No More "Big Australia" (?)

Julia Gillard's first act - dumping 'Big Australia'
* Gillard ditches Rudd population plan
* She reaches out to disenchanted voters
* Labor introduces two-speed immigration
* New poll gives Julia a winning edge

JULIA Gillard has used her first major announcement to reassure disenchanted voters that she does not believe in a "big Australia" with a population target of 36 million.

The policy is clearly at odds with former prime minister Kevin Rudd, who announced the "big Australia" targeting 36 million people by 2050 just as a new wave of asylum-seekers arrived off our shores. Article Continues...

I have heard comments on this site several times about strong population growth, where Australia's population was expected to rise to 36/42 million by 2050. It has been my opinion that such growth would simply not be sustainable (not only from a housing perspective, but also transport, usable water, etc also). It seems Julia Gillard also sees things this way and I approve the changes she is implementing to drive a sustainable population increase.

Recently media has been using the ammo of not enough houses being built vs population increase to drive home their "housing shortage" scare mongering campaign. This change in policy and the fact building approvals are on the increase could infact flip things back to how they have been for decades prior to the last couple of years, where housing growth actually exceeds new demand...
 
Im against a 'Big Australia' for numerous reasons. The main one is economically. These hundreds of thousands of new residents aren't coming here to work in industry in massive industrial areas churning out machinery, electronic equipment, chemicals and textiles, or pharmacuticals to export to the world and grow our wealth. We are a commodity exporting nation with most people employed in service industries. Double our population and we have to dig up and export twice as much dirt and rocks, so our lucky mineral wealth will run out twice as quick.

The only reason Australia exports so much commodities is due to our low population. The US producer's 3 times as much coal as Australia, but they have 15 times as many people. So we can export coal, and we do, and it's our biggest export, But the US use all their coal themselves because there is simply so many of them so they can't export it, and have to rely on manufacturing instead.

With such a small manufacturing base, we avoided recession. We can't compete with harder working and hungrier asians. The only reason we can maintain such a small manufacturing base with a giant services sector is our commodity exports.

Some research says that we will run out of coal in 80 years time and especially if we keep increasing our exports. It will soon be a million tonnes a day of coal exports..:eek:.... This is nuts. It's the same with all our exports including food. At 60 million people we are eating all our food and have none to export.



Good on Julia for dumping this crazy population growth. High population growth does not benefit our economy or our standards of living at all in the long run, and any sensible thinking person can work that out.

The developed Western World has falling populations. That's as it should be when we are running out of oil, coal and gas, or having to destroy farmland to extract it. We are increasingly polluting the planet and using up it's resources and fresh water and harvesting the oceans. Asia is rapidly reducing their birth rates. They are smart and should pull up just in time. Places like Africa and the Middle East and other places who due to numerous reasons have no intention of doing anything about their crazy growth rates have to look after themselves. They shouldn't expect the world to accommodate them, they have to change their silly religious beliefs themselves and help themselves to avoid a callamity, because that's what they have coming to them.


See ya's.
 
Last edited:
Political statement not policy

So we should all ascribe to the Kelvin Thompson view of our ageing population dilemma, "Don't worry, be happy". That was his exact words on radio this morning. Staggering.:eek:

This is not an either or situation. Like a lot of public debate in this country, we debate the extremes.

If you thought the few words that JG mentioned was the effectual dumping of the policy, don't be fooled by the very smooth political operator, who was clearly focusing this statement at Western Sydney and the political plight of the ALP in this area ie Penrith state by election.

If you spoke to the people of western Sydney, for example, about a 'big Australia' they would laugh at you and ask you a very simple question: where will these 40 million people go?"
 
where will 40mil go?

not all in Western Sydney - another NSW shortsighted thought train...:rolleyes:

how about growing the town that need growth to continue and to prosper and minimise the stranglehold that higher prices have on these places....?

i dunno - how about....mmmm, Karratha? Darwin? Port Hedland? Gladstone? Alice Springs?

there's more to life than Western Sydney and Toorak.
 
Australia is the most sparsely populated country on the planet. Sure, yes, a lot of it is desert, but even up and down the east coast there is spare capacity. We have rivers that run into the ocean untouched and untapped. We have wide open space everywhere.
The problem is restrictive land use laws and regulation at every level of government, state federal and councils, that make it difficult to build new places to live, and choke towns from growing naturally into cities; there is an unwillingness to invest in infrastructure such as power stations, dams and highways to supply a bigger population.
If we had a more flexible, free market approach to land use, and a more pro-infrastructure mindset, we'd be able to take as many newcomers as we like, and there would be plenty of room for everyone.
 
but even up and down the east coast there is spare capacity. We have rivers that run into the ocean untouched and untapped. We have wide open space everywhere.

I agree, let's destroy our country and the natural beauty. Let's strive to live like sardines like Japan and China. Why people see this as a good thing is beyond me. I think the whole world is becoming too populated, not sure how to fix it, as the alternative is that we let disease keep it under control and we stop trying to increase our life span. I have no solution, but I certainly don't support Australia becoming another over populated and polluted country. It is a beautiful country and I'd like to see it stay that way.
 
Let's strive to live like sardines like Japan and China.
Look around. We already do.
The same changes that would make room for others would make life more liveable for people already here.
I agree, let's destroy our country and the natural beauty.
What? You'd think I suggested bulldozing Ayers Rock! There's plenty of non-descript bushland that could be put to better use, without the loss of any natural beauty.
 
Australia is the most sparsely populated country on the planet. Sure, yes, a lot of it is desert, but even up and down the east coast there is spare capacity. We have rivers that run into the ocean untouched and untapped. We have wide open space everywhere.
The problem is restrictive land use laws and regulation at every level of government, state federal and councils, that make it difficult to build new places to live, and choke towns from growing naturally into cities; there is an unwillingness to invest in infrastructure such as power stations, dams and highways to supply a bigger population.
If we had a more flexible, free market approach to land use, and a more pro-infrastructure mindset, we'd be able to take as many newcomers as we like, and there would be plenty of room for everyone.

No offense, but GOD NO! :eek:
I am not an environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, but what you are proposing would be fatally damaging to australia's ecology.
 
What? You'd think I suggested bulldozing Ayers Rock! There's plenty of non-descript bushland that could be put to better use, without the loss of any natural beauty.

It's all natural beauty, I didn't mean just don't touch tourist attractions, there's a lot more to Australia than those! I'm with Rugrat, I'm not an environmentalist (would be a bit hypercritical living in Melbourne city), but I certainly don't want us destroying any more than we have to. Why increase the population more than we need to in order to do this? What about the trees and the wildlife? :(
 
We could put 50 million into Kunnunurra no probs. why is everyone so scared and awed by these sorts of numbers? how can it be feasible for our existing miniscule population to remain occupants of an entire continent?
 
No offense, but GOD NO!
I am not an environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, but what you are proposing would be fatally damaging to australia's ecology.
I don't think so. How would a couple of extra cities on the Queensland north coast, for example, be 'fatally damaging' to Australia's ecology?
The alternative is to live in cramped cities, huddled together like sardines as we do now, for fear of damaging the precious ecosystem.
But it's good to worry about the ecosystem. What are its main threats? The biggest real danger to the inland ecology is mismanagement of the Murray-Darling system, but it's got to do with all sorts of things that are unrelated to population, like what the mix of industries should be that tap into the irrigation system, and water allocation across the states. That's the main ecosystem threat... and it's solveable.
 
We could put 50 million into Kunnunurra no probs. why is everyone so scared and awed by these sorts of numbers? how can it be feasible for our existing miniscule population to remain occupants of an entire continent?


What the hell are you talking about? 50 million people? There is only 12,000 hectares of farm land up there and it's been a total disaster so far. The soil is crap, but that's the best dirt they could find there. The soil is basically just holding the plant up. All the fertility has to be added. Stage 2 will be another 44,000 hectares, but that will be on even worse soil.

Have you been there to see the place Ausprop? I have. 15 years ago it looked like the place might finally be going somewhere, but then by last year, half the cropping land was planted to sandlewood in some sort of MIS ag tax rort for wealthy people.



I just don't know why you keep bring this point up? OK. Lets say you put 50 million up there. You would have to import food for 49.5 million. That would make Japan look like the worlds food basket. What exactly do you think 50 million people would do up there? A few hundred could run the farms. Mining employs bugger all. I'd like to know. Oh, we could just build cities and fill em with service industries and build roads and rail and power stations and everyone could live happily ever after, but why not just do that in the current cities? Lets just build feedlots? Fill em with people, like cattle. Give them a TV and the net.


See ya's.
 
Australia is the most sparsely populated country on the planet. Sure, yes, a lot of it is desert, but even up and down the east coast there is spare capacity. We have rivers that run into the ocean untouched and untapped. We have wide open space everywhere.
.


So we dam these magnificent rivers so that people on the other side of the globe can keep breeding as much as they want? Stuff that. Leave the rivers as they are.

If city people want bigger populations and think it's so darn great, then cram em into the cities even tighter. People live in rural areas because they like small town life. If they want their little towns to turn into big overcrowded cities they would be living in one allready.


See ya's.
 
why do you believe we need to be so independant in agricultural production? what can London grow?

this country should be able to hold a good 500 million spread across it
 
I wouldn't dare to advocate anything on this, but my best guess is that we will go some way to solving a few critical issues like water, energy, planning policy (could be a long wait for that one), and then people wont care as much about population growth.
 
and who would pay for the roads, hospitals, schools, centrelink, pensions, airports, power stations, water connections, dams, sewerage, police and personnel to accommodate the hoards AS THEY ARRIVE?

tis a concept to suggest that we invite and host hoards but the infrastructure doesn't drop from the sky overnight, neither is it free.

and i don't know about you, but i feel that stamp duty, taxes, gst, land tax etc etc are already high enough...... paying for the hoards who live here now.

who's going to fund all these new arrivals?? houses and shops, manufacturing etc might be paid for by investors and business but an enormous amount of what makes our country fabulous is govt supplied, meaning our tax money.

and just by the by, think for a few moments about the sort of money it would cost to plonk a whole new city anywhere in aus, let alone a thousand ks from where the work and infrastructure already is.
 
Top