The debate about what's an appropriate level of immigration for Australia continues. Last week, prominent demographer Abul Rizvi who generally supports population growth, pointed out the practical difficulties of reaching 160,000 net without a lot of corruption and exploitation in this IA report Business groups call for higher immigration 'facile'. Is this a sign of the middle ground widening up and the 'big growthists' becoming the 'go hell for leather crew'?

I commented, "Rizvi's breakdown is helpful. The video is fear-mongering 'those that we know are experiencing the greatest impact [of skilled emigration] are in agriculture, horticulture.....' and he goes on to say EVERYONE! No mention of ways to retain our talent here like better pay and conditions (not to mention making housing affordable). But Rizvi's explanation only shows how going over 160,000 NOM is pragmatically very difficult. It has nothing to say about the effect on global carbon emissions, local environmental and urban amenity impacts, wages, employment and government debt. None of this helps to change the culture of opportunistic self-interest."

We're still under 1,000 signatures. We need a lot more to make an impact on a Senator to have him or her present the petition to the House. Please share it and sponsor it! Thanks! Simon