Australia’s total fertility rate hit 1.49 babies per woman in 2024 — the lowest figure in 100 years of national records. For nearly 50 consecutive years, the rate has sat below the 2.1 threshold a population needs to sustain itself without immigration. And it is still falling.
This is not a story most Australians know. It has unfolded slowly, masked by immigration-driven population growth and the steady hum of a growing economy. But beneath the headlines, something structural is breaking down — and it will reshape Australia’s workforce, healthcare system, aged care sector, and public finances in ways that most policymakers have barely begun to prepare for.
The total fertility rate (TFR) measures the average number of babies a woman would have over her lifetime at current birth rates. A TFR of 2.1 is the replacement level — the number needed to keep a population stable without relying on migration. Australia last reached that level in 1975. It has never recovered.
This article uses five data visualisations to tell the story: who stopped having babies, where the gap is widest, what our immigration patterns actually contribute to fertility, and what happens to our population if we keep doing nothing.
Australia’s fertility rate peaked at 3.55 babies per woman in 1961, at the height of the post-war baby boom. Since then, it has fallen almost continuously for 60 years. In 2024, it hit 1.49 — a new all-time low. Australia has been below replacement level every single year since 1976.
The chart below shows Australia’s total fertility rate across 100 years of records, from 1924 to 2024. Hover over any point on the red line to see the exact fertility rate for that year. The dashed grey line marks the replacement level of 2.1 — the threshold below which a population begins to shrink without immigration. Four key moments are annotated: the wartime dip in 1942, the baby boom peak in 1961, the year Australia first crossed below replacement in 1976, and the record low in 2024.
Australia crossed below replacement level in 1976 and has never recovered. The 2024 rate of 1.49 is the lowest ever recorded — 29% below the replacement threshold of 2.1. At this rate, Australia’s natural population growth will continue to shrink for decades to come.
The national decline is not driven equally across all age groups. Women aged 15–19 have seen their fertility rate fall 89% from its 1971 peak. Women aged 20–24 are close behind at 86%. Meanwhile, women aged 30–34 have held on — and are now the single most fertile age group in Australia. This is a story about delayed parenthood, not just less parenthood.
The chart shows age-specific fertility rates (births per 1,000 women) for each five-year age group from 1924 to 2024. The three story groups are highlighted in colour: 15–19 year olds (red), 20–24 year olds (amber), and 30–34 year olds (teal). The four remaining age groups are shown in grey. Click any legend item to show or hide that group. Hover over any point to see the exact rate for that year and age group.
The most important shift is the crossover: in the 1970s, women aged 20–24 were the highest fertility group. Today, it is women aged 30–34. Australians are not simply having fewer children — they are having them later, which compresses the window available for family formation.
The fertility collapse is concentrated in young women. The 15–19 age group has fallen 89% from its peak. The 20–24 group has fallen 86%. Yet women aged 30–34 — who now account for more births than any other age group — have held relatively steady. Australians are not giving up on children entirely; they are delaying, which means smaller families and a narrower window for recovery.
The fertility collapse is not uniform across Australia. Where you live is one of the strongest predictors of how many children you are likely to have. The divide between Major Cities and Remote Australia is 0.55 babies per woman — larger than the difference between Australia and many European countries.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics classifies all areas of Australia into five remoteness categories based on distance from services and population density. The definitions used in this chart are:
Major Cities — Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth,
Adelaide, Canberra and other large urban centres with populations over
100,000.
Inner Regional — Areas close to major
cities with reasonable access to services, such as the Sunshine Coast,
Wollongong, Ballarat and Bendigo.
Outer
Regional — More distant regional areas with fewer services,
such as Townsville, Cairns, Albury and Dubbo.
Remote — Sparsely populated areas far from services,
covering large parts of inland and northern Australia.
Very Remote — The most isolated areas of Australia,
including much of the Northern Territory, outback Queensland and remote
Western Australia.
Each panel in the chart below shows the total fertility rate trend from 2013 to 2024 for one remoteness category. The dashed grey line in every panel marks the replacement level of 2.1. The story label inside each panel explains the key finding for that area. Hover over any data point for the exact TFR. Click any legend item to show or hide that area across all panels.
Major Cities — home to the majority of Australia’s population — have never been above the replacement level of 2.1 in this entire dataset (2013–2024). Their maximum recorded TFR was just 1.82. Remote and Very Remote areas used to be well above replacement, but even they have now fallen below. The city-bush fertility gap of 0.55 babies per woman is one of the most underreported demographic divides in Australia.
For decades, the conventional wisdom has been that Australia’s fertility rate is propped up by immigration from higher-fertility countries. The data says otherwise. Australia-born mothers have a higher fertility rate than all overseas-born mothers combined. And our largest migrant source countries — China, India, the Philippines — bring fertility rates far below our own.
This chart shows the total fertility rate in 2024 for mothers born in Australia and in 15 key source countries. Each bar represents one country or category. The three vertical reference lines show: the Australia-born TFR (dashed dark line), the national average (dotted grey line), and the replacement level of 2.1 (dashed grey line). Countries are grouped by colour: dark grey for benchmarks, teal for high-fertility source countries, amber for major source countries by birth volume, and red for low-fertility East Asian source countries.
Hover over any bar to see the exact TFR and the number of births in 2024. Click any legend group to show or hide that category.
The most striking finding is the East Asian cluster at the bottom: China (0.81), South Korea (0.78), and Taiwan (0.63) all have fertility rates far below Australia’s — and well below what most people assume. These are among Australia’s largest migrant source communities. Their fertility patterns, once transplanted to Australia, pull the national average down rather than up.
Australia-born mothers (TFR 1.64) have higher fertility than all overseas-born mothers combined (TFR 1.25). Immigration from Lebanon, Samoa and Pakistan does add high-fertility mothers to the mix — but they are vastly outnumbered by migrants from China, India, and South Korea, where fertility rates are among the lowest in the world. The net effect of migration on Australia’s fertility rate is negative, not positive.
This is the consequence of everything shown above. Natural population growth — births minus deaths — has become so small that net migration is now doing 3.3 times more demographic work. But migration is not a permanent substitute for fertility. Treasury projections show natural increase will peak in 2031–32, then begin falling as an ageing population produces more deaths each year. Press Play below to watch this story unfold year by year from 2024–25 to 2035–36.
The chart shows four components of Australia’s annual population change, projected by the Australian Government’s Centre for Population as part of the 2025–26 Budget. Each bar represents one of the following:
Net migration — the number of people arriving in
Australia permanently or long-term, minus those leaving. This is the
dominant driver of Australia’s current population growth.
Births — the total number of babies born in Australia
each year. Despite the low fertility rate, births are still rising
slowly because the population is larger.
Natural
increase — the difference between births and deaths. This is
the measure of whether Australia’s population could sustain itself
without immigration.
Deaths — the total number
of deaths each year. As the population ages, this number will
accelerate, eventually outpacing the slow growth in births.
Press the Play button to watch how each of these four components changes year by year through to 2035–36. Drag the slider to jump to any specific year. Hover over any bar to see the exact figure. Click any legend item to show or hide that series.
Migration is currently doing 3.3 times more population work than natural increase. But natural increase peaks in 2031–32 and then begins falling — because an ageing population means deaths will accelerate faster than births can rise. By 2035–36, natural increase will be lower than it is today, even though Australia will have more people. Australia’s demographic engine is running on borrowed time.
The five charts in this article tell a clear and urgent story. Australia’s fertility rate has been declining for 60 years. The collapse is concentrated in young women, most pronounced in major cities, not offset by immigration, and producing a natural increase that will soon begin shrinking. This is not a cyclical problem that will resolve on its own. It is structural.
Other countries facing the same trajectory have tried a range of policy responses. South Korea, which has the world’s lowest fertility rate at around 0.72, has spent over $200 billion AUD equivalent on pro-natalist policies over 20 years with minimal effect. Japan offers substantial cash payments and parental leave but has seen little recovery. Hungary offers generous tax exemptions and mortgage benefits for families with three or more children — with some evidence of modest short-term improvement. The international evidence suggests that single-lever approaches rarely work. What matters is a sustained, multi-pronged strategy that addresses the real barriers young Australians face when considering family formation.
The three factors most consistently linked to fertility decline in high-income countries are housing affordability, childcare cost and accessibility, and wage insecurity for workers under 35. In Australia, all three have worsened significantly over the past two decades. The median house price in Sydney is now more than 13 times median income. Childcare wait lists in urban areas stretch to 18 months in some suburbs. And real wages for workers aged 25–34 have grown more slowly than any other cohort since 2010.
Australia’s policy conversation has focused almost entirely on immigration as the population solution. The data in this article suggests that framing is incomplete. Migration is essential — but it is not a substitute for fertility, and it cannot sustain natural increase indefinitely as the death rate rises. The time to begin rebuilding conditions for family formation in Australia is now, before the window of natural increase closes entirely.
This data visualisation article outline was produced as part of Assignment 3 for the Data Visualisation and Communication course at RMIT University (2026).
Generative AI (Claude, Anthropic) was used during the preparation of this assignment to assist with R code debugging, sentence clarity checks, and layout refinement. All story choices, analytical decisions, data interpretations, chart design decisions, and final judgements are the student’s own work.
Claude. (2026). Claude (claude-sonnet-4-6) [Large language model]. Anthropic. https://claude.ai
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Births, Australia, 2024. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/births-australia/latest-release
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Births, Australia, 2024 — Table DC04: Total fertility rates and age-specific fertility rates, by remoteness area [Data set]. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/births-australia/latest-release
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Births, Australia, 2024 — Table DC06: Total fertility rates and age-specific fertility rates, by country of birth of mother [Data set]. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/births-australia/latest-release
Australian Government, Centre for Population. (2025). Budget 2025–26 national population projections [Data set]. Department of the Treasury. https://population.gov.au/data-and-forecasts
Baglin, J. (2024). Data visualisation: From theory to practice. RMIT University.
Mannon, N. (2018). Persuasive storytelling with data visualization. BlastAM Blog. https://www.blastam.com/blog/persuasive-storytelling-with-data-visualization
Segel, E., & Heer, J. (2010). Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6), 1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2010.179
Yi, J. S., Kang, Y. A., & Stasko, J. (2007). Toward a deeper understanding of the role of interaction in information visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13(6), 1224–1231. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2007.70515