Based on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for the 12 months to March 2011, the results of a controlled Federal Government slowdown in migration for the period has become evident.
During this period, Australia's population increased by just 1.4% which equates to approximately 312,000 people; the lowest level of annual population growth since the 12 months to June 2006 (303,089).
In percentage terms, it is also the lowest annual rate of population growth since the 12 months to December 2005 (1.4%). Despite the slowdown, population growth is still tracking well above the long-term average rate of growth (254,561), over the year. The long-term average is measured since 1981.
Net overseas migration slowed over the March 2011 quarter. However, with increases to migration, particularly skilled migration, announced in the federal budget, we may see a reversal of these trends over the coming year.
Across the individual states, New South Wales recorded the greatest increase in population in raw number terms, up 82,134 persons over the past 12 months. In percentage terms, New South Wales' population is growing by just 1.1% over the year compared to Western Australia where the population growth of 50,962 persons equates to a 2.2% increase over the year.
Looking at interstate migration, New South Wales, South Australia and Northern Territory are losing residents to other states with the largest beneficiaries being Queensland (7,391) and Western Australia (4,996).
The outflow of residents from New South Wales is now at near-to their lowest levels since December 1998, while Victoria's interstate migration is the strongest since June 2002. Interstate migration to Queensland is now at its lowest of any period since 1981 while in Western Australia, interstate migration is increasing again but below levels recorded between mid 2007 and mid 2009.
These latest results confirm that when people do migrate from overseas, their preference is to settle in the more populated states such as New South Wales which captured 29.9% of all overseas migrants followed by Victoria (27.3%), Queensland (18.4%) and Western Australia (16.4%). Collectively, these four states accounted for 92% of net overseas migration.
Overall, this recent data shows that Australia's rate of population growth is slowing however, in raw number terms it remains well above the long-term average level.
"Australians are now showing a decreased propensity to move interstate and obviously this is causing population growth into Queensland to slow markedly after it had previously held the mantle as the strongest population growth state for many years."
"From a housing market perspective, the lower rate of population growth directly affects demand for housing. A potential trend that we may see emerge is an increase in the number of interstate migrants, particularly from New South Wales and Victoria, heading to Queensland and Western Australia.
The population and how it grows
At a national level, population grows in two ways: natural increase (births minus deaths) and net overseas migration (inflow of migrants who will say in the country for at least a year minus outflow of Australian citizens). The slowdown in population growth is almost entirely due to a reduction in overseas migration.
Over the 12 months to March 2011, 145,207 more babies were born than residents who passed away, and 167,148 new migrants moved to Australia.
Although both components have eased over the past 12 months, the level of natural increase has fallen by just -6.0% compared to a -24.0% decline in the rate of overseas migration.
Over the 12 months to March 2011, natural increase accounted for 46.5% of the total national population growth, its highest proportion since the 12 months to June 2005 (46.6%).
written by quinnsbeacher, October 10, 2011
The Treasury's latest Intergenerational Report forecasts an average growth rate of 1.2% to 2050, which would mean an increase of over 60% in 40 years. An increase averaging the current 1.4% p.a. would mean +74% in 40 years (to nearly 40 million). Australia would be struggling to support this many by then.
A total fertility rate of 2.1 (i.e. 2.1 babies per mum) is needed just to maintain the status quo, taking into account increased longevity and rates of death. The TFN has been below this replacement level since the 1970s and is set to remain so, meaning that net overseas migration must supply over half anticipated growth (even at 1.2%).
Big business wants more skilled workers but the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes in 2010 indicated that 72% of voters didn't want population growth, and Julia Gillard seems to agree with the unions that skilled workers should not be imported while there are Australians available to be trained. Nevertheless, the Queensland Centre for Population Research more or less agrees with the Treasury, giving a median 40-year forecast for Australia of 36.1 million.
How else will Australia counter population ageing and baby-boomer retirements (b-bs represent 30%+ of the workforce) but by immigration? Based on Department of Immigration and Citizenship figures, the Permanenet Migration Program is projected to benefit the Australian Budget by something like $20 billion over 20 years from just one year's migrant intake (based on the 2009-10 total of 168,600 migrants). By all means, let's use the talent we've already got first, but then we need a planned and sustainable level of growth even to maintain the present standard of living, but let's not panic at 'stagnation'. We need and can benefit from (the right) immigrants, but we may not be able to cope with a longterm average 'stagnation' rate of 1.4%.
written by demografix, October 10, 2011
4.1 million boomers born here and now we have 5.2 million. 80% will require full or part pensions, so all we did was kick the can down the road through immigration. The Dept of Immigration has also revealed that immigration is not the answer to the fiscal challenges facing Australia by ageing.
I for I think we can do it through other social engineering. For example, family Assist Part S, where a senior can sell up, keep their funds asset test free if they move in with another pensioner or a family. For the family talking in the pensioner, they get $5k from the govt and the rent from the pensioner tax free. We do not want to end up with 31% of our homes as lone occupants. It was 8% in 1946.
Increase land tax, decrease stamps, reintroduce death tax for estates over 1 million etc. We have plenty of tools at our disposal without turning to the obvious choice of immigration. As this nation ages it will also turn anti-immigration as others have done, so we must focus on the solutions internally.
written by PopulationParty, October 11, 2011
As pointed out by other comments, how can you claim a 'stagnation' when we are well above the long term average? Also, a lower percentage growth can still be a (much) bigger actual number.
You need to look at the PERMANENT migration program, which really indicates the 'trend' figure, not just net overseas migration (NOM), which includes temporary migrants that come and go. We've recently had a spike in temporary migrants (foreign students doing hairdressing courses etc to get citizenship), which largely accounts for the rise and fall.
FYI, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen recently announced the largest permanent migration program in Australian history. The 2011-12 program will bring 199,750 more permanent residents to Australia - up by 20,000. Coupled with 150,000 more births than deaths each year, Australia remains on target for at least 36 million people by 2050 ('big Australia').
But if anyone thinks that or 'stabilisation' (or 'stagnation' if you prefer) is a good thing, there's a new federally registered political party tackling 'the everything issue' - population...
Google the STABLE POPULATION PARTY website.
written by demografix, October 11, 2011
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/p...uly11.pdf
Do you care that over 88,000 Aussies left PERMANENTLY last fiscal year? 1/2 Australian born.
written by demografix, October 11, 2011
http://tinyurl.com/3q4nkqh
written by PopulationParty, October 11, 2011
I'm aware of those stats. There will always be people leaving permanently, due to marriage, migrants returning to their homeland, etc.
Do I care? It's not the issue.
We are advocating a stable population, with immigration roughly equal to emigration (yes, at say 80,000 p.a.), including our refugee intake of 14,000, and ultimately with births roughly equal to deaths as well.
Then we can plan for a truly sustainable future with appropriate resource use over the generations.
Tens if not hundreds of millions would come to Australia if they could. Why is it a problem that 80-odd thousand leave, when they can be and are replaced?
Would you propose draconian policies like stopping inter country movements?
We support immigration, but it has to be sustainable, and equal to emigration.
written by demografix, October 11, 2011
1. They are leaving mainly due to an unaffordable economy, including house prices.
2. Our death rates double in the next 25 years and our natural growth may drop to zero or below.
3. I agree with a sustainable population and agree with most of your intent, however your policies are not focused on the problem of paying for our ageing nation, rather stopping population growth, of which 1/3 is the demographic momentum of mostly the boomers.
4. When an Australian born bot leaves it costs us approx $250k toy get to to adulthood. Money not well invested at all if they leave and do not return.
5. The abs numbers ar bs, as from 2006, international students who are here longer than 12 months are included in our official population growth numbers. A ponzi student scheme that is falling apart as less come and the many now have to return home.
6. Given the bulge ofd the 5.2 million boomers I calculate our population will peak at approx 28 million and then start its decline as anti-immigration is a feature of aged voting patterns. This is particularly true given our fertility rtae has been below replacement levels for over 35 years and is not likely to improve into the future.
Once again, I think you have your focus on the symptom, not the cause and do not have any real policies for dealing with this unique moment in history, our ageing nation.
written by PopulationParty, October 11, 2011
Zero growth would be a wonderful outcome for our quality of life - we live in a finite world!
We could go back and forth all day, but please have a look at our website, which answers and refutes all of your points. In particular note the opinion pieces, and myths and facts page:
www.PopulationParty.com
In short, an immigration pyramid scheme can't stop us ageing.
So pervasive is the assertion that "we have an ageing crisis" that it seems to have entered popular belief. But ageing is actually the sign of a successful society and you should embrace it, not spread fear over our demographic triumph! Would you rather live in Uganda and expect to live to 35??
In the long-run, the only way to mitigate the fiscal impact of population ageing is through: (1) greater productivity growth; (2) higher workforce participation; and (3) tightening eligibility requirements for entitlements, such as the aged pension, aged care, and subsidised health care, and (4) Increased SAVINGS!
Let's get to it!
written by mamikel, November 14, 2011
Estimates vary on how much food we can produce - currently around 50 million. But this is contingent on available farmland, cheap(ish) fertiliser, phosphates etc. But each family doesn't just need food. They also need shelter, school placements, hospital services etc etc. And we are already eating into our precious farmland through our urban development. We must also see things from a bigger picture. The world's farmland is also dwindling due to urban sprawl and over farming which makes the need to retain as much of our farmland as possible even more critical. Our wheat production has been very temperamental and looking at it against population growth, it's easy to see that as we increase our population and subsequently decrease our available farmland, that during hard times, we are going to struggle to feed our own.
We have experimented with high population growth for too long and it seems we are now really starting to suffer for it. I also don't see how we can continue to meet our foreign debt while our demand for cheap imports increases by such a large amount year upon year. We only seem to be holding our head above water due to our mining exports. But this can't last forever either.
If something isn't working, then surely we are better off considering an alternative. We obviously don't want a massive rapid drop in population and also we benefit from the exchange of skills and ideas from other cultures, so it seems very sensible to moderate our immigration to emigration levels. We have good access to education and family planning so families can have the children they choose unlike so many other countries. So, we have it seems a very good chance at getting the balance right. I hope we don't mess it up.
The elephant in the room that this article misses is emigration. 88,000 Aussies left permanently last fiscal year. 1/4 Australian born. The June numbers will be even worse as our death rates srat their climb. In the next 25 years our death rates double and our natural growth may drop to zero. As the nation ages it will also restrict immigration, so Australia may hit its peak population at about 28 million and then start its decline.
In God we trust, all others must bring data.