“The pace of technological change means that the threshold population needed to justify a local auto manufacturing plant, for example, grows by 1-2% each year. It is the same for a host of other manufacturing industries. So an end to immigration will produce a stagnating economy as entire core industries shift off shore.”

This is not entirely untrue, although the development of manufacturing industries and value-adding industry in general has got an awful lot more to do with our inability to compete with extremely cheap labour in many countries overseas and a lack of willingness from successive governments to protect Australian industry and to uphold the furphy of a level playing field in international trade.

We have been told for decades that high immigration is the answer to our problems, in terms of industrial diversification and large improvements in quality of life for everyone. Well, this has totally been shown to be false.

Rapid growth had its place up to perhaps the 70s. But it is well and truly past the time where the Australian people should have risen up and denounced this continued continuous growth philosophy as complete BS, and admitted that they have basically been had by unscrupulous vested-interest politicians and their big-industry buddies.

The economy will NOT stagnate if it stops growing. This is another major furphy that has been pushed long and hard. A steady-state economy doesn’t have to lose any of its dynamism, as we can immediately see in Switzerland, Sweden and other countries with essentially stable and healthy populations and economies.

But all of this sort of stuff is at a level well below the main level of concern here, which is the very survival of a coherent society in Australia. This comes first, and adaptation of industry comes a distant second, if not third or fourth. Population stabilisation will no doubt lead to some readjustments in economy and industry, in which some people will lose out, but continued large-scale population increase will definitely lead to much worse readjustments.

Following WW2, more developed Western countries (England Australia, Canada, France, and later, Germany) all embarked on massive labour recruitment programs to re-build their economies after Depression and War. Sometimes called guest workers, other times immigrants, they contributed mightily to the economic and cultural welfare of those countries. You cannot doubt the fantastic contribution migrants have made to Australia. But now suddenly the Voice says they are the cause of an environmental problem that will go away if we put a hold on more migrants. You can't be really serious about that, but if you are, you have to consider the effect upon our population by stopping immigration.
It's helpful to understand that we are not reproducing at a sufficient rate to maintain our population. At present we have a total fertility rate (TFR) hovering around 1.75: replacement level (no growth) is around 2.1/2.2. That means without new arrivals, our population is in steep decline. This has dramatic effects upon the ageing of our population. See The Weekend Australian article (Planners Brood on Greying Japanese) on Japan's great concern about it's population profile. It has just usurped Italy as the worlds greyest country. Who cares? Well we should because we, and other developed countries, are all running with low TFR's which assures us of a rising average age. One of the problems being encountered is the lack of workforce as populations retire. Look ahead a little, and you might see that there might be too few workers to look after the older folks and so on. The solution most available to us is to permit immigration. It may sound callous, but you can target an immigrant intake that posses skills and other attributes so needed in our country. Sure, we can do more to raise our natural birthrate, but that is hard in the short term.
So while the environmental remarks offer much, the answer does not lie in reducing immigration. It really lies with ourselves. Consume less, get efficient cars, above all, change our attitudes, teach our kids about environment like their lives depend upon it. Because it does.

Let's paly 'Spot-The-Labor-Party-Media-Advisor'

The CCT funnel Tunnel boss says Labor negotiators told him if he crossed the Government on publishing their intent to reintroduce road closures after the March 2007 elections that (sic) the Government has 16 Media advisors and the tunnel company only has one.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tunnel-boss-tells-of-threats-and-promises-in-talks/2006/07/01/1151174401673.html

Pretty powerful these Media advisors! I think we just saw one on this forum!

Only I don't understand how their spin just makes Morris Iemma look like a grubby kid dividing NSW wealth unevenly between Future citizens and We the electors, then chewing off the difference to keep for post ministerial retirement and his private sector bosses, saying OK that's fair NSW you have to tighten your belts and get used to living the low life while we get rich.

If I can see through this charade everyone in NSW can. Particularly Rural NSW which is being sucked dry of funding and services to payfor the unsustainable Sydney development nightmare.

So what's the use of these 16 Media advisors? Incidentally we state taxpayers are paying their salaries, bonuses and commissions so they can spin and LIE to us? These Media advosors should be named and publicly disgraced.

And it begs the question: Is this the kind of Government we voted for?

Immigration: Sydney is full up. Future immigrants must be allocated cities to dwell in all across Australia and to stop them costing us billions in unfair infrastructure burden all large scal land releases in Sydney and the Gold Coast too must CEASE forthwith and return citizens the standard of living with the freedom from gridlock and the rights of quiet enjoyment that ALL other Australians take for granted.

Oh and all that spin that Sydney has one of the lowest costs of living and one of the the highest standards of living in the world is garbage. we know we bloody live here. The media advisors probably take the polls among Labor politicians and affiliated developers and CEOs. Now excluding Mr Mulligan I guess.

Who would employ these media idiots? Oh ... we do ... duh!

Perhaps we can adopt the same attitude to populating Australia as we do with manufacturing. Move production to China! We can set up human breeding farms in rural China, purpose bred for the Australian economy.What do you think of that idea Hendo? China does'nt use immigration to build its economy, which is growing at a massive rate.

Seriously though, the idea that we need immigration because of our below replacement fertility is ridiculous. Firstly, immigration is no substitute for a birth rate. The below replacement birthrate is used by some to justify high immigration, not to encourage higher birthrates. Immigrants go grey too! Secondly, the cost of an immigration programm is massive, offsetting the supposed economic benefits associated with high immigration.

To some it up, the entire worlds popualtion cannot live like Australians. Higher immigration to Australia means that people live in big houses, buy cars...consume...consume...consume. But in somewhere like India, people are more resourceful and don't live a lifestyle of endless consumption like we do.

Hendo – I believe that our environmental and resources problems are a far greater concern than an ageing population, but that is the fourth most important reason against increasing immigration to combat an ageing population.

3rd) If net immigration went to zero tomorrow, Australia’s population would continue to grow for 20 to 30 years. In 2004 there were 254,200 births and 132,500 deaths registered in Australia. (www.abs.gov.au). That is a net increase of 121,700 without immigration.

2nd) Immigration has very little impact on whether a population ages or not. Immigrants have about the same fertility rates as native Aussies. (See Productivity Commission report 2004, Economic Implications of an Ageing Australia, section 2.5)

1st) Population can’t increase forever, so some generation must start to implement the structural changes needed to manage an ageing population. Why push the changes to the next generation? The next generation will have to figure out how to have a productive economy without fossil fuels. That is a big enough challenge.

Let me reiterate: Our environmental problems will not go away if we reduce immigration. We need to reduce immigration and make efforts to live more sustainably. Neither by itself will be enough.

Perseus – What is the basis for your conclusion that an end to immigration will produce a stagnating economy? The Productivity Commission reports I have seen, disagree. “Factors other than migration and population growth are more important to growth in productivity and living standards.” (Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, page 151)

Rhian – a) Greenhouse gas figures for Australia don’t include the coal and natural gas that are exported. Otherwise we would subtract all the petrol we get from the Middle East and Saudi Arabia would be the worlds largest greenhouse producer. The greenhouse we produce is directly linked to population. b) I disagree that immigration policy has no impact on world population. If the Chinese could continue to emigrate they would not have adopted the one child policy. Mexico is now taking measures to reduce population because the US is limiting immigration. The goal is to send a message.

OK. This time I’ll be serious.

I reckon Hendo is the only one here who has grasped the problem with Claus’ article. Reducing immigration in order to allow Australians to continue our profligate ways is simply wrong-headed, on several counts.

First, our per capita carbon output is four times the world average. We have no right to expect developing countries to rein in their carbon outputs when we are looking around for quick-fix solutions that will enable us to continue without change.

Second, just as we can’t isolate ourselves from other countries’ environmental problems, we can’t set ourselves up as a no-growth enclave when the world population is rising rapidly. Commercial, diplomatic and (dare I say it) moral considerations require that we shoulder our share of the world’s burdens, and that includes continuing to participate in the largest transnational movement of human beings ever seen.

Similarly, we can’t expect to go on cherry-picking the developing world’s health and IT professionals, without taking some of their less educated and more needy citizens too.

Third, limiting Australia’s population growth by the nominal 1.2 million stated here assumes that the carbon emissions attributable to those people are not our problem – see 1 and 2 above for why this is not the case.

Fourth, the argument also implies that we are otherwise incapable of limiting our output of greenhouse gases. Our children are already more clued up about the environment than we are, and educating them to behave as good citizens of both the world environment and the human community will achieve infinitely more over the next twelve years than putting up a FULL sign.