Sustainable Australia

Australia is running an “investment” scam that relies on an ever-increasing number of punters to join in, writes Stephen Williams.

(This article was first published at https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/australias-population-ponzi-scheme-,11964 under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License.) In this republication tweets with links have been represented as pictures, to save time in reformatting.

IF YOU ARE LOOKING for discord between policies that the major parties offer and what most people actually want, it is hard to beat population policy.

Okay, okay, the major parties don’t actually have population policies, they have immigration policies that, as the Productivity Commission says in its 2016 Migrant intake into Australia report, work as de facto population policies.

But let’s start with what most people actually want.

Macro Business’s Leith van Onselen has been relentless in his coverage of the population issue in the past few years and he summarises the recent opinion surveys here.

Van Onselen misses the first Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) survey of 2015, which I spearheaded, although Adjunct Associate Professor Katharine Betts did most of the work. I also had a minor role in The Australian Population Research Institute survey of 2017 that built upon the 2015 SPA survey.

At the very least these surveys show a clear voter dissatisfaction with our high population trajectory as our major cities become crush-loaded.

Do we have “high” population growth?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics releases a quarterly report that summarises our population numbers.

As you can see, Australia is increasing its population by almost 400,000 a year — natural increase is about 38% of that and net overseas migration is about 62%.

The increase is 1.6% per year. To the non-statistician, that might not sound like much, but it means we would double our population every 44 years at that rate of increase. We are now at 25 million, so that would be 50 million in 2062.

To put that in context, the shit hit the fan in October 2009 when then Treasury head, Ken Henry, expressed concern over our projected population of 35 million people by 2050.

That led to prime minister Kevin Rudd’s baptism of fire when, like a boy scout enthusiastically collecting kindling at his first jamboree, he chortled his enthusiasm for a “big Australia”.

Yes, we could all get nice and cozy around Kev’s big bonfire and toast some marshmallows!

But the public backlash was fierce, with Julia Gillard eventually distinguishing herself from Rudd with the empty phrase “sustainable Australia” rather than big Australia.

Back to reality, comparable countries to Australia have much lower population increases. Japan even has a decrease.

The Federal Government largely determines our population numbers, both through spruiking pronatalism, as former treasurer Peter Costello did in 2004, or through adjusting net overseas migration, with former Prime Minister John Howard turbo-charging it in about 2006.

(Do not confuse our refugee intake with our overall migrant intake — the former tends to be between 3 and 5% of the latter.)

Such high-population increases, mostly through net migration, then allowed successive governments to smugly say the Australian economy was the envy of the world, with a record-breaking run of “economic growth”.

Translation: GDP keeps increasing because you keep adding lots of new people.

Growth sounds good, doesn’t it? It is the opposite of death, decay or stagnation. But growth can also be a cancer, or a “population Ponzi scheme”.

As I have argued elsewhere, there is good evidence that Australia has gone from economic growth up to the decade of the 1970s to uneconomic growth as the costs of expanding the economy become greater than the benefits.

Expanding the economy wouldn’t be so bad if it led to full employment in good jobs and equitable wealth distribution, with reasonable commute times in efficient public transport, but I could sell you a nice big harbour bridge if you believe we are heading in that direction.

Australian governments have conducted a number of inquiries that were largely, or partly, into our population numbers: The Menzies Government’s Vernon report (1965), the National Population Inquiry (Borrie report, 1975), FitzGerald report (1988), Withers report (1992), Jones report (1994), Sobels report (2010) and the already-mentioned Productivity Commission report on migration (2016).

Space does not permit an analysis here, other than to say that governments generally ignore those reports that tend to highlight a lack of objective or scientific justification for ever-increasing high population increase in a country with Australia’s limited water resources; limited arable land, unpredictable climate, exposure to natural disasters and sensitive biota with record extinction rates.

Indeed, the Australian Academy of Science has been concerned about our population numbers for decades, although you will rarely, if ever, hear population boosters mention this.

As the Academy said in 2010:

‘The Academy has consistently advocated that a large increase in Australia's population should not take place without a full analysis of the consequences for the environment, in terms of land, water, sustainable agriculture, pressure on native flora and fauna and social issues.’

People advocating business as usual – or even higher rates of population increase – almost never mention the natural environment, probably because they know next-to-nothing about it and its life-support systems.

On the other hand, people who express concern about our population trajectory often have scientific or environmental credentials, or are at least environmentally literate: contributors to the regular Fenner Conference for the Environment are good examples.

No, it is largely the business community, its think tanks and its big accounting firms that push for a big Australia, with the mainstream media being largely complicit in not challenging base assumptions that the growth agenda is built on.

For instance:

• What would be an ecologically sustainable population for Australia?
• What would be an optimal population for Australia?
• Does expanding the size of the economy always lead to increased well-being?
• Who are the winners and losers from the current Neoliberal growth strategy?
• What are the costs and benefits of increasing our population and what weight should we give to these costs and benefits?
• Why do many successful societies have relatively small populations?
• What can Australia realistically do to help an overpopulated planet that is still expanding by 80 million people a year?

The population boosters trot out questionable arguments about the dire consequences of an increase in the proportion of older Australians; alleged skills gaps in the native workforce and fatuous ideas to do with “dynamism”.

Meanwhile, we have almost 2 million people who want more work but can’t get it, full-time jobs are disappearing, wages have stagnated, private-sector debt has skyrocketed and wealth has concentrated at the big end of town.

What sticks in my craw is the seeming capitulation of both the once-great environmental movement in Australia and the progressive left in general, to the notion of demographic inevitability and Neoliberal orthodoxy.

In fact, we have a choice, if only we would exercise it.

Stephen Williams is a freelance journalist. He has done paid work for Sustainable Population Australia.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

The Sustainable Australia Party has prioritised four key issues that unite rather than divide Australians: secure jobs, affordable housing, better planning and a sustainable environment.
Related policies feature in the video.

Why vote for Sustainable Australia?

In short, our party has prioritised four key issues that unite rather than divide us: secure jobs, affordable housing, better planning and a sustainable environment.

We've featured these four issues in our new video:

We need your help

One of the unique selling points of our party is a genuine sustainable population policy. First and foremost, rapid population growth is an environmental problem, but it also impacts on our ability to achieve secure jobs, affordable housing and better planning.

For example, without slowing population growth, desperately needed housing affordability policies around taxation, bank lending practices and overseas buyers are negated by continued rapid growth in domestic demand.

Mainstream media

Unfortunately, when it comes to the mainstream media, our voice is drowned out by the extremes - pro-big Australia and anti-immigration forces. For a combination of commercial and ideological reasons, perhaps the mainstream media wants it that way.

Despite a series of uncontested pro-big Australia articles and opinion pieces in The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian, none of these publications will print an evidence-based opinion piece I offered rejecting big Australia on environmental and infrastructure grounds.

Getting around mainstream media barriers in order to reach voters is one reason why it is so important that you watch and share our latest video.

We need rational voices to rise above intolerant ones. The alternative is even more polarised political discourse. Suppression of moderate voices simply drives people into the arms of extreme parties.

Sharing is caring

Please share our video via social media (Facebook, Twitter, online forums, etc).

Can you also forward it on to relevant family and friends?

Thanks for any help you can give.

William.

William Burke is the leader of the Sustainable Australia Party.

In November 2016 I co-wrote an article for New Matilda exploring why it is important for those on the left to discuss population sustainability. Although the feedback was overwhelmingly positive, it was suggested that the debate is invalid unless it is inclusive of migrants or indigenous Australians. Which got me thinking …

The literature of what our indigenous communities think is currently very scarce. Thankfully, there has been a recent opportunity for me to discuss with an indigenous representative in Canberra to interview on this very topic.

Richie Allan and Violet Sheridan

Richie Allan is involved in cultural awareness training and cultural tours and is concerned about over-development around Canberra and the repercussions of ongoing growth. These are concerns shared by his community. Richie’s mother, Violet Sheridan (also a director of Traditional Owners), ran as a candidate for Sustainable Australia in the 2016 elections.
When I met with him, this is what Richie had to say about population sustainability.
Q: Richie, what can you tell me about your community and yourself, including the main issues that are important to your community and that you are passionate about?

‘My community, the Ngunnawal people, are very concerned about over-development on our sacred lands. For example, the Ginninderra Falls is a very important site to my people where important business and initiation ceremonies are held. We want our future generations to be able to experience this tradition in nature and not in outer suburban development.’

Richie explained that there are so many rich and varied sacred sites, places of significance, song lines and stories, just in the ACT alone.

How can you speak of ‘diversity’ when you don’t know whose country you are in?

‘So many of these are unknown and invisible to non-indigenous people. Why is it that people speak of diversity through growth and development when they don’t even know whose country they are on or even how to say “hello” in our native tongue? We can’t maintain our links to our cultural heritage with all these houses and development projects going up.’

Richie also shared that it is hard for Indigenous groups to have an impact because much of the federal funding for indigenous affairs is lost to bureaucracy with only a small proportion ending up with grassroots groups.

Why run for the Sustainable Australia Party?

Q: Can you tell me how Violet decided to run for Sustainable Australia [political party] and why does she connect strongly with a political party that has a strong focus on population issues?

‘The smaller size of Canberra has a more inherent sense of community and therefore [it] was easier for two people from different communities, campaigning for similar issues, to find each other. Smaller spaces have a greater sense of community that may be lost in larger centres such as Sydney or Melbourne.’

Richie met Martin Tye (the Sustainable Australia candidate in the previous ACT election) through social media, and since then the two have regularly met up. They connected by finding lots of common ground in regards to environmental and developmental concerns. Richie was invited to participate in the last ACT election, but he found he did not have time to run as a candidate. Violet shared Richie’s concerns and ran in the 2016 ACT election.

Australia’s population growth killing indigenous culture and heritage

Q: In regards to population growth in the ACT, why is this particular issue a concern for you as an indigenous activist?

‘Rapid population growth is killing indigenous culture and heritage in the ACT.’

Richie shared his frustration that the indigenous community is not consulted adequately about town planning and development processes. For example, while the planning authorities claim that they have indigenous consultants in the planning processes, they often select individuals who tell the government and developers what they want to hear. Richie strongly believes that the communities, whose lands are impacted, are not consulted at the grassroots level and that they do not hear about planning proposals until it is too late.

Queries skilled immigration when indigenous talent under-utilised

Q: What is your knowledge of Australia’s population policies more broadly and how do you and your community feel about these? Is this a concern that resonates with indigenous communities across Australia?

‘It does not make sense to have a large skilled migration program when there are enough skilled people already here.’

Richie believes that there is a very considerable under-utilisation of indigenous talent and skills, especially considering the high levels of unemployment among indigenous communities. Too often, non-indigenous people are employed in indigenous programs. Richie stresses that

‘it is not about stopping migration, just slowing it down so that everyone in the community benefits better.’

He made it clear that a generous humanitarian program is still essential, although cautioned that ‘refugees are struggling to afford to live in the city, as it is too expensive, but there are no jobs or livelihoods out in the bush.’

Indigenous culture conflicts with growth for growth’s sake policies

Q: How do you think national population policies might differ if indigenous communities were consulted and these consultations were successfully implemented?
Richie is pessimistic about more indigenous people being represented in government,

‘as it would not be considered by the main powers economically viable for treaties to be recognised and for the indigenous way of life to become mainstream.’

Richie does believe that although there is a diversity of opinions among indigenous peoples, that there would be less development and “growth for growth’s sake” if Indigenous people were more represented in parliament or policy-making decisions.

Ideology prevents the left from finding common ground with indigenous

Q: Many of the left believe in open-border policies while also being active in supporting Aboriginal people’s rights to their culture and land. Do you think these two aspirations can be balanced or reconciled?

‘People on the left can be stuck on their own agendas. It is only when people are able to put their own agendas aside and reach out to everyone that we can finally get things done. At the moment identity is more important to people than reaching out and finding common ground.’

As an example of this disconnect, Richie reflected that there was a lack of political presence during the Invasion Day protests in the ACT, even [among] the left-leaning politicians.
Richie also explored the idea that in modern Australian society there is personal identity but collective culture has been lost to greed and money.

Working collaboratively with indigenous community

Q: Do you have any advice on how groups advocating for sustainable population in Australia might work collaboratively with indigenous community activists?

‘Find a balance between the aims of the group and the objectives of the indigenous people you are working with. It is very important to bring elders into the conversation and work collaboratively so people don’t feel they are being used or being talked down to.’

Something’s going to have to give

Q: Any take-home words for environmentalists and left-leaning activists?

‘Population growth is killing people. My son and daughter-in-law have to live with me because they can’t afford their own home. At this rate of growth, it is impossible to plan properly. If we keep going at the rate we’re going, all the other issues, such as crime, will also jump. We can’t sustain this for much longer, something’s going to have to give.’

Final Thoughts

In interviewing Richie, I was personally taken by his insight into the relationship between his community with their local geographic area. What may have appeared to many of us as another group of trees, a gently undulating hill or another patch of cleared land for yet another Canberra suburb may very well be a place of deep cultural or spiritual significance. I was also touched by how many similar areas of opinion he and I shared, particularly concerns regarding town planning and economic growth at all-cost.
I would certainly not try to lay claim to the fact that Richie’s interview is totally indicative of what all indigenous people think in regards to population. Like the rest of us, I am very certain one would find a diversity of opinions depending on the individuals spoke to. However, his views have similarities to Nola Turner-Jensen, Wirandjuri Australian, director of CultuRecode, and member of Sustainable Population Australia. She says the following:

Time to bring the invisible people in

“To add the perspective of Aboriginal Australians in an article about the Australian population, captures the paradoxical situation of Indigenous people in this country. On the one hand, they are excluded from the policies and institutions who decide on such issues. They have been herded to the fringe of society and the economy, with a huge bank of knowledge on Ancient Australia, sitting invisible to most. On the other hand, the world is looking for sustainable solutions and we are starting to realise that constant progress, individualism and material accumulation is not creating a healthy future for Australia’s children or environments. For 50,000 years this country’s Ancient custodians lived everyday according to what was best for every single one of Australia’s living landscapes and people. As experts in creating local sustainable and harmonious societies, Indigenous people and their knowledge wait for the chance to contribute to looking after Australia again. This time in a shared custodianship. It is time to bring the invisible in, and share the spotlight together, before it is all too late. “

This also reflects with what can be found in the literature. For example, from the concluding comment of the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Watch Committee (1994):

“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.”

I would certainly encourage further discussions and collaboration with indigenous communities on this very important issue.
Michael Bayliss is President of the Victoria and Tasmanian Branch of Sustainable Population Australia. He would like to thank Richie Allan from Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation and Martin Tye from Sustainable Australia for making this article possible.

The Sustainable Australia Party's slogan is "Better not bigger" and presents a welcome relief to big business's, Turnbulls and Shorten's "Jobson Growth".[1] Inside find candidate Georgia Nicholls' stump speech.

NOTES

[1] A popular play on words in Victoria parodying the repetitive mantra of "Jobs and Growth".