What Hasbeen said.

The days when the average citizen derived any net benefit from high population growth, even in narrow economic terms, are well and truly over. So far as the ordinary resident is concerned, it only means more pressure on the environment, more congestion, and more competition for jobs, housing, public services, and amenities. See the following and the references therein

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/190377/sub015-migrant-intake.pdf
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/190609/sub054-migrant-intake.pdf
http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

Yet we currently have nearly the highest rate of population growth in the developed world, currently 1.4% (for 2014), down from a high point of 2.1% in 2008/2009, with 56% of the growth due to immigration and the remaining 44% to natural increase, although about a third of the natural increase would be births to migrants. This population growth is overwhelmingly due to government policy, not the decisions of Australian couples. We still do have some natural increase from the existing population, but it is entirely due to demographic momentum and decreasing every year. Our fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976.

The major parties are ramming population down our throats because Big Business does benefit from it, along with the folks in the immigration industry. Total GDP does go up, giving Big Business and the politicians more to skim. More people mean more customers, more profits from property development (and lending money to buy that property), especially if their mates in government will restrict supply, and a cheap, compliant work force that is cowed by an oversupply of labour, with savings on training costs if the growth is due to immigration. It cramps their style if they can't also socialize infrastructure costs. But since Hasbeen isn’t getting any benefit from population growth, why should he pay for the infrastructure to support it?

I am curious as to just how low a quality of life, how much environmental damage and how much regimentation Suseonline would personally be prepared to accept so that we can have a really big population. By the way, here are the figures for net overseas migration to Queensland

http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/overseas-migration-qld/overseas-migration-qld-2013-14.pdf

and the much smaller interstate migration

http://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/interstate-migration-qld/resource/d0f17377-21d9-494a-a25b-1adf7fa6c851

@susonline You have dragged out another misrepresentation favoured by Big Australia supporters.
The number of births to Australian women has been below replacement of 2.1 for decades. The reasons for births exceeding deaths is the high birth rates post war and vastly increased life span, both leading to abnormal bulges in the demographic pyramid, where numbers are greater than those for infants. Obviously this will correct over time to a normal stepped ascending shape.

Could you can point out to me where I was ranting?

@Suseonline, Wednesday, 8 July 2015 9:17:54 AM
and
@Suseonline, Wednesday, 8 July 2015 1:19:09 PM

You are forever demanding that other posters provide evidence and sources. It is not something you do yourself though.

If you had actually read my post instead of rushing off half-cocked as per usual, you would have realised that I did cite my source, as is my usual practice. It was in square brackets at the foot of the information I was quoting.

What you rudely dismiss as a 'rant' is quoted from the Diversity Figures (2011) produced by the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs (DATSIMA), in partnership with Queensland Government Statistician's Office. The quote again, "(the) Diversity Figures brings together core demographic and diversity data from the ABS 2011 Census of Population and Housing and data on migration patterns, including humanitarian arrivals, from the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP)".