There is little doubt that Australia can accommodate many, many more people and will need to. The problem is that any growth needs to be managed and managed well. Too often we have seen extraordinary growth in many areas of SE Queensland without any thought from local or state governments about servicing these areas. Already dilapidated roads worsen from increased usage. Police, medical and paramedical services struggle to keep up. There is little or no public transport and many services are still only available in Brisbane forcing the population onto already overcrowded roads. And I am sure that many other areas of Australia are suffering similarly.

Likewise immigration must be managed. There is little point in allowing immigration for the sake of it. Those wishing to live here must do so in harmony and be able to contribute to the nation in a productive way.

Until there is a genuine move from our governments to plan for, and manage, population increases Australians will always be fearful of ever increasing numbers in our country.

Ross, you are very good at putting up incredibly one-sided articles and then terribly bad at coming back and debating them and defending your views. You seem to just have a closed mind on the issue: promote growth at all costs and just ignore any questions asked about the veracity of such a position, as per your last article on OLO on 04/05/12.

Could you please spell out in simple terms what you think is the great advantage to a population of 50+ million for Australia. How could it be of such an enormous advantage to us as to render the huge downsides (some of which you amazingly do actually mention) insignificant or worth enduring?

All you’ve said by way of reasons is one brief statement; < ….in the interests of economic security and (according to some) military security also >

It is quite extraordinary that you don’t seem to have a well-developed reason or any reason really for advocating this growth….. which leads one to think that the real reason is vested-interest profit-generation for your beloved real-estate industry!

< Whether we aim to become a nation of 35 million or 50 million or if we ultimately agree that despite the consequences that are clearly understood we would collectively prefer to remain a small nation of less than 30 million, it’s a discussion we need to be having. >

Yes, it is a discussion of great importance. So please come back and discuss it!!

Simple arguments about space are meaningless. Yes, Australia has a lot of space - most of it arid. Contrary to what Ross asserts there are serious resource issues for Australians. It is true that we could support a much larger populaton but only at much lower standards of living (such as in Jakarta or Mexico City etc.) on a vegetarian diet and is that the future we want. Ludwig is correct - there is no good justification for moving to a larger population. Even the bogeyman of the aging demographic ignores the longer term history of Australia. We are currently at an all time low of dependency (ie. many people in workforce relative to non-working dependents) but we have seen much higher rates of dependency in the past and we are simply moving back towards the middle ground.

However, Ross' essay is useful in the sense that it will provide a template that can be used in an essay dissecting his arguments and showing them to be largely unfounded. In the meantime, read "Can we Feed a Big Australia?" (for some real data):

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10405

You have made a number of comments in your article which are misleading to say the least. Los Angeles does have the numbers you describe but you don’t say that it is able to survive only at the expense of much of the dry country around it whose few waterways have been dammed and diverted to LA.
Mexico City obtains its drinking water from its own ground water caused continuing subsidence. Djakarta has a standard of living at an unacceptable low level compared to Australia.

There are some figures you have not included. Every day every Australian produces 2-3 litres of urine and 500 – 1000 grams of faeces. We have not yet accepted the potability of tertiary or quaternary processed sewage and in many cases we export it to the ocean.

The average Australian needs to drink 2 – 4 litres of water per day and uses much more water in the daily process of living. This water has to come from somewhere. Dams are an ecological nightmare as well as suffering from the dilemma that the best places for an engineer to build a dam are not the best places to fill a dam: take Warragamba as an example.

We cannot forget that we live on the driest continent on Earth, other than Antarctica. Nor can we forget that there is a mountain range changing climates and rainfall patterns close to the eastern coast of the country. Desalination is both an economic and ecological nightmare for the narrow coastal fringe which is most liveable.

I would say that Australia is already full: please don’t advocate trying to squeeze more in.

“Whether we aim to become a nation of 35 million or 50 million or if we ultimately agree that despite the consequences that are clearly understood we would collectively prefer to remain a small nation of less than 30 million, it’s a discussion we need to be having. Pretending the issue isn’t there won’t do anyone any good.” - according to Ross Elliott.
He occupies one or the other of just two possible positions: deliberately disingenuous; or unconscionably ignorant on the issue he is writing about.
In 1992 The then Bureau of Immigration Research published (but quiet and discreetly) Immigration and State Budgets (by Russell Mathews, professor of accounting and economics among the many titles he acquired), on the costs of immigration to federal and state budgets.
In 1994 the Federal Government held the very public ”Jones Inquiry” into Australia’s population and carrying capacity. The scientist assisting the inquiry (Doug Cocks) produced a seminal book, People Policy, in 1996. It was independent of the inquiry, and remains as relevant today as it was then.
October 2002, and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs very reluctantly released to the public Future Dilemmas - Options to 2050 for Australia’s population, technology, resources and environment.
In 2008 the CSIRO published an examination of the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth scenarios, and compared them to humanity’s progress since then.
None of the above gave any indication of progress from a continuing expansion of population, but many probabilities of serious consequences from it. Ross Elliott, having superior expertise, wants them to do it again - and keep doing it until they get it right.

Golly Ross, another ‘Straw man’ argument.

The entire rational behind your comments has the breaking strain of a warm Mars bar.

You state:
“The clock is ticking for Australia’s ageing population and even the Federal Government’s own ‘Tax Reform Roadmap’ released with the May budget warned that: “The proportion of working age people is projected to fall markedly over the coming decades. Today there are about 4.8 people of traditional working age for every person aged 65 and over. This is expected to fall to around 4 people within the next 10 years and to around 2.7 people by 2050.”

“We know that our ageing population will struggle to be supported by a diminished workforce in that time. We know we already lack sufficient critical mass to sustain a variety of industries which are too regularly yielding to the weight of global competition, much of which is based on numerical strength. Yet we consistently refuse to confront the question of a larger population and what it would take to get there, along with the consequences of failing to do so.”

Sorry but the 9% super we currently receive and the recent increases proposed will negate any argument for a bigger Australia based on your rational, young people currently working and those entering the work-force will support their own retirement under this super scheme, that is of course, until you continue to ignore the fact that our so-call ‘growth economy’ is based on a fractional reserve banking system, limited only by our finite planet.

Perhaps you should consider the limits to population in Australia given our lands finite ecological function and the false assumption that we can have continued growth without degrading our children and their children’s futures.

Like all ponzi scheme’s your growth mantra, growing population myth will not see the light of day, per capita income is dropping globally, do some serious research and stop spruiking your biased solutions to predicaments that are unsolvable in your ‘business as usual’ model.