Dear Minister Burke –
Thank you for your efforts in putting together the issues paper on A sustainable population strategy
for Australia. It is good that the different groups have had a chance to lay their cards on the table. It
is clear that the poorly named Productivity and Prosperity (P and P) Panel wants high immigration to
enhance the potential profits of the groups represented on the Panel. Australia does not need high
immigration and high population growth to be productive or prosperous.
Australia’s productivity is limited by the ease in which employers can get cheap labour by mass
immigration. There is no pressure on employers to train Australian workers and try to find new more
efficient ways of doing business when it is so easy to bring in foreign trained workers who are happy
to work for lower wages than their Australian counterparts. There is no pressure for governments to
improve education so that the work force becomes more skilled. The easy answer is pinch labour
form overseas with little care for the long term environmental impacts.
The average Australian certainly does not get more prosperous with high immigration. The
productivity commission found in 2006 that only the rich benefitted from high immigration. The P
and P panel represents the members of that group of rich property owners who will get short term
benefits from high immigration and population growth while the Average Australian suffers more
congestion, a degraded environment, higher housing, food, water and energy prices and higher
taxes to pay for the increased infrastructure needed for the new immigrants. The P and P panel does
not care at all about the prosperity of the average Australian.
I completely disagree with the statement made on Page 7 Column 2 of the text. It says:
A growing population does not have to be an unsustainable population. On the contrary,
population growth presents us with a range of significant opportunities, which if properly
managed have the potential to increase the sustainability of Australia.
The Australian Economy is powered by fossil fuel energy. Fossil fuels (coal, petroleum and natural
gas) are unsustainable. We are not living sustainably now. In order to live sustainably we need to
reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are using. Currently we are using more fossil fuels every year.
This is not sustainable. Nowhere in the 286 pages is there any plan for getting off fossil fuels and
becoming more sustainable.
The proponents of high immigration and high population growth say that we need to have more
people to help the economy grow so that we can solve the environmental problems. This is similar
to a family saying that although they are already in debt and not able to make the repayments, the
best thing to do is to take on more debt because that extra debt, if properly managed has the
potential to increase our ability to make our repayments. Nobody would lend money to a person
who was not able to make their repayments on their existing debt, but that is what proponents of
high immigration are asking the government to do.
Sustainability is a long term problem that needs to be handled with long term policies. Nothing in
the political make up of Australia’s government leads me to think that any solution taken will be
with a mind to the long term. All solutions to all problems are intended for the election cycle. Short
term increases in population can improve housing starts and give us the impression that the
economy is booming when all it is doing is catering to the influx of new immigrants. Voters are
starting to become more aware of the long term impacts of high immigration. We are not listening
to the excuses about improvements needed in planning or the fact that only a few people in western
Sydney or outer Melbourne are complaining. We know that these problems are harder to solve with
high immigration than with low immigration. We also know that the promises of great economic
prosperity for the average Australian have not materialised but that corporate profits and CEO
salaries have increased 3 times faster than our wages.
I hope that the government will take a long term view and try to make Australia a little more
sustainable in the long term rather than just act as a front for corporate interests.
I have many specific disagreement s with the statements in the P and P Panel report. These are
summarised on the following pages, generally following the “Key Points” listed at the start of each
chapter.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Eric Claus
Kings Langley NSW 2147
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Productivity and Prosperity Panel
Chapter 1 Key Points
 Australia can be dynamic, vibrant and optimistic without increasing immigration. There is no
evidence that Australia will be more vibrant with a growing population than with a stable
population. Without the burden of having to provide more infrastructure and solve the
difficult problems required to manage the environmental and resource challenges of the
future Australians can concentrate on developing trade, improving our education and health
systems and becoming more sustainable. All of these are made more difficult with rising
population.
 Population growth does not contribute to prosperity for the Average Australian as per the
Productivity Commission Report of 2006 entitled Economic Impacts of Migration and
Population Growth which confirmed similar research done previously in Australia and in
other countries. There is no evidence that population growth enhances opportunities for
generational renewal, cultural and social experience and certainly not appreciation of the
environment. Population growth will limit the appreciation of the environment because the
natural environment will need to be altered or destroyed in order to make room for the new
developments that will be required.
 Again Population growth does not benefit the material prosperity of the average Australian.
 More and better investments in education and skills development can proceed more rapidly
if the burden of continued expansion of an already overstressed infrastructure system to
accommodate new immigrants is limited. More immigrants, makes catching up with
deficiencies in the current infrastructure more difficult.
Supporting the Needs of an ageing population
This entire section is based on the assumption that the prime age participation rate should never
change from the assumed 15 to 64 years. The Productivity and Prosperity Panel says in the first
sentence of Chapter 1 that prosperity is about ensuring that Australia is dynamic, vibrant and
optimistic and then they call for policies that are not even current in 2010 let alone 2050. When the
concept of an Age pension was introduced in 1908 it was to be paid at 65 years and the life
expectancy was about 56 years. The Average Australian Man was not expected to receive it. Very
few Australians start work at 15 and the age of “state funded” retirement is increasing to 66 and
then 67 from 2017 to 2023. This comment is made in the text but not included in the calculations or
included in the graphs for participation rate.
Life expectancy in Australia has continuously increased since 1900 with a brief plateau in the 1970’s.
An optimistic policy would be to assume that life expectancy will continue to increase. It makes
sense that this age qualification for the pension should continue to slowly increase as life expectancy
increases. It also follows that if a 65 year old is expected to live another 20 years then a dynamic and
optimistic policy would be to assume that they would be able to work for a few years more. As life
expectancy increases
Expected length of life at birth, by sex, Australia, 1901-10 to 2004-06
Sources: ABS Cat No. 3302.0; ABS Cat. No. 3105.0.65.001
Life expectancy (years) at selected ages, 1901-10 to 2004-06(a)
At Birth
At age 15
At age 65
Year
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
1901-10
55.2
58.8
49.0
51.9
11.3
12.9
1920-22
59.2
63.3
51.4
54.6
12.0
13.6
1946-48
66.1
70.6
54.3
58.3
12.3
14.4
1960-62
67.9
74.2
55.1
61.0
12.5
15.7
1980-82
71.2
78.3
57.4
64.3
13.8
18.0
1990
73.9
80.1
59.8
65.8
15.2
19.0
1991
74.4
80.4
60.2
66.0
15.4
19.1
1992
74.5
80.4
60.3
66.1
15.4
19.2
1993
75.0
80.9
60.8
66.5
15.7
19.5
1994-96
75.2
81.1
60.9
66.7
15.8
19.6
1995-97
75.6
81.3
61.3
66.9
16.1
19.8
1996-98
75.9
81.5
61.5
67.1
16.3
20.0
1998-2000
76.6
82.0
62.2
67.6
16.8
20.4
2000-02
77.4
82.6
63.0
68.1
17.4
20.8
2003-05
78.5
83.3
64.1
68.9
18.1
21.4
2004-06
78.7
83.5
64.3
69.0
18.3
21.5
(a) The methodology used to calculate this table has changed since 1995. Data on population and deaths averaged over 3 years are now used to
minimise year to year statistical variations.
Sources: ABS Cat. No. 3302.0; ABS Cat. No. 3105.0.65.001.
http://www.aihw.gov.au/mortality/life_expectancy/trends.cfm
It is likely that Australian business interests would rather have hungry new immigrants working for
them rather than Australian’s in their 60’s, who will probably be more financially secure than a new
immigrant. Australian Business prides itself on being able to solve any problem put before it. If
Australian business knew that immigration was going to be limited, the successful businesses would
develop policies to train workers and to give older workers more flexibility or whatever they needed
to continue working.
Page 174
Immigration policy is a long term policy and should not respond to immediate economic pressures.
Page 175-176
Water is already being used unsustainably and straining natural ecosystems. Increased population
will increase the strain.
Chapter 2 Key Points
 Higher living standards have come from improvements in technology not from the raw
numbers of people. Australia has enough people to exploit the resources of the continent.



Why does the Productivity and Prosperity Panel assume that the lowest possible
immigration rate is 70,000 per year? The panel assumes that growth rates don’t mater. They
do. It is easier to manage low growth than high growth.
Ageing populations are to be celebrated and managed wisely.
In point 2 above the P and P Panel says that a big increases or small increases in population
don’t matter much, but now when it comes to changes in the ageing of the population they
say that it does matter a lot. It doesn’t.
Page 177 Population growth has not been sustainable. We are not living sustainably now. We use
fossil fuels for most of our energy. We are wearing out the land. We don’t use water sustainably.
Many rivers are saltier and dirtier than they were naturally. The same is true of groundwater
resources.
Page 183
The P and P Panel says that “In an increasingly crowded world it is in Australia’s security and
diplomatic interests to be seen to “be doing our bit” to alleviate world population pressures.” Can
the P and P Panel provide any examples of foreign leaders indicating that they do not want to have
congenial diplomatic relations with Australia because we are not taking enough immigrants? Does
the P and P Panel think that countries like Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Chile and Turkey are happy
that the engineers, scientists, teachers and doctors that have been trained in those countries
migrate to Australia? Does the P and P Panel think that Australia’s diplomatic status overseas is
improved by saying to poor countries “you need to reduce your population, but Australia needs to
increase its population.”
Chapter 3 Key Points
 Future increases in living standards are more about improvements in technology and
productivity than about grow population numbers. All the countries in the world with high
living standards have low population growth.
 The average Australian does not become wealthier with higher population. Only the rich do.
 With all due respect to the P and P Panel, this is a Lie. I use the word Lie because I don’t
think they were mistaken in writing this. I believe they know that this is not the truth,
because they have included sentences softening this declaration on page 189.
Economic modelling shows that the GDP per capita will increase slightly. In the modelling shown
in Figure 3.1 which is only sourced as Treasury Projections the growth rate of GDP/capita for
NOM of 70,000 is about 1.46% and the growth rate of GDP/capita for NOM of 180,000 is 1.55%.
To call this 0.09% difference significant is questionable without considering the other factors.
0.09% out of 1.55% is about 6%.
As mentioned at the top of page 188 one of the reasons for this increase in GDP/capita is that
the participation rate is higher. Table 2.2 shows that the participation rate in 2050 with NOM of
70,000 will be 57.8% and with an NOM of 180,000 it will be 60.5%. That difference is 2.7% and
2.7% of 60.5% is 4.5%. In other words most of the 6% improvement in the GDP / capita in the
modelling is because of an increased participation rate. This cannot be considered an increase in
household income. Just because more people are working does not mean that the average
household income will go up. In fact there will be less demand for labour with a higher
population so household incomes would be lower with high immigration. Secondly, if an
Australian couple retires and immigration is low they will have the same income as if
immigration was high. Just because more people are participating in the work force does not
mean that household incomes will increase. The P and P Panel notes this in the second
paragraph on page 189.
Another factor is the Productivity Commissions (2006) conclusion that wages would stay the
same and most of the benefits of increased immigration would go to the property owners and
the new immigrants. It is likely that the since GDP/capita increases by 4.5% due to participation
rate, the remaining 1.5% will not go to households it will go to the property owners. This
conclusion is hinted at, at the top of page 189 where the P and P Panel says “Of course, not all
households will be $10,000 better off – some will not benefit as much as others, others will
benefit more.” It is likely that the modelling shows that the property owners will benefit more
and the average wage earner will benefit less.
Chapter 3 Key Points continued
 The factors the P and P Panel mentions have not been tested to show whether they will
improve material living standards. Factors not captured such as congestion in cities, lagging
infrastructure development due to the planning difficulties of fast population growth,
environmental degradation, faster depletion of resources, higher housing, food and water
prices would decrease material living standards.
 Is the P and P panel suggesting that Australians are unable to take up the opportunities
unfolding in our region?
 The P and P Panel needs to provide more detail on these skilled labour shortages.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) says 5600 mining
workers needed per year. Assuming 70% need to be skilled that would be 4000 skilled
mining workers. We must be able to find at least half of these within Australia considering
that there are over 500,000 people unemployed. That would leave 2000 skilled mining
workers. Why does the P and P Panel want a minimum of 180,000 and preferably 300,000
new immigrants?
Chapter 4 Key points
 Enough skilled migration can be found with low migration. The very high 180,000 to 300,000
per year being advocated by the P and P panel are far too high for the skilled people needed.
 Migration is a long term policy. The workers will not go back to their home country when
unemployment increases.
 The P and P panel implies that only worker wages cause inflation. Inflation is a monetary
phenomenon. If the reserve bank controls the money supply there won’t be inflation. There
are also many other causes of high prices such as high housing increased food costs and
increased energy costs that are associated with high immigration. These are more likely to
cause inflation than higher worker wages.
 Industry has not shown a willingness to train its own people. It wants them trained overseas.
This isn’t fair to the country that trained them. A growing economy with enormous
infrastructure debt is unlikely to have any money left over for training.
 Business implies that they can solve any problem. Business implies that high energy prices,
limited water, climate change and environmental degradation can be easily solved with
effective management, but a problem that they are much better suited to solve, an increase
in workplace participation rates, they don’t want to solve. That is because they have no
intention of trying to solve energy, water and the environment and they want cheap labour
trained for free overseas.
Chapter 5 Key Points
 Providing enough infrastructure is expensive and is made more difficult by always chasing
new developments and higher populations that the infrastructure must serve. We have seen
that vividly in the past 5 years in Sydney and Melbourne.
 The P and P panel is saying that although all the benefits for higher immigration go to the
rich, they want the public to pay for the increased infrastructure that is needed to support
the increased immigration.
 Just because something is “roughly the same order of magnitude” does not mean that this is
a sensible decision for Australia. If there are more people there will be more congestion on
the roads. Clearing that congestion takes extra infrastructure. Water, sewer, trains,
electrical power, etc are all the same. An order of magnitude means to the power of 10. I
would like to ask each member of the P and P panel to give me $10,000 and I will be happy
to repay them each $1,000. Since that is “roughly the same order of magnitude” that should
be an acceptable exchange, based on this key point.
 Even the P and P panel does not say that the population growth will completely fund the
future infrastructure requirements.
Chapter 6 Key Points
 We can have vibrant cities without high immigration. Without good quality transport
infrastructure people can’t get around to easily meet and then get back home. Better public
transport means that young people can get around easier. These are the people most likely
to try new things and impact the vibrancy of a city.
 We need to slow down immigration so that the infrastructure and facilities can be well
planned instead of having to just rush anything in to meet the increasing demand for new
infrastructure.
 Directions: All the planning is easier with low population growth
Chapter 7 Key Points
 Innovation does not depend on high immigration. It depends on good education and stable
government that provides opportunities for all citizens.
 Every new person who comes to Australia reduces the potential for sending food and
energy overseas because that food or energy will be needed in Australia. There are enough
people living in Australia now to exploit all of Australia’s resources. Even under the current
conditions young people are leaving the country area because there are not enough jobs.
 Directions: making better use of our water will be easier with less population pressure.
Chapter 8 Key Points
 Australia can be prosperous without high immigration. The higher the population, the more
environmental challenges are presented. A hundred years ago there was no need for sewage
treatment plants. The human impact on the rivers and oceans was so minor compared to
their capacity to receive waste that the governments of the day worried about other
problems. Now we have to be concerned about a range of pollutants in the receiving waters
even after complicated and expensive wastewater treatment. We have to be concerned with
urban and farmland surface runoff because we use so much of the land and use so many
chemicals on those large areas of land that are picked up by the rainwater that the receiving
waters are beginning to feel the impacts of those high concentrations of chemicals. The
more development we have the more impacts we will have on the environment.
We are currently not living sustainably.
 We are using more fossil fuel energy every year. We aren’t even slowing down and
trying to be more sustainable. Those fossil fuels will never be used by our children
and grandchildren
 We are mining groundwater that has taken thousands of years to fill up those
aquifers.
 We are depleting topsoils that took hundreds of years to develop.
 Significant land areas have become saline meaning they can’t support agriculture or
the natural environment.
 We are reducing biodiversity and increased population will mean more land must be
developed and more habitat will be lost.
High population growth will make all of these problems harder to solve, not easier. The P
and P Panel’s report does not describe any solutions to any of these problems it only implies
that with more people there will be more money so many of these problems will be solved.
In several cases the P and P panel even admits that better management “MAY” reduce
impacts or “can potentially lessen” impacts. Even in their most optimistic aggressive
barracking they have to admit that the environment will get worse with higher population.

We have never decoupled growth from emissions. Any increase in population is likely to
cause increase in fossil fuel use and meat consumption and therefore more greenhouse gas
generation.