Australia | Populate or Perish?

[M II A II R II K]

Populate or Perish?


05/23/2012

By Ross Elliott

Read More: http://www.newgeography.com/content/...bout+places%29

.....

‘Populate or perish’ was a rallying cry of post-World War II Labor Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell as he sought to overcome domestic resistance to immigration. For Calwell, immigration was the key to quickly boosting Australia’s population numbers in the interests of economic and military security. An avowed supporter of the ‘white Australia policy’ he sought immigrants from European backgrounds. Asia was, back then, regarded as the enemy.

- In 2012, it’s arguably just as much in Australia’s interests to boost its population numbers, in the interests of economic security and (according to some) military security also. And again, immigration – not an accelerated breeding program of naturalised Australians – is the only way this can realistically occur. As domestic industries increasingly surrender to global competition and as energy, agriculture and services industries increasingly depend on foreign markets for their long term survival, the issue of Australia’s relatively small population – despite its huge continental mass – raises little by way of public debate. A larger domestic population might provide markets for domestic industries, for local employment and for community wide infrastructure.

- At LA levels of population density, roughly the area we know of as south east Queensland could accommodate some 15 million people comfortably. Yet the conventional “wisdom” is that with just 3 million people it’s bursting at the seams and can’t possibly take any more. A more extreme example, just to stretch the imagination further, is worth thinking about. Jakarta, Indonesia has a population of 26 million people. That’s more than the entire population of Australia, living in one (very crowded) city – at the rate of 9,400 people per square kilometre. Now, I’m not wishing that sort of urban density on anyone in Australia, but the hypothetical comparison still applies, for the sake of discussion only. The footprint of greater urban Jakarta, home to 26 million people, easily fits within the boundary of south east Queensland.

- The argument that Australia is somehow incapable of supporting substantially larger population relies on a myth that we short of room. Nor can it rely on suggestions that we would exhaust our energy stocks (we are a net exporter and would remain so at much larger population numbers), nor our food production capacity (again, we are a net exporter and would remain so even with much higher levels of population). In fact, in terms of food production, a lack of domestic market scale poses a significant problem for producers. The efficiency gains of primary production (livestock to cropping) have outpaced the growth in population. There is an argument regularly raised that Australia has insufficient water supply to support much larger population numbers but this argument doesn’t hold water (sorry, couldn’t help that) either. What we do lack is water storage by way of dams, but the environmental lobby has vigorously opposed almost every proposed dam in the last 30 years whether for domestic supply, agriculture or hydro energy. The lack of water storage has been a policy decision made by successive governments for varying political reasons.

.....

[tayser]

poignant topic. I've actually got in touch with Rob Adams and his team who completed the Transforming Australian Cities report for various LGAs in Melbourne in 2009 and it was revised in 2010:

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/Abou...iesMay2010.pdf

The reports crux: Melbourne could accommodate a further 2.5-3 million people (current pop 4.2 million) on 7.5% of its existing brownfields inside the existing metro area / contained within the current sprawl belt.

I want to speak with them about obtaining data for my ongoing blog posts on the topic of all the rail infrastructure studies that are currently underway / about to get underway in Victoria and how brownfields identified in this report fit well with the proposals I'm pushing as an alternative to just adding more branch lines to the existing rail network.

I posted a thread on this, but surprise surprise it's fallen back many pages, however here's a lecture Rob Adams gave to SFU in Van on the report:

• Video Link

[M II A II R II K]

And in Australia there's enough room for more of the cities to become large cities to accommodate more people without any of the existing cities having to sprawl, certainly not like some US cities.

Sydney's satellite downtown system in the suburban areas appears to be more orderly sprawl.

[suburbanite]

Water supplies are already a big issue, and will become even more pertinent if the population is brought up to the levels suggested for southern Queensland. Not to mention it would encroach on Australia's already limited amount of farmland.

Densification of existing urban centers is likely the best long-term solution to increase the population.

[1Boston]

Water supply is an issue now, but i know australia is looking to desalination plants to supplement their needs. I really do hope that australia can grow in population because its one of my favorite countries, and i would actually think about living their, if only for a few years. They have a lot of potential considering their proximity to china and other asian countries, they just need something to drive people to come their to live.

[babybackribs2314]

I don't see why people equate population growth with a good place to live... Australia is magnificent the way it is & I can't imagine it would be any better with an extra 5-10 million people. The stress on natural resources is enough already (the US is almost in the same boat, but its geography is much more favorable for people--Australia is the second driest continent), and its cities are already beautiful & vibrant.

[babybackribs2314]

To add: I was very young when I lived there (9-12) but it was always funny listening to the news... in the US we have thousands come over the boarder ever day, but it was ALWAYS a big news event when a ship with 200-300 people from the Middle East washed up on the Northern Territory, and for a few weeks after, too.

[MolsonExport]

...or perish? Really?

[tayser]

"Populate or Perish" was the line used to describe Australia's need to increase migration after WWII. Certain realities became apparent as the Japanese advanced through S.E. Asia - Australia needed more people to create a larger industrial base to eventually protect itself.

It's also the time when foreign policy/protection from higher powers shifted from Europe to the USA.

[MolsonExport]

Fair enough but the expression seems extreme given contemporary circumstances. Have things ever been so good in Oz?

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Fair enough but the expression seems extreme given contemporary circumstances. Have things ever been so good in Oz?

The Anglosphere press is very keen on sensationalist headlines and some on this forum are all to happy to seek out the worst examples to post here...

[tayser]

I think either the question mark at the end of the title or the irony has been lost on [both of] you

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Water supplies are already a big issue, and will become even more pertinent if the population is brought up to the levels suggested for southern Queensland. Not to mention it would encroach on Australia's already limited amount of farmland.

Densification of existing urban centers is likely the best long-term solution to increase the population.

At the end of the day, and this is by no means limited to Australia, we have to sort out power generation before anything else. Develop cheap, clean and renewable energy, and plenty of it, things like desal become cheaper/more productive not to mention 20 million other things!

[SHiRO]

Title is not so bad in this case and neither is the article itself. The fact that the author cites Wendell Cock and Demographia is far more disurbing.

And Mark left out the best part of it all, the visuals:











Also illustrates nicely that Jakarta is the world's second largest city...

[NDB]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Water supplies are already a big issue, and will become even more pertinent if the population is brought up to the levels suggested for southern Queensland. Not to mention it would encroach on Australia's already limited amount of farmland.

Densification of existing urban centers is likely the best long-term solution to increase the population.

Actually Australia is the world's sparsest country, if we consider population in relation to arable land.
If desalination solves the water issue Australia could easily support 3x the current population. Not sure it would be a good thing.

[pdxtex]

me, me, *raises hand* meeeee.....so how do americans become austrailians?? id move there in a heartbeat......

[tayser]

if you have $5mil to invest, the Federal government will fast track a migrant visa

(no shit)

[pdxtex]

yeah, my visa is probably going to be inthe queue for awhile if thats the case. does austrailia have, or did they ever have a homesteader act? like, here come live in this wasteland part of the country and we will give you the land for free!

[tayser]

That's what 10 pound pomes got, not anymore. The $5mil thing is about luring high net worth people in so they'll start employing locals from the outset, therefore the government will fast-track your application/allow you to jump the queue.

We still take ~100,000 skilled migrants every year - it's all points based: http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/