How many people does Australia need?

stephen says:

05:55am | 27/10/09

More. Lots more. And send them inland to build cities and prosper. Our country towns are dying.

WHR says:

07:02am | 27/10/09

Good article, sound policy. If only it were implemented in the later stages of the Howard government or the Rudd government now.

paul says:

07:13am | 27/10/09

What is with this blind religon of ‘more growth’ attitude, more crowded roads,unaffordable housing. Do we have to be crowded like everyone else? Why then destroy the food-bowl or key farming areas in Sydney and the Murray Darling?  Planners are saying we will have another 10-odd
Gold Coasts on the east coast in the next 30 years. Sweet. Looking forward to it.

Wayne H says:

07:21am | 27/10/09

We are not smart enough for that stephen, here in QLD we keep trying to pack them into the south east. WHY? Makes very little sense to me. They can’t build infrastructure fast enough. Now it’s survival comes at the expense of prime agricultural land and ancient fish stocks when they dam the Mary. They can’t use all their water in the north now. Why don’t we spread our population out more and lesson our impact a bit? At some point the full sign needs to go up at the border unless you are prepared to populate the other more viable locations throughout the State.

Patrick says:

07:34am | 27/10/09

Get stuffed Andrews. This is nothing but dog whistling. A few weeks ago you made the totally disingenuous claim that traffic congestion and public transport overcrowded was due to these pesky immigrants when it has been the failure of successive state governments to invest in adequate infrastructure over the years.

The article is here http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/migration-causing-traffic-problems-mp-20091016-h0r2.html

Why don’t you go back into your shell Andrews? Every time you pop up all you do is remind peoples of the excesses of the Howard government. The only person who would do a worse job at immigration minister than you would be the lovely Dr Sharman Stone.

Jim says:

07:35am | 27/10/09

Gosh Kev, its hard to read your article without remembering your calls to cut immigration from Africa while you were the minister responsible for immigration in the Howard government.  Where did those immigrants fit into ‘that required to maintain replacement levels’?  This is really just a dog whistle dressed up as something else isn’t it?

Kick Knave says:

08:13am | 27/10/09

To keep the value of my real estate up. You guys did the same thing.

sluggo says:

08:14am | 27/10/09

12 million sounds about right.

Dylan says:

08:19am | 27/10/09

What’s that high-pitched whistling sound in the background there, Andrews?  You were a worthless immigration minister and the fact that you have the hide to breath a word on immigration after Haneef is a testament to your extraordinary shamelessness.

What a coincidence that you’d wheel this one out just as your mates have been belting out that familiar rhythm on the boat people drum.

The effort to link ‘immigrants’ to ‘overcrowded trains and traffic jams’ is particularly grotesque and cynical.

Crawl back into your hole, Andrews.  Politics is a damn sight more pleasant without you.

shabangabang says:

09:07am | 27/10/09

Anybody from any walk of life wanting the population capped should show they are serious about it, and disappear.
Limits are for those with a lack of ideas as to how to cater for them. Limits are for closed minded conservatives. Limits are for AM radio jocks looking for ratings and the misinformed right-wingers who listen to them.
Given that 95% of our population lives on 3% of the land area, how could you call that over-populated.
We need to decentralise. Gough Whitlam had the right idea looking at the option of planned cites in the interior, why not go back to that policy?

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:10am | 27/10/09

Only agree with your last paragraph. Australia should have a population policy. Pity we have a government hell bent on raising the immigrant quota and retaining the baby bonus while having no policy on population whatsoever. Australia probably can’t support 25 million people with its marginal environment, but I guess we’ll find out.

Craig Lambie says:

09:19am | 27/10/09

I totally agree with you article, we need a population policy.
Pity the people here can’t seem to see that your no longer the immigration minister and can speak freely now.

Dylan says:

09:32am | 27/10/09

@Patrick - haha, your comment was awaiting moderation when I wrote mine.  Great minds think alike, eh?

Dan says:

09:54am | 27/10/09

I think I must agree with everything Kevin says. I find it astonishing that the Greens are always out there pushing for higher refugee intakes and higher immigration quotas when the single biggest problem our environment faces is the number of human beings currently residing in Australia and consuming resources.

Ken Henry said the other day that we have an appalling record with environmental protection, how will it be when there are twice as many of us?

Tim Flannery agrees as well, he says Australia has a carrying capacity of 6-7 million.

These people are not xenophobic, nor are they rednecks or part of the ‘great unwashed’. They have looked at the available data, and come to the only logical conclusion, Australia as a country can only support so many people before the environment and biodiversity suffers and then we all suffer.

KW says:

10:03am | 27/10/09

Why don’t you just cut to the chase and publish an artice called “F@*k Off, We’re Full”

You say “Before addressing this question, let me state clearly that I am not opposed to immigration. To the contrary, I support a clearly defined immigration policy that works in the national interest.” I see no solid suggestions to resolve this in your article, which leans you in the direction of statements like “I’m not a racist, but….”

We are part of a global community whether we like it or not.  We could largely isolate ourselves for the next 30 years while the rest of the world globalises, but we will come blinking out of the cave in 30 years to find the world has moved on without us.

jimmy says:

10:11am | 27/10/09

Paul @ 7:13am; Sluggo @ 8:14am.  Do you want to try an economy based on a diminishing workforce (ie a shrinking population)? I suggest you hoard all your belongings, skill yourself in hunting and gathering and prepare to live without electricity or tap water.
I’d argue that growth is not the enemy, but poor planning and management.

Tim says:

10:12am | 27/10/09

We definitely need a population policy, regardless of Kevin Andrews previous position and people like Dylan and Patrick who want to bring other issues into it.
I’ve always wondered why this issue isn’t one of the Greens major policy platforms? Surely any party that claims to looking after the environment should be basing a large part of their policy on this issue?
What the exact number or rate of population growth that we can maintain is uncertain but Australia has a definite carrying capacity which the government should be making more precise plans for.
And its always enlightening to see opinions such as Shebangabang’s above: Just build inland cities.
Funny stuff that.

paul says:

10:22am | 27/10/09

The more I read these tired old baby boomer articles from Liberal MPs the more I think the Libs still are stuck 1950ing with Howard. Where is the fresh new ideas neocons? Some political choices please. Jeez even Madonna reinvents herself.

Dylan says:

10:46am | 27/10/09

@Tim - the notion of a uniform ‘carrying capacity’ of people is, I think, based on two false premises - firstly, a misapprehension of the nature of infrastructure - it is not something whose rate of growth is exogenously and arbitrarily determined; it’s fundamentally demand-led and will always lag, particularly given our myopic aversion to more efficient (ie, user-pays) approaches to pricing. 

Simply put, I don’t think the line ‘the trains are full because there are two many migrants’ is a line that holds any water at all.  And I think Andrews knows that.

Secondly - as for the environment, the two constraints that are usually thrown about are water and carbon.  Carbon’s a global problem and our rate of immigration is pretty much irrelevant - there’s this line about that because we pollute more than the developing world we shouldn’t be letting more people in and thusly become rich westerners, but that only really works if we’re planning to keep the third world poor and underdeveloped.  The deep greens seem to think that’s a good idea, but I don’t think anyone whose not a bong-toting hippy will acknowledge that ‘keeping poor folk starving’ is not a legit approach to climate change.  So the carbon argument for keeping immigration volumes low is a furphy.

As for water - we have lots of the stuff.  We just waste it shamelessly.  Some of the modes of production on farm that go on at the moment are laughably unsuited to our real comparative advantage, and industry is going to have to adapt in the very near future - immigration or no.

So, Tim - if you genuinely believe Australia is close to full, fair enough, respect your opinion, all that - you probably won’t be persuaded by my views.  But I don’t.  And I don’t think Kevin Andrews really believes it either.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence - at all - that this is coming on the back of a fortnight of the conservatives singing loud and long about the yellow hoard at our doorstep in Indonesia.  They’re not connected as issues, you’re right - but this article from Andrews here is a pretty blatant attempt to conflate them.

Immigration made this country great.  And no society ever benefits in the long run from a government hellbent on micromanaging its development and growth.

Patrick says:

10:48am | 27/10/09

Australia obviously needs realistic immigration guidlines and this continent can only hold so mnay people before it becomes unsustainable to live here.

The problem here is the Andrews is pulling out baseless bullshit arguments about Immigrants being responsible for traffic congestion and public transport overcrowding, about how foreign workers are comming and stealing our jobs from true blue aussies hurr durrrr.

This is entirely reminicent of when Liep Gony, a sudanese immigrant, was murdered here in Melbourne. Andrews, backed up by a report in The Australian concluded he was murdered by a gang of sudanese youths and claimed that it was indicitive of Sudanese immigrants failing to assimilate into Australian society. Of course, we now know that Gony was murdered by some petty thug and his mate, who where both in fact Caucasian. This man is about dog whistling and stiring up resentment against immigrants. That or he just doesn’t think before he opens his mouth.

I don’t think the Coalition has quite realised that the majority of Australians are not fearfull of immigrants and people with different backgrounds, and that their whipping up of hysteria only worked in the shadow of 9/11.

Here’s al ittle fact sheet for those who prefer, well, facts over hysteria.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm

Davo says:

10:48am | 27/10/09

Our land is approximately the same size as the US, yet our population is 20 million compared to America’s 300 million. The UK, France and Germany have populations 3 times ours yet they are all dwarfed by the size of Western Australia. We can easily accomodate more people. In 20 years time, Melbourne will be our largest city yet it will still be small by international standards. We have room, people. There’s no reason why we can’t have 200 million people here within the next 100 years.

DG says:

10:49am | 27/10/09

There was a discussion about this exact point on ABC Radio on Sunday night. The two persons being interviewed wildly on the ideal population (one indicated 22-24million was ideal, while the other advocated for 35 million -both cited research for their proposition).

As someone living in a semi-rural area I don’t want the population to grow at all. the reason being that muppets are going to want to drive on the streets I use, increase the queues at my local supermarket, increase crowding on trains, increase pollution, increase demand for water, increase demand for food and other resources… need I go on?

I would rather work until the day that I die than have an ever increasing demand on the infrastructure and resources that I currently use. I mean, given the average life expectancy. I’d be accepting 40+ years of overcrowding so that I can spend less than 10 years retired.

It’s just not worth it.

Having said that, we live in the real world. People will keep breeding in whether or not they have food and potable water (Why? Because they can). The western world has a choice: Either spend money making these developing countries more hospitable (so that their population are willing to stay) or expect people to migrate.

Due to the “global community” people will continue to migrate looking for better life until we have achieved a natural, gloabal, Lowest Common Denominator. It’s only logical - if your neighbours are busily at war with the people in the next village, only an idiot would stay… where will they flee to? the best place possible. Why not? How many people flee TO war torn countries? countries without food and water? countries with no opportunity to acquire wealth? if you can get a better life in London, Singapore, Hong Kong or New York people will go.

The desire to have the best possible life inspires people to move - this is the way it always has been and always will be. There are two possible outcomes a lowest common denominator community or the use of physical force to retain ones current standard of living.

Wake up says:

10:49am | 27/10/09

Of all the migrants and refugees tha have come into Australia in the past 5 years how many are on welfare and how many are in full time employment? New migrants and refugees are brought to cpital cities and settl there. Never to the mining towns.
I drive around Melbourne and would be willing to bet there are more on welfare than there are working full time. Many of the employment opportunities that once existed have been exported. Empty factories and export businesses are replaced with units and we import as much as possible.
So why import people as migrants when the life we offer is completely different to the dream we sell them, multiculturalism is there to fund them remaining separate and not assimilating, there is little work and even less education to asist them to get a job.

Keith says:

10:53am | 27/10/09

Thos eof us old enough to know are well aware of a serious deterioration in the quality of life in Australia just in the last 30 years. Social friction is increasing , education and jobs on the decline , and the even the young are frightended. There has to be a debate on what Australians want - not politicians - and it has to be now.

Dani says:

11:33am | 27/10/09

Certainly don’t agree with the description of the govt as “hell-bent” on bringing more people to Australia, but in case you never were told this—we need immigrants for a myriad of reasons. First and foremost because we have a massive skills shortage at several levels of the employment chain - from labourers to doctors.
Obviously they erased your memory when the Libs lost the election.

Tim says:

11:34am | 27/10/09

@Dylan
Re: your point on Andrews, fair enough.
I don’t see Australia’s carrying capacity as a fixed amount but rather as fluid, rising with technological and social changes.
I think the water and power issue will become far more important in coming years. Fair enough we waste plenty at the moment but I just can’t see industry making the necessary changes in the short term, without extremely high costs and a reduction in quality of life for a lot of people.
I don’t think we are near capacity at the moment but i just wish the government would actually start taking the issue seriously and making plans for the future.

COF says:

11:38am | 27/10/09

We don’t need population policy to suit our infrastructure, we need infrastructure policy to suit our population.

As for the Tim Flannery argument, if the human carrying capacity of this continent is 6-7 million, then there is no possibility that 20 million could be reached. When applying ecological theory to humans, it is important to note that humans are much different from other animals. What do you think the carrying capacity of the Arabian peninsula is? I doubt Tim Flannery would say it was the 78 million people that live there.

In short,  I disagree in the Malthusian argument that population needs to be capped or controlled. Natural and uncontrolled population growth and dispursement allows for two things:
1. Natural genetic mixing which heightens the overall survival potential of the species against a Pandemic;
2. The maximum amount of people to be born. Is this not the most humanistic endeavour?

To have a population policy is to divert attention from more constructive policy.

Stevo says:

12:03pm | 27/10/09

One word, for me, settles it all: water!

We don’t have enough of it in this country, just like we don’t have enough topsoil of a quality to support food crops or much else. Cities and towns in many places are on stringent and ever tightening water restrictions. Humans need water, and there is a reason why desert areas are sparsely settled, no matter in which country you care to name.

Any debate about population “carrying capacity” needs to be based on water first and foremost. We live on the most arid populated continent by far (take note shabangabang) and cannot be compared to others on the basis of percentage of population occupying percentage of land.

Great Australian Geographer Griffith Taylor predicted early last century that Australia’s carrying capacity was 65 million and later reduced this to 20 million on ecological grounds. Given the population is marginally over that AND we are feeling it, I would suggest that he was amazingly insightful.

Immigration policy debate aside, when will people stop looking at this (very developed) country as a bottomless pit of resources and land without looking deeply at the quality and capacity of that land? Just as there is a reason why the continent didn’t support a population of Aborigines up to half a million for tens of thousands of years, it can’t support a population living as we do much beyond what we have now.

Bottom line: water and all that flows from it. We don’t have enough to keep on growing, no matter what.

RT says:

12:43pm | 27/10/09

Stevo: ‘One word, for me, settles it all: water!’ And one word says it all about water use in Australia - ‘waste’. There is plenty of water here to support a much larger population but not at the current wasteful useage levels. Australia is both the driest continent and the biggest user of water per capita in the world. We could have a larger population and maintain a great lifestyle with careful water use.

Mj says:

12:53pm | 27/10/09

Immigration is needed for Australia’s survival, otherwise we will become another Italy. A population growth is needed to stimulate the economy top to bottom, as more people are getting educated, we need people at ‘lower’ end or at specific skilled jobs to keep the domestic service economy stimulated. As population increases, houses will be built, roads built, more cleaners needed in bigger hospitals, etc, and more money in the domestic economy. This will also mean a greater demand for domestic services, like accountants, doctors, lawyers, etc. Without immigration, there will be no need for the educated, because there will be less demand for their services. With a lack of immigration, you will try to grow the economy with a diminishing workforce, it’s like trying to make a 100 bottles of tomato sauce with 1 tomato plant. Australia must take note of its past, immigration brought great growth, and only immigration will continue economic strength. Growth is scary, however if we don’t grow, we’ll all want to get on 30ft boat, as economic refugees.

James says:

01:10pm | 27/10/09

Rudd reckons 35 million sounds good. Australia maybe a big country, BUT we don’t have enough water for the population NOW! Most of our population have to live on the east coast.

Jane says:

01:26pm | 27/10/09

Anyone who says we have plenty of water here have got rocks in their head!

Alex says:

01:30pm | 27/10/09

RT says “Australia is both the driest continent and the biggest user of water per capita in the world.”

This is not true.  Canada and the USA have significantly higher per-capita usage than Australia.

It’s also disingenuous.  Australia has high water usage *because* it is dry.  The vast majority of that water usage is irrigation for agriculture.  Wetter continents use less irrigation because they need less.  Per-capita household usage has been steadily declining since the early 1990s.

Tim says:

01:32pm | 27/10/09

RT,
you can say we waste plenty of water if you count agricultural use as waste. I would say it is a necessary part of our economic base.

fitter says:

01:53pm | 27/10/09

Didn’t you lose the right to comment on anything to do with Immigration or policy relating to it, after the Haneef mess? The problem with the Howard government, and its cronies, sorry ministers, is that you guys are stuck in a white australia, 1950’s white picket fence mentality.  We’re all bored of guys like you and Ruddock (Mr Burns) pandering to the nationalistic, the old, and the racist.

Louis says:

02:01pm | 27/10/09

Our population is pretty good where it stands. we are a dry country. This whole immigration thing is just a socialist agenda. Lets make the world equal. Yes, lets lower our sandards and bring up those crappy countries around us. I don’t think so. we got it good and we need to know that!

For people like Tim. Stop voting labor get up and leave your closed city living come visit the REAL country and then try say something that stupid.

Kim says:

02:02pm | 27/10/09

Australias food bowl is drying up now, our droughts are getting worse. And Rudd on one hand is telling us it’s going to get worse and we need to tackle climate change. He also says Australias population should increase to about 35 million????mmmmm What will we give them to drink and how are we going water the extra vegies we will need to grow??and where will se grow them?

Dan says:

02:06pm | 27/10/09

Actually COF, surpassing the carrying capacity of land happens all the time in nature and in human societies as well. Look at the kangaroo population, they breed and breed in the good times and their numbers explode, then when there is a drought all the food is used up and most starve to death, or their numbers need to be controlled and you go off and protest that we are inhumane and that someone should do something. Same happened to Ethiopia in humans in the 1980’s.

As for Australia, I’m almost certain we could support 50 or even 60,000,000 people, but our environment will suffer, there will be less of our unique bush, more species will become extinct and endangered. What value do you put on that? Once a species is gone, it’s gone forever. But then I guess it’ll be all alright, I’m sure you’ll still be able to see a picture of one in a museum.

Peter says:

02:13pm | 27/10/09

One thing Australia needs is less people like Kevin Andrews. Why doesn’t he retire with some grace? His sole contribution to public life was to smear an innocent man as a terrorist, lock him up and hopefully win Howard an election. And didn’t that backfire big time. The only thing Andrews is good at is sticking his head in hair dye.

Tim says:

02:39pm | 27/10/09

@Louis.
Maybe you should read my comment again.

Shama says:

03:00pm | 27/10/09

When the English arrived in Australia, the land only supported about 200,000-500,000 aboriginies.  That number has significantly increased in 200+years for several reasons, by aboriginal reckoning the land has been overstretched for all this time and we should all head back home.  So why then can’t Australia increase its population further and be sustainable and what is there to say that the new wave of immigrants won’t bring benefits to the country? Really its quite tiresome when a nation where most people are descended from immigrants gets so parochial about immigrantion - as a friend who can trace his origins back to the First Fleet says it takes but two generations in this country for people to start wanting to keep new immigrants out.

Re water what is shocking is that people in a dry country have never picked up a broom to sweep the driveway but feel the need to hose down the driveway. With such practices even one person more will be one too many for this country.  The problem isn’t as much about water as wanting to retain the right to use up gazillions per farmer per person.

Chade says:

03:16pm | 27/10/09

Two words, Andrew: baby bonus. Complete and utter hypocrisy.

If I described what the basis of this article was, I doubt my comment would be approved.

RT says:

03:25pm | 27/10/09

Tim, I count waste as waste, whatever the water is used for. Water used for agriculture is OK. Water wasted for agriculture is not.

COF says:

03:35pm | 27/10/09

Dan
“surpassing the carrying capacity of land happens all the time in nature and in human societies as well. Look at the kangaroo population, they breed and breed in the good times and their numbers explode, then when there is a drought all the food is used up and most starve to death, or their numbers need to be controlled and you go off and protest that we are inhumane and that someone should do something. Same happened to Ethiopia in humans in the 1980’s.”

Your carrying capacity example with kangaroos is an example of how the carrying capacity itself is subject to change (through the drought cycle). The larger population of Kangaroos is supported because the carrying capacity of the land is increased. Once the carrying capacity decreases, Kangaroos die off. If the carrying capacity is overstepped I don’t think it is ever for very long and never by a large percentage. Thats the way I studied it anyway.
Your Ethiopia example rather simplifies the Ethiopian crisis - there were a lot of political factors that affected that crisis. Ethiopia has been described as having the potential to be “the breadbasket for much of Europe if its agriculture was better organised”
See this in
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0005.html#

With regards to the protesting comment, I don’t know what you take me for, but I have never protested the culling of Kangaroos.

Here’s the point I was making mate. It seems that political figures such as Kevin Andrews et al, Labor or Liberal doesn’t matter, would rather make their job easier by placing limitations on population growth rather than managing the country’s resources properly, and heavily investing in infrastructure. It’s the weak way out. What if such population control policy were in vogue around the time you or I were born? There is every chance you or I would not exist. What right has a government to determine that in a free society?

If the government would concentrate on being effective rather than trying to appear effective, then we would not have to worry about the environment, just as it is in Ethiopia.

And to the water people, a quick question - does water dissapear once it is used? How has the Earth’s concentration of water changed since the dawn of humans?

Jack from Perth says:

03:41pm | 27/10/09

Krudd won’t be happy until we have 1/6 of the world’s population and all speak mandorin

Gavin says:

03:50pm | 27/10/09

Yep, just bring em all in. There is enough dole and medicare for the whole world down under!

Guvner says:

03:54pm | 27/10/09

Someone will have to bite the bullet eventually and put an end to immigration completely, i realise this will have a devastating effect on our economy and way of life but there is no option besides outlawing giving birth. If Australia’s population will grow to 35 million what will it be 50 years after that and fifty more after that? It has to stop or level out somewhere or the human race will be housed in a tent city as far as the eye can see.

Tim says:

04:06pm | 27/10/09

@RT,
what water would you consider to be wasted then? In what industries and how is it wasted?
@COF,
I would say easily accessible and usable water would be what we are talking about, otherwise you could say the oceans provide all the water we will ever need. Water wont disappear but it may change into a less accessible form.

Russell says:

04:34pm | 27/10/09

Why don’t the Greens want to cap population? Well, they do, but gingerly side step the issue for a couple of reasons:
1) It gets them into bed with the anti-immigration mob
2) and the racists
3 and eventually the real nutters like the eugenics mob
Then the big one – there aren’t many acceptable methods to arrange a population cull, at least within a democracy. Compulsory euthanasia? Mass sterilisation? Abortion actively promoted? There is Pol Pots method yes, but come on you “we must reduce our population” lot. Tell us how you propose to do it?

Dan says:

04:36pm | 27/10/09

COF says ‘Once the carrying capacity decreases, Kangaroos die off. If the carrying capacity is overstepped I don’t think it is ever for very long and never by a large percentage. Thats the way I studied it anyway.

Actually I think you need to go back to study on that point, once the carrying capacity is exceeded the Kangaroo’s keep eating and breeding until there is absolutely nothing left, then they all starve and maybe a few will survive or move….it’s not pretty. It doesn’t really matter how long it lasts, once they are dead they are dead. As for my barb about protesting about roo culling, I’m just frustrated by arguments put forward by protesters who seem to think starving to death is more humane than culling.

As for government being efficient….I had to laugh….That is an awfully big IF! When as any government ever been efficient!?! It’s just not possible! I know that Kevin Andrews is simply using this debate as a way to try and get at labour, it doesn’t mean I can’t agree with him on this point.

So I guess our only disagreement is that you think we should maintain our immigration rate in the hope government will become efficient, reduce waste AND protect our environment, where as I don’t think it is even possible for our government to be efficient and I don’t think the will is there to either reduce waste or protect the environment and form my opinion on immigration policy accordingly.

COF says:

04:44pm | 27/10/09

“Water wont disappear but it may change into a less accessible form. ” That’s right Tim, but do you think the solution is in population control or the provision of services to make it more accessible? I think the latter. I think there is no excuse for population control policy, even the “limited water resources” argument.
Feel free to tell me if you believe I’m full of it, I can handle it.

Carl Palmer says:

04:52pm | 27/10/09

Our forefathers / leaders had a vision of the future for this great country and set a course on building what we have today.

They needed resources i.e. labourers to meet the demands that the infrastructure projects required and the only way that could be met was thru immigration and lots of them. Supply and demand if you will.

So, what bold initiatives do we have today which are the result of the previous or current administrations?? What bold plans do we have for water, power, infrastructure, agriculture? We know we are the driest country on the planet what are we doing about it. Can we turn this around and make it a strength rather than a weakness.

What skills do we require and do we have them here in our back yard. If there is say a plan to build a super fast train between Sydney – Canberra – Melbourne, do we have the necessary skills and if not, where will they come from.

We need our elected members to lead this country forward and if along the way they need to step on a few toes then for god sake stamp on them and get moving.

We talk about infrastructure and congestion on our roads yet our forefathers build one huge bridge in Sydney nearly EIGHTY years ago which to this very day almost supports all of our transport needs for that area. In 1930 the Aust pop 6.5Mil and today we have approx 22Mil.  Do we possess those visionary leaders today??

Andrew and this is not only to you but also to your colleagues past and present, I think you have the cart in front of the horse. An organisation (country?) should only put people on if they are growing. The more they grow the more people they will need and therefore employ either locally or via immigration.

An immigration plan therefore needs to dovetail into an overall plan that encapsulates where we are going what we are going to do and what we need to make it happen and yes it needs to be flexibile to adapt as circumstances change. Debating an immigration plan in isolation is meaningless unless we are talking about the replacement population rate or fulfilling our global responsibilities in the area of genuine refugees both of which are mathematical calculations.

paul says:

05:00pm | 27/10/09

@jimmy most growth I’ve seen, and seen accerlerate in the last 20 years, is SOLELY based on poor planning and management. Yes we have a diminishing workforce issue to solve but rationally not dramatically. But I return to my original growth-as-religon point: growth under the Libs was a ‘she’ll be right mate’ approach; under Labor it’s a faith based policy after guessing a 35 number   @tim water use/wastage figures for Sydney are on the net and high. Water recapture and recycling is miniscule.

Peter of Adelaide says:

06:30pm | 27/10/09

Yes it is true that we have a landmass of about the size of America, what we don’t have is the rainfall on most of that land mass, making it much harder for ‘civilization’ to flourish.  Can we make better use of the available water?  You bet, first thing is to remove rice farming from Australia, that is a waste of water.  We can import it cheaper then we can grow it - or so i am lead to believe.

Do we need to monitor the population?  Once again yes.  Do we need to reduce the population?  Probably not, but in my opinion, redistribute it, spread it out a bit.  Perhaps for migrants a point system (mock me later), if a migrant has skills needed now in their chosen preferred area of settlement then more points, if not lower points.  Depending on the total points this is where we need you to settle.  I know it doesn’t sound fair on the face of it, but before you mock me think about it ... then mock me.  lol.

Been unemployed for a while?  Perhaps its time you also re-located to an area where you skills are needed.

For any given area there is only so many people that can live there, in a sustainable way, that does not rely on importing in everything.  What we have to do as a country is to honestly look and determine what is truly sustainable for a given area.  Less people can live in central Australia then can live along the Murray-Darling catchment.  As such the capacity of each area will be different.  Also to consider is the natural flora and fauna, we are not the only inhabitants, and living in a way so as not to destroy them should also be a consideration.

We could in theory house the entire surface of Australia, if we so chose, but I would not really want to live in that Australia, we could all move out of Australia to preserve the Flora and Fauna, but I like it here.  A balance needs to be put in place, and proper immigration guidelines.

Population increase for the sake of population increase serves nobody in the long term, only some in the short term. We need not just the Government to stand tall and do what is right for the country, but the population also needs to stand tall and say in effect ‘We will do what is best for Australia, and not what only benefits me’

Mock away at some of my previous comments.

Skorpion says:

04:23am | 28/10/09

How did we ever survive with just 15mil people?

Bob H says:

05:17pm | 28/10/09

I’ve always understood that the increase in population is needed to finance our growing number of older Australians.  If we put a cap on population then we need to think about euthanasing anyone 70+

Peter of Adelaide says:

06:51pm | 28/10/09

In part yes, but with superannuation, GST, Excises, and so on, the government is having to pay much less overall then you might think.  While yes many are retiring, many of those are fully or partially self financed, and many are staying on in employment longer in order to get the best Super outcome as is possible.  Which is what the Super push is all about, the more you have the better off you and the Government will be.

Euthanising otherwise healthy individuals just on age is silly, but might unfortunately become an all to real reality, and more is the pity.  But this particular topic is one for another time.

Vivienne says:

08:45am | 05/11/09

Anti-immigration and racism are two different things.  People against immigration, unless they want to bar particular races, are not “racist”.  This is a ploy our government is using to silent us.  We are toppling over sustainable records, and our environmental issues and loss of biodiversity are evidence that our numbers are too high already.  If the existing population in Australia are being burdened by excessive immigration, then who is benefiting?  A business elite, governments (more taxes) and the immigrants themselves?

Mark says:

05:47pm | 01/02/10

Guys leave Kev alone if this is his opinion then let him have it yes it may be a little jumping on the band wagon sounding along the way but he has raised many good points as well. Also the fact that he doesn’t want to decrease the amount of people immigrating but just keep it at the same levels is a good thing leave him alone or voice your own opinion just as well okay

Don Clark says:

08:55pm | 01/02/10

Mr Andrews has misrepresented the state of migration to Australia and conveniently forgets to mention by how much net migration was allowed to continue increasing over the term of the former conservative Government of which he was a member.

Sadly for him the facts are part of the national store of information held impartially by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

His performance as a senior member of the conservative side of politics is not good enough, and consistently poor: learnt nothing in Government, and nothing in Opposition either.

And on our time and money too.