A concise summary of the dysfunctions of the national immigration addiction.There are sound environmental,economic and social reasons to reduce the country's population growth rate and the majority of the voters reject the 'Big Australia' argument.Unfortunately both of the major parties are bankrolled or intimidated by vested business interests who profit from mass immigration. So much capital has been wasted "doing each other's laundry". Surely it's not a coincidence that most of the prosperous nations have relatively small populations.

“The Australian economy is like a dog chasing its tail. More migrants fuel growth in the building and people-servicing industries, which then demand more migrants for labour.”

That should be easy enough for anyone to understand.

This is pretty obvious too:

“What will Australia have to show economically for the enormous effort of accommodating an extra 9-10 million migrants by 2050? More debt and a more daunting greenhouse emissions challenge.”

It’s good to have –at last – an educated opinion from a professional in the field.

Great to have Bob Birrell on this site.

Sometimes an issue is so straightforward that hard decisons must be made. Immigration is such an issue, despite some policy consequences such as a temporary slowdown in economic growth.

Very good article.

Sometimes, I'd like to grab the likes of Abbott, Gillard, Harvey Norman and Twiggy Forrest and bang their heads together. They're all 'growthists' yet the people who have to live with their 'growth at all cost' mantra are powerless to do a damned thing about stopping it.

Will there be no end to this incessant madness of population expansion?

This is Bob Birrell’s first article on OLO. I hope there will be many more.

Why does Monash University keep Bob Birrell on staff? He's so anti-immigration and his anti-foreign students campaign has cost Monash a large number of foreign students. Bear in mind that Monash has 17,000 foreign students. Thats way more than Birrell's salary.

Great to see an excellant article from a most respected demographer.

Bob Birrel has always spoken with truth and common sense.

Wish our politicians would take note, but while ever big business funds the major parties they will not listen.

He who pays the piper calls the tune!

Julia and Tony...Bob has done all the hardwork for you .

JJPLUG....your comments confirm the worst. You are just money driven. No understanding of how the country is being trashed. Australians are not anti-immigrant. We are against large scale programs for obvious reasons.

Small scale immigration ( emmigration = immgration, 80,000 gross or zero net )...allows a celebration of "new blood "/cultures and ideas, without the environmental and economic downsides of population growth.

Cheers,

Ralph

JJPLUG - ever heard of academic freedom?

I was so depressed to hear that Gillard's former hairdresser partner has been given a "property sales consultant job" with a major property developer:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-stands-by-partner-over-israel-job-link-20100629-zjcx.html

We can expect more of Gillard's meaningless platitudes on sustainable population while she does absolutely nothing about reducing immigration numbers.

I think that Bob Birrell only represents the Pauline Hanson type voters, some of whom are regular posters here.

His article follows that pattern of conflating a lack of investment in infrastructure with the general question of migration. He makes no mention of the problem of Australians heading overseas or how he plans to fund the further education of so many young Australians. Nor does he address the long term consequences of the lack of economic growth that cutting migration completely would cause.

He's not great just because he's telling you what you want to hear.

A quick look at Birrell on Google news and you'll see that the real object of Birrell's discontent is international students. He doesn't like 'em. Doesn't want them here. International students are also included in the immigration figures.

I like international students. They add vibrancy and diversity to our cities. They pay Prof Birrell's salary and about 30 percent of Monash's infrastructure and resource budget. Of course we could always tax the difference from the lower and middle wage earners.

This is one of the silliest articles I've read for a long time. Birrell hits the core problem (urban planning) and then runs away. It's not population (projected or other wise). It's planning.

Cheryl, you've been so continuously 'pro-growth' in you comments, it begs the question of vested interests. That aside, perhaps you might like to read this....

http://www.growthism.com/

Unfortunately, the site makes the mistake of accrediting a quote to two different people, otherwise it pretty much says it all.

So Bob Birrell says:
“In effect, young Australians are being told the costs of population growth are such that they cannot expect to live the traditional Australian suburban lifestyle. Why do they have to make this sacrifice?”

This is another “straw man” question invented by the Neo-Cons. No one is “telling” young Australians that they can’t live in the suburbs – well certainly not in Melbourne, for example, where the State Government has once again caved in to the combined pressure of the greenfields-development sector and the anti-development NIMBYs (well, anti development that’s anywhere near my place). Despite a quite sound (but un-saleable) policy to focus on higher-density development in well-serviced areas on existing transport corridors, the Government has just decided to flatten even more farmland on the edge of this already expansive city to build more huge “traditional" houses.

Unfortunately, the only people who can still use this kind of housing effectively are the large-family, non-Anglo migrants that Bob wants to stop – the rest of the population is charging towards smaller, even one-person households for whom this kind of housing is absurd.

Our other great fantasy is that we are a “rural” country, built on mateship, tree-clearing, the sheep’s back, the stump-jump plow and the Lifesavers rescue-reel. In reality, nine out of ten Australians now live in urban areas, around 75% of the population now lives in major cities, and almost 75% of population growth to 2050 will occur in the State/Territory capitals.

The issue we should be worrying about is not migration, or the size of the population, but how we can improve the infrastructure and quality of life in our major cities. In most cases, this means planning for far greater density in the parts of these cities that are already lucky enough to have decent infrastructure.

Does the lucky country need migrants?

No it doesn't NEED migrants but migration has helped build Australia and was used for schemes like the Snowy Hydro. A flexible immigration policy can continue to best serve the needs of Australia over time depending on need.

The issue is to decide what is a sustainable population target and how do we adhere to it as closely as possible while still ensuring some skilled immigration (and humanitarian obligations) as situations arise due to changing economic circumstances.

We don't need more people now IMO, but this does not spell the end of immigration and once a target is agreed, the one-out one-in policy could sustain population around the desirable level.

Quality of life is important for all Australians no matter their heritage and the worst we can do is continue on this mad religion of economic growth mainly through the property sector. There has to be an end to it - do we wait until the last river is dammed and the last bit of arable land is under housing and we are beholden to foreign food imports and the like.

I don't think migrants should be used as a political wedge, the discussion should be about population and environmental and economic self-determination which is influenced not only by immigration but birth rates, adequacy of infrastructure, decentralisation and potential in regional Australia for encouraging population out of the big cities.

It used to be called town planning but now it is all at the behest of profit driven property moguls.

Ralph Bennett writes;

<< Julia and Tony...Bob has done all the hardwork for you. >>

YES!!

What a crying shame it is that neither Gillard not Abbott have embraced Bob Birrell. They’ve both come out in favour of a lower immigration rate. Now, if only one of them would take it to the next step and start really talking about low immigration, population stabilisation and a genuinely sustainable society.

I’m sure that whichever one did that would engage the community and greatly boost their chances in the election.

If Gillard was sincere with her comments about sustainability, she’d jump at the chance to align herself with Birrell, as well as with Ian Low, Tim Flannery, Dick Smith, etc.

What a crying shame it is that neither of our major party leaders (nor the leader of the Greens for that matter) is going to do this….and the all-important issue of a stable population, an immigration rate that would lead to it, and a sustainable society is going to just pass us by.

This should the TOP issue of our time. It is gravely unfortunate that our political powers that be just can’t see it.

Hmm, Aime, I think you're right. I have been pro-growth. I'm probably a capitalist too. But I'm all for debate on this issue. I do take exception to the more outlandish comments on population and rising sea levels.

I'll say this again. It's not people who are the problem. People are good. They form communities. They provide businesses. Build houses, grow crops, etc. They are families, friends, our neighbours.

They are not, I repeat NOT a problem. Where we need to do some work work is urban planning. That's a big issue and it underpins much of the anti-pop diatribe - that and fear and racism (same thing).

Pelican

Agree with your measured response to this article.

Cheryl

Being a capitalist does not mean that one cannot aspire to balance, stability and sustainability. What is calling itself capitalism at present is a few very powerful and self-interested monopolies that would be threatened by true level-playing-field competition.

Hi Cheryl,

Your comments hit squarely with what a lot of the Monash people that I know say about Birrell. He's deeply uncomfortable with immigration and foreign students.

But he hasn't faced up to any of the economic issues. More housing density would actually be better for the environment than the traditional suburban mansions which use a lot of water and electricity.

No one has never been able to contradict the arguement that we have never been better off. We are living longer, seeing more of this beautiful planet, have more food choices, more toilets, more wealth and yet has population has grown heaps. The only down side has been our incompetent State Governments who have not put infrastructure in place as well as a Federal Government that refuses to decide who makes good citizens and who does not.

In the 1950s I made friends with other students, colleagues, who came from Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines – studying under the Colombo Plan. What a grand concept that was , the antithesis of the current money-grubbing, talent-robbing, system where we take both cash and potential from those regions which are in greater need of development than ourselves.
Talk of insularity is a nonsense: There is plenty of room for two-way cross-pollination of skills and experience within the nett ebb-and-flow, in-and-out, of 80,000 people across our national border each year. There is no excuse for an inflow of an extra 277,700 above that - as was the case last year.
As Bob Birrell says of rapid rate of employment growth, it is dominated by service industries in cities; and the growth lobby demands more immigration in order to service the increased population - which now is predominantly via immigrants.
Dogs chasing their own tails were the most stupid things on view. That is now in second place: the growth lobby is trying to persuade us to do the same; use it as a basis upon which to build our society. There is no final number – 23 million, 50, 100 – they are no more than points along that lobby’s “essential” growth curve.
Thank you Bob Birrell for putting together cogent words on the population issue, and the major drivers of the social and environmental deterioration. Should this deterioration ever be adequately addressed, then there might be some reason to promote an increase in numbers, whatever their origin. As it is we are on the downhill skids which are being well oiled by those who want more of the same.

The Comments on this article are some of the worst i have ever had the misfortune to witness.

1, Many of the people who are anti immigration, are not necessarily against a "Big Australia", they would just like to achieve it with more "White" Aussie babies raised in traditional, intact families, like we were doing between 1945 & 1965.

2, Here's another conundrum for you all to contemplate. How did our governments manage to build infrastructure & educate all those children? Bear in mind that there were huge projects, requiring both funding & co-operation between all 3 levels of government, "Snowy Mountains" "Ord River" etc, on top of all the schools, hospitals, libraries, roads, bridges, universities, etc, etc, etc.

Bear in mind also, that during those years our health care & education systems were right up there with, "Worlds Best Practice".

How did they do it?

Why can't they do it now?

Cheryl,

Where's the evidence that much of the opposition to high immigration rates is motivated by racist sentiment? What do you say to those Australians who oppose mass immigration by all ethnic groups? Your comments are offensive and glib.We live in an old tired desert,the addition of a few million to our population will provide us with little economic benefit and the costs will be considerable.

David Jennings,

I'd be fascinated to see your strategy to convert Australians from McMansions to high density living.Dream on. There are plenty of economic arguments against high population growth rates.

You both seem to write as if Birrell were some sort of lone voice.

Try this reference-

http://www.population.org.au

I think you'll find that Birrell's views aren't exactly welcome in academia and Formersnag's comments shows to whom that view panders.

These aren't views that business welcomes either. Thats one of the real divides here.

The anti-populationists are a mix of a different set of motivations some good and some bad. Either way, if you are anti-population then don't have children.

Thanks Mac, whenever I want a crank comment or an unsubstantiated opinion supported by a Youtube video, I go directly to to the Unsustainable Unpopulated Australia website.

Cheryl,

“They pay Prof Birrell's salary and about 30 percent of Monash's infrastructure and resource budget.”

Why is Monash important, and for whom?

runner
Things are not all bad - no-one is arguing that, but are we 'better' off. How do we define 'better'. It is different for everyone and I don't suggest it is a one-size fits all.

Happiness is another measure of 'wealth' - are we any happier. When I grew up we were not rich, we re-used goods, recycled, we never had luxury food, but this was not unusual - we had a happy childhood including a big backyard, fruit trees and home grown veg and entertaining was about getting together with friends rather than how much stuff we owned. Dad was a migrant with poor English in the early days which limited his work options until he later studied and did modestly well.

Are we better off? In some ways we are and most Australians would be relatively content if they are not in debt. We certainly have more stuff but we live in overcrowded cities, fight with peak hour traffic, work longer hours, spend less time with family, kids spend less time with their parents, have higher debt than previously and it is becoming harder to own a home not to mention issues with water.

This is not to diminish the many ways we are lucky in this country. We have access to a social safety net, retirement income, advances in technology have improved health and other scientific research (as well as some dubious 'advancements') just to name a few. It is not pessimism that drives this debate but concern for the future.

Where is the increased leisure/family time that technological advancement promised in the 70s?

Population debate has to be had - it can't be ignored forever. Population policy is not about anti-people it is very much pro-people and pro-community if handled in a mature and responsible way including immigration as needs require.

We have to look at relative things, I bet the people here 200 years ago would have been quite happy then if they didn't have to put up with the type of migrants or invaders they ended up getting, those who came here 150 years ago had to come the hard way then by boats we would be sceptical about today, and the parents of todays wingers just paid 10 pounds, so what are they doing now beside whinging, waiting for someone to pay their way back?

Cheryl,

So,you can't present any evidence to support your assertions. NB Ad hominem attacks on critics of high population growth don't count as evidence.

Pelican

I have no doubt the population debate needs to take place. I agree that wealth does not necessarily produce happiness although poverty definitely will produce misery.

I am sure that if you spoke to many in the 1970's they would of given all sorts of catastrophic predictions of what Australia would be like if we surpassed 15 million.

My belief is that we have plenty more to share with others. Just look at the obesity and amount of food thrown out at fast food places. Most of our pets eat better than much of the world. I think we would only benefit by sharing more of it with others. As you are aware I do however believe we should be diligent to share it with those who appreciate our freedoms and liberties and not those who want to impose their lifestyles on us.

As for shorter working hours I actually agree with you. Sometimes people work longer due to greed while some work because of need. We have false expectations that we must own a four bedroom home, a new car and the latest phone/computer by the time we are 25.

As I stated in my first post much of the peak hour traffic is a result of lack of planning. Cities in other parts of the world have many more people than we do. The good ones have put infrastructure in place.

Proper planning could also encourage new immigrants and other Aussie to live outside of the cities. Governments should be thinking about how many people we can take in although I am sure we have a lot more room right now.

OFCOURSE we need migrants BUT....
they must be of our own choosing and with the skills we want.
We should have the undisputed rights to decide how many and from where they should come.

socratease

It is interesting that the growthists are focussing on Bob Birrell's motivations, not the validity of his arguments.

David Jennings asserts that he would wreck the economy, but the 2006 Productivity Commission report modelled the effect of doubling skilled migration (see p. 151). They found a trivial per capita benefit, with average income per hour worked actually falling.

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf

This is consistent with the 2008 House of Lords report in the UK and the 1997 American Academy of Sciences report. The elite want mass migration because the bigger overall economy and the distributional effects will make them richer, not because it is in all our interests.

Runner asserts that we have plenty of water for a larger population. If that is the case, why is there so much conflict over it in rural areas? The Murray Darling Basin (MDB) is responsible for 40% of our agricultural production.

"Consumptive water use across the MDB has reduced average annual streamflow at the Murray mouth by 61 per cent", according to the CSIRO 2008 Sustainable Yields report. Of course a much higher proportion is taken in a drought year.

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pna0.pdf

In the cities, desalinated water costs 4-6 times as much as dam water and is a prodigious consumer of electricity. There is no way that the politicians would even consider it if the cities hadn't outgrown their natural water supplies. Utility bills have gone up by 50% in the past 3 years, and that is just the beginning.

The price of a median house went from 3.3 years of the median wage in 1970 to 7.4 years in 2005, and considerably more in the metropolitan areas.

http://www.findem.com.au/factsheets/housingfactsheet.pdf

Runner wants to blame it on young people wanting to have it all, but the major cause of the increase is the cost of residential land (from 30% of the price to 70-80% in the cities, even though block sizes are much smaller). In my community, those small workingmen's houses that were built in the 1950s and 60s are still occupied. They just cost a lot more in real terms

Our lucky country, as many of us who have been migrants, and some of those we would be better without. The population of Australia, is in the region of 22,000,000, less than the city of London, I don't think that our rainfall is less (in some places) and our water storage isn't too bad, just that we have to look after it a bit better. When I was in the UK recently, you only got about 10 or 12 seconds of water out of the shower until you pushed the button in for more, and as Australia is about 25 times the area of the UK, and the population is 400 times more per sq kilometer in the UK, we can't complain about water shortage. Every country either has a recession or depression, or close to it. If you look at the internet "Brief history of Ausrtalia's tax", "History of Australia's tax" this only goes back to 1970, but when the top tax is low, there is a recession or depression, look also at "Tax history of US" and "Tax around the world". If you look at the dates, you will see that when the top tax is low, there is that recession, when the top tax is high (best results when 66.6%), the economy is good. Too many think it is the other way around, but a high tax is a Deterrent to high incomes. The only trouble is that our powers tobe don't have enough to manage the tax so we get only that 30.1% of GDP that is generally needed to manage the finance of the country.

Divergence

At p151 the Productivity Commission actually says that per capita income will rise by $383 pa if skilled migration rises by 50%.

Did you think that nobody would check?

Not sure if we can rely on the rest of your claims.

jjplug stated

"At p151 the Productivity Commission actually says that per capita income will rise by $383 pa if skilled migration rises by 50%.

Did you think that nobody would check?"

Which basically translates to $1 PER DAY extra income. That's a huge benefit.

Still it shows that your side of this debate has a few problems with the truth.

Assuming that Australia has 25 million people thats then $9575,000,000 or 9.5 billion. Is this still a small amount?

At p152 it states that the benefit rises to at least $10 billion a year if Australia cuts out the racism. ;-)

I disagree,

Divergence stated there was a trivial increase in per capita benefit. You then stated that there was actually a per capita benefit of $383 dollars pa. So on average most people are $1 per day better off. That, I think is trivial.
Also you neglected to state that on the same page of the report ( page 151) it also states that to achieve this $383 pa increase ( 0.71 % increase) people have to work 1.18% more hours.
Again on the same page you neglected to also add that it states this per capita increase of 0.71% is NOT evenly distributed among the population. The main benefits are to the migrants themselves and the owners of capital. The resident Australian workers are actually WORSE off, with their incomes growing MORE slowly than they would have been without immigration. In other words, the RESIDENT AUSTRALIAN WORKERS incomes WOULD BE GREATER without the added immigration.

So not only is there a trivial $1 per day per worker average increase in incomes, but this increase is NOT evenly spread. The greatest increase goes to migrants and the rich, with the ordinary Austrlian workers being WORSE OFF with added IMMIGRATION.

You're fussed about working 1% more hours? No wonder the Indian doctors are the best around and that the Asians and Indians dominate at university level. Thats really what this is about - business has realised that the Anglo stock is too lazy to keep the country moving. We need more workers from the region ;-)

Its just a given that migration doesn't benefit people with little or no skills. There's no free ride for you any more.

Immigration benefits ordinary workers --- it just doesn't benefit dregs and the bottom of the barrel.

Divergence said that "...with average income per hour worked actually falling." It doesn't say that at p151.

No,
What you said before was incorrect. Divergence was correct. $1 per day per worker is a trivial amount. You then came back and said that the total of 25 million times $383 or around 9.5 billion was not trivial. However the authors of the House of Lords report that divergence also refers to states that quoting GDP figures as you have done is totally misleading. The per capita figure is the figure which must be quoted to demonstrate a benefit. It is clearly no use to the average person to have a massive increase in GDP if it is matched by an even greater increase in the population, as then most people are WORSE OFF.
The report that you and divergence have referred to clearly states on the page you referred to ( page 151) that the resident Australian workers are worse off with the added immigration.

In your last post you stated "immigration benefits ordinary workers". However the report as stated above says exactly the opposite to this.

You also stated
" Divergence said that "...with average income per hour worked actually falling." It doesn't say that at p151."

Well it does state the average incomes rise by 0.71 % but average hours worked rises by 1.18%. So it really should not take too much to see that average income per hour worked HAS TO FALL.

I'm inclined to agree with JJ, Divergence has misrepresented what was written in the Report rather than explain that its his own reasoning. Thats poor academia for mine .....

"The report that you and divergence have referred to clearly states on the page you referred to ( page 151) that the resident Australian workers are worse off with the added immigration."

Actually it definitely does not say that. What it says is that income grows more slowly than it otherwise would and that just reflects the basic proposition that without skilled migrants we would have a skills shortage and business would have to overpay those people who are skilled and who are already here.

Its amazing how you like to twist things

David if the income of resident Australian workers grow more slowly with added immigration than without the added immigration they are therefore worse off with the added immigration. This is what the report says.

You statement demonstrates that you don't like highly skilled workers getting paid more, so you like them to compete with immigrants to keep their wages down. This is a different point to what is stated above.

I think the real problem is that you personally are a low skilled worker. It is people like yourself that are the hardest hit by immigration, as it is the unskilled that have to compete with immigrants, not the highly skilled.

So my best advice to you, is to go home each night and study hard, and eventually you will graduate from Uni and get out of the place. If its any encouragement, I personally will attend your graduation. i love to see someone so unskilled eventually make something of themselves.

Have we swapped roles? I'm pro-immigration and anti-racist. I'm also a highly skilled worker and an academic.

I think the key difference is that I understand economics and I'm able to grasp the concept of scarcity. You seem to be struggling with that.

Plus if i recall correctly from your earlier posts you couldn't get into medical school the first time around. I wouldn't throw stones if I was you.

http://www.populationparty.com

Commit to a stable, sustainable, open and tolerant Australia.

1. William Bourke - Businessman and Stable Population Party convenor
2. Mark O'Connor - Writer and Co-author of Overloading Australia

For a stable Australia: Vote 1 for Senate Group T: Bourke / O'Connor (above the line, in NSW).

All that I can suggest, David Jennings, is that you go back and read p. 151 of the report, although ozzie has clearly explained it. Any reasonably numerate person can easily see that if average income has increased by 0.71%, but average hours worked has increased by 1.18%, then average income per hour worked must be falling. How can this be twisted? Do you dispute that a gain of less than $400 per person per year can reasonably be termed trivial?

I don't dispute that a group of highly skilled workers, either through restricting their own numbers or by taking advantage of a bottleneck, might be able to hold employers or the community to ransom. The medical specialists are often accused of doing this. However, you would then expect a community benefit if the monopoly were broken, i.e. average income per hour worked would be rising, not falling. In this case, moreover, the Productivity Commission Report (not me) says that the gain in average income is disproportionately distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves.

What on earth does any of this have to do with racism?

Amen, deteema!

Divergence, if you're wondering what this has to do with racism then maybe you should read Ozzie's many rants against Indians and Indian doctors. Click on the little red man at the bottom of his posts. Makes for interesting reading.

I see the point you're making but if you go back and read what you actually wrote you suggested that the Report said something which it did not expressly say.

"The medical specialists are often accused of doing this. However, you would then expect a community benefit if the monopoly were broken, i.e. average income per hour worked would be rising, not falling."

What if the income of the doctors dropped dramatically once the monopoly was broken but the wider benefits to the community don't manifest themselves in terms of individual income. Not every benefit to the community is monetised

YES.We need skilled migrants who should first be required to swear a declaration of intending to accept all our traditions (political and cultural and religious)without seeking to impose theirs on us.
We have the right to select the ones we want and how many we want and where we want them to work. They shouldnt be dictating their terms and conditions on us. All European,American and Pacific Island peoples have no trouble in accepting these conditions just as therre are many Asian people also.
Those who hem and haw and want to bicker should be shown the exit immediately.

socratease

Socratease

Re: “ YES.We need skilled migrants who should first be required to swear a declaration of intending to accept all our traditions (political and cultural and religious)without seeking to impose theirs on us”

You intent is admirable, but I don’t see it working ---not in OZ.
Can you imagine the hullabaloo if we tried to expel someone on the grounds they had broken such a pledge!
Particularly if they had lived here for 2-3 years, and had a kid or two.The human rights industry would go ballistic – god knows how many new world order covenants it would be said to break.

Why, we could not even expel these:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/former-heroin-addict-granted-residency/story-e6frf7l6-1111115626092
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/1995/10.html

In 1948 there was approx 7.5m in the country; it is now roughly three times that. Is this good. In 1969 a bluestone federation house in Fitzroy Sa cost $8200 on an income of $2700pa forca 21yo. Shares were for another social group and through the fifties extended families and neighbours united as strong communities. In 1965 a 17yo in a bank earned 480 pounds pa ($960) and the dole in Adelaide in 1969 was $19pf (o did not bother and drove a cab). People bought one house; banks etc were extremely difficult to borrow from as is the case now. Increasing the population is good for you if; you can buy a house at 21yo; get married and have children , educate your kids at a private school, have a holiday at least once a year, are gainfully employed to your hearts desire have enough water and power without breaking your budget. Thetemay be others. However, if you think 'no, it will never happen" then population increases will only make things tougher. Our problem in Australia is thatcwe have never given
much thought to the future. In the sixties we were a quarry for the world and so we are
in 2010. Where is the clever country and the education and training for kids in trades and allied industries; in the sixties companies had their own training schools - not any more. In the end immigration makes us better. As the population grows we do not really notice. But anyone who thinks unrestrained growth is good for us is dead wrong - everthimg is finite. Who would have imagined we would not have enough water for us all. And what else have we yet to learn and discover?