Kang –

There are several reasons that our current population policies don’t make sense even with regard to an ageing population.

1. Immigration does nothing for the ageing population. Immigrants age just like locals. Half our population increase today is due to immigrants and the percentage will increase if we continue on the current course. The productivity commission (Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, 24 April 2006) did a study which concluded that the average worker would be less well off with an increase in skilled migration. A 50% increase in skilled migration was modelled against existing conditions and the result was that the average worker would earn 0.71% more money and work 1.18% more hours.

That means that hourly wages will decrease. That study did not include the impacts on living standards due to degradation of the environment because it was out of the productivity commission’s terms of reference.

2. Increase in birth rate does have benefits for an ageing population. That means we have to weigh the benefits against the costs, to determine the best policies.

2a. The most critical factor is that by increasing our birth rate, we are not solving the problem of an ageing population. We are simply putting it off, for our children to solve. Population growth has to stop some day, so the ageing population problem has to be addressed some day. Why give the problem to our children?

2b. Another PC study on ageing http://www.pc.gov.au/study/ageing/draftreport/ageing1.pdf found that although there would be structural changes required, the impacts were not serious. For example, funding had to be shifted from education to health, pensions had to kick in a few years later, etc. Again environmental factors were outside the terms of reference. These kinds of adjustments are minor compared to peak oil, land degradation, water and the other challenges of learning to live sustainably.

2c. Almost everyone agrees that global population growth is a serious problem. Is it right for Australia to be trying to increase it’s population while at the same time telling other countries to reduce their populations?

It has taken a long time for population pressure to get such recognition for concern as evidenced in this article and its responses.
But why should Queensland worry? After all, it has often enough been stated by some economists that all six and a half billion of the world's population could be accommodated in an area the size of Tasmania; and that, to be liberal, all the world's families could be allocated "quarter acre blocks" in a place the size of Queensland.
And yes, we do need more people on the land as custodians - with adequate support by the whole Australian community; as Andrew Campbell commented some years ago during a Fenner Conference. That applies to areas capable of remaining agriculturally productive, and to those that can't. Just how many more? - none at all while as much agricultural mining takes place as at present in supplying urban needs for products and export dollars.
But, wherever people live, spread widely are their needs relating to food, water, social comforts, recreation, and waste disposal (from the whole spectrum between sewage and carbon-dioxide). The area we take from is a huge one, as is that where we spread our waste.
Before we get complacent about population pressure we need fundamental change to society. Change away from that mindset encapsulated by that wag in Scotland, just north of the English border, who produced the car-sticker "keep Scotland tidy - throw your rubbish in England". Constrain our population increase until we do, no matter where we live. It is fundamental to the whole dam issue.

Perseus, I would love to know how you envisage getting people to move to where their impact on existing infrastructure and on the quality of life of existing residents is minimised.

Implementing incentives for people to move to places where the negative cost or effect of their presence is one thing. But it would take much more than simple incentives to implement the sort of redistribution that you envisage.

Also, you have only looked at the issue in a one-year timeframe. For example, if people moved into Longreach or Sarina at the rates that you mention, it wouldn’t be too many years before some considerable upgrade or addition to infrastructure would be required. So in one year no new infrastructure might be required and no significant impact might be exerted. But in the longer term, it would be a different story entirely. The average per-person cost could work out to be considerably more than in Brisbane or the Gold Coast.

I do think there is merit in boosting population in places like Longreach, to a limited extent, and other towns that have declined. But I doubt whether Sarina needs it. And other centres Such as Mackay and Airlie Beach could well do with lower growth rates.

You mount a simplistic argument. And one that in the absence of action on overall population increase is not going to achieve much.

Ludwig, you cannot simply make these claims about the cumulative cost of additional population in regional areas without actually examining the numbers. It is sloppy thinking of the first order.

For the record, the consequences of 20 years of 1.5% annual growth for a town of 6,000 people is a town of 8,000 people. Not a single road will need to be widened, no bridges duplicated, no new cross city tunnels, no new toll roads, no new sewerage treatment works and no new water recycling plants.

The smaller the scale the lesser the complexity of the solutions to growth. The extra 2,000 people in this example would need 770 houses which would fit into 7 new streets of 1.1km length running off the existing roads going in and out of town (assuming the existing streets are full and are not extended). The morning "peak hour" would stretch from 3 minutes to 4 minutes of very mild congestion in which almost zero hydrocarbons would be wasted idling in traffic.

So how can you possibly claim that these sort of cumulative infrastructure solutions would be more expensive on a per capita basis than a $1.5 billion duplicated Gateway Bridge or a $3 billion cross city tunnel?

And how does one attract people away from the Metropolitan centres?

Easy. Stop the leaking circular flows of regional GDP into urban government overheads by delivering regional autonomy. The investment will follow the new decision makers, the jobs will follow the investment and the people will follow the jobs. It is economics 101 but the existing government is too busy running a murderous health system in the bush to recognise it's own role in causing the problems it confronts.

“For the record, the consequences of 20 years of 1.5% annual growth for a town of 6,000 people is a town of 8,000 people. Not a single road will need to be widened, no bridges duplicated, no new cross city tunnels, no new toll roads, no new sewerage treatment works and no new water recycling plants.”

What an extraordinary claim Perseus!

A population increases by one third and you are saying that no increases or improvements in any infrastructure would be needed for roads or water. It depends entirely on how good current infrastructure is as to what extent of increased pressure can be absorbed. A 33% increase would well and truly overload a lot of infrastructure, and services.

Would you make the same claim after 40 years? Or after 20 years with a 3% pa growth rate?

Your philosophy of decentralisation doesn’t stop after 20 years, it goes on ad-infinitum. In fact, if your decentralisation did stop after 20 years, as part of a plan to reach a stable population, I’d be all for it.

“So how can you possibly claim that these sort of cumulative infrastructure solutions would be more expensive on a per capita basis than a $1.5 billion duplicated Gateway Bridge or a $3 billion cross city tunnel?”

On a per-capita basis, the sorts of infrastructure upgrades in small towns would be comparable with big expensive things in the major cities. You quoted the figures that indicate a progressively greater per-capita cost from Sydney to Melbourne and Brisbane http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4848#54476. Well, why wouldn’t that trend continue for regional cities and towns?

continued

“And how does one attract people away from the Metropolitan centres?”

The notion of regional governments being able to attract people to their areas any moreso than local councils or Chambers of Commerce is I think a load of bunkum.

People will continue to move to Townsville or Cairns at a rapid rate despite the governance regime, unless those governments set about discouraging that rate of growth… or they get badly damaged by a cyclone.

People will also move to the mines and nearby towns, for as long the so-called boom lasts.

Yes, people follow the jobs. So how would a regional government promote population increase in Longreach or Isisford or Cunnamulla? And even if they were hugely successful, how much impact would it have on decentralisation?

The fact is, if decentralisation was boosted right up, it would mean big increases in centres that are big enough now and have rapid growth rates now, and which are feeling the negative effects of this continuous growth moreso than larger cities.