Error,
The second paragrph of my above post should read.

The reason the major parties do not have a population policy is,etc. etc.

Oh dear, your last post was really quite disturbing, if I may say so Judy.

“Compared to other nations in this region we are underpopulated.”

Yes, compared to other grossly overpopulated nations in our region, which have a very much lower quality of life and environmental integrity due largely to their overpopulation, we are underpopulated.

“…we need a large pool of humanity from which to draw specialists such as engineers and scientists.”

No we don’t! Australian scientists and experts have in the past been right up there with the best in the world in all sorts of fields. This has been in general decline for a long time, despite the ongoing rapid pop growth which you espouse as being necessary to improve it!

The size of our population, or the size of our academic sector, is not important in this regard. But the continued pressure on our life-support systems, generated by continuous high population growth (or I should say, by governments that force high pop growth upon us) certainly is… in the negative. This is because a steadily larger portion of our GDP will need to be spent on dealing with the problems directly caused by this ever-increasing pressure on our environment, resource base and society, and thus a smaller portion on academia.

And… more and more academic/scientific energy will need to go into dealing with this stuff. In fact, the main focus of academics will be to find a way out of the mess created by an overpopulated and overexploitative world! Woops, it is the main focus now, and has been for quite a while!

Foxy said

"I read a report a few years ago where they mentioned the fact that Australia could only sustain a population of 20 million. That has already been reached."

Whatever report it was is obviously wrong. We can all live far more sustainably that we already are, and we;re only just over 20 million now.

Ludwig said

"compared to other grossly overpopulated nations in our region, which have a very much lower quality of life and environmental integrity due largely to their overpopulation, we are underpopulated."

The notion that people living in other countries in our region are poorer 'largely' because their countries are overpopulated is just plain wrong. But yes, by comparison Australia is very much underpopulated, which is why anyone who is concerned about basic notions of justice and human rights could not possibly argue that Australia cannot fit any more migrants in.

Bronwyn,

Australia's permanent immigration intake is closer to 200,000 p.a. - the highest per capita immigration rate in the world.

Freediver,

Given that Australia's population is on course to double at least every 50 years due to sustained mass immigration, how can you seriously claim that our population is stabilizing?

Judy,

The argument that we need to import an ever-increasing number of immigrants to remain economically competitive is utterly wrong for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it presumes that our own people do not possess sufficient innate ability to make Australia a competitive, knowledge-based economy, so we need to import foreign peoples to do the job for us. Personally, I find this to be an insult to the Australian people and believe it is merely an excuse used by business and government to skimp on training our own citizens.

Secondly, if immigration is the key to being a "clever country", then why is it that small, low-immigration countries such as Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, and Iceland lead high-immigration Australia in terms of innovation and technological advancement?

If population size and continued growth were the keys to economic progress and a high standard of living, the abovementioned European countries would all be basket cases.

The reality is that the economic benefits of mass immigration and ongoing population growth are, at best, marginal. But the cost to our quality of life is very considerable.

Agree, Ludwig.

What makes a great and prosperous country is an educated population more so than a large population. State Governments have the unenviable task of providing infrastructure to cope with a growing population. The resulting debt takes money from education. The resultant financial burden on the young (rent, services, hecs) makes obtaining an education more difficult.

The truth is that enormous human and financial resources are being ploughed into growth for growth's sake, with little left over for technical innovation. As Finland and Denmark have shown, you dont need massive population growth or a massive population to be innovative and successful. And the research spending of a smaller and less prosperous Australia after the second world war would put us to shame today.

It is technology and education that brings prosperity, not numbers.

As for Tasmania, I consider that a doubling of the Tasmania population in 100 years would be a suitable aim or policy setting. This indicates that a population growth aim of 0.7% +or - 0.07 % per year is a reasonable and not excessive aim. I also note that Tasmania has a current growth rate of .83% which is greater than my parameter. I am unable to agree with the Business Council of Australia’s population policy aim of 1 to 1.5% as that rate is beyond social absorption.

For immigration to be used as a macroeconomic lever (which both the current and prior National Governments have done) is not an acceptable act as it only defers responsibility onto future generations.

On a Climate Change prism any population gains for Tasmania since 1990, the base date for Kyoto emissions reductions, increases the carbon load. This is due to most immigrants increasing their carbon footprint in the Australian context (I=PAT Impact equals Population, Affluence and Technology).

This is not to say we should cease taking immigrants. It just points out a folly of excessive immigrant programs beyond refugee compassion and responsibilities.

All in all would that be a reasonable policy for the Greens (or any one not to accept)?

Of course, my comments have even greater meaning for Australia as a whole as last year's population growth was, I believe, 1.63%.