Talk:Sustainable Australia Party

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, 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)


 * Their central platform is drastically slashing immigration, hence, anti-immigration. Trying to use "Sustainability" to describe that is puffery. Your claims about the Democrats are questionable to say the least. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please be careful of that sort of political rhetoric. It could make it impossible to offer useful Wikipedia pages on any party that arouses someone's political passions. You personally may believe with total sincerity that Australia's rapid rate of population growth is no genuine threat to sustainability, but many eminent bodies and persons have asserted the contrary, including the Australian Academy of Science and the Australians of the Year, Tim Flannery and Dick Smith; so this Party's view that limiting immigration should be a legitimate part of a wider agenda of sustainability is at least arguable.  A basic point of fairness is that the account given of a political party's policies and position should correspond to that stated in its official policy platform (on which see https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/policies) unless we editors can offer cogent and objective evidence that these are not in fact the party's policies. I have restored the changes, describing the Party's ideology as Sustainability and its political position as Centre, because this is an accurate account of its stated policies.Marcasella (talk) 14:51, 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)
 * This confuses taking a claim from the party's own website at face value, with wiki-trusting sources describing the party's ideology.

Newystats (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ideology in infobox
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   , 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)


 * Thanks for starting a discussion to sort this out. I'd agree with all three of those - however, the GLW and the Facebook sources are not WP:RS and the Meanjin source, even if it were regarded as one, doesn't really add anything here. The link to their policies and the SBS article are sufficient in my book. I'm not in favour of the attempts to spin it otherwise. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * They still say they want some immigration, and in any case it's clearly not ideological that they are against immigration. Something about development needs to be some actually common label. Green liberalism is fine but I really must stress that it's clearly not their ideology to be against immigration. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * One Nation also say they want some immigration, and no one is arguing with that descriptor on that article. It also doesn't make sense to say that it's not "ideological" - it's their founding reason for existence. That their reason for (as you acknowledge) being against immigration is different to One Nation's doesn't mean that it's not their ideology. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know if we should be saying it there either, but being against immigration is ideological for One Nation. Labor also wants to reduce some categories of migration, would we say in the infobox they are anti-immigration too? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Being against immigration is ideological for both of them, but Sustainable Australia was literally founded on the basis of campaigning against immigration. Something doesn't become "ideological" only when the far right do it. The Labor example is not relevant as their position is far too nuanced to be described as "anti-immigration" in any context. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There's clearly too much nuance here to associate Sustainable Australia with One Nation. If there was a label that wasn't as negative then that would be appropriate to use, but in the absence of that we should leave it to be discussed in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't object to leaving it out (obviously, I took it out), but I'm not sure why it's seen as negative as just an objective statement of their views. Sustainable Australia themselves are evidence that anti-immigration positions are not necessarily far-right, so I'm not sure why it's being assumed that it carries that association. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The connotation is about being against or disliking migrants, which is more appropriately characteristic of parties like One Nation according to reliable sources than it is with Sustainable Australia, of whom it is really about population growth and not even particularly immigration, and certainly not about immigrants. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * But Sustainable Australia are anti-immigration, not anti-migrant, and that's what this is about. Those two things are not equivalent in any context. It's also not a justifiable position that their policy is about "population growth and not even particularly immigration": they have no substantive policy measures about decreasing population growth except through immigration. Refusing to refer to explicitly anti-immigration parties as anti-immigration for the sole reason that they're not on the far-right is an NPOV violation. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with The Drover&#39;s Wife – there is a hesitancy to label centrist parties accurately with their promulgated designations. Sustainable Australia, previously named the Sustainable Population Party, was literally created out of the populationist movement seeking to restrict immigration. Having its immigration policy in its current form is a microcosm of the entire party, which ultimately bases all of its other policies on a 'sustainable immigration'. I agree that Sustainable Australia is a nuanced party, but then so is One Nation; the well-written and detailed lede, accompanied by the 'centrist' designation in my view accurately describe the sense of the whole that the party possesses. Having an anti-immigration ideology is fine, but Wikipedia should not be afraid to call it out and accurately display it despite attempts by others to conceal that.LeoC12 (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To put it at its simplest, One Nation is against immigration for the sake of less immigration, while Sustainable Australia is only against a higher population, and that necessitates lower immigration. When it comes to ideology we should be looking at the reasons why they support what they support. Their immigration policy should be very prominent in this article, it's just not their ideology. This is definitely something better explained in the article than the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:41, 10 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)
 * Being "against a higher population" is inherently anti-immigrant from Sustainable Australia's point of view since they do not propose terminating the existing Australian population, but rather limiting immigration. The party is anti-immigration through and through, an ideology that far-right parties (like One Nation) do not have a monopoly over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoC12 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit war
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 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)


 * This article has had long-running problems with COI editing and attempts to install the official party line over other sources, of which is just the latest round. These kinds of interventions with no interest in the actual content at issue are unhelpful. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit warring as a way to control COI editors is unhelpful, and against policy, as I should think you would know, . Reports at WP:COIN or WP:ANI, or even a little talk page discussion would be more helpful, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you reverted again, although at least you explained your revert in an edit summary, and called for talk page discussion, although you haven't yet posted any about this revert, . I am therefore not blocking at this time, but a slow edit war is no better than a fast one, and further reversions without talk page justifications will incur blocks. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Threatening long-term users with bans for attempting to stop organisations from writing their own articles is just disruptive behaviour in the extreme. This kind of behaviour is exactly why so many of our articles on topics prone to self-promotion are bad and keep getting worse: if "I want to promote myself" and "you should not promote yourself on Wikipedia" are seen as equivalent perspectives and editors forced to try to convince editors who want to promote themselves not to (as if that makes the vaguest hint of logical sense), editors will invariably just give up. In terms of impact on the encyclopedia, this kind of administrative behaviour is one step short of just doing the paid editing yourself - after all, if you're going to fight so hard to make paid editing easier and stopping it harder, why not benefit from your actions? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel that way, . I do not regard trying to insert promotional or biased content as equivalent to taking it out. However, edit-warring is not an acceptable tool for removing COI content, unless it is at the level of blatant vandalism, which this does not seem to be.  There are other tools, and I have pointed to some above. You yourself called for  in your recent edit summary on the article. This is not my original idea, Edit warring says:  and later . Not that a block for continued edit warring is not at all the same thing as a ban.
 * Since you think my actions here are disruptive, I am going to ask others to review them. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Treating removing self-promotional material as "edit warring" and to be dealt with in the same manner as a content dispute is ridiculous and absolutely part of the problem. Who wants to keep this stuff out of articles (which has been a problem, at some stage, on basically every Australian minor party article, let alone the colossal issues in the project at large) when this is the admin reaction? If you don't want ordinary editors to deal with this stuff (because god, we'd rather not), you're very welcome to step in and spend your day politely requesting that self-promoters maybe not self-promote while not using any of the tools at your disposal to propel that along a bit, yet strangely enough I don't see you volunteering to take over from us with these people. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi All. So recently I made some edits to improve the page including adding some new headings, moving current content under more appropirate headings eg. moving accounts of historical happenings under the history heading, adding the policy summary from the Sustainable Australia website (similar to the Science Party page). All of which I explanined in the edit summary. TDW then reverted my edits with no explanation, we went back and forth and then after a warning she posted the following rationale: I 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)
 * You just said a large part of the problem yourself: you added the policy summary from the Sustainable Australia website. We use neutral, independent sources on Wikipedia: political parties don't get to add their own spin to their articles. That it exists in the Science Party article is reason for it to be removed from the Science Party article (and more evidence of everything I said above about how stopping this stuff being incredibly tedious leading to it sprawling all over the place, because everyone wants to add their own spin). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are aware, but a political party's policies originate from the political party itself. The ultimate source of truth in regards to a party's policies is the political party. A political party's policies may objectively be the most interesting and relevant thing about the party. I know you like to brand all edits you don't like as 'spin', but how is a sourced and accurate account of a party's policies spin? you may not like the policies, but they are in fact the policies of the party. A party's policy platform may change over time, so perhaps it might be reasonable to say something like 'these are the policies as at x date', or these were the policies brought to x election, and then you could track how they change over time or something similar. If someone (or hopefully multiple people) can sensibly explain to me why it is inappropriate to have a summary of a party's policies on its Wikipedia page, great, I'm listening. But, you have reverted all my edits not just the policy one, could you please explain the rest. Thank you.Cresscoriander (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A neutral, well-sourced summary of a party's policies is fine. Taking a party's desired spin on themselves from their own website not so much. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I still do not agree with you, I will leave out the policy summary from the party's website until we have further input on this page and can reach consensus on it. As to the other edits regarding moving things under appropriate headings and formatting, I will revert them back as you have not mentioned any issues with them.Cresscoriander (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Name
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)