WORRIED about our population growth? Suck it up, Australia. Our nation needs open borders and a growing population whether we like it or not.

This is the message from an unlikely new trinity of big business, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and ethnic community groups.

They’ve joined forces in signing and releasing a joint “National Compact on Permanent Migration” document to stop our migrant intake from being slashed, The Australian reports.

Under the current intake program, our population is expected to jump from 24 million today to over 36 million by 2050.

Is this good or bad? Depends who you ask.

On one hand, the 10-point policy document, spearheaded by the Migration Council, argues Australia’s permanent migration program is “essential to Australian society and our economy”.

“This historic national compact brings together civil society, business and our union movement in shared tripartite commitment to migration as part of Australia’s future,” the document says.

“We affirm that Australia’s permanent migration program is essential to Australian society and our economy and do not support any reduction to the scheme.”

On the other hand, a number of prominent politicians and commentators have called for a massive rethink of how many people we bring in — with serious consequences if we don’t.

‘KEEP THE MIGRANT SCHEME AS IT IS’

A renewed conversation around population growth was sparked in February, when former prime minister Tony Abbott called for our migrant intake to be slashed from 190,000 to 110,000.

He cited “stagnant wages”, “clogged infrastructure”, “soaring house prices” and “ethnic gangs” as the reasons for his stance.

“It’s a basic law of economics that increasing the supply of labour depresses wages; and that increasing demand for housing boosts price,” he said.

Signatories to the new compact — which included the Migration Council of Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of ­Social Service, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia and the Settlement Council of Australia — rejected this argument.

They said migrants “bring relationships, knowledge, skills and social capital that ensure Australia’s economy is well-placed”, arguing that “the successive settlement of millions of people ranks among Australia’s greatest achievements as a nation”.

Dr Liz Allen, a demographer at the Australian National University argued that our current migration intake is perfect for economic growth — that is, it should be no more and no less.

“Evidence shows that the optimal level for Australia, given the population characteristics, is between 160,000 and 210,000,” she told news.com.au in February.

“If we were to look at the net effects of the contribution to the economy, Australia benefits and gains more from migrants than migrants draw from Australia.”

Several of Mr Abbott’s own colleagues echoed this view.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton — whose original comments on the migrant intake last week inspired this whole discussion — dismissed Mr Abbott’s concerns at the time, saying: “We’ve got the settings right.”

Treasurer Scott Morrison rejected Mr Abbott’s plan as a $1 billion-a-year folly, saying it was a case of “cutting off your nose to spite your face”.

“If you cut the level of permanent immigration by 80,000 it would cost the Budget, it would hit the bottom line — the deficit — by $4 billion to $5 billion over the next four years,” he said.

At a Sydney Institute annual dinner last night, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said the state’s “current level of migration is about right”.

Sydney’s population is projected to grow from 5.4 million to 8 million by 2050.

While she called for more official meetings and conversations around the issue of immigration and planning, the Premier said: “If we want to continue to prosper as a state and as a nation, we cannot underestimate the benefits that successive waves of immigration have brought to our nation’s work ethic, skills, talent and energy from all over the world.

THE CASE FOR SLASHING OUR MIGRANT INTAKE

While several of Mr Abbott’s colleagues dismissed his argument, he did have a number of public supporters.

The Sustainable Australia Party warned of massive road tolls, unaffordable housing and cars, and major environmental impacts if we didn’t rethink our migrant intake.

“This is not just 36 million by 2050,” party founder William Bourke told news.com.au in March. “We’re talking about a population of 80 to 100 million people by the end of the 21st century.”

READ MORE: Sustainable Australia’s grim vision of 2050

In a similar vein, former NSW Premier Bob Carr questioned whether our current intake would lead to “rationed access” to walking trails along the coast.

“Do you have fences and turnstiles? When the population around Bondi, for example, reaches the sort of intensified level that means the roads are choked most days in summer, do you start to ration access to the coastal walking trails along the coast?” he said on Four Corners.

“And down the national park? Fences, turnstiles, online ticketing. I mean, that’s the sort of dystopia that we can see coming at us through the mist.”

Likewise entrepreneur Dick Smith has long campaigned for Australia to reduce its population.

“It’s just an absolute disaster for our children and grandchildren,” Mr Smith told news.com.au late last year.

“It will destroy Australia as we know it today. We’re going to end up like the US where you have something like 50 million people on the dole who will never have a job,” he said. ‘It’s just complete madness. With automation and robotics there will be fewer meaningful jobs. We’ll end up just being a nation selling coffee to each other.”

While mass immigration boosts the overall GDP figure and makes politicians “look as if they are doing well”, we “don’t have growth per capita”.

“There’s no doubt, it’s not accidental,” Mr Smith said.

“We’re in complete control of our immigration rate. With an economic system that requires perpetual growth, this is the way of getting it. The only other way is hard work, getting better productivity.”