http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199822)17:3<457::AID-PAM4>3.0.CO;2-F/abstract
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.447
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X05000104
Immigration does not lead to higher crime. If you think immigration had any impact on the crises in Greece and Spain then you have no understanding of the Eurozone or its constituents or the problems it is facing at the moment.
Why are you using the United States as an example, especially when you consider how badly skewed US crime figures are towards the urban poor (also the US has far from an open door immigration policy -- an endless flood of illegal immigrants from Mexico, but they don't want to get caught and deported).
50% of crime in Greece is done by immigrants, 30% of crime in Spain is done by immigrants.
Both Greece and Spain have incredible levels of unemployment among unskilled workers and huge unskilled immigrant populations. It's not the immigrants fault mind you, it's the fault of the people who decided bringing in a ton of unskilled workers to fuel a bubble was a good idea -- neglecting to consider that bubbles burst and then you have to pay unemployment benefits.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/trade_in_agriculture.html
http://www.nff.org.au/farm-facts.html
We can easily accommodate more people agriculturally given the enormous export capacity that already exists and even if we couldn't then there is this magical thing that exists called imports. The concern about big cities is a bit silly and I'm not exactly sure what the problem with having lots of people is if it doesn't cause any kind of strain on other people's existence (which it certainly doesn't):
We actually don't have a particularly large export capacity in our agriculture; we're slightly better off than a net importer (and thankfully most of what we import is from New Zealand). There's no reason to put ourselves into an even higher trade deficit though.
And yes lots of people does cause problems, because infrastructure needs to cope with the larger population (our peak hour traffic/trains are already ridiculous here in Melbourne) which requires money. I don't know if you realise this but Melbourne and Sydney are large cities, even on a global scale -- and most of the bigger cities are highly polluted holes.
I can't read your articles (thanks paywall), but we've been going through a pretty good period of growth in the last 10 years, however there's definitely more unemployment than before -- especially in the tertiary educated sectors where we've educated and then kept a lot of Indian and Chinese students, IT jobs are really tough to find these days (I know people who, despite having good experience, have been unemployed for months -- some of whom are migrants).
Well given that you can't provide any reason to actually stop immigration on any level and given the nature of your actual objections then I don't think that the equivalence is false at all!
Already refuted your points, regardless your logic doesn't hold up. It's funny to think I've helped people practice for their IELTS exams and you're accusing me of being racist though.
Did you actually follow Rudd's term at all? Rudd's policies were indisputably further left and that is why he was lynched in the first place. Factions didn't appreciate how far left he had moved and instigated the leadership spill. (Also I found the bit about you not being motivated by any personal dislike and not being a racist was effectively refuted by yourself in the last part of this quote).
Rudd was ousted because his dumb ass decided to announce a controversial, incomplete policy that successfully pissed off everyone involved in our largest export sector (you may remember he was on track to lose the election at the time) which he completely failed to sell the general public on in close proximity to an election, Rudd was hideously ineffectual as prime minister, virtually nothing got done during the Rudd administration (unless you prefer symbolism over substance).
Gillard administration: Gonski, NDIS, Carbon Price, withdrew troops from Afghanistan, parental leave scheme, mining tax (even if watered down, actually getting it over the line in a hung parliament is nothing short of a miracle), health reform (including the new Dental stuff, which is as far left as you can get from Labor).
Rudd administration: Pulled apart work choices (but didn't fully roll it back), signed onto Kyoto Protocol (without actually ensuring we'd meet the target), distributed a bunch of unnecessary laptops, ridiculously poorly implemented insulation scheme.
I'd argue Gillards administrative accomplishments line up much better with the left. Both administrations had to negotiate with relatively conservative independents and cross bencher's to get anything done.
You're missing a bit between the ears if you think Queensland isn't vastly more conservative than Victoria as a general statement -- plus it's pretty well documented that the Queensland Labor party has been dominated by more right wing elements of Labor.
I'm glad that you think equal rights for gays is something worth fighting for....
It'd be more accurate to say I don't think it's worth fighting about. As a rule, if there's no reason to prevent something and it being prevented personally effects someone, then it shouldn't be prevented.
I think it is absolutely the government's duty to engage with those people who are severely disadvantaged by societal structures be they economic and social (in the case of the poor) or otherwise in the case of the other groups you listed.
The government already provides plenty of opportunity for people who are vaguely capable and willing to put in effort.
No the poor don't have it good here (or anywhere for that matter) and they continue to be left behind by a society with such dismissive and selfish attitudes as you have shown here: "O we totally did NDIS we don't need to do anything else now, fucking welfare bludgers stealing all of our tax money".
I was speaking in relative terms, but lets be honest: most people who are really poor in this country are poor for a reason and it's usually more to do with them than anything else. If someone is unemployed for 2 years, it says more about their efforts and abilities than anything else.
Better paid maternity leave and job security during child birth, equal pay for equal work, abortion reform and less incentive / social and political pressure to adhere to stigmas surrounding womanhood and the roles that women should fulfill would be a good start!
Paid maternity leave shouldn't ever come from public funds, the government should not be subsidising the choices people make.
If you took 12 months away from work for any reason but child birth you wouldn't have a job when you came back, child birth shouldn't be an exception.
Equal pay for equal work is fine, but lets not pretend that because 2 people do the same job they actually do equal work -- some people are more skilled, more productive, work harder, and should be paid as such.
Abortion is one of those things that should be safe, available, and extremely infrequent -- it's a difficult balance to strike.
The role of the government isn't to change our society (as our society determines who is in government).
