New England Australia Demography - Stocktake of posts as at 28 September 2015

Now that the results of the latest Australian census are out and I want to write some more on New England's demography, it seems sensible to do a stocktake of previous posts linked in some way to that demography.

A list follows in more or less chronological order.

Friday 7 July 2006. The past is always present - the Country Party discusses the enduring influence of different European settlement patterns on politics in different parts of NSW.

On 14 November 2006 I began a series of posts examining the NSW State Government's new ten year plan from a New England perspective. Assumptions about demography are central to the plan.

In NSW Ten Year Plan - New England's Needs I set out my perceptions of the needs the plan might meet. This post includes supporting demographic data. My next post, Does the NSW Ten Year Plan Meet New England's Needs?, looked at the structure and objectives of the plan against the needs as I saw them. My conclusions were not positive. This was followed by a concluding post, NSW Ten Year Plan and New England - Conclusions, drawing the analysis together.

On 18 January 2015 in Sydney Government releases draft Mid-North Coast strategy I reported the release of the the Government's strategy for this area as defined by them. Assumptions about population growth are central to this strategy.

I followed this with a post on 23 January, Sydney Government's Coastal Planning Strategies, looking at the coastal strategies as a whole. I was again very critical of the demographic assumptions.

On 5 August 2015 in Sydney's Sluggish Population Growth, I commented on Sydney's growth compared to the other capital cities, querying again the Sydney Government's planning assumptions.

New England's indigenous people spread across many posts.

New England's indigenous population is significantly higher than the national average, with the distribution of the population affected not just by natural increase, but by migration within and beyond New England. All this makes, or should make, issues relating to Aboriginal economic and social development a key policy concern.

In Australia's Aborigines - a Note on Demography (21 December 2006) I looked in a preliminary way at migration patterns. On 7 March 2015 in NSW's Aboriginal Population I provided some data on the regional distribution of Aboriginal people.

One of the points that I made in my analysis of the NSW Government's Ten Year Plan was the need for economic development if New England's problems, including those of its Aboriginal people, were to be properly addressed.

On 4 March 2015 in New England's Poor Towns - a failure in public policy I commented on work done by Professor Vinson that nearly all the poorest and most socially disadvantaged towns and villages in NSW could be found in New England. I followed this in quick succession a second post on the same day - New England and the Immiseration of Public Policy - that extended my argument in a somewhat angry fashion.

On 31 July, in Rental Stress in New England I reported that the top three, and four of the top ten, electorates in NSW suffering rental stress were in New England. The census data provides an opportunity to extend my economic and social analysis in a more rigorous fashion.

Finally, I have yet too look properly at the various ethnic and national groups that have contributed to New England's evolution, although I have referred to it in passing in various posts. However, I have made an in initial foray here with New England's Chinese - Introductory Post (26 February 2015).

Previous Stocktakes

• Aborigines: New England's Aborigines - Stocktake on Posts as at 24 March 2015. Updated 7 June 2015
• Education - The Armidale School (TAS) - collected posts entry page
• Education - University of New England: University of New England - Stocktake of Posts as at 5 November 2006.
• Food & Wine: Stocktake Food & Wine Posts up to 24 September 06
• History: Historical posts up to 7 September 06. See also New England's History blog
• Transport: New England Australia - Stocktake on Transport Posts 24 October 06
• Writing: The poetry of Judith Wright - entry page

Sydney's Sluggish Population Growth

In a stocktake post I still have to bring up but hope to do so soon, I list the posts on this blog concerned with New England's demography.

In the meantime, I was interested to see the census figures on Sydney's population growth. compared to other capital cities.

In an earlier post I queried the population assumptions built into the Sydney Government's planning strategy. This projected a annual population growth along the NSW coastal strip over the next twenty five years of 68,000, of whom 48,000 would be in Sydney. Based on current demographics, I simply could not see where the people were to come from.

If we look at the census period 96-01, Sydney's population grew by 247,136, or 49,427 per annum. So in this earlier period, Sydney growth was just above the 48,000 projection.

In the latest census period, 01-06, Sydney's population growth fell to 156,107, 31,221 per annum, well short of the 48,000 projection.

Part of the reason for Sydney's slower population growth is that all the other capital cities grew faster in the 01-06 census period than in the previous period, with Mebourne and Brisbane both growing more than Sydney in absolute numbers . The figures are:

• Melbourne grew by 272,748 in the 01-06 period as compared to 188,347 in 96-01
• Brisbane grew by 191,267 as compared to 128,330
• Perth grew by 126,508 as compared to 97,910
• Adelaide grew by 38,133 as compared to 29,549
• Hobart grew by 8,284 as compared to 1,546.

This growth came in part from continuing net migration from Sydney.

Sydney Government's Coastal Planning Strategies

New England's neglected inland. Photo Gordon Smith

With the release of the draft Mid North Coast strategy (story), the Sydney Government has now released strategies for the entire current NSW coastal strip. You can access all the strategies here.

Having looked at the strategies, there is something almost obscene about the way the Sydney Government is ignoring NSW outside the coastal strip. The whole focus is on directly controlling anticipated population growth along the coast, nothing about building population elsewhere.

Some facts first.

At the moment, the NSW population is around 6.8 million. Of this:

• 4.1 million live in Sydney
• over 166,000 live on the South Coast
• 280,000 live in Illawarra
• 300,000 live on the Central Coast
• 515,000 live in the Lower Hunter
• 330,000 live on the Mid North Coast as now defined by the Sydney Government
• 228,000 live on the Far North Coast
• leaving around 800,00 in the rest of the state.

Let's track forward. According to the Government's projections, in twenty five years:

• Sydney's population is projected at 5.3 million, up 1.2 million or 29 per cent
• the Central Coast population is projected at 226,000, up 60,000 or 36 per cent
• the Illawarra population is projected at 328,00, up 48,000 or 17 per cent
• the Central Coast population is projected at 370,000, up 70,000 or 21 per cent
• the Lower Hunter population is projected at 675,000, up 160,000 or 31 per cent
• the Mid North Coast is projected at 424,000, up 91,000 or 31 per cent
• the Far North Coast is projected at 289,000, up 61,000 or 26 per cent.

If we look at the totals, the Government is projecting a population increase in the coastal strip of 1.69 million, 1.2 million (71 per cent) in Sydney. If my maths is correct, this equates to an average annual increase in the coastal strip of 68,000, of which 48,000 will be in Sydney. The population increase in the New England coastal strip is projected at 312,000, around 13,000 per annum.

All the various strategies focus on controlling and accommodating the population growth as projected. The various commentaries on the strategies, positive and negative, focus on the adequacy of the proposed response to that population growth.

Having set the scene, let me go to my concerns.

To begin with, is this population growth in fact likely?

Last financial year the NSW population increased by 59,000. This means that the projected population growth in the coastal strip of 68,000 requires a significant increase in the current total state population growth. It also seems to imply a very low, even negative, population growth in the rest of the state.

Leaving aside the rest of the current state for the moment, NSW as an entity is presently losing people especially to Queensland through internal migration. These losses are offset by new overseas arrivals.

Taking 2005-2006 as an example, NSW gained 40,492 from natural increase (births minus deaths) , lost 23,970 through internal migration, but gained 42,231 from overseas migration for a net gain of 58,753.

On this simple maths, achievement of an average annual 68,000 population growth requires an extra 9,000 per annum to come from some combination of increased natural growth, increased overseas migration or reduced internal migration. This is possible but far from certain.

There is, however, another way the coastal strip population projections might be achieved in statistical terms, and that is through internal migration from inland NSW to the coastal strip. This appears to be implied in some of the wording in the strategy documents. There is no way of checking this because the Sydney Government does not have an equivalent strategy document for the rest of the state.

I think that this apparent implicit assumption is a real problem.

Despite discussions generated by the drought, inland NSW already has the infrastructure required for a larger population. As a simple example, Armidale's current water supply could support an urban population of 75,000, three times the city's current population. Yet we have nothing that looks seriously at inland development.

This links to a broader problem with the planning process, one that that I have already referred to in the context of the Mid-North Coast Strategy, the absence of any real focus in the strategies on economic development itself. There is no certainty that required jobs will be created in required areas as assumed.

This links to another issue, the way in which a strategy or planning process carried out in isolation from other critical variables can actually lead to distorted outcomes.

None of the planning documentation that I have seen actually discusses the various demographic drivers likely to affect population outcomes, nor are there any discussions of alternative scenarios. None of the documentation looks at issues associated with changing population composition that might flow from different combinations of outcomes from the demographic variables. There is little discussion about the flow on effects of the various planning assumptions.

The difficulty in all this is that specific investment decisions based on flawed planning then create new self-fulfilling but sub-optimal outcomes.