Big Australia
Driving across the Nullabor Plain this week, I was struck, as ever on journeys through the outback, of the vast Australian emptiness - a sparseness of human life which is explained, of course, by a statistical gap. This is the world's sixth largest country in terms of acreage, but only the 52nd in terms of population - 22,026,000 according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and rising fast.
Over the next four decades, the population is expected to rise to 35 million - a 60% increase. Kevin Rudd said this week he welcomes a "Big Australia", despite publicly voiced concerns from the country's most high-profile civil servant, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry, who said it would "test the limits of sustainability". Handled correctly, said Henry, Australia could look forward to a "period of unprecedented prosperity" - a golden era - but he's clearly worried about a fast-paced population surge.
Given that much of the growth will come from immigration, the subject obviously touches on racial attitudes, the topic of the last three blogs. But I want to shift the focus of debate to the issue of sustainability, and whether the Australian people are quite as enthusiastic about a "Big Australia" as the prime minister.
Perhaps it is worth imagining what a Big Australia would look like. Melbourne's population would almost double for a start, rising to over 7 million. An extra 4.5 million people would end up living on the coastal strip between Sydney and Brisbane. On the urban fringes of major cities, the creep of cul-de-sacs would become a headlong rush. Chronic water shortages are already a fact of life across the country, so Australians would presumably have to get over their aversion to drinking recycled water and step up the construction of desalination plants, which are always controversial.
The Sunshine Coast in Queensland already has a 'No Growth' policy, since it reckons it has reached a saturation point. The Gold Coast, which has been Australia's fastest growing region, suffers from an infrastructure lag - the accident and emergency department at the Gold Coast hospital, for example, is said to be the busiest and most overburdened in the country. It was not designed to serve such a large local population.
Sydney already suffers from major road and rail problems, and is becoming a sprawling metropolis. One of the more remarkable facts about the city is that its geographic centre is at the Olympic Stadium in a place called Homebush, which is almost an hour's drive from the beach.
Kevin Rudd favours a population boost because he thinks it is good for national security and, presumably, national prestige - especially when some European countries are heading in the opposite direction. Rudd clearly wants Australia to have an enhanced diplomatic role, regionally and globally. A "Big Australia" would mean that its diplomatc punch would be more commensurate with its size.
Australia is the most sparsely populated developed nation in the world, with only 2.9 people per square kilometre. Certainly, there is enough space, but are there enough resources?
PS One of the many joys of getting out into the outback and bush is that you are exposed to a very different news agenda from the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne axis. So I particularly enjoyed the "Zap me with a Taser pleads politician" story from South Australia. The state Liberal leader Isobel Redmond said she wanted to be zapped to make the case for putting tasers in the hands of the South Australian police. "I have had three babies," Ms Redmond said. "I can tell you, five seconds of excruciating pain is more than bearable if you've had three babies. But I wouldn't want to do it on a full stomach or a full bladder."
I'm 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~50~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Under the topic: Seeking Australia by Boat or by Plane, I posted this. I'm repeating it here, because I can't say any better under this topic...By the way Nick, did you enjoy the golf...quite a few drinks between holes, aren't there.
" Australia is a huge place, slightly larger than continental USA, yet we are lucky if we are using 20% of it sustainably, at the moment.
Most of our major cities are overly populated, and the ethnic tensions will only grow as we allow more and more refugees to migrate here from different ethnic and religious back grounds. Our current water storage, in all states, is tested to say the least, and in some cases, planned dams will be undersupplying the moment they are completed. This is particularly true in Queensland. Because people will choose major cities to dwell, more and more usable land will go to buildings for homes and employment, and infrastructure such as sewerage, roads, power generation, water storage etc
Farm lands that once produced wheat and wool, especially in central, and country NSW, Queensland and other larger states, barely produces a third of what was produced then, and already we are importing food once produced here.
Yet the debate on the future use of Australia, how to increase water storage, how to utilise poor to marginal land quality, etc. is non existent.
Why aren't we discussing how we are going to sustain ourselves in this new century? What plans are afoot to create new cities, new centres of population, outside of the current metropolitan areas? None.
In the meantime, other nations continue to see Australia as 'the dream down under', and choose us as their desired destination when conflict strikes their nation. What information are they given as to how critical is our infrastructure to sustain them and their offspring in the long term? Zilch.
Shouldn't the debate be, not how many boat people, refugees, overstayers,etc. should stay here, but how we are going to sustain and improved this country to accommodate them and their offspring, before it turns into a dust bowl, save for the sprinkling of 'Manhattens' around some of our coast.
And what happens when the mines run out, or at least when other nations have no need of our raw resources, especially with the world looking ot reduce green house gasses? What renewable products will replace the huge income the mining industry currently brings us all in the form of taxes?
These are the matters we should be discussing. These are the areas we should be looking to, not the current naval...or should that be navy....gazing which will be an obsolete subject in a few years time, once the current boat people and refugee situatin settles."
Complain about this comment
Rudd understands, just as Keating understood, that allowing large scale immigration of certain ethnic communities guarantees the ALP the vote. He's a very cynical, power driven politician.
Complain about this comment
Without some sort of plan to make Australia sustainable allowing such a large level of immigration into the country will only make things harder for everybody.
With massive water shortages as it is and water bans in many areas if population increases by 60% and therefore water usage increases by 60% chaos will incur.
There is no argument, without a definate and strong plan to meet Australia's CURRENT needs there is NO hope in meeting the needs of a 60% pop. increase.
Crazy crazy policy. Lets become strong in what we have now.
Complain about this comment
Nick, this seems like one of the dumbest policies ever. A population of 35 million really isn't going to make China, the USA or the EU take any more notice of Australia than they already do.
On the other hand, it could totally ruin the place! The 'most liveable' cities that certain posters drone on about on your blogs could easily become a thing of the past. I've experienced the Gold Coast and say "good on you" to the Sunshine Coast for refusing to accept development at all costs. The contrast between the two is extreme.
If I was Rudd, I'd concentrate on developing sustainable technologies from the abundant solar energy to service a population that already exists. I'd be selling off my country's minerals and ores at a slower rate and insisting that more of the processing was done at home. This country already has tremendous problems looming (water shortages, rubbish infrastructure....) and it has the money to sort it out.
And before anyone else says it, if one logical action of what I propose is closing the immigration/visa door to skilled Europeans, I totally accept that. I've been happy to experience all this great country has to offer, but if it's time for me and Nick to head home, then so be it. Good luck Australia - don't waste your opportunity
Complain about this comment
It’s amazing how many people think that infrastructure is a naturally occurring phenomenon and if you let in plenty of people then *magically* it’ll all appear. Instead of having to build it first and seeing if it’s even possible in the first place to house everybody it’s supposedly for.
Also, somehow that bringing in a few million people would again *somehow* create a whole heap of jobs…what jobs exactly is an uncertainty and if they could be sustainable is even more uncertain (though I’m sure you can make some). We’ve also got unemployment issues already (though since when did that matter?).
Basically though, people that want to feel good about themselves can engage in one giant round of backslapping and if somebody would point out “hey, this might run into a few problems” you can just shout them down with insults, personal attacks, taking things out of context and other such antics which have no place in any real civilised discussion.
We need to merely cast our eyes to Europe to see what happens when you try this experiment the *wrong* way.
Sadly though, learning from new information as it is received and applying this information to the future was never a priority of the left. Neither was thinking into the future realistically instead of idealistically, it’s all a bit too hard I’m afraid. However the left is convinced it’s actually the right which thinks this way.
It’s more a case of “do something stupid, blame everybody else” then saying “well these guys did it, so we should be excused”.
“Australia is the most sparsely populated developed nation in the world, with only 2.9 people per square kilometre. Certainly, there is enough space, but are there enough resources?”
You would have noticed a lot of that land is desert and regarding resources, no.
Complain about this comment
In the white tinture....
Touching the
side of a
flying intuition
you call the
delicate purpose
of a funny
blackbird, that
covers the green
fields and a
beautiful sun.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Complain about this comment
The prospect scares me!
Overpopulation seems to be the elephant in the room these days and while we're all talking about sustainable living and green ideas in order to maintain our throwaway society and lifestyles - which many in the developing world are seeking to emulate - these are all just band-aid solutions that overlook the (seemingly taboo) main issue. We're in for some pretty dire consequences until we face up to this fact and do something about it.
If I'm not wrong, Australia actually has too many people already, and when you consider that the country seems to be a in permanent state of drought, not to mention largely desert, more people are going to place an even greater strain on resources.
We need a radical overhaul of attitudes and I don't see that happening in my lifetime. So while some people may be excited about a "Big Australia", I don't think the future is so rosy. But happy to be proven wrong...
Complain about this comment
35 million is a modest target when you consider how much the whole world population is growing, and has grown. I suspect growth is unavoidable
At least 30 million seems inevitable anyway on current projections. Australia's population has already doubled since I was a kid. The same worries about sustainability and decline in living standards were aired then.
And yes, the 1/4 acre block in the suburbs that was once considered the basic right of all Australians has become out of reach for a lot of people - but guess what? The majority have been happy enough to live in smaller houses in more heavily-populated areas, with the compensation of a more vibrant urban life.
Not to brush concerns about environment, sustainability and resources aside, but our efforts need to be focussed on coping with the inevitable changes, not hoping to avoid them through a combination of Nimbyism and heads-in-the-sand.
Complain about this comment
Immigration levels are set by Federal government, but the states are left to provide roads, schools and hospitals for these tired and huddled masses. And it ain't working. Badly.
Complain about this comment
5 Newsobserver87: John Howard's goverments was not of the left. For the 11 years he and his government were in power, not one penny was spent preparing for Australia's future. It is the Nationals in Queensland who are opposing the new dam on the Mary River. It was the Howard governemt who refused, till it was too late, to cut back water rights to farmers along the Murray Darling river.
It was the COuntry and then National Party Federally that rallied strong opposition to closing down wasteful artesian wells, till the reality showed it was necessary. It has been the back bone of the National party...the farming community, that have logged areas of Australia to the point they are now dust bowls.
To be totally frank, both Labor and Liberal governments, mainly in the states, that have done nothing to prepare Australia for the future.
And it is all because of the mentallity os some that come here, thinking trees grow similarly to Europe, and mature within twenty years or so.
In the meantime the land is beyond use, without massive spending, inmany rural regions, and we are being hit with a dry time like never before.
Complain about this comment
The difficulties Australia faces are sustainable water supply and infrastructure. Statistics indicate that approx 80% of Australians live within 100km of the coast in urban areas. However, get outside the main/regional urban areas and the capital cities and you'll often find there is a distinct lack of public transport infrastructure, community/recreational facilities, and often only a small choice in retail outlets in many of the smaller towns (the exception being a collection of bottleshops and pubs/clubs, plus either a Woolies or Coles outlet that ends up with a stranglehold on local retail). Heck, I've even heard people in the outer/newer suburbs of Sydney complaining about this, let alone the population that lives in smaller towns who I've noticed are often forgotten in the focus on Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane. Lack of infrastructure, public transport, facilities etc plus the distance between towns explains in a large part the Aussie reliance on owning a car and why many of us travel large distances for work, specialist medical appointments, shopping etc.
The next thing is that we seemed to have killed off a large portion of our primary industries in a sea of red tape/bureaucracy eg. dairy, fishing, crop farming, or at least that seems to be the case in NSW. Another example is the fast disappearing cane fields in FNQ which are giving way to rapidly growing housing developments, again lacking public facilities and infrastructure. I'm not sure how well the fruit growing regions of Vic are doing, but I guess my point is we shouldn't need to be importing for example, bananas from the Philippines, grapes from the US, or stone fruit from NZ. We've lost quite alot of our manufacturing industries over time as well. In my humble opinion it is a bit scary and perhaps dangerous to become a nation that, apart from minerals, relies mainly on service industries, tourism and education to run an economy and a country. We should continue to produce our own food and goods. I also believe this has happened in part due to consumer demand: as much as we complain about the loss of these industries the bottom line is that everyone wants to be able to buy things as cheaply as possible.
It would seem that if much of the future population growth will continue to focus in the capital cities, Australians will certainly need to re-think and possibly abandon the idea of the traditional 3-bed home each on its own block of land and accept the idea of very close living in flats, apartments, and possibly an updated version of the terrace house/semi-detached. I would also guess that in Sydney successive governments will have to continue with the current policy of building of a warren of underground road networks, tunnels etc. funded by private enterprise and extend/build more underground rail networks. As for schools, hospitals, and community facilities who knows, here in NSW the state govt is already crying broke.
Complain about this comment
Australia should be looking to reduce its population, since we don't have the resources for the population we currently have. Instead of talking about how he welcomes an increase in population, how about talking about the infrastructure that needs to be improved for the current population, let alone any projected increase?
There are many ways we can use our resources more wisely, such as recycling water to green office towers like the one recently built in China: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8317211.stm
National security and prestige should be based on things other then population size, most people wouldn't even know which country had the third largest population in the world!
Complain about this comment
35 million citizens? By citizens you mean people who have a strong sense of belonging to the country, know their rights but also accept the responsibilities that go with them. If we have good citizens that will adapt to and accept the responsibilities that will abound with increased population density then 35 million won't be such a drama. However, we have to start educating this generation now that the current amount of resource consumption can't go and and buying a house in the Mel/Syd/Bris axis will be a pipe dream. The UK and US have glorious inland centres with enviable standards of living. The Govt needs to improve on and plan for more provincial cities to avoid the big squeeze. Remember that Australians have a panoramic "personal space" compared to other cultures.
Complain about this comment
A timely news article today concerning global food production:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/24/2723137.htm?section=justin
Complain about this comment
High population growth is counterproductive to the nation's welfare as it strains infrastructure,the environment and institutions. Only some sectional interests benefit.What possible economic advantage is gained by doubling our population? The real measure is growth in per capita income and most countries with the highest quality of life have small populations.See http://qccqld.org.au/A-Sustainable-Population-in-SEQ.html Australia is in a region of nations with populations in 100s of millions or billions,the Oz mouse gets slightly bigger, so what?
We live in an old desert,Australia is not the USA or Brazil,high poulation growth is a hare-brained idea given our limited water resources.
Complain about this comment
If only we could have a similar sensible date in the UK. However, it's pretty much been decided to add an extra 10 million to our population and questioning this will simply get you labelled as racist.
Complain about this comment
Senlin,
The same label can be used here in Australia,usually by the ignorant or those with vested interests in high immigration rates. My riposte is, that I'm against mass immigration by my own ethnic group as well.
10 million increase in the UK population, and I thought Oz's immigration policy is self-destructive. Have you British surrendered control of your immigration policy to the EU?
Complain about this comment
In a post on the previous topic I wrote "Australia needs to quickly build to a population of 60 - 70 million for it to become a global economic powerhouse and assure the continuing prosperity of its people. It's not just a case of "Populate or Perish" as Chifley and Caldwell put it in the late 1940s, these days it is an economic reality, and Australia has the resources and the space to do it. So, let them land. Open the doors to all those dispossessed souls fleeing persecution and poverty in their countries of birth. We need more Aussies who recognise Australia is the land of the free and land of opportunity in this new and pregnant 21st Century - new Australians who can raise their families with pride as the latest in a wave of immigrants to this vast and wondrous land that began in 1788".
In reply, one person commented that he has a farm in Queensland which can only support one cow per 100 acres - I say, why not run goats? That person also said you have to drive for over an hour to get to the nearest supermarket - I say, what about becoming self sufficient? Why not make a loom and make your own clothes?
This is the problem I find with the comments on Nick's words that do not support a greater population for Austalia, and strangely, some comments even suggest there are already too many people here.
We have to think differently in this new century...we have so much sunshine that the center of Australia would be able to support countless solar energy farms to provide electricity, and create drinking water from condensation.
We can also use that energy to drive pumps which would pipe water from Australia's coastline to the central areas, which would also drive desalination plants to provide water for irrigation and the growing of crops - perhaps not traditional crops, but crops that prosper in similar dry environments, as well as native Australian species.
Dams can also be built in North and North Western Australia to capture the enormous quantities of water that fall upon that area during the annual monsoon, and pipe it south. We have the expertise for such an enterprise - look at what the Snowy Mountains Scheme achieved.
As well, very high speed trains of the European variety can connect the central areas of Australia to the coast and ports thus enabling exports of the huge bounty of foodstuffs produced in the centre which would go to feeding more people in Australia and vast numbers of hungry mouths around the world.
Many millions more Australian citizens would also provide a far greater taxation base which would support the creation of 21st century infrastructure. For example, if Alice Springs was a city of 1,000,000 people it would be able to support the world's most advanced hospital.
These are just some of the ways in we can begin thinking of a 21st century Australia with a population at least 100% greater than it is now.
It is eminently doable and certainly necessary if Australia truly wishes to prosper. The paradigm of Australia being an "elite club" with limited membership on the other side of the world really does need to change.
As any successful CEO will tell you, if your enterprise is not expanding and building for the future, you will falter and fail.
This is big picture thinking that many of this nation's citizens who can only look to the past, may not be able to comprehend, as yet.
Let us do what our national Anthem exhorts - let us Advance Australia Fair. Let us Populate and Prosper.
Complain about this comment
18 oldnewshound: I was the one that mentioned the cow per 100 acres. I had milking goats and I can tell you that four milking goats can be sustained on 100 acres assuming there is enough roughage...and gum trees and naive plants are not enough.
How many people would that many goats feed...milk and meat wise?
And as to your comment concerning self sufficiency, are you suggesting 22+billion people start making their own clothes, building their own homes, and generally building self sufficient lives? Are you crazy? You would be lucky if you were to get 100 people wanting to try such a life, let alone half our population.
As to the rest of your comments, I will simply ask, where will the trillions, no, quadrillions of dollars come from to build such massive projects?
The reality is, though your dreams are to be commended, they are just that in the minds of most people in this 1st world...pipe dreams.
Complain about this comment
We can cope with any population. We're rich, we're educated. Stop whinging about the problems and get on with solving them. We can desalinate water, we can irrigate the land. The more of us there is the better.
Stop whinging and let's get on with a lot more Australians
Complain about this comment
20 wjburt: Well the job is yours. Start right away if you will, convincing the populus that we just spend, spend, spend, and populate, populate, populate....but I don't think you will achieve much in 20 lifetimes...unless you can convince them to your point of view....I wish you well.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
19 PetesyC: Cow versus goat is an example of a paradigm shift. Rejecting "supermarket consumerism" is another. And rejecting most of the things you have been led to believe about Australia being an "elite club with a limited membership" is probably the biggest paradigm shift of them all. And this will throw you - a nation's economic prosperity is not measured by the amount of its exports, it is measured by the size of its internal economy. The key to what I wrote in my earlier post is in beginning the change...it is not "Ok let's have another 20 million people tomorrow", it is working towards building the infrastucture to support a doubled population in 10 - 15 years. It is in accepting change - you didn't seem too concerned about my words to do with "countless solar energy farms", but I would bet 10 - 15 years ago you probably saw solar energy as some hippy fantasy. The key is in understanding the "internal economy" aspect I mentioned above, and the increase in the taxation base as providing the economic energy to create what I outlined previosly. The bottomline is in comprehending that a vastly increased population would actually benefit you, your kids and their kids. Think of the manufacturing opportunities that would arise with a population large enough to support many, many more home based manufacturers who would have a local consumer base large enough to bring decent profits and fund increased budgets for exploring and building viable export markets.Sorry PetesyC, it's Darwin mate...the bloke, not the city. We have to adapt, there is no other way.
Complain about this comment
I agree with oldnewshound. Sun is a resource, lets use it to our advantage. The government has also found lots of water underground in WA that it could pipe to Perth. It will do it in the future. Our governments have shown that they only do things when it is necessary not to improve or prevent. Its this "if it aint broke don't fix it" attitude that is slowing us down.
Complain about this comment
23 oldnewshound; I am currently self sustained. I use solar power only, I have a recycled grey water system for my yard, I use gas for cooking and open fire for both water and house heating. I have lived this way since the early 60.
My first house constructed was modeled on the first one designed by the University of NSW back at that time. All the materials, save bolts and nails, were recycled.
I lived of goat meat and goat milk, as well as my own garden vegetables. I actually helped build a methane gas digester with a neighbour which assisted our gas supply, and gave us bacon and ham for most of the year.
We converted an old 'honeycome' underground well into a cool room and used gas refrigeration, powered by the methane digester.
I know what I'm talking about because I've been there, done that.
Can you claim the same, or are you just choosing to 'you' everyone else while you verbalis, but little else, your dream?
I actually went so far as to run a survey in a country town, along with other ecologically concerned friends, where we asked participants to fill our a form, over a week, as to how much food was wasted in a week. Out of the 300 people that took part in the survey, we guestimated that one cow and four sheep were killed each day, in our moderately sized supermarket. Our town then was around 20,000 people.
Multiply those numbers over any major town or city, and you'll see where the real waste is.
NOW....
How many people do you think I convinced over my 30 years of living independently?
ZILCH....
Hence why I repeat what I said previously to wjburt:
Well the job is yours. Start right away if you will....but I don't think you will achieve much in 20 lifetimes...unless you can convince them to your point of view....I wish you well.
Complain about this comment
About Big Australia....
I've been living in Australia for a total of 4 years now. Here is a country with a woefully imbalanced geographical population (over half live in the SE corner), struggling to feed and water itself properly, and refusing to embrace modern energy technologies. Successive governments pander to the fossil fuel industries and export all the uranium overseas while refusing to make use of wind and solar power.
I am not a right-wing anti-immigrationist-as an expat Pom I have no right to be. However, until Australia can sustainably support the 22m here already, and in doing so set an example, I don't think unnatural levels of popuation expansion should be championed.
Complain about this comment
24 OzNozz: Yes the sun is a resource, but current solar voltaic cells are extremely inefficient, as is current deep cycle battery storage. To put in a system that would sustain a country, would cost trillions of dollars, and even then, would need power stations to back it up...at least it is an option worth comtemplating.
As to the water table in WA, I don't know how long you have been in this country, but I can tell you that all underground water levels, in all of Australia, have dropped to below half of what was here when first measured back in the late 1800's...though that has slightly improved since many of the leaking bores were tapped....and again the cost, even just to pipe to WA would be enormous...just to get a pump to reach that far down....and to deliver constant water supply without drawing brackish water....would cost millions.
As to the 'governments have shown that they only do things when it is necessary not to improve or prevent. Its this "if it aint broke don't fix it" attitude that is slowing us down.'
This is the type of government most Aussie attract. Check out which party has been voted in the most since WWII....it isn't Labor....it is the 'ain't broke don't fix it' crowd.
It is not the government that are our problem, it is 'we the people' who blindly vote at elections, with little or no interest in the bigger picture of Australia. Just look at the past few elections. They were won on what that party offered relating to the 'now' of Australia, not the 'future.'
Complain about this comment
You mean Australia might have to deal with the problems of urban sprawl and urban consolidation?
Shock, horror, we have to face a problem the rest of the world has been dealing with for decades.
Whether you want it to happen or not, it's going to, and we're going to have to adapt. We will.
It will create problems and opportunities. We need to deal with the problems and exploit the opportunities.
The main problem is water.
We have solutions for that problem but they're very expensive. It's all about how much we are willing to spend to maintain the agricultural sector.
Complain about this comment
I just read you story on Big Australia and I feel I must comment from the perspective of a US citizen living in Los Angeles.
Is Kevin Rudd insane?? With all do respect, what in the world is he thinking. I live in Los Angeles, California, but I'm really living in a foreign country now.
All the politicians talk about illegal immigration, no one does anything. They can't. Unfortunately, the big problem here and now seems to be the foxes guarding the chicken coop. What may have started out as a few coming over, has turned into a tidal wave and with it it's problems. There is over population that people living in Australia cannot imagine. I visited realtives there this year and I was amazed that your country was CLEAN and everyone was on the same page as far as conservation ( with exceptions ).
The politicians here don't stop the illegals because they do the jobs no one else will do and for less money and they can't complain (someone has to do the landscaping and be the nannies).That is until someone in Washington gives them amenesty along with citizenship and then they and their children develope a huge chip on their shoulder. And they have been given the right to vote. And with their huge numbers, they are now the majority. There are culture clashes all over and there is no set behavior OF ANYONE. You can't say anything. It might offend.
The Australian people are friendly, and polite. That will cease once over population takes hold and everyone is fighting for the same thing.
In California,the written test for a driver's license is printed in 31 languages, the voter ballots are printed in 11 languages and the Federal elections are printed in at least 6 languages. Can you imagine the cost!!! And California is now close to bankruptcy. And don't get me started on "Press 1 for English".
Kevin Rudd is either in someone's pocket, geedy, or insane. Does McDonalds need more people???
Australia does not have vast resources.
If someone wants to help the less fortunate, donate either your time or money to an organization that will go to these countries and teach these people to help THEMSELVES in their own country.
I'm attaching a little note regarding illegal immigration in the USA.
> Let
>
> me see if I understand all this....
>
>
> IF
>
> YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12
> YEARS HARD
> LABOR......
>
>
>
> IF
>
> YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED
> INDEFINITELY....
>
>
>
> BUT,
>
> IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET
> A DRIVERS LICENSE,
> SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD
> STAMPS, AND
> FREE HEALTH CARE?
>
>
> I
>
> guess I just don’t get it
> ...
Complain about this comment
35 million: All the global significance of a Canada. And like Canada shall we become just a passport of convenience for Hong Kong businessmen? We're already begging the world's entrepreneurs to grace us with their presence. ('Oh please 'contribute to our society' by making yourself grossly rich here!')
Anyone who saw Nick Griffin's appearance on the BBC would firstly have wondered as I did, 'God knows what was done to that man' but by the end his criticisms of the double standards in the use of the word indigenous (liberal members of the panel claiming the concept didn't exist - an interesting opinion to bring to Australia) and the inability of Islam to respond to the current world were unmet by the panel or the crowd, barely able to string together their sentences in their foaming hatred of 'Nick'.
Yes, a country based on race like Korea or Japan or Israel IS a sad thing. Yet a country based on 'meritocratic' immigration policies is no better. I will never go home to that.
Where are the working-class migrants to Australia?
Complain about this comment
To reach a population of 35 million, these people will be concentrated in the usual urban areas. For these to expand requires an end to cheap government, by that I mean government on the cheap.
From discussion with Aussies in my 4 years here, there appears to be universal acceptance that the state should collect water in the abundant north and pipe it south. A canal system pumping by solar powered pumping stations would be a logical move. Equally the debate over recycled water away from inflamatory terms such as effluent needs to be undertaken.
In Geelong recently there was a massive campaign against the introduction of floridation in the water, despite the known international precidents, health benefits (teeth are a health oversight for most people without health insurance).
Additionally cheap government must move away from piece meal action on transportation. A unification of rail gauges and a 'plan' of expansion is needed.
Melbourne has grown vastly in recent decades, and yet not one new rail line has been built to accomodate satellite townships being built on the city's outer. New free ways are typically toll ways and if these are needed due to necessity to gain access to work, then it detracts from any attractions to these growth, lower cost housing areas.
I believe that federalisation of much of what State government could and should do, is probably where it has to go. I suspect this to be only one hindrance in a chain of hindrances to achieving the new population levels.
Complain about this comment
31 SoapboxJoe, yes these are just a few of the ideas we need to be looking at...but the cost is something very few Aussies will wear....It will mean a huge rise in taxes, less welfare, and possibly less migrational assistance...till the projects are completed....and thats over many years.
As an example, the rail system in most states, was built in the steam era, and hasn't been upgraded. There is one 100k stretch in QUeensland where a car, at 80K can arrive at a destination minutes before the Very Fast Tilt Train. The VFTT actually can reach speeds of 150kph, but the rail line is so twisty and windy, it is lucky if the train can reach its top speed in more than a few small places. The cost to up grade the Queensland rails system would be staggering.
As it is, most State Governments are using private companies to build infrastructure, using tolls to repay, because the States alone can't affort such projects.
We do need to eliminate the State system, or at least reduce it, and we all need to be looking ahead to where we want Australia to go. But while we have a very conservative outlook, by most Aussies, we will go no where until it is too late.
Complain about this comment
#31 #18
I think the problem of pumping water south from northern Australia is topograpical. Northern Australia is too flat and unsuitable for the dams required to make that plan feasible
As it is, nature tries to do that by sending water south in wet years to Lake Eyre but that is primarily through shallow channels and floodplains
It would certainly be promising in geographical terms as it is southern Australia which is becoming drier, the north is becoming wetter. Australia overall, is becoming wetter but mpst of the population is in the drier south
The other plan is to channel seawater from the coast of South Australia into Lake Eyre which could largely be by gravity as Lake Eyre is below sea level. THe idea is to try and change the climate of SE Australia by evaporation and reducing the dry winds blowing eastwards from Central Australia. This is after all the original 'inland sea' of previous millenia.
It would likely cut the bushfire risk of SE Australia also
I think it's likely the southern capital cities will take on desalination
I'd agree with parragirl's comment #13 about Australians having a "panoramic 'personal space' compared to other cultures" It will take a lot of adjustment if the population exceeds 30 million
Complain about this comment
Yes Wollemi 33, it was Bradfield of Sydney Harbour Bridge fame that first envisaged an inland sea, filled with fresh water from the top end. But the cost and practicalities were shelved and very few Goverments would go anywhere near it now, especially with the fact is would flood Aboriginal land.
The concept of flooding sea water from the south to the inland sea, also never gets past the discussion stages...possibly because it would mean getting agreements from at least one State and the Federal Government.
As to you comment "Australia overall, is becoming wetter but mpst of the population is in the drier south" The coastal regions in the tropics are tending to have periodic rain fall heavier in the instance, but overall, there is less rainfall than was previous. Here in East Coastal Queensland we haven't had a decent drop of rain since late April, and less inland. Overall Australia is gettin drier, not wetter.
Complain about this comment
#34
Australia has become wetter over the last 50 years, Petesyc, just in the wrong bits to be useful for an increased population
http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2004/wetndry.htm
Complain about this comment
35 Wollemi: It seems the BoM in 2005 disagreed with the CSIRO report of the year before. I have heard the current opinion is currently in keeping with BoM's report, but I can't as yet find any reports to confirm this:
http://reg.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20051114a.shtml
"If we project forward, not only do we expect to see less rain in early winter in the future, but our models tell us that the entire wet season - from May to October - will very likely be reduced," Dr Timbal says.
Complain about this comment
Further to my last post. Though I can't find the actual report, this is a news report relating to it:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/northern-australia-faces-water-problems-20090921-fybv.html
Complain about this comment
Please note I have changed my name from Petesyc to 11Pete11 due to complications with someone elses email address.
Complain about this comment
The BOM agrees with the CSIRO. (see first graph in link below) Australia's annual rainfall has increased over the last 50 years
The link #36 is for southern Australia which is becoming drier.
However increased rain in certain sections, particularly the north west, outweighs this, so overall the continent had had an increase in rainfall
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/5/index.html
I suppose we could move Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide to north west Australia
Complain about this comment
wollemi with your two links, and one of mine, they were at least three years old...and most are relating to studies done prior to this. Also they were at the time of the Liberal National Government and even though the CSIRO is less government owned than previously, it still receives Government funding.
The latest report, the one I posted from this year, seems to bend figures more towards a decline, overall, of Australian rain fall. Personally, having spend the past few years in the Cairns to Hervey Bay regions of Queensland, I can tell you the rain fall has definitely been less...and our dam levels pretty much prove that. I guess, however, we will have to wait till the next BoM, CSIRO etc report is released to get a clearer understanding of what is really going on with the weather.
Complain about this comment
Getting back to the subject, BIG AUSTRALIA, I remember as a kid in the '50s that everyone seemed to think that the population then, around 10 million was ideal and that no more immigration was necessary. At the time, I recall my mother complaining about the "Balts" as the immigrants from the Baltic countries who were arriving then were referred to. As a child I did not have a ready comment for her complaints, but with the passing of the years I realise now what I should have said was 'Hang on mum. Your father came from Poland...and your mother's parents came from Ireland...and dad's grandfather came from Germany and his mother's parents came from Scotland". Now, in 2009, I suspect many of the points of view on immigration to Australia haven't changed much in the past 50 years. As different groups arrive, they establish themselves and then seem to begin to resent other groups arriving, as if they had somehow found a great and wondrous secret they did not wish to share. Perhaps it is human nature. Perhaps it is greed. However, the bottomline is still what I said in a previous post on this subject - it is the size of a nation's internal economy that measures the economic strength of that nation. One of the reasons why many people may doubt that economic fact of life is that over the years we have been told at various times that our exports of wool, wheat and minerals make us such a rich country. Sure it is of great benefit to export those raw materials but what we really need is a much bigger internal market. And yes people will complain, just like my dear old mum did back in the '50s and continue to insist the present population is ideal, but they will be wrong. And something else...they say necessity is the mother of invention. We will find the answers and we will build the infrastructure because we have to. And because we are Aussies, and we have an amazing ability to get on with the job, whatever the obstacles, and prevail.
Complain about this comment
#29 Oztraveller
Yeah but the Mexicans dont cross the border - the border crossed them. What language are these words: California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Texas.. "New"(nuevo) Mexico... not to mention the town names.. Los Angeles, San Fransisco, San Diego, Pueblo, Las Vegas, Santa Fe, etc etc.. habla espanol, senor?
I reckon the main problem isn't Mexicans coming over to find a better life, its the lack of good life available to those who stay in Mexico but work in factories on criminally low pay scales building nike shoes & Tommy shirts for sale over the border at $100/unit.
Complain about this comment
There are a number of issues that are putting us in a critical situation at the moment. The first is the waste and mismanagement of the previous Federal Government, particularly to infrastructure, forward planning, and migration. The second is climate change, and its effect on our ability to self sustain into the future. A third is the projected increase in refugees, not only form warring civillian conflicts, but from climate effected living places for millions of people all around the world. And the fourth is the huge hole that has been left in all planning by the financial crisis.
We are seeing more and more the call by professionals for us to spend more on infrastructure, as is hilighted by this article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/26/2723812.htm?section=justin
We can't expect this call to go unheaded, and therefore it goes without saying that the Government will need more money. Currently the hostile Liberal National small party controlled Senate is blocking any attempt by Rudd to raise taxes in a way that hurts the average Aussie the less, and they are currently tightening their grip on corporate tax avoidance. Either we will have a double dissolution election, or we will have the election on time around this time next year. If the people choose to continue Labor, but with a controlled Senate, we can expect the continuance or what we are seeing. If the Lib Nats get into power, we may as well kiss our a..es good bye. However if the Labor Government does get returned with a supportive Senate, we will see increases in taxes, and therefore increases in infrastructure growth.
Until we accept that we must have pain to make gain, we will never see this country grow...and in the meantime, the deserts are encroaching more and more on what could have been reclaimable lands, he we had the foresight to tackle it.
Complain about this comment
The state of Tasmania, off Australia's south coast is probably the only region of the country that could handle rapid population increase. It covers only 3 percent of the total land area, yet receives 12 percent of Australia's total annual rainfall.
Complain about this comment
#44
Not for long! Tassie is one part of southern Australia which is becoming drier. If you look at the link in #39 and the map marked 'trends in rainfall' Tasmania is pink, ie rainfall is decreasing
It's a more complex situation than absolute numbers or burgeoning population - parts of the Australian continent are becoming wetter, parts drier
Complain about this comment
Water is a huge problem for this country to face, particularly with our population expanding so rapidly (there's no stopping this explosion in population by the way).
In terms of the major towns and cities, we will be able to find solutions for the lack of water.
There are numerous proposals for handling the situation and generating greater amounts of stored, fresh water.
They're all very expensive though, and that's the real problem.
Desalination, new dams (better positioned - EG Warragamba is in a very poor place to collect water, and is actually depriving the plains of much needed water while huge amounts of rain run off wash into the Pacific Ocean on the other side of the Blue Mountains), better irrigation systems, and even this oft-repeated but incredibly unlikely idea of pumping water thousands of kilometers across the country from the floodplains up north.
In terms of the agricultural sector, they are faced with the greatest problems, and are truly in danger.
The solutions are basically the same as they are for solving the water problems in the cities, but much more expensive and a logistical nightmare because of the massive area of land we're talking about.
Whether the agricultural sector as we know it can sustain itself is debatable and whether we can afford it even if it's possible is also a matter for conjecture.
Complain about this comment
OldNewsHounds, I'm going to disagree with you on one point. You say that we need to think differently in this new century, but then advocate the same old economics of the last century. As others have pointed out, there are other factors by which many people would like the country judged, and I don't think we need to be a global economic powerhouse, and certainly don't need it so much that we should quadruple our population.
Personally, I don't agree with an increased population as I think we need to do more with what we have, and then increase the population where the facilities are available. The current urban sprawl has to stop until the facilities are in place where people want to live.
Let's make our resources work smarter, stop doing things the same way because we always have, and start thinking about what's best for Australia. The amount of water needed for a kg of steak is incredible (I don't have the facts to hand) so let's use native species instead. Kangaroos, feral camels etc.
Higher density housing clustered around public transport routes. This guy has some interesting ideas for Ireland, some of which may be usable in Australia: http://www.libertiespress.com/ireland-in-2050/152-white-bright-flight-irish-suburbs-and-the-housing-boom-of-2030.html
As for Solar Power, that is a great idea, especially if solar thermal power is used, which will allow generation of electricity at times when the sun isn't shining. And then there is wave power... there are some great renewable energy ideas out there, that Australia because of the amount of space we have should be in a great position to become market leaders.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry folks but dreams do not a reality make.
When the Labor Government, under Hawke, and later Keating, spent on upgrading infrastructure of the time, which included airports and the then owned Qantas fleet, they were hounded by the Howard opposition for spending too much money. WHen Howard made office, his governments continued hounding of the "$94 billion debt" guaranteed Labor as opposition for 11 years.
What government would take on any of the projects we have been discussing here; solar, thermal, wave, piping inland water etc, all being far more expensive than the $94 bill?
The only way these projects will become a reality, is if both political parties support them. For that to happen means the MAJORITY of Australians would have to vote for such a change. Currently here in Queensland the coal mining lobby are running adds telling people that any changes to the current coal fired generation of power in Australia will create disaster for our economy.
Can you imagine the adds these and other bodies would run, should some brave Government decide to go with any of the ideas we have been suggesting.
Sorry to be a doomsday prophet, but I have been on this planet, and in this country, long enough to know there won't be any of the suggested ideas happening here until coal, oil, and natural gas run out.
And the reason I constantly harp on the imports to our country, especially Brits is because the majority of Brits that come here are 'hard working' supporters of the already established multi corporate money making industries that are fighting so hard to keep these new techinques out of our country.
You can't think Australian, until you have consumed the soil....and you can't consume the soil till you have had at least two generations domicile on this baron land. Until we educate the British imports to just how different our country is to Europe, we can forget any changes that have been suggested.
Complain about this comment
#48 11pete11: "because the majority of Brits that come here are 'hard working' supporters of the already established multi corporate money making industries that are fighting so hard to keep these new techinques out of our country"
You were going well until that point. What does that sentence actually mean? Most Brits that come to Australia do so to work, whether that be for international, local or self-started companies. Please don't assume that they are any less (or more) aware of the need to diversify energy sources and the massive potential that Australia has in this area. Perhaps we need to eat more dirt?
Complain about this comment
"The Sunshine Coast in Queensland already has a 'No Growth' policy, since it reckons it has reached a saturation point."
This is actually a population cap and only applies to Noosa. It was imposed by the local council prior to the local govt amalgamations in Queensland in 2008 - though I wish the current Sunshine Coast Regional Council would approve for the entire Coast !!. Biggest problem on the Sunshine Coast - one of the fastest growing regions in Australia is the complete lack of government supported infrastructure ie transport, education and health.
The Sunshine Coast could be said to be a haven of conservatism and consequently is paying the penalty. There are no members of either the current State or "Feral" Govts to be found on the Coast and consequently no seats to be lost at elections so therefore there's no need for "pork barrelling".
And to top it off "Cap'n Bligh" and her motley crew are are now stealing our water !!!
Where's Fletcher Christian when we need him ?
Complain about this comment
49: In keeping my most of my similar posts it says Australia is NOT Britian or Europe. Supporting those that continue to rip out trees, pack in people like sardines, assume this country can take twice as many people, is just insane. But you knew what I meant already, didn't you.
Complain about this comment
51: Pete,I fully agree with you that Australia is not Europe, and if you feel like generalising the views of an entire nation or continent, by all means continue to do so. I think comment 4 demonstrates my views on this one.
To answer your question, no, I didn't know what you meant (I still don't!).
Complain about this comment
One day people are saying we need to protect the environment and then the next day they are saying that more human beings need to be around.
You can’t have it both ways; a good way to contribute to dealing with climate change is dealing with overpopulation across the globe.
Complain about this comment
Like Japan, Australia needs immigrants, unless it wants to start subsidizing large families on a per child basis as the UK and France are doing (I think the subsidy is calculated to buy groceries, basic clothing and diapers).
But you can't let that PC garbage force western civilization to bow to broken immigrant cultures. Australia should remind these people that their countries and cultures are hopeless and beyond saving, that is why they came to Australia. And get the kids fully involved in Aussie culture. A rugby or ASF ball under every arm, lots of Aussie films and messages from Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, Russell Crowe and Mel Gibson (before he went off the deep end). As the kids hit middle school, encourage inter-ethnic group dating. American immigrants hated this with a passion, they wouldn't even let their kids have play friends from other ethnic groups and religions. Having a young romance blocked by traditional culture is the the surest way to disenchant a child from their parents' cultures and get them to embrace the more open Western civilization.
Lastly, when some immigrant father pulls stunts like vaginal surgery or an honor killing of their daughters (as has happened in the US recently), drop the guy down a hole and send a message to the rest of them that their cultural values have no value in the New Australia.
Complain about this comment
Taking Melbourne as an example, 7 million will be totally unsustainable. Transport system is already overloaded with no significant new infrastructure planned. Water resources similar (desal plant will deliver about 10% of what is required). Legacy high-carbon brown coal power generation (some token renewables but not much prospect of change there). House prices at a huge multiple of earnings (and rising), apart from if you want to live in a faceless box in the middle of nowhere. I could note many fantastic things here, but you do need to take the "liveable city" thing with a pinch of salt.....
Complain about this comment
Australia needs to make immigration easier for europe, so that it keeps a balance throughout the country and not a takeover.
E.g Asia's population of like 3.8billion? to Europe 445million? i mean the odds someone migrating just on these numbers is like 9times more likely to be of asian origin then european.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS