Prev
Next

Escaping Small Australia: A case for population growth

Malcolm Farr

by Malcolm Farr

16 Dec 12:02pm

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: Australia, Immigration, Population

118 comments

The Government today was pushed closer to deciding whether Australia should be an under-populated, bijou nation-ette, or a place of strong population growth producing a stronger economy.

Cartoon: Peter Nicholson

Population Minister Tony Burke received reports from three panels commissioned to look at the economic, environmental and demographic factors involved in increasing the number of our citizens.

He will respond in April.

Release of the reports revived the debate over a ``Big Australia’’ which flared just before and during the election campaign after some stark misinterpretation of immigration projections. It spluttered out inconclusively.

The Opposition accused Prime Minister Julia Gillard of wanting a Big Australia which would make the country less livable; Gillard squibbed the issue and appointed Burke to manage it, adding ``sustainable’’ to his title.

The hot spot of the debate was the immigration rate. The impression gained currency that the Government wanted to pump up the intake to reach a population of 35 million by 2050—the so-called Big Australia.

That was based on a legitimate Bureau of Statics exercise in which it calculated that Australia would reach 35 million mark —13 million more than now—if the immigration rate was 180,000 a year, for every one of the next 40 years.

But this was a projection, not a Government target. And even if it was a firm objective, so what?

In the 60 years between 1950 and 2010 the Australian population rose from 8.2 million to 22 million—an extra 14 million. And our prosperity rose with the population.

Even with a moderate intake of 70,000 migrants a year, the population would reach 30 million by 2050. So the squabble is over five or six million people who might be added to the population over the expanse of four decades.

This immigration focus distracted from the central fact: A population can be any size as long as people live close to jobs and community facilities such as hospitals.

The idea that we don’t need a bigger workforce is absurd, and proposals for ``guest workers’’ have ben exposed elsewhere as causing more problems than they solve. We need workers who live here, raise families here, and pay takes here.

Our economy is growing, and to sustain and reinforce that growth Australia needs a bigger workforce to ensure job vacancies are filled, and tax revenue is maintained to look after the expanding aged sector.

The alternative is to slow down the economy through such measures as increasing interest rates, so that we won’t need a bigger population.

The population debate should be on what one panel report calls ``a balanced immigration program’’ and a business group calls ``well-planned growth’‘.

It should not be based on scare stories and a hankering for a Small Australia which can never be revived, and which we worked so hard to escape.

(Panel reports can be found at www.environment.gov.au) 

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

118 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Markus says:

      11:41am | 16/12/10

      “In the 60 years between 1950 and 2010 the Australian population rose from 8.2 million to 22 million—an extra 14 million. And our prosperity rose with the population”
      Did it really? Last I checked everyone is working longer hours, paying off bigger and bigger mortgages, and at the highest levels of debt in history.

      Population growth is useless without the housing and infrastructure to back it up.

      There has not been a single new dam or power plant built in God knows how long, public transport is a shambles in most states, and local governments release new land packages at a fraction of the rate required, yet the government continues to allow over 150,000 new people to cram themselves to the already overcrowded major cities each year.

      I have no problem with a growing Australian population, provided all levels of government actually plan for it. I have no confidence in current local, state or federal governments to be able to do so.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      01:12pm | 16/12/10

      The NSW Labor government hung out the sorry we’re full sign a decade ago yet people came anyway.  The result was that no infrastructure was built.  This is the cause of the political issues with population in city areas at least.

      I’m all for a bigger population though we need to plan new cities rather than simply cram more residents into exiting ones.  This means land that is currently used for farming or even national parks will need to be transferred to residential and commercial uses.  This means new dams and power stations will need to be built.  This means lots of confrontation with NIMBY’s and Greens which I doubt our political class has the stomach for.

      From a NSW perspective I would be planning a city of 2-3 million people somewhere around halfway between Sydney and Melbourne and / or Sydney and Brisbane.  This is really going to piss off the people who live there now but if we did build a big city there then suddenly a fast train between Sydney and Melbourne gets another stop. 

      The new city could be a new NSW State Capital which would result in all the politicians, public servants and hangers on moving out of Sydney thereby taking infrastructure pressure off Sydney, freeing up housing and gioving creaking infrastructure a break.  The new city should of course be called Howard to honour the nations greatest ever prime minister and to piss off all the leftie public servant types who would have to move there.

      Oh and did I mention it would also be the home of Australia’s first nuclear power station and the home of the nations nuclear industry?

      How I dare to dream…

    • Macca says:

      02:13pm | 16/12/10

      @Super D, Sydney should have twin (Triple?) cities with Wollongong and Gosford, as well as growing Newcastle. Hornsby and Cronulla to be turned into mini CBDs like Parramatta or North Sydney. That’d be a start and would ease congestion as there is plenty of space out Berowra / Waterfall way

    • Mark Sharma says:

      03:54pm | 16/12/10

      We are in desperate need of population. I’ve always supported Immigration and I will always and always support Skilled immigration.

      Because that is the right thing for Australia. The fact of the matter is that Apart from Labor, Liberals and Greens almost every other major organisation supports skilled Immigration.

      The real reason for congestion is not Immigrants but lack of planning by successive Labor & Liberals Governments in NSW & Federally.

      Don’t hate the immigrants. we are not the problem.

      i took this message with me to the last election and I’m the only politician in whole of Australia who has supported Population and Skilled Immigration. My message was so strong that this same Tony Burke you are talking about had to put me last on Preference behind Greens and Liberals?

      http://dimpto.com/?page_id=386

      http://twitpic.com/2c13nn

      I said in August that cuts in skilled Immigration will lead to interest rate rises and that is exactly what is happening.

      Don’t be fooled by Dick Smith and that racist mob. Face the facts and support skilled immigration!

    • Chris says:

      04:39pm | 16/12/10

      Mark Sharma, If you listened carefully to Dick Smiths arguments you will realise he is not being a racist. So don’t call him racist when he is not!  By saying he is racist you are exposing yourself as ignorant.

      I wonder if you really understand what racism means?

    • philip says:

      09:02pm | 16/12/10

      mark sharma its all well and good saying we need skilled immigration but I say blow that we have gotten to the point in this country where you cant do a simple job such as digging a hole with a shovel or using a backhoe for instance without a bleeding card if you stopped over regulating things you would have the workers to work not to mention less unemployment I say bring back on the job training without the bs that governments demand of us lets get back to basics hey.

    • acotrel says:

      08:04am | 17/12/10

      I suggest the main reason that people oppose population growth, is that they live in our capital cities, where infrastructure is stretched to the maximum.  A positive move towards decentralisation would make a nice change?  How about the government identifies key industries in country towns, and assists their growth?  Then there would be jobs in the bush to attract people to go there.  Most of Australia is EMPTY!  Of course the joke is that many of our manufacturing businesses based in country towns are allowed to move offshore, and the government doesn’t raise a squeak!

    • James says:

      10:16am | 17/12/10

      Malcom Farr lives in Canberra, no wonder he thinks we need more people.

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:45am | 16/12/10

      Slow down there Malcolm.

      “a place of strong population growth producing a stronger economy” so am I to understand that humanities idea of economic growth is too simply increase the population. If this is the case is there ever a limit, or should we simply increase exponentially?

      “Our economy is growing, and to sustain and reinforce that growth Australia needs a bigger workforce” so because we are growing we need to increase the population to grow further, when we already meet our targets of growing?

      I know I have dumbed this down somewhat, but I doubt i am the first to commit such a sin, but using population growth as the sle driving force behind economic growth is absurd at least as a long-term policy.

      Reply

    • mickijo says:

      01:55pm | 16/12/10

      a place of strong population growth producing a strong economy—isn’t that a bit like a dog chasing its own tail? The bigger we grow, the more we need and the space and comfort we have will be smaller and smaller. Australia’s soils are poor, our water very finite. But that doesn’t bother people who do not think very much.  Also where we were used to having an “Australian ” population, multiculture has put an end to that with all the differences and clashes that multiculture drags along .We are becoming a divided nation, not a united one. That is sad.

    • Macca says:

      11:50am | 16/12/10

      “This immigration focus distracted from the central fact: A population can be any size as long as people live close to jobs and community facilities such as hospitals.” Ok, where’s Shane from Melbourne?

      This is exactly the point. Wollongong - Newcaslte could easily fit 30 million people. It’s just that Wollongong and Newcaslte need to have CBDs the size of Sydney’s, and Cronulla, Hornsby and Gosford the size of Parramatta, or larger.

      You just need the Infrastructure to support this, including several more hospitals, dozens more public transport opportunities, more schools, parks, ovals and Major Motorways and Highways that are 8 lanes across in both directions.

      I am not exagerating. This is acheivable. Hornsby, an outer Northern Suburb of Sydney could become it’s own mini-metropolis. Let’s not cram the inner suburbs any more. Let’s grow the outer suburbs

      Reply

    • Brimstone says:

      12:38pm | 16/12/10

      Australia has the population of upstate New York and the landmass of America. it can easily grow

    • Chris says:

      02:00pm | 16/12/10

      Brimstone, because you can do something doesnt mean you should?

    • Charles says:

      02:52pm | 16/12/10

      I bet water droughts arent all that common in upstate New York though.

    • Shifter says:

      03:17pm | 16/12/10

      @Brimstone - Your analogy is flawed, the state of New York has roughly 19.5 million people where roughly 64% lives in the New York City metropolitan area. Meaning 36%, or around 7 million people, live in what is considered upstate New York. Or roughly the population of NSW.

      Yeah, semantics. I’m sure you could find a similar example to illustrate your point.

      Whilst we’re on that, it should be noted we have a similar population density to Canada, another country with a landmass close to the USA.

      So why do we want to grow the population? As Macca says, it’s all about infrastructure. So why not build a new city?

    • James says:

      10:21am | 17/12/10

      Science will tell you Australia can sustainably support a population of around 21 million at current average lifestyle, without natrual systems degrading year in year out and that is if we are careful.  Economics will tell you we can have 100 million people each with their own hummer and McMansion and that if create the right competititive forces the clouds will rain.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      11:50am | 16/12/10

      Really? So it’s a “central fact” that “a population can be ANY size as long as people live close to jobs and community facilities such as hospitals”? What good are “jobs and community facilities such as hospitals” if there’s no reliable water supply? Not so long ago we had water restrictions. No doubt in the future we’ll have them again. A higher population places a higher demand on our water resources. Water is a FINITE resource. Do the math.

      While we’re at it, anyone on the population growth bandwagon who’s also on the global warming bandwagon is a deluded hypocrite. More people means more demand on our energy resources - so the simplest solution to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions is to dramatically reduce Australia’s population.

      Reply

    • notsurprised says:

      12:12pm | 16/12/10

      “Not so long ago we had water restrictions. No doubt in the future we’ll have them again.” Exactly Charles, and regularly we have floods with no plans for capturing and storing any of the water.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      12:34pm | 16/12/10

      Actually notsurprised, we DO have “plans for capturing and storing” flood water. They’re called reservoirs, and they’re STILL not enough in times of extended drought.

    • iansand says:

      12:45pm | 16/12/10

      And our rainwater and wastewater fill up the ocean. 

      Sydney does not have a water shortage.  It has inadequate capture of water.

    • TimB says:

      01:11pm | 16/12/10

      @ iansand

      That’s because of the Greens who keep arranging to block the building of any new dams.

      They won’t allow new dams. They won’t allow new power stations (coal, nuclear or hydro).  They continuously campaing to lock up land wither needed for expansion of housing, fishing or farming.

      The Greens are anti-people. It’s as simple as that.

    • notsurprised says:

      01:14pm | 16/12/10

      In some areas Charles, but not enough.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      01:49pm | 16/12/10

      The Greens are pro population growth, but anti carbon production. The Greens are deluded hypocrites. It’s as simple as that.

    • iansand says:

      01:56pm | 16/12/10

      TimB - Find out what a “dam” does and tell me what that has to do with recycling and localised rainwater capture.

    • Tim says:

      02:25pm | 16/12/10

      Iansand,
      where are you going to store this rainwater and what are you going to do with it once you have it?

    • Jordan says:

      02:27pm | 16/12/10

      Water is not finite in any meaningful sense as a resource, because it is renewable - consuming water does not destroy it, only transforms it into forms we find less useful. Those can be treated, processed, and used again. It can be costly to do so, but it is none the less perfectly possible. Absurdly cheap potable water, where nature does all the work of purification for us, is a finite resource, but that’s not the dame thing.

    • iansand says:

      03:10pm | 16/12/10

      OK TimB.  There are things called tanks (in the enclosed Australian sense and the Indian sense).  If you think it makes sense to water your lawn or flush your toilet with potable water you are even stupider than I thought.

      I am sitting under several hundred square metres of tin roof as I type.  The water that fell out of the sky an hour or so ago is on its way to the ocean.  There are a few hectares of grass not far away, and the mens urinals are on automatic fliush cycles,  The grass and the urinals are currently using mains water.  It is lunacy.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      03:10pm | 16/12/10

      No Jordan - “in any meaningful sense” as a genuinely useable commodity, Australia’s constant water problems prove that as our situation currently stands, it’s definitely a finite resource. Irrelevant semantics don’t change that fact.

    • TimB says:

      03:13pm | 16/12/10

      @ iansand-

      My god. I can’t believe I have to explain this to you. My opinion of your intelligence is in freefall. You’ll overtake Badger if you keep going at this rate.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam

      “A dam can also be used to collect water or for storage of water which can be evenly distributed between locations.”

      Gee. I wonder if we could use this to collect this rainwater you speak of.

    • notSue says:

      03:26pm | 16/12/10

      @ Jordan. Of course drinking water can be recycled, filtered from seawater and captured more efficciently (at great cost)  but you can’t make more!  Let’s not forget the difficulties of storing it and getting it to the “new” population centres via the massive cost of piping it. If we’re talking about a country of 35mill+. that’s one helluva lot of money to spend! Our aquifers aren’t infinite either, and if we’re talking about feeding this new population, well that’s another massive stretch of a limited (better word) resource!..and the degradation of our our habitats that go with it.

    • TimB says:

      04:46pm | 16/12/10

      iansand I should make clear that “Tim” up there is not me.

      I added the B for a reason.

    • iansand says:

      05:50pm | 16/12/10

      TimB - I reckon we should put one of them there dam thingies at the bottom of Pitt Street.  We could have an impoundment all the way up to Park if we fix a few leaks here and there.  Some people call them cross streets.

      On the other hand, people with lesser imaginations than mine might put tanks in the basements of a few buildings.

    • Tim says:

      08:25am | 17/12/10

      Iansand,
      TImB and myself are different.
      The reason I ask where you are going to store this water and what are you going to do with it is the costs involved.
      I work in the water industry and i’ve seen hundreds of ideas to just catch more rainwater and use it instead of potable water.
      The main problems are cost and public health. You can’t just store that kind of water for long periods without some form of treatment. It can be done but usually costs lots of money. I’m all for more use of efficiencies or recycled water for use in buildings or irrigation but when people start getting sick or their water bills triple I don’t think they’ll be too happy.
      Bulk water storage in dams is much more cost effective.

    • iansand says:

      10:03am | 17/12/10

      Tim - Why can’t water be stored on site, for use on site with reasonably fast turnover?  What is the health risk in using it to flush toilets and water lawns?

      Serious questions.

    • Peter Jones says:

      10:46am | 17/12/10

      Excellent comment Charles. Right on the money!  Unfortunately Heather Ridout CEO of the Australian Industry’s group joined Tony   Burke during yesterdays release of a discussion paper on Australia’s population policy. The signals from both were quite predictable. They favor a Big Australia and neither seem to give much of a hoot about the environmental consequences.

    • Brimstone says:

      11:52am | 16/12/10

      HATE HATE HATE the idea of a small Australia. Australia already has a tiny population and a large amount of land. When i moved here I was told the country would grow, expand, flourish! Instead it seems people are content to keep with the small town, small minded attitudes. It’s horrible for creativity. It’s horrible for business. It makes people feel trapped and blocked in. There’s some good and talented people but everyone ends up in the same place. There’s nowhere new to go… 5 major cities and that’s it.
      And if you do achieve something great then what? you’re stuck. you end up playing RSL or suburban pubs.

      Grow! Flourish! Reach your true potential! Don’t let yourself scrabble in the dirt.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:00pm | 16/12/10

      Small populations make people feel ‘trapped and blocked in’?

    • Jim says:

      12:10pm | 16/12/10

      Don’t like it? There’s another alternative than to whinge about your adopted country….

    • Dan says:

      01:28pm | 16/12/10

      @Brimstone I’ve asked you this question before but I assume you didn’t see it, so I’ll ask again:
      Why having the choice to live in two countries, would you choose to live in the one you least prefer?

    • Brimstone says:

      03:30pm | 16/12/10

      Logic, basically. I’m in Australia, so i can complain about vague feelings and problems with the national culture. If i was in America i’d be complaining about not being able to find a job and being unable to afford medical care
      why can’t a criticize a country I’m in? when i was in the States i criticized it

    • DaveinPerth says:

      03:38pm | 16/12/10

      “When i moved here I was told the country would grow, expand, flourish!” - Sorry, someone told you a fib. Time to move back home.

    • Observer says:

      12:23am | 17/12/10

      “If i was in America i’d be complaining about not being able to find a job and being unable to afford medical care”

      Hmmmm…that might have had something to do with its massive population, no?

    • Banjo Patterson says:

      10:06pm | 22/12/10

      Obviously, you are not really a true blue Australian because a true blue Australian would hate the idea of population growth. This country was really beautiful some years ago going back to my younger years. When I was a child, the population was two-thirds less than what it is today. But thanks to immigration, this country has been changed forever and not in a pretty way. Now the beautiful Australia that I remember has disappeared. You can barely look across a hill now to not help but see many houses when once stood one or none. The roads are ridiculously congested. The streets are full, and I mean full of foreigners, yes, people who can barely speak English who come here to take everything they can out of this place. If that is racist, then I am but I love this land and I don’t believe people like you do. That is the difference between you and me and I’m afraid if you people win then God help this place.

    • notsurprised says:

      11:52am | 16/12/10

      “Our economy is growing, and to sustain and reinforce that growth Australia needs a bigger workforce to ensure job vacancies are filled.” Sure, sounds ok, but in what sectors is our economy expanding? Can you be sure that if we simply increase migration that the people will have the necessary skills to suit these growing industries? Surely an oversupply of people with skills not relevant to the industries that are growing would be an economic disaster. On the social side, it takes time and support for migrants to be settled and assimilate into another culture. What plans (If any!) would be in place to provide effective support to assist these people to ensure they land on their feet running? Any large increase in migration must be met with an ongoing support structure and continuing economic assessment that allows flexibility to change without being caught up in red tape. I wouldn’t trust this current government to successfully insulate the roof in my home, let alone to correctly plan and manage such a massive exercise in social demographics as this.

      Reply

    • John says:

      12:01pm | 16/12/10

      Our freeways resemble carparks for longer peak periods, public transport in peak periods reminds me of New Delhi’s congestion of bodies pressed against doorways, and parts hanging out that don’t fit inside, the water reserves during the drought that our cities drained cause farmers across Australia to suicide, Infrastructure is creaking under the weight of a larger population, the cultural impact will eventually diminish our identity as a nation that seems to be socially fragmenting into cultural sections in many capital cities….cities are bursting at the seams and house prices have gone beyond ridiculous. Meanwhile the first Australians continue to live in third world conditions to an average life expectancy of 57 years and white Australia is 81 years. The barrier reef in many parts been destroyed by extra land farming pressures to produce food. Pressure to mine, drill will cause problems for example the N/W shelf oil spill was one of the largest oil spill catastrophes on the planet that has not been resolved. Valuable farmland will continue to be lost to urban sprawl and costs will spiral out-of-control to provide all the services required for new areas. IMHO the list of problems with a growing population needs to be addressed before any population growth should even be considered.

      Reply

    • Brimstone says:

      03:37pm | 16/12/10

      “the cultural impact will eventually diminish our identity as a nation that seems to be socially fragmenting into cultural sections in many capital cities”

      oh no! people might be able to CHOOSE how they want to live instead of being laconic farmers or drunken bogans!
      there’s a reason i rarely leave Newtown

    • john says:

      05:27pm | 16/12/10

      I’d have to agree with you on that one.

      Sometimes I visit outer suburbs like Newton for a nice gelatti, then head back to civilization of inner Sydney. On a rare occasion its nice to visit fringe suburbia as well.

    • Jim says:

      12:07pm | 16/12/10

      The so-called skills shortage that gets thrown up in all population debates is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by dwindling union numbers and small industry who throw their hands in the air and complain they can’t compete with the mining industry.

      To the trade union boss / wannabe Labor minister: one fitter on a non-union site doing the work of 5 fitters from a union site does not equal a skills shortage.

      To the owners of small industrial sites: offer peanuts, you get monkeys. There are plenty of trade qualified people out there packing shelves. Just because you refuse to offer more than base wages does not mean there is a skills shortage.

      Reply

    • philip says:

      09:15pm | 16/12/10

      also jim if they actually trained people instead of whinging I do think that would add a couple of hundred thousand workers as well

    • biff says:

      12:08pm | 16/12/10

      If we triple the Sydney population will we have to widen Parramatta Road? The lackwits masquerading as politicians will have to undertake an overseas fact-finding-mission to find the answer to that one. To be honest the lackwits at the top haven’t spent on the required infrastructure to support the present population so I can’t see a larger population being any better off.

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      12:11pm | 16/12/10

      The people that whinge about the idea of a big Australia are usually the same ones that whinge about Australian companies going overseas, job loses, and cheap imported goods.

      The great unwashed will continue to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

      Reply

    • Goldenfaber says:

      03:03pm | 16/12/10

      And in the USA they are not buying cheap imported goods? Whats’ America’s population again?

    • Banjo patterson says:

      10:19pm | 22/12/10

      You bet we whinge about Australian companies copping out. There are companies from China who specifically make money out of luring Aussie businesses to their impending death, that is to take up the manufacture of their goods under an inferior regime only to produce inferior goods which nobody wants to buy. I think you need to look beyond your flat in the city and see the damage that rampant immigration is doing to this country.

    • lone settler says:

      12:14pm | 16/12/10

      Over -populated? Where? In fact, populated? Where?
      Whilst Adelaide may be a bad example, most Australians would rarely see groups of other humans in their suburb. Perhaps at a rock concert, sports event or Christmas sale. Our cities are underpopulated, let alone the towns and sparsely populated rural areas and beyond.
      There are very few people visible in Australia. The predominant feature of our urban landscape is the space and resources consumed by our 15.7 million motor vehicles, most of which lay dorment 95% of the time.
      These vehicles leave a vaccuum of empty suburbs behind them. Places almost totally de-nuded of human life.
      Most suburbs are sterile and dominated by terrifying vehicles. Bus and train stations are deserted.
      The twin addiction of vehicles and artificially expensive land creates the illusion of over population. It also forces up wages and destroys local jobs that could be centred around transport and services. We could easily live on less income without cars.
      Without our addiction to cars, future generations could easily live in a far more relaxed and healthier fashion with a much larger population

      Reply

    • notsurprised says:

      12:16pm | 16/12/10

      “...the list of problems with a growing population needs to be addressed before any population growth should even be considered. ” Without question, the best attitude to take on the matter.

      Reply

    • Vince says:

      12:17pm | 16/12/10

      Almost by definition, if you increase the size of a country by adding immigrants you grow it’s economy.  And it has been shown over and over again that, for the people who are already established and living in the host country, a net growth immigration increases their wealth and raises their living standards.  I remember studying this in university.  This is not new.  Ask any economist and they will point out that sustained economic growth relies on an increasing population.  They will also point to the fact that studies have shown that new migrants, after an initial cost to their host country, become net contributers and long term assets to the host country in a very short period of time.

      Reply

    • Banjo Patterson says:

      10:36pm | 22/12/10

      Of course this is true. It is an age old way of growing the country’s economy but it comes with a price and a heavy one at that. Once you invite all these people to your country, then you have to live with them, no matter how sub-standard they are and plus they will increase too, maybe even more than you will increase. Then you have to reach a point where you have to say enough is enough. Look at the mess America is in. They have reached saturation point and their economy has collapsed. Their standard of living has dropped. Also, if you live the good life, then the economy will always turn the other way and bight you where it hurts. It is inevitable. The Great Depression came about because of a number of reasons, coincidentally it was after a period of great prosperity during the 1920’s but they could not escape the fall-out from a credit-driven stock market society. Just adding and adding to the population is no answer to having a strong economy. If Australia has been relying on this for the past so many years then it is sure to fail at some point and then with a bigger population we will be in an even bigger mess than when we were small. Remember, our children and their descendents will keep multiplying too. My own family is now grown from two children to eight people. That is just the birth rate without immigration.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:21pm | 16/12/10

      Big Population = higher taxes (to pay for all the infrastructure needed), lower standard of living (increased demand for that infrastructure) and increased environmental degradation. Gee, who wouldn’t vote for that winning combination?

      Reply

    • Brimstone says:

      12:37pm | 16/12/10

      lower standard of living? more people leads to more demand for things like media, so we’d get better film and TV. you’d meet more people, interact with more people, and be able to afford more projects. so it’s a higher standard of living
      and some of us prefer the city to the ‘environment’

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:33pm | 16/12/10

      I take it you haven’t noticed the congested roads, the hospital waiting lists, the almost unaffordable property prices or the increased classroom sizes? Just more of the joys of living in a Big Australia….

    • Chris says:

      01:45pm | 16/12/10

      Brimstone, the few of you who prefer the city to the environment need to realise you cant have a city without an environment. Where do your big mac beef burgers and fries come from?  That’s a big concept for you to understand I know. But hey, as long as you dont mind standing in long lines to see your latest block buster movies I’m sure you dont care.

    • Brimstone says:

      03:32pm | 16/12/10

      ‘few of us’? people have lived in cities since cilization started. ask an Athenian if they preferred the city to the country

      “I take it you haven’t noticed the congested roads, the hospital waiting lists, the almost unaffordable property prices or the increased classroom size”

      i take public transport. i consider your healthcare system a miracle, so i don’t notice waiting list. i can afford an apartment on a low salary, and i don’t go to school anymore

    • Brimstone says:

      03:35pm | 16/12/10

      actually, BECAUSE i live in a city i can stand in short lines to see films at local cinemas

    • Chris says:

      06:10pm | 16/12/10

      Brimstone your comments are typical of an over consuming disconnected American who likes to comment and push USA values based on your comfort level grown from your lifestyles in an overcrowded society that rewards growth, greed and no value or concern for the environment. Just because NYC is overflowing doesn’t mean Australia should follow suit and be happy about it. Just because you think our health system is a miracle doesn’t mean it is. Demand does not lead to quality. Watching the latest movie does not equal a better lifestyle. You say you don’t go to school anymore….may kindly I suggest you enrol and re-educate yourself.

    • Fergus says:

      12:31pm | 16/12/10

      You don’t even MENTION the environment.

      Sure, it’s probably undeniable that - directly - a bigger population means bigger money.

      But our environment can’t support that big a population. Don’t you people get it?! We have droughts and low-nutrient soil, among other things. This land is not designed for 35 million people. It will cost us big in the long term, seriously big.

      Any economic arguments for a big population are plainly and stubbornly ignoring this reality.

      You’re a destructive man, Mr. Farr.

      And don’t even get me started on the overpopulation of the Earth.

      Reply

    • notSue says:

      01:05pm | 16/12/10

      Agreed. I always laugh when folk talk about the size of the land mass completely forgetting how much of it is freakin desert! Not to mention how fragile and ancient our soils are, and how finite our water resources are!

      For gawd’s sake, most of us cling to the arable, green fringe of this ancient continent! It’s totally unrealistic to imagine that we could ever be anything else than a ‘bijou nationette”. I’m quite happy with that status, thanks. It’s arrogant in the extreme to think we will ever be anything else on the world stage. So what? Let America and China play the empire -builders. We don’t need it.

    • Jordan Rastrick says:

      02:51pm | 16/12/10

      The bigger economy from a bigger population can help pay for the costs of moving to a more structurally sustainable way of doing things - especially since many of the costs involved are fixed, like the one off costs of R&D to improve renewable energy sources such as Solar.

      And concerns about overpopulation of the Earth are a strong argument for *increasing* migration to Australia. Immigrants to rich nations have far fewer descendents than their compatriots who don’t immigrate.

    • Goldenfaber says:

      03:20pm | 16/12/10

      notSue What are “fragile” soils? Can they get bruised, or are their bones easily broken? My soil map of the world does not show Australian soil as being particularly unique.

    • Brimstone says:

      03:33pm | 16/12/10

      “Agreed. I always laugh when folk talk about the size of the land mass completely forgetting how much of it is freakin desert! Not to mention how fragile and ancient our soils are, and how finite our water resources are!”

      Terraform it, Dune style?

    • ChrisR1 says:

      05:02pm | 16/12/10

      Goldfaber due you have any concept of soil productivity? Do you know that most soil in Australia is highly phosphorous deficient and as such fortified with Superphosphate and NPK fertilisers that are more and more imported to make them viable (sourced from dwindling world P resources - have you even heard of peak P and the fact we have 35 years of known reserves?). Do you know that most Australian natives are evolved to live in what are some of the most nutrient diminished soils anywhere, a fact related to our soils ancient geological age? Or that Australia’s entire productive agricultural land is somewhere about the size of 2 mid sized US states like Idaho?

      Then there is inadequate surface water supplies, failing artesian supplies and dying river systems due to over extraction of water. Yet you and your ilk barrack for growth.

      Typical ignorant correlation of landmass with carrying capacity. I despair at the shortsighted stupidity of those who unthinkingly believe untrammelled growth can be accommodated with no impact on environmental sustainability and agricultural productivity, not to mention declining practical living standards, failing services and cultural dilution.

    • notSue says:

      05:39pm | 16/12/10

      Fragile soils, goldfaber, are soils that have had little regeneration for centuries, especially inland.  We have had no volcanic activity to speak of for millenia now, hence no new nutrients, apart from the little organic matter added, except salt.

      I’m no geologist, but I can read. Here’s a link. I suggest you educate yourself.

      http://www.clw.csiro.au/education/soils/australiansoils.html.

    • notSue says:

      05:49pm | 16/12/10

      @ Brimstone Dune -style? bwaha! You bring the worms!

    • Chris says:

      06:21pm | 16/12/10

      Brimstone. You suggest we ‘terraform the desert’.  What happens to the flora and fauna that lives in the desert? Where does the water come from?

      Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

      The problem is we have too many humans. Too many then unfortunately think in a similar manner to you and believe that we can live unsustainably forever.

    • notSue says:

      08:08am | 17/12/10

      @Chris Agreed again.

      Even in science fiction, Brimstone, ethically and practically terra-forming is impossible with indigenous life present. The “Mars Trilogy” by Kim Stanley Robinson is a far better read on the subject.
      PS.I also highly recommend his “Forty signs Of Rain”, btw.

    • Peta says:

      12:35pm | 16/12/10

      Ok so maybe stating this will make me very unpopular on this thread but population growth is all well and good as long as its a nice even mixture of all socioeconomic groups.
      However right now thanks to the Baby Bonus we have on our hands a generation of uneducated dole bludgers.
      Bottom line the wrong people are increasing our population and its ruining the country.
      Australia is wonderful but we have such a lack of culture can’t we please have some people breeding children who aren’t destined to be a sap system.
      I put a call out for all the educated peoples to breed! raspberry
      I also do not think we should not be so hell bent on becoming a huge superpower on this planet as we live in an arid country that cannot sustain huge numbers of people, yes the countrys huge but the majority of the terrain is uninhabitable.

      Reply

    • Rossco says:

      02:54pm | 16/12/10

      A strong education, especially amongst females leads to a lowered birth rate. Look at India for an example. If you want a higher birth rate you have to keep the country dumb esssentially.

    • Chris says:

      01:14pm | 16/12/10

      Our rivers dying because we can’t keep up with food production demands. Our flora and fauna disappearing because of our invasion of and destruction of the shared environment from housing and development. Roads and hospitals are over flowing and offering poor results because we can’t afford the infrastructure.  This surely shows humans are greedy and ignorant.

      Why do we need growth? To become wealthier? Is wealth measured by the size of your flat screen TV or the type of car you drive or is wealth measured in other less popular things like the health of the environment in your backyard? 

      I want a responsible Australia whose majority says no to growth and leads by sustainable examples.

      At some stage we need to say our lifeboat is full!

      Reply

    • bleD says:

      01:19pm | 16/12/10

      More people = more pressure on the environment, more degradation of our resources and more species extinction, on which we all depend. All economic arguments make no difference to the equation. So please never listen to the economists; they have absolutely no understanding of the basic consequences of human overpopulation. Shame on you Malcolm.

      Reply

    • Expat says:

      01:37pm | 16/12/10

      I’d imagine 170 million Pakistanis would like Australia, and Spain wouldn’t be too bad, anyway. I’d be pleased to see the Pope banished to Norfolk Island, but unfortunately the Koreans would still be neighbours.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      01:47pm | 16/12/10

      High school geography 101- 17.5% of Australias land mass is comprised of Deserts. While it is theoretically possible to build a city in the middle of a desert (Las Vegas) is that what we want to do. It takes a lot of water to keep Las Vegas going and with water being a finite rescource in Australia considering that we regulary go through droughts belive it or not but a small part of queensland is still considered a drought zone.

      Part of what makes Australia a great place to live in is the wide open spaces and the fact that you can go all day and not see another person and that in a lot of places you do not have to go futher then the back fence to see native wildlife in there natural habitat. I for one do not want to get to a stage where kids don’t have space to run around in or not be easily able to see native animals.

      Reply

    • paulm says:

      01:54pm | 16/12/10

      The endless growth economic model is basically an intergenerational pyramid scheme in its workings.  Like any pyramid scheme, at some point it will collapse because there aren’t enough new players to support those who have already entered the scheme, because there is a real world environmental limit to how many people the planet can support.  When will the world reach this point?  I don’t know, but there are certainly plenty of signs showing that pressure on the natural world continues to mount, and that this point is approaching.  We definitely need to step back and revaluate and change how we are doing things, business as usual isn’t applicable as we enter these unusual times…

      Reply

    • P. Darvio says:

      02:17pm | 16/12/10

      When does this Bible / religion a whole driven nonsense stop - 9 Billion, 15 Billion, 44 Billion like the Catholic Church says is sustainable?

      The root cause of most of the Worlds problems today is over-population (Climate Change, destruction of forests, pollution, poverty, war etc etc). The Planet is already over populated by at least a factor of 3. The only hope for humanity is contraception - and lots of it - now.

      Reply

    • Az says:

      02:28pm | 16/12/10

      Who actually benefits from an increased workforce other than big businesses ?

      I’m tired of this ‘economic growth’ rubbish being peddled every time the population debate comes up.

      It is selfish and short-sighted for big business to push increased immigration simply to expand their own profits while ignoring the social and infrastructure woes that the rest of us have to endure to support it.

      Australia is much more than those businesses and vested interests that operate within it.

      Reply

    • Jordan Rastrick says:

      03:00pm | 16/12/10

      Most infrastrucure benefits from economies of scale. See for example the (unfortunately gated) link to a nature article at the fourth bullet point of this blog post:

      http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/11/who-will-pioneer-auto-autos.html

      As it notes, city that’s population increases by 100% has increased infrastucture requirements of only 85%. So population growth means less cost per person for the same level of infrastructure, not more.

      This is one of the reasons New York and Tokyo have better transport systems than Sydney.

    • Peter Jones says:

      10:37am | 17/12/10

      WTG Az. Great comment.

    • Elphaba says:

      02:33pm | 16/12/10

      A big Australia, sure.  But a big Australia that can be sustained by world class infrastructure and services.

      Otherwise, what’s the point?  We’d just be signing our own death warrant.

      @Brimstone - you again.  Still hating on Australia?  Why didn’t you hitch a ride back with Oprah?

      Reply

    • Brimstone says:

      03:35pm | 16/12/10

      i’m talking about how Australia can be bigger and more powerful. the ‘haters’ are the ones who want to stop it’s growth

    • ChrisR1 says:

      05:12pm | 16/12/10

      Brimstone, why do we need to be more powerful - so we can exert respected and admired foreign policy like the Americans? You must be kidding….

      If you don’t like it I suggest you and those like you avail yourself of a country whose ambitions more align with your desires. Plenty of flights leave every day.

      As it is you came here knowing what this country is, knowing its cultural foundations, its values as well as its faults - as such you should embrace it for what it is, and not cheer for its transformation so you can indulge your desire for a more culturally enlightening experience on the doorstep of your inner city terrace.

      I’ll guarantee you that if the first australians had been asked if they wanted a big australia they would have said no and they would have been entitled to say so. Well those who value the Australia we have, have the same damn entitlement and most Australians have had their say - and its a resounding NO!

    • Chris says:

      08:55pm | 16/12/10

      Why would we want to be bigger and more powerful?

      What benefit will that bring our society or the environment that we choose share with nature?

      What part of the world is already too full of humans do we not understand?

      David Suzuki quite nicely provides an annalogy in this highlight:
      http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/11/16/3066634.htm
      Click on the Watch highlight button

    • 2 Baby Populater says:

      02:41pm | 16/12/10

      Thanks to all the commentators who have a realistict approach to Sustainable Population - let’s hope Mal’s malfunction can be overcome by some realism.  What will happen when 7 billion on the planet doubles to 14 then to 28 billion?  Or in Australia’s case, when 25 million becomes 50, and then 100 million?  Is this too Farr fetched?

      Reply

    • Daylight robbery says:

      02:55pm | 16/12/10

      Mal there is skilled workers around looking for work at present.  Judging by your choice of animated corporate images you are referring mostly to the mining sector.
      Western Australia has battled to keep up with infrastructure to support the massive influx of population to work on these projects, mind you it takes one tenth of the workers to run a gas train than it does to build one.
      WA has built a desalination plant to help alleviate the pressure on local resources.
      Our rivers are spewing acid sulphate (arsenic) there’s that much stress on them.
      It costs $60000 to rent a house in Karratha in the mining town.
      It wont be you that has to pay for the billions needed in infrastructure up front to underpin this massive growth that is putting pressure on inflation.
      The mining sector has to pay for this through royalties it hasn’t earnt.  Oh, your one of those blood GST sucking New South Welshman that are sapping all the GST to pay for your lazy state that is in a dire fiscal mess thats sold off a big chunk of income earning energy infrastructure.ou portray
      NSW has had the population growth you portray and look it now. Its got no money to fix its crap heap of a lazy banking state.  raspberry

      Many of the current incoming immigrants wont like mining, because, a. they dont have the skills, b.its 12-14 hours a day in 45 degree heat.

      If Australians aren’t benefiting out of it whats the point?  Over zealous population growth has only shown ‘short’ term benefits in research.

      Unless its progressive growth where infrastructure can keep up with population growth stick it up ya red rum with a Bundeberg plum.

      I know WA doesn’t want to be an overpopulated debt ridden NSW bog hole   :p
      Take your corporate profit ideology to China, or India, or Indonesia, or England, or the US for that matter.  You can go and live in any of those countries any time you like MAL… smile

      Reply

    • Shawn says:

      03:03pm | 16/12/10

      Let me say one thing, within 5 years food will be available in pill form and we wont need farms on which to grow food. We will be able to lease out country areas to other countries for mining, and on this note, lets be honest… Can you imagine living in the country? It must be dreadful. And have you seen people in the country? They generally look appaliing and smell like a wet raincoat.

      If I am right, and I sometimes am, pill form food will allow us to drastically reduce our population, and rid ourselves of people who arnt absolutely necessary. We have already lost our factories, so let anybody without a tertiary education or specialist knowledge eat cake. Either that or they can work at Telstra with the other dullards.
      The bonus here is we can also get rid of the National Party, and people with white hair and big hats from North Queensland.
      Once again, trust me, this is all 5 years away.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      04:15pm | 16/12/10

      Can’t tell if your trolling or not

    • Brimstone says:

      05:03pm | 16/12/10

      Genetically modified food WILL help with the problems, but i’m sure the Australian hippies will oppose that too

    • Mouse says:

      06:32pm | 16/12/10

      Hey Shawn, too late! They have already made a movie about that, “Soylent Green”, it was a cracker movie! :o)

    • DaveinPerth says:

      03:44pm | 16/12/10

      “The idea that we don’t need a bigger workforce is absurd,.....” - Absurd? Why? Why do we have to dig up every extractable mineral inside Clive Palmers lifetime? Why not leave a few projects in the ground for Clive Palmers kids to dig up?

      The headlong rush to extract every viable mineral during this current boom has never been explained to me.

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      05:47pm | 16/12/10

      It is easy to tell when an article is written by an immigration booster. They pretend the discussion is about population. If the writer really wanted larger population only, he would argue for measures to increase our birth rate. He does not. He only wants to increase immigration. There is a place for this argument, but when editors allow it to be presented in such a dishonest way. We can only be very suspicious.

      Reply

    • The Bunyip says:

      01:29am | 17/12/10

      We only need more people to satisfy the pyramid scheme we call the Australian economy .  Bring more people in at the bottom to prop-up those at the top.  It’s how the US survived as an economic powerhouse for so long while Japan failed (or at least is failing) - the US brings in foreigners to work in unskilled jobs and keep wages low so those at the top can reap the profits.  Meanwhile, the number of working poor continues to grow and the nations non-renewable resources are increasingly rapidly depleted.  It’s not about growing the economy, it’s about keeping those at the top of the pyramid right where they are.

      Reply

    • Peter Jones says:

      10:32am | 17/12/10

      Bunyip you are so absolutely correct. Major economys like the US and Great Britain have an increasing number or permanenty unemployed and unemployable. They are examples of how immigration has added to populations with long term disastrous effects. Australia will follow suite if the pro growth lobby have their way.

    • Original Oz says:

      08:38am | 17/12/10

      Move your thinking away from the East coast - there is more to Australia. One of the best water management and irrigation schemes in the world was established in the Ord River region of Western Australia. There was huge chatter at the time of turning it into a new major centre of activity in Austrlai, this never eventuated. Sheeple - start thinking outside of the box. Get the big side of town to start thinking laterally, give tax breaks for investments, and get a new city under way in that area. Major mining operations up there where the mining company employees have to fly vast distances to reach major infrastructure and cities. Build something closer and use some imagination, entrepreneurship and some good old Australian creativity and see what happens.

      Reply

    • notSue says:

      03:55pm | 17/12/10

      Yes. Let’s look at the Ord scheme.

      Why has it not “taken off”? Firstly, it’s so isolated from the rest of the country, no-one wants to live there. The tyranny of distance also makes transportation of infrastructure requirements, not to mention crops, hugely expensive.
      Secondly, what happened in Stage One that made Stage Two difficult to get off the ground? Firstly, after dammingthe river and flooding vast tracts of land to make two artificial lakes, Argyle and Kunnunurra, they planted and open- channel irrigated cotton. Oops. Bad move. They neglected to take into account the local insect population which had a feast. The crop failed bigtime. Vast quantities of water evaporated into the atmosphere due to the wasteful irrigation method. Now what are they growing? Sugar cane, which is useful environmentally if it is used for ethanol as an alternative fuel, however, that doesn’t seem to be happening either.
      Then, they discovered that they were having trouble at the river mouth maintaining environmental flows, just like the Murray. Oops again. Next soil salinity became obvious as a new problem. Double oops.
      This doesn’t begin to address the ongoing question of adequate compensation to the traditional owners for loss of their land, nor the impact of species loss. I gather the planning of Stage Two is taking the fact that the proposed area is home to a rare species of crocodile into account. Yay for that, at least.
      It seems now investors are reluctant to get Stage Two up and running. Can’t imagine why.

    • The Bunyip says:

      09:37pm | 17/12/10

      NotSue, most of the posts here complain about overcrowding in Sydney and you say the north-west isn’t being developed because nobody lives there. Is anyone else thinking, “2 birds, 1 stone”?

    • notSue says:

      10:27am | 18/12/10

      @The bunyip. It’s isolation is only one of the factors, I’m afraid, but it leads to the others. It’s too damned expensive to provide the infrastructure, and the personnel that are needed to run it. Only mining companies can afford to build towns around their sites (ie Roxby Downs in SA) ..and more and more miners are flying in, as Original Oz points out.
      Secondly, I doubt too many Sydneysiders would be keen to swap ther office jobs for a farm job growing sugarcane at this point , but hey, give it a try .. until the soil becomes too salty, that is.

    • The Bunyip says:

      08:11pm | 20/12/10

      notSue, you are right - that is why the government should be getting the ball rolling with a policy of steady decentralisation from the populous areas to the inhabitable but relatively uninhabited areas.  Once there is a local workforce in place, the cost of further development will come down.

      On your point… “I doubt too many Sydneysiders would be keen to swap ther (sic) office jobs for a farm job growing sugarcane,” you are also correct but that assumes that the Sydneysiders have a job, office or otherwise.  If federal dollars stopped flowing into the South-East, perhaps many wouldn’t have a job and then growing cane sugar (or some other crop) wouldn’t look like such a bad option.

    • James says:

      10:24am | 17/12/10

      Science:  We can support a population of 21 million sustainably at our current lifestyle and that is pretty much all she wrote.

      Economics:  You are forgetting about the power of the market

      Science:  Your devotion to that ancient religion hasn’t allowed you to conjure up any more fresh water or arable land or put a stop to climate change.

      Economics:  I find your lack of faith disturbing

      Reply

    • Peter Jones says:

      10:25am | 17/12/10

      Most of these comments don’t take into account that Australia is the second most arid continent on earth and cannot support a large population. The effects of climate change on our arid homeland may mean that Australia will remain a small population country for decades to come. Only 6.4% of Australia’s land is arable. How do all these pro population growth advocates propose to feed and water millions more people?

      Reply

    • Andy says:

      11:37am | 17/12/10

      This is fertile ground for the ingnorant commenter.
      How about we just go with some simple ideas.
      World population doubling in the last fifty years to more than 6.5 Bn and predicted to increase by the same amount in the next fity years to over 9 Bn. World fish stocks currently at record lows. Mining and resource companies face ever increasing demand from the most populous developing nations. Atmospheric conditions directly attributable to growth, requiring urgent (but as yet sporadic) international coordinated action. Billions living in poverty with little or no chance of ever seeing improvement in their status. Check the link.
      ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE )
      Please forgive me for being a tad sceptical about this whole “growth” business, but there’s plenty of evidence that doesn’t require big fancy computer modelling to show that it hasn’t been a spectacular success, so far.
      Why should we continue to adhere to it in the future?

      Reply

    • Peter Jones says:

      08:22pm | 17/12/10

      Yeah Mal. All these additional people added to our work force could produce widgets in this prosperous country of our future. We could become that high tech widget society if we accepted the same wages and conditions of Chinese workers. No doubt the gap between the rich and poor will narrow under your vision for Australia .People prouduce carbon footprints Mal. The more people the more carbon footprints. maybe you should be carbon dated?

      Reply

    • VivKay says:

      03:43pm | 20/12/10

      “Our economy is growing, and to sustain and reinforce that growth Australia needs a bigger workforce to ensure job vacancies are filled, and tax revenue is maintained to look after the expanding aged sector.”  What a lot of PC rubbish!  We have to growth the population because the economy is growing?  Isn’t population growth usually justified because of the reverse?  Tony Burke is full of b*** sh**!  His “report” is a scam, purely to satisfy the big end of town and the bullying from industry groups.  What about sustainable living, water, food, environment?  Surely the over allocation of water from the Murray Darling food bowl is that we have been over our sustainable economic limits for too long.  Food security will be a big threat in the near future as global populations blow out to over 9 billion.  Politicians just can’t see beyond the $$$ or past their own short-term careers.

      Reply

    • Marg says:

      05:50am | 21/12/10

      It becomes mightily clear from comments here and elsewhere that people do not want population growth, the main reason being that they do not want to see their natural environment destroyed and replaced with brick and mortar, all in the interests of overfilling a few pockets with money.

      What we need in this country is not more people but visionary leaders (we have none) who can turn our society into a small and prosperous one whilst making Australia the most livable and environmentally enjoyable place.  And we need leaders not only with that vision but also the courage to implement.

      Not only do we not have visionary leaders but in my books there are too many cowards among our pollies.

      Reply

    • Barney says:

      08:07am | 21/12/10

      Dave in perth, wants to go home - he must be from the UK - see you Dave

      Reply

    • Oz says:

      09:12am | 21/12/10

      Population growth causes too many problems.  Australia has already exceeded its optimum population.  Congestion, planning disputes and daily travel costs clearly demonstrate the unsustainability of continued population expansion.

      Reply

    • Milly O says:

      11:46am | 23/12/10

      “And our prosperity rose with the population.”  Yes, but once we achieve an economy of scale, we then find a downturn and the costs then override the benefits.  Many large cities in the world are now at crossroads, and debts amounting.  They could easily implode. Many cities in the US are threatened by water shortages.  No communities can have limitless growth.  The history of past civilizations and human communities should tell us this.  Why ignore the past, and the future?

      Reply

    • Cameron says:

      04:25pm | 03/04/11

      I’m with marg with the cowardly pollies. You go girl. And true with overpopulation causing too many problems. Nearly every problem in the world is because of overpopulation.

      Reply

    • Cameron says:

      05:36pm | 03/04/11

      To briimstone.
      I am 16 and i already know more about the results of a larger population that you will ever let in. Listen to the educated bunch and learn a few things. We care about the children of the future.
      Here’s another thing. If we don’t stop population growth around the world soon the human race wilol be extinct in 200 years. Think about it. People with your attitude are the cause of all this.

      Reply

    • Matt Rose says:

      03:47pm | 13/05/11

      Reading most of the comments here has lead me to draw the following conclusions:

      Most Aussies are naive idiots. I’m a seventh generation Aussie, and can’t believe how stupid we have become. The overwhelming majority are convinced that there is no way we can sustain more people in this country for any number of pathetic reasons. There are whole nations that live in desert communities. Anyone here heard of the Middle East? Central Africa? The States of Arizona and Nevada? Las Vegas anyone? Oh that’s right, we’d have to build a dam, a desal plant, dig a bore, capture fresh water flowing into the ocean to do that.

      The problem is we’re a lazy bunch and we don’t like to share. Overpopulation is not the problem with the world. Greed, wastefulness and corruption is what keeps people in poverty and not fed and housed. We have the means and the technology to feed and house everyone and do it in a way that protects the future of the environment, but it won’t happen as long as greed and selfishness reign.

      Us Aussies are naive to think that we can stay small and wealthy and keep this whole continent to ourselves. If we don’t plan to utilise this whole land on our terms, it will be taken from us. How can you all be so naive to think that our massively populated neighbours won’t do what is necessary to give their citizens a comfortable lifestyle? Do none of you know anything of world history? Are we that stupid to think that a large nation or nations will not one day turn up on our doorstep and colonise us on their terms as the British did in 1788? Some of those countries actually are getting full and won’t hesitate to fully utilise what we have here for the benefit of their people.

      Might pay to learn to speak Cantonese as it may be our national language in the not too distant future…

      Reply

    • Gabby says:

      05:33pm | 17/05/11

      As the saying goes -
      Man is the only animal that fouls its own nest !
      Growth fetish, as Clive Hamilton called it, is simply about making more consumers for the market.  It is a rush for today and forget tomorrow.
      The apathy of the Aussie voter is going to sabotage our way of life unless you talk to your neighbour and tell them what is at risk.  No good whinging when the horse has bolted…..........

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

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.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

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”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

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?

by Tory Shepherd

92

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

by Anthony Sharwood

71

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]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

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

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed