Talks of two child policy for Australia

Australian families should be restricted to having just two children in an effort to curb population growth, says controversial millionaire Dick Smith.

The former Australian of the Year likened the ever-increasing population to a "plague of locusts" burdening the country's resources, the Daily Telegraph reports.

Population growth has to slow down in order for housing to become affordable again, Smith argued.

He wants to see the population of Australia stabilised at 24 to 25 million, with an immigration intake of 70,000 people per year.

Source

For those of you who dont know, Dick Smith is a very influentual icon in Australia.
Australias population is currently at around 22 million, which is nothing compared to countries like india, china and the US. I live in Australia and i can easily say that we are definately NOT overpopulated. People complain of immigration and the like but Australia has the potential to hold millions more at the very least having one of the biggest land masses in the world.
I will give you a better view of how bizzare this is with a few statistics.

Australia
land mass: 7686850 square km
Population density per sq. km: 2.7
Population: roughly 22 million
Population growth: 5.39%

China
Land mass: 9596960 square km
Population density: 138.6
Population: 1357686043
Population growth: 3.56%
(ive linked the graph)
Source/Graph


You can see that Australia is in no way near of a situation like Chinas, you could kinda understand if we were in similar shoes and the standard of living had deteriorated because of over population. But concidering the fact that it is evident that australia can house many more people than what it currently is the motive of this is obviously not lowering the population for better standards of living which is what is hinted at in the original article as we are reffered to as a "plague of locusts"

Chinas has more land mass than Australia, so it is fair to say that you could assume that China would naturally have a higher population than Australias, but when you look at the difference of their population density it is quite evident that we are not in the same situation at all. So its obviously not needed.
Australias population growth, again is bigger than chinas (because of the one child policy). But when you compare its population growth to other countries its actually lower than average, so that kind of rules out the immigration argument and rules out the notion that we are a "plague of locusts".
Now, seeing that its just an influentual person putting this argument across not a political party would make you a bit more comfortable.
Unfortunetly that isnt the case.

AUSTRALIAN governments should encourage a two-child limit for families and slash immigration to halt population growth, a new aspiring political party says.
The Stop Population Growth Now party formed this week to put pressure on state and federal governments to slow population growth to zero in a bid to protect the environment.

South Australia-based spokesman Bob Couch told The Advertiser the party's philosophy was not motivated by racism but concerns about depleting resources, under-pressure public services and land shortages.

Sou rce

Firstly i think this statement is completely ridiculous.
Dick Smith wants to keep the population at 24 million. A rate of 2.1 at the very least is needed to sustain a nation, this new political party wants population growth to be at 0. So we wont be steadied, we will be DECREASING in number.

Also put immigration into the mix, you can make the 2 child policy all you want. But immigrants are still going to want to find residence in Australia, if our pop growth is still above zero after (if) they enforce this how is it going to affect them? are they going to start to reject immigrants and asylum seekers?
This is definately not fair, as Australia is marketed as a open multicultral country and to now deny this for population control is morally wrong. Its opening doors for discrimination and predjudice.
Protecting the environment? No matter what number of people you have 20 million is still going to make a massive impact on the environment if people dont know how to protect the environment which the majority dont. Encouraging people to protect the environment as a life choice (not just one day dedicated to it, plant a tree day) would be way more effective. Because even though you have more carbon emmissions waste ect people actually know how to live in the most environmentally friendly manner. This would be more efficient then having a less populated Australia who still dont know how to care for the environment, doing this would just be like giving yourself panadol when you have a headache. Its fixing the symptom not the cause.

Australia definately has more resources than other countries concidering it is a very agricultural country, so i think this statement is rubbish. Food is becoming more expensive but this is because of all the natural disasters that have hit the country recently, not because of increasing population.

Under pressure social services. If social services are already under pressure now and we havent hit the 24 million mark that they want us to stay at then obviously this is going to be a problem anyway.
instead of decreasing population, how bout INCREASING the amount of social workers and making them actually more efficient by having some sort of government incentive to encourage people to become social workers.

I can safely say DOCS (child services) in Australia is a joke. I know this from stories of friends who have had to deal with them, i understand that they are stressed but lowering the population isnt the answer.
besides that, we have centerlink. Which actually works pretty well as far as im concerned as i myself are involved with them, to the best of my knowledge they have no stresses whatsoever and Australias government help programs are pretty good compared to other countries. So i think this is rubbish.

Land shortages. Dont make me laugh. Australia has SOOO much land that you could easily live on.
Areas like sydney and melbourne are pretty crowded, but this is nothing compared to cities in china and other densely populated countries.

Now, this could easily fit into the depopulation agenda. It makes it seem all that bit more true when people are talking about stopping the growth of a country that is not overpopulated.

Also, speculate that a woman becomes pregnant with a third child.
Will she be forced to abort?
In china, woman often abort their female babies because they are no use to them and are seen as a burden.
Even though in Australia this kind of sexism is no way near as prevalent in China, it is possible that specific gender abortions could occour causing a unbalanced ratio of male/female babies

Now that we have concluded that whole political parties argument about the 2 child policy is bs. We can speculate about what this could potentially do.

LOWER population.
Turn away migrants and asulym seekers causing prejudice.
Open doors to other countries to follow suit.
Forced abortion.
Unbalanced ratio of male/female babies.

So overall, i think this is a really really bad idea.
End of rant

Please feel free to state opionions, I would like to see if anyone is for it and why.


Additional sources
source
source
source

I whole heartedly agree with Dick Smith.

Our immigration needs to be lowered quite significantly.
I hate to say it, but Australians are becoming rare compared to all the other cultures mixed in.
Don't get me wrong, Multiculturalism is a good thing... In small quantities.
When Multiculturalism becomes a countries culture, you know you have gone too far.

In regards to child limits... I think the only way to police it is to ensure those who are CAPABLE of taking care of children PROPERLY should be allowed to have how ever many they wish.
Those that are on Government handouts, should be restricted!
I've seen too many "redneck" Australian families all living off Centrelink payments and they have something like 7 kids. All of which have had ZERO discipline and just run amok.

If parents in a position where they can feed their entire family from what they produce on their land... Then there should be no limits.
The parents will self limit based on what they can feed the kids.

Running on the notion that ALL Australians should have as many kids as they want is absolutely ignorant of the blatant facts presented in regards to sustainability in this country.
Just because we HAVE the resources, doesn't mean we should rape them and exhaust them.
There is a delicate balance that NEEDS to be preserved if the Human species wishes to live out the next century or two.
Thinking otherwise is just plain ignorant.

DENY IGNORANCE!

reply to post by Sovaka


Hahaha, well I guess that is a good point. I read about this political muslim guy (cant remember the name) saying that sharia law should be put into our law, i thought that was completely ridiculous concidering its our country and we shouldve have to change our laws to conform with your beliefs. If you come to Australia you need to accept our values.

Also agree with the rednecks, I have seen many of them around and what they bring up really isnt good news alot of the time.

However, I still dont think its a good idea IMO. Reducing our growth rate to 0 would start to cause a decrease in population and a whole lot of other problems. It also opens the doors for other countries in similar circumstances as Australia to follow.

Thanks for your contribution

reply to post by littlecloud


I’m sick and tired of people telling us what we can and can’t do.
They make us have bank accounts, electricity, city water, schooling, money. The list goes on and on.

I know it’s horrible of me, but sometimes I wish s##t would hit the fan. So those who wish could live as they want to.

reply to post by Whateva69


I can completely relate, this kind of thing just drives me insane.
Expecially because the governments have caused the majority of our problems in one way or another, so they set rules for us to fix there mess, which isnt to fair.
Thats not to say that were to liable at some point which we are.
well dont worry, it will come soon enough

I am surprised that this came up in Australia of all nations. I can only assume that it is a "trial balloon" for other westernized nations kind of like when they took your guns away and you went to socialized medicine. I believe that when Australia and Canada do things like that it is an attempt to influence the US population since those two nations are the most closely related to us.

reply to post by littlecloud


Not a problem at all.
I don't agree on the zero population growth as you state.
But we also have to take into consideration that not all Australians will want to have 3+ children.
So those that have 3 and 4 kids, will help balance out those that only want to have 1 or 2.

One major point that I have always advocated and try and educate people on, is the requirement of self sustainability.
Bring us back to our roots and not so much as forcing Australians, but showing them the benefits of producing at least half of what we consume.
With how easy Aquaponics is for the average person to build,maintain and grow on; There is no need for a population to be entirely dependant on the Food Processing industry and what farmers there are.
Fresh fruit, vegetables, sea food, eggs and even milk/cheese from goats...
We can greatly limit our impact on our environment and actually expand without throwing the system into an upheaval.

Along with the recent development of Cold Fusion, there is absolutely no reason why we can't now change back to individual communities that produce for themselves and export to others.

I believe "dick smith" is preaching to himself.

I'm an Australian and I know who "ds" is but I don't find him influential at all.

I doubt our liberal party would let a bill like this get approved, this is just crazy talk

In my opinion I think we should just restrict the asulym seekers that start burning down our immigration centers before they even get to the mainland.

Our currently elected labour government is on the edge at the moment, I think another stunt from them and they will loose the public support behind them

Just my 0.02 cents

reply to post by Sovaka


Completely agree with all of what you just said. Now wouldnt this be so much better than just forcing a 2 child policy?
Your talking about the actual education of the people which would be so much better for people to be made to take choices that they actually dont understand. This would be actually hitting on the problem not just fixing the symptoms which i talked about in my original post.
I dissagree with the policy, but if people are educated and choose to now make these desicions for themselves thats more beneficial because they are making education decisions which will then turn into life choices and life styles.
Also with immigration, it does bring a fair bit of trade to Australia so I still dont see immigration as a bad thing but i can see the potential problems it could impose.
Overall yes, self sustainment is the way to go

Originally posted by phantom150
I believe "dick smith" is preaching to himself.

I'm an Australian and I know who "ds" is but I don't find him influential at all.

I doubt our liberal party would let a bill like this get approved, this is just crazy talk from one of our

In my opinion I think we should just restrict the asulym seekers that start burning down our immigration centers before they even get to the mainland.

Our currently elected labour government is on the edge at the moment, I think another stunt from them and they will loose the public support behind them

Just my 0.02 cents

Yeah i dont paticulary find him influentual either, i dont know a whole lot about him to tell you the truth.
Well i hope it wont get approved but there is now a new formed political party talking about it as i quoted in my post, so its progressed just a bit more than that.

Asylum seekers burning down Immigration centers? Ive never heard of this, fill me in!
how could you possibly restrict them is my question because it would be pretty hard to determine who is going to commit arson or not. If that turns into just overall rejecting asylum seekers then that would be an over generalisation and wouldnt be all to moral. Aside from moral implications different cultures bring alot to Australia economically as they bring in there trades.

Dont get me started on Julia Gilard please.

reply to post by littlecloud


Indeed, there does need to be a better education system in this country. Specifically regarding the advantages of self sustainability.
Though better education for our kids wouldn't be bad either :p

I remember watching a video on Fluoride poisoning that stated that back in the 60's, the 8th graders were learning a level of maths that our now 12th graders and possibly early uni students are only just now learning.
That is beside the point and I digress.

I do disagree on your point in regards to immigration bringing trade to Australia.
Immigration really has nothing to do with Trade


To solve the immigration issue, we need to ask why are these people emigrating from their home countries...
And part of it comes down to the repressive Governments that think they know better then the general population.

Get rid of Governance, and we will be just peachy.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Yes i agree this is similar to what i was thinking. This could open a door for possibilities for other countries to start to bring in similar agendas. If your one who believes in the depopulation agenda it gets pretty interesting.

Great topic, but as an Australian who has thoroughly traveled all over Australia, I find myself siding with Dick Smith on the fact of resources.

The core issue has nothing to do with overall land area, so comparing our 7,686,850 square km with China's 9,596,960 square km isn't really a valid point. I realize massive amounts of China's land is inhabitable, but if you've ever been out west, I mean right into the red center, you'll know everywhere except the coastal areas literally will not sustain grass let alone a population in some areas lol. Australia's center is not an inhabitable or developable location. Its literally been in a drought like situation for decades, if not centuries.

I live in QLD, and despite the ridiculous levels of rain which have fallen this year (most on the coasts as expected), the last decade has seen us literally living with legally enforced water restrictions. If Australia's population was to double, triple, heck even 10x our population, where exactly would 10x the water come from? Also the requirement for land to grow crops to feed a population of that size would be completely unsustainable. Would importing 80% of our fresh food be good for the economy? Are we to become an island of developed suburbia and just import all our food and resources?

Already we have population areas where there is simply no more land to develop without encroaching on nation and state forests, or areas prone to flooding etc. I don't fancy developing delta areas and river fronts, we saw the results of that this year. I live north of Brisbane, and in my lifetime I have seen each and every farm around the area sold and converted into urban developments...and I currently find myself unable to find land to purchase and build on myself...and this is at the currently level of growth. My area will simply not sustain much more growth without major infrastructure changes, ones we cant afford at any level.

I understand that population growth is necessary for a healthy economy, and I don't agree with 0% population growth at all, but I honestly don't think we should and could ever be a nation with 100 or even 50million people, unless there are some massive innovations in technology and our government lol. Our state capitals would need to be torn down and rebuilt to support such growth, as they are pretty poorly laid out on a world standard *cough*Brisbane*cough*

So, no we shouldn't have a 2 child limit like China, as it causes more social issues than its worth, but again, we definitely need to tread carefully to maintain a balance of our lifestyle, environment and economy.

Yea right; that would be right. advocating for this while at the same time welcoming boat people with open arms so they will drive down wages, dilute national identify, dilute religions, dialute national loyalty, create racial tensions etc etc.

The nest step will be allow chinese business to start bringing in their own labour, all to make up for a skills shortage you understand... its got nothing to do with a peacefull transition of Australia to Chinese ownerhsip of course.

reply to post by littlecloud


There'rs been allot of these minor independent parties joining in, I doubt they will have much swing unless they get our "greens" or "family first" on-board.

The immigration center has been all over the news in victoria (south east) Australia

The boat people set there center on fire as they were "unhappy" over there turn around time

An article can be found here:www.sbs.com.au...

In Aus our illeagle immigrants get given free health care, accommodation, fortnightly repayments etc

I think we need to better use our land then start enforcing such extreme measures as population control, we aren't struggling for space...We can fit a few tents or apartment block on the parliaments front lawn.

Australian fertility rate is just below 2.0, and if you look at their population pyramid, it can be seen that number of children is slowly decreasing. It seems to me that with some immigration restrictions, their population would stabilize or even start to decrease on its own.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Anyway, I dont know how serious the unforgiving climate and water shortages are, so if something needs to be done, then two-child policy sounds as a good idea. Of course, restrict immigration first.

I've always respected tricky dicky but I think he's lost the plot on this.

With our current population we can't even defend our borders. So whats going to happen when other countries run out of land for their people. Australia is going to be invaded and there won't be enough Aussies here to stop 'em.
Populate or perish..

reply to post by yizzel


Military might =/= number of people. We are no longer in the ancient times. Number of resources and science and research is important today. You cannot increase scientific advancement by breeding more, and you will only decrease number of available free resources by breeding more. Especially when resources are constrained, as in Australia.

Besides, who would even want to invade Australia lol?

reply to post by littlecloud


Well this is just what dick is saying. The government actually just ran an ad, that stated have one for mum, one for dad, and one for your country. Thats 3 kids. Somehow I don't think that the government is listening to Dick.

reply to post by littlecloud


This is a very interesting topic and I'd like to humbly contribute some thoughts.

First thing, the reality of such social regulation (in setting and limit on the number of children one can have) is highly unlikely to occur in Australia in the short to mid term as I feel it would be politically toxic for either of the major parties and would never gain widespread support.

There could also be significant legal hurdles, as the Commonwealth would not have the jurisdiction to legislate in such an area. If it ever were to occur it would have to be legislated at a state level. This in itself would also be difficult in Victoria and the ACT where there is a charter of rights. The other states may be legally able to enact such legislation, but as I said it'd be politically unlikely.

Having said that, global population growth is significant problem which will accelerate into greater significance in the coming years. When considering the challenge it poses, we need to take a global approach. The key problem is that:

When the amount of resources required to support life is greater than the available resources, somebody inevitably will go without.

Furthermore, there is the additional complication caused by the almost global reliance of economic models based on continual material growth. So in essence we have a very strong force which will continue to push (somewhat blindly) towards ever increasing population and consumption growth.

Given this trend, what are the possible outcomes?

i) Global population is stabilised and maybe reduced through soft means before we hit global resource deficit;
ii) Global population is reduced via hard means before we hit global resource deficit;
iii) Resource deficit occurs resulting in widespread famine and war, therefore reducing population and returning the real global economy back into surplus.

In a sense, simple economics will lead to a painful adjustment if a threshold is breached and a deficit occurs. Therefore I feel the most preferable (and least painful) option would be to use soft means to manage the problem.

What are the soft means that we could use?

i) It's generally understood that an increase in the socio-economic development of a society (and the resulting higher formal education levels) reduce the population growth. This is why developed states such as Germany and Australia have negligible population growth (considering immigration/emigration factor). So, increased development in developing nations should lead to some downward pressure on global population growth, provided social and educational development is realised. Having said that, development leads to a second problem.

ii) Resource Binge Lifestyles is a term which aptly describes the lifestyles of those in developed states, characterised by high consumerism and excess and waste. Undoubtedly, developing societies are also developing a taste for this. There needs to be global lifestyle changes to temper the demand for material consumption. A large part of this is the reduce wastage in transportation of foods and other goods. In order to achieve this, the global population will need to be distributed efficiently, based on the density of resources required for life. This will involve an increasing level of migration, although this should be voluntary, and driven by economic factors. Inevitably, we in Australia will need to support a much greater population than we currently do, given the potential for provision of resources ad our comparatively low population.

This is undoubtedly a simplification of such a complex issue which I haven't done justice, but I think that there are things we can do to manage the problem and minimise harm, pain and suffering. I'd be interested to hear any other takes on the topic or criticism of my simple ideas.