Since 2000, the population of Australia has grown by 25 per cent. This means that since the Sydney Olympics, the country has swelled by more than the entire population of Sydney.
This level of growth is astounding not only when looking within our country’s borders, but even in comparison with our peers.
“Our population is the fastest growing of major developed countries,” Tom Swann, Researcher at The Australia Institute (TAI), tells Roads & Civil Works Magazine Australia.
TAI released a report in March highlighting just how excessive Australia’s population growth rates are in comparison to other countries. Other than Israel and Luxembourg, Australia had the fastest growing population among any Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country. Based on current trends, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) projects that our population will grow to around 40 million in 206. And, depending on migration trends, will rise to between 42 million and 70 million by 2101.
While these alarming growth rates are part of the public record, TAI’s study brings up some important questions about why these rates aren’t discussed more in the public and political arena. One TAI survey found that one third of Australians said they don’t think a conversation about population was necessary.
Until now, political discussions around population increases have largely been about whether or not to encourage migration. The TAI confirms that migration is the top cause of population increase. There is a natural increase in population, with one birth in Australia every minute and 45 seconds, compared to one death every three minutes and 32 seconds. However, there is a net gain of one international migration every two minutes and five seconds. (see Figure 1).
The TAI study has found that while the government talks a lot about migration, policies and political agendas have had limited impact on migration and population growth in recent years.
“In the past we have seen big rhetoric from politicians about population, about whether we should have a ‘big Australia’ or a ‘sustainable Australia’, with little real discussion of what this means and how we get there,” says Mr. Swann.
TAI highlights that since former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s statement on a “big Australia”, the country’s population has been growing by a steady 1.8 million over the past six years (see Figure 2), with no noticeable difference from a change in government.
Infrastructure now
TAI and Mr. Swann say that with Australia’s growth an inevitable future, the conversation now needs to change to how the country will prepare for this massive increase in population.
“If population growth is faster than the growth in public services and infrastructure, then we are effectively letting population growth undermine the standard of public services and infrastructure,” says Mr. Swann. “Politicians like announcing increases in funding for various things, but if the increases don’t keep up with population growth, then they are actually a cut.”
He puts forward the example of announcements of big new infrastructure spending in Sydney during the recent NSW election campaigns. Despite these promises, TAI estimates that state budget spending per capital will actually fall from $9000 this financial year to $8700 per person by 2017-18, after adjusting to inflation.
“Budgets really should be explained not just in dollar terms, but in terms of spending and services per capita,” says Mr. Swann.
Urban focus
Cities like Sydney need to be aware more than most about the numbers to come. The TAI study found that highest rates of growth is in capital cities. From 2003 to 2013, Melbourne experienced the greatest population growth, followed by Sydney, Perth and Brisbane (see Figure 3). Although there are periods when certain regional areas have a high rate of growth, for instance mining booms, growth has largely been in cities, following where the jobs are.
“Most of the population growth is happening in capital cities,” confirms Mr. Swann. “One reason is jobs. For example, the rate of job growth in capital cities has been almost twice as fast as in the rest of the country over the last five years, and this was during the mining boom.”
And although government policy might not have a direct effect on growth rates, unemployment rates do. TAI highlights that the migration rate largely reflects the strength of the economy. Net overseas migration rates are lower during periods of higher unemployment (see Figure 4).
Because increasing unemployment rates is not really a policy option as a way to stave migration, Mr. Swann says this highlights the need to plan for population growth.
“The real question here is planning for this growth,” he says. “We have to prepare the services for new citizens in advance of them being born or arriving here.”
With this in mind, Mr. Swann says the government needs to change its approach to infrastructure spending.
“It is obvious that as our cities continue to grow, they will need more infrastructure spending, but on the right projects,” he says. “The current obsession with road projects bearing low cost-benefit ratios is perhaps the clearest example of how the current institutions of infrastructure planning are setting us up poorly for continued population growth.”
In addition to new roads, Mr. Swann says more attention will need to be paid to more efficient and less polluting forms of transport that reduce rather than reinforce congestion. He says this will mean public transport, bike lanes, and walkable urban design, combined with planning that puts places of work, learning and play in the same area.
Mr. Swann says this smart investment will be vital to ensuring that the benefits of population growth are enough to fund the needed level of investment.
“Business likes to talk about the economic benefits from population growth, but Treasury projections show that changes in population growth rates will have very little impact on per-capita income over the coming decades,” he says. “Productivity changes have a much bigger impact, and failing to plan and invest properly as our population grows could lead to impacts on productivity – for example if it leads to more congestion.”