byork, "Cornflower is not willing to put a figure on the intake he/she thinks 'sustainable'."

What a load of tosh, my view and yours are just two among many, or at least they should be. Anything to circumvent democratic processes and let greed rule, eh what?

Speculation about numbers is irrelevant where government has not even deigned to discuss such vital issues as population, sustainability, quality of life with the electorate. Agreed goals first and resolve the nitty-gritty before 'solutions'.

Then there is the nonsense of Gillard's proposed talk fest of a select few with a whiteboard and a brief to ensure they come up with what she wants. If they don't there are still the fine filters of 'interpretation' and refining' to go. What a travesty of democratic processes that is!

On the other side Abbott reckons that it is far better to let the Productivity Commission recommend, then put his filter on it.

The Greens?! Too afraid of upsetting the 'multicultural' vote to say anything except "How many reverse gears has this thing got?"

There is an election going on at present and that is the opportunity to politicians get get their riding instructions from their electorates. Or is it old-fashioned to expect that democracy might have any role in population decisions?

Sonya,

Well, I did say 'hypothetically': I'll stick by what I wrote. But if Australia needs skilled workers for the mining industry, why do you think they will be treated as slave labour ? From what I hear, as highly skilled workers, they command very high salaries, and there's a crying need for them in WA. Tell that to your kids :)

Hasbeen,

You forget that a lot of that SE Queensland water has been generated by heat coming across from South Australia, picking up moisture and dropping it on Queensland. It's really our water. You should be paying us a productivity tax :) And thanks, by the way, for looking after our water for us.

Joe

U _HU!

Is this the question or what! Yes indeed with the 'ask the population first' - good call there!

Let's hear, the spin-doctors at their best! What is on the offer?

Cornflower's response proves my point about generalisations: "let greed rule eh what?" No point pursuing Cornflower but Divergence, who said the intake should be reduced, still hasn't put a figure on it. If he/she has thought it through to the point where he/she feels confident to argue for a reducation, then it's perfectly reasonable to expect a figure.

He/she, and others who seek a reduction or end to immigration, might also want to address the question of the five to six million additional people who are in Australia, annually, as tourists - each year, every year.

Bjork,

To answer your question, I want to see the population stabilised. I don't know what the optimum population is, and it varies with technology and what matters to people, but it is very obvious that we are going the wrong way. We will know that we have it right when all the people, not just the elite, can have good, free lives without trashing the environment. Obviously, better management is important too, but stabilisation can be easily achieved by cutting back to zero net immigration, which would currently allow (see fact sheet 5 of the Immigration Dept.) an intake of 81,000 migrants a year. Natural increase supplies about a third of our growth, but this is strictly temporary. It is due to demographic momentum and will end when the baby boomers start to die in significant numbers. Fertility rates are still below replacement level and have been since 1976.

Prof. George Borjas disagrees with you about the irrelevance of immigration to stagnant wages in the US, estimating that it has caused about 7.4% lower wages for the least skilled. See

http://www.cis.org/node/238

This is highly significant for people who are already poor.

We are already pressing hard on our natural water supply. See

http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/now-were-reaching-peak-water/1859945.aspx?storypage=0

Much of the continent has old, poor soils and ferocious evaporation rates. These maps from Dr. Chris Watson of the CSIRO show rainfall and fertile soil.

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

Desalinated water is 4-6 times as expensive as dam water and requires prodigious amounts of energy. The politicians have been telling porkies about what it will really cost us, even for city use.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/time-to-come-clean-on-the-cost-of-water-20100530-wndy.html

The cost of pumping it thousands of km up a gradient through a pipe network would be astronomical. Where do you propose to get the energy? Israel may use it to grow a few high value crops (without our distances), but they are very far from being self-sufficient in food.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/food-troubles-are-here-to-stay-1.245149

In my last comment, I meant ACLU, not ACTU.

Divergence, zero net immigration (81,000 pa) would be an utter disaster, especially for the working class and the poor. It would result in economic stagnation and a victory for the insular mind-set that underpins it. Maybe the wealthy elites would be okay with the lack of economic stumulus, but the rest of us would suffer.

Professor George Borjas would indeed disagree with my position, but then he also disagrees on this issue with the US Department of Labor, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Research Council and the four out of five prominent economists surveyed in the UCLA article previously linked to.

I wonder which 120,000 of the 300,000 net intake for Australia will be cut in the zero intake scheme? The 100,000 overseas students who are included in the figure because they can reside here for more than 12 months? They represent a fair slab of the $16 billion pa that Australia earns from international students. Good for the poor? For the workers? Not to mention the students!

Maybe the 13,500 refugees taken in can be reduced too. Hey, there's only about 16 million of them in the world, and 280,000 seeking urgent resettlement through the UNHCR.

No, wait on, there's the skilled intake. Let's slash that, and to hell with the mining boom. Who cares about the multi-billions earned from mineral and gas exports? Doesn't effect the poor or the working class? Really? (Coal exports alone pay our annual national public health bill).

Migrants contribute to innovation and entrepreneurship as well as supplying skills needed, right now, for the resources boom. While I think China will inevitably experience a major crisis of overproduction like any other major capitalist economy, the signs are that this won't happen soon. China and India will continue to boom and Australia will continue to reap enormous benefits. This momentum can only continue if we bring in more people for the expanding jobs created by the boom. These jobs are not only in the mining regions but extend to the cities too.

Will continue in a separate post.