In the interests of transparency we are a family of immigrants. The four of us arrived here in August 1996.

In the interests of candour, if I had been in charge of Australian immigration I would not have admitted me. I do not see how it benefits an aging society to admit a man a month short of his 51st birthday.

So when I say "Thank you Australia but you shouldn't have" I mean it.

Subsequent to my arrival the Howard Government tightened the rules. Under current rules I would not have been able to migrate to Australia.

I would have tightened them further. Except in the most extra-ordinary circumstances I would not admit anyone aged over 40. Not a parent, sibling, child or spouse. Nobody.

I would also bar anyone who could not DEMONSTRATE proficiency in English.

Note, I am talking about immigration, not refugees. That is a separate issue.

The Rudd Government is continuing the policy of the Howard Government in allowing large scale migration. The thinking is that the population of Australia will expand by 12 million, to 35 million, by 2050.

Can anyone explain to me how this will benefit Australia?

Specifically, how will rapid population growth benefit THOSE WHO ARE HERE NOW and their descendants?

I am not advocating zero immigration. I'm not advocating anything. I'm simply asking questions.

But here's a thought. Might Australia be better off with an immigration rate that keeps population numbers stable or growing only slowly?

Is there an optimum number of migrants beyond which the disdavantages start outweighing the benefits? If so, what is that number? Is it greater than zero?

These are not rhetorical questions. I would like to see some answers. I do have an open mind on the topic

Dear Steven, I think you do the over 50s a mis justice! 50 is not 'aged' any more, and they still should have many productive years ahead of them. Apparently the 50 year olds are the new 40 year olds!
These days there are many older Fathers around too, so if we wanted to encourage family migration, we would have to agree to allow these older people to come too.

Immigration should not be limited by age as such, as long as they have relatives here willing to look after them.
I agree that we should continue to limit the intake of very disabled people who will stretch our already delicate health budget too far.

Prospective immigrants who do not speak English should be allowed in if they fit all the other criteria. If they show a willingness to learn English, then more the better.

We have had plenty of non-English speaking immigrants come to Australia who have gone on to be very productive members of our society.
Examples of this would include the Italians, Vietnamese and Chinese immigrants.
We would not have had all the wonderful market gardens, restaurants or yummy foods if we had not allowed these non-English speaking peoples in in the past!

We have to remember we don't exist in isolation in this country. If we limit immigration from other countries, then those countries aren't going to be too keen to allow trade, or allowing our own citizens to emigrate to their countries if they wish.

With immigration, I don't know how many is too many. I only know that we need to get on well with other countries in the world if we are going to continue to live in peace.

We have a huge country here, with lots of resources, so I don't think we are anywhere near ready to close our doors

"... thinking is that the population of Australia will expand by 12 million, to 35 million, by 2050.

Can anyone explain to me how this will benefit Australia?"

I suppose the obvious benefit is that there maybe twelve million more consumers spending just as much money for 50% less than it buys us now. Higher rates of inflation are good for capitalism - big business profits from more sales from less product.

Indirectly, the benefit I would hope for is that we might finally see how the multiculturalism of recent years was a great idea in some ways, for a world-class Australia, but by the same token I reckon it has cost us in losses of our own culture, as is apparent here in Perth where the population had increased threefold from 500,000 it was when I was born.

Here, we have grown from a big country-town to a mid-sized city, and IMHO it has led to some subtle changes where we have opened the doors to allcomers; both interstate and international; which is hospitable, but many of our policies have adapted to ways that may no longer uphold some of the decency that we once had. *cries into beer*

Why not open the floodgates completely, and set an example to the rest of the World on the benefits of true multiculturalism? Citizenship at the customs counter at the airport and let anyone who wants to come join in the fun while it lasts. We've already gone halfway, so why stop now?

As for English proficiency, with respect Mr Meyer, I reckon you're flogging dead horse after listening to some of the English lecturers prattling on about 'skedules' and other eggcorns on campus early this year. More multilingualism in schools might be a more effective method to demolish the new Tower of Babble.

Then again, I though that 'transparent' meant invisible, and 'opaque' means visible. Maybe I should concentrate more on drinking that beer and stop crying in it?
Thanks for a good topic and sorry if I'm a little obtuse today.

suzeonline,

You have not actually explained how large scale immigration will benefit the people who are here now and their descendants.

BTW the habitable part of Australia is actually quite small. It's more useful to think of Australia as being roughly the size of France but without the good soils. This is really quite a small country – an archipelago around a desert sea.

As a seventh-generation Western Australian, may I suggest that the immigration policies of these last twenty or more years have done NOTHING for the descendants of those who migrated here in 1829 who did NOTHING for the descendants of those who migrated here forty or fifty thousand years ago.

Still, you've hit on a wonderful idea in that post. Rather than the Pacific Solution, how about the Great Sandy Solution? All we have to do is transport anyone who arrives here from now on, whether by boat or plane, to some remote place in the desert for a couple of years and leave them there to see how they adapt to true Australian culture?

Survival of the fit might end up Darwinian in more ways than one, if they can walk as well as they can sail or fly.

Steven,
Clearly letting you in was part of a Zionist plot to help their insidious PR machine of course LaL (laugh a little) sorry, I couldn't resist.

Hmmm let me see, 10 less than now, no 20, ah maybe 34 and I have a list.

The question Steven is way beyond most of us, certainly me, to calculate a meaningful figure. We have neither the resources, information or dare I say the ability.

That objectively means we have three choices on OLO.
- indulge in a war of motherhood statements and concepts .
- Pick an 'authority' of choice, argue their case and probably end up looking silly.
- Or ignore the topic and focus on the process, big picture aspects there of (which I suspect most will do)

In the late 60's I joined the original Australia party and it was ZPG then. 4 children later, I can only encourage those who *do* have the resources, information etc. to 'crunch' the numbers and hope that after due consultation, we see sense.

Clearly I don't have a number, however logic dictates that that number isn't infinite.

As a humanist, I have some difficulty viewing Australia's situation through jingoistic parameters like race, religion, culture (supremacies). To me 'Fortress Australia' as a concept is temporary one as in the long run, other factors will inevitably dictate. Like it or not, our influence will be as a bit player.

The world's population, needs, powers, and environmental conditions will ultimately determine the outcome.

The question to me is 'do we want some influence or simply be pushed along?'

Any population limits must be in the context of the larger world perspective. It is fantasy to think we can control our climate if the outside world doesn't. e.g. If the Antarctic/Arctic ice melts the water rise or catastrophic weather won't rage elsewhere and stop at our borders. Nor will the tide of hungry nations.

*Evidence* clearly shows that our life raft is closing on its maximum tolerances and we need to bale by changing practices etc and PLAN our future carefully.

Aside from the obvious sustainability issues, the real danger of immigration is letting in people whose ideology is inimical to democracy and who have no intention of integrating into the Australian community.

At least use your own words, we can not go on reading transcripts from other people.

Let me be honest and direct.
1. The politics and policies of Australia should benefit Australians, not immigrants or refugees.
2. Notions of charity and compassion are nice, but are secondary to item 1.
3. It is impossible to establish policy on an individual basis, so certain guidelines must exist and these must generalize about the type and number of immigrants that will benefit Australia.
4. Under no circumstances should Australia take in immigrants that will not accept Australian values. In case any body doesn't understand 'values', I am talking about freedom of speeech, freedom of religion, equality and human rights.
5. To make it clear, I am saying that any country in the West that accepts Muslim immigrants is asking for trouble. Look at Europe. Islamic values are not Western values.

Yes there are some Muslims that say they believe in freedom and equality but why should we believe these people are any different from the average Muslim in Egypt, Pakistan and Somalia? If they accept the Quran and hadith, their values are not our values.

Have I offended anybody? Oh well.

Kactuz

PS: Besides they should be happy to live under sharia and among 'the best of peoples' (as Muslims call themselves). Why make them suffer among us horrible, evil infidels?

I guess the main argument for a large population is to cover the cost of 'infrastructure'.
ie, if 100 people live on a kilometre of road (city), they can better afford upkeep of that road than if 10 people live on it (country). Likewise, defence is probably the largest single expense for most countries; sheer physical size of the country is a major determinant of expense, rather than population.
On the other hand, if resources are inextricably tied to wealth, then clearly the more people taking a slice of the pie, the less there is for everyone.
(Of course it should be evident here that the major problem in the world is the very very small sector of the population who take half the pie, but that's a different story).
Australia is undoubtedly the 'Lucky Country' in that respect, as I would suggest the ratio of natural resources to population is probably just about the best in the world -in terms of saleable commodities.
In basic necessities however, perhaps not so much. Sooner or later, it will become evident to the people of the world that you cannot trust the profit motive -companies- with control of life's necessities, like food and water. These are items which every country needs to be self sufficient in, and that means population control.
Capitalism requires growth. It's that simple. We need to find an alternative which offers maximum freedom for individuals, but does not require growth.

Examinator

Here's the rub.

Usually when the government announces an important policy it cites some sort of study or research that purports to show the benefits. In this case there appears to be nothing. Australians are being asked to take ON FAITH a policy that will change the country in profound ways.

Any policy has winners and losers. To use the Australian vernacular my gut feel is that large scale immigration is more likely to benefit the "big end" of town than the "small end". More population means bigger domestic markets.

It also means more competition for jobs. Many economists dispute this. They assert that the arrival of immigrants creates more jobs than the immigrants take up. I have seen such analyses and they depend on some rather rubbery assumptions. In practice it has not worked that way in Europe.

But my biggest problem is water. Cities whose water supply is looking increasingly fragile are going to grow fast. Is this wise? Where are the plans to improve and enhance water supply?

"Usually when the government announces an important policy it cites some sort of study or research that purports to show the benefits. In this case there appears to be nothing."

Absolutely right, Steven. There is just NO justification from Rudd for this outrageous policy. Neither does he have any sort of mandate to do this. He didn't even mention anything about this sort of a policy in the lead-up to the last election.

High population growth is simply absurd. Water is just one of several critically important issues that are being rapidly worsened as a result.

My views on this whole subject are very clear. We need to head directly towards population stabilisation at the lowest level that we can easily achieve. That is; about 24 million.

We CAN maintain a reasonable immigration program, at net zero. Within this, the main category should be refugees, to the tune of about double the current intake. That would leave about 5000 places per annum for especially needed skills, family reunion, etc.

The most important thing here is to keep Australian society coherent. If the stresses become too great, the rule of law will break down. All our financial wherewithall will have to be put into crisis management. There'll be nothing left for meaningful defence or anything else.

This is the bottom line - to keep our population within the levels that can be supported, with anything like the current quality of life, by our resource base - especially water supplies.

We so DESPERATELY need the Libs to come out and counter Krudd's terrible 'big Australia' policy and to espouse genuine sustainability! But unfortunately Turnbull seems to be a total Rudd-supporter when it come to massive continuous expansionism.

With all other things being equal, you are better off with a large population. A few reasons spring to mind:

- It is easier to defend your territories.

- A larger population means larger enterprises. Some enterprises are more efficient when done on a large scale. For example it is no accident that aircraft design and building only happens in countries with huge financial resources, which can only be generated by large populations.

- A large population means more new ideas can be tested. So, although the percentage of people willing to give new things a go is similar in Australia and the US, the 15 fold population difference means the US market for new things is 15 times bigger. Since everything else is the same, (investment, sales required to support the investment), the literally means the US innovates 15 times faster than we do. Since we are fairly innovative people, in practice this many of our innovations move off shore.

So yes, there are substantial benefits to having a large population. The fly in the ointment is "all other things being equal". In economic terms means the marginal cost of adding a person is fixed, meaning adding people won't drive up the cost of food, water and energy. In essence this means there aren't resource limits. In other words there is plenty of water lying around to be dammed, plenty of spare arable land for food, and mining rates for coal, oil and minerals can climb without effecting the price overly.

For 200 years, we didn't have resource limits. But now, we must reduce CO2 emitted, oil and gas is running out, and we appear to have hit a limit on sustainable water usage. So, for the first time, the answer to "should we grow our population" isn't an unqualified "Yes!". It appears the current crop of pollies haven't yet realised the game has changed.

As for the optimum population, I vaguely recall it was thought Australia could hold 20M comfortably. I am constantly amazed how accurate some of those back of the envelope calculations turned out to be.

Steven,

I too have seen conflicting estimates and hence my options.
Clearly what is needed is a comprehensive one with less 'self interested' rubbery assumptions in their mix.

Equally clear is that because we don't have a working crystal ball and modelling is based on precise numbers subject to GIGO any number will be rubbery anyway. Logically informed faith is required too.

As alluded to by Grim the key factor of profligate self interest which is necessary to support the arguably dubious economics that is predicated on infinite growth in a finite world.

The clear implication of this is that there currently *is enough resources* physically to support the the current population and then some. However, the problem is also that economics is based on profit based, (uneven) profligate consumption.

To address the water issue one only needs to drive through the 'better suburbs' and note the elaborate gardens/bowling green lawns (for example) to see where a large part of our water goes. There is a huge industry built around encouraging us to replicate the notion of high water usage life style.

If one was to compare the the per head per capita water usage of say the 60's with today one would see my point. Pools, spa's, twenty minute showers to wash hair and add all the cosmetic concoctions, washing cars etc.

My point is if the world continues with current profligate water consumption, the world is rapidly running out of clean water (including fossil. Therefore the worlds ( yes and Australia's) population supporting capacity. The inevitable conclusion in the west it's all about lifestyle (wants).

NB 20% of the population uses 70% of the worlds resources. where as the bottom 50% it's about survival.

Simple maths show that if we spread the resources more fairly we would all survive comfortably.

The flow on to the environment/ water quality etc. are obvious if one thinks about it.

NB This doesn't mean socialism (we're all the same etc. BS) it simply means less differences between the extremes. Nor is it Nirvana.

I see little sense to the current thinking paradigm.

Ludwig,

What policy was Steven referring too in your post?

He was referring to the how many and water resources not political policies per se.?

Might I suggest that the Liberal party are pro big business and they are pro development (unlimited growth in a limited biosphere)read Steven's posts.

It seems to me that your short focus is blinding you to the reality....it doesn't matter a twopenny damn how many people we have here if those who are's consumption is increasing exponentially.

Tell me how it helps our water supply to those that exist now, if we are growing food etc for the profligate?
NB we export 50% of the primary industry O/S consumption.

Remember the old Indian saying after the last tree is cut down and the last fish is caught and the last water is drunk. TRY eating money (profit/lifestyle.).

Common sense and facts tell us that industry agriculture and profligate water consumption are denuding our supplies of water. Once it's gone, it's gone and desal etc will will sender our products too expensive. Clearly the old economic arguments are the cause not Rudd's views on immigration.

PS They are similar to the previous governments in their intent.

Stopping immigration now would not solve anything only open Pandora's box of other issues.

This is a WORLD problem and needs to be addressed that way.
Again we need a new economic paradigm. Grim's post is apt.

We needto arrive at an acceptable number of immigrants we should take. This should be left to the scientists and experts.

The MOST IMPORTANT POINT is that we should be very vigilant and quite dry-eyed about who should be accepted. Those who have a bad track record of creating racial and religious violence should be KEPT OUT. Those demanding their own country within Australia should be KEPT OUT as well.
Let us learn from the experiences we have had with Sri Lankan and some sorts of Muslims.

socratease

examinator: "This is a WORLD problem and needs to be addressed that way."

The would would be a nicer, safer place if all countries addressed the population issue. But that is about it - for the most part our fate is in our own hands. If we double our population a few times we will run out of water and food - regardless of what the rest of the world does. If we keep our population stable, we won't - again regardless of what the rest of the work does. Well, we won't until peak oil, or peak phosphorus or something knocks us for 6.

Another way of saying the same thing is this isn't a CO2 emission issue. With CO2 we can't fix the local problem unless the rest of the world pulls the same way. With population - not so much. Which is just as well, as most countries don't like having foreigners laying down the law on their breeding habits.

Oh, and here is an interesting data point. For a short while last year Victoria's was a net food importer - something unheard of in Australian until then. http://www.theage.com.au/national/call-for-action-as-state-food-security-at-risk-20081101-5fxr.html?page=-1

The suggestion that Australia can/should raise its population to
35 million is a "Business as Usual" proposition.
It won't happen !

Aside from the water problem, there is the growth problem.
Growth means an increase in energy expenditure.
That is where the limitation lies.
It will not be possible to find the energy to produce all the extra
housing and infrastructure.

It was suggested that Sydney and Melbourne's population will rise
to seven million each. This will simply be impossible.
If we stopped all export of coal and natural gas we could perhaps
approach those figures, but do we want to do that ?
By 2018 it is expected we will be importing some 95% of our oil use.
That is, provided we can source one million barrels a day by then.

All this will be complicated by the ETS charges which may prevent the
needed increase in fossil fuel usage.
It seems we must remove the government, but what is the Liberal
and National parties attitude to this problem ?

I think I should add that the economic benefits of a large population are completely unfounded- apparently Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and Singapore are just anomalies?

As for being a world issue- indeed it is- but I think managing as a nation while simultaneously managing the world as a separate issue is probably the best idea.

allowing our own citizens to emigrate to their countries if they wish.
Suzeonline,,
Which of the countries from which the asylum seekers come allow australian immigration ?
It's ok for those with no foresight to feel warm & fuzzy about letting people in at random. Let me assure you the %age of genuine refugees is way higher than what is claimed. However, the %age of genuine refugees making it to our shores is way lower than claimed.
What %age of those do you think are agenda driven ? I can't give you the figures because those who have them will not divulge them. Do not for one moment forget that just like here, people in other countries too have little option re planning their lives. Just like here they too are dictated to by religion & politics etc. My guess is that many refugees are actually encouraged & supported by their own governments to "spread" their idealism by way of presence. Has anyone ever seen the %age of christian vs muslim refugees ? Having said that I personally don't give a hoot about religion & the less there is the better for all, but religion is the crux of this problem because this problem is actually a plan.

I am intrigued that no one here has been able to cite a single study that shows net benefits from large scale immigration.

I agree with Ludwig's sentiment on refugees. We should increase our intake of genuine refugees, and reduce overall immigration. We need to stop encouraging other countries to overproduce (people) and dumping their surpluses on us.
We should also stop robbing needy countries of their best educated people. If our sociopolitical/economic/education system worked as it should, we should be net exporters (or at least, temporary lenders) of highly trained people, or teachers of same, instead of importers.
We also urgently need to address our participation in the world community. I don't mean globalisation, but the understanding that overpopulation is a world issue. It is ridiculous to suggest the world is clearly overpopulated, while at the same time encouraging Australians to have more babies.
Yes, I am only too well aware that Aussie families are doing it tough, and yes I know they need help financially; but paying people to have more children in an overpopulated world is an obscenity.
And what sort of message does it send to those thinking of fleeing to another country?

it is estimated that there are 13 milions illegal mexicans in california alone. thats a bout 1.5 times thae australian work force.
you think you got problems?

I asked the question "What is the Liberal/National policy on this question" ?
I did not really expect a reply but to prevent it happening I think
it will require an event of some kind. Perhaps no water at all in
Adelaide or Melbourne, or the sudden appearance of fuel shortages.
Perhaps blackouts over a wide area.

Far better to get the pollies to look straight in the face at some
of these possible events. Belly, you seem to know the Labour scene,
how do you get them to look seriously at the problem ?
To prevent Sydney and Melbourne becoming larger we should ban all
development applications for housing. I don't see any other way to
stop such expansion.

I think we should send Stephen Meyer home.

We are a nation of immigrants who have in the past reached out our hand to other immigrants be they British, or those displaced by our great wars, or those we needed to build our infrastructure like the Snowy Mountain Hydro Electric Scheme, or those fleeing conflict etc.

It has been a core Australian value, not quite “Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free” but a fair approximation.

So Mr Meyer is not only old but against this Australian value. Kick the bugger out! Obviously he is only intent in stirring up trouble and social unrest! Away with him and his ilk!

Only joking, well sort of.

Hasn't old Johnny turned us even more into a bunch of selfish ingrates. 'I'm here now and no one else is allowed to share what I have'. 'You can shut the door now thanks, I'm settled' 'Unless further immigration can be shown to be definitively in Australia's best interest (by that I really mean mine) I don't want a bar of it.'

Reminds me of Australia's effort at the previous Kyoto negotiations. Through 'hard negotiation' Australia secure an increased target for emissions of 8% above 1990 levels rather than a reduction, was allowed to include a reduction in its horrendous land clearing rates, and still said not good enough and walked out, all in “Australia's best interest”.

What if we took a chunk from a high fertility country or area such as Jewish West Bank settlers, and within a generation we would have dramatically lowered that group's contribution to the population bubble, we would have eased some of the tensions in the region, plus I'm sure their food is just delicious.

As a wealthy country shouldn't we do something to help the world ride out the population bubble?

*As a wealthy country shouldn't we do something to help the world ride out the population bubble?*

We sure should Csteele. For a start we should provide some resources
for third world citizens, who lack the family planning options that
we have in Australia, so that families can actually choose how
many children they have. They still pop them out like rabbits in
parts of the third world.

But of course our religious fanatics freak out at the thought
of Australia providing family planning and abortion services,
as we have in Australia and as we take for granted.

What we have done in the third world is a scandal. We've shipped
in boatloads of food and planeloads of medicine, but ignored
family planning. We are then amazed that there are even more
people to deal with. Bringing them to Australia is not going to
fix it, good old family planning will, as has been shown in
countries where it is provided.

>As a wealthy country shouldn't we do something to help the world ride
out the population bubble?

There is something nagging at me about this whole
developed/underdeveloped country rating.
Whether it be for immigration or global warming considerations.
Some of the undeveloped countries had a head start of up to one or two

thousand years on us, some quite a bit less.
If we could pull ourselves up by hard work why should we compensate
them for muddling around for some hundreds of years ?
It is not a matter of resources either. We made the best of ours,
why didn't they do the same ?

CJSteele,
yes there is something we can still do to help the destitute and those whose lives have been ravaged by war. You're quite right.
Why dont we ask the authorities of these countries to allow us to transport out in our largest fleet of aircraft and airlift them all into Australia. Is that your vision? Now dont start making reservation about limiting them to some magic figure because then you'll be discriminatimg against the poor who have to be left behind.

You are sure,arent you, that we have the water and the food andhousing to accomodate the millions, or shall we say only the few hundred thousand? Sure about that?
Look at the state of those who have exercised the sort of goodwill and charity you advocate eg Holland,Belgium, Germany and the UK to name just a few. These countries have sold off the cultural and political birthright of its people whose future no longer are in their hands.Those countries are under permanent occupation.
Where will your goodwill and Christian charity land us in the future? thought of that, hsve you?

socratease

stevenlmeyer: "I am intrigued that no one here has been able to cite a single study that shows net benefits from large scale immigration."

You shouldn't be. This is the first time you asked for one.

This one recommends an annual intact of 80,000 if we want to avoid "spiralling population decline and substantial falls in the size of the labour force":

http://adsri.anu.edu.au/pubs/popfutures/01.pdf

Or: "the current level of clandestine US immigration may not be far from what society might view as socially optimal."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m4j3227182068367/

Or: "Using a basic model, plausible assumptions, we show the immigration produces net economic gains for domestic residents" (page 4):

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BUJFpYcaUnQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=population+size+study+immigration+fiscal+benefits&ots=FAQeN25x4x&sig=1vmB2ykaOmUfgpbCIKKKUeMPm9w#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Dear socratease,

You said; "Those countries are under permanent occupation.".

No they are not.

I would love to answer your questions so I'm wondering if you would care to put them in a clearer manner.

Dear Yabby,

You are absolutely correct. Under the Howard government, with direct input from Tasmanian senator Brian Harridine Australia's annual overseas family planning aid went from $6.9 million in 1996 to just $2.3 million in 2007. A real disgrace.

However we need to be doing a lot more to lift some of these developed countries out of poverty. I recently re-acquainted myself with Han Rosings talk on global population and health. One very inspirational video!

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

The world is expected to reach its population peak around 2050 at 9.2 billion. However fertility rates have been dropping dramatically. From over 5 to 6 births per women 50 years ago to 2.6 world wide at present. Once below 2.3 it mean no further growth. Our grandchildren will be facing a world with a whole new set of problems that a declining global population will bring. For economies that haven't planned properly there will be real shortages caused by the lack of workers. If we had cut our immigration rates to zero a decade ago and refused to take in any guest workers we would be enjoying a diminished economy now. The challenge will be to decouple our economy from increases in population because when it begins to turn around we will be left floundering.

As there is no sign of any such plan from the government we have little choice but to keep the levels up.

To our credit though we have welcomed immigrants from strife torn areas such as after the fall of Saigon, from East Timor, from South American dictatorships, after Tiananmen square, from the Yugoslav conflict, from Lebanon and from Indonesia after riots there.

If we need to maintain immigration rates then why not do it on a basis that we can be proud of.

Csteele, indeed global fertility rates are dropping, but due to
the increased population, we are still adding around 80 million
a year.

Personally I don't think that a world with 9 billion is sustainable,
as even our present 6.6 billion is not sustainable. Note the crash
of the world's fishery, as ocean after ocean is plundered and
emptied. It only got a small mention in the press, but one of
the jobs of the Ocean Viking in April, was to discover 130km of
driftnetting, seemingly set by two Spanish vessels. When the
Spanish need to go near the Antartic to catch fish, things are
looking pretty crook!

Govts back migration, because house building for those new migrants
is a major industry and a Govt won't win an election if the economy
is poor. But is covering all that farmland from Melbourne to
Brisbane with more suburbia, really such a good idea?

Meantime we need to import doctors, dentists, nurses, policemen,
miners, engineers, meatworkers etc to WA, because Australians
seemingly don't have the skills or don't want the jobs. It makes
no sense to me. Now the suggestion is, that we'll need to let the
Chinese develop more of our mines, because Aussies seemingly don't
have the money! Nope, they are all over East, building and trading
houses for each other, for even more migrants.

The thing is, the more people in Australia, the more we'll trash
the environment and ours is a fragile one. So we need to decide
on what is a sustainable population for Australia, with a balance
between people and other species etc.

Even if we took 20 million and trashed this place, that is still
only 90 days worth of global human breeding, so will not fix
anything.

Csteele, I agree. As I wrote earlier (in agreement with Ludwig's post) we could raise our refugee intake substantially and still have a more sustainable intake by reducing immigration of skilled and professional workers.
As you say, the time to start working on a viable system of static population is now.
In the very near future we can expect riots and wars over basic necessities; water and food. Perhaps not in this country, but one way or another, everyone will be affected.

Dear Grim,

You said “In the very near future we can expect riots and wars over basic necessities; water and food.” Why do you think that? Is it just your intuition?

The answer to water shortages is raise people to a standard of living that they can afford the more expensive forms of water harvesting; e.g. desalination, recycling, deep aquifer access etc. For me a better targeted form of globalisation would do wonders toward that goal.

Dear Yabby,

80 million extra people a year is just over 1% of our present total. We need to be able to increase our food production efficiency by just that figure per annum for the next forty years to get us there. I know that is simplistic and doesn't take into account things like peak oil and projected fertiliser shortages but I see it as doable.

I agree a 9 billion strong population is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term but we only need to support it for a little while before the pressure will ease.

What we must stop are misguided politicians promoting an increase in the birth rate for nationalistic reasons. I see our continuing path toward embracing multiculturalism essential to mitigate their message.

As to resources we strip six times the amount of water from our environment per capita compared to the UK or three times that of Germany, a country that could fit into half NSW with four times our population.

But you are right about the environmental risks although I consider them not insurmountable. It will take a committed government the likes of which we are yet to see but I think it will come.

Dear Bazz,

You might need to give me some examples.

*As to resources we strip six times the amount of water from our environment per capita compared to the UK or three times that of Germany*

Indeed we do Csteele, for you are comparing apples with oranges.
Australia is the most arid continent on earth,with the most clapped
out soils on earth. In other words, its very old dirt.

We don't generally have that cold, wet weather as in Britain and
Germany. Our agriculture, which consumes most of the water, like
rice, cotton and fruit production for instance, relies on irrigation.

Agriculture and mining are still our major sources of export revenue.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the cotton and rice industries shut
down?

In a way you are contradicting yourself, for if the rest of the
world is not full, why do they all need to come to Australia?
If they are full, then clearly your dream of 9 billion, makes no
sense at all. Moving them all to Australia is no more then a
temporary band-aid, it does not solve the global problem.

I predict a quite different outcome. The Chinese this year, will
already be purchasing as many vehicles as the Americans. China
in the next 10 years, will consume as many resources, as it has
ever consumed in the past.

As resources, oil, energy costs go through the roof, rising food
and energy costs will come down to a survival of those who can
afford it. Even now, the world food programme cannot find the funds
to feed the tens of millions on its books.

To grow cheap food, you need cheap energy, cheap fertilisers, all
resources that are coming under stress. Collapsing fish stocks
won't help, the oceans are basically stuffed now!

Yet we still have such Western institutions as the Catholic Church,
banning contraception and encouraging more babies. Perhaps its
time to flog off the Vatican, to feed the starving masses.

cjsteele,you wanted to know what I meant by some European countries being "under permanent occupation." Though you didnt seem to know what I meant you nevertheless could unequivocally deny outright that no country alluded to was "under permanent occupation" A contradiction, wasn't it?
Consider the state of Belgium and Holland are in today.Do you think that the immigrants who are presently resident there intend ever leaving and returning to where they came from?There are still daily arrivals in the hundreds. There will come a time when the demographics will change. The Dutch and Belgians have almost reached ZPG whereas the immigrant family each has an average of 7 children. They wiil be numerically superior in many areas where they will claim to be under sharia law. They will alter the judicial system eventually.Democtatic procedure will deliver the parliaments into their hands eventually. If this isnt "being under permanent occupation" what the hell is it?

The situations in Germany, France and the UK isnt quite as bad but those countries have already surrendered their culture and literatures. They will never be the same ever again.

Australia stands on the knife edge and is leaning in the ame direction if we arent careful.

Vigilance is the price of freedom.

Please, someone call me a racist now.

socratease

Socratease,

I completely agree with what you have said, i very much see a judicial and political handover that will certainly see the values and traditions that australia holds to be lost.

I wonder; where will the people that cry injustice for the refugees be hiding once this takes effect. "sorry i got it wrong" wont cut it.

I make the statement:" Australian's are not Racist but are culturally cautious"

What will people do?

In the past large scale immigration was tied to industrialisation, manufacturing, gold rushes, agriculture. Now we have mining. There is a business that is moving offshore because all the compliance costs like putting in disabled toilets and ramps when they had no disabled workers, priced them out of the Australian market.

We basically have Dutch Disease.

They say the remedy is to defer profit from the boom industry so that costs and impact are steadier allowing other types of business to remain viable.

I do not see this happening. In fact I think many would have a better future if they emmigrated.

Agree Bazz (stop private developers making housing development applications).

Agree Yabby- countering Vatican/etc anti-contraception message.

The ONLY way to stop world overpopulation is to provide contraceptive and abortion access and remove the stigma of using either in all countries around the world. Simply transporting the excesses to other countries puts unfair burden on the countries that actually did manage their populations responsibly- and really undermines their efforts entirely. Meanwhile, back home, there is now a standard that if you have LOTS of kids some of them will get a shot at being adopted by another country.
Nice plan csteele.
And I like how you insist "We Australians believe" type mantra- how about asking first?

"Ludwig what policy was Steven referring too in your post?"

Xammy, I take it that he was referring to the 'policy' of large-scale immigration and a 'big Australia'.

"Might I suggest that the Liberal party are pro big business..."

Absolutely they are. But there is one thing that is a tad more important to them and that is winning power! They really don't have a hope in hell...even if Krudd continues to decline in the opinion polls...of winning power at the next election....unless they do something really different.

It is very clear to me what they need to do. And if they do it properly, they can sell it as being big-business-friendly. Afterall, if we continue to operate our whole society in a grossly unsustainable manner, big biz will lose out big time, along with the rest of us!

Sensible business enterprises of all sorts should be able to jump on the sustainability bandwagon and really benefit, while the dinosaur expansion-at-all-costs advocates fall by the wayside.

That's the sort of thing that the Libs need to do - sell sustainability as being economically sensible and business-friendly....which would be totally in line with their basic philosophies and principles, wouldn't it?

It seems like an impossible task, with Turnbull currently being seen as too green for the Libs!! Dear o dear, they really are a bunch of old rednecks! But I'm not gunna give up hope! ( :>|

"Stopping immigration now would not solve anything only open Pandora's box of other issues"

Firstly, who wants to stop immigration? I want net zero. That would still be in the order of 25 000 to 35 000 per annum.

What 'Pandora's box of other issues' would net zero immigration open up?

Csteele;
You asked for some examples. I am not sure what you are refering to.
Perhaps the first post, rather than the second.
We are in line for problems with fuel supply.
It is believed that no new coal fired power stations will be built.
Water is becoming an increasing problem in most cities.

These are obvious limiting factors on our population.

Fuel supply:
It has just come to light that the OECD's International Energy
Authority was pressured by the US government to de-emphasise the
closeness of oil supply difficulties.

http://www.energybulletin.net/50662

You don't get a much better authoritative source than that !
At the bottom Prof Kjell Aleklett mentions that the IPCC ignores the
information, so the IPCC's CO2 projections are in error for oil.
Food production is very oil intensive, from farm to your plate.

Coal:
Renewables cannot match the requirement, at least for several decades.
At present demand increase rates can we guarantee supply, perhaps not.
If we shut down coal fired power stations or put them out of business
financially then there will be long blackouts.
Will gas fired stations make up the difference ? Perhaps.

Water:
Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne have all had water restrictions in
very recent times. We still do.
We must plan on the basis that we do not have enough water now.
Therefore very large desalination plants will be needed.
It will be an insurance policy against having to move
Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney.
Fanciful ?
Hmmm what would you do if you turn the tap on and nothing came out ?

Are these the examples you asked for Z

Bazz: http://www.energybulletin.net/50662

Geezz, it didn't take you long to notice that. That Guardian article has only been up for a day.

Explains a bit, doesn't it?

I don't think that we have to worry too much about contraception and
the policies of the church etc.
Food shortages are appearing already and will get very much worse.
Malnutrition is probably the most effective contraception of all.

Aside from any effects of global warming, much sooner will be the fall
in food production caused by increasing fuel prices.
Price increases will flow into fertiliser prices, so that farmers
everywhere will cut back the amount they use.
This will reduce yields. Diesel prices for farm machinery and for
food transport will increase as will the market price of food everywhere.
The poor will suffer first as you and I outbid them for breakfast.

We could easily be flat out feeding ourselves, so get digging.

Dear Yabby,

You are quite within your rights to ask for an oranges to oranges comparison although I do think Australia will have to get a little more smarter about its water use in industry and agriculture.

Lets just look purely at domestic use. In Australia we use 176 m3/person/year. The UK it is 43 m3/p/y and in Germany it is 57m3/p/y. So if we learned to use water as wisely as either of these two countries we could easily manage 35 million with water to spare. Simplistic I know but telling none the less.

As to China there are now cities there where over 95% of the houses have solar hot water systems. Six months ago we installed such a system and coupled with the new lightglobes have reduced our electricity bill by a third. All easy stuff but they are beating us hands down.

Dear socratease,

Always happy to oblige; you are a racist! There happy?

Actually I think you are more scared about the unknown, confused about what the future may hold, and more than likely being hanging around with the wrong crowd. It doesn't make you bad, just in need of a reality check.

When you talked about occupation I thought you were talking about the type represented by Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, or the US' occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The type you are referring to I have not come across and unless I'm mistaken it doesn't exist otherwise we could say Australia is occupied by Asians when it clearly isn't.

You might need another word for it because in Belgium 7% of a group with only one member in parliament does not make an occupation.

Islam makes up 3.5% of the religious beliefs of its citizens.

The high levels of Turkish immigration into Belgium you seem to be referring to are not delivering fertility rates of 6 to 7. Turkey itself is now below replacement rates at 2.2. Only 4% of Belgians are of non-European origin.

Might I kindly suggest more facts and less fear would ease your mind.

Dear Bazz,

I am sorry because I should have made myself clearer. I was referring to your statement;

“Some of the undeveloped countries had a head start of up to one or two thousand years on us, some quite a bit less. If we could pull ourselves up by hard work why should we compensate
them for muddling around for some hundreds of years? It is not a matter of resources either. We made the best of ours, why didn't they do the same?”

I would have thought the answers in most cases was self evident but I wanted to hear of some examples from yourself that best illustrated your position.

Thank you for the other information regardless.

Csteele,
Take China as an extreme example.
Three thousand years ago they had a well developed civilisation
compared to say Europe and perhaps India.
Then they just fell away in their government processes and countries
management until now they are considered an undeveloped country and
they are one of the countries we will have to make donations under
the Copenhagen treaty.
India also was a major civilisation under the Moguls.
Africa has never been able to get its act together until colonialism.
Since colonialism went away it has not been a pretty picture.
Nth Africa made some noticeable progress after the moslems invaded.
However they now seem to be stuck in the middle ages.

I am sure if you think about it you can find plenty of others.
If these countries cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps
why should we subsidise them ?

Bazz,

I think you are looking at this the wrong way around. Chinese and Indian civilisations probably suffered due to contact with a technologically advanced civilisation from Europe. The same is true for the Mayan civilisation.

It would be more accurate to say that North Africa made notable progress BEFORE the Muslims invaded. Over time Islam killed off a pre-existing scientific culture.

To me the real mystery is this.

Why did Europe ALONE achieve scientific "lift-off"?

What was it that propelled European civilisation into such a commanding technological lead that it took the rest of the world centuries to catch up?

Those infected with the virus of political correctness may rail at my putting it this bluntly. They will produce examples of this "Muslim scientist" or that Hindu philosopher or such and such a Chinese invention. But the plain fact is that between 1200 and 1950 ALMOST all advances in science and technology were made by men who traced their ancestry to Europe.

Not all.

But almost all. Especially during the latter part of the period.

Was scientific lift-off something that was bound to happen somewhere and Europe just happened to be lucky enough to be first? That explanation would give comfort to people addicted to political correctness but I doubt it's correct.

Was there something qualitatively different about European civilisation compared to the rest? As I have pointed out elsewhere, between the 11th and 15th centuries Europe built a well-funded network of institutions of learning that was superior to any that existed outside the continent. In effect, Europe start building the foundation of what today we call the "knowledge economy" during a period that is usually dismissed, sneeringly, as the "medieval" era.

Perhaps it was a combination of luck and a qualitatively different civilisation. I doubt we'll ever know.

In fact I doubt we ever CAN know. In this sort of research ideology trumps scholarship every time. The questions are simply too loaded for most people to look at the picture objectively.

Fascinating as this is, I have no idea what it has to do with Australian immigration.

*Six months ago we installed such a system and coupled with the new lightglobes have reduced our electricity bill by a third.*

That's wonderful Csteele, I installed my first solar hot water system
on this house in 1984, which is 25 years ago! In fact I think it
was two WA companies at the time, Solarhart and Solar Edwards, which
pioneered these systems.

They make perfect sense, but I remind you that as fast as people
are installing them, they are also installing airconditioners and
LCD screens, plus other electronic gadgets like computers, so power
consumption is going up.

People in Germany and Britain commonly live in apartments, temps
don't hit 40 degree plus too often. So yes, they will use less
water then Australian households. When its snowing outside,
water consumption drops dramatically, I can assure you. I lived in
Europe long enough to understand the difference.

Yes Steven, Csteele & others, we have drifted off thread but came as
a result of thoughts that we owe something to the "undeveloped" countries.

Steven, the enlightenment came with dissatisfaction in scientific
circles with the Catholic Church's dogma and with the discovery of
the sea routes to the east and to the Americas.
Then in the 18th century the start of the steam age launched Europe
into 100 years of plentiful energy to power industry and science.
This was then followed from the end of the 19th century with the
development of the oil industry and away it went again.

However all other countries could make use of these same discoveries
and develop their economies. Some did under the label of colonialism
but they don't seem to have been able to keep up the momentum.

These are the ones we now call underdeveloped.
Why have they not developed their legal and governmental processes
so as to be similar to western countries.
Why should we take their millions looking for a short cut ?
(That gets us back on thread)
Why should we give $Billions under the proposed ETS scheme to the
undeveloped countries ?
I think there is a list of the undeveloped countries in the
Copenhagen treaty, I saw it recently and may even have saved it.
China is on that list and for a country with such a large army and
Navy, a full scale space program etc etc I object to them being
classed as undeveloped and I will object to them being subsidised
under the Copenhagen ETS scheme.

Csteele, I think it's rather more than 'intuition' which leads me to believe that riots and water wars are acomin'; largely for all the reasons Yabby et al, have outlined.
It would be nice if we could 'focus globalisation'; but the fact is, it ain't gonna happen.
We have thousands of years of history to learn from. Unfortunately, we never do; we just have the luxury of (in hindsight) seeing where we went wrong.
We will continue to expand until we hit a crisis point. then there will be a major reshuffle, lots of recriminations, vows to 'never do it again' (did you honour your minute of silence yesterday?)...
and then we'll do it all again.
This time will be the worst, simply because there are more of us.

Dear Bazz,

Much of our standard of living in the developed world is tied to our energy usage per capita.

If I were to sit across the table with a Chinese (or other developing nation) father with the same family size as I and ask him to hold his family's CO2 contributions to where they are now wouldn't he have the right to say;

'A good part of your country's prosperity has come from your use of resources both domestically and internationally.'

'All we are asking is for parity for our citizens.'

'And for example if you want us to preserve some of our rainforests instead of exporting the timber that is fine but surely we should be compensated since in your state you have cleared over 85% of it for production.'

I think it is a fair ask.

Dear Grim,

From Ehrlich's The Population Bomb;

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...”

His population predictions were not that far off but instead of food shortages we have had dramatically less famines, the world death rate has also dramatically fallen and we have billions lifted from starvation levels with the risk of starvation greatly diminished for so many.

Why are your predictions any sounder when the historical evidence is to the contrary.

Dear Yabby,

You are a hard task master. Okay compared to Australia's domestic use figures of 176m3/p/y South Africa's is 82, Egypt is 70, Iran is 24, Israel, the dirty guzzlers, are 92, Jordan is 37. I'm not sure how much snow there is in these countries but I don't think it is any more than Australia. If mirrored all would allow Australia to provide water from current stocks for domestic use to a population of 35 million.

The difference between the 70's and now is peak oil and peak phospates.
We saw a dramatic increase in farm productivity through the 'green revolution'; achieved largely through high fertiliser/water inputs.
These increases have now plateaued, and are very likely to start to fall -especially as they are heavily oil dependant.
Just for fun, add to the mix climate change, rising sea levels (remember some of the most fertile soils in the world are generally also the lowest) and a lot more refugees...
Despite the cold war, I remember the seventies as a time of optimism and hope. I don't recall anyone taking Ehrlich very seriously, even through fuel rationing (remember only being able to fill up every second day?).
Today, not so much.

"Just for fun, add to the mix climate change, rising sea levels (remember some of the most fertile soils in the world are generally also the lowest) and a lot more refugees..."

Let's hope that between then they might overcome the salinity problems tht we brought about by too much land-clearing and too much water boring.

I assure you, it won't be totally solved by the rising sea levels.

As an afterthought, we really need to be looking at this Inland Sea solution. The salt lakes being 30+ feet below the sea levels of 1997, and with the good labour we have available now that the WA mining boom is slowing down, and all the chances we have to get off our cushy office chairs, get out in the Sun and BUILD that 250m wide canal between the bight and the saltlakes, we could improve the preciptation over the centre of this once long ago wonderful continent and within fifty years ACTUALLY MAKE IT RAIN IN THE DESERT, but and the fertilityh of those desert soils are like instant coffee, waiting for the rain.

We must be sure that the salinity is carefully planned and managed, however, and it won't happen overnight, but trust me when I quote Matthews in saying that it WILL HAPPEN - it will rain.

One little trench, one little bulldozer, one little decade, one great big fertile, Australia. 35 million is a losers bet. We can have 100,million happy Australians living here in 50 years, but we need to make use of our inland sea, our Great Lakes, that dried up before Flynn explored the Never Never.

Goodnight my friends and bountiful dreams.

Call me CY O'Conner if you like. I'll bet my life on it.

*Okay compared to Australia's domestic use figures of 176m3/p/y South Africa's is 82, Egypt is 70, Iran is 24, Israel, the dirty guzzlers, are 92, Jordan is 37*

But Csteele, we are neither South Africans living in squalid camps
there, nor are we Egyptians etc. In fact we export food to all
these countries, because we can, due to our lower population levels.

What you are implying is that we need to divide up global resources
equally amongst the world's population. In that case I will put to
you that we should then divide up creating babies, who use resources,
based on your logic.

Based on your logic of equal resources, I, who haven't had 11
children or whatever, as is common in the third world, can clearly
use alot more then a third world man who leaves babies everywere
amongst his four or more wives.

My point is that we are Australians, using our resources to our
best advantage, which includes feeding millions around the world.

Now if you want to start allocating resources, you cannot justify
it without allocating babies. It would make no sense at all.

Dear Yabby,

Got a little lost in your post I'm afraid.

My wife and I are both from families of 5 children. My wife's mother was one of 17. My two children have have 18 first cousins just on my wife's side. We are not third world where having 11 children is quite uncommon nowadays. Iran has a lower fertility rate than Australia.

In 2008 Australia was ranked 15th in wheat producers. We harvested 13.4 million metric tonnes of the stuff. China, the top producer harvested 109.9 (7 times that of Australia), India was second with 74.9 (over 5 times us). Some of the other countries that produced more than us included Pakistan at 23.4, Germany at 21.4, Turkey at 17.7, Iran at 15 and even the UK at 13.4. The majority of countries are obtaining yields well above ours.

Yes the drought has had a little bit to do with it by we are hardly top 5 stuff any more. The EU was an importer until 20 years ago now it exports well above Australian quantities.

Both Iran and Pakistan have lifted their production by 50% in the last decade. Russia has plans to do likewise over the next ten years.

I'm not sure that we are feeding millions around the world as overfeeding millions in certain select areas. For instance in 2008 our agriculture sales to Africa were less than one tenth that of what went to three countries, US, Canada and Japan. Now that is certainly using our resources to our best advantage. Just not maybe the world's.

I do not think food production will be a problem any time soon. Where I do see possible food issues happening is in countries without the means to purchase on the open markets.

Csteele,
You point would be valid if the Chinese had not let their
population grossly exceed the carrying capacity of the country.
I am not sure if the subsidy will be applied on a prorata basis or
per country.
It cannot even be guarenteed that the subsidies will just not reappear
in Swiss Bank accounts.

If we have cleared too much land then that is our problem and we should reafforest the country.
>'All we are asking is for parity for our citizens.'
Is a nonsense. How about parity of oil consumption ?
Their population is so large for the country that it distorts every
way that you can look at the problem.

Csteele

In an effort to bring this thread back to the topic.

Are you saying that the intention behind the government's large scale immigration policy is part of an effort to share Australian resources with the rest of the world?

If so shouldn't they be honest about it?

How do you think the Australian electorate would react to such a proposition?

So far as water use goes, yes we certainly could improve our water use efficiency. I am amazed at how lackadaisical we've been. The amount of water lost through evaporation from open irrigation channels in Victoria used to be about 2 – 3 times Melbourne's annual consumption.

We are improving tho'. Still, I agree with you. A lot more could be done.

Some of your responses to Yabby make no sense. For example, China produces 7 – 8 times as much wheat as we do. But it has 60 times the population. PER CAPITA we produce about 8 times as much as China.

Per capita we also produce a lot more beef than China. Beef is an especially water-intensive source of protein.

To put Australia's per capita "water footprint" in context see:

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/waterfootprintcalculator_national

NB: This does not show how much of our water footprint is exported. It does however show that many countries import "virtual water" which is why their water footprint may APPEAR to be low.

For example Germany's per capita water footprint is actually greater than Australia's but more than half of it is imported.

But, please csteele,

how do you think the Australian electorate would react if the prime minister explained that large scale immigration was not for their benefit; it was to help share the burden of the population bubble?

I really would like to see you reply to that question.

Dear Bazz,

You wrote; ”Your point would be valid if the Chinese had not let their
population grossly exceed the carrying capacity of the country.”

Now that is just 'silly talk'.

These are the poor lot that instituted the one child policy and who kept their rate of increase over the last 50 years under Australia's. What they should have focussed more directly on was pulling their people out of poverty as the best way to lower fertility rates.

As to China feeding itself, in 2007 Australia and the US were complaining about Chinese wheat EXPORTS! With the low currency rate for China the others were claiming it was 'dumping' wheat on to the world market.

Dear Steven,

Of the G20 countries Australia has the second lowest proportion of our GDP made up of manufacturing at 10%. Only Saudi Arabia is worse with 8%.

China is 32%.

This is one area we need to dramatically improve. Nothing wrong with the mining and farming sectors but we are stripping our country dry to achieve our wealth through these means.

Our government needs to be far more focussed on manufacturing for our long term security and this will take people.

That would be the argument I would be taking to the Australian people if I were in the government's shoes.

So I am not saying “the intention behind the government's large scale immigration policy is part of an effort to share Australian resources with the rest of the world” but it is one that should be considered in the debate.

The fact that our nation has been open to immigration and refugees in the past has shown a willingness to share the world's burdens, so if framed properly with the correct amount of statesmanship then I think the argument could be made.

However I do not think our current crop of politicians have anywhere near the required level of statesmanship do so.

BTW sweet link, thanks.

China does export some food, there are even some vegetables on sale in
the local fruit & veg supermarket.
Never the less, China is scouring the world for resources at present
and to quote their premier, "We will burn all your coal and then burn ours".
No, any form of per head accounting balancing is going to be almost
impossible to administer and impossible to police.
By the way, our birth rate is below replacement level.

Water usage in Sydney has fallen very significantly.
My own bill has fallen 30% according to the Sydney Water bill.

After some recent rains our damns went above 60% but are again falling.
We just do not have sufficient water for a larger population in
Sydney, otherwise the damn levels would never get to be as low as
the 30% they last fell to.
The desal plant under construction is an attempt to fill in the low
level and might work if there were very severe restrictions in place.
Seven million would need a fleet of desal plants along the coast
and an expensive pumping operation.
Water alone rules out Kevin's dream of glory.

*Our government needs to be far more focussed on manufacturing for our long term security and this will take people*

Csteele, if that is what you are after, then you need more intelligent
people, not more people. Already most of the people in the East,
cannot compete globally in manufacturing, so they spend their time
building new houses for migrants! That is exactly why the Govt keeps
the migration rates high.

As for agriculture, two thirds is exported, so that feeds quite
a few million. But it takes water. We've already virtually shut
down the rice industry, due to lack of water.

Yes indeed, Iran has turned its fertility rate around dramatically,
unlike how things were just 30 years ago. That does not mean that
there are not plenty of third world countries, where they still
pop them out like rabbits. Most of sub Saharan Africa for instance.

Then of course we have the religious nuts, like those west bank
settlers trying to outbreed the arabs and visa versa. Then the
Catholics encouraging ever more babies. In places like Afghanistan,
the Middle East, large sections of Africa, there are plenty of
people with huge families.

Australia has to ask itself, what the sustainable population for
our country is. Australians have to ask themselves, if they
really want to be crammed into human zoos, aka high rise apartments,
like they do in other parts of the world.

We certainly don't have an obligation to trash our country, for what
will ultimately make no measurable difference, as the world keeps
popping out an extra 20 million, every 90 days.

The British House of Lords recently published a report on immigration.

See:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Some quotes from the conclusions:

"Immigration creates significant benefits for immigrants and their families, and, in some cases, also for immigrants’ countries of origin."

"Although possible in theory, we found no systematic empirical evidence to suggest that net immigration creates significant dynamic benefits for the resident population in the UK. This does not necessarily mean that such effects do not exist but that there is currently no systematic evidence for them and it is possible that there are also negative dynamic and wider welfare
effects"

"The available evidence suggests that immigration has had a small negative impact on the lowest-paid workers in the UK, and a small positive impact on the earnings of higher-paid workers."

"Resident workers whose wages have been adversely affected by immigration are likely to include a significant proportion of previous immigrants and workers from ethnic minority groups."

"The available evidence is insufficient to draw clear conclusions about the impact of immigration on unemployment in the UK. It is possible, ... that immigration adversely affects the employment opportunities of young people who are competing with young migrants .. More research is needed to examine the impact of recent immigration on unemployment among different groups of resident workers in the UK"

Summing it all up the available evidence for Britain suggests that

--The immigrants themselves and their home countries benefit

--For natives:

*--The "big end of town" reaps whatever may be the benefits

*--This is at the expense of mainly low-income and young natives

These findings, tentative as they are, are in line with my gut feel as regards the advantages and disadvantages of immigration in Australia.

The authors of the report state:

"...non-economic considerations such as impacts on cultural diversity and social cohesion will be important, but these are outside the scope of our inquiry."

However such effects should not be out of the scope of any enquiry on immigration in Australia.

Csteele

Glad you liked the link.

Like you I would like to see Australia less dependent on commodities exports. How one establishes a high tech manufacturing base in a small isolated country with a volatile currency is a non-trivial question. I have no easy answers. However I am going to risk the wrath of Examinator by pointing to Israel as a possible role model.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHLyANGmLjQ

The youtube segment is a review of a book called "Startup Nation" which describes Israel's success in establishing an innovative high tech manufacturing industry.

See also

http://www.amazon.com/Start-up-Nation-Israels-Economic-Miracle/dp/044654146X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258091629&sr=1-1


I've ordered the book but it won’t get here for a few weeks.

What is not apparent from the youtube segment is this:

--The Israeli Government decided 42 YEARS ago to focus on high technology

--For a relatively poor country they poured massive resources into fostering a culture of science and research. Relative to GDP Israel spends roughly twice as much on R&D as most OECD countries

--It took 30 YEARS before the benefits became apparent

Can you see any Australian Government of whatever stripe having that degree of foresight and determination?

You may find the remarks on immigration in the youtube snippet of interest.

OK Examinator, I'll bet you never saw that one coming on this thread :-D Feel free to weight in with the nefarious Zionist plot motif.

Well Csteele the globalisation and international
trade in the long term are on a hiding to nothing.
I know that Steven is well aware of this.
As energy depletion, oil, coal and gas take effect localisation will
be the major activity and international trade if it survives at all
will be in compact high value goods and certainly not people.

Unfortunately the time scale may be such that the politicians could do
a lot of damage with high levels of immigration in that time.
We are committed to tariff free trade so we cannot build factories, we
have to be taking in each other washing until globalisation fails.
We are stuck with it until that time.