This 'Jobs and Skills' Summit is sending us straight back onto the Big Australia hamster wheel

If Reps and the teeming cheer squad adore big population growth, are there any pertinent organisations to pick up on humble voter concerns? To my mind, there are four notables. Each is different and worth a look.

These are the Sustainable Australia Party , Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) and Australian Population Research Institute organisations, plus the business-investment blog MacroBusiness.

MacroBusiness disses the Summit's contempt for voters. While SPA has made a short submission to the Summit.

For "more Australians to get ahead", SPA urges low net migration, to stabilise total population below 30 million. As it happens, manic Rudd still argues for 50 million.

Lower population, argues SPA, benefits "environment, carbon emissions, housing affordability, infrastructure congestion and wages growth".

To which I add: Backing new fossil fuel projects, land clearing aggressively, planning a probable 40% population hike, at once falsify any Labor legislation for "net zero' emissions by 2050. Think about it, Teals.

SPA invites the Summiteers to consider its list of points. Notably, "most Australian citizens" (including, importantly, most settled migrants) don't want population growth.

Net immigration shouldn't exceed "60,000 to 80,000" a year, with a similar taper for permanent visas. At that rate, and with local birth rates low, our total population might gradually stabilise over some years.

For SPA and others, high immigration is visibly no solution to the "skills shortages" touted the past 15 years by the business lobby.

The "world's healthiest economies" disdain fast population growth, making Australia a chronic outlier. High population growth might have been the go, to rebuild after World War II. It's steampunk these days.

Me, in the 1980s, I was the Employment official in charge of occupational demand schedules for skilled migration. So, I do love the endless silliness of today's Home Affairs skilled occupation lists.

But seriously, I also back the SPA line on skilled migration. As SPA emphasises, the permanent migration quota is "irrelevant" here. Dare I say, highly misleading?