Isn't it Ironic,

Everytime this forum gets close to the truth of the failure of immigratation to deliver fair and equal progress to all Australians, the Italian State Government comes out with its Jack boots and tramples public opinion: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/new-land-releases-less-costly-for-buyers/2006/06/29/1151174333896.html

To be that cocky they must have done more polls to check all their seats are still stacked with pseudo-Australian immigrants and corporate stooges. If Australians with a preeminent obligation to this country were in those seats, Frank Sartor would not have dared to release this kind of muck. We don't need more people in Sydney, we need services. Oh what's that, the ageing population needs immigrant labour you say? The ageing population doesn't need more immigration. It just places stress on older folk and cheap uncaring private nursing contracts with poisoned carpet over underfloor heaters to create a swift turnover.

Ooops did I say Italian state government? I meant NWS State Labor Government of course.

No immigration or refugees at all, until we've solved all the problems the future presents us with, the political system has to be completely changed. Until then we'll go faster down this path to total destruction, promoted by the ruling elite.

Surely you must've noticed the similarities between the proponents of this direction with its completely illusionary outcomes and religion, they are one and the same. They rant about hope and a grand future, but deliver nothing but misery and a growing gap between the haves and have nots.

Economic rationalism and grow is a religion with illusionary powers of its own thats unstoppable until it destroys itself and all around. We're witnessing a repeat of history, all previous societies and cultures, come to an end, we're witnessing its destructive violent collapse. We either go down with the ship as the enslaved clones do, or we abandon it and prepare to pick up the pieces.

I'd like someone to tell me how you change our direction using the current political system. Thats like using a flat tyre to replace a punctured one. We have to rid the country of the current way of selecting politicians, by demanding they put forward their agenda, outcomes and methodology in statuary declarations for the electorate. With criminal charges if they fail to carry out their promises for the betterment of the electorate, this should be the case for portfolio's as well. This would give people the opportunity to determine by fact, who would best represent their best interests. It would quickly make political parties redundant, giving people back power to construct and control a sustainable future.

The Skeptic, anyone who believes any inquiry conducted by vested interests, (bureaucracy, big business) is factual and continues to believe economic growths the way to go, is a part of the problem and enslaved fool.

Skeptic - There are many who feel the same way as you, but I am not sure everyone has read the Productivity Commission report carefully.

The Last section in the Overview section is called Summing up. It says: "Consistent with previous Australian Studies and research in other countries, the effect of increased skilled migration on average living standards is projected to be positive, but small. It is also likely that most of the benefits accrue to the immigrants themselves."

Going deeper (I can understand that people are busy and it is a big complicated report, so many people may have missed this) to page 151:

The effect of a 50 per cent increase in the level of skilled migration on productivity and living standards has been simulated. Compared with the base case:
• Income per capita is higher by about 0.71% or $383 per capita by 2024-2025
• Average hours worked per capita are higher by 1.18% by 2024-2025

That means that you will be working 1.18% more hours to earn 0.71% more money. Your hourly wage will decrease. Does that sound like a tremendous benefit that we should all strive for by increasing immigration?

Please also note that this is an economic report. They are not assessing the impacts of degradation of the environment. As they say on page xxxv of the Overview:
“Similarly, environmental externalities, such as congestion and pollution might also contribute to lower productivity and living standards.” My opinion is that there is little doubt that congestion and pollution contribute to lower living standards.

I’d like to say more about the PC report and I will endeavour to write another article for Online opinion with more detail.

With respect to your other comments I think technology can certainly go forward without increases in immigration. The most prosperous and innovative countries are the smartest countries, not the most populated. I also think we need to have conservation measures as well as reduced immigration. We are a long way from living sustainably. We will need to reduce immigration and work hard on conservation to get there.

Yuyutsu,

In order to defend Australia from a threat from principally Indonesia, by your ethos, we would need a population of 250 million at least. However it doesn't work that way.

Modern military matters are about expensive military technologies that can only be afforded if we sensibly exploit our mineral wealth including Uranium. We do not need to share our booming mineral wealth with corrupt individuals from foreign countries who have been schooled in the belief that Australia is a sartorially easy target for takeover through weaknesses within its own political processes.

Further, even if the immigrational immorality of NSW Labor and Howard's stupidity are upheld we could not sustain more than about 25 million population before Sydney and the Gold coast became world slums and foreign investments dried up. The reason? This is a desert Island and once Sydney and the Gold coast are done there is no where else immigrants will want to live. Just ask them!

I feel Australia is responsible for perhaps half a billion tonnes of GHGs from coal exports in the sense that we didn't have to sell them, though Downer claims this is offset by uranium sales. The world's coal reserves would last a long time with a much smaller population and the environment could absorb the emissions without help. We could even make petrol from coal. I recall James Lovelock on Lateline saying if global population was just one billion we could all drive gas guzzlers with impunity. I'm not sure what the answer is to low wage work in a smaller population; if Maccas employees had to be paid $100 an hour the process would have to be automated somehow. Importing population seems to stave off some labour shortages but will make it worse when finite resources run out.

Well argued case, Eric.

I too am critical of Australia bringing in large numbers of skilled migrants, especially when there are so many unemployed and underemployed Australians who would willingly do this work if given the chance. Both business and government have been shirking their responsibilities to skill the nation for over a decade, and now that the chickens are coming home to roost their only solution is to buy in on the global labour market.

I have two problems with your position though, Eric. One unfortunately is evident in Leigh's response. Any substantial reduction in immigration levels would be difficult to achieve without resurrecting shades of White Australia and the inevitable divisiveness and ugliness that that would lead to.

Secondly, your argument ignores our global human rights responsibilities. With over twenty million refugees world wide, and that figure only set to grow as the effects of global warming and political instability worsen, Australia should be able to give a home and new life to at least 15-20 thousand needy refugees each year. These people could be encouraged to settle in regional areas and to fill skill shortages.

The development of safe and renewable energy sources and a reduction in energy consumption should be the prime goals of both government and the Australian population. Reducing immigration is important but should not be the main line of attack and should never be viewed as an end in itself.