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.