Byork,

You seem to believe immigration is good for Australia yet the evidence you give simply does not back up you point of view.

You stated earlier...

The Productivity Commission report quoted by Divergence actually indicates that immigration is good for the economy. It only says that "The incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case". But they GROW nonetheless.

This basically states that Australian residents will be WORSE off than they would have been without immigration. Sure they might be better off than previously but not as well off as they would have been WITHOUT immigration.

You also stated...

Of course, no study or report will be the final answer. It's worth noting, however, that in 1990 the American Immigration Institute surveyed prominent economists on the matter and four out of five said immigrants have a favourable impact on economic growth.

Sure, no one is really arguing that immigration has a negative impact on economic growth, but that is really a poor measure of benefit to Australia. As stated earlier in the House of lords report, the UK governments have been trying to fool the British people immigration benefits them by increasing economic growth. Yet it is per capita figures which are a much better measure of benefit. In other words if we have a population increase of 2% due to immigration yet consequent economic growth of 1% then on average people are worse off. So quoting economic growth figures does not demonstrate a benefit from immigration.

Even if there was an economic benefit from immigration and that is doubtful, for it is more like a financial benefit for the few already very well off at the expense of the many, who say that economics should be the sole basis of public policy? That sort of thinking was disgraced decades ago.

The 'progressive' Rudd, informed by elites and the wealthy big end of town, deliberately went against the wishes of the very substantial majority of voters by slyly doubling the already record immigrant intake. Then he bragged about his deeds and history shows how he was regarded thereafter.

Abbott and the LNP have done the right thing democratically, by promising to reel back Rudd's excesses, for which he had no mandate. Isn't that what governments are obliged to do, to respond to the wishes of the people they represent? There are signs already that Julia Gillard was merely being sly in distancing herself from Rudd's 'Big Australia', while ramping up the spin to continue as before. Any such hypocrisy by Gillard will bury her, permanently.

What does it take to convince the government that the electorate is opposed to to its reckless immigration policies? Immigration is no longer a sacred cow and no-one seriously believes the mantra that immigration is always good for the country so let's keep increasing it.

More importantly, there is the not-so-small matter of government having the gall to go it alone with social policies that have momentous impact on our culture, financial viability and quality of life, without bothering to consult with the electorate in the first place.

Why would zero net immigration be a calamity? There wouldn't be the huge infrastructure costs. Housing would be far more affordable. Populations wouldn't face worsening traffic congestion and more severe water restrictions. The mining industry would create employment opportunities for workers displaced from the housing and infrastructure sectors: This would improve the balance of payments as infrastructure and housing are now heavily financed with foreign borrowings. And lets not forget the many koalas and other native fauna that would be spared extermination.

Like any cult, the population growth cult seems to have prophesies of calamity should their faith not be followed, as well as a few apparent contradictions. For me, the most glaring article of faith of population growth cultists is the paradox of consumption. The cultists are always humming the prosperity mantra "More people = more for all and for less". Yet in contrast, as an example, they seem obsessed with people using water and paying so little for it. And I have seen similar arguments advanced by growth cultists for housing, toll roads, and other infrastructure. It seems odd to be championing a policy that will allow increased consumption whilst simultaneously condemning people for their profligacy.

What is needed in this debate is a rational basis for ideas, not fanatical cultists doing Chicken Little impersonations.

Fester,

You have pointed out some crucial points. Indeed, it is true as the saying goes, 'fix up your own back yard'. Very simply put, look at it as if we are going to have visitor's, in the distanct future and their just might want to stay here. Oh, that is to say, if we can afford that expensive pleasure.

I would like to see the next gove., which ever party, have the determination to work first and foremos with what Australia has at hand, at this very minute. A new reform. A liberated gove. A gutsy policy setter with the determination to built on what we need to do, here and now. A gove. with a different approach. With the wealth or very wealthy people, in Australia as it stands to day, I am confident that all of those people with the mighty $$$$ in Australia would rally to such a course. Those wealthy folk would makes such a difference to the economy, it would go down in history. Oh yes and I am not implying for one minute to do what the British gove. is doing ! No, no not at all. Those elite British should put their prays in their pockets and help build the place of home up to scratch. After all, last I heard Britten was not a 3rd world country, but may-be I have missed out on the latest inside party news.

It is actually worse than that, Ozzie, because the Productivity Commission shows average income per hour worked to be falling. If your employer cuts your wages and then lets you maintain your income by working longer hours, you might end up with a few more dollars in your pocket, but no rational person would say that you were better off.

The 1997 American Academy of Sciences report on immigration is behind a pay wall, but here is a summary of the main findings

http://www.cis.org/articles/1999/combinednrc.pdf

The report itself represents the thinking of labour economists, the people who actually look at immigration.

Bjork, if zero net immigration is such a disaster, why did the Americans, and especially the lower income Americans, do so well while it was in force? None of the top 10 countries on the World Economic Forum competitiveness index have even half our rate of population growth, and Switzerland (number 1) and the Scandinavian countries on the list have miniscule rates of population growth compared to ours. Germany and Japan (also on the list) are actually losing population.

So far as the intake is concerned, the number of refugees is tiny compared to the total intake. Skilled migration is largely a scam, with two thirds of skilled migrants not even working in their field. They are wanted, not for their skills, but to keep wages low and real estate prices high. Foreign students wouldn't count, so long as they go home at the end of their studies. If housing costs went back to the 3.5 years of median income required to pay for an average house in 1973, instead of the 7.5 years Australia-wide now (8-10 times in some places), people could afford to pay enough taxes to properly fund the universities, instead of funding them by selling visas. Figure 1 in the link below shows housing costs versus real wages in Sydney up to 2005. (Rents have since gone up a lot as well.)

http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/cityfutures/publications/presentations/ncoss.pd

ozzie, you haven't even begun to address my arguments, just taken my response to Divergence's quote from the Productivity Commission. Wage levels are determined by many factors, not just immigration but, yes, growing slowly is still growing. You guys seem to actually believe that immigration levels determine wages.

Divergence, Switzerland's competitiveness has nothing to do with its immigration rate but lots to do with government policy and the nature of its resource base and history. Greece and Italy also have much lower rates of immigration than us, and look at them. The USA had its greatest progress - economic, social and cultural - when its borders were wide open. Australia, with our high levels of immigration, is a much better place today than it was in the mid-1970s when immigration was temporarily slashed. The 300,000 additional people in this country helped stimulate demand and helped get us through the world recession.

You say foreign students wouldn't count, yet they are counted in the 300,000 figure. You see, that figure includes people granted a visa as 12 month visitors. Okay, don't count them - but then your 300,000 is reduced by about 100,000.

Zero net intake is pie-in-the-sky and will never happen. It would be bad for Australia economically, socially and culturally and represents a return to the reactionary mentality of insular nationalism. We should be opening our borders to many more people and voting for parties that think big and see human beings as an asset. The absence of such a party means we will soon be sen as a very small country in a rapidly globalizing world.

In a previous post you linked to an article about a CSIRO scientist who, incredibly, believes in 'peak water'. The article cites a CSIRO report from 2008. I wonder what that scientist thinks now that a body of water as large as western Europe has flooded most of north-east Australia and is filling Lake Eyre. The problem is not water per se, but its management.