Ludwig:

The rapidly approaching danger that we are now facing is that with such a large percentage of Immigrants now residing in Australia, the balance is obviously becoming weighted towards increasing the Immigration and Asylum Seekers by these same people who are going to encourage more of the same, thus we are facing a snowball effect of increasing population by a changing voting public, rapidly becoming comprised of ethnic self-interest groups!....one only has to look at the Public Notices in the major newspapers and take particular note of the number of applications for persons to practice as a "Migration Agent" to illustrate the extent of an out of control migration industry!

While I think that single-issue political parties are usually a waste of one's vote, they do occasionally perform the useful function of focusing the electorate on important issues. In this case, so long as the mooted 'Stable Population Party' can avoid being taken over by the xenophobic and/or racist ratbag element, they may provide a voice for those voters who wish to express their concerns at Australia's current rapid population growth, which is unsustainable in both ecological and infrastructure terms.

However, I'd rather that the Greens bit the bullet on population sustainability and develop policies similar to those espoused by William Bourke and his nascent political party.

Ludwig, what's your rationale for this statement?

<< As the immigration rate drops, so will the emigration rate. >>

On what basis do you make this claim?

Other than that, I agree generally with the measures you propose.

As i have said before, the biggest problem for this new party will be for them to get their voice heard.

Bob Hawke brokered a deal between the major parties not to debate immigration issues and that still holds. Unless this deal is broken then the issue will be ignored by the majors and any questions simply padded away. The majors have always implied that it is too complicated for us mere voters to understand.

The MSM will go along with their biggest advertisers.

So unless the new party has the funds to buy lots of advertorials then they will find it most difficult.

While it would be nice to keep the debate reasonable, and on economic grounds, I can assure you that the partys opponants will not be reasonable. It wll be claimed that they lack economic sense and have other agendas, anything to undermine your credibility.

Good luck. Best be aware of how the game is played.

CJ
People involved tend to build little power bases and will defend them viciously. Consequently those with the power will not be prepared to take the severe political hit that this policy would have.
They will among other things argue you can't influence parliament if you're not there so why commit political suicide on a principal that will never get up. An you imagine the head lines morgue the Australia Party circa 1968.
This is the nature of the press and people's self interests (see my new post) and your read why.

Ludwig,
The above doesn't mean it shouldn't be done it simply means that there's more to it than just cutting migration.
Sending home NZers finding the overstayers. Working out a way to maintain our economy its built on continual growth with out it we disappear, So the theory goes. It involves cataclysmic change see the movie ZPG.That is token of the issues.

<< “As the immigration rate drops, so will the emigration rate.”

On what basis do you make this claim? >>

CJ, I make this claim on the basis that we currently have an emigration rate of around 80 000, whereas we had a much lesser rate a few years ago when we had a considerably lower immigration level.

It is hard to quantify, but emigration does mirror immigration to a considerable extent. Higher immigration leads to higher emigration, presumably due to a fair portion of immigrants deciding that they like their home country better or a want to try another country of residence after having experienced Australia for a while.

So, as the immigration rate drops, the emigration rate will drop, all else being equal, to a point of balance. I don’t know what that point might be. I’ve tried to sus it out on the Sustainable Population Australia Popforum, but it seems to be an unknown quantity.

However, a total intake of 30 000 per annum seems reasonable to me or a higher level if the point of balance proves to be higher, so that immigration matches emigration and thus takes immigration out of the population growth equation.

I think that the way to approach it is to simply lower the immigration level each year to match the emigration level of the previous year until it evens out.

Now Ludwig, a good scientist like yourself ought to know that correlation doesn't imply causation.

<< Higher immigration leads to higher emigration, presumably due to a fair portion of immigrants deciding that they like their home country better or a want to try another country of residence after having experienced Australia for a while. >>

Are you suggesting that most emigrants are former immigrants? While that could be true, it's the first time I've ever heard it. I'd be very careful about making that assertion without some evidence. Can you point me towards some?

It's not a big deal in itself, however it may point to some pretty rubbery reasoning going on among the Sustainable Population Australia folk.