Census: ACT records Australia’s largest population growth

pink little birdie said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

No one seems to be saying the information posted is a good/bad thing for Canberra or anyone that lives here.

The pump-primed, unbridled growth (for no apparent reason) is putting a huge strain on infrastructure (sewage treatment will require massive upgrading at huge cost for example) and all is focused on a not-needed tram network and other though bubbles.

In fact, Canberra has become a Ponzi economy and we all know how that will end.

It’s one of my big concerns for Australia generally. With high levels of population growth in many countries around the world, will global food production keep up, and if not how many people can Australia feed if we need to be self sufficient? Then there’s also the matter that farming exports are still significant for us, so if we grow to the point where we can only feed ourselves, what will happen to our balance of trade and standard of living? We also come to the types of issues you’ve identified with building enough infrastructure to keep up with our own large population growth rate, and if we have to stop growing at some point, what will that do to our economy with so many people in the construction industry suddenly becoming unemployed?

Generally speaking when things like sewage need an upgrade it moves to a more efficient version and one would hope that it is on a continuous renewal schedule anyway.
The food argument is an odd one because regardless of population growth agricultural science is geared towards higher yields each season. Most food supply issues are about cost and distribution rather than amount of food available. Plus the advances in hydroponic and vertical farming means food security isn’t an issue for Australia.
And with the construction industry if it came too it there would be the business of renewing buildings that usually only have a 20-50 year life.

Whether a new sewage system is more efficient or not is academic. The point I was trying to make is that it will cost billions and Actew or the ACT government are in no position to raise that sort of money.

dungfungus said :

No one seems to be saying the information posted is a good/bad thing for Canberra or anyone that lives here.

The pump-primed, unbridled growth (for no apparent reason) is putting a huge strain on infrastructure (sewage treatment will require massive upgrading at huge cost for example) and all is focused on a not-needed tram network and other though bubbles.

In fact, Canberra has become a Ponzi economy and we all know how that will end.

People need to be housed somewhere and regardless of if they are in Canberra or elsewhere every additional person puts strain and a cost on existing infrastructure including things like roads.

In which case isn’t it a positive that the government has recognised this and put in place policies that realeases housing and is investing in new infrastructure like light rail. Imagine what the place would be like without some forethought like that. And of course we really have Kate Carmel and Tony DeDominico to thank for the Flemington road corridor.

The only other solution is to have zero population growth which would mean stricter immigration policies, one child policies, winding back health care subsidies (so people don’t live as long as they do these days) oh and to pay for it raise the retirement age another 5-10 years. None likely to happen are they in which case refer to point 1, some forethought in finding solutions to housing these people who are here and coming in a modern way.

pink little birdie said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

No one seems to be saying the information posted is a good/bad thing for Canberra or anyone that lives here.

The pump-primed, unbridled growth (for no apparent reason) is putting a huge strain on infrastructure (sewage treatment will require massive upgrading at huge cost for example) and all is focused on a not-needed tram network and other though bubbles.

In fact, Canberra has become a Ponzi economy and we all know how that will end.

It’s one of my big concerns for Australia generally. With high levels of population growth in many countries around the world, will global food production keep up, and if not how many people can Australia feed if we need to be self sufficient? Then there’s also the matter that farming exports are still significant for us, so if we grow to the point where we can only feed ourselves, what will happen to our balance of trade and standard of living? We also come to the types of issues you’ve identified with building enough infrastructure to keep up with our own large population growth rate, and if we have to stop growing at some point, what will that do to our economy with so many people in the construction industry suddenly becoming unemployed?

Generally speaking when things like sewage need an upgrade it moves to a more efficient version and one would hope that it is on a continuous renewal schedule anyway.
The food argument is an odd one because regardless of population growth agricultural science is geared towards higher yields each season. Most food supply issues are about cost and distribution rather than amount of food available. Plus the advances in hydroponic and vertical farming means food security isn’t an issue for Australia.
And with the construction industry if it came too it there would be the business of renewing buildings that usually only have a 20-50 year life.

According to the Food Security Information Network 4 countries are at high risk of famine due to armed conflict, drought & macro-economic collapse with 108m people facing crisis level food insecurity in 2017 up from less than 80m last year.

In terms of food science, Australia’s peak wheat production was in 2011 and over the last 5 years production has only average 13% higher than the 1983 harvest while our population has grown 56% and world population has grown 60%. Now 1983 was a good year so even if we look at 2016 which is only a little under the 2011 peak, production has only increased 28% or half our population growth rate.

And as I said, it’s not only about food security but export earnings and the balance of trade.

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

No one seems to be saying the information posted is a good/bad thing for Canberra or anyone that lives here.

The pump-primed, unbridled growth (for no apparent reason) is putting a huge strain on infrastructure (sewage treatment will require massive upgrading at huge cost for example) and all is focused on a not-needed tram network and other though bubbles.

In fact, Canberra has become a Ponzi economy and we all know how that will end.

It’s one of my big concerns for Australia generally. With high levels of population growth in many countries around the world, will global food production keep up, and if not how many people can Australia feed if we need to be self sufficient? Then there’s also the matter that farming exports are still significant for us, so if we grow to the point where we can only feed ourselves, what will happen to our balance of trade and standard of living? We also come to the types of issues you’ve identified with building enough infrastructure to keep up with our own large population growth rate, and if we have to stop growing at some point, what will that do to our economy with so many people in the construction industry suddenly becoming unemployed?

Generally speaking when things like sewage need an upgrade it moves to a more efficient version and one would hope that it is on a continuous renewal schedule anyway.
The food argument is an odd one because regardless of population growth agricultural science is geared towards higher yields each season. Most food supply issues are about cost and distribution rather than amount of food available. Plus the advances in hydroponic and vertical farming means food security isn’t an issue for Australia.
And with the construction industry if it came too it there would be the business of renewing buildings that usually only have a 20-50 year life.

Garfield said :

planeguy said :

The most interesting thing from the census appears to be that the ACT population (incl Jervis Bay etc…) has now grown sufficiently to warrant an extra electoral division – ie we will have 3 MPs.

This might start moving someone to ACT residents having closer to an equal representation in the parliament!

I just ran the figures based on the December 2016 population numbers published by the ABS yesterday and we’re still only coming in at 2.48 members of the House of Representatives, which rounds down to 2 members. I have to admit I don’t understand how the AEC factors in net under/over count figures, and how the ABS factors them into the official population statistics, but in the census we had a net over count of about 1%, the only jurisdiction to have an over count.

In terms of being under represented, with 226 Senators and MHRs in total, our population would entitle us to 3.8 representatives in the Federal parliament if it were done on a strict population count basis. Another way to look at it is rather than the ACT being under represented, Tasmania, the NT, SA & WA are all over represented. The most under represented state is NSW, with the biggest population but only the same number of Senators as Tasmania.

Because the ACT only gets two senate spots they’re almost guaranteed to go one Liberal and one Labor because the quotas are too high for Labor to win a second or for any other party to have a chance, which doesn’t reflect the vote at all (in fact, it makes your senate vote pretty much meaningless). Add to this the ACT’s two electorates are the biggest in Australia, and there’s a pretty strong argument that the ACT is underrepresented.

Christopher Giuliano at the Parliamentary Library thinks the ACT is entitled to an additional house seat once you take into account the margin of error. That said, the ACT might quickly lose it again if other states grow faster, particularly if the federal government really hits Canberra hard with its decentralisation push.

Holden Caulfield said :

Garfield said :

planeguy said :

The most interesting thing from the census appears to be that the ACT population (incl Jervis Bay etc…) has now grown sufficiently to warrant an extra electoral division – ie we will have 3 MPs.

This might start moving someone to ACT residents having closer to an equal representation in the parliament!

I just ran the figures based on the December 2016 population numbers published by the ABS yesterday and we’re still only coming in at 2.48 members of the House of Representatives, which rounds down to 2 members. I have to admit I don’t understand how the AEC factors in net under/over count figures, and how the ABS factors them into the official population statistics, but in the census we had a net over count of about 1%, the only jurisdiction to have an over count.

In terms of being under represented, with 226 Senators and MHRs in total, our population would entitle us to 3.8 representatives in the Federal parliament if it were done on a strict population count basis. Another way to look at it is rather than the ACT being under represented, Tasmania, the NT, SA & WA are all over represented. The most under represented state is NSW, with the biggest population but only the same number of Senators as Tasmania.

Yes, Tasmania is over represented. They have five HoR seats, compared with our two.

However, as a State, Tasmania is, and should be, entitled to the same number of Senators as NSW. That is, unless we’re going to totally shake up our system of representation.

That system is what also for reasons I don’t understand gives tassie 5 reps as well. I understand the reason for the senate just not why Tassie is not true proportional in the reps.

Garfield said :

planeguy said :

The most interesting thing from the census appears to be that the ACT population (incl Jervis Bay etc…) has now grown sufficiently to warrant an extra electoral division – ie we will have 3 MPs.

This might start moving someone to ACT residents having closer to an equal representation in the parliament!

I just ran the figures based on the December 2016 population numbers published by the ABS yesterday and we’re still only coming in at 2.48 members of the House of Representatives, which rounds down to 2 members. I have to admit I don’t understand how the AEC factors in net under/over count figures, and how the ABS factors them into the official population statistics, but in the census we had a net over count of about 1%, the only jurisdiction to have an over count.

In terms of being under represented, with 226 Senators and MHRs in total, our population would entitle us to 3.8 representatives in the Federal parliament if it were done on a strict population count basis. Another way to look at it is rather than the ACT being under represented, Tasmania, the NT, SA & WA are all over represented. The most under represented state is NSW, with the biggest population but only the same number of Senators as Tasmania.

Yes, Tasmania is over represented. They have five HoR seats, compared with our two.

However, as a State, Tasmania is, and should be, entitled to the same number of Senators as NSW. That is, unless we’re going to totally shake up our system of representation.

dungfungus said :

No one seems to be saying the information posted is a good/bad thing for Canberra or anyone that lives here.

The pump-primed, unbridled growth (for no apparent reason) is putting a huge strain on infrastructure (sewage treatment will require massive upgrading at huge cost for example) and all is focused on a not-needed tram network and other though bubbles.

In fact, Canberra has become a Ponzi economy and we all know how that will end.

It’s one of my big concerns for Australia generally. With high levels of population growth in many countries around the world, will global food production keep up, and if not how many people can Australia feed if we need to be self sufficient? Then there’s also the matter that farming exports are still significant for us, so if we grow to the point where we can only feed ourselves, what will happen to our balance of trade and standard of living? We also come to the types of issues you’ve identified with building enough infrastructure to keep up with our own large population growth rate, and if we have to stop growing at some point, what will that do to our economy with so many people in the construction industry suddenly becoming unemployed?

dungfungus said :

planeguy said :

The most interesting thing from the census appears to be that the ACT population (incl Jervis Bay etc…) has now grown sufficiently to warrant an extra electoral division – ie we will have 3 MPs.

This might start moving someone to ACT residents having closer to an equal representation in the parliament!

Hopefully an Australian Conservative candidate who will give disaffected Liberals some values to vote for.

Why don’t you stand? It would be interesting to see your strong opinions tested at the ballot box.

No one seems to be saying the information posted is a good/bad thing for Canberra or anyone that lives here.

The pump-primed, unbridled growth (for no apparent reason) is putting a huge strain on infrastructure (sewage treatment will require massive upgrading at huge cost for example) and all is focused on a not-needed tram network and other though bubbles.

In fact, Canberra has become a Ponzi economy and we all know how that will end.