King Hazza
"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?"

It is only logical if we have a shortage of skills in a particular sector. If we skill up internally including skilling up refugees who often find it difficult to obtain work, the problem is partially solved.

Taking in humanitarian refugees would always be illogical if we used self interest as a rationale. Taking in refugees is about helping those who face imminent persecution or death in their country of origin. Without refugee programs we will be back where we were during WWII when Jewish refugees were turned away from every country and forced to return to face certain death.

As a country we either accept refugees or we don't; we either reject or accept the premise on which the UN Agreement is based. IMO we are a better country for accepting refugees and our population and national development has been based on refugee and migrant intakes.

I wonder how many of the commentators participating to this forum have any first-hand experience of migration. I can offer some personal views which may contribute to enlighten the subject.
35 years ago my family of three and myself became immigrants after undergoing health, education, political and character checks that would embarass 90% of the so called Australian original population.
It was a whites-only policy coupled with the desire of allowing entry only to people who had the following characteristics: no police records of any kind, no open political views, youth, extremely good health, some skills as labourers (considering that there was no recognition of foreign qualifications other than from the UK or maybe USA)and a willingness to accept almost any working conditions in order to survive their move into a new and vast country like Australia.
Nowdays, beside the refugees intake, we can see that there is an open door only for UK citizens with no particular or required skills who inevitably fill positions in the public white collars industry. Medics and para-medics are allowed in only because of a long standing policy of closed numbers in the universities' medicine courses which has created a dramatic shortage of doctors and nurses.
There is no special and real Government policy to facilitate the settling of people in suitable areas other than the big cities.
There is no intention of allowing the immigration of skilled and often quite resourceful people who wish to leave their over-populated countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere, and contribute to the inevitable growth of this God gifted country.
Reasons officially given? Their english language is not up to the task (has an accent other than Irish or Scottish?), their skills and money are not needed.
I would be very happy to hear otherwise from people in this forum.

How is it possible for economists and planners to project population growth when the real state of ocean food resource and food web ecosystem collapse is not known?

How will an increased human population be able to afford aquaculture produce fed on imported fish that are dwindling in supply and increasing in cost? What is the now manipulated total value of total fish product imported into Australia annually? If anyone can find the new total value and total weight be sure high value fish oil for feed meal is included in the actual total.

Why was fish removed from the Consumer Price Index?

What do economists propose be done with all the sewage nutrient pollution that is already feeding algae that is even stopping people swimming in Canberra's Lake Burley Griffin.

All rivers run to the sea, government dumped sewer system nutrient pollution flows in alongshore current to the GBR, feeding algae that is smothering coral and estuary seagrass.

Do economists understand there is a marine environment that must also be kept healthy and alive to sustain what's left of world ocean food supply?

Do economists have any idea chemistry of the ocean must be managed best as possible to manage chemistry of atmosphere and climate?

Under present circumstance especially involving natural ocean food resource devastation, there is inadequate available and affordable nutritious food to sustain health of the present population let alone the level of increase proposed. Beware, fatal disease also travels by air.

Can anyone on this site find the actual total fish product imported to Australia each year? It's best to find solutions now.

JF Aus

'What do economists propose be done with all the sewage nutrient pollution that is already feeding algae that is even stopping people swimming in Canberra's Lake Burley Griffin. '

You must be a newcomer to Canberra. Lake Burley Griffin has always been a sewerage farm. People living in Canberra in the 1960's and 70's were warned off swimming there. I am sure a lot of it comes straight from Parliament house.

Pelican- indeed it basically is from a self-interest rationale.
I'm just not quite finding the balance between the point that we are so full we have to tell migrants they can't come here anymore (so easily too), and yet can still afford our humanitarian intake.

Pasquino that is an amazing post- I'm inclined to agree with everything you said (and sadly not surprised that our criteria be so dodgy and instrumentalist).

Something is gravely amiss with your reasoning Saul.

Here’s a critique of your article (~1050 in response to your ~1050 words!)…

<< The third Intergenerational Report, released … in January this year, projected that Australia’s population would reach almost 36 million by 2050…the second Intergenerational Report released by the previous Government just under three years ago. … envisaged Australia’s population growing by 7.6 million or just over 36 per cent from its 2007 level to reach 28.5 million by 2047. This is a remarkable difference in less than three years. >>

Yes, thanks entirely to our most unscrupulous PM, who never mentioned boosting immigration during the election campaign and then proceeded to raise it to a record level as soon as he won power, without any public or expert consultation, and in complete contrast to the outcome of the comprehensive nationwide study; the Inquiry into Australia’s Population Carrying Capacity, conducted in 1994.

<<…population growth is one of the three principal drivers of growth in the market value of goods and services produced, or gross domestic product (GDP) >>

Yes, and it is by far the biggest of the three factors, especially while we have rapid population growth. But the ever-bigger GDP does NOT indicate an improvement in current or future average quality of life, which has surely got be the baseline factor. GDP is a terribly flawed indicator of wellbeing.

Population growth is also by far the largest factor in driving us to forever rapidly increase GDP…and it is the biggest factor that is preventing the ever-increasing GDP from translating into meaningful personal improvements.

<< The significant acceleration in Australia’s population growth rate in recent years was one reason why Australia avoided falling into recession (as commonly defined) during the global financial crisis…>>

The key words being; ‘as commonly defined’.

<<…had Australia’s population been growing at the same rate as, say, the United States or Britain, all else being equal Australia’s economy would have experienced consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth in the second half of 2008, rather than just one. >>

continued