If migration and population growth were as beneficial as sneekeepete claims then this would show up in economic studies and international comparisons. As a number of us have repeatedly pointed out, the Productivity Commission has found no significant benefit. Finland is number one on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index and among the top 10 on the UN Human Development Index, with a population growth rate of 0.16% and net migration of 0.89 per thousand as opposed to 3.91 in Australia (CIA World Fact Book). It and the other Nordic countries also outrank Australia and the US on environmental management and the welfare of the poorer citizens.

The people who support high population growth either personally benefit from it (as described by Daggett) or are insulated from its effects. Although I can't say anything about sneekeepete personally, the demographic with the same views is characterised by jobs that require (recognized) tertiary qualifications, fluent English, and often an intimate knowledge of the culture. Such jobs tend to be safe from foreign competition. They also tend to be relatively well paid so that the people who have them can afford to opt out of crumbling public health and education and to live in suburbs, possibly even gated, that are too expensive for the underclass or the problem migrants. Speaking up for migrants allows such people to appear noble and generous at no cost to themselves. As the situation deteriorates, they may even benefit from nannies and gardeners who will work for next to nothing or from renting out their little investment property to 14 or 15 migrants who will sleep in shifts, as in the US. Naturally they would like to shut up people who are objecting to this cosy situation.

Sneakpete,

"Any one would think Australia and Australianess is some sort of cultural relic preserved in aspic for all time. And I am sick reading about our values - and our "way of life" and for that matter our heritage. "

Get over your cringe. This IS a multicultural society. Only illiterate people who live in cocoons would debate that at all, or even bring it up. Never mind what Howard says about history or the fair mindedness of Australians. The geezer is just OUT OF TOUCH with reality. He lives at the lodge and Kirribilli, NOT in Liverpool where hard working taxi drivers are murdered for the night's takings.

What intelligent people worry about is overpopulation. About the chaos that stems naturally from putting too many people too close together without a thought to anything except political leverage and 'corporate profits for post ministerial jobs' schemes.

Unless you live at Kirribilli house and have chauffered limos to get you from A to B, you know you can't move in Sydney. Its GRIDLOCKED. Only people like yourself or the unbelievably ignorant Andrew Bartlett would prescribe adding more people. Where do you live, on the Moon? Only total cretins would believe that the NSW Government can kick start money-losing public transport initiatives and demand that we abandon our modern Gods ... the car and the SUV.

And don't tell people we should put in regional centres, the 100,000 immigrants per year coming to Sydney. Morris Iemma has already announced property developments for 1,000,000 extra people over the next 10 years. To be built by his favourite MacCompanies group. 100,000 people a year have been PLANNED FOR by NSW government (dubious) electoral mandate, no matter what limp ideas people come up with on this thread.

"Our immigration intake increases at an inverse rate to our natural population growth rate" (Yobbo).
This does seem to be the intention of the Coalition, Labor, and Andrew Bartlett's style for The Democrats.
It would have to be, and more, if their totalitarian attitude is to be successful in getting us to their desired (?) population of 40 million by mid-century. The rate of population increase would have to be about 1.8%, which is way above our present rate. As the number of females of fertile age declines, as it must, in coming years the immigration component will have to rise well above Andrew Bartlett's currently stated 140,000: no, not just twice that, but perhaps closer to three times in order to reach the target. Will the currently-discussed battle for social cohesion simmer down as a result? Even should climate change not impact us adversely? Or we magically overcome present water shortages, agricultural deterioration, and city congestion?
There is currently no political search for stabilisation; for now, for mid-century. John Howard, Kim Beazley, Andrew Bartlett have all given every indication that they have no interest in stabilisation. And ignore the model enabling this in the 2002 Future Dilemmas base case scenario.
Although the fairly stable Australian fertility rate has now gone up marginally to just under 1.8, the average immigrant intake of 70,000 used in Future Dilemmas has since increased to well above 100,000. We are gathering speed. And, when/if we reach mid century, what philosophies do these "statesmen" have regarding a yearly putative immigrant intake of third of a million immigrants? Will politicians of 2050 vintage suddenly turn off the immigration tap just to make these three political wise monkeys retrospectively honest?
Andrew Bartlett, you have pointed to multiculturism to take our attention away from a program of stealing peoples futures - from our children, from the rest of society. It is to no-ones benefit other than very short term for the likes of Steve Vizard and those who used him as a pawn for hardly honourable purposes.

KAEP; Clearly you are not a student of my scribblings. If you were you would realise I am all for multiculturalism - I am just sick of hearing about it. Particularly on these pages - it is part of my life and vice versa.

And as for cringe i only cringe from wacky statements about cabbies getting killed for a nights takings and the like that seem to have no bearing on this silly thread.

I am just tired of the discussion that is used as a trojan horse for all manner of intolerance regarding immigration - some times it is even dressed up as an ecological arguement -

And as for over crowding I dont care about that much either - we dont know what over crowding is.

Hi Sneekeepete
You don’t have to be here on the forum and you can choose which subjects you respond to, so if you are sick of this particular subject, just tune out.
You are right about overcrowding, though. We don’t know what it is here in Australia.
I love visiting London and Paris, they are full of very interesting things, beautiful architecture, history and people, but if you have lived in either of these cities (or I suspect, any city of comparable size) it is such a relief to be able to get back to Sydney and relax.
It is probably selfish to think like this, but that is one reason why I don’t want Sydney to have an equivalent density of population.
Life is exciting in these cities, but very draining.
If you have ever watched people packing into trains on the Paris Metro, or the London Underground at 5.00 PM you will know what I’m talking about.
In Paris, they have a saying about daily life - “Metro, Boulot, Dodo” which means “Metro, Work, Sleep”. That is their life.
Here in Australia, we have the chance to keep the country as a very pleasant place to live, which it is already.
That is why we need to plan properly for the future, and control immigration and the size of the population, so it can continue to be an enjoyable place to live. Shouldn’t there be at least one place on this planet that is relaxed and where people can enjoy their daily lives?

DEAR ANDREW PLEASE COME BACK!

As one poster noted, it is rare for authors to come back and comment and it was very welcome that you did so before. But we haven't heard from you for awhile and would very much like to.

Three things, especially:

1) Have you taken the time to listen to Al Bartlett at http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461?

2) Do you disagree with David Attenborough when he says: "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, maybe we should control the population to ensure the survival of our environment"?

3) Have you found any evidence (as you promised you would) that Australia's population will stabilise with a net immigration of 100,000? And if so, when will it stabilise?

And just another thing. Please remember it's not really your country to open the gates wide and say to the rest of the world, hey come in. Without reference to its Aboriginal owners. It's like saying to the Aborigines (who ran the place, ecologically speaking, quite well for 60,000 years), "Well we know immigration hasn't been exactly good for you over the past 218 years, but we don't give a flying fig what you think because we're running the show now and you're goona have to have a lot more of it".

I ask again, who's racist?