Harleyman Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 This is where I USED to live This is where I live now If only my English O/H was interested in moving I was wrong about Brindabella - it is Anna Creek Station - it is a bit smaller than Belgium, but larger than Wales. There is also a MASSIVE shortage of water. Last time I was there (Christmas 2008), people were driving dirtbikes through the dustbowl which used to be one of the biggest water catchments for Melbourne..... nothing but dust now. Factors that could also be why the population is low - Drought Massive bushfires as a yearly occurance Floods Looking at those pictures it doesn't seem half bad where you live now either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I have, that's one of the reasons there are valid controls on immigration to the UK. But I think you're missing my point, since Aborigines have lived in Australia for over 40,000 years and European settlers only 150 years, it seems a little disingenuous for others to be championing Australia's immigration policy and referring to 'their country', when it was formulated by relatively recent immigrants and their offspring and had little input from native Australians. My comments were in context to the post I was responding to. So you think that people who can trace their roots back furthest in a particular land should have greater input to its policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 So you think that people who can trace their roots back furthest in a particular land should have greater input to its policies. Not necessarily. As I said my comment was in context to the post I was responding to: Australia is indeed a massive place. It is also their massive place. Why will they have to allow more people in? Who has the right to make them allow more people in? My house (a bit smaller than a country - but it's mine.) My rules. I don't have to allow people to move into my house. Their country. Their rules. They don't have to allow people to move into their country. Your country. Your rules. Anybody can move into the UK (but then again, you did elect the government which allows that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Oz may only have a population of 23m compared with our 61m but the growth rate is 2% pa against our 0.7% pa. By my calculations, Oz should overtake us in population by 2087 when they both top 100m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Not necessarily. As I said my comment was in context to the post I was responding to: In which case the fact that SOME Aborigines may have lived in Australia 40,000 years ago has no relevance whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 In which case the fact that SOME Aborigines may have lived in Australia 40,000 years ago has no relevance whatsoever. I'm not sure why you're labouring this point, or responded to my reply to Rupert's post. Native Australians pre-date the European settlers in Australia-they did not vote or agree on the arrival of those settlers. Whether that's right or not or who 'owns' the country I wasn't debating, I was simply pointing out the flaws in Rupert's argument if you follow his logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stvoider Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Dunnoh if it's been mentioned but I'm gonna go with - Too hot to rut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Austrailia has a population of under 23 million compared to the UK which is under 62 million (or is it lol). Why are their immigration rules so tight? The way the world is growing they will have to allow more people in at some stage. Australia is a massive place. It is areally large but 89% land area is semi -arid or worse.Most live in littoral strip and the interior is largely empty.Think why Antarctica has apopulation of 10,000 and yet is cotinental in size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 exactly the same proportion of Australians - 90% - live in cities as people do in the UK. It's by far the most urbanized of the world's mega large countries. Next is Brazil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 That's the most credible answer, most of it is uninhabitable desert. But wasn't Vegas built on a similar location? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.