The long-suffering public have the Coalition and Labor Party racing each other in a scramble to increase Australia's population. Now we have Wait-for-Me-Andrew, carrying the Democrat flag, running hard to catch up.
They all pretend that Australia's existing healthy diversity of cultural backgrounds is deficient. In doing so, they break out the "multiculturism" banner to mask their real intentions. Hiding behind it, they fire broadsides of "racism" at those who try to explain the real agenda being pursued. It has been a very successful strategy - almost all of the hard-working environmental NGOs have been brought to heel regarding population discussion.
However, Andrew has done us a service regarding statistics. The Government schedules a nett increase for this year of about 110,000. In actuality it will be considerably more when the nett pressure from tourism and those areas Andrew has flagged are considered.Whatever their origins matters tiddly-squat compared to the extra pressures they apply to environmental cohesion of Australia's already degraded coastal fringe, and upon the already over-stressed inland landscapes sweating to support them.
Migrants already here, of whatever origins or vintage (50,000, 200, 50, 10 years?), will not have their social cohesion improved from increased population pressure. That brings water shortages, transport snarls, diminished living ambience, and escalation of house prices beyond first-home buyers' reach.
"Given the reality that political parties across the spectrum support a high migration intake, there must be a stop to the dog whistling that reinforces the fears of people about different races religions or cultures." Andrew, be more up-front as to why you joined the population-boost brigade. Is it because you could not afford to alienate the industries which gain great financial benefit from population increase? Those very same ones who are the backbone of political donations to all parties?
Whatever your reason for joining those ranks, it is not because you have the best interests of your own country at heart, or for humanity generally.

There is alot of fear and concern in society but nobody wakes up in the morning and all of a sudden is worried and has fear. People see things, they feel things and they experience things and that is what triggers fear.

Pauline Hanson had alot of valid points as things are not fair. She saw problems in the amount of Asians coming in especially given the way the Education System is set up as it rewards high marks and the Asian culture is to study and get high marks. The Aussie culture is to take it easy and Australians see learning almost as a punishment. The amount of Asians in selective schools and taking the highest places and Scholarships in Universities is excessive and something needs to be done about it. It is grossly unfair. There is no need for Selective Schools.

Then on the other hand there is the issue about the Aboriginal people that needs to be addressed as these poor children are suffering, they are in disadvantaged schools in disadvantaged areas and they deserve better.

There is also the worry about the amount of immigrants on welfare. Yes there is the old “Lebanese back’ saying. Our Government should provide us with the details of the ethnic, or otherwise, background of those on welfare benefits so as to ease people’s concerns.

There is concern about people coming into this country, going on welfare and having a huge amount of babies when they cannot afford them and even if they are on welfare. Australia pays large amounts in Family payments, if you have a lot of kids you get paid a mint, you don’t need to work. This money should be going to our Hospitals and Schools.

There are a lot of issues, some of them are based on beliefs some of them fear and some of them attitude!. Problem is that the Government doesn’t allow us the information to see the facts. It’s all spin. That causes a lot of misinformation, resentment and hostility.

Well said Colinsett.

I would also love to know at what point the Democrats became population-boosters. Under John Coulter, the Democrats were a genuine strive-for-sustainability party. Now they appear essentially no different to Liberal or Labor.

Dr Coulter was one of Australia’s extremely rare truly environmentally-oriented politicians, in keeping with Democrats founder Don Chipp’s ideals. He remains an active lobbyer for sustainability.

I am utterly appalled that the leader of the Democrats is now in favour of continuous unending high immigration. It seems that this stance is not at odds with the Democrats immigration policy. But it has got to be seen as contradictory to their policies on Environment and Heritage.

I don’t suppose I should be too surprised. Afterall, I gave up any hope them being genuinely environmental-oriented shortly after Coulter’s term as leader ended

I am an immigrant to Australia. I am very glad to be here and consider it a privilege now to be an Australian citizen.
From my experience, Australians are an incredibly tolerant and welcoming people. Anyone who comes here should be grateful that they are allowed in to share in the benefits of living in Australia.
From what I can see, most immigrants are hardworking, and equally grateful that they have been allowed to come and live in Australia, and have adapted really well.
Yesterday on Australia Day, I saw people of many different ethnic backgrounds, peacefully celebrating and enjoying the National Day, and getting along well with their fellow Australians.
However, if some are unhappy with Australian society, its culture or mores, its legal system etc. then they should get out, and as soon as possible.
I’m not suggesting that Australia should be like Japan, but at the least, Australia should be able to, and in my opinion has every right to, restrict immigration to people who have the ability to assimilate, if only to prevent the kind of problems that we have seen recently.
How can someone whose avowed intention is to destroy the Australian way of life, and impose another way of life on the majority of the population, be allowed to immigrate here?
This should be obvious, and it is an indictment on the rules and practice of immigration law that it should be necessary to say it.
If the immigrant subsequently proves by his actions that he cannot assimilate, he should be repatriated to his country of ethnic origin.
I agree with the idea about improved settlement services, but I think immigration should definitely be controlled to a number that can be more easily assimilated.
A study should be done by some Universities to discover how many people Australia can comfortably absorb, from a resources and needs point of view, and from which ethnic backgrounds, and then quotas should be set.
This would make entry into Australia a more highly regarded privilege than it is at the moment.

Froggie,
the study re. Australia's capacity in regards to population has been done.
The CSIRO undertook such an exercise on behalf of DIMIA. It goes under the short-hand title of "Future Dilemmas". The Department was not all that chuffed by it.
"Future Dilemmas" is a high-powered scientific structure with a lot of hard, well-credentialed, work behind it. It provides various scenarios relating population size to lifestyles that might be possible under them.
Fundamentally, if we are going to have larger future populations, the desirability of lifestyles shrink accordingly. And even as we stand with present numbers we are living beyond the means of Australian resources to uphold them.
The report was presented before the more alarming aspects of shrinking fossil fuel availability and those of accelerating climate change problems became so obvious as they are today.
Our lifestyles are in a parlous condition, and the population boosters will not face up to this reality.
With shrinking prospects looming for society, social tensions will further escalate. There are no brownie points for politicians who are not statesmen enough to face fundamental realities.

You're right Jolanda,the whole immigration process needs to be a bit more transparent.I heard a story recently whereby a South African family were denied entry to Australia because they had a disabled child.They were business people and had plenty of resources to pay for their child's way.They were even willing to sign a contract indemnifying the Aust.Govt from any medical liabilities.But no,we have 700,000 on DSP created by our own weak kneed Politicians, many of whom have ficticious and exaggerated ailments.

Our immigration programme is an absolute mess Governed by a PC mentality to appease the sensitivities of the United Nations and fear of what the world may think of us.Nations like Japan have none of these fears,they just thumb their noses at any detractors and the UN just cringe and look for easy Western Targets to bash.

We should continue to have many cultures come here,but be much more selective about who we invite.If a particular philosophy of a cultural is at odds with our basic tenants,then we should have the right to deny them citizenship.It is about time we had a lot more debate about immigration since has been another "Sacred Cow" of the left ,that has defied analysis and criticism.

Forget all the PC BS and look at the reality of the existing Australian psyche being able to accommodate the pace of social change.

I believe in evolution,not revolution since the latter pre-supposes that all is existing social/economic structures have no revelance.
We are too eager to sacrifice social cohesion for the sake of economic prosperity.The two are inextricibly linked and we can't have one without the other.