Hey Malcolm.
I find your conspiracy theory stuff a bit wierd. I,ve had an interest in the population debate for many years now and come to my own conclusions. I,m very much into the environment thing, got no real zeal for for the racial makeup of australia, no great zeal for the debate about how many kids etc , because i was basically of the opinion, migration aside, we,d be fairly stable ? Therefore i think i could probably asume that, like me, most people involved with the SPP actually do come from an environmental platform, or in my case, an environmental / economic platform i,m sorry mate but i dont fit the bill as as some kind of kkk, nazi, fascist. in disguise. Like many "big OZ" skeptics, my moment of clarity came when i first heard the infamous economic statement delivered to government. " we need more babies to support our ageing population". In fairness it was by means of the tax base rather than direct manual labour etc. But really it was an embarrassment. Having said that if you,re into ponzi schemes to run economic policy, so be it, just accept it and be honest about it. I have met quite a few people who phillosophically dont care about future generations, and funny enough i dont have much problem with that line, though its not my thing. Soon after that moment of clarity came the water rationing period, where well intentioned people rationed water due to drought etc. So were they also unwittingly creating capacity for apartment developers. Of course they were. Were they getting hoodwinked by government and developers ? Of course they were. And from there the flaws and deceptions in the whole "growth" model simply become obvious. Throw in the manipulation of world property growth resulting in the "GFC, and well....
Look forward to comments Malcolm.

Cockatoo,

It's weird alright but not as weird as the players behind the formation of the SPP. As they polled less than .2 of the vote, it's all over now anyway.

I worked in the DEEWR labour market unit in Canberra and there is no plan to get migrants in to help generate tax revenues. Some pollies might think that but they are wrong.

The ageing pop is a given and its too late to do much about it now. There will be knock on effects from about 2020-2040 which will cause some economic and social problems but its not a population problem.

hello Malcolm
I.m glad to hear that the DEEWR labour market unit has enough common sense not to fall for the argument of an immigration based ponzi scheme, to support a larger tax base for the ageing population, probably because someone may have actually realized that there is a possibility that migrants, as well as babies, are prone to ageing as well. "in most cases".
How i see it paying for the ageing population is just that . You pay for it. Very expensive? Yeah, quite expensive, but with a stable or sustainable pop growth, you wouldnt need for eg. to spend the $1.5 billion announced last week on the westconnexx roads of the 21st century. which will be clogged anyhow in 15 odd year, nor the bleed of money exiting to banks via inflated mortgages. funny how those banks seem to grow at %7 every year while GDP, CPI. pop growth hovers around %2, or %3. now theres some missing bucks that never visited the economy, and to a degree the tax base. but fair enough with only .2% of the vote, i may as well just get on Tonys' freeways to prosperity.

No argument from me.

immigration will drop back over the next ten years as the economy slows. The ageing pop thing has more to do with intergenerational inequity.

MK