Quote:

Population growth is a major issue right across the region and Australia is no exception. With an election looming, population numbers - how to limit them and how to cope with them - has become one of the main talking points. If it wins Government, the Opposition Coalition has promised to cut net overseas migration and stop the population growing to 36 million by 2050 as predicted last year. But the Government says a lot of those people are much-needed, skilled migrants, and says the 36 million figure is a projection not a target. Population experts say it's public fear and swinging voters that are driving the political debate....

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/201004/s2865816.htm

Good. The average person has enough sense to realise they won't be better off with the the population growth predicted. It's nonsense for the government to say it's just a projection - they are causing it with their immigration policies.  

Quote:

“Rudd was initially in favour of a big Australia but, under a barrage of criticism, pulled back to a more equivocal position. Treasury has been given the task of working out Australia's carrying capacity and the challenges and opportunities that a larger population will bring. Tony Abbott seems to support this investigation. Should the Treasury analysis drive whether we think a bigger population is desirable?

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/On-population-and-productivity-pd20100408-4B88Q?opendocument&src=rss

tallowood wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 10:30am:

Quote: “Rudd was initially in favour of a big Australia but, under a barrage of criticism, pulled back to a more equivocal position. Treasury has been given the task of working out Australia's carrying capacity and the challenges and opportunities that a larger population will bring. Tony Abbott seems to support this investigation. Should the Treasury analysis drive whether we think a bigger population is desirable? http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/On-population-and-productivity-pd20100408-4B88Q?opendocument&src=rss

I think that carrying capacity should include little bit more than just imbecilic calculation of head count per square kilometre.

As it is now we have waiting list in hospitals 1 to may years, social security dental services up to 12 years.

We have 600,000 unemployed, surely some are bent or not working single day, but those should be located and given ultimatum.
But before another single legal or illegal migrant should be considered, we should make existing population fully engaged.

Big deal if there is a bit of a labour shortage in some industries. It means higher wages and a chance for the unemployed to re-train. Big business likes population growth because it means bigger markets for their products and more competition in the labour market (ie lower wages).

Here is an interesting analyses of "populate or perish" scenarios.


Quote:

SINCE the 1904 Royal Commission into the Decline of the Birth Rate in NSW, there have been many attempts to work out what size population would best serve the county. Among the most recent was the 2002 CSIRO study for the Department of Immigration which explored the future effect of three population/immigration scenarios on the environment, the physical economy, national infrastructure and quality of life to 2050. ... The high scenario  favoured by business assumed an immigration rate of 0.67 per cent of the current population, delivering 32 million people by 2050, and 50 million by 2100. Rewards include ''a continually growing economy, a strong home base from which to mount export industries, possible synergies that come from service clusters and competition, and the formation of a number of world-sized cities to act as hubs for international commerce''. ''Risks'' included potential for ''continually expanding energy use and greenhouse emissions together with a potential decoupling of the large urban agglomerations from the base of ecosystem services that support them''.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/when-size-matters-populate-or-perish-scenarios-20100409-rymf.html

The reason why the Australian Political System is going broke, is because we don't have a large population to be taxed and allow the Political System to play the same game as the big boys in regards to living stards etc. A lot of our military and public transport equipment are 'hand-me-downs' from other nations.

If the no-conflict Swiss could bring themselves to ban minarets, Australia and other western countries with a more robust taste for straight talking are brewing for a massive backlash that will catch he political class by total surprise.

I don't think Politics can cope with a bigger population here in Australia, like Politics can in the USA (300+million I think?).
Politics here is going broke with just 22 million and never looked so good since when the population was just 5 million.

What are we gonna do when the Pollies cry "We can't cope"?
Maybe we should ask the more profitable Art Industry to run this country ...culturally and support a bigger population?
I'm not talking the traditional artists either like the ones in Galleries and Archibald prizes and paint naked children,
I'm talking about the ones who work with big progressive companies with modern and advanced techniques and equipment.
WETA Workshop is doing wonders for the NZ economy for starters.

36 million is nothing, especially in a country of Australia's size.  Australia will still be empty.

Just take a look at Britain.  Britain's population is 62 million, and when you compare how small Britain is compared to Australia you get some idea of how overcrowded it is.

Interesting...  but comparing the 'carrying capacity' of Aus with the UK is not realistic.  

This continent does not have the same ratio of arable land to pop. - nor close proximity to major world markets, as does the UK.  Most of Aus, if you didn't know, is arid desertlike country, not farming land. To suggest a population of 36 mil in 30 odd yrs is not a pleasant prospect.  Growth - Economic or otherwise on that scale - is not GOOD.

BUT-  we do have areas that could benefit greatly - benefit everyone greatly, ... if there were the people in situ. to do the work to produce the food to feed not only themselves, but many more.   It needs people, and the willingness of the nation - to put in the infrastructure and support services that would allow a whole new part of Aus to be opened up to 'human' productive country. HARD?  TOO HARD?
I've said it on other forums,  and I guess I'll say it again.  Welcome immigrants and refugees who want to work, and put them where they can help themselves, and their new home country. Not in the coastal cities, which are already overflowing, and not providing these people with opportunity...but in the Ord River scheme area, for example.
We have already put our mark on the area by creating this scheme in the first place.  To what use has it been put?  

Who knows what can come from it, but the money would be better spent on establishing a flourishing new community, than on 'detaining' people, at enormous expense  for NO gain... Not just wasteful monetarily, but also shameful -  in terms of human suffering and the possible outcomes from that,-  
IMO the current 'view' on immigration and refugees is inhumane and must be turned around - to become a benefit, for ALL.!!.  :)