Glaring policy omission: Immigration numbers

Uhhhh, we’re the “pirate” party.
It’s right there in the name.


I think we’ve gotten to the point where need to break down some understanding barriers. I just came by this thread (I get email notifications) and to be honest, your reception to what others have given you so far is perceived as being on the aggressive side. Sure, that’s perhaps not what you intended, but if you feel you’ve been misinterpreted/misunderstood etc, then take a step back for a moment and stop coming across as someone who is antagonising us. Take this as you will, but keep in mind that the Internet/reading text is notoriously difficult to distinguish intent in one’s dialogue.

To answer your question, one of the first locations you can check is our wiki page that shows our policies. I don’t know if we have exactly what you want whether for or against, but the best available information I suppose we do have for you is “Asylum Seekers and Refugees”. If you deem it not entirely or at all satisfactory, you are more than welcome to contribute to improve on it via the PDC, as others have pointed out. The PDC exists for this purpose.

Otherwise, if there’s nothing in the wiki, @alexjago’s first reply to you is essentially how we would stand universally on all issues.

You’re pointing fingers, but not showing what you’re pointing fingers at, so this claim is uncalled for. In the meantime, if you have issue with this sort of thing, best to raise to Party Management for attention.

In the 3 hours between you starting this thread and this post I’m quoting, you’ve not submitted on here anything that resembles what you want in such a policy. Your aggression here has demonstrated you in position of irony, and quite frankly, we don’t appreciate people who get all uppity about things they don’t like and don’t appreciate that we might simply not yet have the (or a) answer that they want and without having submitted anything of their own for proposal.

Please act more civil and objective focused in future. If you maintain the above attitude, you’ll not find camaraderie here. If you do otherwise want to things to be taken seriously, I’ll refer to the others of recommendations for you to partake in.


I for one support open borders… those with capital already have open borders, so the idea of border control is entirely classist.


You failed to acknowledge some really basic issues with open borders.

Those with capital are paying for themselves.
For those without capital who arrive, are you going to pay for them?

This is just plain dumb economics, but if you want to advance more ideological agendas, then you need to find ways to pay for them too.

Does open borders really mean we have to pay for people to come? That sounds like horseshit to me. How about we stop imprisoning immigrants? How about we welcome people instead of turning them away?

Maybe if we stopped paying other countries to imprison our immigrants we could afford something like that?

1 Like

I don’t think you’ve read our existing policy.

Read that, then rejoin the conversation.

People with sought after skills are allowed to immigrate for work reasons regardless of capital. Doesn’t sound very classist.

The function of border control, as I understand things, is twofold. To prevent a tragedy of the commons situation, and to prevent foreign cultures overrunning the native one. Both of these are things I approve of so I’d rather keep border control in place, thanks.

Refugees are not immigrants. There’s an important distinction in that the former category are forced here, whereas the latter category could have stayed where they were and actively choose to come here.

1 Like

Braindrain policy is just as classist as moneydrain policy.
And I wasn’t even talking about refugees, people “actively choose” to immigrate in the same terms that people “actively choose” to work jobs they don’t want - under financial/survival duress.


When I joined, the Libertarian side of the Party put me off a bit. Lately, that aspect seems to be growing more extreme. Extremes tend to fail. That’s making me rethink my membership.

Libertarianism is among the least credible of political philosophies. To paraphrase one acquanitance:
Some “isms” may have crashed and burned, but Libertarianism failed to launch.
Going to extremes of something that hasn’t even managed to get to the point of failing doesn’t bode well for the Party.

1 Like

Please take this to another thread, or take it up with the DRC/NC. You’ve threatened to leave the party once before on this subject, so you’re basically trolling now.

The point of libertarian belief is NOT to take over governments and impose itself on everyone. That would be oxymoronic.

The point is to reduce government interference with people’s lives wherever possible, and that has to happen from within existing power structures.

No topics are really off-limits, with the possible exception of renaming the Party and in that case pretty much everyone weighed in at some point. It’s now considered off-limits precisely because everyone weighed in and there’s no real value to be gained by resurrecting it.

I’m not sure there’s really much in the way of quashing (or squashing) dissent, but there have definitely been some quite heated debates regarding a number of issues.

As for the role of certain office holders within the Party, remember that it is a very small Party by comparison to the four most well known and thus there will inevitably be a lot of overlap regarding both policy development and running the Party.

Those people are generally the ones who feel strongly enough about any given issue to weigh in and either have or make the time to do something about it. In doing so they have, no doubt, honed their own arguments regarding their position on any given issue and that may come across in discussions here.

I know it certainly has in my case, just as I know I don’t necessarily feel as strongly about every single position or issue the Party tackles. Including, by the way, this one (though I do with related issues, such as the asylum seeker policy).

1 Like

This is off-topic. Apologies for the minor crisis following:

Nonetheless davidb’s usage of “libertarianism” varies widely from how I understand the term to apply. Having read his Quora post I would assess it as a refutation of “liberalism” instead.

Have I gotten something wrong?

Having indulged in a quick search of the wiki I failed to find an acceptably (to me) detailed definition of the term as agreed by the Party and this apparent omission further concerns me.

I would appreciate a pointer to such definition if it exists — and may have to reassess my own situation if it materially differs from expectation. In short are we all even aiming for compatible ends — otherwise further discussion is rather pointless?

1 Like

I doubt it. @davidb’s Quora post is fairly non-specific and so it seems likely that he, like many people, takes the term libertarian to only apply to the libertarian right. This is most often epitomised by American libertarians and advocates of Ayn Rand. Over here you’ll find that lot skulking around the LDP.

There are multiple ways to refute the libertarian right, including @davidb’s Quora post. Though as you rightly point out that could also be an argument against liberalism, perhaps in the form envisaged by my grandfather and others in the wake of WWII when they joined under the leadership of RGM to form the party of that name.

Yeah, that’s one of the many skeletons in my family’s closet. :wink:

I don’t think it necessarily tracks with the libertarian left, which is more like the term bandied about here. Though it didn’t take off as an alternative name for our party, Brendan was right about it being a reasonable description of the politics of many of the people in this party.

1 Like

You probably don’t recall but I was one of those radicals back then who liked “libertarian left” as a possible name.

Thanks for alleviating my momentary panic. I think somewhere we ought to have a carefully worded glossary of agreed terminology ferreted away somewhere though.

1 Like

As Policy Development Officer, I can tell my personal view on immigration is the level should be restored to the 70-80k p.a long term average, and tied into some sort of planning index. The current rate does not meet what I perceive to be a good cost/benefit tradeoff, and I believe such a proposal strikes a good balance and compromise.

Australia does have a population report type document produced by the PC that I have seen, and it is recommending that population policy be formally developed and tied into relevant factors.

Why is there no PPAU policy?
As has been pointed out, there is wide spread opinion on the subject. However to date no policy has ever been developed or put to a vote, so no one can really say which way the PPAU base leans.

The real underlying issue is like many things in life, if you want something done you need to get it done yourself. I’m busy putting in time to develop policy areas which are of my interest and expertise. I’d like to see such a policy developed and would support its development, however I do not have enough resources to do it myself.

Other members need to step up and put their time where their fingers are. You can’t build significant influence in life generally (including this party) unless you get stuff done. The only factor limiting policy development and membership input in this party is participation (including human resources).


Any sort of general policy on reviewing immigration levels can be developed. Although if you wanted a specific proposal that put a number on it with the best compromise of the membership, you could try surveying the membership with a poll that takes the median estimate of what PPAU members support. Evidently for those who support open borders, some sort of limits of e.g. 400k+ would be necessary to prevent such a result being skewed by infinity being included in the sample.

Alternatively you could develop a policy with evidence and arguments to sway people to your view as a means of repositioning that median estimate so enough people will support it. And selling that policy to the membership before a vote at congress.

Personally I am willing to settle for any net number between 50-100k, provided there is some sort of framework and the number is subject to regularly review.

You mention no limit. From that, I infer that you see no limit to the population that this island continent can sustain in perpetuity. Is that the Party’s policy?

So was I, but ultimately I thought we’d lose more than we’d gain from the name change and through the perception of “selling out” in some quarters.

In fact, I think we’ll be able to see what would have happened if we had changed the name by watching what happens with the so-called Reason Party and how far it shifts from the values originally espoused by the Sex Party before Fiona Patten was elected here in Victoria. Expect a shift more to the centrist and generically “progressive” stance over the next few years until they fade into mediocrity.

Though I will be interested to see if they challenge the Greens for Richmond during the state election at the end of this year. Especially if the Greens don’t dump their current candidate for that seat, Kathleen Maltzahn. This is yet another case of the Greens being more interested in being seen to be good rather than actually doing good, with as poor a candidate selection as that time they selected Clive Hamilton. That was based on his climate change credentials, while being oblivious of his pro-censorship stance (which also make’s Hamilton’s current complaints of being censored by China more ironic than either Alanis Morissette or I can express).

It’s currently in storage along with most of my library, but I did used to have a copy of this on my desk at all times. Though I think my copy was a reprint of the first or second edition.

If you have something that provides access to this, however, it will no doubt be quite nifty. None of my library cards include a subscription to it, unfortunately, and that includes both the Victorian State Library and the National Library of Australia. Camberwell Library came close, though (recognised by the network, but no subscription to Oxford).



1 Like