In 1947 overseas migration was seen as essential to increase living standards by developing natural resources and to increase national security. But what now, wonders MIKE QUIRK. 

There are widely divergent views on the merits of future population growth. 

Opponents of growth argue it has to be curtailed as it depletes natural resources; reduces biodiversity and housing affordability and increases carbon emissions, soil degradation, pollution and deforestation. They also argue population decline can raise per capita consumption and living standards.

The alternative view is population growth increases the size of workforce, the demand for goods, innovation and technological advance, cultural diversity and political and military power; and is needed to counteract an ageing population that is producing a shrinking income taxpayer base and labour shortages in health, aged care, childcare, hospitality and agriculture services.

Such debates are not new. In 1947 overseas migration was seen as essential to increase living standards by developing natural resources and to increase national security (“populate or perish”). From the 1960s there has been debate about the level of economic growth and its environmental impact, as reflected in concepts of zero population growth, carrying capacity, absorption capacity and ecological sustainable development.

Growth occurs through natural increase, the difference between births and deaths, and overseas migration. Australia’s total fertility rate (TFR) declined from 3.55 babies per woman in 1961 to 1.5 babies per woman in 2022–23. The decline in mortality rates is reflected in the increase in life expectancy at birth from 70.7 years to 83.9 years over this period. 

Net overseas migration (NOM), the factor most influenced by government policy, was a low 52,700 in 1975-76. Between 2002 and 2020 annual NOM averaged 210,000. Covid travel restrictions saw it fall to minus 84,900 in 2021. It rebounded to 518,000 in 2022-23. 

In the 2023 Intergenerational Report, Australia’s population in 2062-63 was projected to be 40.5 million, up from 26.5 million in 2022-23. The projection was based on NOM of around 235,000 a year and natural increase falling from 123,000 to 80,000 a year over the period. The rate of population growth was projected to fall from 1.4 per cent to 1.1 per cent a year.

The projection was made in the absence of an assessment of environmental costs and benefits. What, for example, would be the impacts of a NOM of 70,000 a year, a level Sustainable Population Australia argues is sufficient to meet humanitarian needs, address essential skill shortages and stabilise Australia’s population around 30 million?

An assessment considering the economic and environmental consequences of alternative levels of population growth is needed. It should consider:

(a) The level of overseas migration needed to overcome labourforce shortages. What contribution could strategies to increase the workforce participation have on the level of migration needed? The strategies include more flexible work hours, incentives, through the tax and transfer system, to encourage people to work more hours without losing their government payments; and the provision of increased training of local workers in the areas of skills shortage. Has the growth in non-dwelling construction activity drawn labour away from home building?

(b) Will increased future competition among countries for migrants reduce our ability to attract sufficient skilled migrants? 

(c) Will policies to increase fertility be successful? An ACT Assembly inquiry, for example, found low birth rates were a consequence of increased living costs, including the costs of housing, childcare and health care; environmental concerns and the low availability of family and community support. It suggested free childcare, subsidised medical expenses and more funding of public housing could be effective in increasing birth rates. However, incentives to increase birth rates have been ineffective in low-fertility countries including South Korea, Japan and Italy.

(d) While a higher population increases the size of the economy, does it lead to higher income per person? How much can labourforce productivity be increased to produce more output of goods and services and lower the need for migration?

 (e) The environmental impact of development. Poorly managed population growth has contributed to lower housing affordability, higher congestion, increased carbon emissions, encroachment on natural bushland and threatens biodiversity. Climate change will aggravate many of these problems and reduce urban water supply.

(f) The relative implications of growth for each level of government. The federal government is responsible for immigration levels and collects most of the taxes the immigrants pay. State and territory governments are required to provide the necessary infrastructure (transport, schools, hospitals and other facilities), services, land and housing. They are struggling with their responsibilities. 

(h) The extent to which recent high migration contributed to congestion, infrastructure and housing shortages and the large increase in house prices and rents. 

(i) The extent to which changing the distribution of the population within and between cities and regions can reduce the negative impacts of population growth. 

Migration is currently needed to address substantial labour shortages but is also exacerbating housing, health and transport problems caused by poor policy and inadequate investment. Analysis, better integrating State of Environment and Treasury’s Intergenerational reporting, would better inform decisions about the future size, composition and location of the population. 

Mike Quirk is a former NCDC and ACT government planner.