Published letters collection. Some of the following letters refer to a series of population debates held on The 7.30 Report last week (which can be viewed in the January 2010 archive). I did not watch these as I would only feel frustrated – a lot of talk, but nothing serious done to reverse population growth.
SMH, 3/2:
Today’s migrants are tomorrow’s seniors
Yes, we have a looming crunch as the Australian population pyramid morphs into a population towerblock, and retirees threaten to outnumber the economically productive (“Injection of youth slows down the ageing process”, February 2).
But the short-term solution of importing young workers is borrowing against the future. What will we do when they retire? No country can support an unlimited population. At some stage we have to adapt to the reality of greater longevity and a static population.
We are not just living longer – we are also healthier beyond 60. If the retirement age must be gradually raised to 70, then so be it. But even in the good times it is hard to get a job when you are over 50. Business must adapt, too.
– Derek Bolton, Birchgrove
Wayne Swan says the population may not be allowed to hit 36 million by 2050: the economic benefits of a large population would have to be weighed against environmental and infrastructure impacts.
Swan’s words sound familiar. The 1994 inquiry into Australia’s population “carrying capacity” recommended adopting a formal population policy, which would be informed by these considerations. The Keating government could not summon the courage to respond, and the Howard government’s response was finally revealed in 1999. It argued that no formal policy was needed because its policies would result in a stable population of about 23.5 million by 2051. Our population has already exceeded 22 million, and the results of the past 10 years of population growth are in: infrastructure is failing, our environment is in decline, with water security a major concern and attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions thwarted.
The Rudd government would do well to start work urgently on a population policy.
– Gordon Hocking, Oyster Bay
Wayne Swan again recommends that the ageing members of the population gird up their loins and prepare to work into their twilight years. If only it was that simple.
I would like to see any of our relatively well-heeled “suits” find themselves in their late 50s trying to compete for semi-professional jobs such as office work with gorgeous young things – male or female – 20 or 30 years younger. There are 600,000 of us officially out of work, plus those the statisticians ignore – the underemployed, the unincluded and the totally demoralised who have given up hope of employment, no matter how much they have to offer.
Let’s talk honestly about finding jobs for everyone who needs one. Let’s start thinking about no-fault unemployment and adjust the demands of our social security system accordingly. And let’s not ask older people to humiliate themselves, yet again, trying to secure jobs in our youth-obsessed culture that many employers, young or old, are most unlikely to offer them.
– Virginia Rose, Verona
Come on Kev, don’t pussyfoot around. Legalise euthanasia and be done with it (us).
– Trevor Knight, Gilles Plains (SA)
The Age, 29/1:
Balanced approach
George Brandis has had a cheap shot at Julia Gillard over her decision not to have children (The Age, 28/1). With the world population rocketing towards 9 billion, leaving environmental devastation and significant human suffering in its wake, people who don’t reproduce are doing the world a great favour.
Aberrations in female fecundity like the vocal Angela Shanahan, who has had nine children, must be counterbalanced by women who have one or no children or we would be in a terrible predicament in a very short time.
The decision not to give birth does not indicate one dimensionality of a woman’s character as claimed. No human can have all possible life experiences. With empathy and imagination we can still put ourselves in the positions of others who have had a different life path.
– Jill Quirk, East Malvern
30/1:
Stop this madness until we have a plan
I have seldom seen a politician more comfortable with himself than Kevin Rudd explaining that neither the government, nor the other side of Australian politics has a population policy. And thus will take no responsibility for the consequences of Australia at 35 million.
However, if you look at the programs in place – social and financial pressure for more babies, unlimited immigration, and even legal sanctions against voluntary euthanasia – you would hardly know it. It appears a little disingenuous to me.
It may just be possible for Australia to cope with this number of people at this rate of increase but not without carefully co-ordinated management of our infrastructure. And that is simply not possible without a well-articulated and agreed policy framework. This has to be understood by all levels of government, the Opposition and by the electorate in general. There is a fat chance of this happening.
The fact is that the Government does have the means to influence our population. At present it is using this to encourage unlimited growth and is doing so in a policy vacuum. Simply hoping it will all work out in the end is not good enough. Could we please stop this madness until we have a plan.
– Kyle Matheson, Mont Albert
Not set in stone
It was apparent, watching Kevin Rudd being interviewed on television, that his enthusiasm for “a big Australia” was tempered by his realisation that the electorate is beginning to understand that the calibration of annual immigration is a matter of his Government’s policy and is not cast in stone.
The electorate is eager to know whether a “big Australia” is in the national interest. This question will continue to bedevil the Government and Opposition until an informed case, for and against it, has been transparently heard in the political and public arena.
– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South
Aim to be self-reliant
One simple fact always gets lost in the climate change debate. That it is far better for humanity to act as if it is a reality. Reducing reliance on basic services, now provided by governments and multinationals, such as water and power, and changing to non-polluting, home-based systems, and reducing the use of fossil fuels must have an overall beneficial effect. It will also greatly increase the power of the individual to avoid being reliant on monopolistic, rapacious organisations.
Of course those who pay the deniers’ bills, and governments bent on perpetuating obsolete systems to benefit special interest groups and wealthy investors, do not like that idea. It is not climate change they aim to deny, but to constrain the power of the individual to act independently against it, and to restrict any ability to deny large organisations massive profits.
With a Government in thrall to the coal and oil industries, with its fuel-hungry desalination plants, and massive polluting power stations, we will continue to see decisions taken that ensure that all citizens pay their hard-earned cash to the rapacious for their basic services with ever less opportunity to opt out of the scam.
– Martin Dix, Healesville
It is worrying that Kevin Rudd thinks nothing can be done to control immigration numbers. Perhaps a population policy would be a start.
– Beverley Broadbent, East Brighton
2/2:
Less wasteful living
Kevin Rudd says we need a big Australia to fund services for our ageing population. Commentators have also argued we need to work longer to enjoy the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.
What Australians really need to do is consume less, waste less, drive less often and in smaller cars, and generally reduce our material wants. We will be happier and not supporting an economy that chokes our cities and wrecks the environment. We will have “quality of life” rather than just the “high standard of living” so beloved of politicians and economists.
In a land of finite and dwindling resources, repudiating the policy of economic growth as the solution to our problems is the only rational and morally defensible course of action.
– Rob Buttrose, Moonee Ponds
3/2:
Fill ’em up won’t work
Wayne Swan has joined the chorus of Kevin Rudd and Lindsay Tanner for a big Australia, based on an ageing population. These mindless pollies make out that this is the solution when, in fact, it only makes a bigger time-bomb.
What happens when all the additional migrants age? We then have an even bigger ageing population. Based on Rudd’s and Swan’s principles, we will need even more people in the following 40 years, after 2050. So will we march on to 70 million people?
Not to mention that the skyrocketing cost of essentials such as food, housing, energy and water will drive an even greater socio-economic divide in a decimated environment. Standards of living will continue to fall, especially for lower-income families, as our resources are stretched to the limit.
We need a realistic sustainable solution to an ageing population, as opposed to filling up the country beyond breaking point. Pollies seem to view population growth and consumption as endless, no matter what the consequences, so long as the big end of town is rewarded. It is high time for a referendum on this so that at least all current Australians will have a say in this country’s population destiny.
– Tony Smith, Burwood
