The population debate

AS THE election campaign grinds on, the focus has turned to the population level now and into the future.

To discuss Australia's future population, net migration has to be addressed too.
Julia Gillard uses language like 'a sustainable Australian population’, Tony Abbott advocates deep cuts in the migrant intake and now the third party of choice, The Greens, have released their population policy which mirrors the ALP policy of a sustainable population.
The question has to be asked why we need such a high migrant intake of over 300,000 migrants a year.
Big business demands skilled migrants to supplement their work force.
Greens Leader Bob Brown questions this need for such high numbers of skilled migrants, citing the fact that big business is failing in its work force investment: "It’s the big end of town that has been winning in the immigration debate. Bringing in skilled immigrants instead of investing in developing the skills of our own people is a cheap way for business to get the skilled workers it needs."
Mr Brown also cites the lack of investment in education, training and skills formation, something the ALP likes to champion as one of their strengths in government.
He blames what he says is business’s reluctance to pay its taxes for the lack of resources for public investment in skilling our current and future workforce.
With unemployment levels for the 18-25 year age group above 20 per cent, can we advocate higher immigration levels at the expense of our younger generation?
The Greens have provided a third choice in Australian politics by moderating the party’s past radical ideology, claiming that they will be able to work with either side of the Australian political environment.
Food for thought.
PS. Has anyone heard from Patrick Secker? An election has been called after all.
ANDREW KASSEBAUM
Winkie