Putting support for current migration levels in the same basket as supporting people to have more children ignores the rather basic fact that migration doesn't increase population levels by a single person - all it does is determine whereabouts on the planet a person resides.

The statement that "even at current levels of fertility and migration, Australia’s population will pass 30 million by mid-century" is not supported by Australian Bureau of Statistics projections. It also ignores the fact that our fertility rate is trending down, despite a brief pause in the last couple of years, and there's no particular reason why it won't continue to do so, given trends in other western developed countries.

When migration intake is as high as the current level is, it is relatively easy to taper from one year to the next by 10 000 or so, as the peaks are driven by the skilled and business demands. The current year's intake is quite high by historical standards, so to assume it will be consistently at that level for the next 50 or 100 years is unlikely to be accurate.

As for Leigh's bemoaning of the decline of white Australia, I will only say that it can't be reversed, so we're better off looking at how to make it work best (multiculturalism seems to be doing bast at that, but that's another debate). The evidence shows that, regardless of whether a migrant comes from so-called "white European stock" or something else, the vast majority adapt to Australians levels in regard to the number of children they have within a generation or two, so that should please everyone who wants to see global population growth decline (as I do).

Here's a thought, Leigh. You wrote:

>>We have been talking about this for years. While we have been talking, our population has continued growing – thanks to dumb, high-growth politicians.<<

You don't actually select a period that covers "for years", but here's a challenge:

Name any period, from the past to today, and tell me a) whether the population of Australia has increased over that period, and b) whether the people of Australia at the end of that period are better or worse off than at the beginning.

Start with economics, if you like, then work through quality of life and so on. However you look at it, Australians are better off today than at any point in history.

A statistician would probably detect a high correlation between population and prosperity.

Until and unless there are specific examples of roadblocks - hinted at in the article, but none actually proven - this state of affairs is likely to continue.

And as Realist points out (hi!) there has yet to be an end to human ingenuity with which to address the problems as they arise.

Suicide by immigration, yay, welcome to the world of economics. Yippee, less white people are having babies so Aussie won't be white anymore. Yay. Import everything we need, since the world belongs to us, the white man y'know. No doctors? Get them from Kenya. There are more Kenyan doctors in London than Kenya. Declining population? Get 'em from countries with an even more severe declining population like Croatia.

No water? Get the water from some third world country, we need it more yknow.

Kenny who are you to advocate a higher population, are'nt you gay? Oh, you are all for suicide by immigration.

Realist, I love the idea of digging a channel up through SA to fill Lake Eyre with sea water. (I used to watch a lot of Sci-Fi.) But when are we going to do this massive engineering feat, and with what energy? Because we had better start soon! With your over optimistic scenarios, you have obviously missed the most startling report to the US Department of energy EVER, the “Hirsch report.” In it he states…

"The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary."
From the Summary, page 64.
I wrote to Robert Hirsch and asked for a summary of his 91 page report. This is what he said…

"No one knows with certainty when the world production of conventional oil will peak, but a number of experts think it will happen in the next 5-15 years. Our work illustrates that the oil peaking problem can be mitigated with available technologies, but the time required for implementation is measured on a 15-20 year time line, at best.

The character of the oil peaking problem is like none other; without timely mitigation, the impacts will be dire, worldwide, and long-lasting. Prudent risk management dictates serious attention and massive action soon, which is difficult for most people and many decision-makers, who tend to wait until a problem is obvious before taking action."

Realist please note: Hirsch now saying that his report was too optimistic! Oil production may have peaked this year, we really should have been preparing for 40 years! He is genuinely scared.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615

"This problem is truly frightening. This problem is like nothing that I have ever seen in my lifetime, and the more you think about it and the more you look at the numbers, the more uneasy any observer gets. It's so easy to sound alarmist, and I fear that part of what I'm saying may sound alarmist, but there simply is no question that the risks here are beyond anything that any of us have ever dealt with. And the risks to our economies and our civilization are enormous."

If you think Hirsch is some nutter, check Wikipedia. Don't trust wiki... go to the various government biographies and links to learn more about Hirsch. He is no nutter. He is very cluey. He is scared!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

Peak oil might not mean Mad Max — but it’s going to be close! Just google “Eating Fossil Fuels” if you want to learn more about the relationship between oil and food. The basics were given in the outline article above.

“Realist”, try reading the Hirsch report before posting with that username again. Thanks

Andrew Bartlett

You have attempted to discredit Jenny Goldie’s article by alleging that the Australian Bureau of Statistics projections do not support her statement that "even at current levels of fertility and migration, Australia’s population will pass 30 million by mid-century".

If you are referring to the same ABS that we can all check at www.abs.gov.au, I’m sorry but the ABS projections DO support her statement. In November last year, the ABS forecast that with net overseas migration of 110,000 and a fertility rate of 1.7 Australia’s population in 2050 would rise to 28.2 million.

The net overseas migration is now running at at least 110,000, but as you say yourself, the fertility rate is higher. According to an ABS release in December last year, the fertility rate rose to 1.8 in the year ended June 2005, the highest rate for 10 years.

With the combination of 110,000 and 1.8, the population will in fact reach 30 million by 2050. Your suggestion that the rise in fertility rate may only be temporary is an assumption that is built into the ABS projection – they do not assume that it will remain at that level until 2050. So your accusation that Jenny’s statement “ignores the fact that our fertility rate is trending down, despite a brief pause in the last couple of years, and there's no particular reason why it won't continue to do so, given trends in other western developed countries” is groundless.

Andrew you are wrong. Jenny’s statement is perfectly consistent with the ABS projections. You really should face facts - the population could easily rise to 30 million within the next 44 years.

The ABS goes to considerable lengths to warn that the projections are not intended as rock-solid forecasts, but are “illustrations of growth and change that would occur if assumptions made about future demographic trends were to prevail over the projection period. It says there is no certainty that the assumptions WILL or WILL NOT be realised. That is why alternative projections are provided, to provide users with a range of options”.