AB you're probably not being deliberately dense. You have a family and need to consider their safety.

Nowhere in Judaism or Christianity is the kind of encouragement to violence that Islam’s holy books contain. It just doesn’t. The revelations are completely different. The peaceful sayings are swamped by the enormous amount of violent ones.

God even as a mere idea is the most powerful in history. How can we so quickly forget that?

If AB thinks that by understanding Islam you make extremists. Why do free, well educated, intelligent English boys blow themselves and innocent Londoners up. And middle class Muslims in Indonesia and elsewhere? Osmarmy Bin Lardy is a billionaire!

Why do Muslims, after accepting all the benefits of freedom, social assistance, non-judgment, and pc protection still teach in their Mosques, textbooks, pamphlets that democracy is Satan’s rule on earth? Not because they are persecuted but because it is a tenet of their faith! They are being true to their faith.

In 10-20% of people it will occur to them to act on that in the manner Mohammed teaches.

Its as simple as that. There is no scope within the Qur’an for change. I hope the love of God in Muslim hearts and common sense will reject this 7th century nonsense.

Yet we don’t hear Muslim leaders say “We reject Sharia. We do not will an Islamic State in Australia”. Lies and obfuscation instead.

What causes violence as seen in Aceh is non – judgmentalism, a superficial tolerance. You tolerate something you disapprove of. To be non-judgmental is to approve of everything and hence to tolerate nothing.

If you won’t understand Islam, and instead parrot out one or two nice sounding concepts that are an excuse for thought. What right do you have to hope to lead Australia?

I think AB believes Judaism and Islam are pretty much the same. Would he mind if i voted Green bcz they're p.much the same as the Dems?

I've just pointed to Islam's scriptures. I don't think AB actually read the link. *shrug*

"That's why a stabilised population level is a reasonable (and very achievable) goal."
Andrew, At last, categorically distancing yourself, from such as the Business Council of Australia, on faster population growth forever.
So, no 40 million target by mid century, no urge to rack up our immigration rate should our women follow the lead of their sisters in Spain who thumbed their noses at the Vatican's political dictates for their nation.
Obviously, you "happen to support high migration" still, yet have not produced support for it. Is your personal assessment more believable than the model of CSIRO's Future Dilemmas? That which says:
"The medium populaton scenario (25 million people by 2050, driven by an assumpotion of 70,000 net immigration per year) represents approximately the average net overseas migration during the past decade." ---"The key element of this scenario is the stabilisation of population size after 2050. However, even with stabilisation, resource use and pressures on the environment keep growing due to scenario assumptions of growth in personal affluence, the growth of our export trade and inbound tourism and the failure to implement cutting-dege technology across all sectors."
Yet the knackering of CSIRO continues today. This scenario continues:
"Its key challenge is to move from relative inactivity, into aggressive and positive action on several major fronts. How does the nation enable major investment to proceed while addressing failing marine fisheries, declining biodiversity, and land and water degradation? How do capital cities restrict edge growth while re-inventing urban transport and energy systems to provide low carbon transport and energy services with reasonable equity? How could the nation's endowments of domestic oil and gas stocks be diverted past short-term personal consumption, into capital stocks that produce low carbon electricity and transport fuels for subsequent human generations?"
We have had four years to ponder it. Social, environmental, economic indicators have deteriorated alarmingly since then. Yet you advocate delaying population stabilisation, and increasing human numbers before that happens.
Andrew, you would take us, migrants and all, out of the frying pan and into the pressure cooker.

Senator Bartlett,

You tell us there is no cause for alarm and cite a projection with a fertility rate of 1.6 with immigration occurring around the current rate of 110,000 net immigration. The current fertility rate is 1.8, not 1.6, much closer to the exponential growth scenario of series A that will give us nearly 45 million by 2101 than what you suggest. Whenever they are asked, people say that they want enough children to stabilise the population, even without immigration. Many don't get their wish, often because depressed wages and sky-high housing costs have pushed them into delaying childbearing into their less fertile years. However, IVF has been getting better, and improvements in technology are likely to allow women to freeze unfertilised ova in their 20s for successful use later on. The government is also pushing pronatalist policies that involve big family payments. Fertility could very easily go up to the 1.9 of series A and longevity can continue to increase.

Your scenario also doesn't consider the prospect that the business lobby will continue to push for and get even higher immigration. Lots of nice directorships, etc. on offer for retired politicians. Nor does it consider the migrants that are called something else, such as the people on 4 year visas that are renewed time after time or folk that arrive via New Zealand. I would say we have every reason to worry, especially in view of the problems with the environment and social cohesion that we are experiencing now and concerns about climate change and peak oil.

ANZUS and AUSTRALIA and POPULATION

The best thing Australia could do for both itself and New Zealand, is to identify the decendants those whites who went to NZ at the behest the greedy white capitalists in Sydney who urged 'massive white settlement' in direct contradiction of the Treaty of Waitangi, and urge them to RETURN to Australia. Those who settled there prior to that treaty, can stay.

That would solve the following:

-Skills shortage
-Cultural compatability issues
-Help address the just grievances of the Maoris against white land grabbers
-Build up our own population with the least degree of cultural or religious conflict.

Yep..I think its a great idea :)

Hey, Boaz - David: great ideas for alternatives to current immigration policies. All the whites should have more babies and we should get back all the whites who went to New Zealand after the Treaty Of Whaitangi. Right. I guess you also would encourage all the British descendents who live in Africa to resettle in Australia too. What about language tests for would-be immigrants of non-english speaking background - in any language that is not their native tongue? That would work, too, wouldn't it? And what if we require would be immigrants to face the pork test - they have to eat pork every day until their application is approved? Or require them to take take holy communion - that would keep out the Fenians. I am sure if we worked on it we could think of many tricks to 'preserve our culture'.

Martin Ibn...

have you ever looked after a bunch of kids under 5 all day, everyday for at least a week for no pay! It's one of the hardest jobs in the world!

I checked out your article and I do think there could be some truth in the belief that co-habitation is undermining serious committment and family planning. I know several women who have wasted their time living defacto with men who stated from the outset that they didn't want children, yet choosing to stay with the guy for love and the false hope that they would later change their minds, then only to have the guy leave them for a younger woman who surprise surprise ends up pregnant.

If career women had more support facilities and financial support to have children, I think there'd be more incentive. I like the idea of going to work where a child care centre is actually located in the building so I can drop in on the kids during breaks and at lunchtime, get my washing done there, and pick up some healthy take away for dinner if I need to. One thing that always baffles me is how there is never a child care centre located as part of a primary school or highschool.