Dear mhaze,

No I am not wrong about Howard though I did get my later pm terms slightly out of kilter.

I employed this spreadsheet;

http://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/historical-migration-statistics.xls

I used the year after each was elected since they had little influence in the figures for the financial year they took office in and I did not include the refugee figures or special eligibility as they are different to direct migration.

Thus for Howard I used the 1997-98 figure of 65272 and 2008-09 figure of 171143. my call of 'tripled' was not quite justified but close.

The 2008-09 figure of 171143 also serves as Rudd's kickoff figure then the next 2 years there was indeed reductions from that figure in 168222 and 168268 respectively.

I will concede there were some increases under Gillard but no where near the dramatic increases under Howard. We are currently planning to run at around 190,000 which is far too much however I also concede the current figures of actual migration visas will be well under that due to changes within the 457 pathway.

By By Mr Ute gate, but by by too to Liberal party as we know it, the emerging right of reality faction has been at work for near two decades and it finally emerges from its moth stage to split the Liberals if not forever for a very long time, true Liberals, now in a minority never the less are as Howard showed, the side most likely to get voters on side.
Dutton, IF he is found under section 44 is it? not to be able to be in the house will have broken some thing that did not need fixing, for at least another few months

SR,

I used the same spreadsheet data from Home Affairs. But I used the data for "Permanent Additions" (sheets 2.1,2.2) whereas you used the data, I think, for "Permanent Migration". We could argue about the merits of each but my point is made either way.

You were wrong to say that immigration tripled under Howard.
You were wrong to say that immigration fell under Rudd/Gillard.
You were wrong to say that immigration increased under Abbott.

So, wrong on every assertion you made. But apart from that, spot on.</sarc>

If I were you SR I'd avoid numbers like the plague.

Oh one last point. I couldn't find any of the exact numbers you mention (eg 65272 ) on the spreadsheet and neither could the Excel find option

Dear Is Mise,

Get off the grass mate. With your figures you are making the claim there was less than a doubling under Howard.

The proper treatment of the figures show it was very close to a tripling. I certainly was lazy when I took a figure in the 60,000's and then called 171,000 as triple it. But triple is far closer to reality than 'less than double'.

When I get the time I will be interested to look at the permanent figures along side the 457 intakes and well at the investment category.

Anyway the fact still stands, the migration momentum was propagated under Howard and there has been no concerted effort to dial them back since from either side. It needs moderating substantially.

I will say though I never mind having my figures challenged. Proper data should always underpin discussion and if mine are lacking or weak or don't support my contention because I have assessed them on the fly then you every right to pull me up.

Sorry, that should have been mhaze.

SR,

You're claims were wrong. You were asserting that all the increase was due to the Libs via Howard and Abbott. That, as you now admit, was wrong. The increase began under Howard and continued under the revolving Labor leadership. It declined under Abbott.

You got the numbers wrong and the trends wrong.

But apart from being utterly wrong you were right.

"I will say though I never mind having my figures challenged."

Good. But whether you mind or not, I will always check claims that don't make logical sense.