IN a country the size of Australia, thinking big comes with the territory.
Not surprisingly Kevin Rudd proudly embraced that concept recently when he proclaimed his belief in a “big Australia” and backed plans for the nation’s population to surge to 35 million by 2049.
The populate or perish policy is nothing new, of course. Under various guises, it has driven growth in Australia for more than 200 years.
Rudd’s support came after Treasury chief Ken Henry outlined a golden age of economic prosperity to 2050 and beyond, hand in hand with rapid population growth.
The Prime Minister added: “The century ahead stands to be the greatest century of economic growth and nation-building in Australian history.”
A similar grand plan was widely embraced in the post-World World 2 era, but this 1950s attitude is beginning to lose its lustre in the 21st century in the face of climate change and immigration concerns.
The chatter on reader forums of online news site in the past week appears to confirm this.
Jonathan of NSW wrote on News.com.au: “I cannot understand this obsession with prosperity being directly linked with population growth. There are already too many people on the planet and in Australia, but all we hear is that we need to increase our population dramatically if we are to survive. This mindset is a slippery slope to oblivion!”
Robert of Sydney added: “The bigger our population the less land and resources per person - that’s a decline in quality of life … Just where does Rudd propose to get the “green” energy from to support these additional people? Where will the water come from, bearing in mind we don’t have enough now?”
The current debate about what to do with a new wave of boatpeople seeking asylum in Australia did not escape many people’s thoughts when it came to the issue of overcrowding.
Didums of Brisbane commented on The Courier-Mail site: “Of course Rudd is happy about increasing the population. He’s made his contribution by opening the doors to anyone who wants to illegally enter Australia any time they like.”
Lobby Lobster of Kedron Brook in Queensland threw in a call to abolish the baby bonus: “I wish the Government would stop paying people to breed.”
Infrastructure such as health facilities, roads, transport and schools will need to be dramatically expanded if population continues to surge. To meet this growing demand, Rudd last week went on to propose expanding the role of the Federal Government in urban planning.
Lenny of Melbourne, on news.com.au, offered qualified support: “I’d support it if it were done right. The lack of adequate urban planning is responsible for much of the housing woes. But concentrate on high-density dwellings close to the city. Leave out the climate clap trap.”
But Peter of WA was not convinced, writing on Perth Now: “With the problems the world is now facing, all brought about by overpopulation, can anyone tell me why we as a country should just blindly follow Rudd along to his idea of a wonderful new Australia? They don’t even maintain the infrastructure now, so what will it be like trying to support 40 million-plus?”
Michael Lardell of Prospect thought Rudd’s support for a population surge was being erroneously driven by economic factors, commenting on Adelaide Now: “Population growth is not inevitable. It is government policy encouraged by the developers and others who benefit from building and furnishing of houses. It increases overall GDP but actually decreases per capita GDP - so it is making individual Australians poorer while benefiting big business.”
A number of readers called for a wider discussion on population policy, such as Debra Henry of Thornlands, Queensland on abc.net.au: “I make no apology for asserting that, as Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has an obligation to consider the informed concerns of others and to involve the people of Australia in debate and decision-making on this matter, rather than simply lead us down his perceived yet unproven path to population-induced prosperity.”
Until now, few political leaders have wanted to talk about population growth targets and their ramifications. It seems Rudd has opened the door to a debate many Australians believe we must have.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.
I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge
When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …
ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?
Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…
Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref
We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented