Article : Population plan sets no targets, casts doubt on growth

[Fares_Fair]

The Australian
Friday 13 May, 2011
Front Page.

THE nation's first population strategy does not set a target number, and rejects the view that population growth is good for the nation and the economy.

Solutions to issues such as big-city congestion and lack of housing, services and infrastructure in regional growth areas should be found on a community-by-community basis, the government says in its sustainable population strategy, to be released today.

Sustainable Population Minister Tony Burke will launch "Sustainable Australia, Sustainable Communities" on the Gold Coast today. The plan highlights the need for action, particularly on jobs and housing policy, to help people relocate from the big cities to the mining boom hotspots or attractive seachange locations.

The report emphasises the need for more infrastructure to help those living on the outer-suburban fringes to travel to their work more easily, or alternatively a push to bring the jobs closer to where they live.

The plan's broad philosophical approach is local rather than national, and it does not set population or immigration targets.

"The debate when it started was very much people wanting to find a one-size-fits-all approach, setting population targets for the entire nation," Mr Burke told The Australian yesterday.

"We are completely rejecting the concept of targets. And we are also rejecting the concept that (population) growth is automatically good for its own sake. It needs to work at the community level.

"It's all about . . . taking Australia community by community, and working out what the gaps are and having policies to fill those gaps."

Debate over Australia's optimum population has raged since October 2009 when Wayne Swan released part of Treasury's third Intergenerational Report projecting the nation would be home to 36 million people by 2050. Then prime minister Kevin Rudd endorsed the idea of a "big Australia", a notion favoured by economists for the links between population growth and economic growth. But high property prices, urban congestion and concerns about public safety fed into a grassroots belief that the "house full" sign should be put up at the nation's front door.

In April last year, the Coalition released a population policy saying 36 million by 2050 was too high, and calling for a population cap and restrictions on immigration. In a bid to defuse the hot-button political issue Mr Rudd commissioned Mr Burke to develop a national population strategy, setting him a one-year timeframe, taking it beyond last year's election date.

Business backed Mr Rudd, saying continuing population growth is a key to continuing high standards of living in the face of an ageing workforce.

But when Julia Gillard took over the prime ministership from Mr Rudd, she quickly moved to change the government's tone on population policy. She used her first days in the top job to warn of the dangers of "hurtling" towards a big population. She unexpectedly spent much of the first week of last year's election campaign on the issue, telling city voters she understood their concerns about congestion, tough commutes and exorbitant housing prices.
Mr Burke said Treasury's report had not been a helpful contribution. "There is very limited utility in 40-year projections," he said. "Let's face it, if you went back five years people didn't know the global financial crisis was coming. They didn't know about the mining boom mark II. Once you're offering projections . . . of more than five years they're not offering a whole lot of assistance in what you should be doing right now in public policy."

Putting a number on immigration was equally problematic, Mr Burke said. "It's all about the targeting of (migration)," he said. "We are not going to accept the argument that across the economy you need X number of people and where they live will sort itself out. That clearly hasn't worked."

Mr Burke said previous policy efforts to decentralise had been "going against the grain" of the market, but now the mining boom, opportunities presented by the National Broadband Network and the movement of retirees were all pushing people into the regions. He said the key was unlocking housing supply in those in-demand regional areas. "Some of these regions have rents that go between $2000 and $3000 a week," Mr Burke said. "You don't get that unless there is a demand of people wanting to live there."

The strategy itself notes population growth can be a positive.

"In many cases population changes clearly benefit Australia," it says. "Increases in the size and mobility of our skilled, working-age population (whether natural increase or through migration) enable us to take advantage of significant economic opportunities, while greater cultural diversity increases the vibrancy of Australian society and helps build our relationships with other nations. These changes need to be well managed to avoid possible impacts on the quality of life in our communities, our economic prosperity and on our natural environment."

Mr Burke pointed to the government's $4 billion of investments in regional hospitals, healthcare, affordable housing, universities, roads and improved planning to lift living standards outside the big capitals, flagged in Tuesday's budget, as an example of the commitment to making regions more attractive.
Cities would benefit from a greater focus on congestion-easing infrastructure and policies to move jobs closer to suburban hubs, he said.

Story found here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/population-plan-sets-no-targets-casts-doubt-on-growth/story-fn59niix-1226054983051

(Fares_Fair note: no mention of rail  )

[#Metro]

Well of course there is no number... what a political bombshell that would be in parliament!

I haven't read this report but it already seems to sound like a lot of hand waving.

The government can control immigration, emigration is going to be hard to control,
birth is going to be hard for government to control as is death...

... much of this is out of the government's hands I feel.

[#Metro]

she understood their concerns about congestion, tough commutes and exorbitant housing prices.

Congestion is a feature of cities worldwide. Even cities with the best PT have horrific congestion. Tough commutes sound a lot like a "I feel your pain" rhetoric. Exorbitant housing prices are a bit hard to believe are a result of there being to many people. There are lots of people I know buying their 2nd, 3rd, 4th home-- its like some kind of house mania over here. Even small mining towns can have high house prices, which suggests that the problem is not so much population but very high levels of cash in the housing market.

And house prices-- house prices have been linked to just about everything...
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/was-property-slump-is-now-the-worst-in-20-years-20110512-1ek9p.html