<< A bigger population can be more sustainable, with the right policies. >>

Yes….with the right policies.

But until we get the right policies implemented and have a reasonably long trial period to gain confidence that they are indeed right, we’d be completely crazy to continue allowing our population to rapidly grow.

There should be an urgent requirement to lower immigration to net zero or lower and to kill off the perverse baby bonus and allow our birthrate to return to its natural level.

We can have absolutely NO confidence that the right sorts of polices will be implemented by Gillard or Abbott.

Indeed, if they were on the right track to developing the right sorts of policies the very first thing they’d do is greatly reduce immigration.

They are both in favour of reducing it a bit, but this doesn’t mean anything in terms of achieving a sustainable society, given how ludicrously high immigration has been and how inappropriately high it would still be.

Currently, it is patently obvious that our federal and state governments are not up to the task of even maintaining essential infrastructure and services for an ever-increasing population, let alone actually improving them. It is costing us all an arm and a leg to chase the tail of rapid population growth in order to try and keep up the same level of infrastructure and services and hence quality of life for ever-more people.

It IS completely crazy stuff!

So we need to very urgently reduce the rate of population growth so that we are on track for a stable population as soon as is practical and at the same time work towards greatly improving policies that could allow us to accommodate a significant population increase.

Afterall, the policies that would allow us to do this would be just the same set of policies that would lead us to a genuinely sustainable society.

There is absolutely no reason for Australia to have a bigger population.

End of story.

Full agreement with the two first posts.

Well said, Ludwig!

The political parties that govern us have failed for years to spread our population more usefully around regional Australia, and I have not heard either of them even mention it recently. A hopeless bunch on many issues.

There are numerous ways in which populating regional centres might produce better outcomes than further increasing capital cities. Bigger populations in regional cities will lead to better facilities for all who live in such places. Regional cities are safer: if the Indian students who were being attacked in the crime-ridden suburbs of Melbourne earlier this year had been studying at regional universities, I dare to predict the problem would not have occurred. With more people living in regional Australia, Australian farmers might find it easier to find labour to help pick their crops.

Perhaps an immediate measure that our hopeless politicians could implement even with the excessive migrant intakes they currently preside over, would be to impose the condition that new arrivals be prohibited from living within 50 kilometers of a major capital city for their first 5 years.

“The notion that an Australian population of 30 or 40 million would be environmentally unsustainable is clearly ridiculous.” Mike Keough’s offering of appropriate aridity of thought in this arid continent.

All of the State of the Environment Reports delivered so far concluded that we are environmentally unsustainable at half that number. Maybe it is possible, though unproven, that the present population could adjust society’s way so as to be assessed as sustainable in those SOEs; Just maybe.

On the other hand, Mike Keough might be more expert than the experts in these matters: Perhaps Australia should charge ahead towards 30 or 40 million (and then what?) while playing catch-up from well to the rear of sustainability. Should Mike then put a bell on sustainability in case we lose sight of it?

Should we keep running – for how long – would Mike Keough permit us to pause and catch our breath at 40 million, 70, 100 million?

Ludwig - you said.. "It is costing us all an arm and a leg to chase the tail of rapid population growth in order to try and keep up the same level of infrastructure and services and hence quality of life for ever-more people."
How is it costing us an arm and a leg? How can you quantify this cost? In fact you can't. No-one can, realistically. (The occasional wild figure is thrown around.) Most of the major infrastructure costs have little to do with immigration as such but population shifts outside the capital cities, notably up to North Queensland. Aus population is mainly (note, mainly) shifting North and towards the coast. A part of it is baby boomers retiring. Infrastructure in the capital cities is already well established. It has to be upgraded, of course, but the degree of spending is different and, get this, over a larger population. More water needed? This is due to changed expectations concerning garens rather than population itself - although pop increases play a part (and only a part of that is due to immigration). I agree policies could be improved but time to dump the mind set on immigration and look at these issues realistically.