http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:n4tIaXS4p5EJ:population.org.au/pressrm/pub/dimaagein
Thus, it can be concluded that the first 80,000 net migrants make asubstantial contribution to the reduction of ageing of the population. This result is related tothe changing nature of Australia’s age structure that, in turn, is the product of our past fertilityand mortality rates.The past and future of Australia’s age structure can be characterised in fundamentaldemographic terms. In 1971, our age structure, following a period of high fertility, had theshape of a pyramid except for a small irregularity arising from low fertility during theDepression. The pyramid is the classic shape of a population that is growing. As fertility hasfallen, our age structure is moving towards a beehive shape, the shape that results from acombination of below replacement fertility and levels of net migration that would lead to atleast zero population growth. However, our future age structure depends on the future courseof the demographic components. There are two main possibilities. The zero-growth, beehiveshape, will be maintained across the next century if the fertility level remains around 1.6 to1.7 births per woman and net migration is in the region of 80,000 per annum. Higher levelsof immigration within a range that is reasonable will ultimately only add people to thepopulation and make little difference to the age structure. This is why the projectionsconsidered in Table 3 yielded unexciting results.The other main possibility for Australia’s future age structure is a shift to a coffin-shaped agestructure, resulting from zero net migration and a lower level of fertility. This is the classicshape of a population that is declining in size. Its age structure is much older than that of thebeehive. The beehive-shaped age structure has a relative concentration of people in theworking ages, while the coffin-shape implies substantial falls in the absolute size of thelabour force.The change in our age structure from 1971 and the two alternative future age structures areshown in Figure 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 20
20Figure 4.Beehive and Coffin scenarios, Australia, 1971-209810008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)197110008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)199810008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2023 Beehive10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2023 Coffin10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2048 Beehive10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2048 Coffin10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2073 Beehive10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2073 Coffin10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2098 Beehive10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2098 CoffinMalesFemales85+80-8475-7970-7465-6960-6455-5950-5445-4940-4435-3930-3425-2920-2415-1910-145-90-4BeehiveTotal Fertility Rate = 1.65 (10 yrs)ABS mortalityAnnual net migration = 80,000CoffinTotal Fertility Rate = 1.50 (15 yrs)ABS mortalityAnnual net migration = 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 21
21The ageing of Australia’s population represents a fundamental, historical demographicchange. The shift from a pyramid-shaped age structure is likely to occur only once in ourhistory. A return to the pyramid shape would require a return to the fertility of the 1960s;twice as high as the present level of fertility. This seems extremely unlikely. From apopulation policy perspective, our choice now is between the beehive-shaped age structureand the coffin-shaped age structure. The beehive shape is clearly the superior option(McDonald and Kippen 1999a; McDonald and Kippen 1999b).ConclusionGiven current trends in fertility and mortality, annual net migration to Australia of at least80,000 persons is necessary to avoid spiralling population decline and substantial falls in thesize of the labour force. This level of annual net migration also makes a worthwhile andefficient contribution to the retardation of population ageing. Levels of annual net migrationabove 80,000 become increasingly ineffective and inefficient in the retardation of ageing.Those who wish to argue for a higher level of immigration must base their argument on thebenefits of a larger population, not upon the illusory ‘younging power’ of high immigration.The effects upon ageing of a younger immigrant intake or higher migrant fertility are verysmall. Furthermore, implementation of either measure would be problematic. They are notrealistic options.It must also be pointed out that many permanent and long-term movements of people into andout of Australia are largely outside the control of the Government. The Government has anextremely limited capacity to prevent or accelerate any movement out of Australia.Also, there is little control possible over movements into Australia of New Zealanders and ofspouses and fiancés of Australians. Finally, the Government has only a limited degree ofcontrol at present over movements into Australia of students, temporary business entrants andholiday-makers. Thus, even though a government may aim for a particular level of annualnet migration, the actual level achieved may be substantially removed from the target becauseof population movements outside governmental control.Paul Johnson, an economist at the London School of Economics, recently provided a veryimportant message in regard to population ageing (Johnson 1999). He argues that the‘problem’ of population ageing does not require the implementation of draconian orextraordinary measures. He points out that Australia is in a better position to deal withageing of the population than almost any other OECD country. Given Johnson’s assessmentand given that very high immigration levels are ineffective and inefficient in bringing aboutchanges in the ageing of the population, it is not sensible to argue for large-scale immigration(above 80,000 net per annum) on the basis of its impact on ageing.Substantial ageing of the population of Australia is inevitable over the next 30 years. Noreasonable shift in our demography in the next three decades can change this outcome.Through prudent long-term policies in the areas of income support, health and serviceprovision and retirement from employment, and through the promotion of positive attitudesto older people, Australia will be well-placed to meet the challenge of population ageing. Atthe same time, demographic trends in the next 30 years will be vital in determining the shapeof Australia’s age structure beyond 2030. With zero immigration and lower fertility, theageing of our population will continue apace after 2030; the coffin scenario
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:n4tIaXS4p5EJ:population.org.au/pressrm/pub/dimaageing.pdf+author:%22McDonald%22+intitle:%22The+Impact+of+Immigration+on+the+Ageing+of+Australia%27s+...%22+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 20
20Figure 4.Beehive and Coffin scenarios, Australia, 1971-209810008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)197110008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)199810008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2023 Beehive10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2023 Coffin10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2048 Beehive10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2048 Coffin10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2073 Beehive10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2073 Coffin10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2098 Beehive10008006004002002004006008001000Population ('000)2098 CoffinMalesFemales85+80-8475-7970-7465-6960-6455-5950-5445-4940-4435-3930-3425-2920-2415-1910-145-90-4BeehiveTotal Fertility Rate = 1.65 (10 yrs)ABS mortalityAnnual net migration = 80,000CoffinTotal Fertility Rate = 1.50 (15 yrs)ABS mortalityAnnual net migration = 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 21
21The ageing of Australia’s population represents a fundamental, historical demographicchange. The shift from a pyramid-shaped age structure is likely to occur only once in ourhistory. A return to the pyramid shape would require a return to the fertility of the 1960s;twice as high as the present level of fertility. This seems extremely unlikely. From apopulation policy perspective, our choice now is between the beehive-shaped age structureand the coffin-shaped age structure. The beehive shape is clearly the superior option(McDonald and Kippen 1999a; McDonald and Kippen 1999b).ConclusionGiven current trends in fertility and mortality, annual net migration to Australia of at least80,000 persons is necessary to avoid spiralling population decline and substantial falls in thesize of the labour force. This level of annual net migration also makes a worthwhile andefficient contribution to the retardation of population ageing. Levels of annual net migrationabove 80,000 become increasingly ineffective and inefficient in the retardation of ageing.Those who wish to argue for a higher level of immigration must base their argument on thebenefits of a larger population, not upon the illusory ‘younging power’ of high immigration.The effects upon ageing of a younger immigrant intake or higher migrant fertility are verysmall. Furthermore, implementation of either measure would be problematic. They are notrealistic options.It must also be pointed out that many permanent and long-term movements of people into andout of Australia are largely outside the control of the Government. The Government has anextremely limited capacity to prevent or accelerate any movement out of Australia.Also, there is little control possible over movements into Australia of New Zealanders and ofspouses and fiancés of Australians. Finally, the Government has only a limited degree ofcontrol at present over movements into Australia of students, temporary business entrants andholiday-makers. Thus, even though a government may aim for a particular level of annualnet migration, the actual level achieved may be substantially removed from the target becauseof population movements outside governmental control.Paul Johnson, an economist at the London School of Economics, recently provided a veryimportant message in regard to population ageing (Johnson 1999). He argues that the‘problem’ of population ageing does not require the implementation of draconian orextraordinary measures. He points out that Australia is in a better position to deal withageing of the population than almost any other OECD country. Given Johnson’s assessmentand given that very high immigration levels are ineffective and inefficient in bringing aboutchanges in the ageing of the population, it is not sensible to argue for large-scale immigration(above 80,000 net per annum) on the basis of its impact on ageing.Substantial ageing of the population of Australia is inevitable over the next 30 years. Noreasonable shift in our demography in the next three decades can change this outcome.Through prudent long-term policies in the areas of income support, health and serviceprovision and retirement from employment, and through the promotion of positive attitudesto older people, Australia will be well-placed to meet the challenge of population ageing. Atthe same time, demographic trends in the next 30 years will be vital in determining the shapeof Australia’s age structure beyond 2030. With zero immigration and lower fertility, theageing of our population will continue apace after 2030; the coffin scenario
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:n4tIaXS4p5EJ:population.org.au/pressrm/pub/dimaageing.pdf+author:%22McDonald%22+intitle:%22The+Impact+of+Immigration+on+the+Ageing+of+Australia%27s+...%22+