"In 1998, the ABS forecast Australia's population wouldn't reach between 23.5 and 26.4 million until 2051" !

Now, in the news,

- "Australian Bureau of Statistics expects population to surpass 25 million in 2018

- It will DESTROY Australia as we know it': Dick Smith says it's 'no accident' immigration has skyrocketed by 27 per cent as he warns we will end up with
'50 million people on Centrelink'

- Australia has the fastest population growth pace of any developed country

- The nation's net immigration rate soared by 27 per cent in the year to June 30"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5198087/Dick-Smith-slams-politicians-immigration-soars-27pc.html#ixzz51qW7GZFO

Just like the unemployment rate and other important figures the Government lie.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection's budget papers tell us:

In 2016–17 ....there will be 190,000 places made available to permanent migrants in the Migration Program.

The Migration Program planning figure has never exceeded 190,000 places, so this marks five years of the program being maintained at a record high level.

2016/17 actual figures are reported here - 186,515 plus 3,485 child slots - 190,000.

But the ABS says 245,000 came in.

So where'd the extra 55,000 come from?

The latest ABS figures reveal that immigration for the year ending 30 June 2017 was 245,000. This is regarded as disastrous by people like Dick Smith, Leith van Onselen, chief economist with Macrobusiness, Dr. Jane O'Sullivan Qld University
school of Agriculture and Food Sciences. And, 8 out of 10 ordinary Australian punters feel that the two major political parties should have a population plan.

With Australia now the fastest growing country in the OECD, the Coalition, Labor – even the Greens – ignore majority opinion
Van Onselen said that governments are running mass immigration to “keep growth artificially high” and as a “defacto” support for the housing industry.

O'Sullivan said Australia was “running to stand still”, and that it is costing the public “$100, 000 per person” for each immigrant. She refutes the 'small population' idea that abounds in Australia, saying that, “our cities are huge by developed country standards” and that our cities have gone will past economies of scale to “diseconomies” of scale. (Source: 'Herald Sun').

Prior to these revelations, we have know that successive governments have have been able to disguise two recessions with excessive immigration and covering up the lack of GDP growth per capita. The Liberal-National Coalition and Labor have “caved in to pro-immigration groups, property developers, big retailers and foolhardy Treasury officials who use planeloads of new arrivals to artificially inflate Australia’s GDP numbers, wtith scant regard for the lowering of individual wealth.

As the lack of interest in leoj's thread indicates, the average OLO drone is not interested in the disastrous mass immigration used by politicians to fake 'growth'; nor do they know that the higher immigration is the bigger the drop in GDP per capita is. Mass immigration is not meant for developed economies; it works only for developing economies. Yet the drones continue voting for the same irresponsible, self-serving Australian politicians. They deserve the poverty that is coming.

Currently, at least half of Australia's population growth is made up of immigrants, usually younger than average, and likely to start or expand their families here. So the impact of immigration may be a lot more than 'just half' of annual growth.

As long as immigration policy is mainly targeted to bringing people with appropriate skills to Australia, people who can contribute positively to future growth, then I have no complaints: I look forward to a coffee-coloured Australia made up of people who share the values of equality, freedom of expression, observance of the rule of law, a preference for democracy over more authoritarian forms of government, and mutual respect.

Joe

I always thought Australia was better served by a large migrant intake and opinion was pretty evenly distributed for and against. I have changed my view and think we really need to limit immigrants especially where we are taking in problems you can see from a mile off.
We need a very tough argument to limit immigration and especially exclude people who just will not want to fit in. Africans and muslims are in this category in my opinion.
Plus a real drop in numbers but I realise this will throw us into a recession. Very hard decision as a recession will not bite me as much as the average Australian.
The argument is being shunned which is wrong but let's all get behind Pauline Hanson and watch the majors follow the money!

Philip S,

"So where'd the extra 55,000 come from?"

You've misunderstood the basis of the numbers. The 191000 places are for permanent migrants. But the overall numbers include non-permanent visitors eg working holidays, student visas etc. Also note that of the 191000 new permanent residents about half were already here but on non-permanent visas.

So a lot more complex than you opined.

As a rule of thumb, when the numbers don't make sense to you, it probably pays to assume that you don't know enough to make sense of them rather than to immediately assume that the government is lying to you...although the latter is probably easier and more comforting.

_______________________________________________________________

We do of course need to dramatically reduce immigration (especially of Afghan mental patients of no particular religion and poor driving skills). But the government and opposition have painted themselves into a corner and cannot easily back-track. High immigration is needed to maintain the fiction that we have economic growth. It is needed to sustain the housing market and housing prices. And opposing it would upset those already here who want to bring in their mother, grandmother and child bride and no party wants to upset that constituency.

We will eventually cut back on this ponzi scheme, but things will get a lot worse before then.