Alan B

A market of 50 million is tiny compared with the hundreds of millions or billions of consumers in China, India or trade groups like the EU. So any economies of scale would be relatively neglible.
Many nations with populations smaller than Australia have become prosperous by manufacturing products that overseas consumers want to buy. They achieved economies of scale by exporting to much larger markets, there's no reason why Australia couldn't imitate their success.

Australia isn't the US or Brazil, the old desert we live in can't absorb people indefinitely.

Bazz's comment that “...  large populations are not needed to have it all” is perfectly true. We have only to look at the Scandinavian countries to see that.

Imagine, if we could put an inland canal through the central dead heart as a two-lane side by side system. Then use massive northern tides and an entrance, lock gate system. We could use those huge tides to ensure a constant flow of water to and from lake Eyrie, via the gulf and one one of the iron ore ports. and utilising ground already mostly below sea level.

Not a difficult engineering project if most of the require earthworks were done by suction dredging and high-pressure water monitors that included a stream of injected abrasive material.

Along both sides of this canal, we could build around two dozen MSR thorium powered nuclear plants and adjacent deionisation dialysis desalination plants to produce cost-effective, potable water suitable for human and animal consumption and broad scale agriculture.

Now that single project and the towns new cities they'd invite could accommodate as many as fifty million new migrants. Not today but over the two or so decades of the life of such an, add water and see where it goes, project

Those already here standing to gain the most from such future vision and pollies with enough backbone to ensure it happens.

As or Scandinavia? Point taken.

And we could with our plethora of abundant natural resources, could, if we but paid their tax, improve on!

However, I think we can do a whole lot better with less, as you can read on another thread.

High living standard? Seriously!? What for the homeless or the huge unemployed cohort in SA?

Take the blinkers off!
Alan B.

Yes Alan B, fill the artesian basin with salt water ! Yes sure.

Australia does not have that wide sweep of good land right through the
middle of the country with which the USA is blessed.

If large populations are such a good idea why are so many from large
countries trying to come here ?

Alan,
How about no canals etc, then no need for that extra 50 million people.

Pointless project, unneeded people, simple!

The biggest obstacle we have to a decent reduction in immigration is not just the big business lobby but the agreement between Labor and the LNP not to debate immigration, which Hawke negotiated. Big business wants high immigration because it ensures more sales of consumer goods without them having to compete with each other.

We will have to be rid of the agreement between the major parties before any meaningful discussions can be had as to what our population should be.

As to where should the numbers be cut. That is easy, stop the entry of people from those groups that cause us grief socially. Their culture will not allow them to integrate and they would be happier elsewhere.