
Well, the Australian population has passed 25 million. Twenty five million! When I opened a primary school geography book in the 1970s, it was less than 14 million. Older readers — most of my readers — might remember when it was less than 10 million, before the end of the 1950s. You’d have to be 80 or over to remember when it was in the 7 millions on the census (which excluded Indigenous Australians, remember) — a genuinely small Anglo-Celtic outpost at the bottom of Asia, settled in part so as to make it easier to colonise Asia, and thus scaring itself to death from the 1870s onwards that Asia might reverse the process.
Twenty five million is an absurdly low number of course. Prior to any consideration of whether the continent could take that many more, reflect on how singular and ridiculous this place is. Forty percent of the population are in two cities. Even if you look at where people really are, we are enormously empty. Draw a line from, say, Portland, Victoria, to just above Brisbane, and the resulting “green triangle” will contain about 70% of the population, and still be largely empty. That triangle is about the size of France and Germany combined, or mainland South East Asia, each hosting nine-figure populations.
But it never feels that way for most of us, living in the three big cities (including Brisbane-Gold Coast), either in dense inner-cores, or in mountain-to-coast sprawl concreted over every natural feature. So the politics of this vast, sparse continent are really that of city-states — intense battles for turf, identity, recognition, and the maintenance of comparative social power between different groups.
Around them, neglected hinterlands look on. This too is an accident. Until 1910, more people lived outside of state capitals than in them, and the green triangle hosted a far more geographically balanced society. Country cities had their own newspapers, theatre companies, lecture circuits, civic life, all offering just about everything that could be got in Melbourne.
We began to tilt towards the capitals after that, and we have been tilting ever since. Melbourne now has more than four million people; the next-largest city in Victoria is Geelong which has about 150,000. The imbalance is absurd and unhealthy — the product of combining high levels of immigration year-on-year, with the failure to have a truly integrated regional and urban development policy. The imbalance occurs as much within our capitals as without, as, instead of creating multi-polar cities, we have simply added concentric rings of suburban footprint around the existing ones. In Melbourne you can see where the city “should” have stopped by the extent of the tramlines.
Decades ago, we should have been turning country towns into cities, small cities into bigger regional capitals, connecting them by short-distance high-speed trains. Instead, we let it go, and we are paying the price for it, and will do so for quite a while to come.
The immigration rate isn’t likely to come down anytime soon, barring a real economic crunch. Both major parties will pay lip service to reduction, to please sections of their base, but it will go on. Founded in geopolitics, as a base to forestall the French, our population bursts have always had that spirit. We began our post-Anglo transformation in 1948, the year the British quit India, and the empire ceased to be a framing world order. We are building furiously now for the decades to come, when the end of the American century comes near, and climate change begins to categorically shift global relations.
Then everything is up for grabs, the most striking possible result being a protracted third world war, in which the arrangements put in place by expanding European imperialism in the 1820s and 1830s are finally abolished. In those circumstances, the bigger the better to have as much bargaining power as possible. In a burning world, our green triangle might have to take many times 15 million people. There is no reason that the entity known as Australia founded in 1788 could not be ended a summarily in 2067 or 2059 — or 2031 for matter.
Whatever is said about our reasons for doing it, those are the real reasons, the sort of thing that a political-administrative-military deep state maintains as governments come and go. Multiculturalism, the form of top-down cultural refashioning to serve quantitative needs, is, in the last analysis, a form of military engineering.
So if we’re going to do it, it better be done well — not with the haphazard neoliberal half-in, half-out, but with good old fashioned statist dirigisme, for really big stuff. The money figures should be in the tens and hundreds of billions for multi-decade projects, as we pass 25 million, and head towards 50, in whatever form geography will be taught in, in the years and decades to come.

Well that’s an unexpected interpretation, very thought provoking. Definitely need that much urban investment just so we can all get around town without too much hassle.
Many years ago I did some migration modelling for the Cities Commission. The answer was simple: people moved where there were job vacancies and higher wages. More would go if the jobs were on the coast and twice as many would migrate if the vacancies and wages were in Queensland.
Exactly. It has been that way for centuries.
Occasionally there is some economic incentive for people to leave town- a gold rush here, an iron mining boom there, pretty much always resources really- but those are transient. The trend is for the money and jobs to arise in the cities, and people follow that.
The problem is that it is expensive to generate long term vacancies and higher wages in an inland town. Barnaby tried to move his department but it did not happen.
The Beetrooter’s idea was agood one which should not be denigrated for its association with him.
It is very often the case that people do the correct sensible thing for entirely selfish/malevolent reasons.
Similarly, as the wanker brigade demonstrate daily, hourly it is frequently the case that well meaning (to be generous) people do really, rilly dumb things for the right reasons.
A modicum of reading might help the latter but not the former though both demonstrate the triumph of belief over reality.
It’s easy to say it’s a good idea when it’s not your job being arbitrarily uprooted.
Also, those jobs were being moved out of CANBERRA, which is not exactly a giant overstuffed metropolis is it?
Talk about the triumph of belief over reality.
The problem with moving existing high income professional jobs to regional areas is 2 fold.
1. we don’t live in a society where only one partner works and people with professional jobs tend to have partners with similarly high paying jobs and tertiary qualifications and they won’t be able to get a similar job in that location.
2. once you’re in that regional location it becomes extremely difficult to find another job if there are redundancies or you feel like doing something different that pay a similar level or more without having to uproot your entire family and change your kids’ schooling. Not to mention it can be very difficult to sell your house in a small regional city and the years you’ve spent there have probably left you financially unable to repurchase in a major city if you need to move there for new job opportunities.
Regarding the comments from Danny, it seems that you are suggesting that Oz is in some (any) sense a special case. However, since circa 1980 it has been the case that both parents or (DINKs) have (had to) have jobs.
Secondly, far from all tertiary qualified are in “high paying jobs”. In any event it is a matter of political will in the age of communications. Salary is rougly proportional to the technology required for the job/task.
The comments of (2) paraphrase (1) but, as conveyed, its about political will. However, NOT all countries have sprawl; Europe and northern Europe (inc. Ireland and the UK – London is an exception) are cases in point.
How about someone convince the English to abolish our States, then the existing commonwealth could pull its finger out and fix up this out-of-control mess?
And if the States were unhappy about it, they could quickly declare themselves republics and exit from the current mess of a federation. I think there’d be a chance at least one of the republics would go on to develop an actual plan for the future for themselves out of necessity.
What do politicians study at polly school? Oh wait…..they do not have to learn about transport congestion or town planning or education on resource management or anything it seems but laws which were written around sheep dipping and basically winning debates.
Some Pollies are good people but that gets knocked out of them quickly.
Just venting really excuse me.
Perhaps Guy its been a while since you left the city and visited the country. If you had you would know one of the main reasons why they don’t have huge populations……they don’t have the water supply!
Aust is a very dry continent and with moronic conservative polices wanting more coal burning leading to more non existant global warming the dry will get worse.
Check out the water supplies of some regional towns…you may be surprised
What a complete load. No water issues out here but also no jobs or investment as most of the kids graduate high school and move to a real city.
We definitely need a long term plan for population growth – however with the current lazy, opportunistic & partisan politics I fear the worst.
It’s hard and complicated and complex, but aside from long term benefits there should also be short term economic and social benefits. I hope one day soon we can have competent politicians
HEARTSHUNTER: “I hope one day soon we can have competent politicians.”
But don’t bet on it.