You are here

Is ‘POPULATION’ a dirty word in the sustainability movement in Australia?

Population is a big issue happening in the world today, with our numbers having increased massively from around 1 billion in 1850 to what now looks like 11 billion at the end of the century. Right now, the numbers of the world’s poor increase by 80 million each year and the number of unwanted pregnancies are 210 million per annum. Considering that human population predicts 88% of impact to other animal and plant species (according to the International Union for the Conversation of Nature) human population remains a huge, yet very controversial concern. (This article was written by Michael Bayliss as part of an information booklet with Mark Allen (founder, Population Permaculture and Planning) entitled: 'Why We Need To Talk About Population.' This booklet is designed to engage with a younger, left leaning generation including environmentalists and activists. It will be available at the Sustainable Living Festival Big Weekend at Federation where Mark Allen will also present on town planning and population issues. To find out more, click here.

Australia's population numbers

It almost seems absurd to extend these world population concerns to Australia. Australia's a population of just under 24 million (at time of writing) and a density of around 3 people per square kilometre seems minuscule when compared to the demographics of other (mostly densely overpopulated) countries. Surely with miles and miles of free uncharted space, Australia could take its fair share of the world’s load? Isn’t Australia one of the highest per capita fossil fuel guzzling and carbon emitting countries in a society awash with consumerism and materialism? Couldn’t we all consume less, replace those coal industries with renewables, and open up our borders to take in our fair share?

Ecological and logistical considerations

The problem is that when you look at our continent more closely, our vast land of plenty starts to look a bit wanting. Only around 6% of our soil is arable by world standards, with 80% of the land-mass arid or semi-arid. This means that we have an incredibly fragile ecosystem with a very low carrying capacity that has struggled with white occupation for the last 200 years and it is about to get another wallop through climate change. There is every good reason why the south-east coast of Australia is populated and the central and north-west are nearly vacant, and that having large numbers of people live in the interior of Australia makes almost as much sense as populating the Sahara.

Academy of Science opinion on our population

The Australian Academy Of Science has suggested that our capacity to sustain ourselves will be maximised by not exceeding 23 million (whoops, we’ve just done that!) with Jared Diamond and Tim Flannery, painting a bleaker picture - that Australia can only support around 8 million people in the long term for our society’s current level of per capita footprint. This means that to be sustainable, we need to find ways of reducing our per capita and overall consumption by 1/3 at our current population to be sustainable, according to these predictions. However, our population is also growing at a rate of an Adelaide every 3 years, and at this rate our population will double in 35 years time. This will mean reducing our per capita output by 1/6 of current levels in a very short amount of time. What happens after then?...

Breaking taboos

The topic of population has become a taboo in Australia over the past 20 years, partly due to the ongoing perception of us living on an empty continent, and partly due to the mass media promoting the social-demographic arguments of Pauline Hanson, One Nation and others to drown out rational ecologically-based discussion. While there are educated people with no xenophobic agenda currently championing for a sustainable population such as Kelvin Thomson and Dick Smith, there is still confusion in many people's minds between population numbers concerns and racial prejudice. When I ask my friends in the environment movement why they don’t think more about population, the typical reply is: ‘Every time we discuss it, it always ends up with a white guy in his 60s ranting about immigrants.’

Rational discussion

I would like a rational discussion about population to return to the conversations of progressive and socially minded people. Population numbers are intrinsically linked to our economy, and manipulated by our government to fast-track GDP growth (as I shall explain soon) so it is really difficult to talk about the end of neo-liberal capitalism without talking about population numbers at some point. It is hard to talk about cooperative self-resilient communities and eco-villages as the way of the future whilst our town planning system is trying to keep up with an Adelaide’s worth of growth in our major cities every few years. It is hard to share our environment with our native plants and animals for much longer if an end point to our population growth is never debated and if our only option to reduce our per capita footprint infinitely lower is unrealistic. Finally, higher population growth does not automatically mean greater diversity and better outcomes for refugees and asylum seekers. Under our currently societal structure, it can even be the other way around!

Three models and three ideologies

Below are three models of possible population growth in Australia, representing three ideologies, where I want to table the pros and cons with each model. The first is the ‘business as usual’ approach of our current system. The second is an open borders policy, and the third is a sustainable population model.

Model 1: Business as usual:

Business as usual with ~1.5% growth per annum, majority of growth policy regulated to raise GDP, and with a current tax system that allows people to pay less tax from owning property (negative gearing).

As can be seen from the chart, our current model of population growth is beneficial for government to raise money through more people paying tax. It is also very beneficial for employers, as it allows an environment for more applicants for jobs, placing downward pressure on wages and conditions. It is most certainly of benefit for those in the property and construction industries, especially for those who invest in property, where a growing customer base ever drives up the demand for the price of properties in established suburbs (for now).

Unfortunately, things become pretty much worse for everyone else. Whilst it is easy enough to deduce the negative effect of this kind of population growth policy has on young job seekers (for example) and in raising general costs of living, it may be surprising to note that refugees, both past and present, are adversely affected by this type of population growth. For example, past generations of migrant market gardeners have been priced out of their area as the urban boundaries of Melbourne and Sydney expand. Likewise, refugee immigrants are being pushed out due to the increased gentrification that comes with high density living in inner city Melbourne suburbs such as Footscray, Carlton, and Richmond that have traditionally been very viable hubs of strong migrant communities. In recent years, new arrivals through the humanitarian program have tended to settle in areas around Broadmeadows, Deer Park, Heidelberg Heights and Dandenong. A far cry from (say) Victoria Street in Richmond, current generations of refugees face social isolation and difficulties in accessing essential services, which makes establishing community or assimilation more difficult. The Multicultural Development Association has reported that refugees in current times are lacking access to essential information, such as what the swimming flags mean on Australian beaches! The fact that Broadmeadows has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country is telling.

Most people are surprised to find out that our humanitarian intake has gone DOWN since the Howard Era, as proportion of our intake, from 25% prior to 1996 down to current levels of around 5-10%. As Howard himself said on 2014 on live radio:

“One of the reasons why it’s so important to maintain that policy is that the more people think our borders are being controlled the more supportive they are in the long term of high levels of immigration. Australia needs a high level of immigration. I’m a high immigration man. I practiced that in government. And one of the ways that you maintain public support for that is to communicate to the Australian people a capacity to control our borders and to decide who and what people and when come to this country.”

In other words, the asylum seeker fiasco during the Howard Government era, Tampa crisis et al, was politically engineered so that people would be complacent to another kind of population growth that the government (and big business) prefers!

Imagine if we traveled to another planet and witnessed and alien society where the government, swayed by big business, had an immigration policy that was based almost entirely on making money for small sectors of society. Imagine this was at the expense of refugees, or people in desperate need from other countries. Imagine the government engineered a border crisis so that refugees were seen as a huge problem so that, once a tough stand seen to be taken towards them, the government used that ruse to bring in population growth policies from other avenues. Imagine, in this society, the the former leader could basically state this word for word and pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. Imagine, in the society where the left were disinclined to call the government out on these policies, for fear of sounding anti-refugee and xenophobic, even when the population policies themselves are discriminatory towards asylum seekers. Imagine if keeping silent perpetuated this growth as a component of the neo-liberalist growth-at-all-costs agenda and if keeping silent on this was a liability on environmental objectives. From an outsider point of view, I’m sure the whole situation would seem more than a little illogical and farcical.

Population has been a very prickly issue for us on the left, particularly in recent decades, with the shadow of Pauline Hanson and One Nation/Reclaim Australia, and particularly when population growth is generally equated in our minds to refugees and open borders policies. However, if we choose to not debate population at all, then our current social and politically engineered population growth policy will continue, the same one that unfairly disfavours refugees and asylum seekers in favour of migration programs that generate short term increases in GDP. This is, to my mind, a very cynical neo-liberalist ideology. We, on the left, have the obligation at the very least to be educated on population policy as it currently stands, and at very least, lobby for a change in policy in favour of the humanitarian program again, even for those of us who are pro-growth. There is also a strong argument that it is very important to support the anti-war movement to prevent the formation of refugees in the first place and that refugee crises are generated by arms manufacture, neo-colonialism and global conflict.

Even if one were recipient to the short-term benefits of this kind of population growth, it must be recognised that the positives are just that - short lived. Eventually, property becomes so expensive that it is not worth investing in anymore. This is called a housing bubble, and has happened to Japan in the late 80s early 90s and currently China and the USA. Coupled with an infrastructure deficit and environmental overshoot, this can only affect everyone in the long term.

So if the current model sounds unfair to most, one might consider a more egalitarian open borders approach. Let’s explore that below, with its associated pros and cons.

Model 2: Open Borders policy:

Open borders policy, no cap on humanitarian intake, no policy to mitigate natural birth rate or GDP fuelled migration (This is in spirit the policy of the Greens Party). This model assumes growth of 600 000 per annum (250 000 humanitarian, 250 000 GDP, 100 000 natural growth).

This model is conducive to the ideal for many who identify with the social left, as an open border policy provides an unbiased avenue of entry into Australia regardless of race, religion, socio-economic status etc. An opens border policy means that industralised countries such as Australia can play a more definite role in accommodating displaced people from abroad and the idea that everyone is free to move wherever they wish to worldwide. The idea of border restriction or control can be uncomfortable for many as this implies an exclusion from those living in the majority world from the relatively privileged position of Australia. From the political field, many Labor-Left and Greens politicians support this ideology, with perhaps Sarah Hanson-Young of The Greens being the most vocal and well-known advocate of this position.

However, in trying to write the above table objectively, I tried to come up with tangible Pros that were practical rather than ideological. This proved to be more difficult than I was anticipating, and had to put in a few question marks in the pros column as the practical benefits are either tenuous or are a double edged sword with associated cons.

Speaking of the Greens, I’ve observed that many Greens policies cry out for more and more infrastructure (trains, trams, social services, public housing etc). At the same time they generally do not support environmentally destructive mining practices, not least unconventional mining such as fracking. But then, where will all our infrastructure come from? Trains lines, schools, public housing, plumbing - these all require raw materials that need to be dug up from the ground, and processed into tram lines by use of fossil fuels. There really is no way around this unless we learn a way of making train lines out of renewable resources, which isn’t likely. So much of Australia’s per capita consumption is embedded within the town planning system - suburbia and high density apartment living are both inherently resource hungry. Separation of homes and workplaces, and our physical and economic separation from our food sources result in a reliance of our earth’s resources that no amount of wilful reduction of our per capita consumption will mitigate, unless our town planning system changes substantially. If it doesn’t, there is no way we can really put much of a brake on our dependency on resources, and with model 2’s annual growth rate at 600 000 per annum, this could only escalate within our current town planning system. Instead of being able to plan to change the town planning system to accommodate more people in a sustainable way, any government would probably be doomed to play an endless cycle of infrastructure catch up under our current system - at the environment’s expense, even more-so than under our currently system.

I doubt an open borders policy would be practical for any government in the long term. Without an opportunity to transition large scale to a better town planning system, the housing, services and infrastructure costs would be huge. This means either a steep decline in quality of life for residents, or huge taxes or government debt (most likely a combination of all the above). Voters tend to not like those things. Voters on the left would also feel alienated and lied to by a government that would be forced to continue to mine for resources to build the infrastructure with, even if the economy was completely powered by renewable energy. Finally, the huge population growth would have a massive and unavoidable impact to the environment, particularly habitats and water supplies near to the large urban conurbation, even if our per capita footprint were to go down. Any government being elected on an environmental platform would soon let down many of their voters. This is probably a realistic prediction of the Greens if they won government on an open borders platform - they’d soon be shot down. This is also a conundrum that I’m sure many of the left deep down struggle with. That environmental, as well as anti-capitalist objectives, are at odds, at some point, with a human population growth that is not sustainable. Government would survive better, in the long term, if there was some compromise and balance between open borders ideology and the realities of environmental objectives.

Open borders policy only works in the long term if we can work with the world to address the root causes of conflict and displacement that generate high numbers of refugees and asylum seekers. Without this, an open borders policy is great at helping individuals in immediate need for asylum, but can only serve to diffuse the larger problem into the long term. One example is the island of Tuvalu, which made a strong case for evacuating many of its people to Australia and New Zealand in 2003, due to land loss as sea levels rose. New Zealand now has a relocation policy which is very reasonable in those circumstances, however their population is expected to more than double from 12 000 to 28 000 in by 2050. This will mean an endless cycle of relocating people, unless there is a way for Tuvalu to be sustainable in its population growth. Fortunately, according to the UN, non-coercive population sustainability strategies work if women are empowered and educated, and when there is access to family planning and contraceptive strategies (often at odds with the predominating patriarchal religions in host countries). No need for one-child policies or for coercion by the west to the majority world! Mostly grass-roots foreign aid and proactive international cooperation is key.

One final concern with an open borders policy is consideration of the original custodians of our land. My instinct is that any policy to promote population growth without consultation of aboriginal people can be easily argued as more unsolicited colonization of Australia. This belief was certainly shared by some my Noongar identifying friends and community back when I lived in WA, many of whom would be very welcoming to a generous refugee intake, if only their people were consulted on policy. If aboriginal perspective on population issues is hard to find, I imagine this can be attributable to the many other uphill battles that their communities are fighting daily, and poor representation of both aboriginal perspective and the population issue in Australian society. For those willing to search however, there are references in the literature, perhaps most poignantly expressed in the Deaths In Custody Watch Report (1994):

‘Since 1788 the non-Aboriginal powers within our lands have taken upon themselves to increase the population by many millions, meanwhile our population became near to extinction...Australia’s population is bearable at this point in time but further ecocide of this country will leave nothing for no one...Ecologically our land is on its knees: with help it can survive and resuscitate itself, but with any major increase in population this land will die, and we will die with it.’

Model 3: Sustainable Population policy:

A medium term sustainable population numbers policy that promotes (1) fiscal policies that do not encourage large family sizes and (2) promotes policies where immigration = emigration (e.g. Between 70 - 80 thousand per annum), with priority given to the humanitarian program (intake of at least 20 000 per annum, with flexibility in times of crisis). An emphasis on foreign aid funding would go to empowering women to make their own life choices, including career decisions, earning capacity and family size.

No model is perfect, and although it is probably self-evident that I advocate for this third model, it would not be objective of me if I did not acknowledge the cons associated with the model. However I would like to highlight that most of the negatives are either risks arising from poor management of the model, or from short term changes as our society goes through adjustments. On balance, this model of population sustainability strikes me as one that allows for the best balance of long term economic objectiveness, environmental and pollution goals, town planning goals, whilst allowing for a defined but generous humanitarian intake. Keep in mind that refugees and asylum seekers would be better off adjusting to a country that had the capacity to provide them with the services that they required to participate fully in their new home. They would not need so much the additional burdens of suburban sprawl, un-affordable housing, and an unforgiving job market that many refugees, along with other disadvantaged groups, face in today’s growth-at-all-cost system. That’s not to say that these problems will disappear, but they will be less and so much easier to address and manage. Currently, many migrants who come to Australia in recent times report feeling very socially isolated in the outer suburbs and miss the greater sense of community that they had back home.

Not that immigration is the only way to a sustainable population - far from it. I envision a future where families with no children are seen as societal norms just as much as families with children, and where adoption is seen as a viable and accessible alternative to couple of all sexual and gender identities. The key, as always is through education, empowerment, and allowing people to make their own choices. High schools, for example, should educate young people into the pros and cons of having children, and with consideration of the environmental impacts of having children, and the implications for future generations with worsening environmental conditions. I do not advocate fiscal policies that reward large family size, instead this money should be spent on children’s services, such as schools and and medical subsidies.

With a sustainable population, more money and energy could go into grass-roots foreign aid instead of more and more infrastructure and more investment could go into transitioning our society and economy into one that less focused on growth and more focused on social and environmental resilience. If our town planning system were to reflect the ideals of eco-villages, intentional communities, and permaculture principles, we would be in a better position to accommodate our current population longer term. We may also be in a better position to assist people in need of asylum or refuge into the future.

Final Words:

I hope this article has helped to disentangle some of the confusion and assumptions that have been barriers for further discussion on population issues for Australia and abroad. Although my own views are currently for population sustainability at this stage, I acknowledge that there will be many differing views and ideas on this topic and I hope my ideas may help to stimulate further thoughtful discussion and debate. I have not yet heard a successful argument for long term high rates of population growth that can also account for positive outcomes for our cities, towns, environment and asylum seekers, however that does not mean that one doesn’t exist! Please let me know if you have any ideas =).


Europe is undergoing a crisis from which they will never recover, but the immediate population jump is a temporary issue. The long term issue is the change in composition. I think a "population policy" which neglects this will be seen as less and less relevant.

Why do far right parties gain here? Because of the change in composition. This has a greater effect on group dynamics and social structure than the gain in numbers

All due respect to Kelvin, but I can't see a consensus where the most important thing is numbers lasting very long. That is to say, Political Correctness requires us to hold the idea that a society is just a mass of interchangeable individuals (what neo-liberalism says), and that managing it is managing the size only.

One Nation/Reclaim et al talk about composition, which is heresy, bigotry, whatever, but I can't see a movement which excludes the question of composition making headway against those who do.

In short, in backing the 20th century political theories, environmentally friendly sustainable population groups will struggle due to outdated and incorrect theory.

I am about to bake a fruit cake for which I have a recipe that gives me specific quantities of currants , sultanas , cherries and raisins. These I will categorise as "fruit". The other ingredients make up a batter in which the fruit will be suspended. I have a favourite tin in which I will put the mixture and in which I know, when the cake is properly cooked it will rise just to the top with quantities as specified. I look in the cupboard and see that I have more currants than I need and it would be nice to tidy up the shelves of my pantry. I could throw them in the cake mixture. Currents are so delicious so the cake will be even nicer, perhaps In fact I more than double the quantity of currants in the recipe and see that the mixture looks very dense. I feel a bit doubtful about my rash decision which I must admit was not primarily in the interests of improving my cake! It's too late however so I put the mixture in the oven. The cake rises and a little spills over the edge of the cake tin. I remove the cake from the tin and let it cool. I then cut off a slice and am disappointed with the result. It's not really like a cake! The batter is overwhelmed by the amount of fruit. There seems to be hardly any actual cake in the slice.
I wonder to my self "Would the cake mixture have been affected as badly had they been spare sultanas I had used...... or cherries?"
No, the problem is that I put in too much fruit or if you like , too many pieces of fruit and the cake lost something important because of this; its "cake-iness".

In Australia the population will reach 24 million next Tuesday. It is the increasing numbers that are badly affecting the natural environment, putting immense pressure on coastal areas, waterways, land and biodiversity. Things can only get worse as hyper -population growth continues. Without our high quality environment what is left for the people who live here?

Populations aren't cakes, so I'm not sure how the analogy relates.

My argument isn't that numbers don't matter, but that a solution to migration policies which exclude social change will take a backseat to those that do.

So you have NO CHOICE but to weigh in on the issue, because if you choose neutrality, politically, you'll be dead in the water as it will be seen as accepting a status quo.

Besides, it isn't the old ones who are racist, it's the young ones. Compare Vic First with Reclaim in terms of age.

I'd like to see a solution as much as anyone else, but I've realised that trying to narrow the issue to numbers purely is a politically weak strategy, even if it is logical and rational. In the end, social interests win over "logic", and you need to take into account the social issues others deem important.

That is, despite some sustainable population groups having mathematically and logically sound positions in terms of population and carrying capacity and all that, in politics these positions wont go far. Logic and truth doesn't advance political change.

The analogy was with population (fruit being an ingredient ) in an environmental context (the cake). It's not a political position but an attempt to illustrate what is objectively important- the whole environment.

I care much more that my new neighbour moves in and does an oversized extension on his house and blocks my sunlight than I care that he and his family are from a different religious or cultural background. In fact my neighbour IS from a different cultural and religious background and he hasn't done an extension. His Aussie predecessors with 3 children did an upstairs extension which has deprived me of about 1 hour of winter sunlight per day. This is a microcosm of what I observe that people more in the homeowner category care about and that is anything that threatens their amenity. The people in Carnegie are upset about an overhead rail as it will diminish their amenity. People get upset about losing local open space, they hate to see houses and gardens replaced with units surrounded with concrete or fence to fence huge edifices with cavernous garages and all garden sacrificed. That's my experience and without doing a survey I can only speak from this knowledge. The drive to protect amenity is in fact emotionally charged. I believe people care deeply about their surroundings and their quality of life and so they should. They are dismissed with the appellation NIMBY.

Another driver is environmentalism, typified by people who want to protect the wider environment, who care that that the growling grass frog still exists even if they do not have daily contact with it; who care about the fate of our kangaroos especially affected by outer urban development and increased traffic (as well as being "culled") Environmentalists care about the destruction of our ecosystems, waterways and biodiversity. They sound objective, scientific and soundly logical but their endeavours also have an underlying emotional impetus, the desire to conserve something of great value that they love. Some of them (usually young) put themselves in danger by putting themselves between a forest coupe and a bulldozer. They are often dismissed as "Greenies"

I think you are saying that younger people feel more strongly about social differences than in any argument about long term sustainability and population numbers and that the age group in "Reclaim" is an indication of this (compared with the age of Victoria First members as seen at meetings).

I agree with you that facts and figures will win very few hearts but one would need to do a survey to really get an accurate idea of what concerns "young people" Whatever they do feel , it cannot continue to be ignored.

In the middle of this is immigration. Is immigration a means of engineering and pushing some outcome dictated from above, or not?

I think the phrase "You are either a globalist or a nationalist" is prescient, as this will become more and more the issue. The politics of the 20th century is dying. The far left and far right in Europe are rising. Trump and Sanders are both outside of the establishment of their respective parties and somewhat revolutionary (at least as revolutionary as a Republican or Democrat can get away with and still have a chance). The world is moving away form open borders (again, Australia is behind, but Trump want to put a wall and he has a chance of winning, Shengen agreement in EU looking like it will be suspended, walls going back up in Europe).

The establishment is worried.

How is this relevant?

I see this as 21st century politics. We are seeing people moving away from the tired, old, failed 20th century politics and 20th century ideas. I got the sense from Vic First that there was a kind of desire to hold on to the past. To hold on to old ideals, old morals, old values. I see this in related organisations too.

The idea that a population is just administered as a matter of total numbers I think fits less and less with the emerging politics. Granted Australia is well behind (as with everything else!), but this is the future I see. Making concessions to 20th century Political Correctness isn't going to pay off like it might have in the 70's or 80's or 90's, but likely to be more divisive now than it was in the past.

The question of populations sits right on top of the question of immigration, and the question of immigration is fast becoming more and more a major matter and a matter of division, and stark division too,

How do you take a position without getting involved in the major questions arising? For example, do you support the idea of Germany limiting immigration to ensure a strong majority of the population remains ethnically German or not? Hungary openly states it wants to maintain its composition as a Hungarian nation, so it puts up a wall.

You may not want to answer the question, but Europe is having this question FORCED upon them. And its a vital one.

There was an admission in the article that when the issue is brought up, it's pounced about by people who want to bring other aspects in. This is seen as a problem, and is interpreted as being a phenomenon where a valid issue is siezed by a small number of people, but I think this analysis is backwards.

The reason that the question always comes up, is because any discussion of population control MUST address immigration, by virtue of the fact that population here is inflated by immigration. As a result, all the attendant issues are brought in.

It would be like talking about wealth inequality, but not wanting to bring up economic beliefs, or talking about whether prayer works, but not wanting to discuss specific religions.

I don't think it can be done.

"And partly due to the mass media promoting the social-demographic arguments of Pauline Hanson, One Nation and others to drown out rational ecologically-based discussion." There is really no ideal, or completely politically-correct way of championing the population problem we have. While Pauline Hanson has been the pariah of speaking out about our immigration, and focusing in the Asianization and Islamization of Australia, there really is no polite way of going about it. It takes prods from many angles and sectors to get the message across, and it might not always be pretty. One Nation is hated by the media, and Pauline Hanson is vilified by some, but she does make some good points about how Australian society is "changing", and not for the better. People are NOT pure numbers, and population growth (largely from high immigration) has economic and social/cultural dimensions.

Noting the "ecologically-based" logical discussion, Australia's environmental record is abysmal, and even our Great Barrier Reef, a world heritage listed area, is not immune for "development" for coal. An environmentally-logic argument for a sustainable population is not enough. We need some of the "radicals", and lobbyists without fear of the PC police to say what a lot of us feel, but can't express.

Australia's population to hit 24 million (12/2/16) |

In the wee small hours of Tuesday, Australia's population clock will tick over to 24 million.

The milestone follows record overseas migration, which made up more than half of Australia's population increase in the year before July 2015, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.


Australia's population increases by one person every one minute and 31 seconds after accounting for births, deaths and international migration.

Australia's annual population growth rate is 1.4 per cent, relatively high compared to the rest of the world.

New Zealand and the United States both have a growth rate of 0.7 per cent, the United Kingdom's is 0.6 per cent and China's is 0.5 per cent.

Japan's rate is actually decreasing, recording an estimated 0.2 per cent decline in population last year.


The baby is a nice symbol but isn't it more likely that the 24 millionth person to become part of the Australian population is actually an adult arriving from overseas at either Melbourne or Sydney Airport next Tuesday? After all the greater part of Australia's population growth comes from net overseas migration rather than the surplus of births over deaths.

More than a million migrants and refugees crossed into Europe in 2015, reads the BBC headline.

Europe's population is around 837 million. This is about 0.1% of Europe's population.

Yet Australia's government deliberately floods the country with mass migration equal to 1% of the population annually.

The irony is that Europe is now building walls to restrict the flow while Australia's government continues to sanction chaotic mass migration which is as out of control as the migration into Europe by virtue of its sheer volume in percentage terms.

Only a few nations are putting up barriers, and these nations have small populations. Hungary has just under 10 million. Having tens or hundreds of thousands people pass through is a big deal.

But it's not just population size. Victor Orban is also concerned about demographic issues.

Europeans have dealt with "population policy" before. They have been on the receiving end of ethnic cleansing, expulsions and other forced programs.

It is completely rational, and necessary for them to be on guard again for other "population policies" which threaten their national character.

Because Europe has the open borders, it's no reason for them to accept their countries as a soft target for external migration. The Schengen Agreement is a treaty which led to the creation of Europe's borderless area. It was signed on 14 June 1985 by five of the ten member states of the then European Economic Community near the town of Schengen, Luxembourg. Due to external migration, the population of Luxembourg increased by 4 527 in 2015. EU is under growing strain from nearly a decade of slow economic growth, a mounting number of migrants from the Middle East and Africa, and internal debate over the EU's core rules. Some 45 percent of Luxembourg’s population of 550,000 are foreigners, over four-fifths of whom are EU citizens.

The EU’s failure to get a grip on the migrantion problem is even more serious because it is well understood that the inflow of refugees and migrants is likely to continue for years and probably decades. Growing migration pressure can also be expected from Africa, which according to UN forecasts will experience a doubling of its population by 2050. Population overflow will continue to spread, instead of being addressed!

Economists believe that in view of the low birthrates in the majority of EU countries, a large number of immigrants will be needed to preserve the potential for economic growth and ensure the long-term financing of European welfare systems. If birthrates are low, it's the decision of the communities in response to rising global populations, and environmental awareness. It's not a flag to retro-fit their countries with floods of foreigners! Welfare is a magnet to refugees, but systems will be broken.

More needs to be done to prevent these human tsunamis, not just accept them as inevitable. There needs to be global overpopulation awareness, a tightening up of national borders, a resurgence of patriotism, and more done to stop Western intervention in the Middle East.

Human smugglers have a document that helps asylum seekers compare the different levels of welfare benefits they can receive in various European countries. It compares conditions in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, telling asylum seekers how much money they can expect, the type of accommodation they will find and how long it will take to obtain residency. Keeping the doors open intensifies the crisis. In the Netherlands 50-70% of former Muslim ‘asylum seekers’ live permanently on welfare. Of the former asylum seekers with a Syrian, Iraqi or Eritrean nationality more than half collect government assistance. 80 % of the 50 million Muslims in the west are on welfare. It's unsustainable. It's assumed that Europe is a global charity, and as a result their economy could collapse.

I am told that presenter Jon Faine will be doing a program around Australia at 24 million this morning on ABC radio Melbourne 774 If anyone wants to ring in I think the number is 94141774