I know better than most how immigration affects this nation. Here's why I'm worried

It's not rocket science.

We have built one of the most peaceful democracies in the world (not that there are many).

Why put that social cohesion at risk? Even more to the point, immigration goes to the heart of who we are. We are an immigration nation.

It's worth repeating that unless you are a full-blood Indigenous Australian, you've got migrant blood in your veins.

There's always naysayers and critics around, but I remain pleased with the lines from a song or anthem I wrote about Australia: "Home to First Australians, joined from near and far". That encapsulates us.

No matter where your forbears came from, they've given you the DNA of people with enough chutzpah to uproot themselves, leave family and friends behind and cross the ocean to get the chance of building a better life. What's not to like?

John Howard had a sterner version of Young's admonition. "We will decide who comes here and the circumstances under which they come".

They're both pointing out that a government needs to control the immigration intake. If the system falls into disrepute, the essence of who we are is called into question.

That's the last thing a government should let happen. The European countries who failed to take the responsibility for controlling their borders are learning the hard way.

There are ominous signs we might be heading in the same direction.

Our community doesn't have the faith it used to have in our system. That's a very dangerous place for a country built on immigration.

When you lose faith in your building blocks, you're cooked.

Mick Young would no doubt offer some advice to Labor. "Explain yourself!"

Apparently he used to give formal briefings to the press gallery rather than leave them to pick up misinformation. Sensible man.

If Australians understand the reasoning behind a government decision they will probably accept it even though they personally would have made a different decision.

They understand it is the government's job to make the call.

But Labor isn't offering any reasons let alone a coherent policy to explain why we are where we are. It is startling because when you explain yourself, you help yourself.

Sadly, that has left a blank canvas on which anyone can write whatever they like. We're back to yelling across the town square at each other. And not about the price of eggs or a regulation of not the greatest consequence but about the essence of who we are. That's our identity.

We let other people define our identity at our peril. It has already taken a beating from the post-modern anti-white anti-British destabilisers. It is just complete rubbish to suggest that people who settled here came to pillage and steal. That's an ugly, dark story being fed to our kids. Neither major party seems to be redressing it.

The Indonesian minister's message from my last column is an age-old lesson. We're just slow learners, as the NDIS shows us.

My forbears include Irish agricultural workers, a German hat maker and a waistcoat-thieving convict. They had no desire or reason to kowtow to the British. Hatmakers, waistcoat thieves and farmers do not an invasion make.

It is an outrage that kids are made to feel bad about the past of their country. Sure, acknowledge all the terrible things that were done.

But don't lump everyone in the bad basket.

We could add to that some home truths about all the good things that have happened as a consequence of settlement.

This, along with immigration, is all a part of the story about who we are. Our identity. Labor needs to tell that story now.

The sudden substantial rise in Net Overseas Migration deserves, in fact, demands, a decent explanation.

Why not tell us what decisions were made that brought us to this point? When and why were they made? PS, use plain English.

It seems obvious that if you bring in huge numbers of people, you are going to put pressure on services and housing. How much consideration was given to that?

What plans were made to make the larger intake manageable?

Looking down the track, there will probably be a plethora of family reunion applications, which by adding to the numbers, may well limit our capacity to bring in people we need at that future time.

Some people are blaming universities. They shouldn't.

The buck stops with the government and the immigration minister, specifically. They can set the limits of student visas and graduate visas. Furthermore, they can put plenty of conditions around each visa category to engineer different outcomes.

For example, you might want to encourage students to study outside the major cities, and to do that, you might give extra points to graduates from regional universities.

If for the purpose you defined regional as having a population growth less than the national average, universities in Adelaide would have been considered regional universities. Bingo for South Australian universities. Of course, vice-chancellors will give their best shot to get what they want. But they don't sign for the decision. On behalf of your government the minister does.

While Australians are concerned about the numbers coming in, they might also turn their mind to who isn't.

How many businesses have you heard say they could open more, produce more, but they can't get the staff?

We're facing the problem that semi-skilled work is not wanted by many Australians, but neither does our system make it easy for businesses to get the workers in. I think the system needs a careful tweak.

A note of caution should be brought to this debate.

We are not the only car yard on the block. Students and other migrants have other options.

READ MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:

How would you feel now as an overseas student? If we want the best and brightest to stay, the least we can do is play nice. We've given them the visa. It was our decision. We should speak about them, if not with gratitude, at very least respect.

Disparaging overseas students, your customers, is just plain dumb.

Consider also that we may want to say, for example, that you can only bring your elderly mum here under family reunion if she is the last remaining relative.

After all, her costs are going to be significant. But what would you say if we, the USA and Canada were all competing for the smartest anti-cancer specialist, brain surgeon or physicist who wants to bring an elderly mum?

There are other relatives back home who could look after her, but the applicant says "if mum can't come, I'm going to Canada or the USA". Would you use your power to make an exception or treat every applicant the same. I'd consider an exception because the decision should be in Australia's interest not just a tick-a-box rule.

The immigration debate is a mess. Labor needs to urgently clean it up. Immigration is not an easy job.

It is like a game we played as kids called pick up sticks. But managing the intake in an immigration country, managing who we are going to become is an extraordinary privilege. The very least you can do in exchange for that is what Mick Young did. Explain yourself.