Australia's current population is 24.7 million. Here is a list of First World, liveable countries with populations much lower than Australia's.

Netherlands 17 million
Belgium 11 million
Greece 11 million
Portugal 10 million
Sweden 9 million
Hungary 9 million
Austria 8,7 million
Switzerland 8.5 million
Israel 8.5 million
Denmark 5.7 million
Norway 5 million
Ireland 4.8 million
New Zealand 4.7million

Apart from New Zealand, not many people are rushing to leave these countries. So, what is wrong with us, and why do we need to keep bringing more people here?

The population of Liechtenstein is 37,666. And your point is. A reasonable question would be, what is the sustainable population of Australia. Do you have an answer for that.

Misinformed statement "Apart from New Zealand, not many people are rushing to leave these countries"

New Zealand's net migration hit a record high in 2016/17
Those arriving outstrip those leaving by 73,000 , with Chinese as the biggest group of migrants 12%, followed by UK 10% and Australia 10%.

Three-quarters of the 130,400 migrant arrivals were non-New Zealand citizens, with New Zealanders leaving and returning to the country almost balancing each other out. NZ citizens returning and Australian citizen arrivals long term rose 4% per cent to 38,300 overall.

For the umpteenth time, Paul, the sustainable population is 13 million, and we are now almost twice that and still growing. Why do we need to grow when other countries do not is the question.

Sustainable population or standard of living are the questions. The world population agenda is equalisation of standard of living. Australia had a high standard of living but it will be lowered to the world average. This is the Marxist agenda, equalisation of wealth. Australia is thought to sustain a population of about 56,000,000 by World living standards. However to retain our once high standards of living we would have a Western population of about 20,000,000. However the envious Eastern countries would want to share this standard of living, which they are on Australian natural resources of soil and water.

Yes, Josephus. The immigration equals income story is a lie. People are already propping up their living standard with debt, which, even at the ridiculously low interest rates, they are finding harder and harder to repay.

I used to believe in our present immigration numbers but experience has changed my mind. I do believe in growth but much less than the last few years. I think Tony Abbott has probably been given the right advice on numbers. Of course we need to not allow the sort of troublesome people who will contribute nothing and leach off us to arrive here.

Our population numbers have never really concerned me, other than being unable to support everyone and we do suffer badly from distribution. What concerns me is where we are heading so far as jobs creation and, where in the hell we are going to get the funds to support those already here, let alone those poised to arrive. Australia is a huge country with a very small population however under our current welfare system, along with the decline in real jobs for the future we should be putting an immediate stop to any immigration, at least until we can work out how to cater for all here, and return ourselves to a 'go forward' nation. Lets face it, growth on the back of debt is not sustainable. Nor is a welfare system that supports people who simply want to move here.

There's a lot more to sustainability than population and standard of living. If we value the environment and take advantage of the latest technology to reduce (and in some cases reverse) our destructive environmental impact, we could easily double our population and still have a higher standard of living than today. Conversely if we treat the environment with the contempt that many OLO posters do, even 13 million is too many.

A higher population has good and bad effects, but IMO the good outweighs the bad. And the case for higher population would be a lot stronger if only we took advantage of the opportunities it creates. Having more people makes it more economically viable to improve our infrastructure, benefitting existing residents as well as the newcomers. But instead the politicians underinvest in infrastructure then blame the immigrants for the problems.

Indeed the same goes for a lot of the immigrants themselves. Instead of trying to prevent refugees coming here, we should be trying to profit from them coming here. But currently our regular migration rules discriminate against refugees, and our refugee policy actively prevents people from helping themselves.

Most of the dairy and chicken farms and market gardens that supported 1,000s of families in Western city and supplied the Sydney markets have now been developed into housing estates. These products now have to be imported or trucked from further afield. We now have the case of large dairies in the Hunter now being closed because Woolworths and Coles down the prices of milk and dairy farming is no longer viable. We must do what Trump has done and put restrictions on imported good and protect Australian industries and products. Employment is reliant on industry and supplying basic goods for survival, water, food and energy.

Aidan,
You have a lot of explaining to do.

Para 1. How do we reduce impact on the enviroment and at the same time double our population and have a higher standard of living?

para 2. Where can we take advantages of what opportunities and where do we get the funds to build infastructure?

para 3. How do we profit from bringing more refugees here and how do we prevent refugees from helping themselves?

The ball is in your court. I would like some some practical and definitive answers. Frankly I think your post is all leftist theory and wish full thinking.

The size of Australia is irrelevant as 70% of it is desert and unlivable. Most people live in coastal cities, and there is very little room left in them, and infrastructure is not keeping up. There are too many people here now, and there should be no more. The system will have enough trouble coping with natural population increases without bringing more outsiders here.

Australia is like a huge water tank on an inadequate stand, it's never been filled up and the weight of the water will eventually cause the stand to fail.

Time to stop the pumps.

Banjo, ttbn, Issy, do you think if we took in say 60 million Muslims, all named Ahmad or Mohammad immediately, it would solve any possible problem with under population.

Issy, my analogy, I much prefer to think of Australia as some kind of gigantic Fat Albert person being stuffed with more goodie yum yum's. Suddenly one more tincy morsel is forced in, and Fat Albert explodes!

Q&A had a bash at this problem last night.
Not ONE person asked if these 200,000 migrants a year are bring their own electricity with them ?

They will just make a bad situation worse.

Most of the comments here are based on logic and common sense....but Australia doesn't run on logic and common sense ..it runs on boolsheet.
Now this is not news to most of you so why do you bother complaining about what is going to continue.
The way politicians see it, the migrants are future voters and every time elections roll around it's about little johnnie's education and everyone drops their bundle in an effort to improve the education system where it's core subject is how to apply for govt freebies, so much so, the govt has to employ more to handle the requests.
The more govt employees, the more union members.
As the man once said...where there's confusion there's profit....for some!
We have an apathetic electoral system designed for a phlegmatic society whose focus is on the cricket or football and occasionally lift their heads to look at what they can't cook while ordering Dominoes or Lite 'n Easy to stave off obesity.
Now I ask you...'Aren't we lucky?'

Special Delivery,

You are probably right. Nothing is going to change while we have the sorts of people we have in the political class, and there doesn't seem to be a way to replace them because they won't allow change. There is not enough significant difference between the politicians and parties for our pathetic little 3 yearly votes to achieve real change.

Douglas Murray believes that the mass immigration into Europe has caused a 'European ennui' – a feeling of listlessness and dissatisfaction. While our problems are not as bad as Europe's, we are getting that way, and Australians have possibly already slipped into 'ennui'. After all, we are not a nation that takes much interest in politics and its effects on us.

Banjo,
>How do we reduce impact on the enviroment and at the same time double our population and have a higher standard of living?

Take the environment more seriously.
Build the infrastructure we need, including (but not limited to) high speed rail to encourage decentralization.
Use economic policy to ensure there's ample opportunity in all parts of Australia, not just the big cities.
Do a lot more scientific research - both basic research to increase our understanding, and R&D to enable us to take advantage of that.
Have permanently low interest rates to enable businesses to invest more in automation.

>Where can we take advantages of what opportunities

Wherever we need, or will soon need, better connectivity, we can rely on the rising population to create sufficient demand to justify the spending.

>and where do we get the funds to build infastructure?

From the RBA.

>How do we profit from bringing more refugees here

By getting them into work as quickly as possible.

>and how do we prevent refugees from helping themselves?

Firstly by spending insane amounts of money trying to prevent them from getting here. Secondly by not always allowing them to work.

There are some worrying signs floating around the ether.
The Dutch CEO of Shell has announced that Shell is planning how to
ease their way out of the oil industry.
Mobil also made a comment that the oil industry will not have a
profitable future, or words to that effect.
This is related to the cost of search and development of new fields.
David Hughes has published a report on the false picture given by the
EIA in its Energy Outlook paper. This shows that the future production
and financial viability of the oil industry, in particular the
fracking part is at risk. True, this relates to the US, but the oil
market is just one big world market.

http://www.postcarbon.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Hughes_Shale-Reality-Check_Winter-2018.pdf?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email
or
http://tinyurl.com/y9edxmvu

When discussion immigration NO ONE mentions electricity and liquid fuels.
In a world high price and tight market just how many people in
Australia will be able to get a useful share of energy ?

WHO KNOWS ? WHO CARES ?

When the liquid petroleum, oil and gas energy resources are depleted the world will take a whole new shape. Countries need basic resources well managed to sustain its population. Take countries like Egypt and Greece that are over populated for their resources. Lots of immigrants creating a larger work force is not the answer. Though labour is a resource, if they are unemployed is a burden.

Hi Bazz,

What say we just put the lights out and close the door. With BS like that from Shell and Mobil, the West is going to look like the Middle East - the poor backward bits of it.

Aidan,

What does "Take the environment more seriously" actually mean? Any practical examples?

"Build the infrastructure we need". Fewer people would mean less 'need' for infrastructure.

How do we get refugees "into work as quickly as possible" when most refugees are from Third World countries, with little or no English and little education. There are no jobs for people like that who are already here. Successive governments have imported people but exported all the manual and low skilled jobs.

ttbn,
>What does "Take the environment more seriously" actually mean? Any practical examples?
An obvious example would be to stop the Adani coal mine. Never again should we pretend that such destructive projects are vital for our economy.

>How do we get refugees "into work as quickly as possible" when most refugees are from Third World countries, with little or no English and little education.
By looking at what skills they do have. And they generally shouldn't be allowed to come here until they know english, unless they have a valid reason why no other country in the region is suitable for them.

>There are no jobs for people like that who are already here.
Expansionary economic policy will result in more jobs of all kinds.

>Successive governments have imported people but exported all the manual and low skilled jobs.
Only in the manufacturing sector, and that was mainly a result of China taking most of the value our of value adding.

Aidan,

I don't see the relevance of a coal mine to population growth and immigration. People concerned about the 'environment' don't usually support mass immigration anyway, so I don't get your environment comment at all. Besides, there is really nothing wrong with the Australian natural environment, and as I said previously, there is no natural environment in the cities where immigrants flock.

I cannot think of any skills needed in Australia that would be held by illiterate, Third World refugees.

Expanding the economy just to provide jobs for people we don't need in the first place seems to be a dog-chasing-its-own-tail exercise to me.

"Only in the manufacturing area"? What else is there. There are limited opportunities in high tech jobs for highly skilled people. That brings us back to on again off again pursuits like tourism and selling coffee to each other.

We will never agree on much, Aidan,but thanks for responding. To get back to my original question, 'Why Does Australia Have to Grow', I am more than ever convinced that we don't have to grow, and should not grow, if we wish to leave a decent way of life behind us.

Unfortunately ttbn it is not BS. The problem is the cost to discover
and develop new oil fields. The short production times of tight wells
is part of the problem also.
However it is all summed up with Energy Return on Energy Invested.
Last figure I saw is that oil is around 10.
If it gets as low as approx 7 then it is all over.
In the early part of the last century it was 100.

If we were selfish, we would pull up the drawbridge.
Pity we cannot put graphs up here as the ERoEI graph is a thought provoker.

Sorry, Bazz, you've lost me:) What did I say was BS, and what is the connection with oil wells and immigration?

ttbn errr how about this;

Hi Bazz,

What say we just put the lights out and close the door.
With BS like that from Shell and Mobil, the West is going to look like the Middle East - the poor backward bits of it.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 13 March 2018 3:35:58 PM

You did write that did you ?

ttbn, you asked ;
"What is the connection between oil wells and immigration ?"

Actually, everything. Electricity has a direct connection as 300,000
people will consume that much extra power when we are already in short supply.
We are increasing demand faster than we can build new generation.
Catch, we are not building exra supply yet.

As for fuels the cost will escalate and become more vulnerable to interruption.
We import over 90% of our usage.
More people more demand on oil supply.
Why do you think the oil companies are looking for the way out ?

Aidan,
So far you have not put up one practical thing, except to show your non support for one new coal mine. Yet that mine will employ thousands and be good for the economy. Again, how do we build infastructure or businesses that do not impact the enviroment?

Nothing on any infastructure? We cannot get the funds to build the inland railway from Melbourne to Brisbane, as proposed for years,and a fast train has been shown as uneconomic. How do we get the funds for other projects and what are they?

Unless you can put up some practical matters it appears your posts are just talk, with no substance.

Bazz,

Yes, I wrote that; still don't see how your comments are relevant. And, electricity is part of the infrastructure is it not? In fact, infrastructure covers the lot – no special mention needed.

Peta Credlin talking to Andrew Bolt.

Credlin said that immigration numbers are not decided by talking to real people about how many people they want to see living in their cities; our carrying capacity isn't discussed; nor are our resources. It's “about Scott Morrison's bottom line when he talks about the growth number in the budget......Ordinary people are shut-out of the debate and (there is) no plan”.

Credlin has been “inside the room” when population numbers are talked about and there is no “considered analysis”; “no thought about where these people are going to live and how they are going to integrate”.

Bolt said that it is a “fraud” because the gains to the federal government and the costs are borne by the states; and we have to “share the goodies among more people”. We have seen over many years no that, “per person” our living standards are decreasing as immigration “goes through the roof”. He described it as a “Ponzi scheme”.

Credlin agree: “It's a fraud”. She also believes that the Turnbull government is “committing political suicide” by not addressing the issue of mass immigration.

Yes ttbn I agree. Re your comment on infrastructure.
I think the immigration argument is tightly connected to energy.
There seems to be things going on that are not in the discussions at all.
Here are a couple of straws in the wind I read of yesterday.
It appears that in 2017 the amount of oil found was one fifth the amount consumed.
Indications this year is oil found will be one tenth that consumed.

http://tinyurl.com/y8rjs4cl

Do you think that might influence the oil company planning ?
Do you think that should influence our immigration numbers considering our 95% import ?

The second straw, the very big oil storage terminal in Sth Africa is empty.
The floating storage in oil tankers anchored up have also disappeared.

Not necessarily an immediate panic but should be a factor that needs examination.

Bazz,

Meanwhile, some of my fellow South Australians are protesting about plans to look for oil and gas in the vicinity of the Great Australian Bight. Would it be too cynical of me to be thinking that they are probably the same people who are in favour of mass immigration?

I don't watch Q&A, but the press reports that even China-admirer, Bob Carr opined on that awful program that immigration should be cut. 74% of Australians agree with that. Australian politicians are now doing what the European ones did: turning our home into home for the rest of the world, without any consultation with us.

Oil is essential for the production and transport of food. You cannot run heavy farm machinery and transport on electricity as the Greens imagine. You cannot feed a growing population without increasing farming and transport. What is happening Australia is food production is decreasing because it is too costly to produce for what Supermarkets are willing to pay. Australia was once designed for each family to have a 1/4 acre block so they could grow vegetables and have chooks to feed their family. Those dreams have gone by the wayside to the high rise apartments.

Banjo,
I agree with you, we cannot for several reasons bulild the
Very Fast Train. However what we can do is build the Fast Enough Train.
We have in NSW the fast enough train rolling stock, the XPTs known in
the UK as the 125s.
By straightening out the track. In the 19th century the earth moving
machinery was horses and scoops.
Then rebuilding the line to higher standards as per UK, no kinks in
the track, dead level alignment.
The smooth travel in the UK would be a revelation to Australian passengers.
This would take hours off the time to Melbourne.
It can all be done, would speed up freight as well.
Just a bit of common sense from politicians.

ttbn & Joesphus,
We are in agreement. I have introduced the liquid
fuels into the argument because they and electricity as energy sources
are fundamental to everything.

If it is all so obvious to us, why is it hidden from the politicians ?
The greens as sun worshipers, seem absolutely opposed to energy that
does not meet their approval.

Growth is not a fundamental necessity, but sustainability is, but
that is not the greenies aim, they want contraction.
We will have enough problems with sustainability without going
into contraction.
Yet they want more people to be brought in !
It then raises the question of their sanity !

The wages and retirement benefits, of politicians, Labour and Liberal is what motivates
their decisions.

They are making huge self interest gains, off mass immigration and the mainstream people of Australia don't factor into it.

Labour and the Greens are deliberately fostering and pandering to, huge areas of ethnic groups, especially new immigrants.
This gives them gauranteed 100,000's of votes in these immigrant areas by promoting socialist policies.

They have no interest in helping these people to intergrate or lifting them out of social disadvantage, athough this is the rhetoric they use, because they don't want these people to disperse into more affluent areas throughout the general society. This would
end these big voting blocks, where they can count on the votes.
Bringing 100,000's more immigrants in, just shores up those big voting blocks and
ensures the Labour politicians stay in power, but more importantly, they keep on receiving big money and eventually,
lucrative beyond belief, retirement funds.

The Liberals use immigration to provide cheap labour that undercuts Australian workers
pay, jobs and job conditions. Which drives profits for the big end of town and they dont mind the cheap house maids and cleaners these people provide either.
Also it saves them a heap of money having to train Australian apprentices and workers
by bringing in skilled immigrants, that someone else in another country paid to train.

Both sides of politics are basically corrupted by big money.
To hell with anyone else or their country or fellow countrymen and women.
Their eyes are firmly on the money coming into their pockets and a horse called
"Self-Interest".

"especially new immigrants.
This gives them gauranteed 100,000's of votes in these immigrant areas by promoting socialist policies."

Assuming "new immigrants" had the right to vote.

Paul 1405

This article is talking about excessive Australian population growth.
That means immigrants who eventually become Australian citizens

When anyone becomes an Australian citizen, they have the right to vote.