Drought is a very poor excuse to curb immigration. This country can support a much larger population than currently. You only need to look at the amount of food exported and the amount of fresh water lost through not recycling and runoff going out to sea.
Since nearly all our population reside close to the coast desalination is always an option. Country towns, some of which have no current water restrictions, could benefit greatly from population growth.
There is no doubt that our major cities have water sustainability problems with current sources, all the more reason to specify immigrants settle outside these areas but not to stop them coming.

For those concerned about the economic impact on voting CONTRARY you must understand that the Howard/Costello economic Messiah mantra is just a con.

This nation has had 10 years of booming commodity sales irregardless of any Howard penny pinching. Contrary to Costello and vested interest pundit predictions for a downturn in the economy ruling commodity sector, Green project futures for the next 10 years guarantee Austrlaia will continue to BOOM no matter who governs.

Mark well that those in the best position to gain from this boom, such as the treasurer and the banks and investment houses will be desperately trying to obscure its coming from prying eyes. Its a shame they cannot be post date charged with insider trading because that is precisely what they are doing.

Rojo,

If you can find country areas that have sufficient water and jobs to sustain ALL new immigrants I agree with a continuance of immigration.
If not it should be STOPPED totally till the drought has lifted.

However we all know that big business and Gambling interests are driving immigration policy. They demand more migrants in big cities to boost market opportunities and profits. They will scream like stuck pigs if your idea is even canvassed, so it will never happen.

NOTE: all coastal areas and major cities do have severe water problems and must be ruled out even if your idea did get up.

Kaep, my idea does not have to get up, its yours that has to come to fruition. City dwellers will have to constrain water use even further and embrace recycling. Desalination will come online all of which will create jobs in construction, maintainence and compliance.
Why are big business and gambling driving immigration policy? In driving the economy are we not all to benefit especially regarding the economic losses attributable to the drought.

Leigh,

I can't understand how you see the Howard Government as in any way way preferable to Labor or any of the other alternatives. As just one of many glaring examples, how could you vote for a Government, which prior to 2003 allowed AU$300 million in bribes to be paid to a regime, that it then told us was such a threat to humankind, that we were left with no alternative but to invade?

Our society has almost no hope of rising to meet the grave challenges before it, if such an abysmally incompetent group of political leaders as this remains at its helm beyond 2007.

Of course you are right to have serious misgivings about the Labor Party and all the alternatives to this government, but how do you think it conceivable that any of them could do a worse job than this government is now doing?

There can be no guarantee that Labor, the only possible alternative that can hope to win office in 2007, will be capable rising to meet the challenge. If they are not, then that will be a necessary part of the learning curve that the Australian public must proceed through, if they are ever to get a Government that can rise to meet these challenges.

What on earth do you imagine can be achieved by failing to take the opportunity to get rid of this Government in 2007?

rojo(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=339#5846) wrote:

"You only need to look at the amount of food exported ..."

Have you any idea of how parlous is the state of Australia's agricultural land? I suggest you read "We Fiddle as the Continent Turns to Dust" by Sydney Morning Herald journalist Paul Sheehan at http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/102406ED.shtml . If the current apparent trend toward the desertification of agricultural land is not stopped we will soon be struggling very hard to feed ourselves.

In any case, why does any country have to find excuses such as that of the drought in order to be able to exercise the right to restrict the numbers of people that it allows to move there?

The argument that more numbers are necessary in order for the Australian economy to become modern and competitive is a self-serving lie, peddled for too long by land speculators, property developers and related businesses so that they can profit at everybody else's expense (again, as explained in Sheila Newman's thesis at http://www.candobetter.org/sheila).

The principle reason that Queensland does not have enough water, its power generators are struggling to cope with the additional demand, its hospitals cannot cope, Moreton Bay is filling with silt, Koalas are now an endangered species, its roads are often gridlocked, its buses and trains can't meet the demand, etc, is that its population has doubled since 1974 to over four million, and the fools governing this state and the country now hope to increase this, in the South East corner, alone, by another by 1.25 million by 2026.

Why should the rural communities in the Mary Valley (http://www.savethmaryriver.com) and around Wyaralong (http://www.stopthewyaralongdam.org) suffer their destruction as a result of their Government having increased the population without having first bothered to ensure that there were adequate natural resources to meet their needs?

rojo also wrote: "Desalination will come online all of which will create jobs in construction, maintainence and compliance."

Perhaps the government could could also be persuaded to create more 'compliance' jobs by by further increasing the complexity of our tax system.

What of the cost in green house gas emissions of water recycling?