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.