MEDIA RELEASE: The big flaw in Australian Treasury’s Centre for Population report

Sustainable Australia Party

Written by
January 15, 2023

MEDIA RELEASE: The big flaw in Australian Treasury’s Centre for Population report

Sustainable Australia Party has called out Australian Treasury for peddling demographic and economic myths about the impact of ageing.

Sustainable Australia Party has called out Australian Treasury for peddling demographic and economics myths about the impact of ageing on Australia’s workforce participation, particularly the claim that ageing reduces workforce participation. Ever since the first Intergenerational Report in the Howard-Costello era 20 years ago, we have been told that ageing creates a higher ratio of non-workers to workers, putting a strain on the federal budget. But the opposite has happened.

Sustainable Australia Party President and NSW Upper House candidate, Councillor William Bourke said: "Australian Treasury’s Centre for Population was tasked with preparing an annual ‘Population Statement’ as part of national efforts to ‘increase understanding about populations, population change and its implications for all levels of government’, but its efforts leave the impression it is a vehicle for misinformation.

"While it is true that for decades now, our longer life expectancy has naturally meant a higher average age (a good thing and the sign of a successful society!), we’ve actually increased workforce participation as well. Why? Age does not determine workforce participation. Workforce participation is more so determined both by economic opportunity and also reducing discrimination in the workforce, such as sexism and the ageism regularly coming out of the mouths of our bureaucrats, politicians and media. Countries like the Netherlands are more aged than Australia but enjoy workforce participation at around 75 per cent. I have pointed these facts out several times in recent years,[1] but the myths won’t die.

“If we look at Australia since 1980, in the same period as our average age increased by nine years to 39, workforce participation has increased from around 61 to over 66 per cent. This is in part because we have record workforce participation in the 65+ age group.[2] The real-world evidence is the opposite of the theory coming out of the Centre for Population, which is using an outdated and bizarre ‘working age’ modelling assumption that claims every Australian within 15 to 64 is working, and everyone over 65 is not. Tied to this ageist fearmongering is the misleading conclusion that Australia needs high levels of immigration to prop up the workforce. This leaves the impression of an ulterior motive underpinning the Centre for Population, being to force-feed the ‘big Australia’ growth agenda to a reluctant public.[3]

“News flash: migrants age at the same rate as everyone else! Trying to use immigration to offset ageing is folly and Ponzi demographics. A 1999 Australian parliamentary research paper, ‘Population Futures for Australia: the Policy Alternatives’, looked at the claim immigration could offset an ageing population. It found that to maintain the proportion of the population aged 65 and over at then present levels, enormous numbers of immigrants would be required, starting in 1998 at 200,000 per annum, rising to 4 million per annum by 2048 and to 30 million per annum by 2098. By the end of next century, with these levels of immigration, our population would have reached almost 1 billion’.[4]

“If we are to resolve our housing, infrastructure and environmental crises, a key policy is the need to stabilise Australia’s population at under 30 million people by 2050, mainly via a return to a sensible annual permanent immigration intake. That would be around the twentieth century average of 70,000, instead of the current level of over 200,000, which has us hurtling down the road to the unwanted ‘big Australia’ target of around 40 million by 2050 - and a catastrophic 80 to 100 million by 2100. We urgently need a voice and a choice for all Australians on ‘the everything issue’, population, via a national plebiscite," Cr Bourke added. | Ends

Contact: Councillor William Bourke – President and NSW Upper House candidate, Sustainable Australia Party

T: @CrWilliamBourke

[1] https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/ageing_is_no_ticking_time_bomb

[2] https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-baby-boomers-changed-our-economy-20140327-zqnnu.html

[3] https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/massive-thumbs-down-for-big-australia-ng-81d6e75a007630eb81465e71bbb3b8a9

[4] https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/html/1885/41933/2000rp05.htm

Sign in to comment

Forgot your password?
Don’t have an account? Click here to create one.

Recent responses

  • Hi Roger,
    Yes, our federal political system is sponsored by the property industry (through property lobby donations to both major parties) and yes, they are using fear about ageing as their primary weapon.
    Regards,
    William
  • Cameron Murray, an economist, exposes the ageing & immigration myth.
    https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/01/population-and-ageing-nonsense-again//

    “….the largest and demographically most efficient impact of immigration on ageing occurs with the first 50,000 net migrants and that the impact reduces significantly with each additional 50,000 net migrants….”.

    “By the end of the century, an immigration rate of 50,000 per year reduces that share of the population aged over 65 by 3%. The next 50,000 per year only further decreases this population metric by 1.5%. The next 50,000 after that decreases the metric by less than 1%. In short, to get twice as large an effect as the first 50,000 per year immigration on the ratio of over 65s as a share of the population (if indeed you care about that metric), you would need to not just double the rate of immigration, but quadruple it to 200,000 per year.”.
    Likewise Dr. Jane O’Sullivan’s “Silver Tsunami Or Silver Lining?- Why We should Not Fear An Ageing Population” supports the above & says

    “The proportion of people aged over 65 does not continue to increase indefinitely, but levels off after the demographic transition”

    “….the maximum likely extent of ageing if population size is allowed to stabilise or decline. The proportion of people aged over 65 might reach 30 to 40 per cent, but will never outnumber younger adults.”.

    " It is a myth that there will not be enough workers to satisfy the demand for goods and services, and that there will be more retirees than working-age people. Australia is currently just starting to come off this hump of an abnormally high proportion of working-age people. This is inevitable. Regardless of what the ageing alarmists demand, this high level cannot be sustained, because it is a transient effect of the process of change. As ageing takes its course, we end up with about the same proportion of working-age people as we had in the 1960s. Given that we also have higher workforce participation of both women and older workers than then, this hardly seems to be a reason for economic concern."

    Pages 7 to 10 inclusive are vital reading.

    https://apo.org.au/node/309811

    It has to be asked, is the Prime Minister, Treasurer, Immigration Minister & Home Affairs Minister, The Treasury Secretary etc. aware of these vital demographic facts & if they are, then why are they proposing a yearly overseas intake well in excess of 50,000?

    If every voter was aware of these vital demographic facts, I am sure that the majority would come to the realization that they are being misled by the Government & other organizations that support the Government’s current overseas intake policies.

    I submit that the above information needs to be published in another SAP Media Release, as soon as possible, because of the misleading information published by the mainstream media.
  • Hi Maurice,
    Yes, Treasury has a blinkered and narrow view of the world, particularly when it comes to population. They look at the economic revenue of rapid population growth, but not the economic, environmental and social costs.
    Regards,
    William
  • When I see a report produced by the Treasury on population, my first reaction is that you will get a Treasury view of the world.
    And Treasury’s view will be that data will be exactly the data needed to all stakeholders, because that’s all we need. But if you want to sound pompous and be “The Centre” then you need to involve all key stakeholders and, like it or not, Treasury isn’t the group that I would choose to do that. Treasury is likely to view Population in a revenue context. So the data will be simplistic hatched, matched and dispatched type of stuff mainly. I wouldn’t be surprised if “the centre” is one guy for 2 days a week.
  • Sounds like Harry Trigaboff might have sponsered the treasury paper…definately an ulterior motive behind it…and using fear to push it…
  • Well said Beat.
    Regards,
    William
  • The biggest problem in Australia is profit inflation. Companies and their senior executives try to increase profits from year to year.
    Whilst increasing profits is a desirable aim in general, it is not achieved by greater efficiency or better marketing. It is not possible to sell more and more refrigerators every year as not every customer wants a new model after a few years.
    The only way to ensure ongoing increases in profits is to have more customers. The only way to get more customers in many cases is to import customers or to export to customers overseas or to get a bigger market share.
    Getting a bigger market share and or to export goods and services is bloody hard work. It is far easier to import customers via migration.
    With more people, we need more housing, furniture, cars, food etc. It seems that mass migration is a win-win situation and ensures ongoing increases of profits.
    Mass migration helps to control ¨wage inflation" but ensures ¨profit inflation".
    Mass inflation creates massive profits for many companies and keeps wages down.
    It helps to increase rents, house prices, traffic jams, council rates and of course environmental degradation .
  • Hi Maurice,
    Could you clarify what you mean by that?
    FYI, you can find it the 2022 Population Statement here:
    https://population.gov.au/
    Regards,
    William
  • Hi Jason.
    Thanks. Unfortunately ecological ignorance is running rife in the halls of power.
    Regards,
    William
  • I agree with all the comments below, however in regard to the participation of older people in the workforce, and as a very experienced, qualified and now older individual with a lot still to offer who has experienced the ageism in company and big business mindset (30% of workforce including me made redundant due to COVID was the excuse) I don’t believe the non participation in the workforce by older people is just ageism, wages and conditions. I think the big issue not being addressed is the attitudes of big business and companies to their staff. Big business and companies now view all their employees as liabilities, not as assets.
    Ultimately it is the employees that are the company. They are the people that provide the labour, the technical skills and experience to give the company its reputation and the ability to produce a product or service for the income stream and general running of the business.
    My experience has shown me that companies completely undervalue or don’t rate the value of their employees at all and treat them with contempt, arrogance and complete disregard. The only people that seem to matter are management with their business degrees. The attitude seems to be kind of like saying that all you need to run an airline is aircraft….don’t really need pilots, engineers, flight attendants, baggage handlers, ground staff etc….easily replaced………
    After this rant, my point to all this is that older people, people with integrity and skills are not stupid and do not take kindly to being treated without respect and appreciation and hence it is not just money and conditions that are the deciding factor in workforce participation.
    Case in point, I have seen, found, been headhunted for a lot of jobs. I choose not to work because I am sick of working for idiots and ******holes that show zero understanding and respect for their employees.
    Some people would work for less money if they were truly valued by companies.
    I have heard directly from the mouths of senior management on numerous occasions that they could take anybody off the street and give them some training and they would be fully competent and experienced in 6 months. This simply demonstrates the depth of ignorance companies and management have for their employees, what their employees actually do and the level of knowledge and skills they have.
    I wish that this had only been a single experience but unfortunately, I have seen these attitudes from companies over and over again…….QANTAS is another example.
    A return to just basic respect for people is needed in business instead of the numbers on a spreadsheet approach that seems to be the way these days.
    Jasons comment below is absolutely correct…climate change as bad as it is, is only a symptom…the real problem and cause is over population…we have too many people in world but no one, including climate activists are talking about it.
    Politicians are gutless, because everything equates to business and concentrating on the myth of “continuing economic growth” … it is a lie. We really do need a new way of doing business.
    Once you know, see how many times “continuing economic growth” is mentioned by politicians on both sides of the fence and business leaders…..
    We don’t have a skills shortage, we have a respect shortage……
  • Hi Garrie,
    Yes, ‘Ponzi demographics’ will never work.
    Regards,
    William
  • Hi Charles,
    Yes, population size multiplies all environmental impacts.
    Regards,
    William
  • This Population Statement is solely about government revenue problems.
  • How quickly our political Governers forget that our rainfall and dams cannot keep up with the current population. A short stint without rain and our dams empty very quickly. New housing developments are continually being built on farmland and most of Australia is Arid. Australian mega farms and water rights are continually being sold off to foreign states / investors. The current economic growth policy of Government that is linked to population growth is the demise of our current way of life. Great to see a political party not afraid to call out the immigration policy as reckless and unsustainable.
  • I’ve always thought most Australian politicians have a blinkered view of immigration. It’s always about that mysterious entity “The Economy”, narrowly defined in money terms. If we factor in all the “economic externalities”, or non-monetary consequences – both good and bad – a much less beneficial picture of overall social wellbeing emerges. One that most Australians intuitively recognize, but lack the academic background to fully articulate.

    If average age is of interest, then we also need to consider the downstream ageing effects of initially bringing in relatively young specialized workers, to fill jobs “they” tell us other Australians don’t want to do.

    Two things to consider. First, Australian educational institutions have been systematically defunded, for decades, so that we have been training far too few of our own, for these specialized jobs. That’s fixable. Second, the initial wave of “young migrants” is followed, in subsequent waves, by applications to bring in aged parents, and other ageing relatives. These subsequent waves of ageing immigrants are resistant to learning English; are resistant to most forms of Australian cultural integration; are unable or reluctant to participate in meaningful economic activity. However, they need/demand the full suite of economic, medical and social infrastructure to cope.

    The above is not directed at any particular ethnic type of immigrant, but to them all, regardless of where they come from. In a world where there are too many people, too few resources to met even reasonable collective needs, Australia’s relatively sparse population is a huge “asset”.

    The current permanent immigration numbers (and pressure to increase them) are shortsighted, wrongminded, and if continued will be the permanent undoing of all that is presently good about Australia, including our current very high of multi-culturalism.
  • I very strongly believe that those people who jump up and down about “climate change” but cannot relate this to overpopulation are either very ignorant (a few politicians in this group)or have great vested interest (many politicians and economists in this lot) in overlooking this. Surely Mr Koziol is not that ignorant, so why is he so biased? Politics? He’s not even with the ABC!
  • Well said Tony!
    Regards,
    William
  • The article in the SMH told more about what it did not say than what it did. It claimed that low wage growth and increasing house prices could not be due to population pressures as immigration had dropped right off. What they failed to mention was that Australians returning home more than compensated for the lack of migrants. Those Australians need jobs and have to live somewhere. I suspect many returning Australians kicked renters out of their houses.
  • Well written, Wiliam. Now we need to address the proposition being put forward that we can’t fill jobs without substantial immigration because we have an overall skills shortage. I would like to see some careful analysis here. For example, does the shortage of medical GPs have more to do with inadequate compensation to doctors? And as to the level of public amenities rising with population growth, as suggested by the SMH article, we have only to see that over the period that Sydney’s population doubled, the increase in train lines hardly increased at all, and only recently have we seen substantial improvements.