![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The setting up of new and expanded official website has made available more information on this previously little known minor party, its policy stances, and its ambitions to contest state and territory elections, as well as federal ones. I tried to update the page with objective material, without losing useful pieces of information about its past. Sustainable Australia is about to contest the October 2016 ACT elections, though unlikely to win seats there; so a further minor update will soon be appropriate. Marcasella ( talk) 06:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I propose changing the heading "Ideology: Anti-Immigration" to "Ideology: Sustainable, Centrist".
Reason: "Anti-Immigration" seems incompatible with the article's own text, including the section which explicitly states that in attitudes to immigration, this party
"more closely resembles the Australian Democrats citation needed, among centrist Australian political parties, which traditionally sought to keep immigration numbers per year close to emigration per year. Sustainable Australia supports a non-discriminatory permanent immigration intake of around 70,000 persons per year, down from the 2015 level of over 200,000 per year. Its website states that 70,000 is closer to Australia’s long-term traditional average intake."
In fact Sustainable Australia supports annual net migration of 70,000 whereas the Democrats, as stated, have often supported keeping net migration close to zero. Yet the Democrats' Wikipedia page defines their ideology as liberal and centrist, not as "anti-immigration". Marcasella ( talk) 14:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that anti immigration is too narrow and more whilst it may have been fitting earlier when they were the sustainable population party, it seems inaccurate and inadequate now. Firstly upon looking at there website, they have 22 policy areas of which sustainably population is one. Secondly they list four big issues on their website, one of which is a sustainable environment and population. Ideology should be the broad purpose of a party not a singular policy area. That is why I would argue despite their history as a more population and immigration focused party it is clear that their platofrm has broadend and changed. To argue that their ideology was anti-immigration could be fair however it doesn't seem to be their focus any more. Sustainablility as an ideology does seem much more fitting and also can refer to a sustainable population which would still cover this issue. Mitch_Portsmouth1987 ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Newystats ( talk) 04:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Given the prevalent edit-warring over the ideology of the party, it is necessary to reach a consensus over this matter.
I would propose that the following ideologies be listed: Anti-immigration [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], Anti-overdevelopment and Green liberalism. Those close to the parties can try and spin it all they like, but wishing a cut of over 100% per anum to immigration levels is clearly exhibiting an anti-immigration ideology. The major argument against the inclusion of this designation is that it seems to suggest that Sustainable Australia is a right-wing party. Even if anti-immigration was the only ideology listed within the infobox, no justification is required on whether the party is right-wing or not. Sustainable Australia cannot have an anti-immigration policy whilst attempting to hide it because it may seem overly controversial. Regardless, given the fact that the political position and the opening sentence both clearly specify that it is a centrist party, there is no basis for such confusion. Furthermore, the inclusion of anti-overdevelopment and green liberalism paint an accurate picture of the party as whole: a centrist party that is concerned with sustainability and urban development and whose proposed solutions include restricting immigration and catering to market forces. The lede that I wrote provides context for all of these ideologies in a way that recognises the party's major policy and the fact that they have been described as anti-immigration in the media, whilst also stating that the party itself denies such a designation.
It really does take some heavy mental gymnastics to seriously claim that wanting to cut immigration from 200,000 people to 70,000 people each year whilst campaigning on a slogan of 'better not bigger' does not equate to an anti-immigration ideology.
As seen with the articles on the Australian Country Party and Australian Better Families, editors close to individual parties editing articles in bad faith has become a major issue with Australian political party articles. LeoC12 ( talk) 10:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
One Nation is against immigration for the sake of less immigration, while Sustainable Australia is only against a higher population— Agreed. For One Nation, reducing immigration/immigrants is an end in itself, whereas for Sustainable Australia it's a means to an end (lower population). Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
References
@ The Drover's Wife and Cresscoriander: You ar eboth engaging in an edit war on the article, reverting each other's edits back and forth. While neither of you has reasheed the thre-revert limnit, such edit warring is stil a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and so can be blockable, particularly when it involved removing sourced information from the article.
Please each of you post here about what changes you think should be made to the article, and how they are supported by reliable sources. Please do not continue to revert each other until you and other interested editors Are able to form a consensus on these issues. I myself have no view on the merits of any of these edits, but only the intent to promote article stability and avoid edit wars. Also please read WP:BRD, which neither of you has yet followed. Well, we are now at the "discuss" stage, so it is time to discuss how this issue should be solved. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thrashing this out on talkin your recent edit summary on the article. This is not my original idea, Wikipedia:Edit warring says:
It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues.and later
Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page .... Not that a block for continued edit warring is not at all the same thing as a ban.
This is largely unsourced conflict-of-interest-based spin that won't stand. There a couple of actually-sourced things that aren't unreasonable, but it's a large change of which at least 80% is problematic and it needs to be thrashed out on talkI take issue with this entire statement. I haven't added anything that is unsourced. My additions are factual, relevant and sourced. If they are not, please explain how so. I would welcome additional feedback from more experienced editors and experts. Cresscoriander ( talk) 23:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason the article is not called "Sustainable Australia Party"? I know that the party is registered as "Sustainable Australia Party - Stop Overdevelopment/Corruption," a more useful shortening of that should include 'Party' possibly, or else the article be titled its full name? J2m5 ( talk) 07:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I am going to move the page to "Sustainable Australia Party." J2m5 ( talk) 10:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The setting up of new and expanded official website has made available more information on this previously little known minor party, its policy stances, and its ambitions to contest state and territory elections, as well as federal ones. I tried to update the page with objective material, without losing useful pieces of information about its past. Sustainable Australia is about to contest the October 2016 ACT elections, though unlikely to win seats there; so a further minor update will soon be appropriate. Marcasella ( talk) 06:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I propose changing the heading "Ideology: Anti-Immigration" to "Ideology: Sustainable, Centrist".
Reason: "Anti-Immigration" seems incompatible with the article's own text, including the section which explicitly states that in attitudes to immigration, this party
"more closely resembles the Australian Democrats citation needed, among centrist Australian political parties, which traditionally sought to keep immigration numbers per year close to emigration per year. Sustainable Australia supports a non-discriminatory permanent immigration intake of around 70,000 persons per year, down from the 2015 level of over 200,000 per year. Its website states that 70,000 is closer to Australia’s long-term traditional average intake."
In fact Sustainable Australia supports annual net migration of 70,000 whereas the Democrats, as stated, have often supported keeping net migration close to zero. Yet the Democrats' Wikipedia page defines their ideology as liberal and centrist, not as "anti-immigration". Marcasella ( talk) 14:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that anti immigration is too narrow and more whilst it may have been fitting earlier when they were the sustainable population party, it seems inaccurate and inadequate now. Firstly upon looking at there website, they have 22 policy areas of which sustainably population is one. Secondly they list four big issues on their website, one of which is a sustainable environment and population. Ideology should be the broad purpose of a party not a singular policy area. That is why I would argue despite their history as a more population and immigration focused party it is clear that their platofrm has broadend and changed. To argue that their ideology was anti-immigration could be fair however it doesn't seem to be their focus any more. Sustainablility as an ideology does seem much more fitting and also can refer to a sustainable population which would still cover this issue. Mitch_Portsmouth1987 ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Newystats ( talk) 04:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Given the prevalent edit-warring over the ideology of the party, it is necessary to reach a consensus over this matter.
I would propose that the following ideologies be listed: Anti-immigration [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], Anti-overdevelopment and Green liberalism. Those close to the parties can try and spin it all they like, but wishing a cut of over 100% per anum to immigration levels is clearly exhibiting an anti-immigration ideology. The major argument against the inclusion of this designation is that it seems to suggest that Sustainable Australia is a right-wing party. Even if anti-immigration was the only ideology listed within the infobox, no justification is required on whether the party is right-wing or not. Sustainable Australia cannot have an anti-immigration policy whilst attempting to hide it because it may seem overly controversial. Regardless, given the fact that the political position and the opening sentence both clearly specify that it is a centrist party, there is no basis for such confusion. Furthermore, the inclusion of anti-overdevelopment and green liberalism paint an accurate picture of the party as whole: a centrist party that is concerned with sustainability and urban development and whose proposed solutions include restricting immigration and catering to market forces. The lede that I wrote provides context for all of these ideologies in a way that recognises the party's major policy and the fact that they have been described as anti-immigration in the media, whilst also stating that the party itself denies such a designation.
It really does take some heavy mental gymnastics to seriously claim that wanting to cut immigration from 200,000 people to 70,000 people each year whilst campaigning on a slogan of 'better not bigger' does not equate to an anti-immigration ideology.
As seen with the articles on the Australian Country Party and Australian Better Families, editors close to individual parties editing articles in bad faith has become a major issue with Australian political party articles. LeoC12 ( talk) 10:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
One Nation is against immigration for the sake of less immigration, while Sustainable Australia is only against a higher population— Agreed. For One Nation, reducing immigration/immigrants is an end in itself, whereas for Sustainable Australia it's a means to an end (lower population). Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
References
@ The Drover's Wife and Cresscoriander: You ar eboth engaging in an edit war on the article, reverting each other's edits back and forth. While neither of you has reasheed the thre-revert limnit, such edit warring is stil a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and so can be blockable, particularly when it involved removing sourced information from the article.
Please each of you post here about what changes you think should be made to the article, and how they are supported by reliable sources. Please do not continue to revert each other until you and other interested editors Are able to form a consensus on these issues. I myself have no view on the merits of any of these edits, but only the intent to promote article stability and avoid edit wars. Also please read WP:BRD, which neither of you has yet followed. Well, we are now at the "discuss" stage, so it is time to discuss how this issue should be solved. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thrashing this out on talkin your recent edit summary on the article. This is not my original idea, Wikipedia:Edit warring says:
It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues.and later
Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page .... Not that a block for continued edit warring is not at all the same thing as a ban.
This is largely unsourced conflict-of-interest-based spin that won't stand. There a couple of actually-sourced things that aren't unreasonable, but it's a large change of which at least 80% is problematic and it needs to be thrashed out on talkI take issue with this entire statement. I haven't added anything that is unsourced. My additions are factual, relevant and sourced. If they are not, please explain how so. I would welcome additional feedback from more experienced editors and experts. Cresscoriander ( talk) 23:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason the article is not called "Sustainable Australia Party"? I know that the party is registered as "Sustainable Australia Party - Stop Overdevelopment/Corruption," a more useful shortening of that should include 'Party' possibly, or else the article be titled its full name? J2m5 ( talk) 07:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I am going to move the page to "Sustainable Australia Party." J2m5 ( talk) 10:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)