WA the fastest growing state or territory in Australia, as population tips over three million
The population of Western Australia has officially tipped over three million people, with the state having the fastest growth rate of anywhere in the country last year.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has put Australia's population at 27,400,013 as of the end of 2024, with 445,900 people added to the tally in the year.
The ABS releases population data about six months behind, with the latest set of numbers showing the annual natural increase — considering births and deaths — was 105,200 and net overseas migration was 340,800.
There were a total of 292,400 births in Australia in 2024, an increase of 2.6 per cent on the previous year.
That was offset by 187,300 deaths, an increase of 3 per cent on 2023.
The ABS said all states and territories had positive population growth over 2024.
WA had the fastest rate of growth at 2.4 per cent and recorded a major milestone, with 3,008,697 people now living in the west.
Tasmania posted the slowest growth rate, although it still recorded an incremental uptick in population.
The island state added just 1,600 people to its population, mainly through net overseas migration, while 2,447 moved away from Tasmania to elsewhere.
The ABS noted net overseas migration was the "major contributor" to change in all states and territories, with most people moving to New South Wales (106,730) and Victoria (100,503).
There was also a significant amount of internal migration between the states and territories, with Queensland adding another 25,940 people via net interstate movements.
More people moved away from New South Wales in 2024 than anywhere else, with the state losing 28,118 people to other places.
The data estimates resident population based on all people who usually live in Australia, regardless of nationality, citizenship or visa status.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Jim Chalmers wants a fight on tax, just like his 'brawler' hero Paul Keating
For those hoping Labor might use its landslide victory to be more ambitious, Jim Chalmers came to the press club with a message: game on. His speech was overshadowed by dramatic developments on the other side of the world, and buried under the dull heading of productivity and tax reform. But there was no mistaking the impression that Chalmers is emboldened by the election result and wants to seize his moment. The speech was light on specifics but lofty in aspiration. The treasurer was explicit that he wanted to use August's reform roundtable to make a lasting change to the tax system — to pick a fight and win it, like his "brawler statesman" hero Paul Keating. Chalmers is several steps ahead of his more cautious prime minister, whose own press club speech about economic reform last week was more grounded in talk of "win-wins" and incremental progress. But creative tension between treasurer and prime minister is the hallmark of all consequential governments, as with Hawke and Keating, or Howard and Costello. And economic reform — especially tax — is what those governments are remembered for, just as the political graveyard is littered with infamous tax failures like Gillard's carbon tax, Hewson's "fightback" and Shorten's negative gearing and franking credits. Tax matters to people, even if its finer details can make the eyes glaze over. So it is no small matter that the treasurer is standing at an open windowsill of opportunity and declaring he wants to jump through it. As one Labor frontbencher in the room remarked, it was the kind of speech the Labor faithful had waited 15 years to hear. For now, reaction from commentators has ranged from ambivalence to outright scepticism — "Rome not yet built on day one", read the opinion pages. And it's true that ambition is often thwarted by the cold light of reality, because anything worth doing on tax is hard to do. But even the whisper of a chance is enough for economists to prick up their ears after years of relentless caution and "safe" incrementalism. And there is much that could be done. For all the rancour, economists, unions, business and welfare advocates agree a lot about what's wrong with the status quo. There are always quibbles, but the broad collected wisdom is as follows: First, Australia taxes working people too much. That picture gets even worse if you factor in transfers (welfare and subsidies), which are below the poverty line for those on the lowest incomes and effectively impose extra taxes on middle earners, because the payments are withdrawn as you earn more. The picture is worse again if you factor in bracket creep — the fact that tax settings are not adjusted for inflation, meaning people pay more tax over time. Second, our tax system is wildly inconsistent in how it treats different types of income. A couple with no assets, both on the minimum wage, could pay more tax than a couple with three homes, a share portfolio, and hundreds of thousands in annual income. In fact, without needing to bend reality too much, it's plausible that the second couple could pay no tax at all. As well as the obvious inequities, these inconsistencies are inefficient, encouraging people to park their money in certain places (especially super and property) over others. At the same time, there are many reasons to expect we will need to raise more tax over time, in part because as people live longer they will require more care. And while there is lively debate over whether some government spending can be cut, there is pressure to spend more in several areas, much of it with strong public support. So if we want to be less reliant on taxing wages, we would need to consider other ways to raise money. Increasing taxes on consumption (GST) or land are among the options that would be more efficient, though not necessarily more equitable. Finally, all of this creates an intergenerational problem, because in the coming years there will be more retirees for every person of working age, piling the tax burden onto the shoulders of the young, a problem which gets worse the longer we neglect it. To summarise: the wrong type of tax, designed badly, and not enough of it, to the detriment of working people and young people, and distorting the economy. And that's before even mentioning corporate tax, fuel tax or cigarette tax — all of which are the subject of their own lively debates. All of that is enough to be overwhelming. But a wealth of problems means a wealth of possible answers. All of the "big ticket" items that feature prominently in political debate — negative gearing, capital gains tax, super tax, raising the GST, ending bracket creep, taxing land — are efforts to address one or another of these agreed shortcomings of the tax system. While Chalmers insists he is happy for all of these to be on the table and is keen not to rule things out, his press club appearance — where journalists tried valiantly to tempt him to do just that — left the impression he wants to avoid ideas with too much baggage. If he chose negative gearing, he would be accused of reheating leftovers and presented with a highlight reel of all the times he or the PM has promised not to revisit it, with the Coalition likely opposed and the Greens likely taking credit. If he chose the GST, he would risk creating "sticker shock" and be the treasurer who delivers a temporary price rise on everything, an option unlikely to appeal so soon after a nasty bout of inflation, especially since the states would get to keep all the money. And if he chose to go further on super tax concessions, he would embolden the scare campaign already amassing against his current push to lift the tax on earnings, which visibly irritates him every time he is asked about it. None of these seems especially likely. But if the treasurer is searching for a defining reform, there are options on the shelf with more dust but fewer enemies. Perhaps the most popular among economists — and yet still fairly obscure to the general public — is a dual income tax. That tax, common in Scandinavia, treats wages and salaries ("active" or "labour" income) differently to investments and capital gains ("passive" or "savings" income). Australia currently treats some investment income the same way as wages but other types completely differently. A dual tax could close loopholes and treat investment more consistently on the one hand, and lower taxes on wage earners on the other hand, while still being revenue neutral or even raising money. It's an idea with a long lineage, discussed at length in the famous Henry tax review in the early days of the Rudd government. Ken Henry, the treasury secretary who gave that review its name and who helped Chalmers with a draft of his press club speech this week, has become something of a "godfather of tax reform", and his hefty report still carries authority. But there's little to show for that reputation — 15 years on, politicians have intoned their reverence for the Henry review while politely ignoring almost all its recommendations. The reason? Because there is no such thing as meaningful tax reform that does not create both winners and losers. And for some time now, governments skirting on the edges of electoral defeat have been nervous about losers, preferring instead to promise higher spending and lower taxes. The Morrison government made an artform of this "double carrot", carefully designing its tax cuts to ensure no taxpayer was ever made worse off by even a cent. For this it was rewarded, winning a 2019 election against a Labor opposition with a substantial and controversial tax reform agenda who told the losers that if they didn't like it, they could vote for someone else, which they did. That's the price tag of reform. But with its colossal majority, the Albanese government could decide it can afford it. Chalmers, at least, thinks so. Perhaps his most pointed comment this week was that he did not believe the media narrative that Labor was assured of a third term. Translation: time is of the essence.
SBS Australia
11 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Australian embassy officials in Iran evacuate as conflict grows in Middle East
Australian embassy officials in Iran evacuate as conflict grows in Middle East Published 20 June 2025, 8:37 am Australian officials and their families have been evacuated from Tehran. Threats of a major regional war have prompted Australia to close its embassy. The Federal government is urgently warning Australians in Iran to leave if safe to do so.
SBS Australia
13 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Why these empty seats could lead to arrest warrants for a state premier's staff members
Five senior government staffers could face arrest after failing to appear at an inquiry into an explosive-laden caravan found on Sydney's outskirts earlier this year. In a dramatic escalation of an otherwise routine inquiry, the process to arrest the high-ranking staff in the offices of NSW Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley was set in motion on Friday after the quintet declined to appear. Committee chair and independent MP Rod Roberts conducted a roll call for the premier's chief of staff James Cullen and four other staffers before approaching upper house president Ben Franklin to seek arrest warrants. Roberts said the president was non-committal when asked to go to the Supreme Court for the warrants, but Franklin had a "very important and very crucial decision". "All along, Labor has tried to stonewall, delay and ridicule this important inquiry," fellow committee member John Ruddick said on social media. Arrest warrants can be issued to force a witness to attend an inquiry while witnesses who refuse to answer questions can face jail time. NSW Opposition leader Mark Speakman said if Minns had directed staff not to appear at the inquiry into controversial protest and hate speech legislation, "that would appear to be a breach of the ministerial code". The protest and speech laws were rushed through the NSW parliament in February after explosives, antisemitic messaging and a list of addresses of Jewish people and institutions were found inside the caravan at Dural in Sydney's north-west on 19 January. The discovery prompted fears of a terrorist attack or mass-casualty event, as the premier and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dubbed it. In a letter to the committee announcing their intention not to attend, the staffers said appearing before the inquiry "would be at odds with the principles of ministerial accountability". Roberts pressed against that motion on Friday as he addressed empty chairs. "The committee is not seeking to sanction ministerial staff for their actions, only to shed light on the events in the lead up to the passage of the hate speech and protest laws through parliament," Roberts said. Minns attacked the upper house on Thursday for trying to get government staff to appear at inquiries "on a routine basis" as if they were "criminals and under investigation". "And if not, they're under threat of arrest," he said. As members of the lower house, Minns and Catley cannot be compelled to appear at the upper house inquiry to give evidence. But staffers can be forced to appear. Another staffer named in the motion, Minns' deputy chief of staff Edward Ovadia, said in the letter he should be excused from attending the committee because he was on leave at the time and did not attend meetings. The premier and police minister say they have commented extensively on the matter, including at parliamentary hearings and press conferences and during question time.
