King Hazza
I should have added that obviously you don't cut skilled migration until internal training and education arrangements are in order; and churning out lots of lovely doctors and nurses (or carpenters, engineers, plumbers etc). There will always be a need for some immigration given we cannot always be exact about supply and demand in relation to occupations and skills. Some elasticity is not a bad thing.

In general,
The fact is there has to be a limit on what one piece of land can support in terms of population even if people might disagree on the ideal cap range.

Why are we in Australia always so intent on repeating the mistakes of others, and insist on buying into the global expansion nonsense. From what one reads in the media most of those who are for unfettered growth are those with vested business interests - who see dollar signs before social and environmental wellbeing.

'For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share,
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia fair.'

The Danish national bank reported that Islamic immigration costs more than 2 million Danish kroner (300,000 euros) in welfare per immigrant as a result of low participation in the work force.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=36a_1270930892

Based on the European experience, we can assume higher rates of incarceration, lower rates of workforce participation, increased costs of providing prayer breaks and prayer rooms for those participating in the workforce, welfare costs of polygamous relationships (already recognised by Centrelink), higher costs of monitoring terrorist activity and the potential costs of successful terrorist actions.

What is the point of increasing the population if the cost per capita is greater than the benefit?

Australia should be encouraging immigration which is proven to be beneficial to Australia's long term interest and discouraging immigration which is detrimental to Australia's long-term interest.

The European experience is salutory and Australia must have the guts to act before it is too late.

Indeed Pelican, I actually agree with you overall- but I think if we were to cut our migration intake surely it would be more logical to place skilled migrants higher than humanitarian considerations of refugees?

But ultimately I think instead we just need to tighten our character demands, supposed likeliness to integrate on all arrivals, level of education/literacy, adherence to secular, democratic principals, with stricter quarantine against those even suspected of falling short of these requirements. It would most definitely reduce excess intake- but only of those that would not sit well in this country, without infringing on the rights of people trying to get in with good intentions and ambitions (and state of mind).

My other suggestions should be primarily geared at encouraging existing residents of major cities to relocate in new cities and invest in the full infrastructural and cultural needs for potential residents and take the stress off the cities. Also completely voluntary and encouragement through advertising.

Rich gulf states have no trouble doing it from scratch, after all- and is something that annoys me about Australian governance and administerial-level ingenuity- or more to the point, the complete and utter lack thereof in absolute refusal to even notice other countries doing things that apparently this country is totally incapable of even imitating.

"Polygamists Breeding for Cash"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10642330&pnum=0
<<Polygamy is one of several issues, like forced marriage or genital mutilation, that France and other European nations face, as immigrants arrive with customs that conflict with the law of the land. But experts say polygamy in France can also be linked to fraud, where husbands hijack a generous social welfare system to line their pockets with state funds from each of their wives.
"They practice polygamy just for that," said Jean-Marie Ballo, founder of an association that helps women escape from polygamous situations, Nouveaux Pas, or New Steps. "I'd go so far as to say that polygamists here (in France) are breeding for cash.">>

Can Australia really afford to go the same way?
Can't we learn from what is happening around us?

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

Apart from the comment on using immigration to offset an aging population and the lack of mention of the huge public infrastructure debt, I thought the article good to this point. Why refer to a stable population as "stagnant"? Yet the author is hardly alone in suggesting that the sky will fall without massive immigration. Yes, house prices and rents would fall substantially, and there might not be much opportunity for toll road builders wanting to charge the public six fold the cost of infrastructure, but would all mining and industry just stop? Perhaps the skilled worker demand of the mining boom is a good opportunity to move away from a Ponzi-like population driven housing and construction economy. People now pay enormous sums for housing. What extra industry would Australia have were these many billions not spent on servicing mortgages? Australia's great heritage is founded on industry and innovation. Ponzi schemes can only have one outcome.