James Paterson is yet to learn the lesson that the future need not be like the past. Assuming that Australia can cope with a population expanding to infinity defies the reality of our current and increasing resource shortages. Also, he should read some of the earlier articles on OLO to see how his economic arguments do not hold up. It is GDP per capita that is important, not raw GDP. Expanding Australia's GDP is good for big business who benefit from any increase in market size but it is now making average Austrlalians poorer since it decreases GDP/capita. If James is a young student then I feel sorry for him - his medium-term future is one of oil and other resource shortages and he will be struggling to find a place during the coming decades of economic decline. Increasing the number of consumers of a diminishing resource pie is not a good idea!

Hang on, let me get this straight...

What you are saying is that despite the fact that up to 80% of the population is against an issue, the Politicians should ignore it in order to.... What exactly?

Talk about the tail wagging the dog, you are stating that in order to better manage the economy, treasury wants to increase the population, so the Politicians must do so rather than comply with the known wishes of their electorate?

I realise you know Economic Theory, but lets take it back to Democratic Governance 101 shall we? The ELECTORATE decides, or ought to, ignoring them when their wishes are known is the most hypocritical heap of tripe I've ever seen.

That is the problem with the current parlous state of Democracy in this Country, the Politicians say what the electorate wants to hear and then they do their own thing (bugger the electorate) once elected...

The power of the Executive HAS TO BE BROKEN, it is not for the over-educated elite in their Ivory Towers to decide for me and every other voter, how this Country should be run, it is for US.

We don't want immigration to increase, damn, a major chunk of Australians don't want immigration full stop, refugees or otherwise.

Where and when do we get a say? Oh, you'd prefer we didn't? Isn't that dandy...

“The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, names urban congestion, housing supply, lack of water and pressure on government services as potential results of a “Big Australia.”

When and where did Chairman Rudd say this? If the Chairman does believe this, why is he aiming for a ‘big Australia’?

Anybody who believes that economic growth follows population growth also believes the moon is made of green cheese. Even minimal research – in place of ideological trumpeting - would show that increased population comes at the expense of LOWER per capita income, less ability to provide infrastructure, and dire effects on social cohesion, not to mention the degrading of the environment which seems to be constantly at the fore with the chattering classes busy telling us what our current population has already done to the Australian environment. Their solution is to start removing water rights from food producers already in the name of environmental health.

Less food, more people!

“But the Coalition is now in the unenviable position of advocating a policy direction which could lower Australia’s future GDP by up to 17 per cent”, writes Paterson. Perhaps the Coalition is taking note of the “80%” of Australians who do not want an increase in population; perhaps, unlike Paterson, ‘ordinary' Australians know that their individual wealth will DECREASE, and Australian will become a very unpleasant place to live.

In his penultimate paragraph, Paterson even suggests that “The Coalition lost its lead as the better party to manage the economy…”

What! Hasn’t he heard of the BER fiasco; the insulation tragedy or the proposed tax on the mining industry which is what really saw us through GFC, not Rudd’s doling out of the surplus left to it by the previous government.

He finishes his piece with misguided rubbish about populism, and waffle about the ‘strangeness’ of elected politicians actually listening to what their employers – the Australian people – want! It seems that the move from the real world to university has put a stop to that democratic ‘nonsense’ for Paterson.

Good on you James. A nice bit of writing which further debunks the anti-people league, which is not very hard.

You'll get all sorts of comments from the bearded gnomes, Adelaide hills dwelling Amish, geneticists and the Asians Out lobby who all support the Unsustainable People Australia collective.

The Dr Deborah Pelser quote was gold re "warns that increasing levels of migration will lead to higher rates of schizophrenia as well as “heart disease, diabetes, chronic neck and back pain, asthma and migraine” and of course “a greater likelihood of being overweight or obese.”

Did she say anything about increased sun spot activity or rising sea levels?

James, you walked right into this one "including floating the dollar, privatisation and deregulating the finance industry, were measures that rarely won voter approval."
Yes because we have clearly felt the benefits of ALL of these things, now with corrupt companies like Macquarie Bank rorting customers and consumers of services and infrastructure (which strangely, were more efficient and cost LESS when public) because they can.
You just proved that the people were RIGHT all along.

And a former Liberal Staffer that doesn't like democracy, how quaint.
Not to mention how you say that concerns of standard of living are expressed but think about the economy!
This is why I will never vote for the Liberals ever in my life.
It was also too hard to point out that the countries with the lowest population (Scandinavian, Swiss) and most stagnant population (above countries, plus Japan) happen to be doing BETTER than us, or anyone else in terms of returns both nationally, corporately and per person (strangely enough, all of these countries have vastly stronger economic policies in place too).

Nothing but a thinly disguised spin from your average low-grade Liberal party member trying to tell the public they take second place to someone making a buck and keeping the current system in place.

And Cheryl, "disagreeing" is not "debunking", especially when he failed to provide anything substantial to disprove it- look at your dictionary please.

You are a hard man King Hazza.

I'm going to go with James on this one as he has worked in politics and may know what is possible and what people will go for. Unlike the anti-pops who want to take less people - finito.

Custard you said a mouthful re the standard SPA line- 'The power of the Executive HAS TO BE BROKEN.' They hate democracy and the only thing worse than democracy is technology, which apart from people, is the root cause of all our problems.

Apart from the anti-democratic, anti-technology and anti-people aspects of the SPA well, it a load of cobblers really.

PS. You're pulling a very long bow re reregulation and population