Growing out of control

Australia’s rapid population growth has had some media attention again in the last couple of months. As reported in the Herald-Sun, 25/9, Melbourne is the fastest-growing capital city and the downside of this is all too apparent:

A boom town

MELBOURNE’S population is booming, with 1350 people moving in each week, a government report says.

Victoria is expected to boast 5.41 million people by 2031.

Migration is the main factor behind the increase, according to the Growth Areas Authority 2012-13 annual report, released this month.

The growth is higher than any other capital city.

Melbourne has had the highest growth rate for the past 11 years, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

In 2011-12, after deaths and people leaving the state were accounted for, Melbourne’s population grew by 77,242.

Melbourne MP Kelvin Thomson is practically the only politician who is outspoken about population growth, and was reported to be launching an NGO concerned with the issue. He was also profiled in an The Age article. Comments from other politicians there, though, show how locked into the growth-is-good ideology they are.

As reported in The Age, a report released by the Productivity Commission last week projected Australia’s population to reach 42 million by 2060, with Melbourne and Sydney housing 7 million each. While modest by many countries’ standards, it is a lot for a relatively infertile and dry continent with a fragile environment that is still being degraded and damaged by human activity.

Another report for Victoria said that the state’s population is growing by 100,000 a year – most of whom end up in Melbourne, to its increasing detriment.

Unbelievably, the Working holiday visa scheme in Australia is to be expanded, despite there being a growing unemployment issue here. Many are from countries with high unemployment and are financially struggling. Australia is essentially being treated as a relief or escape valve for other countries’ problems – but it should not be our role to serve as this. It is another betrayal of citizens by the government here.

Colonization by stealth?

“The Unintended Consequences Of China’s One-child Policy”, io9, 3/10. I usually emit a groan when this topic comes up, as the critics of the policy come out in force. The article points out the issues with such a policy:

• Males outnumbering females due to a long-standing cultural preference for boys.
• “Surplus males” – men greatly outnumbering women, which can be an instigator of social unrest from frustrated males. This was “traditionally” (if not consciously) dealt with by war.
• The elderly outnumbering the young in a declining population.

As more than one commenter remarks there, however, what else was the Chinese government to do? If they allowed unrestrained reproduction the population would be even greater than the already huge figure (1.4 billion or so), with all the social problems and environmental damage that result (and still are afflicting the country, anyway). The policy does not apply to everyone, anyway – some ethnic groups, for example, are exempt (perhaps to keep them mollified?), and some cities are reversing the policy to address the aging problem (see previous entries with the China label).

Another traditonal way of dealing with “surplus people” is to export them, and China is certainly doing this – Australia is a popular destination. However this strategy can incite resentment amongst the host country’s citizens as they face increased competition for living space and jobs, as described this article: “In Africa’s warm heart, a cold welcome for Chinese”, Reuters, 18/9. Many African citizens are growing resentful of increased Chinese immigration there, as the latter can undercut them with cheap imported labor and goods. They also have no qualms about bribery when deemed necessary.

China is also, to put it bluntly, plundering the rest of the world for resources, such as Australia and Africa for minerals and farmland. This is also another potential source of conflict, though those raising alarm about this – such as recent controversy over the sale of a large cotton farm to Chinese investors – are invariably branded “xenophobic”. With future food and resource security at stake, though, why is this so unreasonable? I doubt the Chinese government has any scruples about their activities. In Africa’s case, China is effectively colonizing and exploiting the continent, as Europe did in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries – the term for this new version is neocolonialism.

Edit, 28/10: forgot to mention Tibet as an example.

Planning for destruction

“The Planning Guy” – profile of Victorian Liberal Government Planning Minister, Matthew Guy. I thought that previous Labor Minister Justin Madden was bad, but this one is far worse. The radical planning changes he is pushing through will give virtual free rein to developers and ruin Melbourne’s established suburbs by continuing overdevelopment and overcrowding, and pave over much of the remaining green spaces. Even Lady April Hamer, the widowed wife of the creator of the Green Wedges areas (ironically from the Liberal party of then), was moved to speak out last month against the changes. There is more commentary on the issue at (We) Can Do Better.

An article from yesterday’s Herald-Sun (not online that I could find) reported that immigration had increased alarmingly:

Big leap in migrant numbers

AN influx of New Zealanders and foreign students has forced the Federal Government to sharply increase its immigration estimates. Net overseas migration has reached about 217,000 people a year — about 25,000 more than was predicted a few months ago. It means the so-called Big Australia target of 36 million by 2050 could be reached much earlier because the estimate is based on average net annual migration of only 184,000.

New Immigration Department data reveals a net influx of 39,000 foreign students for the year to September — more than double the number predicted by the department in a May report.

The net number of New Zealanders arriving has hit 31,300, compared with 17,900 predicted in May. New Zealand and Australian citizens have the unrestricted right to migrate between each other’s borders.

Monash University migration expert Dr Bob Birrell said yesterday the rising number of Kiwi arrivals was a worry in a contracting job market. “It’s unlikely that we need this influx — the sooner we regulate it the better,” Dr Birrell said.

There have been hundreds of job losses from various industries this year in Victoria alone – many from long-established businesses going under – so where are all these newcomers going to find work? It will mean extra competition with those already here. The population growth also increases demand for housing and public services (transport, health), both of which are not keeping pace.

An article from The Age last month, “54,000 refugees, no questions asked”, 22/8, reported that:

AUSTRALIA is facing a flood of economic refugees. But the big numbers aren’t from the north, they are from the across the Tasman where Statistics New Zealand yesterday announced the biggest exodus to Australia on record.

An extraordinary 53,900 New Zealanders moved to Australia in the year to July – around the entire population of New Plymouth, New Zealand’s 11^th biggest city.

[…]

The Closer Economic Relations agreement with New Zealand means Australia is unable to control its trans-Tasman border. It is required to accept as permanent or long-term residents as many of New Zealand’s 4.4 million residents as want to move here. If present trends continue Australia’s annual intake from New Zealand will exceed 100,000 within five years. New Zealand has had no net arrivals over the past year.

It is definitely time to rethink that agreement! The exchange seems to be mostly one-way.

A H-S letter, 4/9:

Jobs going to foreigners

FOREIGN workers on controversial 457 visas have taken 13,680 jobs in Victoria at a time of increasing unemployment, job losses and double-figure youth unemployment in some areas.

Many Victorians are facing tough times.

Why then are jobs going to “temporary” foreign workers?

There’s nothing more permanent than a temporary worker, with many of them ultimately applying for PR and adding to population pressure.

Our Government imagined our economy would surge and grow, even in non-mining states.

This is not happening, and we have more skilled people than jobs and housing.

Employers can simply get the cheaper option of foreign workers instead of investing in, and training, willing Australians needing jobs. It’s a betrayal.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

Those who oppose these policies predictably get demonized as xenophobic – this opinion piece in The Australian, “Our future is as Asia’s nation of immigration” espouses the “need” for a big Australia; being a pro-business and pro-growth paper these type of articles are typical.

Gillard is the Adelaide Pom, wanting to freeze-frame the nation. The focus groups tell her to slow population growth, which is code for talking down the immigration intake. She has yet to confront voters with Australia’s need for more people.

[…]

Our future in Asia is as the world’s best immigration nation, that is, as Australians. But we need more, not fewer, Chinese and Indians to want to live across the country to prove it.

So according to that view, Australia should serve as a relief valve for extremely overpopulated countries. We can thus farewell the country’s livability if such growth continues.

Collected letters

Another round-up:

31/7, H-S:

Slower growth

THERE is nothing virtuous about perpetual growth — it is a cancer eating away at the world’s environmental balance, its diversity, its flora and fauna and its moral compass.

Once there may have been a need for growth, but that need has passed and growth is now more about wanton greed.

The planet is all we have and in a more enlightened and responsible era, growth will be condemned.

– Bruce Mullinger, Kurnell, NSW

2/8, The Age:

Growth is abnormal

IRRESPONSIBLE levels of population growth, encouraged by state governments, have resulted in increasing difficulties for residents, particularly in the outer suburbs (“Northern growth corridor residents driven to despair”, 1/8). It is negligent in the extreme to send people to the outskirts where infrastructure is inadequate. There has clearly been a lack of foresight as to how the city can continue to function with never-ending growth.

It is a no-brainer that transport infrastructure and services such as kindergartens are required before people move in to an area. If the necessities are not put in place first, the people of Melbourne will be living in a constant state of deficit of those elements that make a reasonable urban life possible. According to demographer Graeme Hugo, Australia’s annual rate of population growth is more than three times the average of advanced countries. It is time our politicians and planners stopped treating this as normal.

– Mark O’Connor, Lyneham, ACT

A related article from that link noted that almost 1000 people a week are immigrating to Melbourne (from interstate and overseas). No wonder traffic has become almost gridlocked in many areas, and housing unaffordable.

Melbourne was also recently voted most livable once again. The city is still much better than many others in the world – one reason being its relatively small population and low-density layout – but its livability is rapidly being eroded due to population growth and urban densification.

4/8:

Planetary predators

BARNABY Joyce is right when he says the $244 million threshold for an assessment of a proposed farmland purchase was so high it was ridiculous (“Hands off farm: Coalition”, 3/8). Globalisation has given rise to planetary predators trying to pry open weak national borders. Foreign owners of agricultural land will give priority to their populations, and only sell the leftover to Australia.

There is also prevalent an assumption that because we now produce more food than we need, this scenario will continue, despite climate change and global population growth.

Brazil and Argentina, poorer nations than Australia, have limited foreign land grabs. No agricultural land can be bought by foreigners in China. Australia is a leader in harnessing the short-term profits from globalisation, to our detriment.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

Selling off valuable arable land to other countries is foolish in the long-term for food security reasons. I wonder, though, if the government has plans to re-appropriate the land if the food security situation ever gets really dire?

14/8:

Discard convention

THE simplest and obvious solution to the boat influx is to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention. Having an international organisation dictate to us on this global problem is inappropriate and contrary to our sovereign interests. We should be free to make a deal with Malaysia or Indonesia.

People smugglers see Australia as a “rich” country, an “immigration nation” and a soft target for resettlement. Yet this country is losing jobs, thousands of people a year are being turned away from housing and homelessness services, infrastructure is under pressure, and food security and environmental concerns in a continent largely composed of semi-arid desert are growing.

We should discard the UN convention and replace it with an orderly processing queue offshore. We could easily accommodate more refugees if we slashed our heavily imbalanced permanent skilled migration program, and our family reunions and unlimited temporary employer-sponsored intake.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

18/8:

Sort out our backyard

MICHELLE Grattan makes a valid point about the need to provide services, education and training for asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island (Comment, 17/8).

However, we need to look at the wider picture in our own cities. In Melbourne there have been reports of troubled youth in western suburbs who don’t have access to these services, education and training. A report on housing shortages for the disadvantaged this week highlighted further problems. Surely we need to look after our own backyard before we provide money for refugees who may or may not end up coming here. There is a limited amount of government money; it should be spent first on much-needed infrastructure to help those already living here.

– Irene Ritchie, Balaclava

I have been mostly refraining from commenting on the farcical situation involving asylum-seeker boat arrivals, but the situation is well and truly out of control (nearly 7000 arrivals this year alone). I can only feel exasperation at weak-willed Government policies that are all but encouraging this. Some idealistic fools in the Green political party are just as bad on this issue – they practically want to throw open the borders to all. Another concern is that many already in Australia are becoming a part of a disadvantaged underclass here. To put it bluntly, we can’t take in everyone in the world who wants to come here, not if we want to retain some quality of life and maintain the public services and welfare systems we have now. My own policy would be to withdraw from the Convention and refuse to take any illegal/boat arrivals (I could imagine the outcry at that!) – only accept applications when done the proper way.

I am also baffled by those who support illegal immigration (which is a massive problem in the USA) – they don’t seem to understand the meaning of “illegal”. Problem is, if you criticize their policy you get branded as “racist” and “xenophobic”, even if this never enters your argument.

Miserable Melbourne

The 7:30 Report for 27/4 featured an infuriating interview with Planning Minister Matthew Guy. Dismayingly but predictably, the only message he emphasized is finding ways to “accommodate” the increasing population, not try to reduce growth. Increasing population by immigration and birthrate is “sustainable” – yeah, right (not!) He and others in government and business are clearly trying to brainwash citizens into regarding growth as inevitable. Marvelous Melbourne is fast becoming Miserable Melbourne. An earlier article, “Make room: state population set to soar”, The Age, 24/4, gives no good news.

Collected letters

Herald-Sun:

Oh no, please don’t

“Urgent calls to alter one-child policy”, The Age, 3/3. There is a push to gradually abolish this policy, the main reason being to encourage economic growth (i.e. produce future consumers – “Relaxing the one-child policy is ‘urgent’ to help shift the economy towards greater consumption”) – never mind the impact on China’s already-degraded environment, or the additional increase to its huge population. Another symptom of this current civilization’s growth addiction. If there is a population decline – mainly a decrease in births – there seems to be a panicked reaction to try to rectify this.

“Shanghai Gets Supersized”, Smithsonian, November 2011. A general overview of the city of 23 million – approximately Australia’s population – squeezed into an area of a little over 6 km². A dystopian, polluted nightmare, but this is the future that technological types seem to find desirable. My reaction to such places is: Nuke it from Orbit.

“Big Australia looms as migration surges”, AN/PublicPopForum, 7/3. This unwanted increase when there are weekly reports of hundreds of job losses and rising unemployment. The asylum seekers are an extra burden on welfare. As noted in “ Australia a ‘soft touch’ for asylum”, the situation with illegal boat arrivals has reached absurdity, but a lot of idealistic fools would let them all in unchallenged.

Escape to Australia

“Greek community flies flag to help homeland”, The Age, 14/2; “Melbourne in a Greek rush as new wave of migrants arrive”, H-S, 19/2. Greece’s economy continues to implode, so guess where many citizens there are looking to escape to? Yes, the far-off paradise of Australia, where despite having our own problems with hundreds of people losing jobs every week, the Victorian Premier urges Greeks to migrate to Victoria:

THE Baillieu Government wants Greeks hit by the economic crisis to migrate to Victoria. Greek-born Multicultural Affairs Minister Nick Kotsiras yesterday put out the welcome mat for his former countrymen and women. “It’s important that we build this nation and I think that migrants add to our capacity to grow and develop and to provide jobs,” he said. “And so I encourage people from all over the world, including Greece, to apply.”

Mr Kotsiras said the Victorian Greek community’s Antipodes festival this weekend would be a chance to show solidarity with the ethnic homeland. He said it was estimated that thousands of Greek Aussies based in Greece had returned to Australia because of the country’s debt crisis.

The Baillieu Government has given the Greek community more than $3 million to build a cultural centre and to spruce up Lonsdale St’s Greek precinct.

There is a similar situation in Ireland, as noted in my 15/12/2011 entry. I guess you can’t blame people for wanting to escape bad situations, but what happens if Australia is beset by a similar crisis? There would be nowhere else to go. I doubt I would want to leave, even if I had the means (which I don’t).

The whole “nation-building” ethos is so anachronistic (along with colonialism and slavery); I can’t believe some still espouse it. An alternate slogan I would like to see adopted for Australia: “Small, smart and sustainable”.

Collected articles

I have a backlog of various articles from the last 4 months that I meant to comment on, so much linkage follows!

Collected letters

Yet another round up of letters, mostly from The Age, on population and urban planning issues:

Australia as a relief valve

“When leaving home is the only way out”, The Age, 15/12. Economic migrants deserve no sympathy in my view. They should stay at home and fix their own problems!

Emigration has long been the Irish escape at times of greatest hardship. More than 2 million people fled the country during the Great Famine of the 1840s; half a million in the 1950s; and 200,000 during a downturn in the late 1980s. The Irish diaspora – of emigrants and their descendants – now vastly outnumbers the Irish at home and is estimated at more than 70 million people.

Critics say this history has taught Ireland’s policymakers to rely, like Aesop’s lazy donkey, on a lightening of the load through emigration whenever times get tough. A study of 90 young unemployed people by the Youth Council of Ireland this year found that 70 per cent thought they would emigrate and many believed the government was relying on it.

“It’s a handy way for them to export the problem and to cut the costs [of welfare payments],” says one. Another says: “I am sure it is built into the economic projections for the next five years because there doesn’t seem to be any meaningful policies being developed to help young unemployed people.” Youth unemployment is running at 24 per cent.

It’s a similar situation with the financial crisis in Greece – “Call for visa reforms to attract Greeks”, 25/6/2011: a lot of people there are wanting to emigrate to Australia in hopes of securing jobs here. But why should they get special treatment, or expect to come here at all? Australia has its own problems with unemployment; having a huge number of migrants come only exacerbates the problem and breeds resentment. Countries should be made to suck it up and take responsibility for their own situations rather than expect to send their “surplus” citizens elsewhere. (Incidentally there was an article addressing the issue of surplus workers, “The Age of the Superfluous Worker”, NYT, 24/11 – no, it’s not a nice term but the brutally unpleasant truth is that quite a lot of people, myself included, could be regarded as expendable; another symptom of an overpopulated world.) Ireland’s situation also demonstrates the fallacy of a growth-based economy, in this case one based on an overinflated property market (as is the same situation in Victoria).

“Taxpayers wear burden of 60,000 illegal immigrants”, Herald-Sun, 21/11. It’s no wonder the welfare system is overburdened if this alarming report is anything to go by; the main culprits being visa overstayers. I would be extremely harsh with such parasites: if caught, they would be fingerprinted, DNA recorded, then expelled from the country and banned from returning. This is where I diverge from the more liberal types, who seem to want to throw the borders open to all. I get so exasperated with their views on this issue; they are idealistic fools. (An example in other places is at MetaFilter, a long-running U.S.-based community weblog; the clueless majority there are in favor of leniency towards illegal immigrants coming into their country despite the huge costs in terms of jobs and welfare.)

Most illegal immigrants arrive on tourist or temporary work visas. Documents released to the Herald Sun under Freedom of Information show three-in-four illegals came here on visitor visas. One-in-seven arrived as students and one-in-15 disappeared after winning temporary residency. Monash University migration expert Dr Bob Birrell said they were the extreme of an even larger group, mostly students, who gained bridging visas as they sought to extend their stay beyond their original visas’ expiry. Dr Birrell said many of the 332,000 overseas students had expected to gain permanent residency once they finished their courses, only to discover that rule changes in 2010 meant this was more difficult, or impossible. Those with bridging visas were allowed to work and were “ferocious competitors” with local youths for low-skilled jobs, particularly in a tightening market.

Can you blame citizens for being resentful of immigration when it means increasing competition for resources? I am not anti-immigration, but the current too-high rate (200 000+ per year – “Migrant arrivals numbers to rise”, H-S, 15/11) should be drastically reduced. The international student program should also be curbed (it is often used as a “back door” to immigration). If the universities, who rely on their fees, don’t like it – too bad.

8 million too many

“Time for Melbourne to think about its population surge”, Herald-Sun, 19/10. An alarming prediction that a population of 8 million in Melbourne is inevitable by 2060. A “business think-tank” is promoting such growth.

Committee for Melbourne chief executive Andrew MacLeod said a doubling of Melbourne’s population over the next 50 years was a “normal” rate of growth. He slammed suggestions the city’s population spurt should be capped, rejecting arguments by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and activist Dick Smith that Australia didn’t have the infrastructure to cope. A population cap was one of the “greatest threats” to Melbourne’s future as it would allow governments turn a blind eye to the reality of growth.

Well he is deluded (and greedy) – a lot of residents don’t want such a huge population as the city is under serious strain from its current numbers. Growth is not inevitable; governments have it in their power to contain it. Excessive growth is by far a greater threat to Melbourne’s future livability.

Demographer Bernard Salt also weighs in with his usual inane generalizations – does anyone take him seriously?

H-S letter, 20/10:

I have a question for Bernard Salt, who says Melbourne has the capacity to double in size.

London and Paris may have eight million people now, but what do they also have?

Answer: brilliant metros, undergrounds and vast, efficient commuter rail lines (plus lots of water).

They also have thousands of unhappy people trying to emigrate to Australia. Go figure.

– Sheila Walkington, Mornington

“Plan for hundreds of kilometres of new freeways”, The Age, 11/10. Governments seem to be obsessed with building roads, and the current State Government is no exception. This proposed plan will scar the landscape with yet more freeways, adding to pollution and will not lessen traffic congestion. There seems to be no enthusiasm for building railways instead, which would have less environmental impact.

“The Yarra monster is killing us”, 23/8. Melbourne (and Sydney) are sucking up resources.

“Melbourne is a parasite economy,” says Bob Birrell, the doyen of immigration and population studies in Australia. “Increasingly, the fiscal dividend from Australia’s mineral boom is having to be distributed to Victoria to pay for the needs of Melbourne’s population boom. That’s why the Victorian Premier, John Brumby, is constantly having to go cap-in-hand to the federal government for assistance.”

But the mining boom involves scarring the landscape with open-cut mines to strip the land of minerals, so it is parasitical in its own way. Both types of economies are unsustainable and environmentally damaging in the long term.

• Labor’s immigration net intake of 270,000 people last year drove a multiplicity of stresses, which forced the “big Australia” debate:
• By far the greatest beneficiaries of high immigration are the immigrants, not the resident population.
• High immigration lowers per capita productivity growth, a key to sustainable growth.
• It retards the growth of per capita wealth. It accelerates the rate of food importation. (Australia imported a record $8.5 billion worth of food in 2008-09.)
• It accelerates the increase in urban overcrowding and traffic congestion.
• It increases Australia’s greenhouse emissions, per capita.
• It makes it unlikely Australia can meet its targets of greenhouse gas emission reduction.
• It lowers Australia’s food security.

In short, there is nothing good about high immigration rates.

Collected letters

A backlog of letters from The Age concerning environmental destruction, population growth, immigration and new PM Julia Gillard.

22/6:

Two letters on the Green Wedges, remnant volcanic grasslands now under threat from development no thanks to Brumby & Co.

Land grab stance is a pox on the two major parties

Before the 2006 election, Liberal, ALP and Greens MPs surveyed by the Green Wedges Coalition all supported the government policy to protect green wedges, “including the present boundaries”.

The uniformity of the major party responses suggested they had their respective campaign offices’ approval.

It is therefore disappointing for those who want green wedges protected for their environmental, recreational, and landscape values, open space and sustainable agriculture, to find the government proposing to move in Parliament today to amend the urban growth boundary to remove 43,600 hectares of green wedge land for urban development, among other controversial proposals in planning scheme amendment VC67 (“Greens warn of planning changes”, The Age, 17/6).

Equally disappointing are Coalition MPs’ comments that they will not oppose this disgraceful land grab, which will destroy

4600 hectares of western basalt plains grassland, up to 900 hectares of grassy woodland (plus giant red gums) in the Merri and Darebin Creek catchments and 4000 hectares of the south-east food bowl, where productive market gardens double as southern brown bandicoot habitat.

The Greens seem to be the only party whose MPs stick to their election policies and principles. No wonder polls show their votes increasing.

– Louis Delacretaz, Sassafras

Hold our urban boundary

Thankfully, Premier John Brumby has woken up to the fact that the population boom he has created is threatening Melbourne’s liveability.

Now that he is spending $59 million to promote regional development as a more acceptable alternative to overloading the city, he surely has no need to push urban development out into the green wedges.

Let’s hope that this means Mr Brumby will now withdraw his draft planning scheme amendment VC67, which proposes to expand the urban growth boundary to take 43,600 hectares of green wedge land for urban development.

– Arnie Azaris, joint co-ordinator, Green Wedges Coalition, Sunbury

Losing our liveability

Proposed amendments to the Planning and Environment Act to increase development around public transport networks, represent another shocking assault on Melbourne’s liveability and amenity.

With the Brumby government trying to feed the endless hunger of developers for high-rise, high-density housing, it fails to recognise that many of the train and tram lines in Melbourne are well and truly at capacity already.

If that is not bad enough, the green wedges that have been preserved for decades, to provide Melbourne’s “lungs”, will simply be sliced and diced by developers. This will have a detrimental effect on air quality for future generations.

With all this infill and loss of green wedges, open space for recreation will become a thing of the past. If these amendments are passed, our way of life and liveability will be lost for all eternity.

– Mathew Knight, Malvern East

23/6:

Region’s no answer

Distributing growth to regional cities won’t prevent further expansion into Melbourne’s urban growth boundary and nor is this a preventable solution.

The numbers of people moving to regional Victoria have always been minimal. The great majority of new arrivals to Victoria prefer to settle in Melbourne. John Brumby might think he’ll buy your vote with promises to “relieve the pressure” on Melbourne, yet - with 2000 people choosing Victoria as “the place to be” each week, most settling in Melbourne - this is a pipe dream.

If, by chance, 43,600 hectares of land within Melbourne’s growth boundary was saved from development, then 43,600 hectares of development would simply be allocated elsewhere. Don’t assume that your regional cousins want to lose their green wedges or liveability either.

– Shaun Dumbrell, Williamstown

28/6:

Gillard’s firm hand

Australia’s growth rate is not “natural” but driven by immigration. People have been silenced on the issue of population growth because they might be labelled racist. This is very clever political control.

The issue is not about race but about caring for our nation, showing responsibility for future generations, balancing environmental resources, ensuring the survival of indigenous species and existing without continually stretching basic infrastructure.

Our present growth rate is about property developers’ greed. Let’s hope Julia Gillard, who has shown some common sense (“Gillard rejects ‘Big Australia’ ”, The Sunday Age, 27/6), is not overpowered by commercial forces.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

Don’t blame men or motherhood

Hariklia Heristanidis (Letters, 26/6) says women with children, unlike Julia Gillard, can never have the drive and single vision to compete with men to be prime ministers. If true, is this asymmetry peculiar to the Australian psyche and way of life?

Since 1960, when Sri Lanka’s Sirimavo Bandaranaike became the world’s first female head of government, there have been more than 60 women prime ministers, presidents and heads of state, many of them mothers with young children. The widowed Mrs Bandaranaike’s children were 17, 15 and 11 when she was elected prime minister. She was prime minister three times (1960-65, 1970-77, 1994-2000) and one of her daughters (also a mother) became Sri Lanka’s first female president.

Closer to home, the first woman to occupy New Zealand’s highest office, Jenny Shipley, is a mother of two.

We shouldn’t blame men or motherhood for gender imbalance in high offices.

– Hendry Wan, Matraville, NSW

Could we please use the term “child-free” in preference to “childless”. I doubt Julia Gillard feels she is lacking anything at the moment.

– Joanna Unferdorben, Brunswick

29/6:

Slow migrant intake

Julia Gillard’s policy statement on population is thoughtful and well judged. The rate of population growth is fundamental to every aspect of public policy, from health and education to greenhouse gas emissions. Slowing population growth will ease the difficulty of ensuring availability of water, housing and rail and road transport, and constrain destruction of biodiversity.

Communities need sufficient time to absorb immigrants: the social adjustments can only be gradual. Reducing the numbers will reduce the risk of potential conflicts. One reason there is opposition to accepting the tiny number of asylum seekers is resentment about the total immigration rate. Slowing the intake of migrants would reduce the perception of competition for jobs and housing. This might contribute to greater willingness for Australia to take a fair share of refugees from violent and repressive places.

– Professor John Langmore, chairman, Anglican Public Affairs Commission

7/7:

Opening floodgates

One important fact has been overlooked by the bleeding heart do-gooders among Age readers. The main body of asylum seekers are male. What will be the first thing they do following the granting of residency? Send for their wives and other relatives. So we end up with more immigrants who have more children.

I count myself to be lucky to live in Australia, having escaped from Britain where this kind of uncontrolled immigration has wreaked havoc with services from education to health. Read the British newspapers and see what Australia could become if you shrug your shoulders and let it happen. Stating this is not being racist. It is fact.

– Anthony Toone, Hampton East

England certainly does have huge problems with immigration; the irony is the writer has, in his own words, “escaped” for a better life, just as the genuine refugees seek to. The spillover effect again.

A sustainable population is one based on natural increase, not massive immigration. Skilled people and a quota of refugees is all we should allow.

– Philip Squire, Ashgrove, Qld

8/7:

Most desperate targeted

Why all this fuss about refugees? Don’t people realise that the people who are flooding our cities, inflating our real estate values and putting strains on our community facilities are the legal immigrants: 180,000 so far this year?

Why don’t politicians mention the 50,000 overstayers who come by plane, not by boat? It is the above groups who are stressing our social and physical environment.

We certainly need a population policy for sustainable development rather than a policy of scapegoating the most desperate.

– John Addie, Ringwood East

On inane comments by the Melbourne Lord Mayor, who thinks the city’s “vigorous growth” (in reality, barely-contained chaos) is a good thing:

Doyle is dreaming

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, like all proponents of a larger Australia, uses emotive words such as “vigorous” (The Age, 4/7), which is supposed to conjure images of this wonderful, youthful-energy-filled utopia that will overcome an ageing population and a lack of skills.

In reality, what you will have is overcrowding on a Third World level, increased crime, shortage of housing, unsustainable rents, water restrictions, a filthy city (look at any sprawling metropolis overseas) and horrendous traffic jams.

As a frequent visitor, I can attest that it is easier and quicker to drive around Sydney.

– Warwick Kent, South Cronulla, NSW

Collected letters

Herald-Sun, 7/7:

Birthrate the main culprit

The credibility of those who joyfully welcome the arrival of new members to their own families, yet oppose the influx of asylum seekers on the basis of a perceived ensuing strain on Australia’s resources, is untenable.

If increasing population levels are indeed stressing infrastructural sustainability, then the national birthrate is the chief culprit, as this is much higher than the modest rate of asylum seekers coming here.

Such a mindset, which celebrates a home-grown “happy event” while decrying the entry of often desperate boat people to these shores, betrays its own thoughtless selfishness and cultural prejudices.

– Co Purssey, Elstemwick

Overstayers the real concern

I would like to see the media present the facts about who we should let into our country.

It is not well known that, as a signatory to a United Nations convention, Australia has an obligation to accept people seeking asylum until they are found not to have a genuine case. The real illegals are backpackers and other holiday-makers who overstay their visas.

There are many more of them than asylum seekers, and yet we seem to tolerate their presence.

If today’s leaders led us on this issue, as Malcolm Fraser did with boat people from Vietnam, we could have some real debate.

– Helen Perela, West Heidelberg

8/7:

Too many people in crowded house

I will review my position re garding immigration and asylum seekers when I can have a shower without worrying about how much water I use, turn on a light and not worry about the cost of electricity, turn on a heater with out worrying about the cost of gas and when I can go out without worrying about getting bashed.

It suits the Government to hold an election at the drop of a hat when it gives them an advantage at the polls.

Let’s see if they have the same attitude in terms of holding a referendum about increasing the Australian population.

– Grant McKay, Pakenharn

Legal migrants do more damage

Why all this fuss about refugees? Don’t people realise that the people who are flooding our cities, inflating our real estate values and putting strains on our community facilities are the legal immigrants — 180,000 so far this year?

Why don’t politicians mention the 50,000 overstayers who come by plane, not by boat? Why not mention the uncontrolled access to Australia by New Zealanders?

It is the above groups who are overstressing our social and physical environment.

We certainly need a population policy for sustainable development rather than a policy of scapegoating the most desperate.

In any case refugees do not threaten our jobs: rather they will do the work that we do not want to do, just as poor migrants do all round the world.

– John Addle, Ringwood East

First female (childfree) PM

Haven’t felt like writing due to the usual frustration and despair, so I have accumulated another backlog of articles.

So Australia has a new Prime Minister, and the first woman PM, at least until the actual Federal Election sometime this year. Julia Gillard is unmarried (she has a partner) and childless by choice, which is certainly a first for a national leader

“I wasn’t someone who in my teenage years or even in my 20s was saying the big thing I want to do in life is have kids.”

[…]

Her childless status has been scorned by political opponents, with Liberal senator Bill Heffernan sparking a storm in 2007 by saying she was “deliberately barren” and therefore unqualified to run the country.

And barely a day had passed when a letter was printed bemoaning the fact she wasn’t a mother:

I’ll cheer when a mother is PM

I can well imagine the conversations around the water cooler yesterday; certainly all the women on Facebook are thrilled that a woman has been elected prime minister. Childless women are incredulous that Julia Gillard has been elected despite being unmarried and childless. Those of us with children are perhaps less surprised.

I would consider it more of an achievement if she had children and been made prime minister, because a woman with children, to some extent, can never have the drive and single vision to compete with a man for such a position.

A man who is a “success” will have a supportive partner, who is caring for his children as only another parent can, while he climbs the ladder of success. How rare for a career woman to get that same level of support.

I’m not blaming men. Women such as Gillard are unlikely to choose a partner who is content to stay home with children, or work part time around school drop-off and pick-up. I accept that motherhood is not for everyone, but the day a mother is elected as prime minister is the day I will celebrate true equality.

– Hariklia Heristanidis, Malvern East

The writer evidently didn’t read Julia’s remark about not wanting children. And if a childless man had similarly been elected, would he get such criticism?

Of interest is that the PM said that she was against a “Big Australia”, in an obvious rebuke to Kevin Rudd’s earlier statement. Unfortunately one of the major election issues is that of asylum seekers (“boat people”), who are a relatively small part of Australia’s immigration intake, rather than the huge numbers coming in via legal immigration (e.g. to work here) and the high birthrate. An example is given in the article “Skilling time: migrants wait for lucky break”, mentioning couples from various countries immigrating to Australia (some reluctantly because of separation from family and culture).

Ms Arori, who is expecting a baby next month, said: “In our country [India], there are opportunities but we were not getting them. It was very difficult to survive over there.”

A main reason there is lack of opportunity in India, the UK and other countries mentioned is that all have high populations! Thus there is huge competition for limited jobs. This is an example of the spillover effect – people leaving one country for one with perceived better opportunities, but in turn the population of Australia is growing and people here are now facing the same problem, thus inciting resentment against migrants. If Australia’s population becomes huge, there is nowhere else for its citizens to go (assuming other countries keep growing also).

(I might note that I am not against immigration as such – my Dad is a UK immigrant, for one thing – but am against excessive immigration.)

“The PM’s dilemma: letting the ‘right’ people in”, The Age, 4/7. More details of what Julia will have to deal with if she wishes to slow growth. Whether she is serious about this – or just pandering to voters before an election – is unclear.

But when Gillard says she does not support the idea of a “big Australia”, what exactly does she intend to do about it? In broad terms, she has two options: either convince people to have fewer kids or cut migration by issuing fewer student, permanent or temporary visas.

The government is hardly going to start discouraging the former, given a number of its policies are designed to do exactly the opposite. Anyway, it is migration that has mainly been driving the population increase.

So if our new PM is serious about wanting to avoid a big Australia, the only realistic option is to slash our annual intake. That will in turn mean accepting lower rates of economic growth. It will also mean angering business groups. For years, migration has underpinned the economy by plugging skills shortages while fuelling construction and consumer spending.

We should be cutting the birth rate as well (abolish the baby bonus!) – Australia has one of the highest in the developed world, which is certainly nothing to be proud of, and sets a poor example to developing countries.

Businessman Dick Smith was delighted with the PM’s statements. I seriously want to shake his hand, or something! He doesn’t appear to have a personal website, though.

Housing greed

“Foreign home buyers backflip”, The Age, 24/4. The Federal Government reversed its baffling decision to allow foreign investors to buy homes in Australia unimpeded. Though I have to wonder if this is due in part to an election taking place later this year.

I am utterly sick of this country’s obsession with housing – more accurately, the property market being regarded as a form of wealth generation. A house is first and foremost a place to live in. I am also sick of living in what seems to be a semi-permanent construction zone, sick of the increasing overcrowding and overdevelopment that is making my neighborhood and many others stressful to live in, sick of the ugly monstrous houses that are blighting once-pleasant streets. This columnist expresses similar feelings:

Our suburbs are changing as swathes of properties are being bought by foreigners seeking a home purely as an investment. Because they’re investors, often they’re not personally interested in the communities they are buying into. For some there’s no respect for community, history or heritage. Perfectly good houses that come with large leafy gardens are being flattened to make way for massive mansions with tiny courtyards. Many of the buyers are families of overseas students, and other temporary residents who have little connection with the area they buy into. The real trouble is that we can’t turn back the clock. Daggy, but liveable – and affordable – houses are being razed and replaced by monstrosities that sometimes soar three storeys.

I honestly wish the property market would collapse. I want the quiet neighborhood back that I used to live in, want these ugly new houses razed. I would like to firebomb the housing estates spreading like cancers over what open land remains around Melbourne.

I have not been writing much out of such despair. I am powerless to do anything to stop this destruction.

A collection of letters from The Age:

10/4:

Population

In the year of biodiversity, Michelle Grattan writes an entire article on population without mentioning the word “environment”.

– Julia Thornton, Surrey Hills

Ever since huge numbers of immigrants have been arriving in Australia, the majority of the population has always been against their arrival. We are continuing the tradition.

– Con Vaitsas, Lakemba

Given the rapid population increase that is putting pressure on housing, hospitals and the transport network, what is the government’s policy on increasing the death rate?

– Roger Farrer, Hampton

Politicians asking wrong questions

If climate change represents the “greatest moral challenge of our time” then population growth represents the greatest moral foundational question of our time, especially considering Australia’s coal-fired per capita carbon emission rate. While we have a moral obligation to accept as many refugees as possible, immigration policy is another matter.

What is the ethic of poaching skills from developing countries? Unfortunately, politicians of both persuasions, in alliance with the business lobby, have pre-empted the outcome of any debate with the dubious premise that rapid population growth is both desirable and necessary, the only pertinent questions being where and when, not how and why.

Crowded cities, choked transit routes, pressure on food and water resources and a general loss of public amenity are just a few likely problems that, according to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, represent challenges we can rise above if “we do it properly”. Do it properly? Hmmm, let’s have a look at the evidence so far. Two words say it all. River Murray.

– Dave Mack, Macclesfield, SA

Growth end in itself

A point largely overlooked in the debate is that growth has become an end in itself akin to a religious belief. Once, economic growth was a means to the end of meeting people’s needs. Now growth is an end in itself and population growth is the means, feeding it through increases in consumption and the labour force.

Many years ago anthropologist Professor Bill Stanner compared this worship of growth to a cargo cult in which he said “God is goods, and the GNP the outward and visible sign of his glory and his power”. He could have added “and to hell with the environment”.

– Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge

Lower family size

The human population explosion is about more than crowded Melbourne trams; it’s a global issue, and I commend Kevin Rudd for reversing John Howard’s policy of denying aid to overseas family planning programs. Rudd pledged up to $15 million over four years to such programs. This means, for example, that East Timor – which now has to import food – might have a chance of lowering its average family size of seven children. It’s also more likely the mother will not die giving birth to her final baby.

Tony Abbott must talk about his policy on aid to family planning and maternal health programs for our neighbours.

– Pamela Lloyd, West Brunswick

Start slowing now

That majority of Australians who are happy with a population of 30 million but not happy with 36 million needs to recognise that unless we put policies in place now, the population isn’t somehow going to slow down at 29.5 million and stop at 30. The bigger it gets the faster it grows, so we need to start slowing down now.

Incidentally, when we reach 30 million there will be the same amount of water as there is now so we’ll need to get used to having about a third less water each. As we will also have reduced our total carbon emissions by then, too, we will have to cut them further by another third.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

Cut complacency

Michelle Grattan’s comments on the broader solution to managing Australia’s population are concerning (Comment, 9/4). The argument for “sustainability” earned a half-paragraph, with reasoning that we will simply work something out. We live in one of the driest countries. Australians do not need encouragement to be complacent.

– Angus Carter, Albert Park

11/4:

Less is more

What welcome news you bring. The Rudd government is going to consider population levels seriously, hopefully as part of a long-term strategy for a sustainable Australia. I believe a population of 20-25 million is a good target. This will allow infrastructure to catch up with demand, environmental degradation to be curtailed, housing pressures to ease, greenhouse gas targets to be met, adequate water resources to be found – the list goes on. Our addiction to raw growth must be changed to an enthusiasm for sustainable development, putting quality before quantity.

– Gordon Payne, South Fremantle

26/4:

Welfare for well-off

While it is heartening that the government has reversed its foreign investment real estate policy (“Foreign home buyers backflip”, The Age, 24/4), it needs to do much more if it is serious about tackling the issues of affordability and access.

Our housing system is increasingly divisive and continues to lock an increasing number of people out of home ownership and into relatively insecure rental arrangements. It is appalling that government policies support this and the wealth creation of an increasingly small proportion of the population – property investors and real estate agents.

Negative gearing and other tax perks that drive demand and inflate prices are a form of welfare. It is perverse that taxpayers are subsidising those who least need assistance, reinforcing social and economic exclusion in the process. Surely the government is responsible for the welfare of all its citizens?

– Sonia Martin, Camberwell

Insensitive agents

Estate agent Adam Gillon might get a “warm, fuzzy feeling” about overseas property buyers being at his auctions (The Age, 24/4) but he clearly doesn’t have adult children like myself who feel hopeless and dejected about ever being able to get into the property market.

In the current real estate climate it is insensitive comments like Gillon’s that give real estate agents a poor reputation.

– Diana Holten, Surrey Hills

Population Minister

On 3/4, PM Kevin Rudd announced the appointment of a Population Minister, in the form of Tony Burke, who is already Minister for Agriculture. It seems that, in an election year, he is realizing that his assertion of supporting a “big Australia” is at odds with the views of many citizens. Whether this appointment actually achieves anything seems dubious; it appears more of an appeasement to such citizens. Tony Burke is to spend “12 months writing a population strategy” – conveniently ending after the Federal election.

A letter from the H-S, 7/4:

Population debate overdue

Rudd has finally woken up to the fact that a growing majority of voters do not agree with government policy of the massive population increase being forced on us. It is overloading our infrastructure and damaging both environ ment and the quality of the wonderful Australian way of life. However, one wonders whether he is serious or not? If he’s really serious, he would have appointed Kelvin Thomson Minister for Population.

Thomson is the clear-sighted MP who was courageous enough to speak out in Parliament last year and ignite the population debate across Australia. We owe him a debt of gratitude.

When will the Victorian Government and Opposition appoint a minister and shadow minister for population? Victoria is being swamped more than any other state in Australia. Time to say, “we are full”.

– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash, Camberwell

Not surprisingly, property developers oppose any curb on population, because it will affect their profits – never mind the environmental and social cost. Urban Taskforce Australia are the enemy!

Tony Burke claimed today that “it is impossible to cap the nation’s population growth”. Bullshit! They’re the government – they could cap growth if they really wanted to, but they are beholden to corporate donors and business lobby groups such as the one previously mentioned.

The Age letters, 3/4:

Given Melbourne’s over-population, the government should stop wasting taxpayers’ money on major events designed to attract more people.

– Matthew Engert, Preston

5/4:

Sustainability is the key for the 22m already here

Now that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has appointed a Minister for Population (“Rudd flips on ‘big Australia’ ”, The Sunday Age, 4/4), the appointee needs to look not just at what might not be sustainable in the future but, rather, what’s already unsustainable for many of the 22 million people at present coastally crowding Australia. He should have been put in the job yesteryear.

Incredibly, shamefully, our indigenous people are still sheltering under bits of wood and scraps of corrugated iron and there’s virtually no social housing program worthy of the name.

Renters are paying almost as much as home buyers and the immigration influx has no regard to the shrinking overall resources. Government-hoarded land needs to be freed up and councils need to stop allowing landlords to pack houses to the rafters and charging families by the room.

Too much time is being spent cataloguing already recognised public health problems and listing piecemeal solutions that are one, two or even three federal elections away.

Hotels and liquor outlets don’t need to be open all night long and it might be good to see more than just one politician actually physically exercising in public.

It’s the present that’s the problem. Fix that and the future will take care of itself.

– Brian Haill, Frankston

Zero is the marker

Well done, Kevin. Devoting some attention to this global issue, following your earlier over-the-top enthusiasm for a projected 2050 population of 35 million in this dry, dry land, is welcomed.

Overpopulation is a world problem, not just a coming Australian issue. But I worry that this will become migrant bashing when it really hinges on fertility, worldwide. Already, the Liberals’ new right-leaning leadership is turning the announcement into a call for a loathing of the handful of asylum seekers who arrive here by boat.

Let’s forget the previous government’s mantra of “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country” and stop funding the third and subsequent births and get back to the real universal need – zero population growth. If Tony Burke is to make a mark, that has to be his contribution to stabilisation of the world’s population.

– John Gourlay, South Yarra

On the wrong foot

While it’s wonderful that the government has at last recognised the need for a population policy, and given Tony Burke the job of writing it, it seems to have already decided some important aspects of it. For example, one of Burke’s jobs is to determine what size population we can sustain, while another is to see how we can boost the population in rural areas. Isn’t that jumping the gun a bit?

If he can find any rural areas with too much water, food and fibre production, wildlife and clean air and not enough high-density living, where the people want more traffic and crime, then maybe he could suggest increasing the local population.

Until then, perhaps it would be better to work on finding the sustainable level, rather than starting with the assumption that the rural population is too low.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

People issues to ponder

Tony Burke will be Australia’s first Population Minister and will draw up a strategy on how to support the growing population and its effect on infrastructure and services, housing, congestion, the environment, agriculture and water.

It seems his brief is to take population growth as a given and come up with some ideas on how to cope with it.

If we have a Population Minister, people might think we have a population policy. Questions for Minister Burke: Will you establish a figure for our maximum desirable population after a rigorous assessment of our limits to growth? Then, will you tell us what you will do to prevent this total being exceeded?

– Roy Arnott, Reservoir

6/4:

Given Melbourne’s overpopulation and associated problems, perhaps the Victorian government should stop wasting taxpayer money on major events designed to attract more people here.

– Matthew Engert, Preston

Asylum not the issue

IT IS heartening that Kevin Rudd has taken note of the electorate’s disapproval of his own views on population policy, even back-flipping on his vision of a “big Australia”.

It is disheartening that he has chosen to announce his about-face during renewed and dated rhetoric directed at him by the Opposition Leader following the increased arrivals of asylum seekers.

Even more worrying is Tony Abbott’s populist response, linking border protection with the population debate. If politicians continue to link asylum with immigration, then an independent population policy will never be achieved.

The issue of asylum and skilled migration intake are separate in policy and quota. Australia has a tiny quota for genuine refugees that pales in comparison to the government’s massive immigration quota.

Asylum and “boat people” are a red herring that will ultimately blur and confuse the electorate in what is a serious debate. The debate is about whether Australia will choose to be smaller and smarter or, like Tony Abbott’s mouth, be big and stupid.

– Shaun Dumbrell, Williamstown

7/4:

Close our borders

I teach English to new migrants, and, at a personal level, their reception couldn’t be better (Alison Sampson, Comment, 6/4). But, in a few years, migration has quadrupled, and got out of control, delivering 1 million people every 3.2 years. In the same short time, Australia’s education system has fallen rapidly behind other OECD countries that aren’t taking such numbers. Health systems creak; crime accelerates. It’s all our youth I worry about, not recent migrants. How can Ms Sampson be so narrow?

Tim Colebatch, on the same page, rightly asserts that quadrupling immigration in a decade has crippled the housing market for future generations.

Australia is not the inevitable, or sole, destination of the world’s migrants. But the future hopes of young couples to own a home are disappearing with every new million arrivals.

What about those who are already here? Close the borders now. God knows we have enough problems internally.

– Robin Rattray-Wood, Rosanna

8/4:

Population

The government’s plan to double Australia’s population in the next 40 years must be a scheme to attract new Labor voters: nobody currently living in Australia seems to think it’s a good idea.

Warwick Sprawson, Brunswick

Population growth is a global, as well as a local, problem and a major cause of climate change. The two should be tackled the same way – with global and local solutions.

– Julia Thornton, Surrey Hills

Run on the cheap

We live next to a railway station in the inner suburbs, and a medium-density redevelopment is under way a few doors up (Tim Colebatch, Comment, 6/4). The unfortunate part about this is not the building, which is mediocre enough, but the cars. Parking is already under pressure because of the station.

No off-street parking has been provided, nor does the council require it – and there is always an expectation that every household will be able to have one or more cars. What makes this a bad idea in narrow inner-Melbourne streets is, as always, the car.

There is no magic bullet to solve overcrowding. Increased housing density will just lead to other intractable problems.

Turning down the immigration tap while we work out what we’re going to do about it is a good start. Reinstating the Foreign Investment Review Board’s role is another. As my dad always used to say, “This country is being run on the cheap.” Nothing has changed.

– Charles Meo, Northcote

Too popular

There’s been a steady deluge of articles about the population debate, as well as a related issue: housing affordability. Problem is, while the debate drags on, the population continues to grow. The housing shortage is directly attributable to growth, but no politician is game to drastically change the system. For me it is dismaying to see the older houses and gardens in my suburb and others be demolished and replaced with ugly cramped townhouses and enormous multistory houses with barely any room for vegetation, as well as open land be smothered with housing estates that are spreading like cancerous growths. I absolutely hate how Victoria has changed since the early 1990s, when Jeff Kennett’s Liberal government came into power and instigated a massive social upheaval which has been continued under the Labor government following it. It is horrid to live through. Victoria’s population growth is now the fastest in Australia. Popularity sucks!

“Inquiry call as population tops 22 million”, ABC News, 25/3. Various population experts, the Federal Opposition and the Greens want an inquiry into what population is sustainable for Australia. The last such inquiry was in 1971!

“Australia’s population growth is already leading to a range of pressures”, ABC News, 25/3. An overview of Australia’s population issues.

“Carr wants migrant intake cut to curb growth”, SMH, 25/3. Bob Carr, the former Labor premier of NSW, says Australia’s immigration intake should be slashed by half to slow population growth. The Stable Population Party is also quoted:

A new party pushing for a stabilised population capped at 23 million was gathering support, its Sydney convener, William Bourke, said. The Stable Population Party of Australia wants to keep the national population static despite a projected population increase to 9.2 billion globally, from 6.8 billion now. “Australia’s extreme population growth is either causing or exacerbating our economic, environmental and social problems,” he said. The main problems were housing affordability in cities, soaring power prices, scarce water resources and a straining health system. Migration and inducements for families to have more children were contributing.

“Australian population growth double the world average”, H-S, 26/3. Australia’s population growth is 2.1% – higher than China, the US, Canada, Indonesia and most other nations. This should be considered a disgrace!

“Victoria’s population boom could be recipe for disaster says Labor MP”, H-S, 26/3. MP Kelvin Thomson again is a sole voice speaking out against unchecked growth.

Kelvin Thomson speech

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

Population debate

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