Another problem with debates about population growth is that opportunistic political actors, preying on the fear of the electorate, easily hijack them. Despite the fact that immigration rates increased under the Howard Government, the federal Opposition is now calling for dramatic cuts to the intake. At a time when the spectre of climate change and the rumbling global financial crisis have made our existential vulnerability more apparent, it is relatively easy to paint outsiders as a threat to our way of life.

In reality, we have no one to blame but ourselves. The real crisis in all of this is the continuation of our historical incapacity to plan deliberately and properly. Consider some of the trends that reflect this incapacity, and have made our population growth to date more painful than it needed to be.

First, there has been the dramatic underinvestment in infrastructure. For at least 20 years, governments crippled their capacity to plan by adhering to an economic orthodoxy about keeping budgets in surplus. It’s now obvious to see that they would have saved a fortune by investing in transport, housing and other facilities and services in advance of the population surge. They would have also established higher levels of liveability and sustainability in cities and regions than at present.

Second, there has been the growing fiscal imbalance between federal, state and local governments – despite the constant calls for a more cooperative and effective federal system. In addition to economic orthodoxy, these imbalances have made it particularly difficult for state and local governments to respond adequately to a growing list of responsibilities. The latest health reform, despite its partial success, hardly provides much hope for a more effective federal system in the near future.

Third, the housing sector has especially suffered from a lack of foresight that has made the Australian lifestyle difficult to sustain. Financial incentives have turned housing from a basic need into an investment opportunity, pushing prices up and making housing unaffordable for too many people. Houses are often built on the premise of an unlimited supply of energy for cooling and heating, when policy could have promoted more sustainable approaches to design. And we have allowed dwellings to increase in size at the same time as family size has decreased.

Fourth, there has been a failure to adequately fund active labour market policies. Such policies are a means of responding to relentless economic change, by retraining and relocating labour in a way that cushions the effect of fluctuations on individuals and communities. In 2007-08, Australia spent only 0.32% of GDP on active labour market programmes compared to an OECD average of 0.56%. Instead of boosting our capacity in this area, we have relied disproportionately upon skilled migrants to fill the gaps in the workforce. This approach is not only a planning failure. It also raises significant ethical issues, especially when those skilled workers arrive from developing countries whose needs are greater than ours.

Of course, it is easy to be critical in hindsight. And planning is no simple task, especially in a world whose interconnectedness and dynamism keep intensifying. But the above examples of our planning failures reflect real and continuing weaknesses in our institutional capacity to adjust to change and development. They reflect successive governments’ commitment to growth and its short-term benefits, and a disregard for long-term sustainability.

Another government report about population growth will not address these underlying issues.

Dr Martin Leet is Senior Research Officer with the Brisbane Institute. He studied political science at the University of Queensland and was awarded a BA (Hons) and PhD. Over the last ten years, he has taught and researched in the fields of political economy, public policy and political theory. Martin has published two books, as well as numerous journal articles and book reviews. His most recent book, Aftereffects of Knowledge in Modernity (State University of New York Press), examines the ambivalent cultural consequences of the search for knowledge in the modern western world.