This debate is very divided by those who think the costs of growth are greater than the benefits and vice versa. GDP is not the only measure of wellbeing and in fact high GDP growth can lead to inflation. It is a fine balance.

History shows us that Australian governments are reluctant to put investment into infrastructure to cope with burgeoning populations whether it be roads, public transport or health care. Populations are also pushed into already burdened cities like Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne.

If governments are intent on ignoring the wishes of the people (easily discerned by referendum), perhaps what is needed is a new and better planned major urban centre developed along sustainable lines with appropriate resourcing to suit population demands. Ideally where there is sufficient water - like up near Kununnurra and where an efficient rail service and airport can be constructed.

We can't keep damming up rivers and affecting the environment in the way we have done over the years. The Murray Darling won't take much more interference by human activity.

There is also the issue of water, farming, deforestation and an increasing burden on constrained social services.

We would be better to concentrate on improving training within Australia as well as well targeted immigration if needs be. Growth can, and has been, manipulated to to suit the needs of the country at any one time whether it be via baby bonuses, family tax benefits or immigration levels. This should not replace training and education needs to keep up with workforce demands.

All the above does not mean we bail out of our obligations to refugees, which is a humanitarian issue not a growth/economic one.

"On balance, the problems associated with a growing population are more manageable than those associated with a stagnant or declining one."

But you can't grow forever Saul and the bigger your population is when you stop growing, the more difficult coping with the subsequent, necessary decline to a sustainable level will be. Think long term and take a little pain now to save a huge amount of pain later! (i.e. think of your children's future, not your retirement plan).

Michael is quite right. We should be thinking past 2050 when population will fall and fall quite steeply.

The 'we can't grow forever' thesis is code for 'I don't like capitalism' or, in some cases, the clarion call of the poorly educated lower middle classes who don't like immigration and who want Fortress Australia. It's where Pauline Hanson meets Bob Brown.

Much of the anti-populationist rhetoric is really an honest and vocal complaint about poor urban design in Sydney and Melbourne.

Sad truth is- Sydney Brisbane and Melbourne are well over limits (the limit being taking under 20 minutes to drive to work from your place, both inside the same city).

Nor can we populate neighbouring areas, towns and cities as aside from they too being very quite dense now, they too likely rely on the same infrastructure and services FROM the major cities, repeating the same problem.

And of course there is the only particularly fertile farmland being replaced, bush areas, etc.

Virtually every policy I see for population (aside from being a horribly instrumentalist tangent), simply insists on involuntary development upon existing towns, expanding urban sprawl directly outwards and replacing agricultural and forest areas- or drawing from an already over-exhausted river or catchment.
(in short, cheap, quick-fix band-aid solutions which toss environmental, food/agricultural elements in economics and residential considerations into the 'too hard/not important' basket).

We MUST start building cities inland where there are water supplies, on highways/trainways connecting major cities together.
(or at least, actually put something attractive to more people in Canberra and build some apartments between those squillions of highways crisscrossing through empty SPACE (having no interesting nightlife or facilities, nor much in the way of cosmopolitan/urban districts being a possible handicap which should be easy to fix).

By the way, I'm surprised so many people are eagerly jumping in the 'cut skilled migration' bandwagon, when it's obvious we have a massive skills shortage (especially in medicine).
It's like people on the outside of the opposition to open-borders are trying to be in the 'in-crowd' but can't bear looking mean to the needy arrivals- when from a population sense, refugees lacking skills would take the lowest precedence.

I think a BETTER immigration criteria would be stricter character checks. Anyone remotely suspicious, likely to have engaged- or will engage in dishonest or anti-social conduct is simply turned away.

Helen Ridout, Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group:

"Australia is 18th in the OECD in terms of expenditure on education and training as a whole. If we're going to have an education revolution we need to get that up, we really need to increase it."

and

"The other thing we need to do though is not make the problem worse for the disadvantaged. It's really remarkable to me that only 67% of our kids finish school. .......

There are 50,000 of these every year. ...We've got to create rich pathways and educational experiences for these kids."

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/differenceofopinion/content/2007/s2101402.htm

Australia also wastes the talent of older people by shedding them from employment even before they reach retirement age. The Commonwealth and State Public Services have been some of the worst offenders.

The 'Boomer' generation extends over sixteen years and more depending on who is using the term. It is reprehensible and wasteful that such employees continue to be shed and not recruited through plain old-fashioned discriminatory employment practices, including to achieve affirmative action targets(!).

To quote again from Difference of Opinion, this time from Phil Ruthven (same link):

"What astonishes me is how we can still say today that we've got an ageing workforce. I just don't understand. Bear in mind 200 years ago life expectancy was 38. So to talk about retiring at 65 is a bit pointless. In the year 1900 life expectancy was 53. To talk about retiring at 65 was too late 'cause you'd been dead for 12 years. We have a life expectancy nearer to 80 and why we should think 65 is old is beyond me."

Any wonder many believe that high immigration numbers are simply to boost profits for big business while everyone else loses out. Otherwise why not wind the numbers back to something sustainable, improve our education and training and give out younger and older people a chance?

Pelican and others. You have the floor.

TTM.