Based on current growth trends, we will reach a population of 23 million at 9:57pm (AEST) on Tuesday 23 April 2013.

What does it mean for Australia?

http://blog.mccrindle.com.au/_blog/The_McCrindle_Blog/post/23_million_on_23_April_2013/

http://www.news.com.au/tablet/massive-thumbs-down-for-big-australia/story-fnehlez2-1226560309280

Ludwig>> Based on current growth trends, we will reach a population of 23 million at 9:57pm (AEST) on Tuesday 23 April 2013.

What does it mean for Australia?<<

Congratulations to someone on Christmas Island Luddy?

Ludwig not a lot, we have had our current growth rate for sometime.
The world will not end.
As we are in financial trouble we will need more tax and too more tax payers to just stay as we are.
Both sides of politics will continue to want increased population, one for mum another for dad and one for Australia.
As we near 30 million, just maybe we and the world will be ready to consider endless growth.

Why don't you just move out to the country? There's plenty of room.

It is interesting that we have reached yet another population ‘milestone’ on (or almost on) Earthday (22nd April), the internationally celebrated day of concern about environmental protection and sustainability.

What a contrast! But then, Earthday is pretty much a non-event in Australia. And indeed, the ‘achievement of another million to our population, so soon after the 22 million level, is almost a non-event as well.

Oh well, we will continue to blunder forth, towards a big (huge and grossly oversized) Australia. We’ll continue to blame our politicians of either persuasion for not fixing and improving all our resource, service, infrastructure and environmental woes, while not decrying their absurd facilitation of rapid population growth, which I’m sure every man and his dog can see is the primary cause of most of our big problems.

Huugh!

Superficially, Australia looks very big and sparsely populated, but it is actually a small to medium sized country wrapped around a big desert. According to the ABS, 85% of Australians live within 50 kilometers of the coast. If everything were hunky dory, as Belly and Jardine suggest, then our small population wouldn't be having much impact on the environment. In fact, our water resources are overcommitted in much of the country, even with the existing population, and we rank at the bottom of the developed world for environmental management.

http://epi.yale.edu/dataexplorer/tableofmainresults

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment.aspx

Population growth is not the sole cause of environmental problems, but it acts as a multiplier for most of them. The Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human population growth in Australia as a Key Threatening Process under the Environmental Protection Act

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

In 1994 the Australian Academy of Sciences recommended a maximum population of 23 million.

"If our population reaches the high end of the feasible range (37 million), the quality of life of all Australians will be lowered by the degradation of water, soil, energy and biological resources. Cities such as Sydney and Melbourne will double or triple in size, multiplying their current infrastructure problems and their impact on the surrounding regions of the continent."

http://www.science.org.au/events/sats/sats1994/Population2040-section8.pdf

As for the question of taxpayers, the Productivity Commission in its 2006 report on immigration and its 2010/2011 annual report made it clear that it could find no good evidence for a significant per capita economic benefit. Population growth does benefit some groups in the community, but it is at the expense of everyone else.