<<The exasperated, overtaxed public is stumping up for $1.3billion pa or thereabouts for the ABC, so what about some value for that money?>>

I totally agree Beach, $1.3 billion, and neither you or Jim Saleam can get 5 minutes of air time to push your respective political ideology. Outrageous!

Fox,

That is a lobbyist for increased migration and migrant benefits. It is a small office in Canberra.

As an example, it is presently pushing for the partners of Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) visitors to be provided with training, counselling, development and English tuition to work. What proposals wouldn't require largesse from the exasperated, over-burdened Aussie taxpayer?

As if it isn't pushing for more migrants. Is the Pope a Catholic!

While on that subject, there is already a scam where migrants partner up with defactos who also wishes to take advantage of a free pass to Australia.

Parliamentary reports in the UK and Australia have shown that while migration benefits the migrants themselves the same cannot be asserted for the public of the host country.

Then there is the problem of sustainability.

Australian government reports show that young workers and young couples cannot afford the children they planned for. It has been that way for years now. All because they are already loaded down by:

- high taxes and user pays to build the lagging infrastructure for high population growth that only suits the big end of town and political parties after the migrant vote in swinging seats;

- loss of job opportunities, including loss of the P/T jobs they used to be able to avail themselves of while completing education;

- user-pays charging (taxes) for their education and training; and

- the extra demand of 200,000 pa migrants (plus relatives) and international students ramping up housing prices and rents.

Now you say that your lobbyist wants to increase migration by 25% to 150,000pa!

Who pays?

Amendment

That should be 250,000 not 150,000, an extra 50,000 pa.

otb,

The Inter-General Report provides a snapshot of
Australia in 2055. It tells us that permanent
migration intake which was increased significantly
during the mining boom is reviewed each year in
the context of the budget to reflect evolving economic
and social circumstances. If you were to Google
Australia's Immigration Guides and Information
you would find quite a few websites on the subject.
According to studies and reports - a flow of new
and younger workers is needed to ease the pressure on
an ageing population as the country will need to
support a larger number of older Australians who
cannot work.

Net overseas migration was 224.300 in the year to June 2014
and will climb to 257,000 in 2018 according to the
Department of Immigration and Border Protection's latest
figures.

It is now up to you to get the facts that suit your views
if the ones that I have provided are unsuitable for you.

I shall leave you to it as for me this discussion has now
run its course.

Fox,

You sidestep and ignore the facts and argument put to you and Google for more irrelevant bumpf instead.

However the fact remains that young working Australians and especially young couples who want children are constantly being disadvantaged by, and forced to pay for, large-scale migration.

That is the unexplained reason, the elephant in the room, why there are so many abortions involving young working couples in their twenties up to early thirties. It was never contemplated that there would so many young working people for whom the hope of having the children they want and planned for, keeps bounding away like a kangaroo, year by year. Simply because they cannot afford to have them.

Bring in even more migrants instead you say, a 25% increase and an even bigger load for young working Aussies.

So again, who pays?