With the Election drawing closer, and Population
Sustainability, Migration and the "boat people"
becoming an important voter factor for both sides,
nobody has posed the question of how much of an extra
financial burden is being placed on the Taxpayers of
Australia, due to this localized influx "phenomena"?

The Taxpayers are already faced with massive direct
or indirect taxation to recoup and repay the current
National Deficit, ( whether we like it or not!) and
quite noticably both sides of the Parliament have been
ominously silent as to what direct measures will have
to be taken to avoid plunging this country into the
same financial abyss that so many other countries are
now finding themselves in?

We have to take a firm attitude in dealing with this
problem,....the days of an "open door" policy to all
and sundry are long gone and we must weigh up the cost
against the community of each and every newcomer to
this country, regardless of colour,creed or political
and religous leaning.

The UN have for too long told us what we must do, but
unfortunately for us they are not picking up the tab
for the ongoing cost of providing a "safe" haven for
all the Political ( and financial ) Asylum Seekers who
are invading our shores in ever increasing numbers.

Whilst these issues are continuing to occupy the pages
of the mainstream media, our roads, our hospitals, our
access to doctors and dentists is detereorating, whilst
at the same time our Politicians remunerations, lurks
and perks are increasing, along with all of their hollow
promises and spin-doctoring!

We need to heed Dick Smith`s advice and consider the
obvious folly of "overpopulation as balanced against
infrastucture" bearing in mind that the everyday
infrastructure that is NOT in place now, will most
probably never eventuate, due to increasing fiscal
restraints

Although I agree on limiting Australias population I do wonder how the rest of the world will view us for it. Selfish and greedy probably.
We need to not limit this debate to just our homeland and come up with ideas and policies that can help the whole world in its, what is by now obvious to all, population crisis. Refugees only come here when their own country becomes to terrible to live in. Many times at the hands of the west. We have no cause to act all superior and innocent
Population growth goes hand in hand with the endless economic growth touted by the capitalists and unless we stop both we will be doomed to destroy our planet and any semblance of civilisation.

Fair enough or is it enough is enough. The UN has really lost the plot over population. The world is massively over populated and that is the main contributor to the global ecological meltdown.
I have always seen this as reasonably simple bar one small point. You look at the ecology of your country, then you set you realistic carrying capacity. From there you define the infrastructure needed to sustain that population in a way that is not environmentally destructive but yet maintains a good quality of life, and finally you plan and develop your economy to fit this need not the other way around. Labour shortages are made up of foreign workers on work only visa's and no offer of residency. We could see this as part of our aid program putting real wealth into neighbouring economies where it is needed, on the street with the people as these workers take a good wage home to their families and communities.
The problem is how do you get people to stop having children. Yes i know not a big problem hear just stop immigration but what of a country such as India? China are heavily criticised for their one child policy.
We seem to think it is our right to overpopulate and destroy the ecology that belongs to all flora and forna on this planet equally. With some luck we will begin to wake up soon and realise the arrogant way we treat this place will be our extinction. The explosion of population world wide has really exploded with medicine. We live longer with less infant and child deaths due to disease. But with the miracles medicine has brought us their are responsibilities that we have ignored, population control is the most important of these.

mikk: The only way to stop endless economic
growth (inflation) is to introduce a Wage and
Price Control Bill,....but unfortunately none
of our Politicians have the intestinal
fortitude to venture down that path, purely
for their own selfish reason of having their
own outlandish income streams curtailed!

mikk makes a solid point about the issue being a global one which has to bring in all those other factors of economic equity and welfare safety nets.

What is most annoying in Australia is that the push for big populations does not come with new hospitals, better roads, rail, public transport, congestion/pollution, forestry/water management issues, and up until recently, training and planning for skill shortages.

The furphy about growing to service an ageing population is laughable when all we are achieving with growth is a future problem with another group of ageing Australians. Better to see the baby boomer retirement phenomenon through without scapegoating a whole sector of the population for being born after a post-war boom when the real motives are economic interests.

What about the post-WW2 immigration boom that created the baby boom in the first place? It wasn't just young Australian couples making up for the war years, many of the male youth of Australia were dead or crippled, as happened in WW1.

Typically, government also argued that later large swells in immigration numbers were needed to build housing for an increasing population. However the increasing population was being immigration driven - chicken and egg.

It always was about 'growth' and 'development', just as the attitude to Australia's resources was to ruthlessly 'exploit', not conserve or manage. Explains why there are large holes left in the ground with discarded machinery and poisonous waste heaps around the country.

Mikk
"Although I agree on limiting Australias population I do wonder how the rest of the world will view us for it. Selfish and greedy probably. "
I would not even care; it's not like they're going to boycott us over it.

More important is to ask "Which nations?" would judge us negatively over it?
France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Poland, Greece and Russia, not to mention Japan, aren't going to perceive us very harshly over this at all, as most of these countries are already scaling back refugee intakes or have a fair amount of internal support to do such, themselves.

As with all social problems, this is multi-layered.

Our infrastructure sucks from mismanagement and corruption, not lack of funds.

Our population is based upon foreign influx, and is the reason for the economic wealth we have created, so more shouldn't be a problem, but welcomed.

But the real problems come back to the poor infrastructure, no town planning of communal interests but only select business interests.

We should use our humanitarian obligations as impetus to force government to improve infrastructure, not turn away "boat people". Then it's a win/win situation for us all, for the bigger we grow, the better. Let me put it this way, we have a popluation of 27 million, and so pander to the larger powers of nations with larger populations and economies. We would be doing a lot less pandering if our population was 300 million, for exsmple. Then we would be a force to be reckoned with.

Our focus should be on the inevitable, and that is of global population growth, failing any calamatous event. That means the planning of an expanding infrastructure... and many of the people to build that infrastructure are arriving on boats, right now. Or has no-one read any history...it's how America became what it is, and how we have become what we are.

It does not imply no control of that foreign influx, but a more thoughtful approach, the planning, and then bi-partisan commitment to plans. (I like dreaming).

It is not so much of 'can Australia cope', but will the "developers" release the good fertile land they have locked up so that people can have farms and vegetable patches on fertile land, and houses, high rise buildings and factories etc built on other poor productive land. I consider the shire councillors are responsible for this. Most of the problems are more poor parliamentarians, who are unable to plan anything to be successful, or prosperous, they are more intent with impressing the public to get into parliament and benefitting themselves with a large salary and perks, rather than straining their brain and producing a prosperous country..

merv09:
Yes!... we seem to have a continuous plethora
of Politicians who promise the world but
in the new light of day, give nothing at all
to the community in general, but rather discard
any semblance of honour and constrain themselves
to their own particular financial betterment!

Sadly, it is well past the time whereby this
country could benefit from an injection of
honesty and decency, and I am afraid to say
that we will just have no other option than to
endure the manure that generally passes for
"representation" until finally we will lapse
into the model New World Order type society,
where we will each simply become a faceless
number, devoid of any real thought or reasoning,
but merely an automaton responding only to the
bidding of the puppet-master, and if exhibiting
any sign of resistance against this New Order to
be terminated at will.

This situation has only come about because of the
unmitigated greed and lust for power by certain
members of our society, who consider themselves above
and beyond reproach and chastizement. We the voting
public have allowed this situation to become firmly
entrenched due to our own personal apathy and our
continuing lack of backbone in standing up and
speaking out against what we know is socially and
morally wrong!....we are now reaping what we have sown!

What is desperately needed in the population debate is some objective measures.

Of most importance is a determination of the public per capita cost of infrastructure. Having this information would allow a determination of whether the current public infrastructure crisis is due to incompetence or corruption, or a direct consequence of high population growth.

Another important piece of information is the national water audit. Managing Australia's water resources isn't a matter of banning rice and cotton growing. Of primary importance is understanding how much water is available for a given time frame. Of this water, the human population would be reliant on a water resource which is available year round. In contrast, a large amount of water that was only available for a few months every few years would be totally unsuitable for supporting a human population, yet may be very suitable for rice or cotton growing.

Future population sustainability took a huge step forward last night.

Dick Smith’s documentary was simply excellent. He very effectively debunked all of the major arguments put forward by the pro-growthers.

The Q & A debate that followed it was also wonderful, except for John Elliott!

Scott Morrison, Tony Burke and Bob Brown all said the right things! That was just amazing – the Libs, the Labs and the Greens all in broad agreement, which is sits in strong contrast to our current high population growth policies.

So I think that at long last we can actually expect a bit of a meaningful shift in the right direction from our hitherto highly unillustrious federal government, no matter who may win the election.

Seems very simple to me.

Tell the people to stop having sex. Apparently, that causes babies, who everybody agrees are the major cause of population growth.

Then close the borders, to keep out all those nasty foreigners who come here and bludge of the hard-working Aussie.

Now that's the kind of society we all aspire to, isn't it.

All it needs is one strong politician, backed up by the army and the police. To make it easier, they could all wear a distinctive uniform, and have the power to be involved in every aspect of our lives.

All in the interests of sustainability, of course.

Utopia.

Ludwig I agree last night's debate was heartening.

I particularly liked the global focus as you cannot only talk about sustainability and limited resouces from a local perspective - it is a global issue.

Some great ideas and open discussion followed on Q&A particularly in relation to decentralisation and infrastructure concerns which is the crux of the issue in Australia. Rural areas like around Mount Gambier need more people, have the water and good arable land for farming, but the region does not have the supporting education/health infrastructure to attract and maintain population. Meanwhile the cities get bigger and we are set to follow the mistakes of our international neighbours.

It got me thinking about a global currency and industrial relations system/wages to iron out the disparity between nations and as discussed on the show, education and workforce participation (particularly for women in the developing world) is one element in reducing poverty and hence spiralling populations that cannot be sustained due to economic and/or environmental factors. I suspect this would be difficult and involve much negotiation and adjustment to changing values such as the impact of consumption.

It is good to see the topic getting some airing. Lets hope we see the improvements in infrastructure in the near future.

It is not only interesting, but telling that the chattering classes criticism of China's one child policy had finally disappeared.

China's leaders for saw the problem of overpopulation long before the wast, had the sense to state that they were serving the greatest human right of all with their policy, the right to eat enough food.

The chatter reached a crescendo when China started penalising those who did not comply with the policy, but now almost everyone can see how right they were.

Our immigration does not help anyone in the long term. The countries of origin will simply fill any space created, & all Ozzie's will be poorer in the long term.

Thank heavens for the Dick Smiths of the world, who will put the effort into telling it as it is.

I love that epithet, "chattering classes".

It is a sure sign of a complete absence of intellectual rigour on the part of the author - thank you for proving the point, Hasbeen.

>>It is not only interesting, but telling that the chattering classes criticism of China's one child policy had finally disappeared<<

Quite possibly, that is because the discussion has moved beyond the scope of the frivolous sound-bite (Ooo-er, did you hear about them Chinese?) into the realm of serious sociological discussion.

Not that I expect to find you anywhere near that group, Hasbeen, you can stay next to the water-cooler and discuss the Footy Show.

There are literally hundreds of studies, freely available on your local interwebs, that dig beneath the surface of this policy.

They each come from a different angle.

India looks for the opportunity to avoid what it regards as "mistakes"

http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/143ss106.html

Others look at the way it encourages infanticide. Of girls.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

Yet others, confine themselves to a description.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/gro/gro_088chinaonechild.html

To me, it is simply staggering that an adult Australian can seriously believe that legislating against the natural inclination - I won't even describe it as a "right", although I think it comes pretty close - of people to get together and create a family, is a good idea.

Just the very image of an Australia where the population is happy to live under such rules, is abhorrent. Who would want to live under a government that considered it their right to tell you how to live, at such a fundamental level?

I'm speechless.

Almost.

I believe the current growth rate of babys born in Australia is 1.8% which means they do not replace their parents. This means we have to have a migration intake of .2% to break even plus an intake to replace those leaving Australia.

Pericles,
Well said on all points.

Philo,
You could add to that the demographic bubble called "the baby boomers" are heading to their twilight years. By normal logic between 2O30- 50 there will be a disproportionate number of exits. Migration including the puddle jumpers may reduce the starkness of that demographic decrease it will none the less significant.
Keep in mind the 'boat people' are less than 2% of our migrants.

All.
In my mind Dick Smith is an excellent entrepreneur and self publicist but his program's logic was overly simplistic and deeply flawed.

What isn't considered/understood by "the great unwashed" are the externalities.
As stated this isn't just a Fortress Australia problem but is a multi layered and complex international one.

The world has the capacity to feed a larger population but not at the current lifestyles or methodologies. By that, I mean the poor nations need to be raised to the level where survival rates don't necessitate many children. And the West needs to adopt a less profligate consumption lifestyle.

For the curmudgeons amongst us that doesn't me communism/socialism or living in grass huts et al. Not all change is or needs to be apocalyptic.

All the discussions on this topic so far either pays lip service to the issue or devolve into a futile argument about the extremes based only on the historic. No one seems able or willing to think out of the dogma influenced mind sets.

It is naivety on steroid to think that we can act independent to the rest of the world and that there won't be consequences.

I have posited preemptive action in boosting countries before. Help them solve the issue at home so the people who emigrate are manageable.

It is pure nonsense to suggest that eventually the starving masses are going to ignore our petty laws and we will be reduced to ?
Sinking the boats at sea with all lives?

Part1

Anybody who think we could get away with that and not be isolated even in wars isn't looking very carefully or has forgotten the history.

We are exposed here folks we need to be thinking long term.

It is undeniable that the world population is too high and needs natural reductions.

By doing so at the point of gun in the mid ocean certainly isn't it.

We the western world need to be proactive and seek another way.

Examiner, you appear to be wasting your breath, unfortunately. I agree with what you say, and it furthers what I said previously. We cannot ignore the rest of the planet, nor will we be allowed to. Therefore, we should look towards expanding our infrastructure to cater to further influx of people, and plan for that. That is sustainable.

What is not sustainable, is ignorance of the rest of the world.

How did America become what it is today? "Bring us your outcast...." is how. Non-stop growth of people and expansion of infrastructure to become the power-house economy they have become. Yet we have people here wanting to keep things as they are with just over 20 million people. HELLO! Is there anyone paying any attention out there?!?

We are a few attempting to keep a resource-rich continent to ourselves in an ever-expanding globe of ever-reducing resources. How realistic does that sound?

I would rather welcome many, than have to attempt to repel many more, with so few.

Our future is not about sustainability, it is about survival in a world of reducing resources, of which fresh water and arable land have become of primary concern. This is not about having the 2.2 kids and 2 Commodores in the garage. This is about the survival of a species that is starting to outstrip the resources on which it survives. It is a global concern, not only a national one.

TBC..

The other thing that is mostly overlooked in discussion about the Western Economy, is this...the Western World as we have come to know it, only constitutes something in the vacinity of 1 billion or so people. China alone is 1.2 billion people, and becoming more and more a part of the Western Economy every day. India is another billion or more, and also joining the Western Economy. It could be said that in the last decade or two, that the Western Economy in number of participants is more than tripling. This has a lot to do with why there will be a very slow recovery from the GFC, as well as the fact that we'll never see things like they were again. Those days of economic frolic such as we had in the 80's and 90's, are over. These are the pressures being placed upon markets, workforces and the costs of labour, let alone global resources of minerals, for that extra two billion or more, also want to live like us. The point of fact is, 3 billion, let alone the entire planet of 6-7 billion people, cannot live like we do today in our Western countries, with our excess and over-consumerism. There just are not the resources in the way that we currently use them, to do it. But nor will those other 6 billion people tolerate the disparity any longer. So invite them in and be in control of that with planning, for there's too many of them to fight.

And if history has taught us nothing else, it should be that people will take what they need if it is denied them long enough.

*How did America become what it is today? "Bring us your outcast...." is how*

Sheesh, what a great reason to not copy their example, for it
would be sad indeed, if Australia became like America.

BTW, America is basically bankrupt. I would certainly not
live there.

* I won't even describe it as a "right", although I think it comes pretty close - of people to get together and create a family, is a good idea.*

Interesting question Pericles. Create a family yes, but where are
the limits? I watched a programme on tv the other night, where
an American family were on child no 19, with no 20 planned. It
was "God's will" apparently.

No doubt Govt will be paying most of the bills. So where do my
rights start and responsibilities finish?

I watched another programme where a man in Chad was complaining that
things were tough and he wanted food aid. He had 2 wives and
11 children. Do we just keep sending food to feed whatever
people decide to produce? What are the limits?

Yet another programme I watched, a CNN reporter went into the
backblocks of Nigeria and was amazed that women would approach
her in the street and offered to give her their babies. They
already had a whole lot and could not cope.

Basic human instinct will prevail, you won't convince people to
cross their legs, but all the surveys that I have seen suggest
that women in the third world would use contraception if it were
available and affordable.

That is not the case for hundreds of millions, so they keep
popping them out like rabbits. We are then amazed when the
global population keeps increasing by 80 million a year, with
even more poverty, hunger etc.

The elephant in the room remains population. Dick Smith addressed
the Australian issue, but it needs adressing globally.

Agree Yabby.

If people were given voluntary access to affordable birth control (meaning free for the world's poor), the world's population would stabilise. No coercion needed. No army of brownshirts needed to enforce the party line. It is simply a matter of offering people a choice. The reality is that the resistance is coming from political leaders who do not want their citizens to have access to birth control.

I watched Dick Smith's docco the other night also, and I was struck by the authoritarian nature of some of the growth advocates. It seemed a case of the growthist opinions being driven by self interest instead of sound evidence. I was particularly dumbstruck to see John Elliott talking about a water pipeline from Lake Argyle to the headwaters of the Darling. I had thought such ideas the province of extremist groups like the Citizen's Electoral Council, not former Liberal Party Presidents. If such views are not uncommon amongst politicians and business leaders, I would think Tim Flannery's idea of an independent authority to set Australia's immigration rate an excellent one.

Hasbeen
The one-child policy was disastrous for China. That is not the way to go about population policy nor is it to use force or any other form of dictatorial programs. There are better economic and social mechanisms that affect population growth than forced interference in people's private lives.

This type of policy in a place like China where sons hold the position of head of house was disastrous for baby girls, many being left in orphanages or worse killed. China would have been far better providing some form of retirement pension. The population was merely replaced when millions of male babies grew up to find there were not enough women to marry, and hence led to the influx of foreign wives which merely increased population.

The debate also talked about increasing humanitarian intake as opposed to skilled migration once domestic training policies take effect.

There seems to be some impasse in people's minds between sustainability and humanitarian policy. It can work together and makes sense to take the world's neediest people, provide education and training, health care etc which has positive benefits in the long term.

*The population was merely replaced when millions of male babies grew up to find there were not enough women to marry, and hence led to the influx of foreign wives which merely increased population.*

Not so Pelican. Some of the stuff I've seen, claims that its made
a net difference of around 300 million to their population.

To understand the reasons why, try and see the world from their
perspective at the time, not your perspective here and now.

The Chinese were literally starving at the time. Farms were becoming
smaller and smaller, with each generation. Much like happened
in Rwanda. There was no industrial base to send workers to.

When things become that serious, it becomes all about survival, not
rights. We see similar problems in India, where the population
keeps growing, farmlets become even smaller, poverty increases even
further in rural areas.

Free and available contraception, the availability of abortion if
women want the service, those are the sorts of voluntary
possibilities which can be introduced, before overpopulation
becomes a disaster issue, as in Rwanda. The results were not
pleasant.

Once again, whilst the global population keeps increasing at
250'000 a day, all your feelgood ideas about conservation and
frugal living, are basically a waste of time, they won't make
a scrap of difference.

"Once again, whilst the global population keeps increasing at
250'000 a day, all your feelgood ideas about conservation and
frugal living, are basically a waste of time, they won't make
a scrap of difference."

Yabby you mistake me for a growthist.

When did the environment become a feelgood idea? That is like saying research on cancer is a waste of time because it is a feelgood idea. I love the way you continually use derogatory language to avoid actually discussing any issue on a factual basis.

Frugal living is not what I am advocating - who defines what is meant by frugal. What I am talking about is consumption - it is a fact that if the developing world begins to equal the consumption rates of the developed world, there won't be enough resources if population continues to spiral. In fact there won't be enough now with current population levels.

Logically it will mean that the rest of the world will have to decrease consumption (what you call frugal living) if we are to reach some semblance of equity at the global level.

That is why it is important to get the population strategies right now. It will happen as a natural consequence of development and democracy to a large extent.

Regarding China - this from the linked article:

"The collection of population statistics in China is known to be subject to manipulation to conform with family-planning regulations, since the process is overseen by officials who are often unwilling to uncover any violations of the rules..."

From: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr051833

Yabby,
Re not following US original immigration policy.

Please think things through before acerbic comment.
Things like their colonial now capitalist hegemony, their unrealistic forced exploitation of others . Remember the slavery....
Then the poor Irish, Italians, Jews and Chinese...oh yes the Evangelical enterprises (aka evangelical churches) and Entrepreneurial excesses..But don't forget their attitude of "we'll fight to save you to the very last drop of *your* blood"
Come to think of it *you are right* the problem did start with the immigrants....the first white ones!

*That is like saying research on cancer is a waste of time because it is a feelgood idea.*

No so Pelican. What it comes down to, is will whatever you or
anyone else does, actually make a scrap of difference, if we look
at the big picture. The bloke who cycles to work to save the
planet, might feel good about himself for all that cycling,
but he's not going to make a scap of difference, if China is
building another 5 coal fired power stations a week. The
same point applies to the 250'000.

Feelgood is in fact a huge human motivator. The brain rewards us
with chemistry and it drives much human behaviour.

* there won't be enough resources if population continues to spiral. In fact there won't be enough now with current population levels.*

In that case we are wasting our time, unless we address population.

*It will happen as a natural consequence of development and democracy to a large extent.*

Nope, it will happen when all women have access to family planning
and abortion services, as the Western World has. Interesting that
your China link claims that 43% of US women have had an abortion.

*since the process is overseen by officials who are often unwilling to uncover any violations of the rules..."*

Sure, that is China for you, we know that. So what?

"So what?"

Yabby you raised the population statistics on China not me.

What has some guy cycling to work got to do with anything - he may feel good about it - that is his right - but what has it got to do with China's population? I have obviously missed the point of your original post.

Pelican, I responded to your claim that the Chinese one child policy
was a disaster. From the Chinese perspective, 300 million less mouths
to feed, with that much less strain on the environment, has clearly
not been a failure. The foreign wives didn't replace all those
people.

Of course human rights were trampled on, that is how China runs
itself.

The second point was a separate issue, one of saving resources.
Many resources such as metals etc, are and can be recycled. As
their value increases, the more they will be recycled. Market
economics will see to that. But some of the Greens for instance,
think that we should ban air conditioners. Why on earth would
we want to do a silly thing like that?

Life is not fair and never will be. Resources will land up being
used by those who can afford them, not by some quota allocation
for everyone on the planet, in the name of fairness.

MindlessCruelty, "So invite them in and be in control of that with planning, for there's too many of them to fight.
And if history has taught us nothing else, it should be that people will take what they need if it is denied them long enough."

If you happen to see Dick Smith's interview of Australia's most respected soldier, General Peter Cosgrove, a professional we definitely know is batting for us and will give an independent opinion, you will heartened and reassured to find that he doesn't agree with your dismal scenarios. Look at Population Puzzle.

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/

General Cosgrove does not see the menace that you see. He dismissed the view that a larger population provides a superior fighting force through numbers and he was confident that our security is best placed in a smaller, well equipped, professional force. Populate or perish is bunkum. Populate or else jealous hordes will take it from us is also bunkum.

Cornflower, thanks for the link, as I hadn’t seen the program.

However, the crux of the issue was only mumbled at the beginning, and then avoided in the rest of the program…words to the effect of, ”…population growth is important in a Capitalist system.”

Though I totally agree on a global approach to population control, while the globe is governed by Capitalist enterprise(s) we are well short of realistic solutions that won’t be ugly, or require radical change in attitudes and thinking.

Issues mentioned in the program;
Property prices…it stated that immigration puts pressure on property prices. Yes, while government doesn’t release more land, it does. But developers want a return on their investment, and property value must steadily climb. But again, with better and more controlled planning, property values can be made more affordable but more land released, still controlled, but not so stringently has it has been, which has caused our property values to sky-rocket.

But if we’re talking about sustainability, then maybe what we should be talking about is building underground, rather than above ground.

Losing farmable land….yes, that’s true while the land that is released for development is farming land. So release land that is not desirable for farming. Or go underground.

Increased pressure on infrastructure…the most pressure placed on infrastructure is the fact that it is a political football…one government spends more on education, health and roads, and the next one comes along and rapes them. There’s no planning and what expansion occurs, happens too late and in the interests of some big business, not community. Or because community on its rare occasion comes together united on a cause, and something is done.

Infrastructure should be a percentage of GDP with bi-partisan agreement, and not used as political footballs.

There used to be government departments called Town and Country Planning. Not anymore. Bring them back.

TBC

Funding an aging population… Make it law that a person’s income from their very first job until retirement is 12-15% of their income so that their retirement and health needs are funded, rather than people spending every dime they have and then relying on a pension…”because I paid taxes, I deserve it.” Because you paid taxes, means you earned an income, and should have saved some. Taxes are for infrastructure, and shouldn’t be for retirement. We should all be self-funding. This would free-up billions in tax dollars alone, while making retirees financially independent.

Peter Cosgrove…fundamentally, I agree with what he says. However, if I might put forward a possible scenario…if China and the US come into dispute, we can bet it will be over resources, and both of them have a large reliance upon littl’ ol’ us. You know, there’s a strong possibility in that scenario that a war between them could be fought on our turf. It would be nice to know that we had a population and economy large enough to be a deterrent of its own to larger forces, for at the moment, we rule nothing of our own, as we aren’t powerful enough to do so.

The Bangladesh comparison; If we as the First World hadn’t spent so much time denying the Third World of electricity, and therefore industry, power, growth, infrastructure and an economy, they wouldn’t be Third World. But by keeping them Third World, enabled The West, China, and the USSR when it existed, to control and compete for resources. But now they’re joining in the game and the hunt. When we consider that America alone consumes 25% of the world’s oil production, we can start to see the real pressures of a few billion more people wanting live as we do, when only 270 million people consume that much oil alone. Impossible. Why not compare population density with Japan, another industrialized and technological country, rather than a Third World country? Bangladesh was not a fair comparison.

TBC

! see two choices…find and get everyone to agree with another system other than Capitalism, or be smart and plan for growth and expansion, rather than reacting to expansion pressures too late. Sydney has doubled in size in the last 20 years, but there hasn’t been a dam built in probably 40-50 years. Since I can’t see Capitalism going anywhere quickly in the foreseeable future, I suggest that a few of the measures I mentioned above worthy of consideration.

From Crackcup’s opening post:

<< With the Election drawing closer, and Population Sustainability …. becoming an important voter factor for both sides …. >>

Well, those bloomin Greens have just made a deal with Labor, in which they set out a number of concessions that Labor has agreed to.

Do you think that there is anything about population growth on that list?

Nope, not a razoo!!

The Greens had the greatest opportunity ever to steer Australian politics towards a stable population and a sustainable future….. and they’ve BLOWN IT!!

They’ve just demonstrated that they are not really interested in this all-important political imperative.

Bob Brown’s recent good comments on population were apparently just hot air, uttered because the issue has become a mainstream discussion and NOT because he believes in population stabilisation or a lower rate of growth or anything of the sort!

I am utterly appalled.

Ludwig:
I don`t know about you, but in the pervading light
of a very gloomy reality, I am battening down the hatches
and preparing for a very mind-boggling increase in the
price of everything,....thanks in part to this splintered
bunch of crack-pots who will be polishing the seats of
both Houses with their brain-containing backsides!

The future has always appeared a little uncertain to say
the least, but now we can all look forward to a raft of
"appeasements" ie: Carbon Taxes on everything, an increase
in GST, fuels, electricity, water, foodstuffs and the
inevitable Council Rates.

This then is the penalty that we will all have to pay
for allowing our Political situation to become splintered!
By the time the next General Election comes around,
(sooner or later), we will simply be a lot poorer and
a lot wiser, whilst the pollies of course will have
once again given themselves an increase in pay and
allowances!

The Jabberwocky will reign supreme!