No Government or indeed any political party has a policy on population, yet we continue to bring immigrants here without any particular population goal in mind. To me this is similar to me continuing to purchasse livestock for my property without considering what its carrying capacity is. Any landowner doing this will end up bankrupt or broke.

From time to time various people have given their opinion and this varies from 10 million by Tim Flannery to 50 million by Malcolm Fraser.

OLO seems to have a good cross section of readers and posters, so it will be interesting to see what they think about our best population and why.

I have not settled on a figure myself, but think it important that we discuss the issue. Bearing in mind that over population could well be dissasterous, both economicly and socially.

I was about to start a similar thread myself. Here's what I intended to say.

This is about immigration, not refugees or asylum-seekers.

First a confession. I am an immigrant to Australia. Were I the dictator of Australian immigration I would not have accepted me. For one, I was too old to be a good bet.

This New Zealand article caught my eye.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/westcoast/4018185a11.html

The headline is "Migrant benefit 'overstated." The article summarises research conducted by Greg Clydesdale of Massey University on the benefits, to NZ, of migration. Some quotes:

"Current [immigration] policies are also hitting Kiwi families in the pocket and the number of new immigrants should be slashed…"

"Clydesdale said New Zealanders were not being given an accurate assessment of how immigration was affecting the economy and that most previous research on the subject resembled a "wish list", with little hard data showing economic benefits."

What is the situation in Australia?

Is there HARD DATA on the BENEFITS and COSTS of immigration to Australians?

Even if immigration benefits the nation as a whole, it is unlikely that the gains will be uniformly spread.

Who are the WINNERS?

Who are the LOSERS?

I suspect that with immigration, as with everything else, there is a law of diminishing returns. So what is the OPTIMUM LEVEL of immigration for Australia?

What selection criteria should be used for immigration?

I shall mention a few criteria that I think should apply.

--Much greater weight should be given to fluency in English.

--Nobody older than the median age of the country (currently 36) should be accepted. We're an aging society and we need younger rather than older immigrants.

--In the case of married immigrants, extra points should be given if spouses and children over 14 are fluent in English. Points should be deducted for family members who are not fluent.

--Family reunion should be abolished.

--Granting of permanent residence visas should be on the basis of who in the queue has the most points. Time spent in the queue should not be a factor.

Tort.. welcome. Have not seen your posts b4.

Banjo.. I reckon 25 million tops mate. Unless...we can make the desert bloom like the Israelis.

WHY ? simple... infrastructure and WATER. We simply don't have enough.
Melbourne is down to 31% or so.... that's dangerous ! (and this is with consumption DOWN by around 30% on 2004-6 Autumn consumption)

If... we can make the Northern Monsoon areas plus the northern deserts come alive with infrastructure and industry, then I'd accept probably another 10 million up thataway.

FAMILY RE-UNION I'm not against this but I AM against any re-union of polygamous families. ONLY those from the immediate nuclear family can come.

POLYGAMY by defacto relationships must be not only outlawed specifically but punished severely.

IMMIGRATION should be replaced by FERTILITY. Yes, it will take some time, maybe 20 yrs, but it's a worthy goal. Policy can be tweaked to slide gradually from one mode to the other.

Australia will likely have to increase it's population to 30,000,000 to remain in line with global population growth, in order to share the "pain".
As we currently only use 8% of Australia's available water and export lots of our agricultural output, such a number should be feasible. We are resource rich, and have some of the worlds best solar power potential, not to mention wave power and wind.
We could in fact become the worlds most sustainable population at this level.

Rojo,

Are we under any obligation to "share the pain?"

Is there such a thing as a right to immigrate to Australia?

Given that we are fairly sparsely populated even taking into account our aridity and poor soils, why stop at 30 mn? Following your logic surely we are obliged to allow our population to grow until our agricultural and water resources are as stressed as those in China and the Indian Subcontinent.

I'm not advocating anything of the sort – merely carrying your argument to its logical conclusion.

Stephany, yes I beleive we will be obliged by the UN to take in more people, particularly climate change refugees.

Yes, Australia could well support more than 30 million if that's what you want.

My logic is reflective of the fact that the worlds human population is expected to increase 50% by 2050 and there is NO reason that our population cannot do the same. There is also no reason to expect to greatly exceed 30 million. Right about the time our population is around 30-35 million it is forecast that immigration will drop off due to falling birthrates overseas. And with our own low birthrate our population will contract.

Is there a right to migrate here? No. But it's worth a try.