MP Kelvin Thomson, one of the few politicans concerned about overpopulation, made an excellent speech at a Sustainable Population Australia meeting on 10/2 (also reproduced at the PublicPopForum). One of the points he makes is that the alarm over an ageing society is misguided.
“New party wants population debate”, SMH, 8/2. Another concerned businessman, William Bourke, proposes a new political party focused on overpopulation.
Although he has never been involved in politics, Mr. Bourke, 39, said his instincts told him Mr. Rudd had slipped up badly last year when he said, “I actually believe in a big Australia – I make no apology for that. I actually think it’s good news that our population is growing.” Mr. Bourke says the huge increases in population forecast by the federal Treasury in its third intergenerational report are a direct result of government policies, including record immigration levels and the baby bonus. Yet the only public debate is on how to deal with the consequences of so many more people, not whether such growth is desirable. He said “the extreme and radical rate of population growth” meant more high-rise apartment blocks, overcrowded transport networks and loss of parklands were inevitable, and it was time for a national debate about whether this was what people wanted. Mr. Bourke said he and a small group of like-minded people expect to reveal the name and plans for the party within three weeks and where they want to run candidates.
Letter, The Age, 6/2:
Norway can do it
Lindsay Tanner says that unless our population grows rapidly, we will suffer “lower productivity and less economic growth”. But from 1997 to 2007, 13 OECD nations had higher per-capita economic growth than Australia, but lower population growth. The suggestion that population growth is necessary for a vibrant economy is unsupported by any empirical evidence, and contrary to the examples of countries like Norway and Germany, which are doing fine with stable populations. If they can do it, why can’t we?
– Charles Berger, Australian Conservation Foundation, Carlton
SMH, 9/2:
Immigration policy must reflect our country’s fragility
Your editorial says there “is a popular opinion that holds Australia must rein in its population growth or suffer severe environmental consequences” (“A big Australia needs even bigger investment”, February 8). I presume this opinion is popular because our population growth to date has already led to severe environmental consequences.
There is a vast amount of scientific evidence to suggest we have stuffed up our environment at every level, and continue to do so. Those who say adding millions more people to the equation will not harm the environment if we do things the right way are the ones who are burying their heads in the sand. While we have the current system of buying, selling and developing land, the environment will always suffer.
You say “we have been adapting to higher populations since day one of the colony”. I respectfully suggest you should have said we have been “adapting poorly”. And when you say “we occupy one of the largest land masses in the world”, you should have said “one of the driest and most infertile land masses in the world”.
You could say we “enjoy” one of the world’s lowest population densities if we liked to live throughout our continent, but we don’t. We largely stick to the coast, so the population density in our cities and towns is similar to many other countries. Those trying to get to work on the Sydney road system would no doubt vouch for this.
“But since when have we given up so easily?” That is what I would say about those wanting a population debate and, heaven forbid, a population policy. Going along with governments who are hooked on high immigration simply because of an unproven economic benefit is the easy path.
Being against massive immigration does not mean you are anti-immigrant. We are all immigrants somewhere along the way, but we should not let that allow us to give up on fighting for a better way for this ancient and fragile country.
– Andrew Cronin, Robertson
