JULIA Gillard has just had the gall to say that Australia will continue to run "a sizeable immigration program" as she steers the nation towards a population of more than 40 million by 2050.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/sizeable-immigration-key-to-economic-growth-says-gillard/story-fn9hm1gu-1226612567741

"I think what you've got to do is manage your migration program in line with your nation's needs”, she said.

So why on Earth isn’t she doing this, by progressively winding it back to a much lower level??

Gillard, who said three years ago that she believes in a sustainable Australia not a big Australia, has hereby destroyed the last vestiges of any credibility that she might have had, by driving Australia directly and strongly towards a big Australia.

The simple act of lowering immigration by a significant amount would have given on her a lot of support, and if coupled with a concerted effort to espouse a sustainable Australia, could well have saved Labor’s bacon and won them the forthcoming election.

But no! Labor has now definitely sunk to an absolutely irrecoverable level…. and condemned the country to the ongoing madness of endless continuous growth.

Congratulations Julia. You have comprehensively turfed your mate Kevin out of the esteemed position of Australia’s worst-ever PM!

Find me Ludwig, a party ever likely to rule this country, that has not got the same policy.
Then look at every attempt to change to cleaner more sustainable fuels.
You can not win, not yet, big money owns our future.
Understand, even agree with your views but we are few dash for cash rules still.
Rest, soon Gillard will be gone, then watch Abbott do the very same thing.

Ludwig,
Get it into your head! The two major parties are in the pocket of big business, so both will have a high immigration policy. "He who pays the piper calls the tune".

Surely I do not have to explain to you why big business want high immigration.

There has been only one party that advocated 'zero nett immigration' and the two majors colluded to stop them. Even Katters party is talking about 50 million people in north Aus.

Untill people wake up and realise that we cannot aford the infastructure for big population and immigration is driving house prices well beyond what ordinary people can afford, we will continue to have high immigration. Not to mention how long it takes to get to and from work and the queues are longer for everything. Hey, it sells more consumer goods! Just import more.

Ludwig, the other day you were saying that Labor could improve their woeful fortunes by offering themselves as the party of sustainability.

Putting aside any question of this actually meaning anything sensible in the first place, I thought to myself, why would anyone believe a word they say? Would Ludwig actually be gullible enough to vote for them just because they promised "sustainability"? It looks like he would! But do you think they wouldn't lie through their teeth just to get your vote? And look at their record! Look at what they've just spent the last 6 years blowing billions of dollars on! How could anyone possibly square that with an ethic of sustainability?

So I'm glad Gillard has burst your bubble, even if the truth hurts.

Not that I think the Liberals are any more trustworthy mind you.

Each election it's the same. The population groan for relief from the pack of power-hungry lying sociopaths they have ruling over them - and vote in the other pack of power-hungry lying sociopaths! It's like some kind of neurosis.

That's just emotional rhetoric, Banjo.

>>...we cannot aford the infastructure for big population and immigration is driving house prices well beyond what ordinary people can afford<<

As I keep pointing out to Ludwig, we have coped in the past, with our GDP growing consistently faster than our population, and this will continue to be the case.

On what evidence do you link immigration to rising house prices? I wouldn't be dumb enough to suggest that immigration alone is the cause of our increasing GDP per capita. In the same way, you cannot rationally propose that immigration alone is the cause of rising house prices. Far more likely, is the fact that our increasing wealth drives greater competition in the house market, as we simultaneously look for better housing, and for opportunities to invest in property. Our being better off is the cause, house price increases would then be the natural effect.

And the fact that people still keep buying houses, clearly demonstrates they can "afford" them. The price reflects normal supply and demand economics.

While it is true that we in NSW have crap infrastructure, that is largely due to decades of fiscal mismanagement, political paralysis and sheer laziness of successive governments. We happily spend on tokenist activities such as the soon-to-be-demolished monorail and half-hearted attempts at urban light rail systems, while avoiding key issues such as a second airport and high-speed intercity rail.

Continued population growth is probably the only way we will ever get governments to act on such matters - it will never be quite enough, and will inevitably be decades late, but still sufficient to keep not-too-far-behind our needs.

Ludwig>>Labor has now definitely sunk to an absolutely irrecoverable level<<

Luddy as I read your words I smile with reminiscence…I had often thought exactly that as the failure upon failure built….but unfailingly they fail again in an astounding fashion a month later. I reached the point where nothing astounded me any more when Gillard said that she did not knife Kev and people bought it.

Luddy I put this youtube on another thread to Lexi, but it’s appropriate. See how Hawke reacts to being accused of knifing Hayden. Bob is so convincing in his portrayal of indignation and moral injury at the accusation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRz06GrF-1I

Australia does not have the water and other resources to sustain that figure without hundreds of billion being spent on infrastructure.

That equates to just over half a million per year, where are the houses?

Also of that 40 million if anything like now that would mean we have approx 4 million public servants.

Also how many of that will be ECONOMIC INVADERS by boats.

Regrettably I would say that would be the target no matter who was in power.

<< Find me Ludwig, a party ever likely to rule this country, that has not got the same policy. >>

There isn’t one. As I have said a million times; the Libs and Labs are just the same. And the Groans, alas, haven’t got a sustainable bone their body either!

<< You can not win, not yet, big money owns our future. >>

Yes Belly, so it seems. Even with some real hints at sustainability from Labor; from Carr, Thomson, and from Gillard, it is obviously still a bridge too far.

Looks like we won’t be able to win a genuine swing towards sustainability until it is too late.

<< Get it into your head! The two major parties are in the pocket of big business, so both will have a high immigration policy. "He who pays the piper calls the tune". >>

Ah Banjo, I have that fact firmly and squirmly embedded I the depths of my cranium!

I can just picture it now:

Gillard said three years ago: “I believe in a sustainable Australia, not a big Australia.”

Then her big biz masters said: “Hey Julia, sweetie, you really said something quite naughty there. I know you are brand new to this prime-minister thing, so we won’t punish you just as long as you don’t do it again, and continue to grow Australia’s population very rapidly. In fact, now that we’re on this subject, how about boosting the rate a bit, there’s a good girl.”

“Oh, dear, I’m sorry Sir. Very sorry indeed. I didn’t realise. OK, I shall increase the rate for you.”

( :>(

<< Would Ludwig actually be gullible enough to vote for them just because they promised "sustainability"? It looks like he would! >>

Jardine, I have emphasised many times amongst my copious posts on this subject that if Labor were to adopt a sustainability platform, they’d have to make it believable, which indeed given their record would not be easy.

However, if Carr and Thomson, who both have long histories of lobbying for population stabilisation / sustainability, were to lead the charge, it would be genuine and it would be believable.

<< So I'm glad Gillard has burst your bubble, even if the truth hurts. >>

Gillard hasn’t burst my bubble. She has said exactly what I would have expected her to say. If she’d said Labor was going to significantly reduce immigration, I probably would have keeled over dead with shock!!

<< The population groan for relief from the pack of power-hungry lying sociopaths they have ruling over them - and vote in the other pack of power-hungry lying sociopaths! It's like some kind of neurosis. >>

YES!! Well said.

Hwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwww!!

<< Continued population growth is probably the only way we will ever get governments to act on such matters - it will never be quite enough, and will inevitably be decades late, but still sufficient to keep not-too-far-behind our needs. >>

Interesting Pericles. So what you are really saying is that continued population growth will make the situation so bad that governments are forced to act!

And then yes, it will never be enough. They won’t be able to build enough infrastructure or duplicate enough services to get up to the quality that we had before the population influx that forced them to act!!

And yes again, it will always be behind our needs, chasing the tail of population pressure, struggling like blazes just to keep up the same level of infrastructure and services for ever-more people, without improving the quality of life for the original population at all…… and consuming most of our tax revenue and income from mining and other exports to do it!!

Soggy, Gillard did NOT knife Rudd! Rudd seeeeriously stuffed up! His party saw fit to relieve him of the PMship, something which they would only have done under very serious circumstances. Gillard as then deputy PM was his obvious replacement.

I remember seeing that Bob Hawke interview at the time back in 1983. While Bob should have kept his cool, I have no doubt that he was telling the straightforward truth. His party saw fit to put him in the leadership position. He didn’t knife Hayden.

Pericles,
Population growth is the main factor in the demand for housing and with a low birthrate of 1.7 per woman we are not breeding the extras. we are importing the extra people. This in turn means more consumer goods sold, more cars choking the roads, less parking, more crammed public transport and longer queues everywhere. So our quality of life drops.

It is now at a stage where a simple car accident will create a queue 8k long, with hours of delay. Have you not heard of the costs quoted to build more roads and transport networks. The government does not have the money. Yeah they get private investors to build roads and rip the public off with high tolls. Have a look at what your local council has to pay for a new roundabout even, it is unbelievable.

People are still buying houses you say! Well property experts are saying that first home buyers have no hope and i can well believe that. How does a young couple save enough to get a deposit on their home.

The high immigration rate is contributing greatly to the ever increasing cost of everything and that includes housing. Make no mistake, big business and the immigrants themselves are the ones to gain from high immigration. Our citizenship are the losers.

Goodness gracious Ludwig, you aren't inferring that Gillard is trying to pull another swifty are you?

Do ever get the feeling that she hasn't got a clue what it is she is actually supposed to be doing as a pretend prime minister?

It seems there is no dispute with the principle, Ludwig... you are in total agreement with the PM as "Gillard said three years ago: “I believe in a sustainable Australia, not a big Australia.”"

and you've told us exactly the same thing as her, "amongst... copious posts on this subject", as in:

""I think what you've got to do is manage your migration program in line with your nation's needs”, she said."

Where you differ is merely in the arithmetic, surely?

I won't have any issues with the population at 40 million just as long as everyone is named Mahatmavishnapandrahamapuldinhra so that we don't have to remember lots of names.

We don't need 40 million people here, what we need are 50 % of the present 23 million to acquire some logic.

Ludwig, sorry but you stand in the rain complaining about those under cover.
It has ALWAYS been this country,s policy to grow its population.
Remember populate or perish?
Post ww2 migration grew us both in numbers and as a nation, we gained so much from that time.
Remember, as much as you dislike it, and as much as you try to blame Labor and Rudd, you even put an fast ageing Bob Carr up as leader!
Costello said have three kids, one extra for the country.
Blindly lashing out, at one side, for sharing the view most hold, is wasteful self deceit.
Now in time we may/should consider sustainability.
Ludwig, know, those who prosper from constant growth will be hard to roll.
To them, and most, prosperity calls for growth.

Ludwig, know, those who prosper from constant growth will be hard to roll.
Belly,
That is just so true. I see it every day in the public service. As the federal Government's contributions to the states increase so do the lurks & perks i.e. profits of the public servants & those who exploit every loophole to get more. The problem with that system is that the more one makes the more another has to give. Growth is direct result of input. do want growth in bureaucracy ? I don't think even you'd like that. Do you want growth in the crime rate because many make a profit from that ? You're advocating growth all round but I have yet to see you advocate growth in integrity, accountability & above all decency. There is good growth & there is bad growth. Population increase is bad growth. Ask anyone with more than two ounces of brain.

<< Blindly lashing out, at one side, for sharing the view most hold, is wasteful self deceit. >>

Scuuuze me Belly! You know perfectly well that I extend just the same sort of criticisms about the facilitation of continuous growth to both Labor and the Coalition. Always have. And I’ve made it abundantly clear.

<< Ludwig, know, those who prosper from constant growth will be hard to roll. >>

I don’t think we should be thinking of it in those terms. We don’t want to ‘roll’ big business, we want to work with them.

What we really need is a concerted effort at the top level of our political arena to explain which growth is good and which is bad, and why. I don’t think this has ever been done, at all, by any government, Federal or state, except perhaps the NSW Carr govt??

It’s not difficult. Even the ordinary plebs would be able to understand it… if they don’t already!

Once the message is out there that the government says continuous rapid population growth is bad, with the various reasons having been clearly expressed, there should be a call for companies to express their support for much lower population growth and the achievement of a sustainable society.

While many big businesses may kick and scream and condemn the government, I think that a lot of companies would sense the advantage in supporting this, if they can see that a large portion of the population agrees with it.

Then hopefully the momentum would swing around to the majority of businesses supporting it.

While I generally agree with the argument that 40 million would be a strain on infrastructure (especially given the skyrocketing cost of said infrastructure), does anyone have any thoughts about how the retirement of the baby boomers will affect Australia in terms of increased immigration?

After all, we are breeding less and over the coming decade or two we will see a sizable proportion of the country's workforce retire. We can also expect those people to consume less of most goods although services are likely to be in demand.

Thoughts?

"does anyone have any thoughts about how the retirement of the baby boomers will affect Australia in terms of increased immigration?"

First the claim that the Boomers will overstretch resources needs to be proved. As I recall, Bronwyn Bishop challenged that claim with evidence. However I cannot refer to her statement ATM.

'Boomers' is a very broad descriptor and useless I believe except for the frivolous. I am not suggesting you are one of them, just reminding of the many years and the disparate people covered by that advertising term that has been adopted by the sensationalist media.

I should have added that there is on the other hand considerable evidence from State Premiers alone of overstretched resources and unmanageable problems from over-enthusiastic immigration policies over many years.

There is also evidence that some of the major hikes in numbers were to placate builders who complained whenever the building boom (and the constant shabby work and corner cutting that went with it) went through a bit of a downturn.

We need to remember too that many of the 'Boomers' that are being sledged as likely drains on the GDP because they have retired (often deliberate through forced redundancies) were in fact migrants themselves.

Immigration to prop up business profits and to 'support' Boomers (what a load of BS!) is a Ponzi Scheme. It always was a Ponzi Scheme.

Graeme, welcome to OLO.

<< …any thoughts about how the retirement of the baby boomers will affect Australia in terms of increased immigration? >>

The cost of immigration in terms of providing services and infrastructure is absolutely enormous. If we were to greatly reduce this (ie; greatly reduce immigration), we would surely easily have the wherewithal to cater for any increase in the demand for pensions, concessions for seniors, geriatric services, etc.

<< After all, we are breeding less… >>

Actually, we aren’t! The birthrate is up a little bit due to the despicable baby bonus and the population on which the birthrate is based is getting rapidly bigger, which means that even if it were to remain the same, we would still have a considerable increase in the number of babies per year.

If we were to halve immigration, we would put a big dent in the number of births per year (without changing the birthrate!).

But we still wouldn't be breeding less. The increase in the number of births per year would just be a little less rapid!

Ludwig swimming across the bottom of Niagara falls has seen some drown.
Going over them in a barrel has too.
You appear to be trying to swim up them.
It may be best for us if we limit our population.
But for now it is not even a chance of taking place.
If you won, to just keep us level in our productivity, we would need near a million 457 visa workers.

As far as I know the idea that migrants are predominantly young and will save us from having to support our parents out of our own pocket is yet another myth propagated by the vested interests,to the best of my knowledge the demographic profile of migrants is about the same as the native born population.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/research/lsia3/migrant-characteristics.htm
Median age of migrants looks to be about 34, median age of Australian population is 36.

<< If you won, to just keep us level in our productivity, we would need near a million 457 visa workers. >>

Belly, what on Earth are you saying?? Please explain!

<< It may be best for us if we limit our population. But for now it is not even a chance of taking place. >>

Never say never when it comes to politics, Belly!

Afterall, a move in this direction is inevitable!! When it happens and to what extent is a complete unknown. But one thing is for sure; it is one of the most important things of all for a healthy future for our country, a healthy environment, a healthy economy, a high quality of life and a political regime where the people actually don’t hate the guts of their politicians!!

The right time is NOW! The longer it gets put off, the worse off we will all be.

Ludwig, I truly think it is you, not I who need some understanding.
It is a truth, in the 5 years of Labor government, no! do not let the politics blind you!
Over three quarters of a million new jobs have been created.
It is also true, even if Gillard wants to play stupid games, we are using now, record numbers of 457 visa holders.
TO fill our job vacancy,s.
IF POPULATION GROWTH STOPS surely you do not want our productivity to stall?
Who in an aging workforce, many soon to leave that workforce,who will do the work.
Mate! you must let the light of reality shine on your thoughts.
Wrong it maybe, to increase population.
But your claim never say never is just turning your back on reality!

Ludwig,
Of course I agree with you about population and sustainability. Reducing population growth is the main factor heading toward sustainability.

However we are up against it while ever the two major parties have high immigration policies. Frankly I do not see chance of change in my lifetime, but it does not hurt to keep reminding people of this when we get a chance.

So keep on keeping on. I fear it will be very late but one day the penny will drop.

Here, Here Ludwig !
You are absolutely correct ! No ifs, no buts !

Belly, yes I remember populate or perish;
Now it is populate and perish !

Both parties will go for more population because they are starting to
think that it is the only way to get growth.
However we are on the cuspse of the end of growth.
Australia is lagging most other countries in reaching that historic mark.
However it is inevitable we will reach zero as energy becomes more
expensive and difficult to produce with its net energy depletion.
If you do not understand the implications of net energy look it up
if your heart will stand the shock.
As a result there will be no growth to support an increased population.
What do you think that, no growth, no infrastructure building
and doubling the population will have on us ?

20 million unemployed, living in tents, homeless.
Sustenance farmers scratching a living out of poor depleted soils.
That is where it will be.

Absolutely, Ludwig.

>>Interesting Pericles. So what you are really saying is that continued population growth will make the situation so bad that governments are forced to act!<<

When was the last time you saw a politician actually looking to the future, and making sensible decisions ahead of when they were forced upon them?

The only one I recall was Keating's insightful moves to implement compulsory superannuation. Employers bitched and moaned at the time, but with hindsight the decision was not only right, but neatly anticipated a growing problem.

>>And then yes, it will never be enough. They won’t be able to build enough infrastructure or duplicate enough services to get up to the quality that we had before the population influx that forced them to act<<

Errrr, when was that, Ludwig? When was this golden age, when our infrastructure adequate for the task? What year was it that predates our "population influx"? 1788? 1888? 1988?

Part of your mission as a Green anti-growth tree-hugger (oh, sorry, did I say that out loud?) is to perpetually view the glass as half-empty. Life just won't be the same again, you mutter, carefully disregarding every single economic and standard-of-living measurement ever made. But real life has a habit of proving you wrong every time, despite the leaden-footed panjandrums (panjandri?) in State government who are constantly playing catch-up.

We have a long way to go before this country becomes overcrowded. We have a bright future. Even when we run out of stuff that we can ship northwards - which will in any event be a couple of interesting decades away into the future - we will become the destination of choice for gazillions of affluent visitors, who will undoubtedly envy our laid-back lifestyle, before going back to their dark satanic mills.

The only thing that prevents this from coming to pass is the inbred dislike that so many people - amply illustrated here on this very thread - have for people who are not quite like them. But, as with the politicians, they will ultimately have to face reality, and do something about it.

Populate or perish was not my invention Bazz.
It was both sides who thought we needed to grow, just to defend our country.
Has any one thought of the results of not growing?.
How do we survive.
I think any true understanding of the effects/nation and peoples wants/ even defense makes the claim Labor holds the blame, along with Ludwig,s want list, more radical than *any policy* the greens currently have.

Well Belly I didn't say "Populate or Perish" was your saying.
It could have been Arthur Caldwell or someone earlier.
It was valid at the time, but that time has expired.
You said;
Has any one thought of the results of not growing?.
How do we survive.

Now those are very important questions, and are the most important
questions that both Labour & Liberal should be asking each other.

Growth MUST decline as it is now in most of the world.
It is driven by energy and we are facing a major rearrangement of
energy sources. It is not for fun that the oil companies are closing
their refineries in Australia. In three years we will be 100% reliant
on imported fuels.

All of our own oil, which is 40% of our usage is to be exported to
Asia and we will be buying our diesel and petrol from Asia.
Not sure where we will get our bitumen and bunker fuel.
Maybe we won't and ships will fuel up before they come here.
We can use concrete for roads if we have the electricity to make cement.
If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz today we will have petrol rationing tomorrow.

To get back to your second question, well you are a gardener I gather
so you can teach us non green fingers how to survive.
Anyway, as everything becomes local I am sure the local farmers will
expand their weekly markets. Remember, every town, village and even
cities as large as London was in those days had their market days.

How cities the size of Sydney will go I don't know, it will be very
difficult, but perhaps not impossible if the electrified railways
continue.
Remember when every station had a parcel office and or a goods shed ?
In Sydney the electric parcel vans used to do what couriers do now.

Anyone with a skill for fixing things will be in big demand.

By the time it hits the fan, hopefully many local industries will
have restarted and will make the transition enjoyable.

Interesting point Jay re the demographic of immigrants.

Pericles, I concur about that glass half empty thing. I mentioned it on another thread but I have observed that most 'greenies' are essentially catastrophists. As you say though, so often "real life has a habit of proving (them) wrong every time".

And this: "we will become the destination of choice for gazillions of affluent visitors, who will undoubtedly envy our laid-back lifestyle, before going back to their dark satanic mills " is especially noteworthy in view of the PM's trip to China - she commented on the news tonight that we should sell ourselves as a destination for a country of huge population and rapidly growing wealth.

Belly, you agree that continuous population growth is wrong, but you reckon I should stop worrying about it and just let it be because the political reality is that it will continue.

Well, sorry but that ain’t gunna happen. I won’t be dropping the issue.

The current political paradigm is WRONG, and terribly much so! It might be a very hard nut to crack, but one has to keep trying… and certainly not just give up and accept that the mad antisustainability momentum will just continue until we are so far past the point where it should have stopped that making the switch to sustainability will be TOO LATE!

I am actually quite surprised that you continue to repeat this sort of message. You are man of conviction. You believe strongly in various things that your party has done or should be doing. And you keep on raising these issues. So please, don’t advise me to drop the sustainability push.

Rather, you should be joining me and trying to work out how we can get your party out from under the enormous thumb of big business and get it to start doing what it is supposed to be doing – looking after the best interests of the whole community, in the long term.

Pericles, your post reads like it was written by someone who started off sober and then consumed a large glass of red with each paragraph written!

Boy, does it deteriorate!!

So it really is only worth responding to the first couple of paragraphs.

<< Absolutely, Ludwig >>

You are enormously confusing! You are agreeing with me that population growth is likely to make the situation so bad that the government is forced to act…. and yet you have for some years now totally poo-pooed me on this forum for wanting to stop population growth! ( :>|

<< When was the last time you saw a politician actually looking to the future, and making sensible decisions ahead of when they were forced upon them? >>

Not for a long time.

So then, it would appear that you think the decision to maintain high immigration as recently announced by Gillard is a decision that is not looking to the future.

But hold on, it is something that you support! So… um…. you support decisions that are not looking to the future!?

Okay, so now all you need to do is admit to yourself that yes, you DO indeed support daft decisions by short-sighted, vested-interest-pressured, self-serving politicians.

Ludwig a truth needs to be examined here.
As we all have opinions and views, as we all think we are right.
What do we do if a conflict of those views takes place?
I often. hopefully not ever with you, get in to forward gear at what I see as biased or out right silly views.
IF your question was*should this country stop growth*, population/economy are in my view linked, are you able to agree the result would be a massive NO!
If the question was should we CONTROL not limit Migration, surely the same result would NOT come?
Ludwig I like a great number of Australians think we and the world should limit population.
But going it alone,stopping the policy,s that ALL SIDES take on behalf of majority of voters is not going to happen.
12 months in to this upcoming government, you will see both sides want a big country.

There is a key distinction here, Ludwig, that you appear to be missing entirely.

>>You are agreeing with me that population growth is likely to make the situation so bad that the government is forced to act…. and yet you have for some years now totally poo-pooed me on this forum for wanting to stop population growth!<<

There is absolutely no logical connection between the first and second statements here.

The first was restating a real-life issue, which is that governments invariably act later than would be ideal. Not so late, however, that everything grinds to a halt (even in Sydney, the trains still run. Occasionally, even on time), as demonstrated by the fact that we have had a continuous improvement in our economic position, practically every year in living memory. And certainly for the past consecutive twenty years.

Your second - completely separate - observation is also true of course. Mainly because you have never given anything except an emotional, wishful-thinking reason for stopping our country's growth and development.

>>So then, it would appear that you think the decision to maintain high immigration as recently announced by Gillard is a decision that is not looking to the future.<<

The actual decisions on immigration are made annually, when a quota is discussed, arrived at and agreed - and then met, with surprising accuracy. This quota takes into account the needs of business, as well as families, and is taken extremely seriously. These are operational decisions, and are taken with a clear understanding of existing constraints. Which is more "looking to the present", as opposed to your idea of "looking to the future".

>>Okay, so now all you need to do is admit to yourself that yes, you DO indeed support daft decisions by short-sighted, vested-interest-pressured, self-serving politicians.<<

What, all of them, Ludwig? There are so many, aren't they - I couldn't possibly categorize them into those I support, and those I disagree with.

But you're just being silly. You need to move away from just playing around with words if we are to have anything remotely like a sensible discussion.

Ludwig & Belly;
The discussion you are having will be the major public discussion for
the next twenty to thirty years.

It won't be a discussion about reducing growth, but how stop contraction
and whether immigration makes the economy better or worse.
It may be by that time the pollies & public will have realised that
growth is only possible with increasing energy availability.

As economies contract they will not have the funds to support large
numbers of new immigrants.
You can see this funding problem raising its head already.
It is no coincidence that Wayne Swan is talking about falling revenue.

Bazz, you will be aware, from my past words about you, even rushing in, twice to address Banjo by mistake.
I rather respect you, your work in our hobby is out standing.
You, as do I, and Ludwig, have hobby horses.
Yours is what you see as a calamity, *peak/end of oil*
I KNOWING MANS ABILITY'S think it is an opportunity.
And that only the self interests of big money keeps new fuels from coming much faster.
Ludwig, maybe as my quest for accountability and change in my ALP, has me,blinded himself to a reality that will not just disappear!
Both party,s, and our country feed on growth, you are, without change, 50 years away from any true international attempt to control population growth.

Pericles,

You keep asserting that there are economic benefits from mass migration. The first graph in this link shows Australia's total GDP and GDP per capita in real terms since 1996. As you can see, they parted company in 1998, with total GDP increasing much more quickly. GDP per capita has been stagnant since the end of 2006, despite the gains from the mining boom. This means that all of our much vaunted economic growth since then and a lot of it in the preceding decade is a sham, simply due to having more people, not because the average person is any better off. Why should we care if the pie is growing, if our own slices are no bigger, may even be shrinking, and no longer have a cherry on top?

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/05/highrise-harry-wants-more-people/

Any economic gains from mass migration are thus wins in a zero-sum game. If you are better off, then some other existing residents are worse off. Note that GDP includes defensive spending (such as on a desalination plant when you have outgrown your natural water supply) and does not consider increases in inequality.

New residents in your community, whether from overseas or elsewhere in Australia, immediately need the full complement of infrastructure. Assuming that infrastructure has an average 50 year lifespan, then 2% population growth, as in Melbourne, doubles the amount that has to be spent in a year to maintain existing standards, but revenue has only increased by 2%. This paper gives an estimate of the costs, which esplains why infrastructure and public services are deteriorating, while the government is taking a bigger share of GDP than in the 1970s, when tertiary education was free and the aged pension wasn't means tested.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2011.02125.x/full

It seems self-evident that demand for new houses (and hence prices) would be low if the population were stable, although there is some effect from decreasing average household size

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/916F96F929978825CA25773700169C65

Thanks Divergence for an interesting post.
Regarding GDP there is a rapidly increasing, about 7% a year, part
of GDP that is a total loss to us as individuals and that is our annual
oil bill. It is $66,000,000 a day, or $24 billion a year.
Soon it will be more than the NBN every year.

There has been criticism of the GDP as being meaningless.
I wouldn't know, but as it counts in money sent out of the country as
dividends and energy charges it does not seem to give a true picture.

I think we have reached the point where any increase has become a
negative and no longer gives any benefit except to the Harrys of this world.

I prefer to believe the ABS, Divergence.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Defining%20and%20measuring%20GDP~221

Incidentally, is there any reason why you did not use ABS numbers for this line item, as you did with the household data you referred us to later on? Did it not meet your requirements?

We can argue the minutiae as long as you like, but the reality is that our population has grown steadily over the years, and our GDP has grown faster.

>>Any economic gains from mass migration are thus wins in a zero-sum game. If you are better off, then some other existing residents are worse off.<<

Where do you find evidence for this? Intuitively, the new arrivals are likely to start off economically less well off than the existing population. It follows that in an environment where GDP per capita is increasing, the newcomers by definition have a smaller share of that growth, n'est-ce pas?

>>New residents in your community, whether from overseas or elsewhere in Australia, immediately need the full complement of infrastructure.<<

Not really. New residents begin by sharing existing infrastructure. Over time, as they become increasingly productive in the economy, part of that added value will be employed to expand the infrastructure, to everyone's benefit, not just their own.

>>It seems self-evident that demand for new houses (and hence prices) would be low if the population were stable<

You paint a picture that is too dreary to contemplate. Why would demand be low? Because no-one could afford to move. Why cannot they afford to move? Because the economy is stagnant. Why is the economy stagnant? Because the population is stagnant too. And ageing.

And bored out of their skulls.

There are other factors involved here. Think for a moment what the disappearance of growth from the economy would have on jobs. Pay rises would be non-existent, for one thing, leading to a mass exodus of talented youth to countries that didn't have such a short-sighted view of business.

Stagnant Australia. At least it will finally match the ambitions of those people who are still here.

At times for any one of hundreds of reasons threads end, or our taking part in one does.
I think for me at least this one is ending.
I see, and I am just as likely to be wrong as anyone, we are not giving thought to some things we can never change.
This country has no intention of stagnation, and not in population growth for sure YET.
Not party has policy's that fit stagnation.
We can craft fine fantasy's about the out comes of a policy that no one elected to govern has.
Or we can see truth, some are content to strike at windmills and convince them selves it is the dragon we kill.
We can continue to ignore, even at ground level, every country council wants more people more growth more not less.
Ignore too, if it pleases us the set out plans for every city to make room, for more not less people.
I ask that we older folk look at the home town weonce saw look so different than today.
Mine has gone from 140 people to 4.000

Pericles, what’s the point of us going over this subject yet again? We’ve done it so many times. You get trounced but you keep coming back for another thumping! ( :>/

You really did beautifully tangle yourself up this time, I must say.

<< When was the last time you saw a politician actually looking to the future, and making sensible decisions ahead of when they were forced upon them? >>, you ask.

But you do indeed support Gillard’s maintenance of high immigration, which has simply got to one of the most classic examples of a politician making a decision that is not looking to the future that we could ever get!

I’ve picked you up this sort of thing before. You really do hate our poor old polly’s guts, especially in relation to apparent poor decisions regarding infrastructure in Sydney, but generally on a very broad front.

And yet you effectively applaud the worst decisions of all – those to do with the facilitation of rapid continuous growth….

...which has got everything to do with them not being able to implement the necessary infrastructural improvements in overcrowded and still rapidly growing Sydney!!

See, the fundamentals of your argument just completely don’t add up, Pericles!

.

Now, I am having computer issues, which is a real bugger while I am on the road and far from home. So I could be unable to post for a while. I just don’t know.

If Ludwig your problem is the old one, pages sticking and not progressing.
Try what I constantly have to do, click back one space then try again, it works.
However I very much think, not just because of shared views, Pericles is a fair judge.
Surely if not now, after the new government takes over, you will agree that this is not a Labor only program?
By the way, the landslide looks less likely daily, victory still, but Abbott seems determined to make him self look a lessor man beside Turnbull.

Good on you Ludwig.
I`m with you all the way.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Except soon we`ll see nothing but wall to wall people if some people have their way.

The graph that I linked to is from the Reserve Bank of Australia - a credible source, right? Here is a different graph directly from the Reserve Bank, but without total GDP. It also shows much the same thing, little real growth since 2006, although there has been an upturn in the past year. If population growth is so wonderful, why isn't it making us better off on average?

http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2012/sp-gov-080612.html

Of course your economy and total GDP will grow if you have more people, unless you are really near the point of collapse, but that doesn't mean that the average person is any better off. China has a vastly greater total GDP than Denmark, but where would you prefer to live as an ordinary person?

Wikipedia gives real GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) from the World Bank, the IMF, and other sources. There are differences depending on how the calculations are done, but countries like Switzerland or Sweden, which have miniscule population growth compared to ours, are doing just as well or even better than Australia. Population growth isn't necessary for prosperity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

New residents don't wait in limbo until more infrastructure is built and public services expanded before using them. With a $770 billion infrastructure backlog, according to Infrastructure Australia, I wouldn't hold my breath until the government catches up. They are short of money now.

Life without population growth may seem boring to you, because you are one of the people profiting from it. The rest of us might appreciate less crowding and congestion, cheaper housing and utilities, more open space, and shorter waits in hospital emergency rooms.

In your dreams, Ludwig.

>>You get trounced but you keep coming back for another thumping!<<

Like your dream about shutting the entry door, throwing away the welcome mat, and persuading us all to hunker down in our wattle-and-daub humpies, eating berries and living at one with mother nature.

Ain't gonna happen. There are too many of us who actually enjoy living in this country, and are willing to encourage a reasonable number of newcomers, to help us continue to expand our economy and individual well-being.

What still puzzles me, as I mentioned in my last post, is which era you would actually like to take us back to. Because what you don't seem to comprehend is that standing still is, in fact, a form of regression. Are you unhappy because the Industrial Revolution dragged so many away from the countryside, into the cities? Are you upset with the whole concept of industrialization, perhaps? Or perhaps you are a Hitchhiker fanboi...

"Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

"This planet has – or rather had – a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

"And so the problem remained; lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches.

"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans." Douglas Adams, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

Just repeating slogans, Ludwig, is no substitute for thinking.

This is one of the better lines I heard on this forum in a long time

"Pericles, your post reads like it was written by someone who started off sober and then consumed a large glass of red with each paragraph written!"

But whats even funnier is he actually he wrote it backwards, as he consumed more red he made more sense.

Ludwig, while I sympathize with your quest for a sustainable population, the reality is, we simply have to grow, unless of cause you're happy to deny future people, the very living standards and quality of life that you have enjoyed yourself.

It is my opinion that growth is not so much a problem, as the type of growth.

It would be pointless to increase our population by providing welfare for the newcomers,either imports, or locals, as the only way forward is to make having an education and a job a must.

We should also get away from paying people to have babies, and cut people off if they won't find and hold a job.

While there are many who start jobs, they can't hold them, often because they don't want to.

Another problem is the way child support is calculated, as many detached parents simply choose the dole, in favor of a job, as they loose so much of their income, they decide it's not worth working.

The whole system has been allowed to deteriated for decades, and it will take many years to fix, but the trouble is, any government that try's to implement change, will be swiftly voted out.

So I essence, you may be right after all.

The subject needs debate, much surprise! along the path of Rechtubs first few lines above.
We need to focus on what can be done and should be done, instead of the one sided views it is only one party looking for growth.
I spoke about councils looking for growth, within the limits water imposes on us, we should look at migration to some country towns, and return, this time with true intent, to developing jobs and infrastructure to our bush.
Regional Development, never truly got rolling, maybe some migrants going there may help.

<< Like your dream about shutting the entry door, throwing away the welcome mat, and persuading us all to hunker down in our wattle-and-daub humpies, eating berries and living at one with mother nature. >>

Heheheee!

What are you trying to achieve, Pericles? To make yourself seem as loopy, extremist and out of touch as you possibly can?

You are an enigma – a highly articulate and seemingly intelligent person, who resorts to very silly and really quite unintelligent claptrap.

You are asserting that I want to achieve things that you know full well that I don’t. You are verballing and slandering me.

Divergence is doing an excellent job as always in dismantling your ‘arguments’. And you are helping her grealty in dismantling your credibility!

I don’t know what your game is but half the time it seems as though you actually ARE a sustainability advocate and you are just playing devil’s advocate for the sake of promulgating a discussion…. or an argument!

Some of the people making comment here have the wrong impression of what sustainability means.

It does not have to mean scrubbing away on a little plot of land to get food.
It does not mean the end of public transport.
It does not mean the end of electricity.

It does mean major changes in the way we live.
These people who just have no understanding should go and read up on
the Transition movement. They point out that under their ideas we can
all live a very good and happy life in our existing towns & suburbs.
Many things will be different, but they have shown how it can be done.
In may respects their program makes for a better life for all.

WE either learn to adapt or we go the way of the dodo.

You should know by now, Ludwig, that your feeble attempts at insult don't affect me one little bit.

>>What are you trying to achieve, Pericles? To make yourself seem as loopy, extremist and out of touch as you possibly can?<<

It does illustrate however that you are finally becoming a little uncomfortable with my consistent rejection of your position.

>>You are asserting that I want to achieve things that you know full well that I don’t. You are verballing and slandering me<<

A good example of how you consistently refuse to think these things through. I was describing the outcome of your position in my own words. While you may not like it so simply expressed, that is where your ideas will take us. So you may think you are being verballed, in that you would not dream of expressing it in those terms. They clearly are not your words, but are instead an accurate summary of the outcome of your fight against economic reality.

Incidentally, technically it would be libel, rather than slander. Just saying.

>>Divergence is doing an excellent job as always in dismantling your ‘arguments’. And you are helping her grealty in dismantling your credibility!<<

I hadn't noticed. Let's have a look...

Nope. Nothing new there. Just a bit of foot-shuffling on the data offered. No refutation of the basic fact that at the same time our economy has been making each of us better off, the population has been increasing. The point would need to be made that these two facts are separable, in order for the argument against growth to have any traction.

Travel safely.

Ludwig while I find you a lot more balanced than some your fixation seen here is proof.
Proof the some times, without Rime/Reason or cause,some silly things are said.
You , on this issue, flog Labor, and some of its members, for having the very same view as both party,s and 85% of this country has.
To top it off? you claim to be part of a majority!

Pericles,

Just take a look at the UN Human Development Index, including the Index corrected for inequality, or the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index and then check the population growth rates of the high ranking countries. You will find that they include countries with low population growth such as Sweden and Switzerland, and even countries with slowly declining populations such as Germany and Japan. Population growth is clearly separable from economic competitveness and human well-being. You just don't want to admit it. I have presented the actual figures many times, so I sure that you have seen them.

Besides the actual GDP per capita results since 2006 from the Reserve Bank, the Productivity Commission did some modelling of the effects of substantially raising skilled migration in their 2006 report on immigration. They found a very small per capita economic benefit, mostly distributed to owners of capital and the migrants themselves, while the wages of existing workers grew more slowly than in the base case. See p. 154 and the graphs on p. 155 and p. 147. This is consistent with the results of economic studies around the world, such as the 1997 Academy of Sciences Report (The New Americans) in the US and the 2008 House of Lords Report in the UK. They all show per capita economic benefits that are close to zero or negative.

Belly, there was an item on the TV the other night on the selection of
the ALP female candidate for a Melbourne seat.
The meeting was held in the AWU offices in Melbourne.

That they are either so insensitive or couldn't care less, as to not
even bother to hold the meeting elsewhere says it all.

Another nail.

I must be looking at the wrong list, Divergence.

>>Pericles, Just take a look at the UN Human Development Index, including the Index corrected for inequality, <<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

This one shows Australia second to Norway. If you had a different list in mind, perhaps you could link to it.

>>...or the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index<<

Ummm... this is an opinion survey.

"In the tables, indicators derived from the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey (Survey) have country scores represented by blue-colored bar graphs. Survey questions asked for responses on a scale of 1 to 7, where an answer of 1 and 7 always corresponds to the worst and best possible outcome, respectively. In the tables, the Survey question and the two extreme answers are shown above the rankings"

Sounds highly subjective to me.

>>You will find that they include countries with low population growth such as Sweden and Switzerland, and even countries with slowly declining populations such as Germany and Japan.<<

On what basis would you suggest we normalize factors other than population amongst this lot? What features does our economy share with Sweden? Have our Banks ever been a repository for masses of war booty, like Switzerland? Have we centuries of history in manufacturing, like Germany? Did we lead the world in technology advances in the seventies and eighties, like Japan?

There are many factors that contributed to the success of these countries, one of which is the growth in their populations. For example, Japan's post-war baby boom supplied the trained workforce that powered their technology prowess. From which it could easily be argued that without this burst of population growth, they would have failed to make such an impression.

I completely agree that population growth on its own is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for economic success. However, in a society such as ours, with the opportunities that we face, we should not ignore the role that further increases in population can bring.

Alright Pericles, let’s see if you and I can actually have some sort of meaningful correspondence here. We have managed it in the past many times, but it has gone to the dogs on this thread. Let’s try and recover it.

<< I completely agree that population growth on its own is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for economic success. However, in a society such as ours, with the opportunities that we face, we should not ignore the role that further increases in population can bring. >>

Sounds like a reasonable summation of your overall view on the subject.

I note a very significant omission – no mention of the PROBLEMS that further increases in population would or could bring.

You say you view things a glass-half-full manner and think that I see things in a glass-half-empty manner. Well, without meaning to be insulting, it seems as though you views things in a glass totally full manner when it is really only half full, and consequently see the potential positives in a very much more significant way than the potential negatives.

If we are going to have continuous population growth, it surely needs to be totally rigorously, scientifically, economically, environmentally and ‘qualityoflifeally’ justified!

All the positives and negatives need to be as well analysed as possible. Continuous rapid population growth versus a stable population, or anything in between, is surely one of the biggest factors in our future national wellbeing. So it is worth a study of the highest calibre to determine just what we should do.

Gillard announced the continuation of high immigration without any of this sort of analysis and without any real consideration for the longer term. She’s just dwelling entirely in the very short term, with basically a year-by-year adjustment, and with the very powerful bias of what big business and short-term economic analysts want weighing very heavily into this decision.

This is terribly inappropriate and irresponsible of our government.

Your thoughts?

One quote I remember;

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist !

Kenneth E Boulding

Bazz as you know I am unimpressed by one of your needless shots/insults in another thread.
A very telling comment showing a form of bigotry.
I take it you total sidestepping this threads subject is because unlike you, I am informed on that, different subject.
Unions gave birth to Labor.
Unions, give cash to Labor, as do employers groups to Liberals get free rooms from business ALP get them from unions, nothing to hide there., .
The out come of the meeting, not the place it was held, is the subject of two posted links, in my current thread.
The out come of that meeting, in no ways the place it was held, in no way!
Is subject of my open contempt in that thread,and clear evedence factions are harming the ALP.
Did I see a comment here? claiming those who do not yet support a small Australia are, what was it? fools?
Some comments are quite interesting, but uniformed.

Thanks Bazz and ateday for your support.

.

Interesting post rehctub.

<< …growth is not so much a problem, as the type of growth. >>

Yes, yes YES!!

What we desperately need is to eliminate the bad types of growth, as far as is possible. This is just so fundamental to the good management and governance of our country. It is incredibly basic, and yet we are just so so far from achieving it.

We are so so far from even starting to head in that direction!! It really does boggle my mind.

<< The whole system has been allowed to deteriated for decades… >>

Yes indeed! And this has happened at the same time that we have had very high population growth, and a huge mining boom, and been told by our totally misleading politicians that this growth is the answer to all our ills! But this population growth has gone a very long way to cancelling out the improvements we would have gained from the mining boom. It is the primary reason why the whole system has deteriorated!

<< … and it will take many years to fix… >>

Yes, even if we were to enter into the right sort of political paradigm which reduced bad growth to a minimum, it would still take an enormously long time at enormously huge expense to fix.

continued

<< …but the trouble is, any government that try's to implement change, will be swiftly voted out. >>

Absolutely! The task is nigh on impossible for as long as we have continuous rapid population growth that is exerting huge continuous pressure on all of our infrastructure and services, and rendering all efforts to fix them nothing more than a feeble attempt to try and counter the population pressure. This means a feeble, and failing, attempt to stop them from getting every worse!

<< So I essence, you may be right after all. >>

Please to hear it rehctub!

So then, the key to all of this is to work out which growth is good and which is bad, and to get our government to actually differentiate between them instead of lumping all types of growth in one bucket and espousing it as being good and only good… and to actually start properly managing the country as a government should!

And lo and behold, if they did this, they would indeed be steering us straight towards a sustainable future!

I guess that's a start, Ludwig.

One of the more blatant misrepresentations that continues to dog these discussions is the "all-or-nothing" approach. Typically, this appears as a sneering "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist", as if those who disagree with the anti-growth brigade are infantile cretins, who don't comprehend basic mathematics.

You yourself indulge in it in a slightly less offensive manner, but equally misunderstanding.

>>If we are going to have continuous population growth, it surely needs to be totally rigorously, scientifically, economically, environmentally and ‘qualityoflifeally’ justified!<<

I am not an advocate of "continuous population growth". I understand the mathematics of compound increase. But I also believe that populations do find their equilibrium as and when the conditions that encourage growth are absent. Which is one of the reasons I find references to other populations - Sweden, Japan etc. - as meaningless in relation to our own situation.

We are, in my view, a very long way from reaching that equilibrium in this country. We have the economy, the environment, the space, the smarts, the capacity to innovate and a whole lot more, all going for us.

If that is seeing the glass half full, then so be it.

>>I note a very significant omission – no mention of the PROBLEMS that further increases in population would or could bring<<

Yep. Problems that can be overcome, if we set our minds to it. They won't be overcome, however, if we simply say "we're full, go away". This is an attitude that will, inevitably, present a whole new set of problems, which we will be far less able and willing to tackle - once sclerotic thinking sets in, it lasts for decades. Just ask the people of NSW. Successive governments of all political persuasions haven't tackled a single substantial problem since the 1950s.

Ludwig,
I am not sure that you can separate growth into different categories.
I suspect that there is flow between all categories that evens out.
All countries are suffering either lowering growth, China included, or
some are very close to zero growth, or have gone negative.

In these conditions any government will either have to borrow money or
cut back anyway they can. I think the government has already faced that
but cannot act because the election is so close.
If the government changes, there will just have to be major cutbacks.
A new government will get abused on a scale seldom seen as they apply the cutbacks.
Immigration will have to carry a major part of the cutbacks.
I find it hard, although I am no expert on government internal finance
to see how they can avoid cutbacks in defense, education, hospitals and other major areas.

Oh Dear,
Pericles seems to have no sense of humour or he is an economist !

Dear Ludwig,

The following may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33460.html
Australia's Population Challenge.

At the behest of academics, a concerned Australia population achieved zero population growth many years ago (Sixties, but certainly by the Seventies).

Instead, Australia is experiencing the population (over-) growth of an undeveloped African country. The Australian population would still be maintaining zero population growth were it not for the continual record immigration for the 'Big Australia' policy of the federal government.

The Greens are zealous supporters of opening Australia's doors to all, without limit. There is no criticism of over-zealous immigration policies from the Greens. Not once did Bob Brown or Christine Milne raise that issue with Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd before.

But the Greens are dirty on young Australian couples having children, waging a continuous sniping, sledging campaign against them as 'breeders' and worse. Most put off children and do not have the children they would like to have because they cannot afford to do so. But we can afford billions lost to illegals, propping up people smugglers.

What manner of self-loathing madness causes the feckless, interfering Greens to do that? The Greens are total BS on the environment and sustainability. It is their lunatic social program that they turn to when the chips are down. Even the tax on 'poisonous' carbon dioxide is about revenue collection for their social program, income leveling and sending our taxes to the UN.

Any wonder the electorate is looking forward to putting the Parliamentary garbage out in September '13.

China, in truth only had a one child policy for those living in its city,s.
Farmers, who needed bigger family,s could always, have more kids.
And it is also true, China facing a shortage of workers and an aging population is reviewing all together its policy.
I doubt, very much so,we are yet capable of knowing what growth should be contained and what should be approved of.
A fine example, well worth watching is the implication of China,s one child policy.
That saw male babbys live, and a soon to emerge lack of wives for them.
Even greater problems exist, for different reason, in India and other near by country,s.
The cost a brides parents must pay, under a far different culture than ours, has seen according to world health authority, over a million known abortions of females, soon the implications will be massive.
I note again, as Pericles has, the name calli8ng here and think, without reserve the user of such is in need of a mirror.
Ludwig I take it for granted you blame the ALP for the growth in China Indonesia, Pakistan, and many more places?
If not why not? your charge makes as much sense including them as leaving them out!

Dear Ludwig,

I've just come across the following website:

http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/population/consultation/submissions/pubs/0158.pdf
A Sustainable Population Strategy For Australia.

It's worth a read - if you can stand the length.
It shows some of the problems Australia faces
with inappropriate infrastructure, pollution
or degradation of soil, water and ecosystem resources,
and other problems - including all of its tiers
of government.

It's a Response to the Government's Issues Paper
by Engineers Australia.

<< One of the more blatant misrepresentations that continues to dog these discussions is the "all-or-nothing" approach. >>

Absolutely Pericles. This applies to many debates on all manner of subjects. The tendency for people to see things in a simplistic or polarised manner is a huge problem.

But I’ll have to completely reject your suggestion that I do this. Afterall, my baseline premise is BALANCE. That’s what sustainability is all about. And as I keep saying; not all growth is bad. And I’m not pushing for the strongest possible change towards sustainability; I desire to see us head gently in that direction.

I wrote:

>> I note a very significant omission – no mention of the PROBLEMS that further increases in population would or could bring <<

You replied:

<< Yep. Problems that can be overcome, if we set our minds to it. >>

Yes, maybe, in theory. But in practice, we have not been good at dealing with many problems that you’d think we should be able to deal with. As you say:

<< Successive governments of all political persuasions haven't tackled a single substantial problem since the 1950s. >>

So surely it would make much more sense to not cause or risk causing problems in the first place and therefore not have to worry about fixing them up later.

continued

<< They won't be overcome, however, if we simply say "we're full, go away". >>

Pericles, do you really think that this is my position… after all the years that we’ve been discussing this stuff??

Alright, I’ll outline my desires… once again….for the sake of clarification:

I want to see us head towards a stable population. As part of this, I’ve always advocated a zero net immigration policy, which is very different to a zero immigration policy. Zero net immigration is where the number of immigrants per year would equal the number of emigrants for the previous year. We would still have a substantial immigration program. Then after we have achieved a sustainable society, we could perhaps increase immigration if we are confident that we can sustainably support it. So this “we’re full’ go away” thing that you keep on attributing to me, in different words on different threads, is entirely false.

You are very critical of governments for not doing what they are supposed to do in terms of improving infrastructure, services, etc. I agree. That’s our reality, at the Federal level and in all states.

So, given these short-comings of government, surely it is not a very good idea to accept continuous high population growth, with starry-eyed focus on the positives that it might bring and a dismissive she’ll-be-right attitude about the negatives. It is surely a vastly better idea to just be very damn careful about it…. and to just simply not allow high population growth unless we are absolutely sure that the positives well and truly outweigh the negatives and the negatives can and will be properly dealt with.

Luddy old mate I agree with you, population growth should stop until we have proof that not only does it do no harm, but that it has a positive effect on the wealth & well being of the existing population.

Having said that I am still waiting to know just what you mean by sustainability. This is not a dig, I want to know, & know in detail. Without that sure knowledge I could never support your push.

It would be very difficult anyway, as I'm sure our Tasmanian greenie ladies mean something entirely different to you when they utter the same word. If we give then even an inch, we will damn soon find ourselves with nothing. While the green movement is headed by such as them, I will not trust anything of even a faint green tinge

The word can cover such a multitude of sins, it probably means something different to every one who uses it.

If Australia,s population stops growing, right now.
And the words continues to grow.
NO not sirring.
Will even more boats come to fill the emptiness?

Haz, pleaze! You asked me about sustainability here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5709#159093

You said; << Give me what you see as sustainability so we can talk >>

And then we didn’t talk. You left the thread!

I can’t fathom what is so hard to understand here, or why you left this conversation if you still didn’t fully understand some aspect of it.

Thanks Lexi.

From your first link:

< The fourth revolution for humanity, after agriculture, industrialisation and information, is sustainability >

That’s a good way of putting it.

Hazza, in this short article, that Lexi has kindly brought to our attention, Professor Malcolm McIntosh outlines the five main issues of sustainability: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33460.html

Lexi, your second link is much appreciated.

It shows that a significant sector, which one might expect to be strongly geared towards economic growth and leave the bigger picture issues to government or just not even think about them at all, has gone to great lengths to carefully consider the bigger picture.

This is excellent. Engineers Australia has come up with well thought-out sustainability strategy.

From the executive summary:

EA believes that an Australian sustainable population policy means that population growth is determined in a framework consistent with sustainable development principles and practices. Sustainable development optimises economic, environmental and social objectives…

EA believes that important aspects of Australia’s economy and settlement pattern are not yet consistent with sustainable development principles and practices and these issues need to be addressed BEFORE there is significant enlargement of Australia’s population.

A larger population may result in a larger economy, but not necessarily growth in per capita income, improved equity or sustainability.

EA believes that without major change to how economic infrastructure assets are planned, managed, maintained, located and developed, Australia’s capacity to support an increased population at present standards of well-being and liveability will be unachievable.
---

This is exactly what our GOVERNMENT should be doing – developing an overall sustainability strategy, with opportunity for all businesses, organisations and individuals to have their say.

They should be putting pressure on the continuous-rapid-growth vest-interest fraternity to come into line with the views of the likes of Engineers Australia, CSIRO, and other ‘more balanced’ organisations.

I’m sure if our government put their minds to it, they COULD wriggle out from under the thumb of big business... and properly govern this country!

Gillard's recent announcement that we are going to continue to have a very large immigration intake, in the absence of such a plan, is irresponsible in the highest order.

Ludwig & Hasbeen,
I too have struggled with the meaning of sustainability.
One statement I saw recently was from memory a political party or
follower was "Sustainable Growth".
Now to my mind that is a straight contradiction of terms.

The best definition I have seen is that promoted by the Transition Movement.
I believe they have it as near right as you can get.
Their name says it all, they don't disconnect their power line and
they do use solar cells, they like to grow as much of their own food
as they can and the rest they buy from local farmers.
They buy as small a car as they can use and they shop locally.

They encourage local industry and in some areas they even have local
currencies. Totnes in the UK has its own money which they buy from
their organisation and shopkeepers and other businesses in the town
will accept. It keeps the profits in the district rather than it being
dragged off to remote business HQs.
It appears to work well.

There are Transition groups all over the world.
There is a very active one on the Sunshine Coast in Qld and quite a
number in other parts of Australia.

Here is their web site;

http://www.transitiontowns.org/

Have a look, they won't frighten you.

Dear Ludwig,

I'm so pleased that you liked the Engineers Australia
response to the Government's Issues Paper. It made
a great deal of sense to me and as you point out
that's what governments should be doing.

Lexi,
I went back and reread that article.
I agree with everything he said about the current position.

I don't think that the need is just to reduce the rate of population
increase, but we need to adjust the way we live.
Indeed we have no choice but to adapt, as it is slowly being imposed
on us. I saw a program on the BBC recently about people in Greece
going back to their family farms when they lost their jobs and had no hope of work.
Farms that had been run by aging grandparents or parents were being
revitalised to support the younger families.
The effect was positive for the local town and the local schools.
How that would translate to places like Australia I don't know.

Sorry folks, too much motherhood, & mot enough real information in either paper, particularly the professors. Not a damn thing to tell me what they really want to do, or when, or by how much. They could want to tie me in a straight jacket, or just not run the air conditioning.

Also far too much reference to global warming, a now very useless topic, soon to be abandoned. The most important thing we could do is scrap this damn fool wind power, & get back to proven, cheep coal.

I can still only see it as something the greens want to use to belt me with, & until I see some definite facts about what proponents want to do, count me out.

Any one who can see the Murray Darling plan as anything but a smart ploy by South Oz to pinch everyone else's water to fill their damn at the mouth, has lost me. Shutting down irrigators just to supply Adelaide, with water & a fresh water water ski lake is not a great idea in my view.

Chucking water uselessly down the Snowy river is another. Green garbage, tacked onto what could be realistic schemes will not help anyone but the fools who want grandiose gestures.

So on the great sustainability project, count me out, if you cant become much more specific.

Dear Bazz,

We've covered this ground previously.

If world population continues to grow rapidly,
if industrialisation spreads around the world,
and if pollution and resource depletion continues
at an increasing rate - sweeping social changes
await us all. But you're right. Making appropriate
changes does become politically difficult as
vested economic interests are a powerful political
lobby - and they're unwilling to commit the
necessary resources to the task.

Also, part of the problem is that we're so
used to exploiting natural resources and dumping
our waste products into the environment that we
frequently forget that resources are limited and
exhaustible and that our lifestyles can disrupt
the ecological balance on which our survival
depends.

Dear Bazz

How can we have sustainable growth when the limit on world population of 11 billion will be well and truly overshot by 2050?

Problem is that governments are following the advice of irrational technocrats like gingerbeers instead of listening to rational arguments being put forward by historians, anthropologists, sociologists, etc. because these people don't have trade degrees and don't deal with the practical things in life.

The Forum chorus: Historians, anthropologists, sociologists? What are they?

Mr Opinion,

Try reading the response to the government's
issues paper cited in an earlier post,
by Engineers Australia. It's quite enlightening.

And as Karl R. Popper stated:

"...our knowledge can only be finite,
while our ignorance must necessarily be
infinite."

Mr Opinion said;
How can we have sustainable growth when the li>>>

I never said we could have sustainable growth.
I said it was a contradiction of terms !
We will be damn good managers if we can maintain zero growth.

Dear Lexi

I see you googled "Karl Popper" after seeing his name for the first time in your life and found the site with some of his quotes. You must have been enlightened to find out that there are people in the world like him.

I would avoid reading anything written by Engineers Australia. Engineers are just so uneducated and ignorant that they have virtually nothing to offer the world outside of the ordinary. If it was made compulsory to have a degree in engineering to work as an engineer than 70% of engineers in Australia would be out of a job and most of the 30% that do have degrees spend their lives trying to justify why they are engineers in the first place.

Dear Bazz

I'm not saying you said that. I'm just posing the question.

Dear Mr Opinion,

I understand.

For you -

Life is only tolerable when you can
look down on someone else.

To the contrary my dear Lexi.

It's only tolerable when I'm surrounded by people I can look up to.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Well, that's just about everybody then.

Mr Opinion,
Sorry, I mistook your question for challenge.
I think sustainable growth would be possible if you considered different
areas, ie China has growth at present, but Europe has contraction.
Ultimately the world has to average out to zero growth.
However I don't see how even that situation could continue indefinitely.
We are in a transition time now and no doubt we will adept and do many
things differently.

Whatever makes you happy Lexi. Whatever makes you happy! But I know a lot different and I'm happy to hide behind my pseudonym.

Dear Bazz,

There's no way in the world that sustainable development will ever be achieved.

Governments are too slow to limit population growth and greedy humans will allow progress to run amok like it has been since the start of the industrial revolution 250 years ago.

I think some of the leading film makers of futuristic movies paint a much more accurate picture of what the consequences will be in 2050 than what the technocrats are predicting.

It's unfortunate that we continue to elect knuckleheads like Gillard and Abbott as our decision makers. I remember seeing a visiting American academic on TV who said that Australia had the same problem as the US in that we had low IQ politicians running the country. (Hint: like the US, Australia's politicians are mainly drawn from the law profession.)

Did you see the Abbott and Turnbull show on TV the other night presenting their alternate national broadband system. They were jumping around each other so much that I couldn't figure out which one was supposed to be the dummy and which one was supposed to be the ventriloquist. But definitely one of them had his hand up the other's arse!

Dear Mr Opinion.,

Thank you for wishing me happiness.
I wish you the same.
And I understand your preference
for anonymity. Some things are better
kept secret.

Mr opinion you can not be expected to know.
But sometime ago, a female poster gave her e mail to all here.
She suffered for it,what became a major problem for her for some time, a stalker.
One seemingly who had mental health issue.
WE,ALL SHOULD UNDERSTAND being careful is not cowardice or any thing other than living in the world as it truly is

Now back to the topic ...

Dear Ludwig,

This may be of interest to you:

The Australian Sustainability Conference and Exhibition 2013
will be held in Melbourne 9 - 10 October at the Melbourne
Convention Centre.

http://www.australiansustainability.com.au/

Dear Belly,

Thanks for the warning. My pseudonym is all that Lexi is going to get out of me.

Pseudonyms don't interest me.

Now homonyms - are a different story.

Lexi is no problem, but one day we are bound to understand the need for caution.
I saw a small bit about this subject on ABC TV this morning or yesterday.
It looked at links to growth, reminded us we product food enough for 61 million, exporting our unused.
But even in that, I doubt we can say food product will not grow too in the next 50 years.
It is then, in my view, or maybe after 30 years, the world will be ready to consider limiting populations.
We may, just may, have a fight on pour hands!
Who will say who can and can not have children?

Dear Lexi,

Your sexual preferences are of no interest to me.

Dear Mr Opinion,

It's God's gift to little men.

Dear Belly,

Thanks for that.

Here's another link that may be of interest:

http://theconversation.com/australias-population-what-is-sustainable-2476

Suu you on another thread.

Lexi, thanks again.

I will keep an eye on that sustainability conference. I note they already have 62 speakers and panelists lined up, so it sounds like rather large event. I see that one of them is Robert Hill, professor in sustainability and former federal environment minister in the early 90s. Hmmm, I don’t remember him fondly in that role. I wonder if he’s learnt anything about sustainability since? ( :>/

From your other link - The article by Don Clifton; while I agree with it in general, is a little unfortunate.

He writes:

< …before we even start asking, “what is a sustainable population for Australia?”, we need to ask “what is a sustainable lifestyle?” >.

Well…. No!

It is clear from what he is saying that the smaller our population, the better. And we should therefore head strongly towards a stable population. A stable population, as low as we could achieve it, is as close to a sustainable population as we could get, within the reasonably short term. At the same time we have to work like buggery on all the per-capita energy and resource consumption issues and renewable energy and resource issues to make sure that it is a sustainable population.

< The inconsistencies here are obvious – adding more people while trying to bring the overall ecological impact down makes a hard job that much harder. >

Yes, absolutely.

Thanks Lexi, good link.
I got to see the whole debate, the one mentioned in my last post.
Dick Smith was concerned but my reading is most think any fast stop in population growth would be bad.
It was mentioned some limits would introduce very bad things like financial break down.
I see we all, in our DNA think limits should be imposed, but most understand it is for the future not now.
Remember, try to see from Ludwig eyes, this thread targets the ALP, now in truth, on many fronts you could find a wrong.
But in this area Labor is clean, all sides share its direction, a bigger Australia.
Of most interest was the thought we must raise the tax pool, or pay more tax, just to continue the services we have now.

This is indeed old ground we are covering, Ludwig.

>>I want to see us head towards a stable population. As part of this, I’ve always advocated a zero net immigration policy<<

What you invariably fail to explain is how you will achieve this, and what the economic impact of your policies are likely to be.

With a "zero net immigration" policy, our population will slowly decline, our industries will suffer, imports would cost more thus posing a direct challenge to our living standards, and we will enter an era of permanent recession. As house prices steadily fall, the number of families exposed to the challenges of negative equity will rise, creating our very own version of the GFC - the AFC, if you will.

If you are advocating a policy of "zero population growth" - for example, one that allows immigration to the extent that it "tops up" our existing numbers - you will achieve pretty much the same result, only it might take a little longer. In the latter case you would also have to be a little careful how you count inbound students in your plans, and how you would simultaneously prevent a brain-drain of talent. Your ideas would most certainly make pursuing a career overseas extremely attractive.

Simplistic solutions such as this have a habit of turning out to contain multitudinous traps for the unwary. There is absolutely no realistic benefit to your "zero net immigration" idea, unless you are able to clothe it with a great deal more restrictions and qualifications than to date you have shared with us.

Got to keep the economy running ever faster through more and more migrants. Big, bigger and never a biggest Australia as far as population goes. Yes, got that image,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHu8LAWSKxU

How many know that Gillard has migrant numbers running highest since 1945?

Again, the Greens are in favour of 'solving' the world overpopulation by taking the overflow here. BUT, and it is a very big 'but', the Greens are utterly opposed to young Australian couples having children. They call them 'breeders' and worse.

So, it is back to the caves (your lifestyle is unsustainable), no more Aussie children and euthanase the old, so that Australia can solve the world's population problems. Imagine another hamster wheel, but filled with Green Lemmings.

onthebeach,
Australia already has a low natural birthrate so there is no need to limit children that couples may have. Just lower the immigration numbers.

For those interested in the world picture, birthrates can be lowered by governments promoting family planning. Iran and Thailand both lowered birthrates from above 6 per woman to less than 2 per woman.

One can compare the economies of Thailand and the Phillipines, where they are similar countries, one promotes family planning and the other does not.

Better to restrict population by planning whether by zero immigration
and/or encouraging an increase of birthrate to 1:1.1 or enough
immigration which result zero population increase than to have it imposed on us.
Make no mistake it will be imposed one way or another.

Pericles as usual, cuts right to the truth.
So very many who posted here in this thread fail to understand, the truth.;
We do have a declining birth rate.
We also are seeing record numbers leave the workforce, Baby Boomer's.
Too the need for services and payments such as pensions, to support them.
It is a simple fact, the incoming government will not be able/or try to, cut migration , not yet.
Out whole way of life, depends on growth.
Why do some think we have 457 visa,s?
Not all for skills we lack, believe me, we have people from the Pacific Islands on the picking fruit.
For reasons other than this debate, both party,s know our current unemployment numbers, those we see/used to measure it, do not see casual workers, but too, the areas those folk live in.
Yet are near as close to full employment as we get.
This country has no intention, yet, of trying zero growth.
In truth my respected mate Ludwig, is on this issue,just as radical as the greens, even more.
Some, taking the opportunity to Bash Labor, can watch and learn Abbott will not stop population growth.
We too can look at country,s all over the world increasing in take of Migrant workers, not reducing them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9993714/Over-60s-must-keep-working-as-Britain-is-running-out-of-workers.html
I like roving English speaking country's news papers, all for free.
This is a worth while link, to the English Telegraph.
It hits this subject perfectly.
It make the claim due to a shortage of workers folks may be forced to work till they are 70!
Worth if you chase the link, to see Germany is proposing, or seems soon will, to bail out the EU by taxing the richest homes.
Easy to forget how bad it still is over there, we will find out if it gets much worse.
If Chinas exports are threatened we will see.
If China gets a head cold we get the full flue.

Belly,

You are like St. Augustine: "Make me chaste, but not yet." Obviously there will be adjustment problems, and the brakes would have to be put on over several years, but we have the highest rate of population growth in the developed world. There are plenty of countries that are performing well economically and in terms of human well-being with miniscule rates of population growth compared to ours or even slowly declining populations, such as Germany, with the strongest economy in Europe. If they can do it, why can't we? Pericles focuses on the those who will lose from an end to Ponzi demographics, but ignores those who are losing under the present system, such as all those people being robbed of hours and hours of time with their families by crowding and congestion, young Australians who can't get training or anything other than precarious work, and people who are being forced to pay a fortune for housing because of the skyrocketing cost of residential land. From a recent paper by Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy:

http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/cpur/files/2013/02/Immigration_review__Feb-2013.pdf

"The main finding is that the number of migrants arriving in Australia since the beginning of 2011 who found jobs is equivalent to the total number of new jobs created in Australia over the same period."

Using immigration to deal with population aging is just a pretext that the politicians put up. They know very well that the average migrant is only slightly younger than the average Australian. Furthermore, migrants grow old too, just like everyone else, and they cannot be deported when they have outlived their value to the economy. They are going to need pensions and healthcare too in their turn. What do you do then, bring in still more migrants? From the 2010/2011 Productivity Commission Annual Report (p. 6):

"Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite
mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that:

immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth
immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing."

Banjo, "Australia already has a low natural birthrate so there is no need to limit children that couples may have. Just lower the immigration numbers"

Yes, that was what I was implying. The Oz birthrate will also increase the small amount for population sustainability.

<< This is indeed old ground we are covering, Ludwig. >>

Yes Pericles, for about the fiftieth time! Which makes it all the more amazing how you could say something so incredibly wrong:

<< With a "zero net immigration" policy, our population will slowly decline >>

Our population would continue to increase for something like four decades. The rate of increase would slowly lessen and we would very gently approach a stable population…. if we got rid of the despicable baby bonus and went back to our ‘natural’ birthrate, that is!

This point has been raised a number of times in our discussions – I know that Divergence has explained it very well. So while I want to maintain a good rapport with you so that we can have a meaningful discussion, I’ve got to say that I’m finding it very hard to believe that you are not deliberately promulgating a total furphy here, as the likes of Costello and a few other highfalutin unscrupulous scaremongers have in the past.

I do worry about your various other assertions when you can make one that is just totally wrong.

You worry about the consequences of reducing immigration. But you don’t seem concerned at all about the consequences of maintaining anything like the current immigration level. There are just SO many negative consequences to doing this, all of which I have gone over previously and are not going to do so again here.

Of course there would be a downside to reducing immigration, for some people. There’s a downside for some people in EVERY big government decision or policy change.

You talk about polarised views and glass-half-full or half-empty perspectives. Well, your last post seems to be a glass totally full perspective. That is; a strongly polarised view. I mean no offence please. But you are considering only the possible negatives associated with a reduction in immigration (and the points that you assert would happen are by no means definite, or significant), while completely not even thinking about those associated with continued high immigration.

If we had an expert to look in to why we posted as we did in this single thread, expose our thoughts.
It would show,we all have taken stands, probably based on our understanding, or failure to understand, the implications.
Content to know/think I know, less than 10% of this country are ready to stall growth.
And even less would let onthebeach get away with his comment that the birthrate will grow? out standing!
Hidden in some, is the view not about numbers, but stopping migration, lets be honest.
America is what it is,still the worlds leading economy, because of migration, it continues to grow.
I think the implications of no population growth,at this point in history, defeats, common sense, it would kill our economy reduce housing prices de value just about every thing, who would pay to run the country in the midst of decreasing work force..
And the not to be ignored blame game here, is not changing truth.

From the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economics:

<Immigration has become highly significant to the UK economy: immigrants comprise 12% of the total workforce—and a much higher proportion in London. However, we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population>

and

<Against this background, we have identified the following priorities for Government action. The Government should:

- improve radically the present entirely inadequate migration statistics;
- review its immigration policies and then explain, on the basis of firm evidence on the economic and other impacts, the reasons for and objectives of the policies, and how they relate to other policy objectives such as improving the skills of the domestic workforce;
- better enforce the minimum wage and other statutory employment conditions, with effective action taken against employers who illegally employ immigrants or who provide employment terms which do not meet minimum standards;
- clarify the objectives and implications of the new, partially points-based immigration system. It is far from clear that the new arrangements will in fact constitute the radical overhaul of the present system suggested by the Government;
- monitor immigration by publishing periodic Immigration Reports giving details of the numbers and characteristics of non-EEA nationals entering the UK under each Tier of the new system;
- give further consideration to which channels of immigration should lead to settlement and citizenship and which ones should be strictly temporary;
- review the implications of its projection that overall net immigration in future years will be around 190,000 people. The Government should have an explicit and reasoned indicative target range for net immigration and adjust its immigration policies in line with that broad objective.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/8203.htm

to be continued..

continued..

However the Australian Department of Immigration spruiks for immigration in these words:

<Economic

Immigration affects the demand side of Australia's economy through:

- migrants' own spending (food, housing and leisure activities)
business expansion (investment to produce extra goods and services)
expansion of government services (health, education and welfare).

It also affects the supply side of the economy through:

- labour, skills and capital introduced into Australia
- new businesses developed by migrants
- migrant contributions to technology
- adding productive diversity through knowledge of international business markets.

Like all Australians, migrants pay taxes to, and receive benefits and goods and services from the government. Research shows that overall, migrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in benefits and government goods and services. As a result migrants generate surpluses for government.

Australia's economic growth is significantly enhanced as migrants directly affect the economy through their contribution to supply and demand and their indirect contribution to government surpluses>

Where is the proof for each claim?

When will the immigration policies of government be put to a popular vote?

- Because the Australian population, which already includes significant 'diversity through' migrant numbers, is overwhelmingly against high inflows of migrants. Apart from their own personal interest in more of their own (often aged and unwell) relatives joining them, migrants are opposed to immigration.

Julia Gillard promised a stop to the 'Big Australia' policies of Rudd. But Julia Gillard has set immigration targets higher than any year since 1945. That is at odds with her firm promise and commitment. It is not what Australians say they want.

Is this a democracy or not?

Thanks but I am leaving.
The thread no longer trys to hide, for some it is an anti migration thing.
Common sense has been stretched by claims like onthebeaches ones so have fun.

Now you insult the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economics? It asked questions that are pertinent to Australia too.

You asked for facts so I went to the trouble to find the report for you and to make the obvious comparison with the government policy and spin the Australian Department of Immigration is being required to publish on behalf of the Gillard/Greens government.

You will see that the report even questions the BS spin that immigration will pay for the Boomers' pensions.

It is time that you recognised the obvious, which is that a large rump of those retirees are migrants too. No offence to them of course. Many migrants fled countries where government spin was commonplace and the wishes of the people are continually ignored.

The polite thing to do Belly would be to present any facts you might have to dispel the Select Committee's report.