Talking About Planning in its Absence

Author: Dr Martin Leet

Date: 03 May 2010

Concerns about population growth are mounting with numerous calls for a proper debate about the issue, the launching of a new political party, and the appointment of a federal Population Minister. It’s hard to expect much sense will be produced in an election year, but can we hope for a thoughtful plan some time soon? If our recent track record is anything to go by, argues Martin Leet, we shouldn’t hold our breath.

Another “comprehensive strategy” is being prepared for addressing the future needs of the nation. The Prime Minister has appointed Tony Burke as Australia’s first Population Minister and has given him twelve months to come up with a Population Strategy that will “make the most of the opportunities, and minimise the risks, associated with population growth”.

On the one hand, you would have to feel for poor Minister Burke, charged with completing such a weighty and presumably time-consuming task in the space of only a year. On the other hand, you could be forgiven for thinking that he does not have that much work to do, given how many reports addressing these kinds of issues are already decorating the bookshelves of government, not to mention the plethora of studies by researchers.

Whether Minister Burke chooses to enquire anew into the questions or simply do a “copy and paste”, there comes a time when we have to stop strategising. There is a point at which we have to bring an end to the mere preparation for planning. The moment has arrived for us to make a choice and establish clear priorities. In this instance, we need to choose between putting growth first and attempting to address sustainability as a secondary issue, or we need to be firmly committed to sustainability and manage growth accordingly.

Growth and sustainability are not mutually exclusive but we have to be clear about which one comes first. And the notion of “sustainability” embraces not only environmental concerns, but also the durability of communities and lifestyles.

Growth remains the fundamental commitment of government. Over the last ten years, growth in the population has accelerated. The increase has been partly due to a rise in fertility rates, but the major contributor has been an expanding rate of immigration. The escalating immigration intake has forced Treasury to dramatically revise its predictions about the country’s future population. In 2002, the first Intergenerational Report estimated 25.3 million people by 2042. In September 2009, the third Intergenerational Report put the figure at 35.9 million by 2050.

There has been bipartisan support for the increase in immigration in response to a growing economy. But this commitment to boosting the country’s population to support economic growth appears to be at odds with community attitudes. The results of the latest Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, published last month, and analysed by Associate Professor Katharine Betts, suggest that 69 per cent of Australians want the population to remain stable. The figure was 65 per cent in 2001, indicating further that successive Australian governments have drifted far apart from popular opinion.

Proper planning that takes into account both the substantive issues and community sentiment often only comes about once the crisis cannot be ignored any longer. It was only the real prospect of the dams completing drying up in southeast Queensland, for example, that forced government and community to act on the water issue. For now, the complications of our patterns of growth are not critical enough to produce real decisions rather as opposed to more reports. And the benefits of poorly planned growth to vested interests, including governments, are still too lucrative.