Good to see the Stable Population Party or is it the Sustainable Population Party of Palestine? You get the Monty Python ref. These two are at each others throats in Adelaide. Must be an election happening next year.

Actually the overseas migration estimate for the year ending 31 March 2012 was 197,200 people - 18 per cent higher than that for March 2011 (166,800 people), when net overseas migration reached a four year low. About 170,000 is right.

People who worry about population are really worried about people, which makes them odd and very turn of the century. They also tend to make sweeping statements about cutting immigration, not feeding hungry people and getting down and dirty with some mild boggling antidemocratic policies which truly belong online and not in the material world.

Factor in that we export more food than we know what to do with. We can generate more power well in to the next century or longer (don't mention brown coal). Water is always a problem but the Greens won't let us build dams.

The anti-population parties will certainly garner some far left and right wing votes but they are more of a sociological phenomenon which rises up every 50 years or so when change rears its head. Its the only political party which wants fewer Australians to vote year on year because it will legislate for fewer Australians.

So we have a PM who is against a big Australia. But she is leading a government that is taking us directly towards a big Australia with a vengeance!

In the two and a half years since she made it patently clear that she is against a big Australia, she has done nothing to swing her government away from facilitating record high population growth.

I am sure that Gillard was genuine when she denounced Rudd’s big OZ. I’m sure she would dearly like to steer the country towards a ‘sustainable Australia’, as she put it.

I can’t help thinking that she brought Bob Carr; long-time stable population advocate, into her government with this in mind, and that she allows back-bencher Kelvin Thomson free rein to speak against population even though it strongly appears to be against Labor doctrine.

But she is presumably completely brick-walled from taking any real action by the manically pro-growth all-powerful big business lobby, which really controls the government and the country.

You amaze me Luddy old mate, to believe Gillard was genuine.

I doubt even she doesn't know when or if she is genuine any more. She has told so many lies, so damn often, she can't have any idea what she said, when, if it was a good thing to say, or if she meant it.

You should volunteer as an advisor for her, if you know what she means, perhaps you could tell her.

I have no doubt that she was genuine, Hazza.

She had no reason to come out strongly against Rudd’s support for a big Australia. While it might have resonated with lots of ordinary folk, it would have clashed with the economic rationalists’ and vested-interest pro-growthers’ wishes, both of whom Labor is in bed with!

I think that there is a genuine desire amongst many in Labor, if not in the Libs and as well, for a much lower rate of immigration and the achievement of a sustainable Australia. But they are just completely under the thumb of big business.

I see this as the critical issue. We absolute must divorce government from big business. We need to ban political donations, which really are favour-buying bribes, and do whatever else we can to make government independent of the vested-interest push for constant rapid expansionism.

If our government listened to the majority view of the ordinary voters out there, they’d cut immigration tomorrow, and progressively reduce it to net zero or something close to it.

And if we could get the immigration rate right down, we'd be 90% of way towards achieving a stable population.

If we continue with the present lunacy of mass migration from non European countries we will be nothing but a chinese satellite by 2050. That is a simple fact. We were never, ever asked if we wanted this to happen to us; it is a tacit agreememnt between the major parties and anyone who criticises it is deemed a 'racist'. By 2050, there will still be Africans in Africa and there will still be asians in asia. The white population in Australia, however will be in decline and a minority in our own country. If any other cultural or ethnic group were threatened with extinction our politicians and academics would be screaming 'Genocide!'. This hypocrisy astounds me. Can anyone explain it?

Cheryl “Actually the overseas migration estimate for the year ending 31 March 2012 was 197,200 people - 18 per cent higher than that for March 2011 (166,800 people)”

Yeah, let's increase immigration 18% every year! Great idea!
You realise that actually ends up DOUBLING in just five years (compound interest, darling).

2011: 166,800
2012: 197,200
2013: 232,600
2014: 274,500
2015: 324,000
2016: 382,300

Real sustainable!

“People who worry about population are really worried about people, which makes them odd and very turn of the century.”

Who'd worry about what people migrate? Aren't they all interchangeable?
You can just take all the Mexicans out of Mexico and fill it with Zulus, Tibetans and Finns and it will magically still be “Mexican”!

“mild boggling antidemocratic policies”

Like citizen-initiated referenda?
Which would put an end to our insane immigration policy quick-smart!

“Factor in that we export more food than we know what to do with.”

Salinity? What salinity?

“We can generate more power well in to the next century or longer”

Wow! One more century, then lights out!
Immigration levels will only be 3,035,839,338,100 per year by then.(18% increase p.a.)

“Water is always a problem.”

Only because we keep increasing the population, while the rain remains the same.
Stupid rain, keep up!

“a sociological phenomenon which rises up every 50 years or so when change rears its head.”

Yes, change is always good.
Unless you're Marie Antoinette, Ernst Röhm, the Dalai Lama, a White South African farmer or a native Fijian.