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

Bravo John le Mesurier. Terrific stuff. We don't need this extra population, goodness knows. Trouble enough with what we have. Can we all have a breather for a couple of years and just catch up with supplying infrastructure to the existing population? Let's start with housing and putting a roof over the heads over those currently homeless. Then we'll work on supplying housing to those who are either single or low paid and giving them reasonable accommodation. Damn the economists and businessman who want unending population growth for their own profits! We live in a finite world - let's work towards a dynamic steady state economy where we don't grow (economically or in population but we do culturally and in the spititual sense). Can we all come to grips with the fact that we are at the end of the age of cheap oil? Growth is not an option. We have to move to renewable energy and localise agriculture. It's a different world we face - let's deal with it.

I wonder who is going to decide who we stop from coming here? At the moment it is anyone who can afford to pay a people smuggler. We have already had more illegals arrive here since the election than Ms Gillard's Christmas Island solution(ha ha) was mean't to address. Australia has heaps of resources and space. We can fit heaps more people however the author is right that we should first have the infrastructure. Successive State Governments have failed dismally here.

Curmudgeon illustrates the implications of high population growth well. In India you have masses of poverty stricken people who are denied any form of contraception. This provides a mass of cheap labour. In Australia there is ready access to contraception, so consequently labour costs can only be undercut by high immigration.

I'm glad that Curmudgeon didn't chime in with the "doing the jobs that lazy Aussies wont" line. Perhaps Cheryl can do that. Having people so poverty stricken and desperate that they would spend all day fishing bits of plastic out of a pile of filth for less than a pound is no measure of the work ethic of a population. Rather, it a measure of the obscene and despicable exploitation of a nation's poor.

Creating a supply of battery humans by denying the poor contraception amounts to slavery.

Runner says "Australia has heaps of resources and space". Well, you're right on the space but not on the resources, apart from a lot of non-renewables like coal that will run out with time. Have a look at the satellite maps - we're mostly an arid country. Sure, we grow enough food to export to 40 million others, but that may change with climate change and the imminent rise in oil prices that will severely impact on agricultural production. We may not even be able to feed our current population before long. So let's take the precautionary approach, shall we, and keep population growth to a minimum until we see what the future serves up to us. I don't think it will be pretty.

So, how do we get our government to really embrace sustainability, including a stable population and an economic system that is not predicated on a continuously bigger turnover every year (or every quarter for that matter)?

How do we overcome the fundamental democracy-destroying connection between the business community and economists (or more correctly; pseudoeconomists or false economists), and government?

How do we make our government uphold one of its most vital roles of being independent of undue influence by powerful players with deep pockets?

We’ve seen a real surge in support for a stable population or a much lower rate of growth recently, perhaps triggered by Rudd’s ‘big Australia’ comments or the appearance of Kelvin Thomson or Dick Smith on the scene. This has been great, but I suspect that it has failed to change anything, or to even momentarily bother the rapid-continuous-growth juggernaut.

So what on Earth can be done?

I'm amused to see comments along the lines of "we have plenty of space and resources". If we have plenty of space, why does the bulk of the population live in state capitals? While there may be plenty of other spots for new towns and cities, I don't see any rush to build them. Dubbo NSW could easily double in size, but where are all the immigrants and city slickers living? As has been touched on by others, we don't have a lot of space, if you include the need for well-watered, arable land. The far north has water to spare, but would anyone on this forum seriously consider living in the Kimberly, for instance? I've lived up there (not exactly in the Kimberly, but in tropical Australia) for several years at a time, and it's not pleasant if you can't handle extreme heat. In the south, there is limited arable land, and on the outskirts of the state capitals, is being turned into housing estates- in part becauue land values become so inflated, horticulturalists can't afford to pay the rates on the profits from say, tomatoes.

Have a look at this map of world poverty... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Basically the more red, the more poverty... But the surprise is that it is a map of FERTILITY - how many children are being born.

You know how our government seems unable to fund hospitals, schools and roads, and this is with our population failing to produce enough children to replace ourselves... imagine the problems of fundiong these essential

services if the population was not declining, but trippling every twenty years... no wonder they are poor. Worse than schools and hospitals, they somehow they also need to find more farmland too!

50 years ago, perhaps we could have ended poverty. But now there are so many more poor that the problem is so much bigger. For example, there are 60 million shanty-town dwellers in India alone, and only 20 million Australians... Let alone Indonesia, the Pacific Islands, New Guinea... What about Africa? Sth America? etc etc...

Why is China becomming so rich and powerfull? The one-child policy. It means they can finally afford to catch up with the infastructire and education that nations need to get ahead and build wealth.

I don't like the 'one child policy', but Thailand and surging Iran (Think nuclear power) also have zero-population growth due to marketing, free contraception and free choice. It's not really the feminist idea that educating women reduces population growth (think Iran, they're not keen on educating women)...

...continued

... Continued...

Because the 'right' number of children is what an economy, and the planet, both need! Too many kids leads to poverty, exploitation of natural resources, de-forrestation, overgrazing, growing deserts...

What succeds is explaining to people that too many kids leads to poverty, and long-lasting free contraceptive implants. Eventually compulsary education and urbanisation also drive down birthrates, because they make kids expensive. This tends to come along at the same time as education for all, which creates the feminist myth that only educating women decreases birthrates... it does, but that's only a small part of the picture.

On the other hand, too few kids also leads to economic calamity.

Too few kids, Like Japan, and more recently, the rest of the western world, leads to economic collapse, financial crisis, decades of economic stagnation and unsustainable pension and helthcare costs...

Why is the 'aging population' such a bad thing here in Australia? Surely it means we are living longer, and isn't that a good thing?

The problem is not an 'aging' population, it is that we are suiciding... failing to produce enough kids to replace ourselves.

Here we need to give tax reductions for kids so middle class parents can afford the kids we want.

Meaning that single mums are pressured into having more kids than they can look after. Those on welfare are pumping out kids like there is no tomorrow because of the welfare bribes to have lots of kids, and incentives to be un-married.

Also making divorce fairer, because Australian men don't want to become dads... so many lovely professional women can't start families. Men aren't commitment-phobic, they are rationally afraid. Afraid of having their kids stolen by divorce lawyers.

Well said PNP. Ludwig asks "What can be done?". As you point out, The provision of affordable contraception for all who want it in the world would be a step in the right direction. We should be treating the commodities boom as the perfect opportunity to move away from a growth based economy.

@PNP
Most of us who have kids pay very little or no tax as it is, education and medical care are to all intents and purposes free of charge unless you choose to pay for them.
I read somewhere that even if migration was reduced to zero tomorrow we'd still be heading for 30+ million.
There is also the possibility that if we do have an economic downturn that large numbers of migrants will leave to seek greener pastures, as happened in Ireland.
We may end up with "Ghost suburbs" like they have in Dublin.

Crikey, what planet do you live on, Jay of Melb? I have kids and have paid between $20-30 income tax annually (with up to $5k back, living remote/outback) for most of the last decade. I'm not what I'd consider a high income earner, either, and many of the "outback perks" are taxed. Year to date- over $12k. I don't get Family Allowance any more, my child is disabled and gets a measly pension.

It is hard to disagree with the author.
I would go further and translate the author's code into more concrete language:

<<Discourage development of enclaves of language and religious communities that remain insular and tend to resist integration.
- Ensure that immigrants are composed of social and cultural groups that are largely compatible with Australian norms or can be easily adopted by them.
- Establish bona-fides and background of all immigrants to eliminate those with criminal background or extreme views which may pose a threat to law and order.>>

You would have to be an ostrich or a multiculturalist not to recognise which group would logically be excluded should the above immigration wish list be implemented.
Sweden is starting to realise the nightmare it has unleashed onto itself with the recent car bombings in Stockholm, not to mention the long ongoing problems of Malmo.
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/12/11/two-explosions-in-stockholm-1-killed-2-injured/

Australia must bite the bullet before it too becomes an extension of the Middle East.

Islamic extremism cannot be contained once it hits Western shores,
contra the illusions of the multicultural dreamtime self-deluders.
We must not let them take us down with them.

Mohammedans must be excluded from any immigration program
for the sake of the future of this country.

While I'm sympathetic to calls to restrict
immigration on ecological grounds, like most
articles on this topic this one acts as a 'dog
whistle' for those who wish to limit immigration
of particular ethnic or cultural groups:

"Mohammedans must be excluded from any immigration
program for the sake of the future of this country."

One reason that Australia hasn't developed and
implemented a more ecologically sustainable population
policy is that discussions about population and
immigration are invariably seen as "code" by those
who wish to express bigotry and hatred towards others.

Major political parties have avoided tackling this
vital issue by appealing to the bigoted sector of the
electorate through demonisation of the relatively minuscule
numbers of 'boat people', while encouraging mass immigration
via supposed 'skilled' migration programs.

<<One reason that Australia hasn't developed and
implemented a more ecologically sustainable population
policy is that discussions about population and
immigration are invariably seen as "code" by those
who wish to express BIGOTry and hatred towards others.

Major political parties have avoided tackling this
vital issue by appealing to the BIGOTed sector of the
electorate through demonisation of the relatively minuscule
numbers of 'boat people', while encouraging mass immigration
via supposed 'skilled' migration programs.>>

Mohammedans should be excluded if they arrive by boat AND they should be excluded from 'skilled' migration programs.
Let there be no discrimination as to how they are excluded.
Just exclude them from all immigration.

This has nothing to do with BIGOTry.

This got to do with keeping Australia free from Islamic extremism.
There is no other effective way.
We need to learn from history and we need to learn from countries like
Sweden,
Norway,
Denmark,
Britain,
France,
Netherlands,
Germany,
Belgium,
Italy,
Spain,
USA,
Canada
and all the other countries where Islamists are engaged in violent (and non-violent) jihad.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

It's good to see that you get the message
about bigotry, Proxy. However, it doesn't
seem to prevent you from attempting to hijack
a thread about population and turn it into a
platform for the expression of your own apparent
bigotry towards Muslim immigrants.

Which illustrates my point perfectly, thanks
very much.

Goes to show why there's never a debate about population in this country. Any attempt to do so ends up in cies of "racism, bigotry". If we are to have an immigration program, there's no reason why the few that should be let in can't be selected- hopefully on the basis of skill and ability to integrate. Since in my opinion many who come here presently have neither, I too can be accused of bigotry, whereas those proponents of "open door" immigration could be accused of treason and environmental vandalism.

<<It's good to see that you get the message about bigotry, Proxy.>>
Accusations of bigotry are the first resort of those without an argument.

<<However, it doesn't seem to prevent you from attempting to hijack a thread about population>>
Mine is merely an expansion on the author's reference to Social Factors which should be taken into account when deciding who we let into Australia.
It deals with exactly the same issue albeit in a less circumspect manner.
You seem to be wilfully blind to the real hijackers, like the 9/11 nineteen who were Islamic migrants to the USA.

<<and turn it into a platform for the expression of your own apparent bigotry towards Muslim immigrants.>>
There's that insult of first resort again, which seems to come so naturally to you.

<<Which illustrates my point perfectly, thanks very much.>>
You don't appear to have a point, apart from shouting down those who have a different opinion to your own with accusations of BIGOTry.

"bigotry (plural bigotries)

intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial; discrimination (against); the characteristic qualities of a bigot"

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

Proxy: "Mohammedans must be excluded from any immigration
program for the sake of the future of this country."

Proxy, your proposal to discriminate against
"Mohammedan" (sic) immigrants seems to fit the
definition of bigotry perfectly. QED.

Now, do you have anything to say about Australia's
population policy beyond demanding that "Mohammedans"
be excluded from immigrating?

"Bigot: A person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own,
especially on religion, politics or race."
- Collins English Dictionary

You appear to be the one who is intolerant of my ideas
so what does that make you?

I don't believe I have expressed intolerance of your ideas,
certainly not to the degree that you have toward mine,
so who is the greater bigot?

I have no issue per se with anyone's religion, politics or race
but I nevertheless feel free to criticise those that I don't agree with.

You would apparently deny me that freedom
so what does that make you?

Islam is a retarded and violent ideology and it should be exposed for what it is.
Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Catholicism, etc
may also be considered retarded by some but I do not feel the necessity to comment on them
as they do not represent the threat to our society that Islam patently does.

To declare that somebody who rejects one specific ideology on the basis of its
daily demonstrated danger is a bigot is a misuse of the term.

ie
I reject Islam and its followers on the reasonable basis of a
widely demonstrated and thoroughly documented threat.
I do not reject other religions whose followers do not represent a threat.

Therefore it cannot be said that I am intolerant of anybodies religious beliefs which differ from my own.
Particularly as I have none.

For the above reasons I agree with the author when he states that we should:

•Discourage development of enclaves of (Islamic) communities that remain insular and tend to resist integration.
•Ensure that immigrants are (not) composed of (Islamic) groups that are largely incompatible with Australian norms...
•Establish bona-fides and background of all immigrants to eliminate those with ... (Islamic) views which ... pose a threat to law and order

So you don't have anything to say about
population policy, Proxy, other than to
rant on about keeping "Mohammeddans" out?

I thought not.

I'll let others form their own ideas about
who's promoting bigotry in this discussion.

Talisman....we already 'get' that you don't have an ounce of argument... which is clearly why you just attack people rather than arguments.

Stonewalling and denial are not a good look, and they do absolutely nothing for your oops.... I almost said "argument"..but then...you don't have one do you?

Let's explore 'intolerance' and see if YOU pass the test.

IS THIS..."intolerance" or....not?

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and SLAY the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. Surah 9:5

How about this?

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. surah 9:29

or this:

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

If it IS "intolerance and bigotry" and it is also "ideologically based in dogma" then it follows by all standard of logic and reason, even at a level a prep school child can understand...."allowing such intolerance and bigotry and racism into Australia would contribute to an intolerant, racist and bigoted society"

Thus.. we must be INtolerant of such ideas and racism and bigotry to ensure we have a tolerant, inclusive and respectful civil and social discourse.

I doubt you will even seek to understand the quotes, bigots seldom try, and you have manifestly demonstrated 'bigotry' on repeated occasions. But I do predict one thing......your response "Oh Oh...u Islamophobe" at which point, I just roll my eyes.

By the way Talisman, re "population"...that's one of the prime reasons to fairly discriminate against Muslims coming to Australia. Their faith recognizes and permits (to this day) polygamy and up to 4 wives.

Seems reasonable to me that if you have 4 wives, you will have LOTS of children and unfairly contribute to over population.

Of course...a lot would need to come here before they can control the outcome of marginal electorates and gain the balance of power through their Green (watermelon) sponsors.

Graham, having put your foot down firmly elsewhere about wandering off topic, how about a stern warning to those who consistently and wilfully divert each and every thread onto a "discussion" on the evils of Islam?

Just a thought.

I agree with Pericles, even though I'm one of the wanderers. It's fair to point out that the original article mentions certain groups which don't fit the desirable immigrant profile, mostly in reference to Muslims. I'd also point out that I have posted at least once on the reasons why Australia as a country and as a continent can't carry 35-50 million people, but there was little direct response.

Population debates always devolve into an argument over race (and now pseudo race, Muslims), which is probably why this country has had so few debates on the topic, and why it remains a policy-free zone.

"Population debates always devolve into an argument over race (and now pseudo race, Muslims), which is probably why this country has had so few debates on the topic, and why it remains a policy-free zone."

Thanks to Pericles and viking13, whose comment
above reiterates my initial point. I guess
in their own way Proxy and ALGORE also reinforce
it with their blatant attempts to turn the discussion
from one about population policy into one about those
awful Muslims.

Unfortunately, John Le Mesurier's article is as much
to blame as anybody else for sabotaging real debate
about Australia's population in this forum, by its
inclusion of a pretty blatant 'dog-whistle' to those
who wish to introduce discrimination against Muslims
into immigration policy.

[As if discrimination on the basis of religion is
ever going to be acceptable policy in this or any
other liberal democracy.]

At any rate, before entering into secondary social
factors, population activists need to secure some kind of
consensus about the necessity or otherwise of stabilising
Australia's population at an ecologically sustainable level.
In my view, only once Australia's human carrying capacity is
agreed upon do social and cultural factors belong in the debate,
if at all.

So some would now dictate which particular parts of a discussion may or may not be engaged in.
Does this betray a totalitarian mindset?
Combined with their accusations of bigotry and their own dearth of arguments one wonders about their motives.
I'm glad that they are not yet the final arbiters of our freedom of speech.

Addressing the topic, which is more than they appear to be capable of, I would argue that increasing the Islamic population lowers our living standards (the authors key point, judging by the name of the thread) not only because of cultural factors but also because of economic factors, not to mention security factors.

“According to the Danish police and the Danish Bureau of Statistics more than 70 percent of all crimes in the Danish capital are committed by Muslims. Our national bank recently published a report stating that a Muslim foreigner costs more than 2 million Danish kroner (300,000 euros) in federal social assistance on average, caused by the low participation in the work force. On top of this, we have to add many additional types of social welfare that unemployed people can receive in our country: expenses in connection with interpreters, special classes in school – 64 percent of school children with Muslim parents cannot read and write Danish properly after 10 years in a Danish school – social work, extra police etc.”
http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/04/danish-psychologist-finds-integration-of-muslims-in-western-societies-not-possible.html

Fortunately, Denmark is starting to wake up and we need to heed their lesson.
Mohammedan immigration into Australia should be stopped immediately before it’s too late.

Pericles... your ugly side is showing.

How can you even remotely disassociate the religious idea of "Polygamy" from population ?

It follows like night after day that if a man has 4 wives he has 4 times the potential to increase population.

Calling for constructive selection criteria (discrimination) to avoid the possibilities of:

a) Our political discourse being dominated by a group which advocates Polygamy
b) The acceptance of people who's creed is violently opposed to our way of life and values.
c) promotion of discrimination, hate, fear and loathing of Jews and Christians
d) Increasing an element in society which sees the world in terms of "The War zone" (where Muslims don't yet govern) and "The peace zone" where Islam dominates

Your call for viewpoint discrimination here in this thread is, I'm afraid, nothing short of Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" behavior and is to be condemned in the harshest terms.

This is especially significant at this moment with Sweden picking up the pieces from a "happy friendly normal family man with lots of friends" who blew himself up while trying to murder as many Swedes as he could.

It's far better to attack the ARGument than trying to impose your "Ministry of Truth" on us.

For example, you COULD have argued that "Polygamous families have no impact on population" Oh wait.. no you couldn't have..because that would be irrational. So..take the easy way 'Call for censorship'

"it follows like night after day that if a man has 4 wives he has 4 times the potential to increase population.

While this is true, and is one means Muslims use to dominate non-Muslim population (it's worth noting too that Osama bin Laden is apparently one of 77 (yes, seventy-seven) children) I doubt polygamy is a big issue in Australia. It's not exactly popular amongst Muslim women, and the ability of a Muslim man to bring in a wife from overseas is compromised if he's already married.

Having said that, Muslims tend to have large families, more so even than Catholics (many of whom who practice birth control, despite Papal edicts). Generous welfare payments don't help, on that score, as Britain has found to its cost.

Really, this country needs an informed debate on carrying capacity and a survey of water, arable land, infrastructure and a whole gamut of topics.

"Really, this country needs an informed debate on carrying capacity and a survey of water, arable land, infrastructure and a whole gamut of topics."

That's exactly right, viking13.

But we're not going to have it if
every population debate gets hijacked
by those who insist on using it as a
platform from which to preach hatred
and intolerance.

This discussion is a very good example
of that. I note that neither Proxy nor
ALGORE seem to be at all interested in
the primary population issues of carrying
capacity and infrastructure. Indeed,
they haven't indicated where they stand
on the article's central point that Australia's
population growth needs to be reduced if
our living standards are to be maintained.

Instead, they just use the population issue
to promote discrimination against and hatred
towards Muslims. It's a damned shame, because
Australia really needs to have a proper debate
about population along the lines that viking13
suggests.

<<Populate for lower living standards>>
Populate (with Islamists) for lower living standards.

<<We should question the sanity of anyone who welcomes rapid growth of Australia’s population.>>
We should question the sanity of anyone who welcomes rapid growth of Australia’s (Islamic) population.

How does talking about the Islamic problem not address the topic?

Ignoring it will not make it go away.

There is an obvious correlation between an increasing population of Islamists and declining living standards.

Look around to what is happening in the world.

This debate is crucial to Australia's future wellbeing.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

And yet another potentially useful discussion
about Australia's population sinks into the mire
of bigotry. Such a shame, because we really need
to have a proper debate about population policy.