March 29th 2008


  Buy Issue 2776
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: The truth about Australia's birth rate

EDITORIAL: NSW electricity to be privatised?

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Opposition needs new policies, not stunts

WATER: Time to build new reservoirs

QUARANTINE: EI inquiry flags major changes to horse quarantine

INTERNATIONAL TRADE: Rudd Government to re-examine FTAs

ENVIRONMENT: Conference rejects climate change alarmism

HIGH SCHOOLS: School: ladder of opportunity or game of snakes and ladders?

HUMAN RIGHTS: Behind Beijing's crackdown in Tibet

UNITED STATES: California court attacks parental rights

DRUGS: Australia's complicity in global drugs menace

UNITED NATIONS: Feminist frolics at the UN

AS THE WORLD TURNS: Muslim attacks forcing Jews out of Paris suburbs / School vouchers flourishing in Sweden / Coal tipped to be world's top energy source

MEDIA: ABC's take on Islamic school controversy

CINEMA: BELLA: A gentle film with a big heart

BOOKS: DARWIN DAY IN AMERICA: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, by John G. West

BOOKS: ISLAND OF THE LOST by Joan Druett

Books promotion page

survey link

FONT SIZE:

COVER STORY:
The truth about Australia's birth rate


by Catherine Sheehan

News Weekly, March 29, 2008
Contrary to recent optimistic media claims, based on the latest census, that Australia could be heading towards a "baby-boom", a close and considered analysis of the data by a Melbourne academic demonstrates that this couldn't be further from the truth. Catherine Sheehan reports.

Overall fertility rates in Australia are continuing to decline, and current cultural trends are likely to keep the fertility rate down well into the future, according to Monash University demographer and sociologist Dr Genevieve Heard.

The recently reported increase in the fertility rate was a jump from 1.73 children per woman in 2001 to 1.83 in 2005, as recorded in the 2006 census data released in June last year.

Despite the fact that this is still well below replacement level - which is 2.1 children per woman over a lifetime - the increase was greeted with jubilation by certain commentators.

Yet, as Dr Heard argues in her paper, "Boom or gloom? Cohort fertility data from the 2006 Census" (People and Place, vol.15, no.3, 2007, produced by Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research), there is an important distinction between the total fertility rate (TFR) and completed cohort fertility.

Lifetime

The TFR is the current total number of children each woman has produced at the time the census data is collated in a particular year. Therefore, if the TFR has increased, it does not necessarily follow that women are having more children over a lifetime, since many of the women the data is based on are young and have not yet finished having children.

Completed cohort fertility, however, refers to the total number of children a woman has produced by the end of her reproductive years. This fertility rate is therefore a much better indicator of whether there is an actual increase in overall fertility. Heard states that "completed cohort fertility provides a better measure of generational replacement".

In her paper, Heard analyses the latest census data in respect to completed cohort fertility. What she discovers is certainly no cause for celebration. She writes: "The average number of children ever born per woman remains in long-term decline.... This decline is evident in each age group across the reproductive years."

She points out that, in 2006, women aged 40 to 44 years (an age bracket considered to be the end of their reproductive years) had 2.05 children on average, while the same age group 10 years earlier in 1996 produced an average of 2.23 children, well above replacement level. "In other words, completed fertility continued its long-term decline over the decade to 2006."

Other concerning trends are increases in the number of women at the end of their reproductive years with only one child or with no children at all, and decreases in the number of women with three children or with four or more children.

In 1981, 9 per cent of women aged 40 to 44 had no children. In 2006, 16 per cent of women in this age group had no children. In 1981, 27 per cent of women aged 40 to 44 had four or more children compared to 2006 when only 11 per cent of women aged 40 to 44 had four or more children.

The strong link between the marriage rate and the fertility rate is also reinforced by the census data. The evidence is clear that women who are married have more children than those who are merely cohabiting. In 2006 married women aged 40 to 44 had on average 2.27 children, while women of the same age in de facto relationships had on average 1.83 children.

Women who are cohabiting are also much more likely to be childless by the end of their reproductive years than women who are married. 23 per cent of cohabiting women aged 40 to 44 were childless in 2006, compared to only 8 per cent of married women.

Heard asserts that "the implication is that motherhood is a near universal outcome for married women.... [T]he fertility gap between wives and partners testifies to the ongoing importance of marriage to Australian fertility."

Heard acknowledges that the current data confirms the conclusions reached by Monash University's Dr Bob Birrell and his colleagues, who produced the landmark study Men and Women Apart: The Decline of Partnering in Australia (2004), commissioned by the Australian Family Association (AFA), using census data from 1986, 1996 and 2001.

Birrell concluded that Australia's low fertility was a consequence of a reduced rate of marriage or partnering, which in turn was caused by the number of males in their prime years not in full time work and therefore unable to marry and form a family.

To rub further salt into the wound, the latest census data also clearly shows that this trend away from marriage is continuing - an ominous development for Australia's already low fertility rate. The number of married women is decreasing, while the number of women in de facto relationships is increasing.

According to Dr Heard's study, in 1996, 65 per cent of women aged 30 to 34 years - which is "the peak age for childbearing in Australia" - were married. In 2006, only 56 per cent of women aged 30 to 34 were married. Of the same age group, 9 per cent were in de facto relationships in 1996, and by 2006 this had risen to 15 per cent.

Heard also notes other interesting trends to be gleaned from the latest census data, for example, that women in urban areas on average produce fewer children than those in rural areas, and that we are becoming an increasingly urbanised society.

Moreover, contrary to popular belief, migrant women in Australia, on average, produce fewer children than Australian-born women. In other Western countries, such as England and the United States, the reverse trend is found. She attributes this to "the composition of the migrant intake" in Australia.

Overall, the latest census data does not bode well for Australia's fertility rate. As Bernard Salt pointed out late last year, in his article "Yankee's still dandy", if we are to become a stronger more prosperous nation we need to take a leaf out of the US's cultural book.

The US currently has a birth rate of 2.1, which is at the replacement level, unlike other countries such as Japan, Russia and Germany which are all under 1.4, and Hong Kong which is under 1.0 (The Australian, November 8, 2007).

Salt argues: "The reason for the high birth rate in the US is both cultural and ethnic: strong Christian values lead to large families, especially among the Latino community, where the birth rate is more than double the white birth rate." Salt predicts that, based on its current fertility rate, the US will have 95 million people aged 15-35 by 2025, an increase of 11 million.

He adds: "The secret to America's future success lies in its birth rate. This rate is a reflection of America's tolerance and inclusion of ethnic (and/or immigrant) groups such as Latinos and the Christian Right." America's high birth rate "will enable it to retain superpower status for many decades to come".

Not only does Australia have to work towards getting young males into full-time work in order to boost the marriage rate, as Birrell's findings demonstrate, but it also has to consider its cultural tolerance of ethnic and religious sections of the community, such as traditional Christians, who are more inclined to marry and have children, as opposed to merely cohabiting.

- Catherine Sheehan is a research officer with the Australian Family Association, Melbourne.




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal rebuts commission's 'Get Pell' campaign

COVER STORY Anti-discrimination law validates Safe Schools

U.S. AFFAIRS First Brexit, now Trump: it's the economy, stupid!

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT Wikileaks reveals U.S, funding behind anti-coal campaign

COVER STORY QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

FOREIGN AFFAIRS How the left whitewashed Fidel Castro

ANALYSIS What is possible to a Trump Whitehouse



News and views from around the world

Frequently asked questions about section 18C (Simon Breheny)

Chilean legislators kill explicit sex-ed program (LifeSite News)

France to ban people with Down syndrome from smiling (The Huffington Post)

Child abuse and family structure: What is the evidence telling us (Family First NZ)

Woolworths beats ACCC supplier mistreatment case (Eli Greenblat)

Australia set to ride the quantum computing wave (Science in Public)

Weatherill warns states could introduce carbon prices (Rosie Lewis)

Green-left legerdemain doesn't make religion relevant (Fr James Grant)

Mass murderer Castro dies unpunished (Augusto Zimmermann)

The rise of political correctness (Angelo Codevilla)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
December 2, 2016, 2:36 pm