![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
b_auspolSUSTAINABLE AUSTRALIA PARTY - STOP OVERDEVELOPMENT / CORRUPTION
https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/
It’s time for the NIMBY party! Sustainable Australia were formed in 2010. Their original name was the Sustainable Population Party. They have one member in the Victorian LC, thanks to preference deals in group voting tickets that election. They think of themselves as centrists. The WA branch of the party only got itself registered last year, in preparation for this election. So they’re new kids on the block as far as WA state elections are concerned.
Sustainable Australia are on my shit list for their stupid name. It’s not the MOST stupid of the election but it’s pretty bad: all caps with a slogan included in the name. They have form for particularly stupid names: you may recall during the 2016 federal election they were using the name #Sustainable Australia, yes with the hashtag. It’s always a bit hard to take a party seriously when they are changing their name every election, trying to find a way to get that edge. It’s both cynical and ridiculous.
Okay, enough about petty things that irritate me, on to the policy platform.
Sustainable Australia Party is an independent community movement from the political centre, with a positive plan for an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable Australia. We believe in a science and evidence-based approach to policy - not an extreme left or right ideology.
And let me say right now as a woman who’s spent enough time around the atheism and skeptism scene: wow does that ever smack of the sort of white guy New Atheism where I get things explained to me like I’m stupid. “You should be smart enough to know I’m only following the evidence! Be sensible!”
Of course science and evidence bases for policy are sensible. That’s why we have expert advisers! But when people start waving that around as a banner cry, there does tend to be rather an overtone of “if you don’t agree with us then obviously you are being illogical and emotional”.
Sure, I’m happy to talk about science and evidence based medicine and climate policies. I am going to have issues when you start talking about science and evidence based population limits.
(If you think I’m making a wild leap here, let me point out that Dick Smith joined the party in 2017. If I’m reading too much into this it’s for a well founded reason).
The campaign issues that Sustainable Australia are focusing on for the WA election are: Protect Our Environment; Stop Overdevelopment; and Stop Corruption.
In terms of environment they think WA needs to better manage water security (sure, everyone has a water policy, theirs is lower wastage and fairer water rights), they want “a properly enforced national biodiversity and native species program” (Sustainability! Stronger planning laws against land clearing, more habitat protection), and climate change action (this has an outline of the emission reductions they want, which is a step down to 100% no emissions by 2050, more renewables, ban new coal mines and fracking, carbon pricing, plant based diets, and of course, “lower population growth”).
Rather like some other small parties, Sustainable Australia has never met a problem they can’t tenuously link to their pet hobbyhorse. And their pet hobbyhorse is “fewer people in Australia”. They’re not racists, they say, they just think we need fewer people, and so the best way is to limit immigration. (This is still racist, might I point out, as “have fewer kids” and “less immigrants” is almost always specifically a dogwhistle or interpreted as a dogwhistle aimed at sections of the community that are not white).
Their next angle is “stop overdevelopment”. They want improvements to WA planning; and from what I know about town planning, it’s a system that always gives everyone headaches, because it’s complicated, it involves balancing a multitude of interests, and there is definitely the stench of money talking. The specific suggestions are: ‘proper’ community consultation ‘including citizen juries’ – by which I assume they mean a panel of locals to approve development proposals?; providing infrastructure to developments before new housing goes in; and “lower state-driven population growth targets”. This infuriates me no end. The consultation? Sure, getting the local community better involved can be a good way to get community buy-in about the shape of their area, though it can also turn into an exercise of NIMBYism. Yes, there is absolutely an issue where newly planned suburbs and estates frequently are just masses of housing without the service infrastructure needed for those homes like shops and daycare centres and schools and parks and public transport links and so on, and trying to minimise that is absolutely worthwhile. (Though I will note, it can be a bit hard to say build a school THEN build the housing around it; I’m more into ‘plan and build simultaneously’ for infrastructure). And then of course we get to “state-driven” lower population. Uh. No. I don’t think the government should be trying to regulate fewer people to live in an area.
Other overdevelopment issues are about the intersections of various environmental locations and planned developments. These include stopping a hotel development on Gnarabup Beach, stopping two river dam projects, stopping urban sprawl in the Perth Hills and stopping a marina development. And look: I’m sympathetic to communities who think that outside developers are coming in and destroying their community/landscape, and at urban sprawl going so far that it’s not properly serviced and commutes are ridiculous. There are clearly many reasons the local communities don’t like these particular projects (and I tend to always be on the side of “more water down that river please”). But this also just adds to the NIMBY feel of the party. It’s not something you can look at in isolation.
The “stop corruption” slogan is about political donations (particularly secret or undisclosed donations), about secret planning board decisions that are not explained, and “stop foreign ownership of our housing, farms and land”. Absolutely I am on board with stricter limits on political donations: limits on how much can be donated and the sources that can donate would not harm politics in Australia and may in fact improve them somewhat. I get the appeal of concerns that council planning and town planning decisions are not properly consulting the public (though I often suspect this is more ‘don’t feel heard’ than ‘wasn’t heard’ but I’ve railed at enough idiotic decisions around my way too). The third trips me up. Do I have concerns about foreign ownership of land and housing? Yes, somewhat: I’m solidly mid-millennial and do not own property, and part of the reason for that is the market is so expensive. Less competition over housing ownership to foreign investors might bring prices down a bit. Additionally, in terms of farming, there is a perception that some large international land owners care less about water usage and appropriate crops/farm techniques for the climate and the land. But I have to say: there is always an undercurrent of racism whenever this issue comes up, and that troubles me. That implication of “Chinese investors buying their way into Australian citizenship”. Absolutely I think it’s better that land and property owners are residents and/or familiar with the community they own the land and property, because they will understand local concerns more. But I don’t like the implication of “outsiders go away”.
The extended policy page has a lot of policies, many in nitty gritty detail. I’m only going to call out some of them.
Their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy is to provide the resources to meet the Closing the Gap targets, to provide greater employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (“including those that facilitate an ongoing relationship with the land and natural environment”) and “more rigorously protect and recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts and culture”. And I’m going to call them out on this, because what I’m looking at here, once again, is a policy that seems to have been written without talking to a single member of the community and just whiffs of paternalist overtones.
Now, they link to an ABC article about the destruction of Juukan Gorge in talking about “protecting” culture, so there is at least that indication of what they intend, but it all seems very “let’s protect them”. It’s not engaging with the current conversations around Indigenous issues at all, and I know that, because there is nothing here about a treaty or constitutional/state recognition. There is no engagement with Uluru Statement from the Heart. There is nothing about issues with policing and incarceration or Black Lives Matter. There isn’t even “we do not have expertise but will consult with Indigenous community leaders” here. It’s “we think you would like jobs that involve the land, right?” and “I feel bad that Rio Tinto blew up a heritage site”.
No, sorry, I shouldn’t be reading your policy and wondering if you mean “I feel good when I buy art” and “I am upset that a heritage site was destroyed” versus “don’t destroy sacred sites” and “don’t steal Indigenous art designs – pay artists” when you say “protect Aboriginal arts and culture”. Especially when I suspect you mean the former not the latter.
They want better gambling and pokie controls to decrease the chance of gambling losses and a gradual decrease in pokie numbers in the community, community consultation to stop further casino developments, and less sports betting. I support this, sounds perfectly reasonable.
In their health policy, Sustainable Australia claim that an aging population is not causing a “big threat to the sustainability of our health system” (gosh they love talking about sustainability everywhere). I’m slightly sceptical. They link to an article on a Grattan Institute report that says costs are going up, but because the quality of treatment has increased and is therefore more expensive. Now, I may be wrong here, but I also believe that currently we are looking at a larger percentage of the population being over 65 over the next few decades, which is also going to affect things, not just because we are using fancier and more treatments. I am absolutely for a fully supportive public health system and believe we should in fact be investing more money in it! I just think we also need to be open eyed about the fact that said system does cost money, but it’s an investment in our community that is worth spending more money on, because communal bargaining gets better pricing. Sustainable Australia are very into promoting healthier lifestyle choices, such as bans on junk food advertising and a sugar tax. They want universal access to free contraception and reproductive health advice (hell yes). Treat drug abuse as a health issue and support users with rehab (sure). Better mental health services (always). More investment in medical training and cost-effective medical technology (seems reasonable). “Support scientifically proven quality 'natural' or 'alternative' health care.” (Okay this is where I get crotchety, because the scientifically proven versions of this stuff is ALREADY STANDARD MEDICINE, or it is possibly helpful, non-detrimental things like massages or yoga or melatonin and some more sleep. Things that make you feel better and your doctor is already happy to suggest/prescribe to you. Much of the rest of it has absolutely no good scientific evidence and will never get any, because it doesn’t work). Finally, Sustainable Australia support vaccination and increasing vaccination rates. I don’t think we have any anti-COVID-vax people here.
Sustainable Australia’s environment policies are extensive and fairly progressive, looking at water, animal and biodiversity, climate change, finite and non-renewable resources, forestry, waste, and other topics. I find myself considering most of the policies fairly reasonable and common for an ecologically-focused party… right until we trip over the “lower population” that they put at the bottom of every single policy. It jars me and irritates me. I get it! You think there are too many people. But just like “hey that sounds antisemitic” is a reason to back off on that conspiracy you have, even if you didn’t mean it to sound that way, “lower population” sounds racist, even if you didn’t intend it to sound that way.
And then we get to their Sustainable Population and Immigration policies for both Australia and the world (yuck). Sustainable Australia don’t like high immigration. They don’t like high birth rates. They want to cap our immigration at 70,000 per year plus 14,000-20,000 refugees (which is around the max refugee numbers we already accept annually). This is down from a normal annual immigration quota of 200,000 per year. Gosh, the COVID border closures must be Sustainable Australia’s idea of heaven. They want free contraception to keep the birth rate down (uhhhhh folks that’s a creepy reason. I would have thought “to allow people choice over their own reproduction” is a far better reason). They don’t like the Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement, because that’s scary extra immigration that is not included in our immigration cap (never mind it’s NEW ZEALAND. Our populations move in both directions, Sustainable Australia, and NZ have their own, similar, environmental concerns). They want to review all the immigration programs, including “Reducing working rights (hours per week) for unskilled and semi-skilled foreign students in order to increase job opportunities for Australia’s lower socio-economic demographic, including youth looking for entry level job opportunities.” I am sorry. What? You want to take away some of the already precarious number of working hours international students can work? This is not affecting Australian job opportunities. Many of these workers are already horribly exploited and underpaid, and instead of trying to fix that, you just want to make their lives harder? Heck no. Just like the fruit picking dilemma at the moment: the problem is not that local workers think these jobs are beneath them. The problem is these jobs are often exploitative, underpaid and lacking in proper conditions. Fix the jobs offered rather than complain that Australians can’t get them.
Oh Sustainable Australia also have a good half a webpage explaining why sustainable population is not racist, and that they are attacked by both sides of the political spectrum for wanting this. Just a hint, from many years of minor and micro party experience: any time you feel the need to write a whole page explaining why the public perception of your platform is wrong, actually you don’t hold that view...maybe stop and think about why people keep believing that you do. This holds true for Sustainable Australia, for Health Australia Party claiming they’re not actually antivax, for the Citizens Electoral Council’s page explaining why your neighbour is brainwashed about Lyndon LaRouche, and so on. If the general public looks at one of your policies and consistently makes the same assumption, maybe you should work out why they think that. It might meant that you need to do a lot of education on your position and why that’s not true. It might also mean that you are desperately special pleading. Hoofbeats are usually horses, not zebras.
Any Predictions?
Yes! Sustainable Australia Party will blame immigration.
At this point I haven’t seen any outright comments about immigration causing COVID, but that’s because I can’t be bothered scrolling back to March 2020. I have no doubt they fully believe the border closures and no immigration have protected us from the scourge, however: it’s a popular view.
Is this party trying to kill me?
Sustainable Australia don’t want to kill me or anyone else. They’d actually quite like to protect the environment. They’d just like everyone to stop having babies.
Is this party trying to harm me?
As an Australian citizen, Sustainable Australia are not out to harm me. But I can’t help but feel their policies are harmful for my friends who are on visas, as they’re generally implying they would rather my friends weren’t here.
Conclusion:
I’m going to be blunt and rude. Sustainable Australia always read as a bunch of slightly out of touch kind racist boomer NIMBYs to me. They want change! But at a pace they’re comfortable with, where they don’t have to encounter too many new or challenging ideas. Their issue sets always read as if they haven’t bothered running them past the nearest under 45 year old in reach – they don’t HAVE positions on the ‘cool’ or currently trending issues. They haven’t heard of intersectionalism. They’ve got that whiff of being a bunch of ageing tryhards. On the upside, their environmental and healthcare policies are generally good, as is their concern in trying to ensure there is less government corruption. The issue is that everything, but everything, comes back to their belief that there are too many people coming to Australia. On the downside: if you have to write a whole article about why you’re not really racist, you might need to face the fact that you appear pretty damn racist to outsiders.
On the basis of their opinions on health and the environment, I would consider that they deserve a look in somewhere central on your ballot, but I cannot endorse them any higher than that. They are certainly less dangerous than the swarm of right wing populists, but I'd probably feel more comfortable with them being around Labor on my ballot. And quite possibly below it.
