(cont'd)

Saltpetre is right about the jobs. This is what Tim Colebatch, the Economics Editor of the Melbourne Age has to say:

"People born overseas have taken almost three-quarters of the net growth in full-time jobs in Australia in the past two years, even though they make up just 31 per cent of the adult population. Analysis of the Bureau of Statistics jobs data reveals that, comparing the six months to April with the same months two years earlier, Australia gained just 131,000 more full-time jobs - one new full-time job for every five new people.
"But in net terms, people born overseas gained 97,000 more full-time jobs, while Australian-born people gained only 34,000. The economy created only one new full-time job for every 10 more Australian-born people aged 15 and over. The figures raise doubts about employers' claims that they must hire workers from overseas because Australians are not available to do the jobs.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/skilled-newcomers-flood-fulltime-jobs-market-20130614-2o9vm.html#ixzz2YLJos5JE

Once we have more than one new job for every 5 new people, we can worry about where the extra workers will come from.

Finally, Australia is what demographers call a "big little country", lots of territory, but most of it uninhabitable, as SPQR or Shockadelic pointed out. These soil and rainfall maps are from Dr. Chris Dixon of the CSIRO

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

For comparison see this rainfall map of the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Average_precipitation_in_the_lower_48_states_of_the_USA.png

World inherent soil quality map from the US Dept. of Agriculture

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/worldsoils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054011

Divergence,

I don't think I'm "getting into contradictory territory" with what I've posted on this issue. I'll try to add some clarity. On aging population, the evidence is there that the number of older Australians as a proportion is on the increase. Those aged 65 plus is 3.3m (15%) up from 8% in 1970. I did say as an off set (it is a small one) the number working beyond 65 is also on the increase. The number of working Australian's supporting each non working aged person is diminishing, that is not in dispute. To this there is an expectation from the community that our elderly will enjoy a "reasonable" standard of living. That can be achieved in two ways, one, the non working older Australian can provide for their retirement from their own resources whilst working (superannuation, both compulsory and voluntary), or the taxpayer can provide directly, pensions, housing, heath services, transport etc.
I must clarify where I see immigration in this, in no way will it alone have a major impact on the aging population, it's not a panacea, far from it. You said
"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?" I don't disagree, certainly in the short term, although skill migration is not a complete negative it does have some benefit, but its not magic. There is ample evidence that business has completely abused the 457 visa scheme and it should be stopped.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/22377677/cfmeu-alleges-457-visa-workers-exploited-at-rineharts-roy-hill/

Immigration is far more complex than just the skills component, there are many other considerations that come into play when formulating such policy.

When there are more job vacancies than people to fill them then we need inwards migration, when there aren't, we don't.

Sustainable Population Party Divergence, I don't have a problem with the SPP and it policies. Unfortunate like so many one issue parties it is difficult to aim above a 2% plateau with voters. The other concern I have is where micro parties are no more than a front to garner votes for an unintended cause, through manipulation of the system.