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.