When we were building the (impossible) Snowy, the migrants we needed had no other choice but go where directed, and many stayed on in the bush as fruit and cane farmers, what have you.

Diver is right inasmuch as one can't force folk to settle in a strange new land full of strange customs unless there's an incentive to do so and that incentive could easily be both permanent residency and subsequent citizenship!

Regardless of Diver's, as usual, negative opinion.

And true, one can't blame folks for wanting to settle where there are jobs or a livelihood! And that's where we need new tax laws, new infrastructure and rapid rail to allow the biggest employers to migrate out there taking their depleted, migrant ready workforce with them.

We used to have a workforce starved industry sector where one could literally earn a week's salary, for introducing a new worker.

And what was once possible for a much smaller Australia, half our present size is doubly possible today. Or maybe the old folks were just a lot smarter or more industrious?

Maybe Diver has all the answers? Or even just a few positive ideas? No?
Alan B.

We do not need population growth. No developed country needs mass immigration of the sort imposed on us by politicians. It is a lazy way to increase GDP, but it reduces per capita GDP.

The pro population growth advocates have already won a significant victory by framing the debate, so that it only considers dollars. Writers like Ross Elliott then focus on the economic aspects and hardly mention the other quality of life issues.

In recent months, though, congestion has pushed its way into the debate and the average punter has started to call B*llsh*t on the over-repeated claim by the Business Council of Australia, the Urban Task Force and other pro population growth groups that all we need is better planning. How about business starts getting some better planning to make profits without high population growth.

A good indication that the worn out economic arguments are losing traction are Labor's "letter to ScoMo" and the Liberal's "send them to the bush" proposal. Both of these are stalling tactics, (at which politicians are well practiced experts) designed to continue the existing policy of high population growth and immigration while pretending to be concerned about congestion and infrastructure costs.

With the current debate mostly framed around economic factors the BCA and Urban Task Force don't have to answer whether higher population is going to result in higher wages, less greenhouse gas generation, less pollution, more habitat for wild animals, lower energy prices, lower road tolls, lower food prices and lower water prices. At least we are starting to consider congestion, infrastructure costs and housing prices.

Some young female immigrants are needed to sort out the stale gene pool.

Ross Elliott = Property Council = Greed.

ericc: You are at least trying to address the topic, whereas the usual suspects are just giving vent to their favourite hobby horse or political diatribe?

Cheaper energy is key, even more so if it is carbon free, reliable dispatchable power that can be sited virtually anywhere. With cheaper energy able to be sited virtually anywhere, comes affordable water, affordable recycling/massive development/reafforestation of our arid inland. Much of which will prosper our endangered species!

Think, at one time this continent was covered in trees from the west to east. which inducibly acted as a recharge mechanism, when the monsoons came or when moisture blew in form east-west north or south.

It matters not if around half or even all of those trees produce fruit, fibre or sustainable forestry!

Few of the native flora or fauna were fire-tolerant species only the flora that could adapt, survived repeated burnings by stone age hunter gathers as stone age survival mechanism. Are now, so wedded to the practice, unable to intellectually conceive of a better more ecologically sustainable practice.

Short-term cell grazing that does all, we need to do to ensure adequate firebreaks, a land management philosophy; that's both superior and better land management practice.
As opposed to routinely/annually adding tons to atmospheric CO2 pollution.

Yes some animals, not all, burp methane. those that don't, usually perform better with weight gain from woody weeds and produce far less fat and cholesterol. Add dung beetles to the equation, you are continually returning nutrient to the soil and eternally geo-sequestering carbon.

In any event, a larger population will require quite massive development and reafforestation of an arid inland. Jobs growth/employment in regional rural Australia.

Only possible if we accept that only nuclear energy as CLEAN, WALK AWAY SAFE. CHEAPEST MSR thorium has a snowflakes chance in hell of actually succeeding in not only doing just that! But ensuring that our standard and quality of life are all lifted/improved for everyone, rather than as present, a select privileged few!
Alan B.