News & Discussion: Population Growth

[Goodsy]

South Australia desperately needs to double rate of population growth, Deloitte report warns
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/ ... 4c2aea95db

So we need another 29,000 people a year every year.

In other words, we need to grow another Mount Gambier every year for the next 10 years

[thecityguy]

Surprised that a third were from Britain. Not what I would have expected


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Llessur2002]

First-time poster with article from 2006. Probably best not to click on the links...

[[Shuz]]

Budget population projections show SA will lose 6500 people a year to interstate brain drain
APRIL 03, 2019

South Australia’s brain drain interstate shows no sign of abating, federal Treasury has predicted.

Population projections in the federal Budget suggest SA will lose 6500 people a year for the next four years, while Queensland and Victoria gain the lion’s share of new arrivals.

The brain drain has been described as “an economic crisis” by SA’s Property Council.

Increased population growth and reducing the exodus have been spruiked by Premier Steven Marshall as one of his key priorities.

But Budget figures show Treasury is expecting 6500 people to leave SA for other states each year for the next four years.

In contrast, Queensland is expected to gain 18,400 new residents from other states each year for the next four years and Victoria 16,800 each year.

Property Council executive director Daniel Gannon said it simply had to stop.

Property Council executive director Daniel Gannon.
“South Australia is losing almost 20 of our best and brightest every single day, which means net interstate migration remains a state economic crisis,” Mr Gannon said. “For every person that South Australia loses, Queensland attracts three.

“Queensland gains 354 people every week while South Australia loses 125 in the same period.

“This isn’t sustainable, and has a direct economic and job creation impact.”

State Innovation and Skills Minister David Pisoni said the Government was “pursuing a strong economic growth agenda and investing more than $200 million skilling South Australians for the industries of the future, in order to grow rewarding jobs and retain young people in South Australia.”

Mr Pisoni said Commonwealth Treasury modelling was done for the allocation of GST revenue.

“It is policy neutral and therefore does not pick up the changes that the Marshal Liberal Government is rolling out to address this issue,” he said.

State Opposition Treasury spokesman Stephen Mullighan described the statistics as a failed election promise. “Just a week out from last year’s election Rob Lucas promised to reverse the brain drain,” Mr Mullighan said.

“Just like many of their other pre-election commitments it’s just another hollow promise.”

Commonwealth Treasury numbers showed SA was not the only state expected to see a decline each year, with New South Wales expected to lose 16,000 a year and West Australia, 12,000.

Mr Gannon said the state had much to offer for people wanting to stay or move from interstate, and should be strongly marketed as such.

“One of Adelaide’s great national competitive advantages is our housing market, particularly compared to capital cities on the eastern seaboard,” he said. “We’re lucky to boast a housing market with a median that starts with a four rather than ending in million, which should be used as a marketing tool in attracting and retaining young people.”

Last month exclusive polling, commissioned by The Advertiser showed one in three South Australians wanted to see their population grow.

[SRW]

It sucks that we still suffer so much internal loss to other states. But aside anything the Marshall Government is or isn't doing, we do stand to slightly increase our share of international migrants over the coming years thanks to federal migration agreements. Expect an uplift in international students especially (and likely even more CBD student accommodation developments).

[Jaymz]

It sucks that we still suffer so much internal loss to other states. But aside anything the Marshall Government is or isn't doing, we do stand to slightly increase our share of international migrants over the coming years thanks to federal migration agreements. Expect an uplift in international students especially (and likely even more CBD student accommodation developments).

We'll wait and see if this new migration agreement with the Feds actually works, i'm hopeful but sceptical at the same time. Adelaide and S.A has already had a special "regional" classification for a number of years now, along with Tassie I think, and our migrant intake is still well below our share of the national population.

At the end of the day, the best way to improve our share of migrants is to get the economy growing at the same rate, if not exceeding the national average..... something we have not been able to do for decades now. People move where the most opportunities are i.e employment.

[NTRabbit]

The drain out of NSW isn't a surprise at all, the place has gone beyond cultural stagnation and is already regressing thanks to the state givernment + opposition war on youth, it'll take the retirement state title from us pretty soon as there'll be nobody left but Boomer real estate investors and financial services sector workers. Just a bit of a shame we haven't been able to carve even a little of the gain away from Victoria yet.

[PeFe]

Adeliade's population is now 1.446 million.

From Government News

ABS confirms record population boom in capital cities

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has reported record population growth in the nation’s capital cities.

The number of people living in capital cities grew by more than 500,000 in the year ending June 2023, the largest annual growth recorded by the ABS.

Melbourne, up 167,500, topped the 2022-23 growth ladder ahead of Sydney, which saw an increase of 146,700.

Perth and Brisbane each also added over 80,000 more people. Along with Adelaide (28,100), these five cities had their largest annual population growth since the start of the series in 1971.

However Perth had the highest growth rate (3.6 per cent), followed by Melbourne (3.3 per cent) and Brisbane (3.1 per cent).

The growth rate for the capitals combined was 3.0 per cent, more than double the growth rate for regional Australia, which was 1.4 per cent.




ABS head of demography Beidar Cho said the statistics reflect migration trends.

“Australia’s capital cities grew by a record 517,200 people last financial year, with this growth largely driven by net overseas migration,” Ms Cho said.

​The largest growth areas were mostly in outer-suburban parts of the capital cities, where population growth was driven by net internal migration gains.

​Over 2022-23 Rockbank – Mount Cottrell in Melbourne’s west grew by 4,300 people. Marsden Park – Shanes Park in Blacktown (3,900 people) and Boronia Heights – Park Ridge in Logan (2,000) grew the most in Sydney and Brisbane respectively.

Outside the capitals, the largest growth areas over 2022-23 were Caloundra West – Baringa and Landsborough (both up 1,700) in Queensland, and Barwon Heads – Armstrong Creek and Delacombe (both 1,100) in Victoria.

https://www.governmentnews.com.au/abs-c ... al-cities/

[Pistol]

This is just unsustainable growth.
If the population growth doesn't slow down, this country will not be considered the 'lucky country' for long

[abc]

This is just unsustainable growth.
If the population growth doesn't slow down, this country will not be considered the 'lucky country' for long

The growth rate of the 4 major capitals is third world levels. I haven't been to Perth recently, but I'd imagine the strain on their traffic infrastructure would be being felt by the locals.

[SBD]

This is just unsustainable growth.
If the population growth doesn't slow down, this country will not be considered the 'lucky country' for long

The growth rate of the 4 major capitals is third world levels. I haven't been to Perth recently, but I'd imagine the strain on their traffic infrastructure would be being felt by the locals.

The article has something for everyone - one paragraph says it's largely net overseas migration. The next says its net internal migration. Reclassifying "country towns" like Roseworthy and Mount Barker would make a difference at some time too.

[MT269]

Well what's the solution? Castrate folks at birth? It will only take a max of about 100 years to bring the population down by 98% with this method. But it will ruin the economy.

[abc]

Well what's the solution? Castrate folks at birth? It will only take a max of about 100 years to bring the population down by 98% with this method. But it will ruin the economy.

obviously cut migration intake

birth rates are already low thanks to social engineering and lower fertility rates... they may rise again if the predominant population is of a particular culture

[gnrc_louis]

Could someone please post this: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscrib ... nt-1-SCORE

[rev]

Could someone please post this: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscrib ... nt-1-SCORE

Government says it will give residents more say in appealing developments but some say it doesn’t go far enough


After a series of controversial high-rise buildings faced local backlash, the state government says it will give residents more power to appeal developments.

“Contentious” high-rise developments could be challenged by angry residents under new rules coming to South Australia’s planning system.

The government has signalled it will allow third parties to appeal over height developments, which are classified differently across council areas, but generally apply to apartment buildings and density housing.

In 2022, the state government authorised a sweeping review of planning laws to address community feedback, heritage protection and tree growth.

Last week, Planning Minister Nick Champion handed down the government’s response, which accepted all but one of 113 recommendations.

It comes after several controversial high-rise developments faced backlash over the past year, including those next to the Buckingham Arms Hotel at Kent Town and the Seawall Apartments at Glenelg, both which were rejected.

“The Government understands that the community feels it has lost the capacity to fully partake in, and influence, the planning system, since the loss of third-party appeal rights in most circumstances,” the response reads.

However, exemptions have been carved out for the Adelaide CBD, State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) decisions and other “growth areas”.

Community Alliance SA vice president and heritage consultant Sandy Wilkinson criticised the exemptions.

“Whilst stating that it fully supports the reintroduction of third-party appeal rights for over height development, the government has excluded the main culprits for over height development, namely the CBD and SCAP-approved developments,” Mr Wilkinson said.

“This is the appeal rights you get when you have no effective appeal rights.”

The Local Government Association SA said it welcomed new heritage and tree protections but also criticised the carve outs.

“It is disappointing the government hasn’t taken the opportunity to further strengthen third-party appeals for over height developments as this takes away the community’s ability to influence development which could impact the character of their suburbs,” an LGA spokesman said.

Made up by experienced urban planners, SCAP’s wide-reaching jurisdiction includes city developments valued at more than $10 million as well as those exceeding four stories in the inner-metropolitan area.

Mr Champion defended the government’s response and said it was “important to maintain the status quo in strategic and specific areas of growth”.

“The planning system is incredibly complex, and this is a major body of work that will impact every South Australian, so it was important we were considered and measured in our response,” Mr Champion said.

“Whilst the appeal rights will give the public the chance to voice their concerns, we also do not want to make development more difficult at a time when the nation is facing a housing and affordability crisis.”

Changes for heritage and character areas have also been flagged, including new visual guidelines for building designs and the need for plans to be approved before demolition takes place.

Tree growth will be encouraged in new development zones and damaging protected trees will attract more severe penalties.

As the government begins consultation on the rollout, Property Council SA executive director Bruce Djite said that the appeal rights “seemed to be an oversimplification of urban design”.

“Height is just one factor in what makes buildings good or bad … A focus on planning by numbers just dumbs down the whole process,” Mr Djite said.

“There is nothing in this that will materially improve certainty, speed or cost – all key ingredients, which are urgently needed to increase supply and affordability.”

The recommendations will be implemented over the next 18 months.