For a start our hospitals cannot cope with the existing population.

There has been a lot of talk about health problems, waiting lists etc. but no solutions.

Until waiting lists and emergency treatment is brought down to reasonable levels that we expect (not politicians) then no more increase in the population should even be considered.

This article is spot on. This country has been a "policy-free zone" for decades, in relation to population. Gillard made mention of it during the recent election campaign, because it's an area of concern for many Australians, now forgotten and on the back-burner. Current population growth has already outstripped the ability of governments to provide infrastructure, and the larger eastern state capitals are near bursting point. Le Mesurier mentions our capacity to feed and house any increased immigration- on top of that we have prime agricultural land being concreted over by McMansions and associated roads and shopping centres, and while there is a perennial housing shortage, prices are driven beyond affordability for Australian-born kids.

I have never seen figures which prove that a high immigration intake relieves the so-called "ageing population problem". Immigrants age too, and the only way to change the age profile in any meaningful way would be to empty the ophanages of Africa, Sth America, Eastern Europe and Africa, which would then give this country huge integration problems. Le Mesurier points out the problem we already have: large numbers of immigrants with little ability or desire to integrate, forming monolingual enclaves where English-speakers aren't welcome.

It's about time we had a meaningful debate on population in this country, even a Royal Commission to investigate past practices and quotas.

There is a lot of argue with in Le Mesurier's article, although cetainly a more measured approach to growth would help. However, I will pick on just one point - unemployment.

Although additional people can mean more jobless, they can also mean fewer jobless - it all depends. Some years ago US economists studied what happened when a heap of Cuban immigrants were dumped on Miami, courtesy of Fidel Castro. America being America it was possible to see what happened in Miami when compared to other almost-similar cities. The result, after an adjustment period, was less unemployment.

The new immigrants were cheap labor which could be put to use in garment factories which sprung or expanded up to take advantage of this new resource. A crucial point was that it is easier to hire and fire in the US, and there is plenty of capital ready for new opportunities.

The results of the policies over which you are now wringing your hands may be entirely different from what you imagine may happen.

<< It's about time we had a meaningful debate on population in this country, even a Royal Commission to investigate past practices and quotas. >>

Viking 13, I think the time for debate is long past. John Le Mesurier is spot on – there are enormous, and blatantly obvious, negative consequences to continuous rapid population growth.

The thing that we desperately need to concentrate on is the future-destroying lack of independence of government, at all levels, which just totally panders to the vested interests of big business.

Gillard has expressed concerns about a ‘big Australia’. That's gone nowhere.

Bob Carr, former long-time premier of NSW, was (and still is) very concerned and vocal about continuous population growth, particularly in Sydney. But apparently he was powerless to do anything about it.

A few local government leaders have expressed a lot of concern. But seem to be powerless to address it.

We had the inquiry into Australia’s carrying capacity, which was a major study undertaken in 1994 under the Hawke Government. Its findings and recommendations went absolutely nowhere!

If Government was able to stand up to big business and act in a truly independent manner, I think that there would be many more current politicians who would come out against continuous endless expansionism. But at present they feel that they would be better off towing the party line or keeping their mouths shut.

Kelvin Thomson is a rare incumbent politician who has spoken out about population growth. And it seems to have won him a lot of support.

Until the political donations regime and a few other factors are reformed so that government can be truly accountable to the people, we’ll go nowhere with the fight to develop sensible policies about population growth and sustainability in this country.

Once we have a suitably independent government, a royal commission to investigate past practices and quotas could be a very interesting exercise.

Ludwig sets the scene very rationally.

One major item to add to his data is the CSIRO “Future Dilemmas” - a report on the options to 2050 for Australia's population, technology, resources and environment. It was an exercise undertaken on behalf of the Department of Immigration and---.
It was only reluctantly accepted by the Department, which sat on it for a considerable time before releasing it in 2006. The Department’s subsequent actions have been contrarian.

As for Royal Commissions - they are seldom empowered by politicians who are not prepared to accept their probable findings.

A breath of fresh air !

It takes economic literacy to lift the lid on stupidity.

Become a member of Sustainable Population Australia (population.org.au) and continue the path to equity and the end of poverty.

Very best wishes,

Ralph