Why SA’s ‘slow-growth’ population can be a strength
Slightly slower population growth gives SA breathing room, writes Adelaide University professors Emma Baker and Andrew Beer. It gives us something other cities lack: the chance to plan properly.
Recent figures from the Australian Government’s Centre for Population show that South Australia’s population is growing more slowly than the national average.
ABS estimates also show population growth of 1.07 per cent in 2024–25, compared with a national rate of 1.54 per cent. On the surface, that places South Australia firmly in the “slow-growth” category.
But those headline numbers hide a much more nuanced story. South Australia has been a slower-growing state for decades, and that is not necessarily a weakness. In fact, done well, slower growth can be a strength.
First, let’s be clear: South Australia is not standing still. Growth of just over one per cent is not negligible, particularly when combined with strong economic performance. The state is growing more slowly than some eastern states, but it is still adding people, households and economic activity each year. The question is not whether we are growing, but how — and what kind of state we are becoming in the process.
Population change is often framed as a simple equation of births minus deaths. In reality, migration is the dominant driver. Last year, South Australia’s natural increase amounted to just 2,727 people (18,285 births minus 15,558 deaths). In contrast, net overseas migration added almost 19,000 people, even after accounting for South Australians moving abroad. At the same time, the state recorded a small net loss through interstate migration.
This tells us something important: South Australia’s population growth is increasingly shaped by policy choices, labour demand and lifestyle factors — not just demography. People are choosing to come here, often for work, housing and quality of life. That matters.
You might like
Housing, in particular, has long been one of South Australia’s quiet competitive advantages. Compared with Sydney and Melbourne, good-quality housing has historically been more affordable, allowing people to build stable lives while enjoying a strong lifestyle. That combination has attracted skilled workers, leaders and creative talent who might otherwise have been priced out of larger capitals.
Slower population growth has also given South Australia something many fast-growing cities lack: the chance to plan properly.
Sydney is the cautionary tale. There, development has often raced ahead of infrastructure, services and transport, leaving communities to deal with congestion, housing stress and fractured neighbourhoods. When growth is too rapid, planning becomes reactive. Decisions are made under pressure, quality slips, and costs — financial and social — mount.
Slightly slower growth gives South Australia breathing room. It allows governments, councils and communities to align housing, infrastructure and services more carefully. It creates space to think about where we grow, what we build, and who it is for. That planning dividend is real — but only if we choose to use it.
This is where the housing debate often goes wrong. Low population growth does not mean we can ease off building new homes. In fact, the opposite is true.
While population growth is modest, household formation is strong. As the population ages, households tend to get smaller. Think of older couples — or single people — remaining in family homes long after children have moved out. That means more dwellings are needed even when population growth is moderate. We need housing that matches this demographic reality: smaller, accessible, well-located homes, alongside affordable rental options.
Stay informed, daily
The clearest signal of unmet demand is not population growth rates, but market stress. Adelaide’s rental vacancy rate has hovered between 0.8 and 1 per cent for more than two years — well below the 3 per cent generally considered a balanced market. Many renters are now paying more than 50 per cent of their income just to secure housing. These pressures do not disappear simply because population growth is slower than elsewhere.
A slowly growing population does not justify deprioritising new housing supply — especially affordable housing. If anything, it gives us the opportunity to get that supply right.
There is also a tendency to equate population growth directly with economic success. The relationship is far more complex. South Australia’s relatively low population growth is not the result of economic weakness. Unemployment has hovered around 4 per cent, at or below the national average, and the state has recently topped national economic performance rankings for the first time in more than a decade.
Internationally, the picture is even clearer. Japan, often cited as a warning about population decline, is now emerging from a long period of stagnation. Despite its population continuing to fall — by around 900,000 people between 2023 and 2024 — Japan has seen rising corporate profits, stronger GDP growth and renewed investment. Technology, productivity and capital deepening matter as much as headcount.
But slower growth does bring challenges that go beyond economics. South Australia’s median age is now 41, almost three years above the national average. Outside Adelaide, it rises to 47. An ageing population places pressure on health, care and disability services, and on the workforce needed to deliver them. It also makes it harder to sustain infrastructure and services at scale.
That is the real policy challenge ahead: not how to chase growth for its own sake, but how to balance population change, workforce needs, housing supply and quality of life.
South Australia’s future does not lie in competing head-to-head with Sydney or Melbourne on growth alone. It lies in being deliberate: using slower growth to plan better, build smarter, and protect the qualities that make the state attractive in the first place.
Population growth is not a race. It is a tool. The question is whether we use it well.
