1 of 14

POPULATION GROWTH IN AUSTRALIA

(There are none so blind as those who will not see!)

Introduction
Government policies are pushing us into becoming a “big” Australia. Government is
doing this to placate people with vested interests who want bigger profits, who hold the
idea that something called “growth” is imperative, and who have the misguided belief that
Australia has much empty space that should be used to absorb the population overflow
of other countries. These policies are ill advised. A big population is not sustainable and
can lead only to ever-increasing angst.

Government panders to these interests because of short-term political gain. Policies

change as the pressure from interest groups change and with changes in Government.
This is inefficient, prevents other policy settings from being effective, and ignores the
need for a population policy that will ensure the sustainability of our life style into the
future.

What is needed is a considered vision of what population size is right for Australia. This
vision should remain as an objective for all governments for the long term unless there
becomes an essential need for change.

The people of Australia must be involved in an informed discussion about this subject to
achieving consensus about the shape and size of our population.

This essay will discuss population shape and size, and will explain options for helping to
ensure the sustainability of the Australian way of life.

Setting

For our standard of living to be sustainable, so that future generations can continue to
live well in Australia, a careful balance must be achieved and maintained between the
size of the population and the total inputs available to the population that affect its quality
of life.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) projects that the population of Australia will
grow from its present size of about 23.5 million to reach between 36 million and 45
million by the year 2056, depending on the growth scenario1.

The present Australian Government accepts and encourages large population growth. It
effectively ignores any notion of controlling population numbers to ensure true
sustainability. It is guided by economic thought based on capitalism, the profit motive,
and continuing growth.

1
http://stat.data.abs.gov.au/
 2 of 14

This is absurd from any planning perspective that considers sustainable infrastructure,
services, environment, and quality of life. Not to limit population growth is to accept that
our water, mineral, and other resources will be depleted sooner rather than later.
Eventually, this will destroy irrevocably our lifestyles and the environment upon which we
depend.

Concepts
Sustainability

The Government publication “Sustainable Australia – Sustainable Communities: A

Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia2, dated 2011, includes definitions as
follows:

a. Economic prosperity is a vital component of our sustainability as it underpins our

capacity to take the actions required to build a sustainable Australia. It underpins
our security, quality of life, the inclusiveness of our society and capacity to
ameliorate our environmental impacts. It also funds research and development
into smarter ways to achieve sustainable outcomes across the environment,
communities and the economy.

b. Liveable communities are those that effectively provide for and support a high
quality of life, wellbeing and health. These communities achieve this by providing
ready access to employment and services, ease of connecting with friends and
family, and high environmental amenity.

c. Environmental Sustainability encompasses the protection of the natural and built

environment; sustainable use of Australia’s natural resources; and conservation of
biodiversity and our heritage. Sustainable environments are those which are
resilient in the face of threats and which continue to provide value to the nation
over time.

These definitions obfuscate the meaning of sustainable, and cause the report to lose
focus.

The true meaning of sustainable is the concept of being able to maintain or sustain
something at a rate or level so that it can continue forever at that rate or level.

The present population policies of Government fail the test of sustainability because they
exacerbate the consumption of non-renewable resources, for example - clearly
unsustainable. See also, under the heading below, “Why Worry?”, the list of harms
caused by excessive population growth.

2
A Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia 2011;
http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/sustainable-australia-sustainable-communities-
sustainable-population-strategy-australia
 3 of 14

The Precautionary Principle

The Precautionary Principle is defined in several ways, but all are encapsulated by the
following3:

 When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically
plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.

 Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is

o threatening to human life or health, or

o serious and effectively irreversible, or

o inequitable to present or future generations, or

o imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those

affected.

 The judgement of plausibility should be grounded in scientific analysis.

The Government is obliged legally to adopt the precautionary principle in all of its
considerations.

The present policies of Government about population growth and population size for
Australia violate the Precautionary Principle.

Population Size - Present Trends

Medium Growth Scenario

The population of Australia is growing at one of the fastest rates within the developed
world.

In December 2013, the estimated resident population was 23.3 million. About one fifth
(19%) of the population was aged less than 15, while 14% of the population was aged
over 65 (including around 2% aged over 85). The working-age population (aged 15 to 64)
was two thirds of the total population, and there was a total dependency ratio of 50%
(that is, there were 50 'dependents' for every 100 'workers', or a ratio of 1:2).4

The ABS has produced 72 Series of models depicting population growth for Australia
based on various assumptions. Two of the better-known models are its Series B model
(medium rate growth) and Series C model (low rate growth).

3
World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology; The United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
4
ABS 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, 2014
 4 of 14

The following graph represents the ABS Series B and Series C population projection
data:

3222.0 Population Projections, Australia

Population projections, TOTAL, Australia - Series 29 (Series B) Population projections, TOTAL, Australia - Series 54 (Series C)

60,000,000

55,000,000

50,000,000

45,000,000

40,000,000

35,000,000
Population

30,000,000

25,000,000

20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

0
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
2052
2054
2056
2058
2060
2062
2064
2066
2068
2070
2072
2074
2076
2078
2080
2082
2084
2086
2088
2090
2092
2094
2096
2098
2100
Year

The ABS Series B assumptions5 are:

a. the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) will decline to 1.8 babies per woman by 2026 and
then remain constant;

b. life expectancy at birth will continue to increase each year until 2061, though at a
declining rate (reaching 85.2 years for males and 88.3 years for females); and

c. Net Overseas Migration (NOM) will remain constant at 240,000 per year
throughout the projection period.

The ABS Series C Assumptions6 are:

a. the TFR will decrease to 1.6 babies per woman by 2026 and then remain
constant;

b. life expectancy at birth will continue to increase each year until 2061, though at a
declining rate (reaching 85.2 years for males and 88.3 years for females); and

c. NOM will reach 200,000 per year by 2021 and then remain constant.

Note that even if Government adjusted its policies to meet these Series C
assumptions, population growth would continue to grow.

5
PROJECTION RESULTS — AUSTRALIA (3222.0 - Population Projections, Australia, 2012
(base) to 2101 - Latest ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 26/11/2013).
6
PROJECTION RESULTS — AUSTRALIA (3222.0 - Population Projections, Australia, 2012
(base) to 2101 - Latest ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 26/11/2013).
 5 of 14

Importantly, these ABS projections are merely models to inform what will happen under
various assumptions. Government policies can and are creating different conditions. In
December 2013, the ABS reported the actual data for Australia at that time7:

a. the TFR was 1.9 births per woman.

b. life expectancy was 79.9 years for men and 84.3 years for women.

c. NOM was averaging 240,000 migrants per year.

The present situation, therefore, is closer to the Series B data, with the population
growing rapidly.

Importantly, NOM is contributing about 60 per cent of Australia's population growth (for
the year ending March 2013) and has outstripped the natural increase (the excess of
births over deaths) in the population since 2005.8

Why Worry?
Generally, Australia is suffering already from many of the population-induced pressures
that afflict most places, including:

a. increasing road congestion;

b. increasing atmospheric and noise pollution;

c. increasing pressure on medical and education resources;

d. depletion of fresh water resources;

e. reducing fish stocks;

f. increasing habitat destruction, particularly by land clearing;

g. rapid depletion of dwindling mineral and other resources;

h. detrimental visual and lifestyle impacts from continuous building works throughout
Australia;

i. increasing transport problems with parking and public transport availability;

j. increasing removal of green-space within the urban footprint because of

Greenfield development and the rezoning within the urban footprint to allow

7
ABS 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, 2014
8
Fact sheet 15 - population growth; https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-
sheets/15population.htm
 6 of 14

medium density development with the consequential impact on visual amenity and
on native animal and bird life;

k. the overall reduction of vegetation and ecosystems throughout Australia; and

l. deteriorating social conditions, such as visual and acoustic privacy, adequacy of

private open space, solar access, garage dominance, visitor parking and,
importantly, the increase in opportunities for anti-social behaviours and crimes
due to increased population density, increased anonymity, higher concentration of
different social mixes and potential frictions9.

There are people of influence with Government who lobby for population increases,
usually arguing that this is necessary to increase the prosperity of the community and the
economy. An example is the HIA Media release of 17 December 2013 that stated:

“With our population ageing and the baby-boomer generation progressively moving into
retirement, Australia’s workforce must continually be replenished. Healthy levels of
skilled migration, such as we are currently observing, will become increasingly important
if we are to see the productivity improvements that will deliver sustainable advances in
living standards”.

This is a self-serving and simplistic argument that ignores the serious consequences of
an ever-increasing population. It ignores the potential for the aged to fund their own
retirement completely by, for instance, the government raising the Superannuation
Guarantee levy to about 15%. Particularly myopic is the argument that more and more
young people are needed to pay taxes to support the aging population. This overlooks
the fact that these younger people will age too, swelling the aged cohort that will need an
ever-increasing number of young people over time. This is a Ponzi scheme writ large, but
not seen apparently.

The Government must structure the economy differently for truly sustainable outcomes.

Business and Profit

Businesses function to supply the market with goods that people need or can be
encouraged to think they need; hence, the vast sums of money spent on advertising.
Business people lobby Governments for an increasing population because it provides a
larger customer base for their product.

They reason that more people require more products and that the production of more
products means more jobs. This is true, but the predominant reason for their argument is
the benefit of more profit. Once the market for a product approaches saturation, business
presents a newer version or a different product. And so, many shops are full of goods
that people have been convinced they want but, in reality, do not need.

9
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY AND PLANNING: A DIALOGUE FOR A NEW
PERSPECTIVE ON SAFER CITIES by Dr Paul M. Cozens;
http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/cgibin/espace.pdf?file=/2010/03/09/file_1/133746
 7 of 14

Businesses make more profit, but at the expense of resources depletion and pollution
increase. Then, once again, business calls for greater population growth, by whatever
means. This is misnamed “progress”. So, round and round we go, on an upward spiral of
population growth and a downward spiral of resources depletion; two vortices that will
end as vortices do, in collapse!

Governments succumb to business demands for population growth because of the lure
of more revenue through taxation and the belief that people’s standard of living, as it
relates to materialism, must be improved whatever the real cost; and people have been
lead to believe that materialism is a good and necessary aim for improving their quality of
life. Governments, and many people, apparently fail to see the cyclic trap into which they
are falling. The profit motive is not a sufficient reason for permitting population growth.

In addition, how much profit is enough? In our society, there never seems to be enough
profit, the more the better. Indeed, businesses are able to make the profits they do
because most businesses do not have to pay for the social and ecological damage they
and compliant governments cause.

Housing Density

Property developers and the Government encourage Councils to accommodate the

growing population through a combination of infill and redevelopment in existing urban
areas, usually high- and medium-density developments, as well as Greenfield
developments.

However, surveys show that close to 80% of the Australian population desire a detached
house and garden, not town houses or apartments. The high cost of Australian housing
constrains many from their dream, however.10 Similarly, the need of many to live within a
short commuting distance from their work forces people to forego their dream.

There are many disadvantages with higher density living11:

a. Attractive suburbs with flowers and foliage are being overrun by concrete and
bitumen. Bewildered long-time residents find themselves in the shadows of unit
blocks.

b. Greenhouse gas emissions increase. Studies show that energy use in high
density housing is about twice that for a detached house.

c. The per-resident energy to construct high-rise is nearly five times that needed to
build a house.

10
For example: THE HOUSING WE’D CHOOSE: a study for Perth and Peel Report • May 2013
11
The Sydney Morning Herald, Rise of high-density living a new low for Sydney, January 14,
2009
 8 of 14

d. Research in Melbourne shows people squeezed into newly converted dense

areas did not use public transport to any greater extent and there was little or no
change in their percentage of car use.

e. There is not enough difference in the emissions of public versus private transport
to counter the increased emissions of high-density living. For each kilometer City
Rail carries a passenger, it emits 105 grams of greenhouse gases, while the
average car emits 155, and modern fuel-efficient cars such as the Toyota Prius
emit just 70.

f. Increased congestion caused by high density damages health. Vehicle exhaust

contains micro particles that kill 3 million people each year, the World Health
Organization says. High density is also bad for mental health. A study of more
than 4 million Swedes showed the rate for psychosis was 70 per cent greater for
dense areas, and there was a 16 per cent greater risk of depression. The
Australian Unity Wellbeing Index shows the happiest electorates are those with
lower population densities.

g. Adding more people to existing infrastructure means overload. The standards of

Sydney's roads, rail, water supply and electricity have all deteriorated from the
imposition of high-density policies.

h. The effect of high-density policies on the cost of housing has been devastating to
our younger generation. By trying to force people into higher density on existing
land, the supply of new land for housing has been cut. The cost of land now
comprises 70 per cent of the cost of a home, instead of 30 per cent as it used to.
A new dwelling should cost about $210,000 but is closer to $500,000.

i. Bureau of Statistics figures show 83 per cent of Australians prefer to live in a free-
standing home, and we do object to draconian policies forcing us to live in bland
high-rise units.

A particular disadvantage of higher density developments is the heat island effect. A

study into this effect has been done at Monash University, Melbourne.12 The study
concluded, in part, “that a move toward a more compact city with built-up activity centers
... would raise urban surface and within canopy temperatures, leading to unfavorable
conditions, in particular for those with increased vulnerability to excess temperatures. ...
A move toward a more compact city will extend the seasonal exposure to unfavorable
climatic conditions, with warmer temperatures expected in the shoulder months on either
side of summer.”

Where the capacity of services needs to be increased to cope with redevelopment, the
cost usually exceeds that for providing the services in a new development. Increasing the
population density allows a more cost effective provision of services only where the
existing services can cope.

Impact of Increasing Urban Density on Local Climate: Spatial and Temporal Variations in the
12

Surface Energy Balance in Melbourne, Australia by ANDREW M. COUTTS, JASON

BERINGER, AND NIGEL J. TAPPER, School of Geography and Environmental Science,
Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 28 April 2006
 9 of 14

Overall, increasing the population density is not cost-effective; the disadvantages

significantly outweigh the benefits.

The present population policies of Government will cause more and more crowding,
contrary to the desires of most people. This will create less healthy and less liveable
communities.

Mineral Resources

The Australian Government publication by Geoscience Australia, "AUSTRALIA’S

IDENTIFIED MINERAL RESOURCES 2019" provides sobering information13.

(Quote) It is not possible to state with any certainty how long Australia’s resources will
last because production rates vary, the economic viability of deposits may change in the
future and the rate of new resource delineation rarely matches resource depletion.
However, a general impression of the range of possibilities can be gained by deriving the
ratio of the various 2018 reserve and resource estimates to 2018 production figures
(Table 9).(Unquote)

For example, Table 9 (see below for extract) shows we have only 55 years of Iron Ore
left and that most of Australia’s mineral resources are likely to be depleted within 100
years, unless significant new economically recoverable resources are discovered - an
unlikely event.

Table 9:
Number of years of resource life for major commodities calculated as the ratio of Accessible
Economic Demonstrated Resources compared to the production rate for each year:

Commodity As at December 2018

Bauxite 55
Black Coal 115
Brown Coal >1,000
Copper 95
Diamond <5
Gold 30
Ilmenite 165
Iron Ore 55
Lead 75
Lithium 85
Manganese Ore 35
Nickel 135
Rutile 160
Silver 70
Tin 60
Uranium 225
Zinc 60
Zircon 145

13
https://d28rz98at9flks.cloudfront.net/132457/132457_00_1.pdf
 10 of 14

Note: Globally, the number of years of resource life for most of these resources is far less.

Population growth will seriously exacerbate this depletion. Furthermore, an increasing

population reduces our per capita share of resources, making us relatively poorer as
individuals.

We need look only to Nauru to see the impact of resources depletion. Nauru is a prime
example of a country that has exhausted its natural resources for profit and growth, now
destroyed environmentally and financially.

An Australia without its present range of economically extractable mineral resources is

inevitable, eventually. We would be sensible, however, not to rush towards that
condition.

The Economy

A growing economy depends on increasing the demand for goods and services and
increasing their supply accordingly. An increasing population makes economic growth
easy because it automatically increases demand. It lessens the need to improve
productivity through better work practises and the use of technology.

The construction industry is a good example. Without population growth, little new
construction would be needed; most work would be in repair and renovations. At the end
of June 2012 there were 950,000 persons working in the Construction industry. Two-
thirds (67.0% or 636,000 persons) worked for the Construction services sector followed
by 16.8% (or 160,000 persons) in Building construction and 16.2% (or 154,000 persons)
in Heavy and civil engineering construction.14

If population growth slowed or stopped, most of these people could be retrained and
redeployed throughout the economy. This would negate the need for the large
immigration intakes to support Australian industries as is argued now.

Similar coping mechanisms could be applied to all employment categories to adjust to a

stable population.

What Must Be Done

Acceptable Population Size

There are many studies showing that Australia is over-populated now, and that our
present life-styles are not sustainable into the longer term.

To envisage that Australia should increase its present population by anything like that
shown by the ABS Series B model is naive at best, the increase being 26% by 2030 and
123% by 2100. The consequences will be serious.

14
ABS: 8772.0 - Private Sector Construction Industry, Australia, 2011-12
 11 of 14

All impartial considerations of the present size of the Australian population and the total
resources available to it conclude we are heading for disaster, an ever-reducing standard
of living and potential conflict over resources - perhaps not today, but within the lifetime
of our grandchildren.

Happily, the population projections produced by the ABS are not forecasts. They are
models to show the effects of changing the parameters that influence population growth.
Government can manage population growth by influencing these parameters.

The only ABS Series that show a population growth limit before the end of this Century
are Series 55 to 72 inclusive. The common and necessary condition is that NOM is zero.

The following graph shows the ABS Population Projections, Series 60 (black diamonds),
66 (pink rectangles) and 69 (yellow triangles):

ABS POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Zero NOM High life expectancy High fertility Zero NOM High life expectancy Medium fertility Zero NOM High life expectancy Low fertility

30,000,000

25,000,000

20,000,000
Population

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

0
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
2052
2054
2056
2058
2060
2062
2064
2066
2068
2070
2072
2074
2076
2078
2080
2082
2084
2086
2088
2090
2092
2094
2096
2098
2100
Year

Importantly, the maximum limit reached within these Series is a population of 27,174,635
(Series 60) in about the year 2065. Higher numbered Series have lower maximums as is
indicated on the graph.

Once the maximum limit is reached, population policies can be adjusted to manage the
population size as required.

There is much evidence based on knowledge of available resources and present

consumption rates within Australia that indicate the Australian population should be
much lower than the 25 to 28 million shown in these graphs, if the Australian way of life
is to be sustained into the future.

Only by studying the matter dispassionately and logically, and by considering all relevant
factors, and by involving the public, can Government arrive at a rational answer that will
withstand public scrutiny. Studies influenced by vested interests, politics, morality, or
anything similar will fail.
 12 of 14

Other Options

Although the ABS Series show growth can peak within this Century if NOM is zero, there
are other options. The author has modelled the data and can show other permutations to
achieve a plateau or peak.

For example, a peak of about 28 million would be reached by the year 2092 if both the
TFR were reduced to 1.8 and the NOM to 40,000 per year by about 2020. A similar peak
would be reached if the TFR were reduced to 1.7 with a NOM of 50,000 per year. This
graph shows these projections:

POPULATION GROWTH 2012-2101

Calculated Total Population (TFR=1.8, NOM=40,000 by 2020) Calculated Total Population (TFR=1.7, NOM=50,000 by 2020)

30000000

28000000

26000000

24000000

22000000

20000000

18000000
Population

16000000

14000000

12000000
10000000

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000

0
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
2052
2054
2056
2058
2060
2062
2064
2066
2068
2070
2072
2074
2076
2078
2080
2082
2084
2086
2088
2090
2092
2094
2096
2098
2100
Year

What is required is that the net increase in population per year decrease every year until
it becomes zero. This is the point at which the growth plateaus or peaks. The net
increase in population per year is the sum of the numbers resulting from the birth rate,
the death rate and the migration rate for that year. Presently, the net increase is about
400,000.

The Government would benefit if the ABS were tasked to produce a Population
Projection Series that does plateau or peak without necessarily reducing the NOM to
zero, to confirm the author’s projections. Such information would provide a fuller picture
of the options available to Government.

Acceptable Population Composition

Government should consider carefully the impact of population policy on the composition
of the Australian community.

The policy of multiculturalism, in its true form of giving equal importance to each of the
different cultures in a society, will be destructive of the present Judeo-Christian and
English-based Australian way of life as the influence of other cultures grows through
various means, including different procreation rates and Government immigration
policies. Diversity means division. Such divisions are apparent already in Australian
 13 of 14

society, where different ethnic cohorts each cluster in particular geographic locations,
where the English language might not be spoken, and where different cultural practices
can conflict with Australian law. Even the small aboriginal population is being divided
from the rest of the community by being treated as a special group with unique benefits.

Population policies must consider these impacts.

Controlling Population Growth

The scenarios shown above are real, and striking.

Many commentators seem to believe that population growth will self-regulate without
harm. This is a dangerous proposition. Natural law, indeed, will regulate the population at
some time. Famine, disease and pestilence will overtake us eventually and control our
numbers - this is the law of nature for all species. Surely though, we should use our
supposed intelligence to manage our future.

Many people and businesses have much to profit by encouraging growth - it is a simpler
way of profiting than improving efficiency and effectiveness, and accepting that some
endeavours should cease growing, or even cease.

We must recognize that population growth is leading us into dangerous territory and we
should act now to limit it - the Precautionary Principle.

Taking action to plateau or peak the population as soon as possible would give
Government time and options to measure the impacts of its decisions about population
size and shape. Not to do so would mean Government is not in control, rather is a dupe
of circumstance and influential players.

Conclusion
A policy that depends on the continuous consumption of non-renewable resources and
an ever-increasing workforce is flawed; it is unsustainable. An different economic model
is needed, one that can be maintained if Australia is to stop its spiral towards the
overcrowding of its living spaces, destruction of its environment, and depletion of its
resources.

The Federal Government, with compliance by all State Governments, must act to limit
the population of Australia. The Government has the power to control population
numbers via many mechanisms, including education, the provision and withdrawal of
incentives, immigration and taxation.

The Government must start a robust discussion about the desired size of the Australian
population, involving all sections of our society. However, asking people for their opinion
without firstly informing them about the many and complicated factors involved will not
provide an informed and reasoned answer.

The starting point for any discussion is to present data and arguments addressing the
many aspects of the subject. The impact of the various options on our way of life should
 14 of 14

be presented clearly. Conventional thought and economic models must be balanced with
new thinking.

An important consideration would be whether or not we would like our present standard
of living to be able to continue into the future; that is, do we desire our quality of life to be
sustainable so that our children and grandchildren, et cetera, can expect similar benefits.
Population size is probably the most important factor affecting our quality of life because
its impacts are all pervading.

The comments and lobbying of people, businesses and organizations with stakes in
encouraging population growth should be recognized for what they are and weighed
accordingly.

We can have vision and act as intelligent beings, or we can be victims of our blinkered
folly.

Lindsay Hackett B.Sc

Macleay Island Qld 4184 23 February 2018
Updated 19 October 2020