Right on the money Yabby and Last word.

Andrew, you write; “However, he is right to point out that the malthusian mindset is not consistent with how things have turned out.”

No he is not. We are not at the end-point of the consequences of the population explosion yet. Give it another few years and old Tom Malthus will be proven to be pretty well spot-on.

“I agree we could do way better at planning and constraining development in certain areas, but that is different to keeping people out all together.”

No one is arguing for closed borders to SEQ. Yes the rate of population increase could be considerably tempered with the right sort of limitations to development. So what are the Democrats doing about this?

“I believe it is reasonable to assume the fertility rate will continue to decline, despite a brief halt in the last year or so.”

I hope you realise that the personal fertility rate and the effective fertility rate are two very different things. While the personal fertility rate is about 1.8 or a bit less, Australia’s population growth due to births alone is far greater than the death rate, which means that the effective fertility rate is well above 2. Our grossly irresponsible treasurer Costalotello tells us that "Our national fertility rate is less than replacement level" and "Only immigration is making our country grow". Again, what are the Democrats doing about this really serious often-repeated gross misinformation?

“The point is that migration numbers are much easier to vary somewhat from year to year”

YES!! So the pro-growthers should be basically forgetting about trying to raise the fertility rate (as if it needed raising). The baby bonus is a complete shocker of a policy, especially given that even the ‘best’ desired result could be matched by a small increase in immigration. So what are the Democrats doing about this godawful blatant bribe to have more babies, funded by taxpayers who for the greater part wish to see population stabilisation?

Andrew, how's politicians going to handle the required extra infrastructure, roads, power, water, health and welfare needs of this 30 million population. Considering it's collapsing, How will you accomplish this

'The simple point is that extremism is the danger, not religion and that's coming from someone who is not religious at all. “

You are religious, you follow the religion of money and politics at the expense of the people. You have no answers except more growth at any expense.

Economic growth is an illusion, the results around the world show that it is not beneficial for the people or environment, Where are you going to get work for the extra 10 million, when we have about 5 million unemployed and another 5 million underemployed. The unemployment figures politicians rely upon are false and criminally misleading.

I hope some day soon we can find those that will take over and bring your mob (politicians) to account, and have you made responsible for the mess you have got us into. You can tell a persons worth by the veracity of their works outcomes. The biggest threat to our future, comes firstly from politicians, and secondly from religious conflict.

Even though we appreciate you getting involved in this thread, you are yet to present anything that would give us confidence to vote for you, or for that matter any politicians. But, you have one glaring fact in your favour, when it comes to polling day, you have two things going for you. The corrupt illegal preferential voting system and the knowledge that the vast majority of the population are slaves to stupidity and will lemming like, just vote as they are directed to against all the evidence.

We sure live in a wonderfully stupid world.

Alchemist,

Hear, Hear!

(lots of rumble, clapping and foot stomping)

The alchemist. There is a reason why our Government ensures that the standards of Education are low and that schools are run by teachers and students that are often bullies!

They want us to get used to being treated like dirt and they want to make sure that we do not have enough education, confidence or skills to do anything about it.

If a parent complains that the education system is neglecting children, bullying students and is corrupt at the core, the parent is the one that gets her head chopped off and everybody supports the bullies. What else is new!

We've got to take some responsibility for your own fate. We can't just say it is all the fault of the politicians or the teachers. Politicians are just people who are trying to do a job as best they can and get re-elected in the process. If the Business Council of Australia promotes high population and high immigration and puts forward their arguments in a way that is compelling to Andrew Bartlett and others, then it is our job to try to counteract those arguments with the same energy that the BCA brings. I'm pretty sure if Andrew Bartlett, Kim Beazley and John Howard thought they would lose a lot of votes by promoting high immigration they would change their stance or lose the next election. At the moment they don't lose many votes.

The arguments regarding population growth and the environment are complicated. We can't just yell "You're an idiot" and expect to change anybody's mind.

When I read Andrew Bartlett's responses, I get the feeling he thinks we are on the fringe of the voting population, and that the mainstream voters support his view of increasing immigration and hoping the environment will take care of itself. He has a quick look around and sees that Labour and Liberal also support high immigration, so what has he got to lose. It is the sensible political approach to getting re-elected.

Our job is to convince the general voting population. Its clear that Andrew Bartlett is not going to be a leader in reducing immigration, even though he lives in SEQ where the effects of high immigration are most dramatic.

Its a political world. Get on board or be left behind.

Andrew

As an Australian Democrat in 1990 I helped formulate the draft policy advocating low immigration levels for Australia. Three times it was accepted by the membership. Three times the members’ decision was over-ruled by a partisan executive. It’s one reason I’m no longer a Democrat. (Lyn Allison, however, has done well on RU486).

But we can agree on a number of things. Migration has made, on balance, a positive contribution culturally; much more needs to be done in terms of migrant settlement; the program must be non-discriminatory; and temporary residents and short-term business visas should be part of any debate on migration size.

The migration program, however, is simply too big. It needs to be halved immediately. By all means increase the humanitarian component but only at the expense of the skilled program. The recent Productivity Commission report shows there are negligible economic benefits to existing Australians from migration. So, leaving aside the cultural aspects, that leaves the environment. Migration contributes nearly half our population growth, which, without a concomitant reduction in per capita resource use, is bad for the environment. Look no further than your own southeast Queensland that is being paved over by urban development.

The issues you raise are important but pale into insignificance against the various catastrophes that confront us, particularly Peak Oil and climate change. Many commentators warn of economic meltdown from Peak Oil when demand will exceed supply and oil prices rise inexorably, hurting the poor the most. We might be able to surf the wave were we moving quickly to a renewable energy society, but we’re not. Nor are we moving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Should temperatures rise 2-3degrees, Australian agriculture will go to the wall for starters, never mind the economic impact of severe weather events and sea-level rise.

This is not the time for growth, either in resource use or population. It does not mean closing our doors but it does mean being better stewards of this fragile continent that simply cannot sustain a bigger population, even without the coming catastrophes.

Jenny Goldie aka