Wednesday, July 28, 2004
What they are not saying about fertility and population
A new report into Australia's population future by the Business Council of Australia is as notable for what it leaves out as for what it includes.
If fertility rates keep falling as they are doing in most western countries, Australia's population is headed for decline within a few decades. The only major country where fertility is holding up is the USA. Deaths are expected to start exceeding births in New Zealand around 2035-2040. Falling fertility equals a declining economy.
The almost universal answer - including in this BCA paper - is to boost immigration. Australia's current immigration target is around 100,000, but the paper believes this should be increased to 150,000. The NZ target is 45-50,000, but the government's flip-flops on policy have spooked applicants and there has been a major shortfall so far this year.
To be more precise, the paper says Australia should focus on skilled immigration, but it totally fails to provide any discussion on the implications which follow. Unanswered questions include:
a) Where are these skilled migrants going to come from? There is already huge competition between western countries for skilled workers (everybody is poaching each other's teachers, nurses, police, etc). There are just not enough to go round.
b) The unstated answer is presumably "non-western countries". So, which countries, and do they have enough to supply the world's insatiable demand without completely draining their own stocks? No-one knows, if they do know, they are not saying. What will be the consequence of these countries losing their best people?
c) What will be the consequence of 150,000 people from non-western cultures arriving every year in Australia? Again, the discussion paper simply does not ask the question.
d) The paper has nothing to say about ways in which the decline in fertility might be addressed. It simply accepts that it will probably continue, or at best hopefully stabilise.
Fertility is falling for three major reasons (plus a host of smaller ones): 1. Lifestyle choice; 2. The need/desire to postpone births (eg, through the necessity to have two incomes in a family); 3. The ballooning abortion rate. Last year, I asked the chief demographer at Statistics NZ what our fertility rate would be if all the abortions had been live births. His answer: 2.5, which is way above replacement level.
These three factors are killing our culture - in a nutshell, it is rotten at the core. Attempting to boost immigration without addressing the root problems is like fixing a home with dryrot in the foundations by tacking on more weatherboards.
A new report into Australia's population future by the Business Council of Australia is as notable for what it leaves out as for what it includes.
If fertility rates keep falling as they are doing in most western countries, Australia's population is headed for decline within a few decades. The only major country where fertility is holding up is the USA. Deaths are expected to start exceeding births in New Zealand around 2035-2040. Falling fertility equals a declining economy.
The almost universal answer - including in this BCA paper - is to boost immigration. Australia's current immigration target is around 100,000, but the paper believes this should be increased to 150,000. The NZ target is 45-50,000, but the government's flip-flops on policy have spooked applicants and there has been a major shortfall so far this year.
To be more precise, the paper says Australia should focus on skilled immigration, but it totally fails to provide any discussion on the implications which follow. Unanswered questions include:
a) Where are these skilled migrants going to come from? There is already huge competition between western countries for skilled workers (everybody is poaching each other's teachers, nurses, police, etc). There are just not enough to go round.
b) The unstated answer is presumably "non-western countries". So, which countries, and do they have enough to supply the world's insatiable demand without completely draining their own stocks? No-one knows, if they do know, they are not saying. What will be the consequence of these countries losing their best people?
c) What will be the consequence of 150,000 people from non-western cultures arriving every year in Australia? Again, the discussion paper simply does not ask the question.
d) The paper has nothing to say about ways in which the decline in fertility might be addressed. It simply accepts that it will probably continue, or at best hopefully stabilise.
Fertility is falling for three major reasons (plus a host of smaller ones): 1. Lifestyle choice; 2. The need/desire to postpone births (eg, through the necessity to have two incomes in a family); 3. The ballooning abortion rate. Last year, I asked the chief demographer at Statistics NZ what our fertility rate would be if all the abortions had been live births. His answer: 2.5, which is way above replacement level.
These three factors are killing our culture - in a nutshell, it is rotten at the core. Attempting to boost immigration without addressing the root problems is like fixing a home with dryrot in the foundations by tacking on more weatherboards.
