I agree that there is a lack of rational debate about immigration policy. But the policy basis for 'regular' immigration is set out quite clearly, with four defined purposes, on the Immigration Department’s website and it is easy to judge whether it meets Conrad Liveris' call for a bigger picture. I think it does.

On the other hand humanitarian immigration policy is much less clear, even lacking an articulated overarching purpose. As I have said here before, there ought to be one and I suggest it be something like 'Australia offers refuge to those in greatest need'. From that humble start I reckon a lot of detailed policy could be developed, especially by the bureaucrats who ought to be familiar with the global refugee scene. But one thing is certain. A heavy influx of boat arrivals would neutralise any humanitarian policy designed to assist those in greatest need. The much maligned policy of ‘stopping the boats’ is in reality one aspect of a sound humanitarian refugee policy

<< Why are we not talking about the suitable level of immigration? We seem to be avoiding it. >>

Well Conrad, we’ve been talking about it on this forum for years.

<< Immigration brings with it too many opportunities for us to assume it has but one dimension. >>

And a whole big swathe of problems.

Conrad, for one who is...

< working in business development and policy with a focus on gender equality and intergenerational issues. >

...you don’t seem to be bearing a single thought of intergenerational issues in this article. In fact, your article is very narrowly focussed indeed.

The biggest issue of all regarding our current rate of immigration is that it makes up some two thirds of our very high rate of population growth…. on a largely arid and semi-arid continent with poor soil quality and erratic rainfall…. and which already has a big enough population.

Very high immigration generates an enormous demand for evermore basic infrastructure and services, which existing residents pay for, and which does NOT improve the quality of life for pre-existing citizens.

The economic activity that is generated by immigrants is +/- equal to the demands that they create. It DOESN’T lead to overall improvements for our whole society. Not now nor into the future. But it DOES make us ever less able to achieve a sustainable society.

We CAN have a MUCH smaller immigration intake, of about net zero, and have a considerably increased refugee intake at the same time. THIS is what we should be striving to achieve. THIS would be the best balance between heading towards a sustainable society, which is of CRITICAL importance, and being a good global citizen by way of doing our bit to resettle some of the world’s most desperately needy refugees.

continued

Conrad, I hope that you can see the need to consider this sort of stuff when discussing immigration, rather than just rather blithely viewing our very high immigration rate as an entirely good thing… which is the underlying theme that comes through in your article.

Your article is titled ‘A call for the big picture’, but there is scant little in it that suggests that you can see anything like the big picture here.

Judith Sloan correctly noted that Australia has a well-functioning migration scheme
Conrad Leveris,
Judith Sloan must be hiding somewhere away from the present goings-on. Australia HAD a well functioning migration scheme.

Well, if we could but relocate all of Israel to these shores, and into a large empty mid/north western Australia, where the Mediterranean climate and conditions, would make them feel completely at home.
Incidentally, this would resolve most of the stated reasons for conflict in the Middle East!
Not that that would necessary bring actual peace, given common thugs, brigands and cold blooded compulsive murders, would find other targets and other reasons to continue to brutalize their own women and children; each other, and spill as much or even more blood!
A new Israel, would give the ultra wealthy Jewish world, huge reasons to invest here and in it!
These people are proven innovators, who have already made one desert bloom.
And their military might and inventory, transferred here, would make us doubly strong and virtually self reliant!
We would have to consult with the traditional owners, and make a very strong economic case, for transferring title of a rather large slice of land to new immigrants. Who have always been made very welcome by traditional owners! Or perhaps, all we need do, is transfer the title of a couple of cattle stations and their water resources, and then call that, New Israel?
We will one day not too far ahead in time, cease to be a minerals exporter, and need to have a strategy, to grow a modern successful exporting economy.
And one which produced the cheapest energy, and the lowest tax system, (all very doable) would involve huge compulsion on the part of many peoples, and perhaps even whole nations, to relocate here!
Rhrosty.

"what do we want Australia to look like?"

There will never be serious discussion about immigration, because people like this author really don't want to hear an honest answer.

When our irresponsible, destabilising, absurd intake of millions from any and every culture brings about a civil war, you'll get your answer.

The people left standing.
They're what we want Australia to look like.