We can all see that our population is going rather rapidly in Australia. No one can miss it. And yet our birthrate has been around 1.8 for years.

Not only have we had high immigration for a long time, but the effective birthrate has also been above replacement level.

This is due to the high proportion of young reproductive people. So while the average personal fertility rate is well below replacement level, the national fertility rate, if we can call it that, is above replacement level.

This means that even with net zero immigration, our population will continue to grow for about four decades if the current fertility rate is maintained, at which point the age structure will be evening out.

So concern about our 'low' fertility rate is unfounded and the whole notion of the baby bonus being designed to actually get our fertility rate up to replacement level is fundamentally flawed.

Then there is the question; if we can adjust population growth and composition with immigration adjustments, why do we need to worry about manipulating our fertility rate? And let’s face it, we can adjust these parameters far more easily via our immigration program than we can by even the most enormous baby bonus scheme, or baby-buying program, or parent-bribing system.

And then of course there is the really big question; why on earth aren’t we gearing the whole nation towards a stable sustainable population instead of a continuously growing one with no end in sight?

Ludwig,

Your last paragraph contains the really big question: one that no one wants to answer. I vaguely remember the Opposition muttering something about a population policy, but they are in such a mess, we can forget them. They are also into big immigration, so they probably cannot be taken seriously.

Just continuing to breed our own and import others without any consideration to our environment and recourses is, to me, plain stupidity. The current water situation should be enough for anybody (but a politician, industrialist or developer) to get the message, as should be the galloping increase in salinity and degradation of the land.

There are countries with half our population doing very well indeed. Whether or not they have smarter politicians and voters, I don’t know, but we see to be living in the past

Ludwig...I don't understand how the national fertility rate can be different from the individual.. are the not the same ? Can you provide further information on this please ?

Last night, at Bible study, the wife of the host, who has a daughter who benefited from the BB, told me that her daughter knows of friends who are now having babies just to get the baby bonus, and not for the child, but for themSELVES.. to have a big spend on something..... sad.

I think the encouragement of higher birthrates should continue though, until our fertility rate reaches at least 2.5 and we don't need to rely on immigration so much.
A rate of 1.8 is clearly evidence that we are dying out unless we bring in lots more migrants or start having more children. Unless I'm not getting the picture properly.
cheers

David

Our population age structure has more young people than it would have if it was typical of a stable population. This is largely because our immigration program has been skewed towards young people. It makes all the difference to our effective birthrate.

For example, if we had two people out of ten with an average fertility rate of 2, we would have 4 four children produced in the first generation. But if we had three reproductive people out of ten, we would get 6 children. So the number of people, or the proportion of the population, that the average fertility rate refers to is all-important in determining the total fertility rate for the whole population.

Exactly what the national fertility rate (or at least, that’s what I call it) is, I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to appear anywhere in the literature. But it is obviously a bit above replacement level if our population is continuing to grow regardless of the immigration factor (net zero immigration). This so-called natural growth, rather than decline which you would expect if the national fertility was 1.8, is well-documented and expressed by numerous authorities.

“… having babies just to get the baby bonus, and not for the child, but for themSELVES.. to have a big spend on something…”

And isn’t this disgusting! There is NO requirement that the money be spent on the baby. It really is the most deplorable blatant bribe, and the worst piece of government policy ever to emerge in this country.

“I think the encouragement of higher birthrates should continue though, until our fertility rate reaches at least 2.5 and we don't need to rely on immigration so much.”

Implicit in this is your desire to see our population continue to grow. Why? And why should we favour our own children, from a diverse multicultural background, ahead of immigrants of the same sort of composition? What’s the point?

Ludwig,
You are right that the ‘natural increase’ in population (excluding migration) is positive despite the birth rate being below replacement rate, because an unusually large proportion of the population is of currently of child-bearing age. You are wrong, however, to say that this means we needn’t worry about a low birth rate.

Demographic changes take decades to unfold, and seemingly small differences - such as between an average of 1.7 and 2.1 births per woman – can have a large effect on our demographic profile in the years ahead. If low birth rates persist, the aging of the population will be much more acute, and the rate of decline in population excluding migration expected in the middle of the century will be much more rapid.

This will give us two bleak choices. We can suffer the demographic problems currently facing (for example) Japan – a massive increase in the aged population, a falling population of working age, and a declining total population - with all the social, cultural and economic upheaval that entails. Or, we massively increase migration in the middle of the decade to try to offset the decline in the resident population. Increasing migration to offset the effects of ageing is subject to rapidly decreasing returns, because migrants age just like everyone else, so the migration intake would have to rise to three or four times its current level to stabilise population - again, with potentially undesirable consequences.

Even accepting your goal of stabilising the population (which I don’t), sustaining higher birth rates now and allowing a more gradual transition to zero population growth is the least disruptive and costly way to achieve that end.

I think it is disgusting that both major political parties continue to maintain high levels of immigration. Recently the excuse has been we lack skilled workers. Nonetheless, the present 6 year drought in SE Australia and chronic water shortages demonstrate that the climate and soils of this continent cannot support even the present 20 million people. It is likely this year that Australia will have to import wheat. The baby bonus is therefore absurd, and financially discriminates against people who choose not have children and those who cannot have them. I heard that it tends to be the dumb that make babies, while the smart don’t. The smart tend to be richer and don’t need the baby bonus anyway. Do we want quality or quantity?

And what about the energy needs of an ever growing population? We apparently have about 300 years supply of coal. After that, what, nuclear? Uranium is not unlimited, and comes with the inevitable risks of ionizing radiation. Warming of our climate in recent decades is likely due to combustion of fossil fuels, though we don’t know for certain. However, we cannot afford to fool around arguing this point, we need to act immediately. So, why not spend the baby bonus on solar energy instead? After all sunshine is one thing we have in abundance in Australia. Unfortunately, Howard hasn’t the foresight to act responsibly. If he hasn’t done anything for 10 years, he’s not likely to start now. Labor never has and never will, while the Greens and Democrats carry too much weird baggage that is not even vaguely realistic. I will keep doing my bit to help: I use rain water for my garden in Sydney, I have a solar h/w heater and I am presently investigating solar cells for electricity. The latter are very expensive and wouldn’t be paid for in my lifetime, but nonetheless I feel I should do something.