One useful issue raised by Tony Abbott, Dick Smith and, with less coherence, by Pauline Hanson, is the size of Australia’s immigration intake. Do we want cities of Melbourne and Sydney to have populations of 8 million by 2050? Do we wish, under a high immigration intake scenario, seek to double our total population by then? I definitely don’t. Our cities are large and congested now and a doubling of their population would make them unpleasant (and ultra-expensive in terms of house prices) places to live in – if not for me then for my children and their children. Moreover, the natural environment of Australia is one of the most remarkable on the planet – I’d like to conserve it as well as provide a home base for people.
Then there seem to me two ways out. Either one of two options: (i) Dramatically cut the immigration intake so that our population tapers off at a few more million than it is now – perhaps at 27 million. The immigration program would be designed to offset the significant emigration that occurs from Australia each year and from the shortfall in natural population growth required to maintain population size. Or (ii) Develop new cities at a sufficiently rapid rate so that net growth in the major population centers is reduced to zero. I prefer option (i) because I cannot see the option (ii) working satisfactorily.
The option of creating new cities would require the creation of 10 new cities (or the augmentation of existing small cities) by 2.5 million people each over the next 30 years of so. It is a big task made difficult by the practical difficulties of socially-engineering where people will live. This is the reason that academic areas such as “regional development” have fallen into such disrepute. Australia has only a handful of large cities now but the imperatives of doubling our population by 2050 would require the creation of 10 new cities the size of Brisbane or Perth. Those who wish to pursue the high migration intake – the Housing Industry Association that represents the construction industry and the various business interest groups must explain clearly how this task will be carried out. Otherwise, they must rationalize the creation of large megacities in all the current capitals.
The standard response on the left to such concerns is to claim that those expressing them are “racists” which is true in the case of a few but overwhelmingly untrue. It is not the composition of the immigration intake that is being questioned here but its aggregate size and the implications of current intakes for how Australians will live in the future. An additional foolish response is the claim that we need more young immigrants to balance the aging of our population. This is Ponzi scheme reasoning – let us take in more now to delay the problem that will be worse in the future because of our current efforts. With a bigger population and a declining birth rate the problems will get increasingly worse not better.
A final argument is that by taking people from the overpopulated parts of the world (China, India, Africa) we relieve population pressures there. That is true but, with reduced population pressures, these short term effects will be plausibly offset by increased births in those immigrant source countries. China has already abandoned its “one child per family” policy and India will soon overtake China as the most populous nation on earth. These countries will become “developed” over the next half century or so and will impose crippling demands on the global environment as a consequence. They should, to the contrary, be forced to face up to their population problems now.
I used to believe that economic manipulations (entry charges, congestion taxes etc) could handle the issue of rapid population growth in Australia’s favor. I no longer do. High house prices as a consequence of immigration-driven population growth as well as high rates of urban disamenities such as congestion and pollution are not being addressed by economic instruments such as taxes and charges. Indeed, I was naive to think they ever could be. The charge towards a high population Australia needs to be stopped. A small bunch of political figures are raising such issues and they deserve to be listened to.