Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Strategic Implications of Australian Population Policy
Aussiegunneragain    5/10/2010 11:07:01 AM
I thought I'd try and kick of an open dicussion on Australian strategic policy, like we used to have in the old days. I hope everybody takes the opportunity to chip in their two cents worth. The open question is: "What may be the strategic implications of different options for Australian population policy over the next 10, 20, 50 and 100 years?"
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
YelliChink       5/10/2010 12:34:08 PM
Why not open the flood gate and let millions from Muslim countries and Africa in?
 
Doesn't like it? Then have more babies and adopt sensible immigration policy.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/10/2010 5:21:30 PM
there's no point increasing population beyond natural birth ratios if we don't do something about infrastructure.
 
water is the future currency and we don't have enough of it, nor have we improved our infrastructure to capture and manage it.
 
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       5/10/2010 8:33:37 PM
A sensible population policy would be natural growth by birth, and a small amount of migrants that are needed for their skills, not those that are accepted simply because they want to be here.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/10/2010 11:08:24 PM
Australia's soils are poor and the continent lacks water.  I don't know how much the average Aussie knows about that.  I met a really interesting intelligent Aussie and he had no idea about either.  The continent is arguably overpopulated as of now.  There are rumors about plans to evacuate it.  These surface every once in a while and were running around during the last drought.
 
The other issue is immigration policy.  Being a developed country the only way it is going to increase or even maintain numbers is immigration.  IMO any country that allows immigration should insure that it is diverse and comes from a very wide range of places.
 
What are the strategic implications of aging anywhere?  What are the strategic implications of ZPG or mass immigration of those who don't hold or even despise Western values?  What are the strategic implications of a real drought where you need a crash program to build desal plants so people can get a glass of water?  Oz is definitely an interesting place.
 
Quote    Reply

Robbo    Populate or become insignificant   5/12/2010 9:45:53 AM

Economically I think we need to populate or risk becoming insignificant on the international stage. There'll always be growing pain in regards to Infrastructure, but we need the people to pay the taxes so we can afford to upgrade. If in the far future we become insignificant there would be no pressure/motivation for the larger powers to honour treaties and would make us a more enticing target.

From what I understand (And I am no expert on the matter)we are a massive net exporter of food so in my opinion the argument of infertile soil and water shortages comes up short. I've heard reports that our water infrastructure is so bad that we lose 66% between the source and the target. As technologies and water becomes more scarce this will be addressed.

We can never compete with Asia and to an extent eastern Europe in manufacturing, but we have an excellent services sector, as globalisation and digitalisation expand we can market Australia as a services centre of excellence.  Of course we also have the resources that again as technology advances will become more and more cost effective to extract and sell to the world.

 

my 2 cents.

 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/12/2010 10:12:03 PM
What are the strategic implications of a real drought where you need a crash program to build desal plants so people can get a glass of water? 
 
They tried that in Qld. Paid a motsa and the piece of junk still hasn't come on line. Faulty valves, faulty pipes, cracking seals in tank seams/joins. Corroded electrical components etc etc etc. Billion dollar white elephants.
 
Sigh.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/13/2010 3:36:06 AM
Thanks for the contributions all. My view is closest to Robbo's. I can see the day when places in our region are busting at the seams and people in those countries will ask, rightly or wrongly, what entitles 30 or 40 million Australians to have and underutilise an entire continent with all those resources, the third largest EEZ in the World and a big chunk of Antartica just because their ancestors conquored it first? We can't rely on the US always being around to protect us, over the next 50 to 100 years they might get sick of other peoples problems and back off from the World stage or they might even decline reletive to other World powers to the extent that they couldn't help us in a rut. Under those circumastances we would have a very hard time defending ourselves in a war with one of the really big nations, short of going nuclear or finding somebody else to ally ourselves to (who?). Either of those approaches has its own problems and isn't going to replace having a big enough population to make it look like we aren't gready land hoarders to the rest of the World and to credibly defend Australia. Who knows, if we develop a big enough population we might establish the tax base to develop a credible defence industry with which we could meet most of our own needs.
 
Like Robbo I also don't see that the infrastructure/water argument has legs as most of our water now is used (inefficiently) for agriculture and it is entirely possible to service Australia's urban areas using desalination plants paid for by the increased tax base or through service charges from the new users. The Saudi's do for their entire country so there is no reason why we can't. The one in Queensland might have been a dog but we are only going to get better at building them.
 
What worries me is that this part of the narrative isn't being effectively told by the Rudd Government, who to their credit support a "Big Australia", and the Opposition are capilising on people's fears to ride the populist wave against more immigration. We really need to start building up our population now so that we don't have all the problems associated with rushing it later.
 
I like Earl M's suggestion of drawing immigrants from many sources, it is what the US actively seeks to do and I see it as having several advantages. Specifically, we wouldn't risk getting one large sub-community dominating our political process and it would improve our contacts with the broadest possible range of countries.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       5/15/2010 12:51:59 AM
Australia has both the Americans and the Brits to look to for support.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/15/2010 10:43:58 AM
Good topic AG.
 
In addition to the long term strategic issues that have already been brought up there are some very compelling near term economic issues that require an increase in skilled migration as well as birth rate. 
 
Basically the Baby Boomers are getting older, many of them are choosing to retire early and there simply are not enough competent Gen X to step up into their place.
Once retired the Boomers will no longer:
1. contribute to corporate knowledge
2. mentor younger up and coming staff
3. pay income tax
 
They will likely live into their 80's and 90's and being a very large demographic block their wants and needs will distort the policies of any government, that wants to be re elected (possibly to the detriment of the country), for decades to come. i.e. the smaller work force will be required to carry them because the retirees will have far greater electoral weight.
 
In addition, the lack of sufficient suitably skilled and experienced people to replace them will deepen the skills shortage, delay projects, create inflationary wages pressure and increase the delta on our inefficient two speed economy.
 
To avoid this we need to encourage skilled and experienced technicians and professionals to emigrate to Australia to back fill the roles we are struggling to fill and to provide the mentoring and breathing space we need to get Gen Y up to speed and take the pressure off our own Gen X.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Volkodav   5/15/2010 11:03:11 PM

Good topic AG. 

In addition to the long term strategic issues that have already been brought up there are some very compelling near term economic issues that require an increase in skilled migration as well as birth rate.   

Basically the Baby Boomers are getting older, many of them are choosing to retire early and there simply are not enough competent Gen X to step up into their place.

Once retired the Boomers will no longer:

1. contribute to corporate knowledge

2. mentor younger up and coming staff

3. pay income tax 

They will likely live into their 80's and 90's and being a very large demographic block their wants and needs will distort the policies of any government, that wants to be re elected (possibly to the detriment of the country), for decades to come. i.e. the smaller work force will be required to carry them because the retirees will have far greater electoral weight. 

In addition, the lack of sufficient suitably skilled and experienced people to replace them will deepen the skills shortage, delay projects, create inflationary wages pressure and increase the delta on our inefficient two speed economy. 

To avoid this we need to encourage skilled and experienced technicians and professionals to emigrate to Australia to back fill the roles we are struggling to fill and to provide the mentoring and breathing space we need to get Gen Y up to speed and take the pressure off our own Gen X. 


Thanks.
The impact of population ageing on the economy is indeed an important medium term consideration. I think that skilled immigration is important but I also think that the "skills shortage" is a misnomer, we have actually had a labour shortage. I remember before the GFC when my local Subway had a sign out the front basically begging people to work there. In orchid area's we have fruit that rots on the tree because no Australian's will work out there. This tells me that we need to lower what we consider to be adequate skills to move here, being able to speak English and read, write and count is actually makes for an immigrant who can make a pretty good contribution to this country.
 
I also think the obsession that we have with throwing taxpayers money at trying to get current residents to breed, through baby bonuses, family tax allowances etc, etc, needs to be got over. A child born now is only going to be between 15 to 20 years old when populaiton ageing peaks and won't be making a substantial contribution through the workforce. In contrast if you bring in an adult immigrant they can get working immediately and as they are generally pretty motivated, will seek any training opportunities they need to fill skilled vacancies. I would personally like to see us ditch all those "incentives" to have a family and let people save to have their kids if they want them, as it is a lifestyle choice. The money saved could be used to lower taxes across the board to make the economy more competitive and we would get the extra warm bodies through immigration. That would work towards solving both problems posed by population ageing on the economy and towards improving our national security.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics