"Will we have to consider major immigration programs to main a viable and ‘healthy’ labour force?"

Despite what the pro-immigration crowd might say, immigration is not a fix for an ageing population. The reason is simple: immigrants age too.

A 1999 Australian parliamentary research paper, entitled "Population Futures for Australia: the Policy Alternatives", looked at the claim that immigration could offset an ageing population. It found that in order to maintain the proportion of the population aged 65 and over at present levels "enormous numbers of immigrants would be required, starting in 1998 at 200 000 per annum, rising to 4 million per annum by 2048 and to 30 million per annum by 2098. By the end of next century with these levels of immigration, our population would have reached almost one billion."

The paper concluded:

"It is demographic nonsense to believe that immigration can help to keep our population young. No reasonable population policy can keep our population young."

The UN has also examined this issue. Its report, entitled "Replacement Migration: Is It A Solution to Declining and Ageing Population?", often cited as proving the case for replacement migration, actually came to the completely opposite conclusion. The authors concluded that the scale of immigration needed to change the demographic profile of a whole country is so large as to be “out of reach”. For example, to combat the effect of aging population in South Korea (a very rapidly aging society) almost the entire population of the earth would have to move there by 2050!

Jon J wrote: "While both of these may be true to some extent, clearly the average population age of Australia, say, could easily be brought down to whatever figure we regard as desirable simply by allowing preferential immigration by young people from countries where these are still in the majority."

Firstly, what happens when these immigrants themselves get old? Should Australia just keep importing an ever-increasing number of immigrants ad infinitum? Given that every country has a finite carrying capacity, does this really sound feasible to you?

Secondly, rather than handing over our country to foreign peoples and cultures, why not encourage Australians to have more children?

@drab:

Let's get your numbers right first. South Korea has a population of 50 million and an average age of 38. Assuming an absolute worst-case scenario, where nobody has any children, the average age in 2050 will be 80. To reduce that to, say, 30, would require the immigration of about 300 million twenty-year olds -- well short of the seven billion population of the planet. I've seen this claim made before, and it was just as silly then. You really need to check things before you quote them.

However, I never claimed that massive immigration was not disruptive. It's extremely disruptive. But so is an ageing population. My point is that neither one is inevitable; either one can be avoided by adopting the other. If you regard them both as undesirable then you have to choose the lesser of two evils. I don't know which that is yet; and neither do you.

As for encouraging Australians to have more children; well, that's also disruptive and it puts an enormous moral responsibility upon parents. I personally would much rather welcome people from overseas who want to be here than coerce people to have and raise not-really-wanted children. That seems to me to be exploiting innocent victims in a cruel and barbaric way. Eugenics, anyone?

< It's extremely disruptive. But so is an ageing population.>

Really? Really truly?

Please, start by giving an example of an ageing catastrophe, and then give an example of a youthful Nirvana. Yes, and real examples only. Now compare the economic parameters of the two. See where this leads?

Inevitably, the youthful Nirvana might be an RSA shanty town; the ageing catastrophe a Japanese village. To be frank, it seems beyond moronic to think the former a model to be emulated so as to avert a transition to the latter.

Poverty stricken, ignorant, savage, violent, dirty, diseased, corrupt, overpopulated shithole, or peaceful, wealthy, provisioned, educated, quiet and picturesque township?

Boy, that's a tough choice.