and consumption of alcohol in the immediate vicinity of kids, and in recent years, repeat events of unpalatable ethnic violence.

I don't believe that Australians are “racist” in terms of judging others by skin colour or features. It’s more to do with cultural unease and the uncomfortable, unwanted division that results from forced diversity. If we were all culturally one, then we would all be living inside one huge circus tent, sharing our food, habits and facilities. Would that work? How long before our differing family values would cause one big war inside that one big tent?

Families presently need to live in separate houses for well understood reasons of social cohesion, and as society recommends: take care about who we invite into our homes. Something that can be compared with the present Australian leadership's carelessness on the matter of border control.

On the many occasions when I have frequently been overwhelmed and outnumbered by large groups of different appearance and language, an uneasy "displacement" effect sets in. This feeling regularly occurs on public transport where it is often difficult to see anyone who looks like me, let alone sounds like me. I feel like part of an endangered culture, an outsider.

What I am grieving is the result of careless political encouragement of an exponentially devalued Australian culture. There’s been a noticeable absence at decision-making level of the socially calming notion that our previously harmonious culture was not only worth preservation and development, but that newcomers are no longer expected to survive within it, but rather are not discouraged from forcing their previous allegiances and cultures above ours.

Like so many others, I am grieving comparatively recent offensive disregard for the culture of Australianism that our elders, in their wisdom, believed was a value worth dying for.

So thank you, Moon Dance.

Why is Kelvin Thomson MP the only Australian politician prepared to challenge Chairman Rudd on the social mess being caused by negligent mass immigration?

Rudd has the Lodge and so seems to have no concept of the restrictions of overpriced housing and the burden of mortgage stress on many ordinary Australians.

Before Rudd became PM his obsession with China was evident - having studied Chinese at school then university, having become fluent in Mandarin and spent considerable time in the Middle Kingdom both as student and later as Australia's diplomat before he turned to politics.

Sinophile Rudd's manifesto for Australia to bend over into an Asia-Pacific community by 2020 is an invitation for a Greater China downunder, or does he have visions for a redefined 'Asian subcontinent' here? Rudd is sure to achieve 'free-trade' ideals...but at Chinese wages. Just ask the Chinese union officials (in torture prisons with Tibetan political prisoners).

Rudd in his favourite persona as global stateman, having done his diplomatic tours of duty, considers the EU model applicable for a 'bigger' Australia. Rudd needs to recognise the difference between chalk and cheese and do remedial study in European History 101 and Australian History 101, then list the comparisons, if any.

Rudd welcomes Australia's population forecast of 35 million by 2050. By that time the age old 'spot the Aussie' will only be playable in remote outback towns with our displaced Aboriginal folk.

Where did Chairman Rudd get his concept of a mandate for his unAustralian decolonisation concept? His personal allegiance to any culture non-Australian and his meglomanic determination to displace Australian culture points to him working for an overseas power.

Rudd's behaviour is more akin to being an agent for China than being an agent for Australia.