Australia's Population

[Julia]

There's a fair bit of discussion at present about whether Australia should be aiming for substantial population growth, e.g. suggested to be around 35 million by 2050.

Some of the reason offered by those in favour of this (eg the government, and I think supported by Mr Abbott) is the need to boost the tax base to pay for the ageing population.

I've only heard a couple of commentators suggest the compulsory Super rate should be increased, and then only to 12%.
I agree with Paul Keating that it should be pushed up to 15%, thus eventually reducing the dependence on the age pension. I'd also go along with the rule that at least part of that Super would have to be taken as an allocated pension so that people don't just blow the lot at retirement age and then seek the government pension.

Even with the existing population, most States are building expensive desalination plants to provide an adequate water supply. This will make water expensive to householders and business.

Then we have congested cities and transport systems.

And that's before you start considering the woeful state of the health system.

So, I'm interested to have ASF members' views about the ideal population level and why.

How feasible would it be to decentralise from our major cities?
Are people going to be happy to move inland, away from the desirable coastal locations, and is it going to be worth building all the necessary infrastructure to encourage this?

If not, surely our major cities are going to be a nightmare to live in in another couple of decades?

 

[So_Cynical]

surely our major cities are going to be a nightmare to live in in another couple of decades?

Sydney is already nightmare-ish and could only take another 1 million max and that would still require some major rail, road and water upgrades....a population of 35 million would require planning and developing a regional super city somewhere around wagga - Albury, and some sort of tax break (incentive) for people living in the rural areas.

A population of 35 mill would also require the mass development of Thorium based power plants considering all the extra power that would be required for desal and water recycling plants.

 

[Mr J]

Something to consider is that we do not live in a technologically static environment, and future technology will change the way we live. Maybe it will be normal by that stage for people to work from home? Maybe medical advances will see retirement age pushed back much further? Maybe we'll become far more efficient in our use of natural resources? We can't seriously consider this a problem yet, because we have no idea of how the world will change in the next four decades. My guess is that it will change a lot :.

 

[bellenuit]

I suspect both major parties are in favour of a much larger population because they still give weight to, but not voice to, the "populate or perish" argument.

 

[bellenuit]

Clearly the tropical north should be able to sustain a huge population as it is no different to tropical Asia which has massive population, though not living to a standard that we would accept.

If there is a fear ("populate or perish") that we should populate our north before our neighbours do it for us, then maybe we should offer incentives for people to live in the north. It is not unheard of. Before the Berlin Wall came down, people were given incentives to live in West Berlin. I can't recall if it was a cash incentive or a reduced tax rate, but it was worth two or three thousand DM to me when I lived there.

Perhaps building the required infrastructure in the north and only maintaining, but not expanding, the infrastructure in the south would over time make it more attractive to live up there. It would probably be politically impossible though.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Australia is wonderfully blessed with multiple environments within the one country. I have been to every state and territory and could easily live in any of the warm places of Australia.

I notice vacant land is plentiful though likely crown land or unused private property. There is enough space for a billion people in Australia, give or take a few million. As a member of the human population, and annoyed by this fact sometimes, I think exponential human population growth is the wrong path the species is taking.

We are large consumers and we consume what we don't need. This leaves a large trail of waste growing just as quickly as the populations. Compared to the raw beauty of a natural environment, human presence is like a leper colony. We move in, strip it bare, and establish an environment built out of concrete, steel, glass, bitumen, plastic etcetera.

So I do not understand why the population of Australia, let alone any country, can't remain at present levels or even allowed to reduce. The structure of societies today still require the necessities of life and the infrastructure in place can accommodate that need.

If anyone can offer a well grounded reason as to why Australia's population needs to grow exponentially then it would certainly be for reasons hypothetical to say the least.

 

[Mr J]

So I do not understand why the population of Australia, let alone any country, can't remain at present levels or even allowed to reduce.

Completely agree, but if we did I imagine that at some point we would be forced by others to accept immigrants from overpopulated countries. On the other hand, maybe the world will cut off supply to Africa etc and turn a blind eye.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Completely agree, but if we did I imagine that at some point we would be forced by others to accept immigrants from overpopulated countries. On the other hand, maybe the world will cut off supply to Africa etc and turn a blind eye.

Just one word as to why worldwide "endless" rapid population growth will continue unabated..

That word is - "Politicians"

For as long as some members of the human race covet power and glory above all else, they will always desire a larger population base from which to draw taxes and form armies to play with.

He/she who has control of the the biggest economy/population/army usually wins.

It's basic human nature.

Unfortunately.



aj

 

[gooner]

Clearly the tropical north should be able to sustain a huge population as it is no different to tropical Asia which has massive population, though not living to a standard that we would accept.

If there is a fear ("populate or perish") that we should populate our north before our neighbours do it for us, then maybe we should offer incentives for people to live in the north. It is not unheard of. Before the Berlin Wall came down, people were given incentives to live in West Berlin. I can't recall if it was a cash incentive or a reduced tax rate, but it was worth two or three thousand DM to me when I lived there.

Perhaps building the required infrastructure in the north and only maintaining, but not expanding, the infrastructure in the south would over time make it more attractive to live up there. It would probably be politically impossible though.

Most of the tropical north is aboriginal land. Are you proposing to steal it again?

Personally, I think we have enough people. Water problems, pollution problems, overpriced housing etc etc. Time to cut the migrant intake, particularly the so called "skilled" intake which gives us lots of cooks and hairdressers. Family reunions should be allowed as most of these are Australians marrying non-Australians and seems very hard nosed to stop that.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Along with greater population comes greater dysfunctionality. The mental illnesses gang together and walk the streets. Crime and drug abuse grows proportionately with increased population. In small towns there will be a low percentage of dysfunctionals but go to any big city and walk the streets for a few days and nights and observe the number of nutters, both working types and undesirables, that are wound up and ready to pop or are in the process of popping.

We don't have to go down the same path as other countries but the desire to populate regardless of future earthly demands may be an overwhelming imprint in the majority of people.

 

[Airfireman]

It will be difficult to stop population growth, with medical advances we will live for longer, more great great grandads????!!!!!!!!!!

 

[satanoperca]

Please read Future Eaters by Tim Flannery, all the answers are in there.

Our populations should not be increased unless you wish a decease in the great standard of living that Australia has to offer.

Increasing population results in an increase in polution and carbon, not good for the environment.

If we close off all the borders to imports of food, are we self sustainable or will we become like Japan and dependant on food imports to stop the people from starvation.

Do we have enough fresh water to support even larger populations or are we to become dependant on desal plants and further increases in emissions.

I for one are glad that a great Australian, Dick Smith has come out rallying against huge population increases.

Cheers

 

[Trembling Hand]

If we close off all the borders to imports of food, are we self sustainable or will we become like Japan and dependant on food imports to stop the people from starvation.

We export 60% of the food we produce. What we import is usually specialised products or out of season.

 

[vincent191]

We have an aging population problem. In 10 years there won't be enough taxpayers to support the baby boomers who will be reaching retirement age.

The easy solution is to find more taxpayers. Migration is the easy way out. It creates an instant army of ready made taxpayers. Some one else have paid for their childhood expenses like education and Australia reaps the instant benefits of productivity and taxes.

Again it has it's pros & cons, we have been through this before after the war and we saw a huge big influx of migrants from Europe mainly from Greece & Italy. The Snowy River scheme won't have been built without migrant labour.

 

[kwallace]

The easy solution is to find more taxpayers. Migration is the easy way out. It creates an instant army of ready made taxpayers. Some one else have paid for their childhood expenses like education and Australia reaps the instant benefits of productivity and taxes.

But that only works if they have a job.......

 

[noirua]

Again it has it's pros & cons, we have been through this before after the war and we saw a huge big influx of migrants from Europe mainly from Greece & Italy. The Snowy River scheme won't have been built without migrant labour.

Australia needs migrants willing to tough it in the outback, real outback that is, not Kal.

 

[Wysiwyg]

We export 60% of the food we produce. What we import is usually specialised products or out of season.

Australia also imported 64.9% food in agricultural products in 2007.

 

[Trembling Hand]

Australia also imported 64.9% food in agricultural products in 2007.

And your point? mine is that we have plenty of food production capacity. it may not cover everything we want because other do specialization of some thing better/cheaper/right time but Oz hasn't got a huge supply problem with food.

 

[vincent191]

Then obviously the answer is to only bring in those who are willing & able to work and are readily employable. That way they will pay their fair share of taxes and pay for the infrastructure needs of a growing nation.

Australia must not stay stagnant, we must progress but it must be planned. Whatever we do, we don't need dole bluggers and unemployable people who go straight onto welfare!!!!

 

[Bushman]

The Greens are out today supporting a cut in the skilled migrant intake.

Would be unpopular with our legion of middle class home 'owners' with migration boosting all those home values out there. Kerplunk. There is no way the powers that be will allow this ponzi to pop.