TLTR asks:
"We have this skills shortage despite the high immigration amounts ...I can only imagine how acute it would be if we weren't taking migrants"

I question whether the skill shortage is a deep as it is made out :
1) We’ve recently seem examples where guest workers are preferred because they are cheaper & don’t ask too many questions about conditions & safety.
2) We’ve seen examples where totally superfluous/ unnecessary skills are sought for positions ( the classic example being advertisements seeking a HSC for sandwich hands) -but it’s much more pervasive than that, &
3) We’ve probably all had experiences of working with 'skilled' migrants who turn out to be duds & merely add to the low skilled pool or in a short time the social welfare queue.
.
When you consider the total picture -it may be more economical ( for the nation) to upgrade our own pool of unskilled than import. Importing a worker is not just +1 or a Pandora’s box of flow-on benefits as the pro-immigration advocates would have us believe. If you import a worker , you also import their partner & children, their mother & father ( who in most cases will never work here but will in short order collect social welfare) , ultimately their brothers & sisters & their partners ( & more if they divorce & remarry) & all of them will be entitled to everything you’re entitled to, plus more being more “needy“ or “disadvantaged” [ & then there are the social costs -which may last for generations]…

Be honest, Ludwig, that's all a bit vague and woolly, isn't it?

>>My vision of a stable state is one with a dynamic balance between resource demand and provision where the overall extent of demand is well within the ability of the environment to support it<<

It's a theory, I suppose. But how does it translate into real life?

More specifically, how will we know that we have reached this stable state?

The problem with your theory is that you are - quite naturally - unwilling to contemplate the full spectrum of consequences of the actions you need to take in order to bring about your "stable state".

>>...reducing immigration to net zero or less<<

Less than zero, Ludwig? You are prepared to export some citizens in order to achieve your goal?

Interesting. How would you do this? I'll let you into a secret, we don't have a convenient railway line that will take them into Poland.

>>What would you like to see us do with respect to immigration Pericles?<<

I think we have the balance about right at the moment. It certainly doesn't appear to have done any harm to our economy, which seems to be bounding along even with the intake of new blood that you seem to think is excessive.

Do you not accept that this economic growth might be "because of" this intake, rather than in spite of it? They seem to have accepted this in the US, where moves are afoot to make 800,000 Mexicans, presently deemed illegal, US citizens.

People come here to improve their lives. They tend to be honest and hard-working, as immigrants over the centuries have tended to be. They pay taxes, contribute to the economy and the vitality of this country.

It is fair to say that the numbers should not get out of hand, but a sensible number that enhances our economic performance and thus provides a more secure future for all, is not unreasonable.

>>I question whether the skill shortage is a deep as it is made out <<

Horus, I can only speak for the IT industry, where there is an acute and growing shortage of talented software developers.

The dilemma that this presents us with is actually quite interesting. Do we say, the heck with it, and outsource software development to India, the Philippines or China?

Or do we encourage those talented folk to emigrate from their native land, and make their homes here? Instead of us paying their employer in Bangalore or Shanghai, they will live here and contribute to the local economy with their taxes and their general economic activity. Buying stuff.

We gain the benefit not only of better-controlled software projects, but an increase in the depth of local know-how which puts us on a more competitive footing with the rest of the world.

It's only one small corner, but I'd prefer to see a net inflow of IT skills, than watch our home-grown talent disappear to lucrative opportunities in Europe and the US, forcing us to import "finished goods"

Before any immigration programme is started we need a population goal and our major political parties have neglected this. They have played politics, by promising family reunion and so on, to gain the ethnic vote and at the same time allowing high immigration to satisfy the big business demand for increased sales of consumer goods. Business gets a growth in sales without having to compete with each other and cares little about a drop in our living standards because of over crowded cities.

We, the electors, should demand that the political parties put forward a population policy which we can asses. Consideration of our living standards, resourses and infastructure have to be made. It is plain crazey to keep bringing lots of people in without a goal in mind.
What should our population be? Tim Flannery says 10 million and Malcolm Fraser says 50 million. All aspects have to be assesed.

The place to start is with a population goal. Then tailor our immigration to suit.

One thing for sure. We will not solve the worlds population problem if we over populate here. Our economy will fail as in other countries. We cannot help other countries if we are not viable.

In relation to importing skilled workers. What right do we have to go poaching other countries skilled workers. Most countries that we get them from need them far more than we do. We should have an obligation to train our own. I see this as a failure of our Governments and business. Great, but unfair, if businesses can get others to train workers and then snavelle them.

It is well beyond time that the whole matter was looked at closely

Pericles wrote:
"Horus, I can only speak for the IT industry, where there is an acute and growing shortage of talented software developers."

Perhaps Pericles might cast his mind back a year or two when the immigration of Information Technology workers was undermining IT wages and destroying the incentive for Australians to pursue a degree. This also had a flow on effect in damaging undergraduate training in Australia.

http://www.brainbox.com.au/brainbox/home.nsf/$all/3925E0D68069441CCA257138004586F5?opendocument

I have a problem with free trade advocates as they generally desire to profit from the contango of living standards between nations. The Australian IT industry provides a good example of how the system works.

Pericles I don't know why you think there is a shortage of talented IT specialists, in my experience there is an oversupply of IT professionals.

In 1999 Alexander Downer was happy to be quoted recommending IT jobs be offshored to India.

In 2000 only 20% of IT graduates were able to get employed in IT. The Sydney Morning Herald will not permit this information to be published in their pages or on their blogs.

In 2005 Evan Thorley the joint founder of Looksmart who is now a Labor senator in Victoria said that IT professionals should get over it, all IT jobs were going to be offshored.

There are enough studies that show most Australians have to work longer, spend more time commuting for the same pay as they would without immigration.