<<Reduce immigration to net zero.>>

That's unfair, but what could be done instead is to have immigrants pay for all their costs, explicit and implicit, so there is net zero economic benefit in coming to Australia. A significant flat fee would do, which should be paid either by the immigrants themselves or by whoever else (employer, family, a church group in the case of refugees, etc.) is willing to.

What’s unfair about it Yuyutsu?

Otherwise I agree with your post. I bet when it is all worked out that the fee per immigrant would be quite substantial.

My point is that if the government wants to achieve a surplus quickly, then one of the most significant things that they could do is reduce immigration to net zero or somewhere near it or put a moratorium on immigration for a few years.

They could then forego the enormous costs of providing all the necessary infrastructure and services for this very large number of new residents, as well as a lot of the costs of maintaining or upgrading current services and infrastructure which are placed under ever more pressure by ever more people.

Dear Ludwig,

<<What’s unfair about it Yuyutsu?>>

To begin with, birds and fish are free to immigrate to Australia and had we not been an island, insects, reptiles and mammals too (perhaps they still can if they catch a floating log). Why should humans be discriminated against?

Also, what right has the state to separate families and friends from their loved ones, preventing them from living together?

The prevailing assumption is that immigrants come to Australia in order to benefit from the social structure and establishment, to suck the existing population and its wealth. Perhaps there are a few like this - and those should receive a big kick to their backside, but this is far from being the general case.

As an immigrant myself, I can testify that I had no interest in what I can get from the Australian people and government. Many years ago, I came to the continent of Australia in order to live a free life, as far away from war as possible. Although formally I had to arrive as a skilled-migrant, at heart I felt as a refugee and many of my friends who were in the same predicament were unable to come because they did not happen to have the skills which the Australian government wanted at the time, but we felt was irrelevant - my friends at the time actually believed that they are going to die as a result. I did not consider the presence of other people and their social structures in this continent as an attraction but rather as a nuisance, I'd rather find the land empty, I was not looking for support - I can take care of myself, thank you very much.

So, the fee should separate the sheep from the goats, eliminating those who come for social benefits and keeping those who have a genuine right to walk the earth. All but those who come to suck Australians should be able to make it - Anyone genuine can either work hard and pay the fee or convince an Australian to grant or lend them that money.

<< To begin with, birds and fish are free to immigrate to Australia and had we not been an island, insects, reptiles and mammals too (perhaps they still can if they catch a floating log). Why should humans be discriminated against? >>

So you are saying that we should have completely open borders and that anyone who wants to move here should be able to do so, uninhibited? Or with some paying fees and others not? Or you are at least saying that our current rate of immigration is fine and should continue forever?

One of the most fundamental duties of government is surely to properly regulate the influx of people, given that this factor is absolutely enormous in terms of economics, environment and quality of life.

It is one of the most easily adjustable big factors. So when our economy is looking a little drab or the books need balancing or we are having trouble providing food and goods both to the existing population and to export markets in order to gain returns for the existing domestic population, then what should we do??

We should gear down immigration, surely!

One of the most amazing things in all of this is the lack of thought about the ever-increasing demand for everything. All we ever hear, from just about all commentators on economics or on environment or social wellbeing, is that we need to increase the supply, ie boost growth, without even a thought about the rapidly increasing demand side of the equation!

This is just completely crackers!

We’ve had the most amazing mining boom for many years now. And yet we still can’t balance the books or significantly increase our quality of life or prevent environmental degradation, etc, etc.

At the same time, we have had absurdly high immigration.

What does this tell you?

How do you think our economy and finances and quality of life and quality of environment would all be looking right now if we’d had net zero or at least a much lower rate of immigration over that period?

I see the great Australian knockers are still at it. Winge about all the wasted money in the system, and when you tidy up around the edges, they scream, like a stuck pig.
12 months to the next election, and 2 more chances to tweak the budget.
No one is a fortune teller.
Job adds up greatly in the last month, unemployment steady, nothing to complain about.
There are those that make their own economy, and others that confuse state issues with federal.

Yuyutsu, Ludwig is right, but to elaborate, the reason that we will
have to stop increasing our population is because we are reaching
the End of Growth.
This means that our now available resources are divided by the number
of people in the country.
Each increase reduces our standard of living.
All nations will face the same problem as it is the world as a whole
that is now facing The End of Growth !

That is the arithmetic of the problem, live with it !