Should Australia keep growing?
ANUSHA MENON reports on a UWS forum on the scientific, sociological and environmental perspectives on the merits and demerits of population growth.
“Should Australia keep growing?” This was the question of interest and the title of the Open Forum held at The University of Western Sydney’s Parramatta campus on February 16. The Forum, held in one of Australia’s most culturally diverse tertiary institutions, addressed the fundamental issues of sustainability, immigration and multiculturalism in the country. On the panel were Dr. Andrew Jakubowicz (Professor of Sociology at the University of Technology), Ms. Sandra Kanck (President of Sustainable Population Australia) and Dr. Tanveer Ahmed, psychiatrist and opinion columnist at the Sydney Morning Herald.
Dr. Jakubowicz accentuated the fact that it is not the mere existence of humans that impedes on the biosphere, but the culture of these people as human behaviour changes the environment.
Each speaker addressed an array of key issues that they thought were pertinent to the question of Australia’s growing population. Dr. Andrew Jakubowicz, an advocate for migration, focused on the “sustainability question” by linking the relationship between the Earth’s biosphere and its sociosphere. He accentuated the fact that it is not the mere existence of humans that impedes on the biosphere, but the culture of these people as human behaviour changes the environment. Jakubowicz posited the option of engaging in a differentiated way in order to have healthier impacts on the biosphere, an example of this being smaller family units, as this has less of an environmental impact as compared to larger families. He then addressed what he determines to be the three main “Population Crises.” The first crisis is that there are “too many people for the ecosystem to survive.” This entails the dilemma of having a population that is of the wrong age or are equipped with the wrong skills, and it considers environmental degradation and pollution. The second population crisis is that there are “too few people.” Retirees are inadequately supported due to the lack of care workers, more skilled people are needed to fill jobs, and rural towns are becoming “shells” due to extensive movement to urban areas. The third crisis is that there is “too much competition for the best migrants.” Jakubowicz claimed that migration brings creativity and some of the best people who produce this are refugees, therefore drawing the conclusion that a multicultural, ecologically sensitive strategy is needed to tackle the issue of Australia’s population growth.
Dr. Ahmed concluded his talk by touching on the fact that Australia has the highest rate of mixed marriages, which proves successful migration and integration.
An avid supporter of limiting Australia’s population, Sandra Kanck began her talk by addressing the common misconceptions and assumptions that underlie her debate. She justified her controversial views by asserting that science is not concerned with the ethnicity of people, it is the mere adding of humans to the biosphere that destroys it. She said that if immigration did cease, women of childbearing age in Australia would continue giving birth, and this in itself would have negative impacts on the environment. She also criticized the notion that there always exists a “technological solution” to the problem. Using the example of water supply, she asserted that as water increased over time, there was a larger net overseas migration rate with larger unmitigated harms. Examples of these harms are the concentration of immigrants in the Western Sydney region and the doubling of infrastructure to cope with the increase. Kanck concluded that adding to the population is detrimental, as growth contributes to destroying the planet and “if we trash the land, we trash ourselves.”
The final speaker of the panel, Tanveer Ahmed, eloquently wrapped up the debate by first clarifying that Australia’s population growth will be an ongoing issue that will persist for a long time, and it would seem that every conceivable urban fear is cluttered into this very subject. He claimed that infrastructure and property prices are a very easy scapegoat for rising immigration, and he commented on the ongoing allusions to science, which appear to be constituted by personal paranoia that are not grounded in authentic scientific detail. Ahmed also discussed the topic of an aging population and said that there appears to be a fundamental trade off, as a bigger population means more housing and youth, where as a smaller one means less housing but significantly older people. He claimed that the government only has a certain amount of power over this and net migration cannot be controlled. Ahmed concluded his talk by touching on the fact that Australia has the highest rate of mixed marriages, which proves successful migration and integration. However, he argued that whilst many refugee groups are dynamic, large groups tend to be unskilled and it is through skilled workers that success tends to be achieved.
Ultimately, a fear of over population is nothing new; it is a complex issue that brings forth a variety of economic, environmental and social anxieties. Whilst many turn to the government to manage these concerns, others appeal for an independent body to tackle the “Population Crises.” Either way, population growth in Australia is an important subject and certainly should not remain in the periphery of the Australian psyche.
