Bernard Salt argues that the property industry must do more to become engaged in public debate on the big issues of our time – or suffer the consequences within a decade.
In October 2009 I was staying in a hotel at Twin Waters Maroochydore, watching Kevin Rudd on the 7.30 Report. Kerry O’Brien asked the prime minister about Treasury’s then recent revision of Australia’s mid-century population projection from 28 million to 35 million.
As the prime minister explained that he believed in a bigger Australia, I knew instantly that over the following day I would be swamped by the media. And that’s exactly what happened.
Calls from breakfast radio across the country began at 6.00 am and continued throughout the day. Talkback radio also sprung into action: “do you agree with the prime minister’s view of a bigger Australia?’ Contrary views were also popular: “what are the problems associated with fast growth?” My response throughout the frenzy was to calmly and rationally explain that this nation needs strong population growth to grow the tax base at a time when baby boomers are exiting the workforce.
We have no choice. Either we ask Generation X and Generation Y to pay more tax per capita, or we ask baby boomers to ease up in their demands in retirement.
Could I suggest that neither of these options will fly? The only way to offset the impact of the baby bust next decade is to grow the tax base through immigration. That’s why we need a big Australia, at least in the short term. And, make no mistake, this trajectory is good news for the property industry.
A week later I wrote a piece for The Australian’s Weekend Inquirer along similar lines. The reaction to my commentary was swift. Deep Green bloggers and commentators went into overdrive: all population growth comes at the expense of the environment.
Or, any growth is a sop to big business and a sell-out of the planet. (Some months earlier I conducted an email discussion with a Green fanatic who suggested that the carrying capacity of the Australian continent was about half a million people although, because humans are native to Africa, perhaps we should vacate the continent altogether.)
The 35-million issue ran hot for two weeks and then died down. Although I must say the “growth vs no growth” issue is ascendant and is likely to remain so during 2010. What disappointed me about this debate was the lack of supporting comment emanating from the property industry. No-one that I could see was out there putting the case for growth.
And I suspect the reason is that “big (property) business” doesn’t want to draw attention to itself on a contentious public issue. There seems to me to be almost a timidity in property individuals getting involved in public debate about growth. The logic seems to be don’t rock the boat.
But I question this approach.
If the property industry continues to remain silent on big policy issues then public opinion will ultimately swing against development. Think about it. If every time a growth or development issue is raised in the media, and all anyone hears is how this is yet another example of “big business” pillaging the environment, then public opinion will shift against the development community.
Indeed, without a counter argument being put out there by credible people then, over time, it will become increasingly difficult to get anything past the public objection process.
I would like to see a more muscular approach being taken by the property industry in matters relating to public policy and public opinion. There are very good reasons why this nation should grow to 35 million and beyond, not the least of which are military and diplomatic.
I think the property industry is in a battle for hearts and minds. But if the industry doesn’t even compete in the public debate then this ground is immediately conceded to opposing views. Public opinion will expand into a vacuum. Don’t let the vacuum exist. Get out there and fill it with counter arguments.
The strategy of “not responding” will just make things harder down the track. It’s like death by a thousand cuts. Not responding publicly to the 35-million debate might deliver a short-term strategic advantage. But there comes a point where, in the absence of a powerful counter argument, public opinion will shift against development.
I see this as a great danger and one that, if it is not corrected, will end up making life difficult, if not impossible, for the property industry before the end of next decade.
If you have an opinion on the big issues of the day then I say get out there and spruik your interpretation into the public domain. This is part of healthy robust debate in a democratic community; it also ensures that swayable people are presented with both sides of the argument on “development” issues.
Bernard Salt is a KPMG Partner. Email: bsalt@kpmg.com.au; twitter.com/bernardsalt
