I’ve noticed that PPA along with most political parties refuses to publicly state its position on immigration numbers and the resultant effect on population.
Given that this has a huge effect on the environment, housing affordability, wages and unemployment, this really need to be addressed. I know its a hot potato issue that major parties always avoid but it is for that reason it is essential that it a policy is produced if PPA is to be a credible alternative.
Rather than espousing my thoughts I’d rather hear an official policy to see how the mentality of the party leadership aligns with my own.
In general, if we don’t have a policy on something, it means that nobody in the party disagreed with the status quo strongly enough to develop/instigate a policy to change that status quo (and if necessary convince enough other people of their views).
There is certainly some diversity of opinion on this topic in the party; if you search this forum for the word “population” I’m sure you’ll find the relevant threads.
Yeah there’s so many parties to choose from now I’ve had to introduce some sort criteria. At best I’m about an 80% fit for any party’s overall policy, so major omissions are a deal breaker.
It does raise a follow up question: If there has been so much discussion by party members, why hasn’t it been raised at the policy level? Does that mean policy making ignores the ‘lower-downs’ in the party? That’s not a good sign either.
Policy making around here runs on people caring enough about a particular subject to put in the time and effort to build a consensus and draft a policy for it. There’s a bunch of Policy Development Committee trappings to it, but that’s what it is at the core. Any member can get involved. There are no ‘lower-downs’ except in the sense of those who don’t care enough to get into drafting policy. And everyone still votes in whether or not to actually adopt the policy draft at the next Pirate Congress.
So to answer your question: there is no policy on this because there is no consensus of specific immigration numbers and nobody has cared enough to put in the time and effort to draft anything. It hasn’t been raised because nobody has raised it.
From what I have seen there does seem to be a heavy weighting to the opinions of a handful of elected officials here. To the point it appears that certain opinions / issues are off limits. This topic is a case in point.
In theory the party states it is open / equal as you describe but in practice I have observed certain officials effectively squashing dissent.
I’m not sure how you’re getting that impression in this case, although it is of course a good general heuristic: people who are involved more in any group often have their opinions taken more seriously by others in that group.
The only ‘elected official’ in this thread (so far, and of the current batch) is me. From what I’m seeing of the other two threads, everyone’s getting as good as they’re giving.
Which opinions/issues are off limits? Not this one, obviously, because including this thread there are at least three threads discussing it. But you should post the list.
I’m curious, because aside from being against censorship on general principle, I spent a while last year arguing with the previous president on the subject of an Aboriginal treaty. Taking the opposing stance on that issue is what I’d call controversial, but it wasn’t declared off limits at any point.
Threads are absolutely irrelevant if they don’t lead to policy. Anything can be posted in the forums. It means nothing. You’re missing (or sidestepping) the point.
Some policy realms are important enough that they have a dedicated government department.
There is a government department dedicated to immigration.
PPA has been in existence for 10 years and has not formulated a policy.
That is by any reasonable measure a glaring policy omission.
Attempting to justify this situation rather than rectify it, is neither wise nor productive.
Which entirely sidestepped my point rather than bothering to address it.
Maybe the point I made is the CAUSE of the effect you describe. If people aren’t listened to, they will stop participating. And stop voting for you. Not that’s there’s many people voting PPA now. Its between fringe dwellers the cyclists party and rise up australia.
There are obviously some problems here and pulling an attitude with anyone who brings it up will get you nowhere.
I wasn’t describing an effect. I was describing how things function, and indeed how things must function in such a directly democratic organisation as PPAU.
In order for policy to be written, there must be people who write it. It’s not that the PDC ignores the wider membership, it’s that the wider membership ignores the PDC. If members want policy on a particular area, they are encouraged to get involved, write it, and then have it voted on. We can always use more people interested enough to actually put that effort in. And that’s the only way anything significant gets done, with people caring enough to put effort into doing it.
I’m not sure how many other ways I can rephrase this. You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the party is organised.
I’d encourage an immigration policy to be written and voted. That one hasn’t got up is probably because there is disagreement in the party over it, and ongoing discussion. It’s the same reason we don’t have a foreign relations policy.
Having some disagreement doesn’t mean we can’t implement a compromise. So long as the position is reasonable and supported by evidence it would have a strong chance of being accepted by the party.
With National Congress in early July, now is the time to write and propose this new policy as well.