Hi icallmyselfacentristmoderatenoseriously,

Always good for a laugh :)

"Loudmouth, so you want even more boat people to take more land & jobs away from the black-fellahs, nice."

I suggested that, in the future, Australia will need highly skilled young people, and with our birth-rate so low, that would mean that we would have to encourage many of those highly skilled people to migrate to Australia.

If Indigenous people could get highly skilled in large enough numbers, that would be wonderful - along with other Australians. But Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are not getting skilled in sufficient numbers for a future advanced economy.

Certainly, between a fifth and a quarter of young Indigenous adults are now enrolling and graduating at universities, but they can't carry the load - they make up only 2.5% of Australia's population.

Even Indigenous women, who are now participating in and graduating from universities at a higher rate than non-Indigenous Australian men, can't be expected to do the job - there are fewer 170,000 Indigenous women in the country, and the 27,000 female graduates (roughly one in six women, one in four in the cities) are not going to make much difference to the overall Australian picture: we will need at least hundreds of thousands of skilled people, perhaps millions over time.

Boat people were not necessarily highly skilled. The young people that we need will, far more likely, come to Australia as part of our standard migration quotas.

Do you have anything positive to suggest, instead of " .... all we need to do is get young women out of the workforce & on their backs making babies", a proposal which is not likely to be taken up ?

Cheers,

Joe

imacentristmoderate, government debt doesn't itself kill anything. But irrational fear of debt has prevented governments from investing in the infrastructure we need.

And didn't SE Queensland build a desalination plant?

Aidan,

You effectively want to socialise the costs of a big immigration program. Big business and the politicians get the benefits of a bigger aggregate GDP, more customers, higher prices for urban land, good profits from lending the money to buy that land, a cheaper and more compliant work force, etc., but it is the whole of the community that gets to pay the interest on your loans and pay for your desalination plant, which wouldn't be needed without such a big population.

Ordinary people also get the joys of an oversupplied labour market where they have little bargaining leverage, more pressure on the environment, more congestion and longer commuting, higher utility bills, permanent water restrictions, smaller and more expensive housing with less open space, etc. Where is the enormous benefit that would justify all that? Why should we care if Harry Triguboff or the CEOs of the big banks get a few more million apiece? Economist Leith van Onselen debunks the argument that there is a significant economic benefit for the majority of the population

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/08/ipa-urges-massive-population-ponzi/

A vote for the Sustainable Australia party gives you a chance to say no.

Loudmouth,

You are forgetting about demographic momentum. Our population isn't declining. Even with zero net immigration, our population would still be growing at about a quarter of our current rate and wouldn't start to very slowly decline until some time in the 2030s. Economic insecurity, overcrowding, and high housing costs are poison for fertility rates, so these are the problems you need to address if you want more babies. None of them are helped by very high immigration.

http://www.publicceo.com/2013/09/city-leaders-are-in-love-with-density-but-most-city-dwellers-disagree/

See also these maps showing the inverse correlation between population density and fertility rates in some European and East Asian countries.

http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/another-tale-of-two-maps/

One of the most significant drivers of both our estimated resident population and permanent/citizen, is ageing population at about one third of the former and possibly half of the latter.

Accordingly, stopping immigration, both permanent and temporary could well have zero effect.

What is the solution from Dick Smith et al, and their international counterparts? You don't need to read between the lines, as some have been quite open about it e.g. Ehlrich's old mate, John Tanton, i.e. eugenics.

The more civilised and rational approach is using temp turnover to prop up the tax base without drawing on pensions and health care, so that oldies can be cared for.

Andras,

Every time that you insinuate that we are racists or give a damn about John Tanton or eugenics, I am going to raise your economic interest in high immigration.

Andras also posts on The Conversation where commenters have to give their real names. He has admitted that he is Andrew Smith, Education Consultant at Australian & International Education Centre

I found this on his company's website:

"Central Europe and Turkey education & training services and consulting including market development, digital marketing & promotion, recruitment, study application, visa, migration referral, accommodation assistance and marketing services.

"Marketing services & consulting focuses upon digital channels to increase awareness, range, depth and breadth of an institution's potential market.

"AIECS's focus for market development and student recruitment is between Australia, Europe and Turkey (& Turkic Republics)."

Which is more likely? That Andras really cares about racism or eugenics (which are totally absent from the policies of Sustainable Australia), or that he is worried about his income stream?

Attack the messenger, how about the message i.e. facts, evidence and analysis :)

PS I have nothing to hide, who are you Divergence, Andrew Bolt?