Ludwig, I apologies for lumping you in with Divergence. His is an all together different order of obfuscation. Having re-read your posts I am most discouraged by the fact that the argument is never really advanced and a great deal of time and space is spent in tit for tat type responses.

I did not argue for first past the post election modes. I think that is possibly the worst of all options as it inevitably favors the big two at the expense of smaller but in my view worthy options such as the Greens. My post actually said we should have a system of proportional representation and if you agree with that I would be delighted.

I am a she, not a he, James O'Neill. Exactly what obfuscation are you talking about? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! I support stabilising the population, as the Australian Academy of Sciences did in 1974. You are the one pretending that this is not under government control, even though our fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976. If agreements have been signed, as with New Zealand, under very different circumstances, then they can be unsigned. Yes, bad economic circumstances overseas might bring a flood of expatriates home, but that can be adjusted for in the intake in future years.

For really masterly obfuscation on this issue, however, you need to look at the Green's population policy.

http://markoconnor-australianpoet.blogspot.com.au/

For intellectual dishonesty, Ludwig, this is neat.

>>Now, how’s this for a doozy of a contradiction. You say:
"I was under the impression that it is an opinion forum"
And then…
"…you frequently write a heap of unmitigated rot"<<

If you had a modicum of honesty, you would have cut'n'pasted:

"...in my opinion you frequently write a heap of unmitigated rot"

... which is hardly a contradiction, is it not?

But it does at least demonstrate how this game is becoming completely silly. More evidence here...

>>I take it Pericles that by your non-mention of anything further about cutting big business out of the loop, you have conceded...<<

I concede nothing, of course, only that you continue to illustrate the futility of attempting to discuss any of the points you raise.

>>...you demonstrate complete intolerance of any opinions therein expressed that are different to yours<<

I can only assume that by this you mean "if you don't agree with me, it means you are intolerant of my opinions". Of course I tolerate your opinions. I just don't agree with them, that's all. Sheesh.

So, enough of the tit-for-tat, as James O'Neill aptly describes the conversation. I have said all that needs to be said about my opinions on "a bigger Australia", and also on your diversion into voting processes. Have a great day.

@Divergence. Impossible to tell that you are a woman from your nom de plume. If you had the courage to use your own name it would remove one, albeit small, factor from the general confusion of your comments.

If you bothered to read what I actually said at the outset you will see that I did not say what you attribute to me. My point, and it remains a valid one, is that of all the various components of population change, which are both increase and decrease factors, the component that is seriously amenable to government intervention is actually a very small component of the total. Even then there is a time lag.

Your total inability to understand even the most basic of demographic principles means that you cite studies you manifestly do not understand, and rail against those population components such as migration and refugee flows where you prejudices dictate your arguments. Neither is a particularly sound basis for debate.

Of course you can use your real name, James O'Neill, because you would never dream of saying anything politically incorrect, so need have no worries about reprisals in the real world.

Let's test your claim that "Very little is actually amenable to effective direct government intervention."

According to the ABS, population growth is currently running at 1.6%, 58% of which is due to immigration. The rest is natural increase, partly due to births to recent migrants and partly due to demographic momentum among the longstanding residents.

According to the Immigration Department's Fact Sheet 20, there are 190,000 immigration places (not counting New Zealanders), 68% of which are for skilled migrants (entirely at the discretion of the government). The rest is for family reunion, but the only categories that (rightly) cannot be capped are for partners and dependant children, i.e., the government decides on all other relatives. If skilled migration were reduced, this component would also become smaller, as would the component of natural increase due to births to recent migrants. The humanitarian component is insignificant, only about 13,000 places. You could keep this program even with zero net immigration. (For 2010/11 (Fact Sheet 5), (claimed to be) permanent emigration was 88,461.) Net New Zealand settlers were 44,298 for 2011/2012 (agreement could be abrogated at the discretion of the government). No one has claimed stabilisation could be done instantly. This is a straw man.

It is clear that the vast majority of the immigration program, the most important cause of population growth, is "amenable to direct government intervention." Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are lying. Which is it?

@divergence. I use my own name because I stand by my arguments, right or wrong, not because of your stupid allegation of political correctness.

You stil fail to grasp the main point. Migration is not a singular concept. It covers a wide range of categories of which only a relatively small proportion are amenable to direct government intervention. There are also consequences of policy intervention. Your casual claim that skilled migration could be significantly reduced further betrays your fundamental inability to grasp the wider economic picture.

As to your final question, apart from being a false choice is simply offensive. I was a professional demographer for many years and published in peer reviewed journals, authored books, and contributed to others. I was also a consultant to the UN and to several European governments. I will put my credentials against yours any day of the week.