SA Greens want fewer South Australians

"What we're saying is that stabilising population growth needs to be a statewide target. It's not up to the Greens or anyone else to say, 'here is the policy'. We don't want more people, we want to stabilise the population." This is disingenuous. Then why have a population policy?

There are five general anti-population legislative measures to reduce a states ecological footprint:

1. Reduce 457 visas, New Zealander visa, working holiday visas, family reunion visas and refugee migration to South Australia.

2. Reduce welfare to families and mothers who have more than two children. This plays in to the hands of those on the right who think the welfare budget should be wound back altogether because it's full of 'bludgers'.

3. Slash the international student intakes to zero. That's a shame as they bring almost $1 billion in revenues to South Australia and directly and indirectly employ 7000 locals as well as keep our three main universities alive. International students are the state's fourth largest service export.

4. Reduce tourist numbers in to the state and most certainly in to our national parks.

5. Create an instrumentalist state to measure and ration our utilities, petrol and food to reduce our individual carbon footprint. So if granny has her heater on at night because it's nippy, she can expect a call from the Green Guards in the morning. And they won't be wearing a koala suits.

While I agree with the Federal Greens on the need for a climate change policy – although they voted with the Coalition against the emissions trading scheme - their position on many of these issues is inconsistent; in fact, it's bewildering.

The SA Greens and the Federal Green Party want to increase Australia's refugee intake, but cut back on skilled migrants. In her 2010 Twitter feed SA Green Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, said "Compassion is key to any discussion of population growth".

So if you are a refugee fleeing persecution, then a 'Green government' will embrace you. But if you are fleeing something as banal as poverty, economic hardship, low wages, a lack of opportunity or jobs, or if you're just looking for a better life for you and your family - then the door to Australia is closed.

The SA Greens are right to claim that South Australians have a relatively high carbon footprint. We have a large smelting works and other large industries here, some of which are in decline.

What they fail to mention is that those on the lowest socio-economic rung – and there are many in the suburbs 20 kilometres north and south of Adelaide - produce the lowest carbon emissions. In an ideal SA Green world, there be as few South Australians as possible and the poorer the better. I do not think this is their intention.

The SA Green's adoption of sociobiology represents instrumentalism and reductionism at its worst. So if your train is packed full of people, it's the fault of over-population – not that there are too few trains running. If you don't get that important job, it must be because a migrant took it. If it takes you an hour to get to work, it's because there are too many people – not because every single person is driving a car.

I fear the Greens miss Bob Brown's guiding hand.