Australia's Future Population

[Briedis]

One argument that many anti-immigration people use is that a high intake of refugees and immigrants will cause a decrease in the living standards of people in Sydney and Melbourne as these two cities will become overcrowded.

And it is a point worth considering. Statistics show that most new Australians do settle in these two cities as that is where most of the opportunities are.

What is the solution?

What I think needs to happen is that the government really needs to develop a long-term plan for managing the inevitable increase of migrants and refugees that Australia will have to take in. This population growth should be seen as a positive thing for our country. The US has become one of the strongest nations in the world through immigration and there is no reason why Australia could not do the same if our politicians had a bit more long-term thought.

Over-population is a hard problem to solve and I reckon it would be better to start planning for it now and begin to build the required infrastructures to allow other urban centres in Australia to accept new Australians. For instance, we need to plan how we will get clean water to new urban areas, how to create stable economies so that people can live in these new areas.

Maybe it's not possible to engineer a population like this, maybe it is something that just has to happen and the government will just react at the time. But if the history of Australian governements is anything to go by that will mean it will be a fairly desperate situation beofre any major undertaking is done.

I suggest that the government put together a "Population Summit" and discuss the future plans for Australia and it's people.

 

[BSA]

I would disagree with the notion that more migrants into SydMelb decreases living standards.

more people = more money because the local economy gets larger with more people.

Sydney is not only the largest city in Australia, but also the richest - thats no accident.

However, its a valid arguemnet to say that things like overcrowding and strained infrastructures are a consequence of migrants pouring into these cities.

The "Ghetto" phenonenom is also one thats talked about alot.

But look closer - Problems of overcrowding are simply non-existant in comparison to other countries.

Its a cultural thing - we baulk at seeing families of six in small apratments. Thats simply because thats not been the traditional Australian way of life.

Any other way of living besides our own naturally causes us anxiety (fear and loathing really) so we invent a series of falsehoods and them turn them into given fact.

There is no overcrowding - to suggest so is just a joke really.

Same with ghettoism really - Sure if you go down to Hurstville or somewhere like that its hard to see an Anglo Saxon face in the crowd or a shop sign thats not written in Cantonese, BUT closer examination of the demographic data reveals that even in places such as Hurstville or Cabramatta the percentage of non-European people is around 30 percent - if that.

Ghettos ? - I don't think so

sorry Briedis - I don't mean to sidetrack your thread

cheers

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

send them to Tassie and Adelaide....or the bush...

seriously....

Adelaide's population is at best stable....its economy is growing more slower than elsewhere as the population ages and shrinks. So, got some skills ??? Want to move to Australia....no worries....but you must live in Adelaide for the 1st 5 years and be under 35.....with kids.

Adelaide could take 50,000 immigrants a year, increasing the demand for houses, schools, teachers, everything. We used to do this but now it seems taboo ???

VM

 

[jim boy]

Policies still exist for promoting migrants, such as the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme and State/Territory Nominated Independent Scheme. But these schemes have been ineffective and Sydney especially will remain the destination of choice.

Certainly rural and regional Australia is suffering, and migration may help by bringing in new skills and new money. But if Australian born people don't want to live in regional Australia, then I don't know that migrants will be want to either. It also doesn't help that the above mentioned schemes demand vocational rather than basic English.

Australia is suffering a population problem, but it isn't overcrowding. Australia does not have a birth rate that maintains the current level of population. And the rest of the world is heading that way as well. Many if not all countries are reducing in birth rate. In 1950 the average woman had 5 children, that's now dropped to 2.7. Even population factory countries such as India and Bangladesh have seen massive reductions and may soon drop below the majic figure of 2.1 births per female. The world population will age and young immigrants will be absolutely a vluable commodity.

Best to start stocking up now.

 

[fabulousphil]

Originally posted by Jim Boy
Australia is suffering a population problem, but it isn't overcrowding. Australia does not have a birth rate that maintains the current level of population. And the rest of the world is heading that way as well. Many if not all countries are reducing in birth rate. In 1950 the average woman had 5 children, that's now dropped to 2.7. Even population factory countries such as India and Bangladesh have seen massive reductions and may soon drop below the majic figure of 2.1 births per female. The world population will age and young immigrants will be absolutely a vluable commodity.

Best to start stocking up now.

Where do you propose these young migrants will come from, im hoping that the government makes it easier for working mothers to start or have larger families such as paid maternity leave etc, etc, etc.

Ive heard that compared to europe our birth rate is enough to keep our population steady and call me selfish but i dont want to see Oz with a huge pop like USA i like our wide brown land to stay relatively empty.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

I don't see how increasing immigration would reverse the aging of the population. But what it would do in future is create more age pensioners which in turn, using those arguments, would mean the number of migrants needed would continue to spiral up and up. And our roads, public transport system, water etc can't handle it.

 

[Philip Ruddock]

Australia's 2002-03 Migration Program will be the largest and most highly skilled in over a decade, with a planning level set in the range of 100,000 to 110,000 places.

The highly targeted Program would help ensure skill shortages did not hold back the Australian economy as it moved into another phase of strong growth. The Program will continue to be a central contributor to the economic and social development of Australia. At the mid-point, the 2002-03 Migration Program will be 12,000 places higher than the 2001-02 Migration Program which has a projected outcome of 93,000.

The bulk of the increase will be in the Skill Stream, which will have 60,700 places, compared to the projected record of 53,500 places for 2001-02. The Skill Stream at the mid-point of the program planning range (105,000 places) will be 58 per cent of the total program, a significant increase from 29 per cent of the Program in 1995-96.

The Program would be maintained at between 100,000 and 110,000 for each of the next four financial years, barring exceptional circumstances. This will provide additional certainty to decision-makers in both the public and private sectors regarding immigration levels and the impact of these on population trends.

The larger Programs for the next four years have only become possible due to the major reforms the Government has progressively introduced over the past six years. These have ensured the Program has integrity and has a positive impact on Australian living standards, improves income equality and has a highly beneficial impact on Commonwealth and State budgets.

The pass mark for all independent skilled applications received will be increased by five points, which will further improve the beneficial impact of this category. This would also provide the opportunity to increase the relative attractiveness of existing and other possible measures to improve the dispersal of the intake to regional Australia. I am also taking some further immigration initiatives to assist the entry of nurses to Australia.

The Family Stream will also benefit, with the provision of 43,200 places, the biggest number since 1996-97 and an increase of over 5,000 on this year's likely outcome. The Family Stream would meet legitimate family needs of Australians consistent with ensuring the bona fides of all applicants.

In addition, 4,000 places in a full year remains available for parent migration should there be support from opposition parties to allow legislation to ensure a fair share of health and welfare costs is covered by a parent and the Australian sponsor compared to taxpayers in general.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by fabulousphil


Where do you propose these young migrants will come from, im hoping that the government makes it easier for working mothers to start or have larger families such as paid maternity leave etc, etc, etc.

Ive heard that compared to europe our birth rate is enough to keep our population steady and call me selfish but i dont want to see Oz with a huge pop like USA i like our wide brown land to stay relatively empty.

I'm totally with you on this one. The government is absolutely pitiful where it comes to encouraging larger families. Until women feel they can take a maternity break without fear of jeopardising their career or taking risking financial ruin, then birth rates will remain too low.

Our current birth rate is not sufficient to keep our population steady. Australia currently achieves only 1.77 births per female, well below the 2.1 rate which is required to keep a population stable. If this doesn't improve, then immigration is an essential just to keep the population level constant.

Australia will also never be able to support a large population. Average top soil deth in the US is 3.5 metres compared to Australia's 8 cm. Australia also receives considerably less rain and mainatining and managing fresh water is already a major problem in this country.

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by BSA
I would disagree with the notion that more migrants into SydMelb decreases living standards.

more people = more money because the local economy gets larger with more people.

Sydney is not only the largest city in Australia, but also the richest - thats no accident.

However, its a valid arguemnet to say that things like overcrowding and strained infrastructures are a consequence of migrants pouring into these cities.

The "Ghetto" phenonenom is also one thats talked about alot.

But look closer - Problems of overcrowding are simply non-existant in comparison to other countries.

Its a cultural thing - we baulk at seeing families of six in small apratments. Thats simply because thats not been the traditional Australian way of life.

Any other way of living besides our own naturally causes us anxiety (fear and loathing really) so we invent a series of falsehoods and them turn them into given fact.

There is no overcrowding - to suggest so is just a joke really.

Same with ghettoism really - Sure if you go down to Hurstville or somewhere like that its hard to see an Anglo Saxon face in the crowd or a shop sign thats not written in Cantonese, BUT closer examination of the demographic data reveals that even in places such as Hurstville or Cabramatta the percentage of non-European people is around 30 percent - if that.

Ghettos ? - I don't think so

sorry Briedis - I don't mean to sidetrack your thread

cheers

G'day BSA! Good to hear from you. Are you up for a few beers prior to the Swans-Roos clash in a couple of weeks?

I guess by "Living Standards" I meant what you said. Over-crowding and stress on infrastructure.

And I agree that we don't have ghettos as such currently in Australia. Most new cultures do mix with the general population, although each has it's own area where a high percentage of people from that culture do live.

I also agree that there are major economic benefits for all Australians in increasing the level of immigrants into the country.

My point is more that we should protect our standard of living from overcrowding by planning now for increasing and improving our public infrastructures to cope with the increased population. I also think that the government should have a policy where new Australians should be encouraged to settle in other areas than Sydney and Melbourne.

I think Sydney's housing prices will see that a lot of immigrants settle elsewhere, but where? The government has done little to date to ensure that there are other alternatives...

 

[Philip Ruddock]

Originally posted by Briedis
I think Sydney's housing prices will see that a lot of immigrants settle elsewhere, but where? The government has done little to date to ensure that there are other alternatives...

I dispute that point.

Skilled and business migration to Australia's regions is a priority for the Government and part of its broader agenda for regional Australia. I have tabled in Parliament the Government's response to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration's report, 'New Faces, New Places - Review of State-specific Migration Mechanisms'.

Australia's 2002-03 Migration Program, the largest and most highly skilled in over a decade, provides an increased capacity for regional migration and regional economic development. I intend to discuss with a number of Premiers how we can work to get a more balanced dispersal of skilled and business migrants to the regions in their states."

The mechanisms were introduced by the Government to help state and territory governments address skill shortages, attract overseas business people and to encourage a more balanced dispersal of Australia's skilled migrant intake. The Government essentially agrees with all 20 recommendations of the Committee's report.

We have worked closely with state and territory governments and regional authorities over the past five years to develop a broad range of State Specific and Regional Migration initiatives. These initiatives are providing much-needed skills throughout Australia, as well as providing a boost to local economies. Regional migration mechanisms can be a powerful tool when seen as part of a broader strategic focus on the role of regions building the nation.

Consistent with the recommendations of the JSCM report, the Government is considering a package of enhancements to regional migration initiatives to enable a higher number of skilled and business migrants to settle in regional Australia.

Other countries, like New Zealand and Canada, are looking at what Australia is doing in this area for their own regional migration programs.

Over 15,000 visas have been issued under these initiatives since 1996-97.

 

[Briedis]

Very funny stuff Mr. Ruddock!

 

[ian_rocks]

More people, more help! Open the doors, **** the Border!
I would love to live in a society that is enhanced by immigration, it would be fantastic to see a society more multicultural than we have now. I think an immigration scheme based on cheap transport to Australia like the 10 pound's English immigrants had to pay in the 50/60's would be cool.
Sorry if I am blabbing on, multiculturalism is beautiful to me and I'm not afriad to say it!!!
I will leave you with a quote I heard from a person who hates immigration- "If this country doesn't prevent all forms of immigration, I will move to a country that has!" I still haven't figured out if he was joking.

 

[Philip Ruddock]

The words “reality check” spring readily to mind. A grasp of the realities of our population position and an understanding of the limits of Government's role in determining the size and structure of our population is the first step to a constructive understanding of how best we can affect and plan for our future.

Nor does it make much sense to try to aim for a lower population on environmental grounds. Firstly, it would be impossible in practical terms to reduce our population without wrecking the social and economic fabric of this country. Even to achieve a population the same size as now in 2050 would require a one-in one-out immigration policy that would effectively cut us off from the rest of the world.

Secondly, many environmental issues are not closely affected by our population size, for example, the export oriented activities of our agricultural, mining and smelting industries. Where population size is important, for example emissions from motor vehicles, it makes much more sense to change behaviour and technology, rather than take the draconian measures that would be needed to reduce the size of our future population.

Let me be very clear: I do not believe that it makes practical sense to set population targets for Australia. The reasons for this are well known to anyone with an understanding of demography. Nor does it make sense to try and develop population master plans. This sort of command economy approach just doesn't work in a liberal-democracy like Australia. In any case, the last thing we need is another layer of bureaucracy such as a Population Council telling each government agency what to do. It would only contribute to confusion and a blurring of responsibility and accountability.

The fact that no other developed democracy in the world has a population target or a formal population policy should be instructive. Even the very modest attempt by New Zealand to establish a target for net overseas migration has now been scrapped. This does not mean, however, that we are ignoring the important issues associated with our population future. The Prime Minister has very clearly identified demographic issues as a key theme for the Government's third term agenda. But our approach to population issues is far more flexible, well-considered and practical than a population master plan.

Rather than indulge in the fruitless task of setting population targets and then trying to manipulate policies to deliver these, the Federal Government's approach is to pursue those population-related policies that are most likely to encourage innovation and achieve improvements in the living standards of all Australians, both present and future generations. We are pursuing policies that will help minimise income inequality and poverty and ensure the long-term sustainability of government finances.

We want to be judged on the outcomes we deliver not on the number of additional layers of bureaucracy some may want us to create. In pursuing a results-oriented set of population-related policies, the Federal Government is undertaking research and policy initiatives with the following key strategies in mind.

First, we are seeking to enhance knowledge about family formation decisions so that family friendly policies continue to be developed to increase labour force participation while stabilising Australia's fertility rate.

Second, we are delivering a high quality and targeted migration intake that will, in conjunction with education and training policies, enhance the skill level of our labour force and meet the current and emerging skill needs of Australian industry.

Third, we are assisting our regions to become stronger, including through the enhanced state-specific and regional migration mechanisms I mentioned earlier.

Fourth, we continue to take steps to manage the impact of an ageing population, particularly on key health and social welfare services and benefits.

Fifth, we are encouraging greater participation in the labour force, including by women and older workers remaining in the workforce longer.

Sixth, we encouraging improved environmental practices to enable us to manage the interaction between population and the environment.

Finally, we are taking steps to ensure that decision-makers at all levels are aware of Australia's population directions and can factor these into their own planning. This approach recognises that Australia's economy and society is based on free enterprise and is not a command economy.

With the decrease in numbers of unauthorised arrivals and the inclusion of the intercepted caseload in the offshore refugee category, there will be greater scope to accommodate the demand offshore under the Special Humanitarian Program. This program provides places for those who have suffered human rights abuses in their home country and have links to Australia. I expect 6,000 places will be used for this purpose. And a notional 2,000 places will be set aside to meet possible onshore needs.

The Government will continue to give priority to those who are most in need of resettlement under the international protection framework. To do otherwise would be to allow people smugglers and their clients to dictate our humanitarian priorities to us. In fact, many of the unauthorised arrivals seeking asylum in Australia have forsaken effective protection elsewhere to achieve a preferred migration outcome in Australia. Of course, we will continue to meet our protection obligations in relation to those who engage them.

I am very concerned about the threat to Australia's ability to find a place for those refugees who cannot go home and are not safe where they remain. Many will never be able to afford to pay a people smuggler, so as a compassionate country we must preserve places for them.

And we are one of only a handful of countries that operates a dedicated resettlement program each year. Our resettlement program goes beyond any international obligations and reflects Australia's desire to assist refugees and others in humanitarian need. Per capita, Australia has one of the highest resettlement rates in the world.

We have benefited from these changes because we are committed to a set of basic Australian values, not because we had a detailed population master plan. These values are about welcoming people and dealing fair with those who deal fair with us.

Migration has been at the heart of our development as a country. I find it enormously heartening that many highly talented young people still prefer to migrate here than to other countries where the immediate economic rewards may sometimes be greater. These migrants bring with them enthusiasm, vitality and talent.

 

[Portia]

Well, thats me put in my place.

 

[dreamkillers]

My only concern with increasing immigration in this country is the environmental concern.

Water is getting more and more precious in this country and will continue to do so.............

There has been talk of piping water from the Kimberleys and building bigger dams in the northen parts to pipe water down south but whatever happens we need to also look at reducing usage and wastage............

Otherwise we'll end up going further backwards at an alarming rate..........

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
My only concern with increasing immigration in this country is the environmental concern.

Water is getting more and more precious in this country and will continue to do so.............

There has been talk of piping water from the Kimberleys and building bigger dams in the northen parts to pipe water down south but whatever happens we need to also look at reducing usage and wastage............

Otherwise we'll end up going further backwards at an alarming rate..........

Well, irrigators in the Goulburn Valley have done their bit to make thier water rights go further (through various methods too numerous to mention), but sadly places up in Queensland (eg Cubby Station), continue to get cheap water, and do little to reduce their usage.

Cubby only has to pay 7c per magalitle (1,000,000 litres) whilst irrigators up here payed as much as $200 in some areas during 2001, and the worst thing is that Cubby Station grows a crop that is totally unsuitable for Outback Queensland (Cotton, like Rice is a tropical/monsoonal crop, needing heaps of water to grow).

BSA and Ian Rocks, you have to be living in cloud cookoo land to suggest that our Continent (the driest inhabited continent on earth) can sustain a large population, as you are no doubt suggesting, but incase you haven't realised (since that you would barely go out beyond the inner suburbs, I can understand where your coming from) Australia for the most part, is a desert wasteland.

We could have more people living in this counrty (if we could built more dams like in Lake Argyle, and invest more money in environmental projects and finding more efficient ways in which we could effectively use the water we've got now, through better channel mangement, covering them up or laying pipes underground to reduce evapouration, etc), but sadly the nay sayers and the non producers in this country would knock such things on the head before they even get off the ground, creating a situation where our population could not grow to it's full potential, and making your fantasies about a larger population just that, a fantasy.

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Wayde Petersen
We could have more people living in this counrty (if we could built more dams like in Lake Argyle, and invest more money in environmental projects and finding more efficient ways in which we could effectively use the water we've got now, through better channel mangement, covering them up or laying pipes underground to reduce evapouration, etc), but sadly the nay sayers and the non producers in this country would knock such things on the head before they even get off the ground, creating a situation where our population could not grow to it's full potential, and making your fantasies about a larger population just that, a fantasy.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. We need to increase our population if we are to continue to grow economically and we have a duty to the rest of the world to take in more immigrants and refugees than we currently are.

BUT, we need to plan for this increase in our population by improving our infrastructure. We also need to ensure that the quality of lifestyle that we are so lucky to have here in this country is protected. It could be very easily killed by over-crowded cities because, as you say, much of this nation is currently non-livable.

I am all for immigration, but not if it is not well-planned.

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by Briedis


That is exactly the point I am trying to make. We need to increase our population if we are to continue to grow economically and we have a duty to the rest of the world to take in more immigrants and refugees than we currently are.

BUT, we need to plan for this increase in our population by improving our infrastructure. We also need to ensure that the quality of lifestyle that we are so lucky to have here in this country is protected. It could be very easily killed by over-crowded cities because, as you say, much of this nation is currently non-livable.

I am all for immigration, but not if it is not well-planned.

Just to add to the pro's of immigraton, having a larger population in Australia means a greater domestic market for primary producers like my father and I (who live on a Dairy Farm), and less vurnerable to fluctuations in overseas markets (and also on the Milk Powder futures in Chicago)

So, Then we're in agreement (BTW Blood Stained Angel and Ian Rocks, sorry about that snide remark I made earlier, when I get on my soap-box, i'm hard to control ), as long as we plan ahead, and are prepared to absorb more people effectively, Australia should reap the rewards of immigration for years to come.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Wayde Petersen

We could have more people living in this counrty (if we could built more dams like in Lake Argyle, and invest more money in environmental projects and finding more efficient ways in which we could effectively use the water we've got now, through better channel mangement, covering them up or laying pipes underground to reduce evapouration, etc), but sadly the nay sayers and the non producers in this country would knock such things on the head before they even get off the ground, creating a situation where our population could not grow to it's full potential, and making your fantasies about a larger population just that, a fantasy.

Unfortunately the people that run our country think of the future as only 2-3 years ahead instead of 20-50-100 when the decisions made by them now will be truly hurting what is left in this country............

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by dreamkillers



Unfortunately the people that run our country think of the future as only 2-3 years ahead instead of 20-50-100 when the decisions made by them now will be truly hurting what is left in this country............

And when we've got a little a-hole like Johnny Howard, who has a "rear view mirror look on history", then that makes the task all the more difficult.

 

[Slax]

When the original population estimates of how many people Australia could support were made around the turn of the century and again in the 30s, it was planned to have large regional centres.

By large I mean 250,000+ at the moment only Newcastle, Wollongong and Geelong are regional centres with populations over 100K. Australia with the way the population has dispersed into large urban sprawls can only support around 30 million.

Think about it. With the wastage of water we have now plus the required increase in demand plus infrastructure required 25 - 30m is tops. Australia must plan it's immigration or place strict requirements on people to live in certain areas for asluym seekers. If people don't like it they can go back to where they came from after all there is no such thing as a free luch.