We’ve
been here before – concerns about our capacity to house a large population are
not new. But lately, hostility to rapid rates of population growth is gaining
traction. There have been calls for a population enquiry and former PM Abbott
has called for immigration (and hence population growth) to be slashed. He
joins a chorus of other voices, from business to community groups. Voters are
pushing back against growth and political leaders are feeling the pressure.
But
these pressures are confined to mostly two cities: Melbourne and Sydney (and
perhaps to a lesser extent Brisbane). There are other capitals and countless
regional cities who covet growth but who find it eludes them. Instead, stupidly
(it has to be said) we continue to cram accelerating population numbers –
mostly driven by immigration – into a couple of urban centres.
Melbourne was
first settled by whites in 1835 and took 165 years to reach 2.5 million people (by
the year 2000). Bernard Salt predicts the next 2.5 million will be added in
just 21 years with the city reaching five million by 2021. He thinks it will
sail past eight million by 2050. Sydney has a similar story.
According
to the Productivity Commission’s 2016 Migrant Intake into Australia report, 86%
of migrants settled in major capitals, compared with 65% of the Australian born
population. More recent information suggests the trend has grown, with only
6% of recent migrants now settling in regions.
The
Government has toyed with the idea of insisting that migrants settle regional
areas where there are genuine labour shortages but there seems little determination
to back the threats with action, which in itself could be difficult (and
possibly illegal) to police.
Outsiders
observing Australia’s handling of growth must be incredulous to learn that much
of the concentration of growth has not occurred by accident, but is widely
endorsed policy. Higher urban densities have since the late 1990s been at the
core of urban development policy to handle population growth in the very cities
now feeling the most resistance to growth. The benefits promised as a result of
increased density were many and the public were assured that they would share
in an improved quality of life as a result of these policies. Take this example
from the 2013 Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031:
“A home I can afford. Great transport connections.
More jobs closer to where I live. Shorter commutes. The right type of home for
my family. A park for the kids. Local schools, shops and hospitals. Livable
neighbourhoods.”
And the
result? For Sydney and Melbourne especially, housing affordability is as bad as
the worst in the world with entire generations locked out of housing.
Congestion is chronic. Private and public transport systems are under more
pressure than ever. Commutes take longer and housing choice has been
compromised. Is this livable? Talk about over promise and under deliver. If
these promises had been borne out by the day to day experience of average
Australians living in these cities, there wouldn’t be the push back politicians
are feeling now.
Even
more incredulous is that, confronted with the political challenge of an
increasingly hostile public, some suggest (from the comfort of their high
priced inner urban enclaves no doubt) that what’s needed is not change, but more
of the same. The Planning Institute of
Australia recently suggested as much, responding to a challenge from ABC
interviewer Ellen Fanning on the 7.30 program that we are ill prepared to cope
with “stuff(ing) another three and a half million people into Melbourne
and Sydney both”.
The PIA responded that “We’ve got a great challenge to ensure that
we don’t end with megacities like Lagos or Manila. We want Tokyos, Parises, and New Yorks – and we can do that by planning
well.” (emphasis added).
Really? Tokyo, Paris and New York might be on our bucket list of
cities to visit, but how many average Melbourne or Sydney residents would live
in hope they’d one day see their own city turn into a version of Tokyo or New
York? I can think of no public opinion poll where we Aussies have put up our
hands to using Tokyo as a business model for urban development. Any politician
suggesting as much would last a nano second before being turfed out.
It serves to illustrate how wide the disconnect has become between
public policy makers and the wider community. The “we” word is used when the
“I” pronoun is what’s really meant.
Maybe it’s time for a genuine reality check? I’ve always held the
view Australia can readily support a larger population but in getting there,
infrastructure standards need to keep up with growth, not continuously lag it. Housing
and lifestyle choices don’t have to be further compromised to serve a model of
urban development which is at odds with broader public opinion. The idea that
much of this growth should continue to be concentrated in just a handful of
cities already feeling considerable strain while other centres with infrastructure
capacity and abundant, affordable housing find growth eluding them is plain
crazy.
The answer I suspect is not in forcing people to settle cities and
regions that are capable of absorbing growth but in making these cities and
regions even more attractive as places to settle. Jobs, industry and economic
growth lie at the centre of this. Positive economic attraction strategies,
reduced tax or red tape burdens, abundant and low cost utilities (power, gas,
water), ‘special economic zones’ – all are elements capable of attracting
employers and industries, and with them jobs for workers and their families. And
if regional employment was further supported by the type of place making and
related infrastructure support more typically only on offer in the centres of major
capital cities, there’s no reason at all that centres like Mackay, Armidale,
Wagga Wagga, Orange, Casino, Bendigo and plenty of others can’t enjoy growth
without the accompanying political pain.
Sadly, even this rather obvious policy option isn’t being
explored. According to a recent
report in the Sydney Morning Herald: “Inner-city
centres on the east coast have amassed the greatest share of Australia's new
public service jobs under the Coalition government as outer suburbs, bush towns
and Canberra took cuts to their ranks of bureaucrats.” So we not only concentrate
our population into a few centres but government jobs as well. This is hardly
spreading the load or sharing the benefits.
Stopping growth by rapidly closing down immigration would be
disastrous for industries which have come to rely on it but this is
increasingly looking like it’s possible. But equally, persisting with our
current approach will only further aggravate hostile electorates in the major
cities, while electorates in centres with little growth could be equally cranky
with governments for failing to produce growth where it’s wanted.
The fuse on the population debate has been lit. And maybe we are
the ones that lit it.
