Not the worst article I've read. One option is that Burke will do nothing as the media's eye roves on to other issues.

It's difficult to compare growth factors between nations, eg, China and India and Australia as the economies and historical circumstances are so different. If we're talking about growth, China is growing at 8 percent and India is about the same. They were 10 and 12 percent before the GFC. Australia is now at 3 percent and was 4.

GDP is not a reliable factor. I'd say two other criteria are much more important to Australia: the breadth and depth of the tax base and the nation's trade position. Both have to do with the generative power of people and plant.

Transport infrastructure: roads, trains, ports, etc, are funded from the tax base. If you have less people, you have less money to upgrade infrastructure. If you have 50 M people or 7 M people you'll still need a road from Alice Springs to Darwin.

Quite right about employers not wanting to pay full tote on salaries. They never have. Try working in a union.

A few comments

The argument that more people will give greater economies of scale is ridiculous. Going from 23 mn to 36 mn or even 46 mn won't do much. Germany, a nation of 80 million, still needs the economies of scale given by membership of the EU.

The only way Australia gets economies of scale is by being part of an open and liberal global trading system. Australia should be directing all its diplomatic efforts in that direction.

Cheryl,

the infrastructure argument works both ways. However many people there are, you still need a road to Alice Springs. But most of the increase in population is likely to occur in urban areas which already have an infrastructure deficit. Building additional urban infrastructure is an order of magnitude more expensive and difficult than infrastructure building in rural areas.

The defence argument is also nonsense. In a nuclear age you do not need a large population to defend an island continent that has no land borders with any other country.

The idea of Australia "going nuclear" now may seem preposterous. There is no threat that remotely justifies that so long as the US Navy remains unchallengeable on the high seas.

However if Australia were ever faced with a developing threat that needed a nuclear deterrent does anyone seriously think the Australian Government would refrain from going that route?

In the interests of transparency I am an immigrant. Had I been setting immigration policy back in 1996 I would not have accepted me. At a few weeks short of my 51st birthday I was too high risk.

To continue the increase in population will only drive us more toward the lifestyle of china and india. High density housing with so many people packed into our cities that we will completely loose control of law and order, homelessness and community values.
China is still a developing community and needs such growth, eventually that will come to an end.
Our planning issues will grow with population, the current "develop to demand" is a disaster. We all suffer the lack of infrastructure and poor services. The greed of the realestate industry also won't diminish with the current population growth targets.
Curmudgeon,
The migration of minds and skills goes both ways, we export an enormous amount of skilled peoples around the world every year. A much more strict policy on immigration focusing of skills would go along way to balancing the issue.
As for agriculture, i lived in an agricultural area for 8 years. Initially i had the attitude that farmers raped the land for profit and poisoned it with chemicals, well i still find the use of chemicals a bit much, but i have to say that the farmers i knew were doing more for their land quality and the environment in general than half the lounge room greens put together. The battle against salinity is hugh and farmers work very hard to stop the growth of this problem, they are constantly developing methods to mitigate the problems of erosion and weed control is in their interest.
I have said this on this site before, but "standard of living" is not quality of life. lets keep what makes this nation great. space and freedom, remember when we had freedom not talked about defending what little is left.

Regarding your 'second argument' (9th para), which I did not understand, I would instead offer, no matter if economies of scale are not as efficient because of a smaller population.

The marginally increased cost of goods is well worth the price, if it infers a better environment, quality of air and water, less road congestion etc.

Thanks for the article.

The argument that immigrants bring in skills is a short term argument only. The current education system has not produced enough skilled workers.

So the children of immigrants are just as likely to be an average type Australian, with insufficient skills.

Eventually immigration becomes a dog chasing its tail scenario.

There are such contradictions in this subject.

It is claimed that immigration brings a wealth of gains, and when some point out otherwise they are criticised for being selfish.

It is claimed that xenophobia is the basis for opposing high population growth, yet one argument for growth is to protect Australia from a foreign invasion.

It is claimed that Australia has ample water for more people, yet we are ever being educated to use less.

We are told that larger populations will bring better infrastructure and cheaper services, yet the current growth rate is bringing about an infrastructure crisis and ballooning service costs.

Growth proponents claim the moral and intellectual high ground, yet offer no more than unreasoned arguments and personal attacks against critics.

Both pro and con are arguing for a choice that each believes will benefit the lives of Australians, so there is every reason for the population debate to be open and rigorous.