Paul1405 "there is a lot of positive work being done for both our newest of arrivals, and also for the oldest people who's ancestors inhabited the continent."

And there the only ones that matter, right?
Forget the 200 years of European immigrants in the middle, from which 92% of the population descend.

"I have news for you, it ain't going to happen."

Yes, and the King of France shall rule unquestioned.
All Christians will honor the Pope's authority.
Russia will never be Communist.
Ireland will always be part of the United Kingdom.
The Negro slaves will never be freed.
And women will never get the vote.

Anything can "happen".
We *choose* what the future is.
If non-European immigration stopped now, in a few generations there'd be almost no evidence it ever happened.

Only about 5.5% are not of European or Aboriginal descent.

With no further immigration, that figure would fall to about 2%, as childless people grow old and die (leaving no trace they were ever here) and many more leave the country (about a quarter of all "permanent" immigrants leave).

Do you think 2% non-Euro/Aboriginal is going to redefine who we are as a people, culture, nation?
Blink and you'll miss it.

"Our population growth is coming off a relatively low base of 23M"

And why is that?
Because we've little room to grow in the first place.
Most of this land is desert.
North Africa has low population for the same reason.

Saltpetre "entrepreneurial cashed-up 'new blood' (immigrant(s)) from abroad."

But how many of them are? Very few.

So the few hundred who are hardly makes up for the millions who contribute nothing but pollution, crowds and stress-reactions in our amygdala.

And there are no cashed-up White people?
I'd hazard a guess there's far more of them than rich Third Worlders, and they'd make no significant change to our social reality.

Meanwhile in Sydney:

"IN yet another western Sydney shooting, the president of controversial anti-Islamic group ‘Australian Defence League’ became the victim of a targeted attack on his home last night"

from today's AUSTRALIAN.

Divergence,
I don't agree with your view on an aging population, "Children are actually a lot more dependent than old people" The ABS predicts that the median age of Australia’s population will increase from 36.8 years in 2007, to 45.2 years in 2056, and the issue of an aging population is becoming increasingly significant. With a rapidly declining birth rate, combined with Australians, on average living longer, the population can do nothing but age. The demand for aged services must increase, whilst the number of people in the work force supporting each aged person declines. There were about 5 workers in 2002 for each Australian over 65. the projection is for that figure to drop to around 2.5 in 2042. Unless more older people remain in the workforce longer, and there is indication that is happening, but then again that is a double edged sward in poor economic times, with a rise in unemployment amongst younger people.
Migration can assist in alleviating problems of an aging population, with a focus on migrants who are predominantly of workforce age, with skills. Such migrants assist in keeping up workforce growth and raise general skill levels and productivity. There has been much grumbling from New Zealand about the loss of skilled workers to Australia. John Key was miffed that NZ was paying for skills training and then seeing many of those skilled Kiwi's heading to Oz.

Paul, I'm afraid you are getting into contradictory territory with some of your fine theorizing:

>Unless more older people remain in the workforce longer, and there is indication that is happening, but then again that is a double edged sward (sword) in poor economic times, with a rise in unemployment amongst younger people.<

BUT THEN THIS:
>Migration can assist in alleviating problems of an aging population, with a focus on migrants who are predominantly of workforce age, with skills. Such migrants assist in keeping up workforce growth and raise general skill levels and productivity.<

The problem with this argument/proposition, Paul, is that there are TOO FEW JOBS for EITHER the 'older people' OR the 'younger people' (let alone for both); but MIGRATION can somehow correct this deficiency? By, magically stimulating workforce growth AND raising skill levels and productivity?

So, with Ford, Holden and Toyota shutting down in Oz, Qantas letting 5,000 go, Boeing cutting 300, SPC Ardmona xxy, BHP scaling back on iron ore and shelving Olympic Dam, Aussies drinking less wine and smoking less (with loss of excise AND some job reductions), AND fewer overseas students, fewer tourists, and fewer Aussies spending-up or taking holidays (because we ARE in a downturn),..

Where are all these more highly-skilled and productive JOBS going to come from - for the olds, the youngs and the immigrants (and their families)?
Infrastructure Australia? NDIS? NBN? Gonski? 2nd Sydney Airport? High-speed rail, urban link roads, dams on the Ord, Defence Forces/National Service, Tassie forestry, nuclear waste disposal, CSIRO, Satellite Solar Concentrators supporting massive inland Greenhouse Food Production (in the arid zones)..?
Or, the channeling of northern rivers to create a massive southern inland freshwater sea for irrigation and/or Oil-Producing Algae Farming? (or boating?)

Great! But, where's the money? (Ah! Saudi Sheiks!)
No cashed-up Asians? Chinese interests looking to invest $A44 Billion in 'property'? A furphy?

But, no-one rushing to invest in new industry in Oz.
Wages and conditions, OH&S and 'red tape' all too unattractive?
(Or, do we just not have the workers?)(NZ to the rescue? Or, Bangladesh?)

Salty, you paint a very pessimistic view of Australia's economic outlook. Highlighting job losses, lack of investment, lack of infrastructure etc, certainly in the short term the outlook doesn't look all that rosy. I to have a degree of pessimism about the economic outlook, particularly as it relates to this incompetent government in Canberra.
The well respected economist, Dr Ken Henry, has expressed a view which very much still points us in the direction of Asia as the on going source of our economic well-being. He does point to the need for Australia to reposition itself as a supplier to the world markets, specifically pointing to the growing middle class in Asia and the resulting increase in demand from that section. Henry is critical of the federal government on the score of understanding economic change and as how it applies to Australia. I think Henry offers an informative and balanced view on the economy, and should be taken seriously by the Abbott government on a number of economic matters.

http://theconversation.com/the-view-on-australias-economic-future-with-dr-ken-henry-15303

Dr Henry has also had a bit to say about the incompetent Treasurer Hockey and tax reform.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gst-will-have-to-rise-warns-ken-henry-20140312-34n0a.html

p/s Immigration policy must be in there somewhere.

SPQR,

I am flattered, but there is nothing special about me. You will find a lot of the same policies on the websites of the Sustainable Population Party (formerly the Stable Population Party) and the Stop Population Growth Now party in South Australia. The problem is that the growthists control the mass media and the education system. Paul is clearly mystified on the ageing issue and has no understanding of our real carrying capacity, for example.

Paul,

The Productivity Commission has said that immigration has very little effect on population ageing. This is from p. 10 of their 2010/2011 annual report:

"Immigrants, being typically younger on arrival than the existing population, could alleviate the ageing pressures in the short run (PC 2005b). However, several studies show these reductions are small for most plausible immigration levels. For example,an increase in annual net migration from 150 000 to 300 000 would lower the proportion of those aged 65 or over by less than 3 percentage points by 2044-45
(PC 2005). More importantly, any effect would be short lived. This is because immigrants themselves age, and progressively higher levels of migration would be needed to sustain the current age structure into the future. For example, it has been estimated that, to maintain the age structure of 2003-04 in 2044-45,annual migration during that period would need to be above 3 per cent of Australia’s population, leading to a population of over 100 million by the middle of this century."

Surely you can recognize that this is a Ponzi scheme. Why are European countries that already have the age structure you fear still ranking so high on economic performance and human development?

(cont'd)