"Until you (Bourke) and your party are prepared to take those concerns seriously ... you and your party will not be taken seriously by the majority of voters"

Oh, that's good, belly laugh, I need to sit down...by the "majority of voters".

I'm losing track of how many anti-people partie there are. There are the SA anti-people under Frau Kanck and now there is another group from Victoria? Apparently they met earlier this year and didn't get on at all well. Maybe they both realised they had stolen the racist policies of the Australia First Party.

Isn't it curious that people with names such as Bourke (Irish), Liardelli (Italian) and Kanck (German) now want to stand on our northen shores and push the boats back with a big stick? I'm alright Jack!

Cheryl, a sustainable population is not about being "anti-people". On the contrary, it about surviving our success as a species. There's a cornucopia idea that the planet, where it comes to the human race, can defy the laws of Nature - ecology, agricultural science, environmental limits to growth - whereas other species can't. The worst scenario is ecological overshoot, something that many countries are already facing from environmental devastation, drought, food shortages, the energy crisis, climate change and loss of ocean fisheries. What is "anti-people" is the fantasy of limitless human growth, and ill-conceived notion that technology and science will continue to tweak agricultural production despite loss of phosphorus, soils, water and arable land. Population stability is about limiting economic immigration to keep our population as it is, rather than force growth onto us. Each nation should have a population strategy and be sustainable, not regard immigration as a chance to keep to the tribal cultures of big families. Our high economic immigration should be slashed, and then we could have a more compassionate response to the world's most needy dispossessed. Ultimately we need to have a policy on how may refugees we take in and who, but at the moment asylum seekers are being used as a smoke-screen to hide the real source of our growth - "skilled" migration and family reunions.

Tony B, you seem like a sensible chap.

Look at King's story on Monday and the fact that we are exporting about $60 billion in food every year. Food we got, we've even got the energy to grow and harvest and distribute the food.

Have you ever wondered why we're having this chat? It has nothing to do with population and everything on how data is presented. In 2008 the ABS modified their stats to include overseas students as part of the population.

They then projected A,B and C trends until the year 2050. The newspapers grabbed on to the story that we might have 35M people in 40 years times. Shock horror.

We always knew we'd have 30M. Now imagine the error as international student numbers fall and population growth slows. We'll be lucky to hit 30M. But if we do, so what?

Hi Cheryl, since foreign students stay in Australia from 1-4 years or more, depending on the course of study they're undertaking, why should they be left out of the official immigration figures? Most if not all of the students then go on to claim permanent residency in this country and it is in fact a universally abused backdoor way of bypassing immigration controls.

I agree we need to ensure we also don't exceed our fragile environment's ability to support us. Australia is a big land; but, only the very narrow coastal strip is arguably permently habitable.
We might be able to support more than around 30 million people if or when we develop our vast and empty inland. And that will require reliable water supplies. A big but not entirely impossible ask in the driest inhabited continent on earth!
The people who arrive on boats pale into insignificance beside the numbers who arrive by plane and then outstay their visas. The people that flew hijacked planes into the twin towers arrived by plane, wore business suits, were clean shaven and affable, carried impeccable documentation, spoke excellent English etc/etc.
I don't believe family reunion ought to be a given right; but only available with citizenship and assimilation into the broader Australian community; rather than yet another ethnically based ghetto.
That means they need to accept us and our social mores; rather than seek shelter and then try every which way to change us into a virtual replica of what they were escaping from.
As for skilled migration, let's be certain it is temporary and adds to our skills base by incorporating mandatory apprenticeships/cadetships 2 to 1. In order to ensure that temporary remains temporary, two thirds of any after tax income earned, ought to be retained in a purpose created fund; and only made available when the worker has returned to their homeland, after a maximum period of 5-6 years?
This last requirement, would likely eliminate under payment or quite gross manipulation of temporary migrant workers; as just cheap labour! Rhrosty.

Population growth at the rates we have been experiencing is making life worse for most Australians and it's unsustainable.It creates a more unequal, more stressed society and it erodes the natural environment that we all depend on. So it should be as small as possible.
We've grown by nearly 4 million over the last 12 years (from 19m to 22.9 million) — about the current population of Melbourne. We must slow down.
With balanced migration (and a total fertility rate of 1.9) we could stabilise at 26.2m in 2050.
The question of boat people is important but William Bourke is correct. It's a tiny part of our growth and Australia is one of only a handful of countries that accept refugees from camps overseas.
The UNHCR lists the top five for 2007:
The USA: 32,000
Australia: 6,000 +
Canada: 6,000 –
Sweden: 1800 -
Norway: 1000 –
http://www.unhcr.org/4034b6a34.html
We should focus on those who need our help most.