Immigration Dept seeks online comment re The 2015-16 Migration Programme - ends today 5 December

[Candobetter.net Editor: This comment, originally entitled, "Comment submitted", has been retitled to be more indicative of content] The cost of the migration program which has been in place more or less for the last 10-15 years, that is, the significant increase in migration since approximately the year 2000 has a cost to Australia which is consistently underestimated and understated. Most Australians not only feel the migration rate is too high, but are concerned due to the negative developments and trends that this has created, which appear to continue unabated. In that time, demand for housing has consistently outstripped supply, pushing prices up. It seems inconceivable that increasing demand for houses has not had an upwards pressure on home prices as some would state. This contradicts basic economic theory. As a result, discretionary expenditure in households has decreased. In addition to this, population pressures are very clearly evident in terms of infrastructure, transport, schools and the health system. With a declining economy, Australia is in a poorer position to make up for the infrastructure shortfall, and it appears that conditions within Australia's major cities will fall further behind. Australia should adopt a very low migration rate, perhaps a zero net migration rate in order to allow infrastructure to catch up with demand. Unfortunately, bringing in more tax payers has had the opposite intended effect, in that the benefit from migration is delayed, whereas the cost is immediate, and Australia cannot absorb any further cost. With declining housing affordability, stagnating wages, increasing government and private debt, it seems clearly evident that using population growth to achieve prosperity is demonstrably failing, despite the theoretical benefits, which seem to remain theoretical. Australian GDP per capita seems to be stagnating, with our GDP growth therefore coming from an increase in population rather than increase in productive ability. This is not economically sustainable. The massive increase in immigration since the late 90's seem to be poorly justified, is perceived (likely correctly) to be to inflate labour supply and the housing market, and is exceptionally high as compared to other first world countries. With increasing unemployment, the 'skills shortage' argument seems less and less plausible. Training of local talent would be far preferred and in the long run economically beneficial as retraining local talent doesn't require investment in infrastructure for an additional person. The population growth rates that Australia has, are higher than almost all other first world countries, and is comparable to countries which suffer from low standards of living and poor public services. Lastly, rapid demographic and culture change has caused social issues when implemented in Western European nations, which has culminated in the rise of far right parties and increasing division. Sensible and restrained migration programs, sensitive to the needs of current citizens are required to avoid these potentialities.