Prev
Next

Tell us again why we need population growth

Peter Lewis

by Peter Lewis

02 Mar 05:50am

Must Reads

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future… - this is a caption

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

71

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips” - this is a caption

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

47

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou - this is a caption

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

183

Filed under: Economy, Politics, Population

94 comments

The political class is on a collision course with the punters they are elected to represent over the issue of population growth, because they are failing to engage the public in a meaningful, mature debate.

How many more people can we take, even without their clothing?

While the major political parties have signed up to the official long-term projections of 36 million by 2050, the public overwhelmingly thinks that’s way too many. In response, the politicians bat on with the reflexive response “There is No Alternative”.

This dissonance highlights much that is wrong with our political system. It also opens up big opportunities for both the extreme Right and the environmental Left over the coming years.

Q. It has been estimated that Australia will have a population of 36 million by 2050. Do you think this will be good or bad for Australia?

The numbers speak for themselves, people are rejecting the idea of big population growth by a factor of two to one. I think the reason is that the public is struggling with this debate is that the arguments in favour of growth and loaded with internal inconsistencies which are too often served up as truisms.

If you were to chart a discussion between the punters and the pollies on population, it would go something like this.

Punters: The cities are bursting at the seams, the roads are clogged, the trains don’t work; we need to build more power stations to keep things running: why on earth would we want more people?

Pollies: We need more people so we can build our economy, creating more job opportunities and more economic growth.

Punters: But isn’t growth the problem? Why do we need growth, if all we are going to do with it is pay for things like cleaners and cabs and the things we need to deal with a faster, busier life?

Pollies: But if we don’t have economic growth, we won’t build up the tax base so that we have enough money to pay for the aging population, all those Baby Boomers who are about to exit the workforce and expect to receive a pension to keep them going for another 30 years.

Punters: But you have spent the last ten years making massive surpluses and handing all the money back to us in cheques we never asked for. Now you are spending billions on school canteens and insulation bats that no one ever asked for – surely we could just save a bit more money now. Even better, pump up the superannuation to 15 per cent so we can pay our own way.

Pollies – But these injections of funds are important to stimulate the economy and keep it growing.

Punters; But who said we wanted to grow?

Pollies: And while we are at it, the insulation problem is part of the effort to make our cities more environmentally sustainable.

Punters: Don’t talk to us about the environment. If you cared about the environment you would not be trying to truck in millions of more people into our fragile continent. Adelaide is already running dry, droughts are becoming more regular – surely millions more people is not the environmental solution.

Pollies: Its actually pretty simple: with a larger population, you’ll be able to generate the economic activity to come up with environmental solutions.

Punters; You are talking about growth again, can you just explain to me why growth is good?

Pollies: Well, if you went to university like we did, you would know that basic economics dictate that economies that grow create wealth and jobs and those that contract are miserable and dangerous places where the common currency is the banana.

Punter: But you keep telling us we have a skills shortage, why would be creating jobs that we can fill?

Pollies: That’s precisely why we need to increase out population base, so we have enough workers to drive are growing economy.

Punter: You’re not listening to us.

Pollies:  You are too stupid to understand the big picture.

Punter: Wankers.

Sadly, that’s where our national debate on population is right now.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

343Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
306It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
216Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
201The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus
191La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day
183The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
153What happens to us if we collide with GFC 2.0?

94 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      07:13am | 02/03/10

      Actually, we never had a population debate. The pollies just started increasing immigration on their own, without ever consulting the punters. That was arrogant, and now we’re starting to pay the social costs for arrogant leadership.

      That said, there is a good reason for growth, but it’s not economic - it’s strategic. Australia is a thinly populated, rich country with vast resources. It is surrounded by heavily populated poor countries with few resources.

      The simple equation is that we need to be able to defend our territory from others, and to do this we need population and economic growth.

      That said, we can and should be very selective about who we allow in - only those who will make a contribution and not disrupt our society.

      Reply

    • Yut says:

      11:07am | 02/03/10

      History shows you don’t need mass immigration to defend a country - all you need is a nuclear defense capability. Australia could have a population of 200, but with nuclear weapons no one would push us around.

      The people who say we need immigration for economic growth are lying to you. For economic growth, people need to feel a sense of community - a happy citizen is a busy citizen.

    • James1 says:

      11:57am | 02/03/10

      Where does history show that Yut?  I don’t think you can build an empirical case that nuclear weapons give safety at all - perhaps a theoretical case, but certainly not an empirical one.

      The possession of nuclear weapons would not increase our security - it would diminish it by sparking a regional nuclear arms race.  Then, any power intent on attacking Australia would first need to establish a nuclear capability, and the means of delivering it.  Or perhaps, if they already possessed deliverable nuclear weapons, upon hearing that Australia had detonated a nuclear device would decide they needed to strike before we had the capability to retaliate.  All this would result in is (at best) a nuclear stalemate, that were it to be broken would mean the destruction of both countries.  It would be more apt to say that “with nuclear weapons, we would greatly increase our chances of reducing our population to 200”.

    • Eric says:

      05:37pm | 02/03/10

      I think indigenous nukes would be a great idea, and very practical considering our resources in technology and raw materials.

      However, politically, at the present time it’s unlikely that they could be developed. Unless there was an extreme and imminent danger, by which time it would be too late.

      So the practical alternative, at the moment, is to develop a strong economy backed by a reasonable population, in order to produce a military force that would deter invasion or bullying.

    • Left Wing Inner City Chai Latte Sipper says:

      05:06pm | 03/03/10

      Racist!

    • Russell says:

      07:30am | 02/03/10

      Peter, and all those grumpy old men who will now post here telling us “there are too many bloody people”, please answer these questions::
      1. What do you plan doing with all us excess people?
      2. How are you going to convince us to stop having babies? A compulsory one-child policy?
      3. Do you want to close off our borders to new arrivals?
      4. Give us an example of one (just one will do) capitalist country which has stopped growing and has not descended into stagnation, political barbarism, or both? OK, so you are not talking about capitalism. Fair enough. But be honest!

      Reply

    • hugh says:

      09:31am | 02/03/10

      1. what excess people? we are currently at 20 - 21 mill. not 36 mill per the author. Hence we are not yet at excess
      2. babies arent the problem with the growth to 2050. its immigration
      3. mostly
      4. japan

    • James says:

      09:54am | 02/03/10

      Japan’s economy has been stagnant for nearly a decade.

    • AdamC says:

      09:59am | 02/03/10

      @James, actually closer to two decades. Japan is an excellent example of how demographics can downize your economy and stuff up your country!

    • James says:

      10:57am | 02/03/10

      Examples of overpopulated countries, where population outstrips resource.

      Bangladesh
      Pakistan
      Nigeria
      Yemmen
      Somalia
      Ethopia
      India
      China
      etc

      Notice how alot of people want to get out of those countries

    • Tom says:

      11:08am | 02/03/10

      On 2, removing the baby bonus would be a good start.

      On 4, slower population growth doesn’t necessarily mean an end to growth, so long as there is continued investment in productive capital. As the author touched upon, much of the GDP increases that would result from an increased population would be largely related to the problems it causes, such as increased congestion leading to increased transport costs. This will show up in GDP as a positive, when in reality it negatively affects quality of life. GDP is an imperfect measure of quality of life, and should not be the be all and end all of development.

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:51am | 02/03/10

      @Russell
      1. Not try and re-animate you when you’r dead and buried. Come on, do you really think that ‘less people’ has to equal ‘kill people’?
      2. Education. The more educated people are, the less children they are likely to produce. And don’t incentivise more children.
      3. No.
      4. Give me the name of any capitalist country which has stopped growing!

    • Sambo says:

      10:29pm | 02/03/10

      1. I propose a 10 year moratorium on immigration.
      2. There’s no need to convince people to stop having babies, without immigration, this country has negative population growth.
      3. See #1.
      4. I can’t.

    • Peter Tavare says:

      08:14am | 02/03/10

      Excellent article Peter, and you know you’re onto something when people across the political divides join together to oppose an issue. Interestingly, when I arrived in Australia in the early 1970s (of Aussie parents, so not really an immigrant), the ZPG party used to stand in State and Federal elections. So even before global warming and carbon emissions became part of the lexicon, many people were thinking that population growth had to be questioned. Growth doesn’t necessarily equal good. What is really disturbing is that we have an army of demographers employed by governments who have not been able to see the bleeding obvious. Baby boomers started delaying giving birth from the 1970s so it was obvious that this would have an impact down the line as more women in their 30s and 40s gave birth, but governments used falling inner city child numbers in the 1980s and early 1990s to close schools and sell off the land to the very couples who started having children later in their lives. Nett result? Not enough schools in these areas from the 1990s onwards and nowhere to build new ones. Demographers also didn’t seem (or want) to understand that if you bring vast numbers of immingrants from countries where large families are the norm then - surprise surprise - they will have large families, encouraged even further by governments throwing money at people for over populating the world. End result? Population explosion at the same time as governments start wondering how we can tackle human-induced global warming. Maybe in Canberra they don’t see the impact of this completely blinkered forecasting, but if numbers are their specialty then they should read the figures above and conclude that most of us do not like or accept 36 million by 2050. Notice how political parties of all shades duck this issue. This should be Bob Brown’s number one issue but he is far happier talking about whales and trees, which are inevitably cut down because of the over population. If any political party wants to stand up and address the issue, I would suggest the following measures:
      - Significantly reducing immigration (and restricting the programme to skills importation)
      - Allowing more temporary work visas so that Australian companies can bring in workers when they require them (this could particularly benefit the Pacific islands)
      - Ending government support for parents electing to have more than two children
      - Greater encouragement for women to work in the community (which would welp build productiveity and ultimately GDP growth)
      - and more open talk on the issue, without the usual accusations of racism or something else designed completely to sidetrack the issue.
      It might be disturbing to the head-in-the-sand crowd, but the world (and Australia) does have a finite capacity when it comes to population. And anyone who lives in Sydney and experiences peak-hour traffic will know that we may have reached that capacity already, let alone 2050.

      Reply

    • Russell says:

      08:36am | 02/03/10

      Sydney’s problems are caused by political failure, not because it is excessively large. By world standards, it is not, by any stretch.  it is a medium sized, selfish inward looking city now descending into an epidemic of whingeing. “There are too many people!” is the cry.  It was Bob Carr who started this off. He didn’t want to invest in infrastructure or actually do anythingh much, instead he told business and immigrants to bugger off elsewhere, because “Sydney’s full up.”

      Blame him for you traffic frustrations Peter. The rest of us “head in the sand” types have faith in mankind’s ability to actually solve our problems.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:23am | 02/03/10

      Once again I’ll state, logic tells us you cannot have continual growth.
      To sustain life as we know it, we need quality not quantity, our way of life is currently a joke.

      We have boats parked in the yard that are lucky if they are used once a week,
      caravans that are used once or twice a year. Yet we work overtime or two jobs to pay for them, by the time we have time to fully use them, we are too old!!!

      As a nation we need to back off and smell the rosies.

      Reply

    • TB says:

      02:08pm | 02/03/10

      John, the problem of excessive and conspicuous consumption (great, now I sound like a commo) is not unique to Australia, it’s a problem prevalent in western society as a whole. Next to no regard is given to the management of our planet’s resources, and we just continue hoarding stupid crap we don’t really need which is designed to break at the first opportunity and is almost certainly not recyclable to boot.

      Those who argue that the planet is overpopulated neglect to realise that it is not our population that is unsustainable, but rather the greedy, corrupt society built around our lifestyles. And those who believe that so-called economic growth in our present society can continue forever without consequence are just plain ignorant. Our current socioeconomic model is centered around the inherently inefficient and wasteful principle of cyclical consumption - the absolute necessity for the constant consumption of goods and services. Our planet is already beginning to show signs of the strain of our wasteful ways, and people are advocating even more waste with larger populations? The levels of efficiency and intelligent resource management required for our global population to be sustainable simply do not exist in our present society, and never will.

    • Economic rationalist says:

      09:02am | 02/03/10

      For an economy to grow you need a growing population. This is a simple economic fact. You can’t get more from less. The laws of physics will tell you this. Putting it down to “what we want” is a simplistic and childish viewpoint.

      If you ask a child what they want for dinner they will say they want lollies or junk food but a responsible parent won’t cave in to such an idiotic demand and will give the child a healthy and nutritious meal that will nourish the child for it’s growth and development.

      Unfortunately, your hypothetical “Punters” from the article display the gross ignorance of the populace.

      All it does is prove the maxim that “the people get the government they deserve”.

      We are not overcrowded. Our silly desire for quarter-acre blocks make us think this. We should be living in medium-density and high-density housing.

      We can have public transport. We just need the government that is willing to build it instead of buying votes with popularist handouts.

      We can have hospitals and schools, we just need a government that is willing to build them instead of buying votes with popularist handouts.

      Reply

    • DG says:

      10:04am | 02/03/10

      “For an economy to grow you need a growing population.”

      That’s not completely true. If the existing population increase their productivity and their consumption the economy will also grow. There is a limit to this growth, but there is also a limit to the capacity for growth by increasing population.

      The only reason that economic growth is required is because the population increases. Now The global population will increase whether or not the Australian economy keeps growing. For this reason, and this reason alone, It is necessary that the economy keep growing.

      In a closed environment, there is no need for economic growth to exceed population growth. However, growth is determined on a national scale in a global environment, and as such is subject to external influences (i.e is not a closed environment).

      For example - a closed system. Tribe A has 15 people. They never increase their size as such they never need more than the 5 cows, 10 chickens and three fields of corn that they have. They can survive so long as they are capable of maintaining their food supply.

      If however they grow to 30 people, they need to increase their resources.

      Now if we add a neighbouring tribe, of 15 people. If both tribes go on without expanding they will not have a problem. If one tribe expands, and increases their productivity accordingly, the smaller group now need to protect themselves from the bigger tribe. External factors have dictated that their economy must grow if they are to compete and protect themselves from the other tribe. 

      Accordingly, economic growth is not necessary - however it can be ‘required’ for if there is an increase in population and the community wish to remain viable, the population desire to have more than they currently have or external influences drive competition.

      If the population remains relatively stable people were contented with what they have and external influences did not force expansion (in competition), economic growth would not be necessary.  If productivity and demand remain fairly static, growth is not necessary.

    • John A Neve says:

      10:05am | 02/03/10

      Economic Rationalist,

      Says “For an economy to grow you need a growing population”. So when we reach 36 million will you say, “For the economy to grow you need a growing population”?

      You are correct, we aren’t over crowded and we don’t want to be.

      Successive governments have failed to provide adequately for our current population. One has to ask, how will they manage 36 million?

      The greater the growth, the greater the problems.

    • James says:

      11:09am | 02/03/10

      incorrect, your logic is flawed.  For an economy to grow you can increase productivity per person.  If you are overpopulated and and your productivity per person declines you can actually have a growing population and declining economic growth.

    • Tom says:

      11:23am | 02/03/10

      Actually i love my quarter acre block - having grown up in far western NSW i don’t go much on living on top of each other like ants and need to get my hands dirty in the garden growing my own vegies (well trying to anyway). Plus it is great for the kids to have somewhere to go that isnt in front of the TV.

      The biggest problem with the population growth argument is that all the State Government’s have plans for increasing the size of the capital cities and the thin strip of fertile land along the east coast, however, they have no plans to populate the vast interior of our nation,

      There is plenty of room for more people. For a start a decent highway over the blue mts in NSW would open up the Central West of NSW and finally lance the boil that is Sydney. People living in Lithgow could commute to Penrith within 40 minutes or better still with a inland north south railway line running all the way along the east coast businesses could relocate inland. with a bit of lateral thinking we could shift the ports out of Sydney and other major cities getting heavy vehicles off inner city roads and easing congestion in the cities.

      I just figure you can still have the best of everything in regional Australia, (including an affordable quarter acre block if government’s stopped ignoring the potential of inland Australia.

    • Max says:

      01:59pm | 02/03/10

      Your assertion that population growth is the only source of economic growth is false.  If it were true then the Malthus would have been correct - but we have a global population unfathomable to Malthus and we’re not all dying of famine.

      I do believe that we should be trying to love within our own means.  The reason we can’t slow down population growth is because our current way of life is already borrowed against the predicted productivity of future generations.

    • Economic rationalist says:

      04:17pm | 02/03/10

      DG - your example would be correct in a fictional world. But not this one. Remember from 1st year economics the assumption is that people make rational decisions. By the time you enter post-grad economics that assumption is tossed out the window.

      John A Neve - it’s not just up to the government to think of this. The people need to provide them with the impetus to make worthwhile decisions. If we keep voting for baby bonuses, budget surpluses (ie the govt keeping our money and not doing anything with it) and other useless stuff then we bring our problems home on ourselves.

      James - yeah, just increase productivity….while we sit here at work on the interwebz. Maybe we can import some people from China that will do twice the work for half the pay.

      Tom - good for you that you like your quarter acre block. But the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few. We can’t have people driving polluting cars for 40 minutes each way every day. We need a centrally located population working in high-paying service jobs as well that have a high mobility rate and good education. You simply can’t get that from a sparsely populated people.

      Max - I did not assert that population growth was the only method. You’re assuming that people act rationally and always in their best interests when they dont. People need constant reminders of why they need to keep working etc. To stimulate entrepreneurial activity we need to encourage growth. Otherwise people become lazy and we get overtaken by more efficient economies. Then we fall behind simply because we can’t keep up.

    • TC says:

      05:47pm | 02/03/10

      For an economist, you seem remarkably unfamiliar with the notion of efficiency, productivity, quality, and innovation.

      Economics is not physics and you may certainly get more from less.

      You can probably expect to have your economic facts corrected by some of the grossly ignorant populace Punter

    • John A Neve says:

      09:43pm | 02/03/10

      Economic Rationalist,

      A simple question for you; Do you believe we can have continual growth?

    • James says:

      01:24pm | 03/03/10

      Economic rationalist I’m sure you have heard your name is a tad of an oxy moron.

      I find it disturbing that you dismiss productivity growth as it is our only real option.  Economic laws are subordinate to physical laws as is everything else.  I sugest that instead of wasting your time with economics, you study science (maths and physics in particular) and education theory.

    • poseidon burke says:

      09:12am | 02/03/10

      The mantra is economic growth which is fine but on what dimension of growth? Absolute growth, productivity growth, GDP per head? The argument regarding our population and the supposed strategic necessity that we get to 35 million is rubbish. 20 m or 35 mill its still two fifths of stuff all in the context of the populations of Asia and in the context of the environmental assets we have. Lets define what is meaningful growth. A bigger economy only delivering the same wealth per head doesnt make much sense. The growth argument reminds me of the Vietnam war saying “we had to destroy the village to save it” - we have to destroy what is great about Australia its open space its liveability in order to save it with crude population growth. Lets have a pause to allow our infrastructure to catch up and then look at productivity and GDP growth per head of population as our ambitions.

      Reply

    • COF says:

      09:19am | 02/03/10

      I like your article Peter, though I’m not sure your dialectic is truly representative of the total input into this debate.

      I for one, am not necessarily pro population growth, but I am definitely anti population control. To minimise the potential for life is an anti humanist endeavour. How would you feel if said policy was put into place before you were born, so that you never existed? You would think it was disastrous. It is no person’s right to do that.

      It is probably excessively judgemental but I find the population control argument extremely selfish from both sides of the political spectrum. In the end, it is people desperately clinging to their standard of living at the expense of other people’s lives. I find this to be unjust, and I don’t care if the majority of people disagree. Tell me why it is not unjust.

      To me countries such as India are the most successful countries in the world, as it demonstrates that while India fails at many of the things that we think are important in the running of a country, such as infrastructure, economics and internal security, the most important human endeavour - the continuation of human life - thrives there better than anywhere in the world. It may be the lack of control that lets it thrive.

      Population growth or control needs to happen naturally. Let the demographers predict what is going to happen, and based on that, let the politicians construct an infrastructure policy based on that information. In economic parlance, Government needs to concentrate on providing a service (they are paid for it, after all) rather than manipulating their market.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      09:55am | 02/03/10

      People who shun economic growth, both per capita and absolute (as both are necessary to provide opportunities and prosperity in future) are resigned to miss what they had when it is gone. In any event, they are not a serious voice in the discussion.

      What sensible punters (like me) are concerned about is not so much the future population level, but rather the rate of population growth. That is what has caused the infrastructure disaster in our cities, one of the major quality-of-life factors that limits the rate of population growth. Another big problem, of course, is the housing boom/bubble/crisis that seems to be the number one topic of discussion in this country. Basically, either the state governments need to change their planning settings, kill the quarter acre block and tell the NIMBY suburbanites to go to hell, or we may wind up with informal slum districts like they have in fast-growing developing-country cities.

      Do people really want such a high rate of population growth? I think people would prefer that immigration levels be changed to maintain the size of the working-age population as the baby boomers retire, rather than simply populate, populate, populate!

      Reply

    • James says:

      09:57am | 02/03/10

      This discussion in turn raises a question for me: how are we going to deal with our aging population?  Unless we keep growing our population, we will have a dangerous population imbalance.  However, if we keep growing our population, we will need to keep growing it even further to prevent the imbalance coming later, and harder, as a result of the previous growth.

      Reply

    • James2 says:

      11:19am | 02/03/10

      James, what we really need to do is build social capital (I really hate that term) and plan for an older population.  If we mindlessly trundle into an aged population we will have problems, just as we will have problems if we mindlessly trundle into anything… hang on isn’t that the philosphy of the free market?

    • eye4aneye says:

      02:54pm | 05/03/10

      Logan’s run anybody? smile

    • sarah says:

      10:09am | 02/03/10

      Yes, a 1- or 2-child policy would be a good thing.

      People still get the fulfilment of parenting. And we achieve zero population growth.

      A 1-child policy would be better, so we can lower the population, but you need to start somewhere.

      For me, I’m happy to have a slightly less properous retirement, so that i can have a retirement in a country with less pollution, congestion, and more affordable housing, space, and resources.

      Reply

    • Ronk says:

      01:30pm | 02/03/10

      Let all those who think Australia’s population growth is too high have zero children, and let every couple who doesn’t like their most intimate personal decisions being dictated to them by totalitarian busybodies have as many children as they want. Then the average would probably be about 1 or 2 kids each just as you wish. And that would probably raise the average IQ (and other desirable personal characteristics) as well.

    • Tim says:

      01:50pm | 02/03/10

      OK Ronk,
      people who don’t like their most intimate personal decisions being dictated to them be totalitarian busybodies can have as many children as they want as long as these people are willing to fully fund their own children.
      I’m sick of totalitarian busybodies raiding my pay packet to pay for all their wonderful children when i’ve made a personal decision not to have them.
      Oh and higher IQ’s? hilarious stuff that.

    • Ronk says:

      04:33pm | 02/03/10

      Tim, all and any payments families receive from governments add up to an insignificant fraction of the cost of raising children. Australian children are already, to all intents and purposes, fully funded by their parents.

      As for the wider point you raise, not only you but I and probably just about everybody, resent what the government does with a large chunk of the taxes they take from us. I think that some of the things the Aus govt spends money on are grossly evil. I don’t get to tell the govt what to do with what it takes out of my pay packet, so why should you?

    • Dave in Perth says:

      05:49pm | 02/03/10

      Ronk,
      Without govt incentives, Australian fertility rates are below replacement anyway. No social engineering needed.
      Our problem is massive and unrestrained immigration. 
      Improve the average IQ?
      Are you kidding?
      Have you seen the demographic for people having more than 2 children?

    • Ronk says:

      07:31pm | 04/03/10

      Dave, you didn’t get it. It’s sarah et al. who are arguing for social engineering. I was arguing against it. Nothing to do with what anyone’s current fertility rate is.
      As far as I know no scientific study has been done yet, but if it was I’m sure that those who run around squealing that the government has to forcibly stop people from having children or else it will be The End Of The World, would be shown to have a lower IQ than average.

    • Dave in Perth says:

      11:50pm | 04/03/10

      Ronk,
      My impression of the “Sarah et al” brigades point was the REMOVAL of social engineering, rather than it’s advocacy.
      ie.
      Lower the immigration levels. (Which is social engineering.)
      Get rid of the baby “plasma TV” bonus. (Also social engineering.)

      If you’re looking to raise IQ’s, then that’s a whole different subject.
      That would probably involve something like the Singapore model, making the various incentives around reproduction match the tax scales.
      You need to give people in the top tax bracket have a noticeable incentive to breed. 
      For example, if you’re paying a 6 figure tax bill, a new plasma won’t excite, but a cheque for 50k may be of interest.

      But that’s only if you’re into social engineering?

    • Ronk says:

      09:10pm | 05/03/10

      Dave, I suggest you actually read sarah’s comment. She is advocating that the Aus govt imitate the infamous “one-child-policy” of the most blood-sooden murderous dictatorship the world has ever seen. “Social engineering” is a very mild euphemism for what she is proposing.

    • James says:

      11:30am | 02/03/10

      As much as I think Peter Garrett shouldn’t resign for the insulation debarcle, because I doubt anyone else would have done any better in his position, I think it illustrates just how hard it is to roll out a program to lots of people.

      Let’s take the example of the insulation scheme (insulating 1 million roofs, which I think is a brilliant idea) and now imagine the governement has to plan to provide:

      Food
      Housing
      Public transport
      Uncongested roads
      Medical services
      Water
      Power
      Gas
      Petroleum
      Affordable Housing
      Law and order
      Waste disposal

      For a 50% increase in our population (12 million people) over 40 years,  while dealing with climate change and peak oil.  Then ask yourself when was the last time goverments actually invested significant amounts of money in all of these things (which resulted in a noticable improvement) despite promising to at every election.

      Put plainly, as much as I do admire the good work goverments do.  I really don’ t think they are up to the job of catering for this increase well i.e. with it not eroding our standard of living significantly.

      Reply

    • Louis McLennan says:

      11:30am | 02/03/10

      I’m not in favour of huge population growth. I feel we just need to be more productive. However, people are quite happy to give 1 or 2% of their wage to unions and do the bare minimum. I’d like to think that anyone but good workers vote for the union party. Unions in their current form take away from Australia rather than add towards Australia.

      What we do need is to make our own population smarter. Stop hijacking schools with useless information that caters minorities, political agendas and other cultures. “I like talking about you you you you, usually, but occasionally. I wanna talk about meeeeee”

      If people were smarter maybe they’d be a little more confident and in turn more productive? All this talk about computers in school is a total distraction when people can’t even do the English or maths to make use of these heavily debated computers.

      To the conservatives… How does large population growth preserve what Australia is? While population growth of the past has offered many benefits do this country. What we are seeing now is the effect of Current population growth (and the result of the last boom). We have cities and states with infrastructure that does not cut it at present so I find it bizarre that we want to add more people into the mix.

      If we fail to fix this I’m sure some fascist (left-wing, right-wing what ever you want to call it) will…

      Here are a few simple things we can do for now. Stop spending money on useless junk like 100mbit broadband for grandma. Stop creating useless government jobs. Stop electing politicians that are so dishonest that they don’t serve Australia first and put offshore interests first! There are changes that everyone can make like keeping money in the community and buying Australian, that’ll work towards added prosperity for the community and hopefully Australia. Stop complaining about the ACCC and actually shop somewhere other than Coles and Woolworths.

      Is that fascist me? Not today.

      Reply

    • BMJ says:

      11:43am | 02/03/10

      If I want to have 20 kids with my future wife that I haven’t met yet it’s my business.

      If people want to make a choice to not have children to have less pollution, congestion and more resources then they can make that silly choice.

      Reply

    • James says:

      12:49pm | 02/03/10

      I wish you luck

    • James says:

      01:07pm | 02/03/10

      Just one question though, does your (as yet unmet) wife get a say your procreation plans?  I mean she should know that shacking up with you might result in her being up the duff for a total of 15 years.

    • Jade says:

      01:43pm | 02/03/10

      If you can provide for those children without government handouts go for your life.

    • Ronk says:

      04:44pm | 02/03/10

      James, what makes you think that BMJ, IF he ever gets married and IF he really wants to have 20 kids, would not tell his fiancee of his plans as any honest man would. I have known quite a few couples where the man was not honest pre-marriage about his procreation plans, but in every case it was that he deceived her into thinking he wanted kids when he actually never wanted kids - resulting in a miserable marriage &/or divorce and his exwife then desperately searching for a man who could commit to fatherhood before her biological clock ran out.

    • James says:

      11:39am | 03/03/10

      Ronk it’s a joke buddy

    • Davy says:

      11:54am | 02/03/10

      Economic growth gives us what…a bigger tv….a faster car….a bigger house…security….freedom from work. These at least are the promises..

      Population growth gives us a smaller house (and yard)....congested roads for our faster cars…more attacks(hence less security)....a wall in our units that we can watch doco’s of the real world on our big tvs, because there is no way we can get out there. More work to live, and less freedom. These also seem to come with economic growth.

      Economic growth does little to help the masses, but a hell of a lot to help the upper classes.

      Money may be able to buy you a facsimile of love, but it fails miserably in buying freedom.

      Reply

    • Anna C says:

      12:16pm | 02/03/10

      How are we going to deal with our ageing population?  Well maybe Baby Boomers should realise that we won’t be able to provide them with the standard of living that they were hoping for in th their retirement.  My parents are retired and live pretty frugally by today’s standards.  Why can’t Baby Boomers accept that their expectations for retirement are just too high. 
      Regarding our increasing migrant population, I wouldn’t mind so much as long as the infrastructure was there to support population growth.  However I know that regardless of government assurances the infrastructure won’t materialise and we will be worse off.  It is alright for people like developers and retailers to say they want increasing population growth but we are the ones who will live with the consequences.  Developers like Harry Tribekoff (Meriton Aparments) and retailers like Harvey Norman will reap all the rewards and go home to their Point Piper mansions and not have to deal with the negative consequences of excessive population growth.

      Reply

    • Anna C says:

      12:16pm | 02/03/10

      How are we going to deal with our ageing population?  Well maybe Baby Boomers should realise that we won’t be able to provide them with the standard of living that they were hoping for in th their retirement.  My parents are retired and live pretty frugally by today’s standards.  Why can’t Baby Boomers accept that their expectations for retirement are just too high. 
      Regarding our increasing migrant population, I wouldn’t mind so much as long as the infrastructure was there to support population growth.  However I know that regardless of government assurances the infrastructure won’t materialise and we will be worse off.  It is alright for people like developers and retailers to say they want increasing population growth but we are the ones who will live with the consequences.  Developers like Harry Tribekoff (Meriton Aparments) and retailers like Harvey Norman will reap all the rewards and go home to their Point Piper mansions and not have to deal with the negative consequences of excessive population growth.

      Reply

    • Edward James says:

      12:33pm | 02/03/10

      Increasing population to support growth in jobs and infrastructure is not the answer. Unfortunately we have almost lost the idea of how our representative government should work.  Step back and consider that perhaps five hundred thousand card carrying members of all political parties not only the two parties not much preferred are the arbiters of how our democracy will function or dysfunction depending on your point of view. I believe we have perhaps sixty percent of our population who do not give a stuff because they are sick of being lied to by successive governments, and watching while the democratic process becomes more and more dysfunctional. It is not always the answer for government to do what it thinks best. Sometimes they need to remember they are elected to do the bidding of the proletariat and if we want zero growth and no more immigration until we change our minds then that should be that. During the last thirty years successive governments Federal and State have worked hard to insulate themselves from the will of their constituents.  The big picture is the world is already over populated. If we keep going we may well face the same fate as bacteria growing in a Petri dish. Nature functions on a process of swinging balance not growth at any cost and we need to keep in mind we are part of nature. We will suffer and in fact do suffer the same fate as any other creature whose habitat is destroyed by the blind pursuit of excesses.

      Reply

    • Cam says:

      01:15pm | 02/03/10

      Having recently returned from some time in India, I now understand what the term “overpopulation” means.  It was with a touch of guilt when I realised I was relieved to be back in the orderly, clean and sparsely populated streets of Australia.

      I disagree with an above opinion that mankind will solve it’s problems.  I was truly shocked at the result of 1 billion people in a country half the size of Australia who are destroying their environment thanks to a culture that (for the most part) does not care about it.  Yes, India is booming - but at a very great cost.

      Reply

    • James says:

      02:06pm | 02/03/10

      I think you will find that the only Indians that don’t agree with you live on palacial estates, far away from the riff raff.  Population growth is sold to people by those who stand to benefit from it.

    • Ronk says:

      04:39pm | 02/03/10

      James, you obviously don’t know any working-class Indians. Every “riff-raff” Indian couple/family I know wants to have (by Aus standards) lots of kids. It’s the ones in the palaces who have few or no kids and who complain about supposed “overpopulation”.

    • PMCD says:

      01:15pm | 02/03/10

      Yeah, another perfect example of “democracy”.
      Poiticians want population growth because its an easy way to make the economy grow, to make them look better.

      Reply

    • Bob H says:

      01:56pm | 02/03/10

      We need as many overseas skilled migrants we can get. We need to syphon off taxes from them to keep fair dinkum workshy ozzies in the manner they are now accustomed to.  We then need to send the migrants back home when they are finished building and modernising our country, before they get a chance to enjoy the toils of their labour.

      Reply

    • James says:

      02:23pm | 02/03/10

      You a developer by any chance there Bob?

    • Miko says:

      01:58pm | 02/03/10

      The reason why we need immigration is that we are an ageing societty—if we don’t allow immigration then there will not be enough people to do the jobs the existing population is unable to do.

      Reply

    • Kim says:

      03:31pm | 02/03/10

      ageing society? Over 52,000 young people finished their year 12 in 2009 just in Queensland alone…....  I’m sure most of them would like a job.

    • Paul says:

      02:06pm | 02/03/10

      Our country’s wealth is in the ground. The more people we have the less pie there is for each individual. This government wants an increase in the population with unskilled and uneducated people. The kind that Vote Labor.

      Reply

    • Engineer says:

      02:20pm | 02/03/10

      For many people the “economy” is a false god that doesn’t actually deliver what it promises.  They look around and see wide spread environmental degradation, yet somehow it was economically the right thing to do?  e.g. the River Murray has been consumed to within an inch of its life.  Another example, it saddens me to visit Kangaroo Island and see its wildlife parks and think “crikey, most of South Australia was this beautiful before 80-90% was cleared by white people in pursuit of economic “growth”.  Am I a hardline greenie?  Hardly, I’m a civil engineer who builds roads all day!  Even within my trade I can see diminishing resources in relation to oil / bitumen and decent rock sources (to crush) to build roads.  Yes, human ingenuity can derive alternative sources in many cases, but in so many areas it seems we have sucked the natural resource dry and there simply aren’t viable “economic” alternatives on the near or distant horizon.  To me the root cause behind this is the economists delusion that you can have unlimited growth, when the reality is physical real world resources are finite.  Basically, I think a lot of “economic” growth comes about from completely consuming a natural resource, then moving onto the next resource, except we have reached a point where the human population is so large that our rate of consumption is exceeding nature’s ability to feed it.  So yes, I’d vote no to a huge population, there are too many doubts and I don’t have the blind faith in the economy and being able to buy our way out of problems that the capitalists and politician’s seem to have!

      Reply

    • James says:

      03:11pm | 02/03/10

      Yes, as an engineer who has to deal with physical reality I’m sure you are well aquainted with physical limits.  It is disturbing to me that the only Engineer I can think of in a position of political power is Steve Fielding, not the greatest ambassador for the profession.

      Without Engineers and scientist in charge what we are left with is a group of lawyers making decisions about things that have physical consequences like population growth.  Law, unlike engineering and science is not a profession that forces people to take into account physical reality and consequences, infact it seems that lawyers often discount physical reality entirely when it comes to planning.

    • TB says:

      03:27pm | 02/03/10

      Truer words have not been spoken, James. Politicians are by far the least qualified people when it comes to solving the technical problems that plague our society. Furthermore, for something which its scholars claims to be scientific, Economics has to be the biggest pile of pseudoscientific twaddle that I know of. It’s a field of study plagued with unchallenged and outdated assumptions, is woefully lacking in scope and is run by groups of circle-jerking academics that will completely ignore the mountains of evidence which refute their obsolete theories

    • Kim says:

      03:37pm | 02/03/10

      Lawyers plan?  I thought they just opened and closed their mouths and noise came out…...

    • John says:

      03:17pm | 02/03/10

      Increasing the population rational from our fearless leaders sounds more like a Ponzi scheme, Bernie Madoff would have been proud.

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen says:

      03:19pm | 02/03/10

      We can not sustain many more people. SA has run out of water. When the first fleet came they settled on the coastal plains & built on the most arable land, nothing has changed since then. Australians are a nation of city dwellers who get nose bleeds if they stray more than 50km from their state’s GPO. Within 10years we will not be able to feed ourselves, unless rural Oz gets a better deal we will end up as a source of very cheap raw materials that will be paid for at pittance rates by Little Kevvie’s mates the Chinese.

      Reply

    • ab says:

      04:58pm | 02/03/10

      There are reasons for and against population growth, but I say let in whoever wants to come in, so long as they aren’t serious criminal offenders. Do we really think our nation will be damaged when we have one of the very lowest population densities in the world? Do we think that the 8 million square kilometres or so isn’t big enough for our population which is about equal to the population of the Sao Paulo metro area? Australia can handle population growth. What you are really worried about is urban sprawl, but then the Government should actually be focusing on creating new metropolitan hubs. Find ways to attract people, especially new immigrants to the smaller cities and expand them. And those who aren’t worried about resources are probably just looking for excuses to keep the foreigners out.

      Reply

    • James says:

      12:03pm | 03/03/10

      ab we actually have 7.7 million sq km 6% of which is suitable for agriculture, this is why we have a low population density.  In ther words 7.1 million sq km of Australia is clapped out desert and uninhabitable.

      Contries like India and China have large populations because about 50% of their land is suitable for agriculture.  I really think you should look into this a bit more carfully

    • Ronk says:

      07:40pm | 04/03/10

      James, geographers tell us that only about 20% of Australia is “useless” desert. And even deserts have some uses and can support some people.

      Australia still has vast tracts (probably millions of sq km) of land suitable for agriculture which has never been touched by a spade. 50 million people in Aus is not overcroded by any means. We just have to stop funneling everyone into five big cities.

    • James says:

      11:05am | 05/03/10

      Probably millions of sq kilometers? You don’t sound very certain.

      Actually detailed studies show that we can only support 10 million people at our current lifestyle (without the environment going backwards) and 21 million if we all live a modest lifestyle i.e. invest significant time, money and effort into living sustainably.

      50 million people is right out of the question, deserts can support people i.e. a handfull of Nomadic camel herders, not suburbanite Australians.  The rest of Australia’s land that you claim we can use, is only usable if we invest huge amounts of money to fertigate the soil and grow crops, I think you will find that, that only happens in countries like Israel where it is heavily subsidiesd and they have no other choice, that is, it is not economically viable in Australia.

      Instead of taking wild guesses as to what you reckon we can handle, it is worthwhile listening to what the overiding scientistific concensus is, afterall it is the job of scientists to answer questions like this.

    • Ronk says:

      09:24pm | 05/03/10

      James,
      if I say I have probably 30,000 hairs on my head, that doesn’t mean I must be bald because I don’t know the exact number. There are most certainly more than half a million sq km of unused, fertile, well-watered arable land in Australia. I personally don’t know if there aare more than 2 million sq km, that’s the only certainty. It’s certain that there is more than enough to support a population several times our current popn.  80% of our current food production is exported.

    • James says:

      11:57am | 10/03/10

      Ronk your thinking is too simplistic I’m afraid I have studies to show that only 6% of Australia’s land is arable, do the sums what is 6% of 7.7 million sq kms.

      You are right in that we export more food than we consume, but this has fallen over the last 10 years due to the drought (which is expected to get worse in the long term).  We also need that export income as we don’t make anything here, the other thing to consider is what would happen if Australia stopped exporting food to other countries, I think you would find that this would cause food shortages elsewhere in the world.  Nothing is as simple as you think, the law of unintended consequences.

    • loz says:

      06:23pm | 02/03/10

      Year 2050, 36million people projected on paper by so called experts. Now, the reality would project a different picture as there will be more pressing issues than economic growth. You can’t eat money, metal or concrete.

      Reply

    • John in Alice says:

      08:30pm | 02/03/10

      Personal experience indicates that the government isn’t doing a hell of a lot of good for the retires as is.  Why should we believe a larger population is going to change things for the better?  While I could get free bus rides and a driver’s license and a discount on the rego, who is going to help pay the $500. plumbing bill, or the $600. sparky bill or the $650. bill to pump out my septic tank?  My petrol and groceries cost as much as anyone’s but I get no help in paying my dentist $1200 for a badly needed crown and it cost $460. to put my beloved dog down recently.  You imaging this is going to improve in 20 years?

      Reply

    • Mr Pastry says:

      09:37pm | 02/03/10

      We can have a larger population if we all consume less.  But none of us are willing to do that are we.

      Reply

    • Public Record says:

      08:14am | 03/03/10

      I do consume less. Aimed for and achieved this past 20 years. Plenty of us do. We just get on with it without ranting.

      Reply

    • Mr Pastry says:

      02:33pm | 03/03/10

      Thats one then - the general population idolises consumption.  Popular press are stuffed with stories about how our elites peacock their wealth. Success and wealth are hard wired to the ability to excessively consume.  Humans are obsessed with success and “making a difference” anything else is failure and a sin, we should be trying to live “leaving no trace” but unfortunately for most of us our egos get in the way

    • Matt says:

      11:36am | 03/03/10

      @Public Record - Sure plenty of us do, but plenty more of us don’t and that’s a problem.

      Reply

    • shere khan says:

      01:16pm | 03/03/10

      If Kevin Rudd does not rein in his immigration policies Australian cities will be like New York.  I condone tough Immigration control NOT violence in society caused by Kevin Rudd’s Indian Student debacle.
      A stable population would solve all our energy problems.
      Migration should be stopped.  Let our cities catch up with Infrastructure requirements.
      World population has TREBLED during my lifetime.(2 to 6 billion!)  All the infrastructure planning and construction now will be inadequate in 20 years as population explosion will overtake it.

      Reply

    • Ronk says:

      09:17pm | 05/03/10

      nonsense. According to the UN, world population will never agin treble. Or even double. Or even increase by 50%. The myth of the “population explosion” has itself been exploded. In 30-50 years’ time, we will be desperately bribing and cajoling young immigrants to come here, and their home governments will be just as desperately bribing and cajoling them to stay as the available pond of would-be-immigrants dries up. I say get in now and grab as many as we can before it becomes too expensive to get them. You’;re right, the population debate is coming - how to overcome the coming potentially disastrous world population implosion. .

    • shere khan says:

      01:29pm | 03/03/10

      At Copenhagen NOBODY mentioned OVERPOPULATION of the World. WHY?, the POPULATION debate is coming!  In 50 years world population has TRIPLED. (2-6 billion)
      People =Factories=Pollution=Global warming=Degradation of Environmental Balance=Stress on all living things.
      Moving people around the World is NOT A SOLUTION.
      Global warming debate is here, but NOBODY connected the dots.
      Spreading people around the World is NOT a solution at all.
      Populations must be reduced.
      Wayne Swan is wrong.  Rudd is wrong.

      Reply

    • shere khan says:

      01:33pm | 03/03/10

      I have written to a couple of Senators suggesting Pensioners could CONTINUE paying Medicare.
      I have even written suggesting Medicare could be raised to 2 % of income.
      If this were so, it would cost me $225 a year.  I would willingly pay this to stop WAYNE SWAN’S mad idea of 40 million by immigration.
      I believe in Population Control Worldwide not moving them around.

      Reply

    • shere khan says:

      01:55pm | 03/03/10

      The quickest way to halt climate change is to:  “STERILIZE” after two children.
      It has other rapid benefits too, such as REDUCING the homes and houses shortage.  Young people will be able to AFFORD houses again.  Hospitals will lower their ‘waiting times.’  Fewer cars will be on the road, within 30 years.  Unemployment will be reduced.
      That is quicker than spending $billions on any other way.

      Reply

    • Harquebus says:

      01:56pm | 03/03/10

      The pollies are right on one thing. Without population growth, there is no economic growth but, it is a ponsie scheme.
      Only a reduction in the worlds and the Australian population will improve living standards. The more of us there is, the more we have to share dwindling resources which, have and are being squandered.
      Aussie workers are working longer hours for more years and are still paying income tax.
      Still, the morons vote the same morons in.

      Reply

    • shere khan says:

      02:00pm | 03/03/10

      64,000 new Queenslanders let us hope that 64,000 people DIE in Queensland this year to keep the balance.  In addition, if any of the children born are the 3rd or 4th child of a family, may the parents stop to consider Global Warming and “THE POPULATION DEBATE?”  Your Carbon footprint is UNACCEPTABLE.  You should pay more TAX.
      On ABC TV 7; 30 pm, report last night, Kerry O’Brien was chatting to Sir David Attenborough.  Sir David remarked that; since I made my first TV program, the population of the World has increased 3 fold. 
      That is why he has joined the POPULATION debate.
      People=factories=roads=cars=pollution=Global warming=death to many of the World’s FLORA & FORNA. (ANIMALS & PLANTS.)

      Reply

    • James says:

      04:06pm | 03/03/10

      The reason people don’t want to talk about this is because it is even more difficult than trying to get people to reduce their consumption.  Clearly it is a problem, and clearly no politician wants to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole.

      On the trajectory we are on we are heading for a classic population boom then crash.

    • Mike says:

      12:24am | 05/03/10

      I think there’s no doubt we would take a drop in quality of life if we reduced the population (due to less demand) but surely some things are more important than constant growth to allow us to continue to live in excess? Eg if I want to enjoy a decent-sized yard with a modest standard of living, the same thing past generations enjoyed, why not? Rather than living in a shoebox where I can afford to buy all the latest junk where I hear the neighbours’ every sound ala Hong Kong or Tokyo and can’t sleep at night because I can hear the neighbours’ footsteps in the floorboards above.

      People mention the Japanese - yes they’ve been going through tough times, but their country is very overcrowded and I’m sure a lot of people would like a drop in population to say 100 million. There aren’t any easy solutions to this problem but to just assume growth has to continue on into perpetuity is to me simply not viable. The Japanese are looking into robotics, to take care of the elderly etc. Who knows, they might be able to build an industry out of that to take them out of their slump. At least they’re trying to think around the problem rather than just giving in to defeat.

      Reply

    • eye4aneye says:

      02:55pm | 05/03/10

      Logan’s run - not just a movie but a potential political policy :D

      Reply

    • Theo says:

      07:20pm | 10/03/10

      We need mor population because we want   more Centerlink help, more criminality more poverty, less affordable housing, crowded streets, crowded transport services, worsening schools and hospitals because of the higher demand.Not enough reasons?

      Reply

    • Davido says:

      08:27pm | 10/03/10

      I really just like living somewhere not crowded.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 10 Feb 12 01:16PM

TAbbott to fight PHI rebate cuts on behalf of 2.5 million to pay extra, but won't say what he'd do as PM. http://t.co/lXWpMXXF

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 10 Feb 12 01:06PM

Numerous workplace safety rules (no harness, fall arrest etc) broken in this pic of Roosters coach Brian Smith http://t.co/jx4PgtBs

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 10 Feb 12 12:53PM

Yo, mummy bloggers! Your expert input is required in this doozy of a child-rearing dilemma http://t.co/0JfOnCq1

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 10 Feb 12 11:52AM

How we're getting ripped off at the ATM http://t.co/Vpu8DuHy

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

by Tory Shepherd

1

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

by Anthony Sharwood

9

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

by Lucy Kippist

20

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

151 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed