Well Matt Moran,What are the State Governments doing to ease the problem, joining more dots to support higher density housing for the left wing or cutting red and green tape to release the constrains on building, None as they pander to those who want their existing homes to increase in value at the expense of those who can't get a home.Hypocrisy takes all forms and appeals to the lowest common denominator, greed. Especially those who do not care for their fellow Australians, not to mention Labor's mess on immigration to suit the lefts care for everything but not take personal responsibility,For those who support refugee policies, I say, self sponsor their desires, and that includes the personal funding of their decisions.

I think I've understood what you're saying here Dallas - yes, there is no other thing to call it than putting short-term greed before the national interest.

I think we are in agreement that the states and federal government have been beyond cruel in how they've treated Australian citizens and our wildlife at the behest of big business. To be clear, I am advocating an immigration program which balances immigration with emigration - around 80,000. Within this we'd easily meet our humanitarian intake and any short-term skilled shortages. The issues you're describing aren't created by asylum seekers (~14,000/yr), they are created by ongoing high levels of "legal" immigration (180,000+/yr)- unfortunately, the media have been very remiss in how this has been protrayed such that many Australians think immigration = asylum seekers.

The states are very complicit in our ongoing high immigration policies and are now by and large broke. Put simply, if you grow your population too quickly, you make yourself poorer. As such we have the on-going issues you describe which simply cannot be resolved while our population grows as quickly as it is. My information is that at current rates of immigration, by the time we reach 35 million, of the additional 12 million, around 8 million will be from migrants and the children of migrants. While this is not meant to be an anti-immigration rant, these levels are far too high to be sustained for any length of time - and we've had net immigration levels of over 180,000 for over 12 years - pushed up under Howard, they flew up even under Rudd and under Gillard they are creeping up again.

Our thinking is that if you work towards a stable population, investment might once again find it's way into our own very neglected youth and disenfranchised. But we also need to be of assistance globally where we can - I believe we can be diplomatic but firm on ensuring women have access to family planning, contraception and education (particularly in relation to population and resources).

Perhaps it is our different ideas on what constitutes "evidence" that separates our thinking, Divergence.

>>It is curious that you only have to assert your facts, while I can link to supporting evidence for my mere opinions.<<

Ok, let's have a look at what you classify as "evidence". Which is quite fascinating, when you open it up to the light of rationality:

>>the 1.4% population growth that we had last year cost us 9.6% of total GNP, She based this on a very conservative estimate of $200,000 cost per person<<

Uh huh.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Without population growth, our GNP would have grown by an amount greater than ten percent. If that is not the right conclusion to draw, please let me know the calculation you would use instead.

>>Others are up to twice as high<<

Same question. If these figures had been used, would our stable population have delivered 20% growth?

Ummm.... how?

>>The American economist Lester Thurow estimates a cost of 12.5% of GNP to support 1% population growth.<<

Same question again. He appears to be suggesting that a stable population would automatically deliver 12.5% growth... do you see where I am heading with this?

If this is true, it puts all other discussions on economic prosperity into the shade.

But of course it cannot be correct, can it. Life simply is not like that. So there must be some hidden flaw in your "evidence", nést-ce pas?

Let me know when you have worked it out. Then we might be able to continue the discussion using reality as our base, and facts as our yardstick.

You were saying, Ludwig?

>>Anything that goes against your beloved ongoing rapid rate of immigration is nothing more than someone’s opinion. And yet anything that you can find that supports your growth obsession must be indisputable fact!<<

Perhaps you can help Divergence with the mathematics.

"WmTrevor, If you really cared obout Koalas, you would have an active breeding program."

Err... what, Dallas? Slightly personal, but in fact I do have and am satisfied with my active breeding program (and its rigid training regimen) though I can't see that it has anything to do with koalas.

Apologies Ludwig, I almost missed the razor-sharp question at the end of your post.

>>...in the interests of trying to regain some sense in this discussion, would you care to proffer a sensible response to this statement from my last post….

"No doubt if we’d had a much lower rate of population growth through the years of the mining boom, we would have seen MUCH better average per-capita economic growth."<<

Oh, it wasn't a question after all. Just another conjecture, starting with your ever-present, ever-confident, "no doubt"...

Let's have a look at history.

It is a fact, is it not (as opposed to a conjecture) that since 1950, our population has grown from 8 million to 22 million people. It is also a fact, is it not, that both our GDP and GDP-per-head have increased steadily over the same period.

Would you like to comment on the following conjecture:

"No doubt if we’d had a much lower rate of population growth through the years since 1950, we would have seen MUCH better average per-capita economic growth."

Start with your zero-population-growth scenario, and let me know how it works out.

What can we learn from this?

Conjecture is when you look at a set of data, and predict that the world will run out of a vast range of non-renewable resources within the next few years. Conjecture is when you predict that "premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race" as a result of population growth. Or when you predict that in fifty years, the streets of London will be nine feet deep in horse manure.

(Even if this last is apocryphal, it still illustrates man's innate, and seemingly irresistible, desire to create a drama in order to make a point...)

"No doubt" both the Club of Rome and Rev. Malthus were well supplied with data, had the very best of intentions, and did not make their predictions lightly. Yet even so, they have one significant characteristic in common, do they not.

And I won't insult your intelligence by pointing it out.

Pericles,

The problems due to population growth are appearing in environmental deterioration, quality of life issues, and long waiting lists, which mainly affect ordinary people and don't show up in the national accounts, as well as in a really big infrastructure backlog. This wouldn't necessarily show up in the economic growth figures. For example, you might decide to save money by not getting your car serviced. You might be able to get away with it for quite a while, and your household accounts would look good. Of course it would catch up with you in the end.

I am a natural scientist, not an economist, but do you seriously think that Jane O'Sullivan (a qualified economist) would be able to get her paper past the referees and published in a peer reviewed journal if her argument was as patently foolish as you pretend? It would be like Physical Review Letters publishing a paper claiming perpetual motion. The paper itself is behind a pay wall, but her submission (298) to the federal government's inquiry into a sustainable population for Australia has a lot of the same arguments. She also gives a reference to that paper by Lester Thurow claiming 12.5% (see the Wikipedia article on him for his credibility).

http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/population/consultation/submissions.html

Here is another paper from Canada, which reaches much the same conclusions as she does

http://global-economics.ca/fiscal-transfers-to-immigrants-in-canada.pdf

John Stone, a former federal Secretary of the Treasury, was also unable to find a per capita benefit from mass migration, contrary to what you say (see his article in the Sept. 2010 Quadrant).

Dallas,

It is the government that sets population policy, mostly through immigration, not the private sector. On the infrastructure issue, the electricity capacity and network, for example, will have to be expanded and the expansion paid for by us, whether it is run by the government or a private company.