Growth or bust

Peter Verwer | Wednesday, 1 September 2010 6:00 AM | 8 Comments

The 2010 election has produced at least one consensus – robust population growth is bad.

In their own words:

“Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big Australia.”

“We don’t need 43 million people by 2050…a consensus might be built around 29 million.”

“No one wants a big Australia …”

“Thirty-six million is not a big Australia – it is a dense, congested and overloaded Australia we won’t recognise, much less want.”

The speakers are Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Dick Smith and the convenor of the Stable Population Party (one of several new anti-growth political candidates).

The prosperity without growth mantra is a half-baked magic pudding concocted to feed growing urban angst (and a dose of middle class self-loathing).

Yet our political leaders have uttered not one word about how we can lift living standards without growing.

Maybe Dick Smith will make a clean breast of it. He’s proffered a million dollar prize to a young Australian who can “go out and start communicating with the world the fact that we have to have prosperity without growth”.

He also cites the cheap bogeyman of big business and developers as co-conspirators who’ve conned governments into high growth trajectories.

For many, migrants are the convenient scapegoats for poor government planning.

More worrying is Bernard Salt’s warning that the old White Australia Policy is now masquerading as a “green Australia policy”.

Make no mistake, the anti-growth sentiment has caught hold and it’s our job to put the alternate case before the Australian people.

A recent Lowy Institute poll found that 69 percent of people wanted the population to be 30 million or less in 40 years time.

We should start with a clear recognition that concerns about increasing congestion, declining housing affordability, over-stretched hospital waiting lists and shrivelling access to basic services, such as childcare, are genuine.

These challenges require solutions. Smart forward planning and better management are the pathways to sustainability.

There are few voices in the business community calling for untrammelled growth. We champion sustainability based on intelligent planning.

Australia was once good at growth.

In the first wave of Australian urbanisation in the decade to 1891, Melbourne’s population grew by 74 percent; Sydney’s by 78 percent – in 10 years flat!

In the quarter century to 1971, Melbourne grew by 92 percent and Sydney by 65 percent.

Australians have been bold and successful experimenters in urban living.

Since 1970, when Australia’s population was just under 13 million, we’ve added a further nine million people.

The results are on the board: the Australian economy tripled in size, we recorded unprecedented improvements in living standards, fewer recessions than the rest of the developed world (including the worst excesses of the GFC) and less debt for future generations to pay off.

We also live longer, the air is cleaner, environmental protection is handled more responsibly and the social safety net is more effective than was the case four decades ago.

Good outcomes have been achieved hand-in-hand with growth in the past, and likewise for the future.

However, virtually every forecast of growth for the next 40 years, including Treasury’s infamous intergenerational report, assumes far slower population increases than in the past.

Treasury also forecasts slower economic progress as a result.

If low growth is Australia’s destiny, future election campaigns will inevitably feature elderly couples lamenting the dearth of young people in their suburbs; farmers complaining that their customers are disappearing faster than water stocks; small business people with great ideas griping about shrinking markets; home owners wailing about soaring interest rates and mortgages that are higher than house values; and palms-up, ashen-faced Treasurers declaring they have no choice but to stiff us with higher taxes to pay for basic public services.

In this bleak future Australians will complain that they weren’t told about the implications of low growth.

It’s our job to make that case now rather than wait until we end up like Western Europe, on the verge of economic and social bankruptcy.

The community rightly demands greater livability and sustainability. We need to invest in these community assets and recognise that economic growth is the seed capital.

As we’ve said for years now, better forward planning, smarter governance, increased infrastructure investment and higher productivity are the answers.

We also need to get serious about regional development.

We’ll need to redouble our efforts to get that message out.

There are no shortcuts. The virtues of growth need to be communicated to every Australian honestly, convincingly and urgently.

Peter Verwer | Wednesday, 1 September 2010 6:00 AM | 8 Comments

Comments on this post

  • William Bourke said...

    Dear Peter By all means, put your case, and even roll out baseless assertions like "less debt" and "far slower population increases". They can be easily refuted. But please refrain from playing or promoting the race card. Leave this tactic, purely designed to stifle rational and mature debate on population, to the snake oil salesmen. Regards William Bourke Stable Population Party

    Posted Thursday, 1 September 2011 1:46 PM

  • Strzelecki citizen said...

    Past growth is not an indicator that future growth successful or needed. Yeast in a sugar solution in a jar can double quite a few times, but unfortunately the last doubling will produce toxic quantities of alcohol that kill the yeast. Are we (the human race) smarter than yeast? Or is the "business as usual" lobby going to make sure we have the same fate as yeast?

    Posted Thursday, 1 September 2011 3:16 PM

  • David Carey said...

    Infinite exponential population growth is an ill considered proposition. We don't want your future. Perhaps you could turn your entrepreneurial minds to the opportunities of economic growth within a stable population.

    Posted Thursday, 1 September 2011 3:21 PM

  • Strzelecki citizen said...

    see this article about declining population growth in N.Z. http://tinyurl.com/3v8t5bs It quotes an economist! "'The migration outflow reduced inflation pressures by reducing demand for goods and services and relieving some of the stress on a tight housing market', Turner said." This really sounds like the sky has fallen in New Zealand. Reduced inflation pressure and relieving stress on the housing market, gee that sounds like the end of the world as we know it!

    Posted Thursday, 1 September 2011 3:29 PM

  • Jenny Goldie said...

    This article has so many furphies in it , you don't know where to start. But in essence it is merely an excuse for maintaining the wealth of the property lobby. Talk about vested interest! In actual fact, population growth means more greenhouse gas emissions and an inability to meet our international obligations on that score; it means the paving over of agricultural land or native forest for housing with a consequent loss of species; and it means housing supply cannot keep up with demand, becoming increasingly unaffordable with consequent greater homelessness. And as for Bernard Salt's comment. It is indicative of the pverty of his arguments if he is reduced to such rubbish. Let all immigrants be black - we just need fewer immigrants and Australian-born overall. We are WAY past the White Australia policy. The issue is the ecological carrying capacity of this country.

    Posted Thursday, 1 September 2011 3:39 PM

  • Greg Wood said...

    You say, "We should start with a clear recognition that concerns about increasing congestion, declining housing affordability, over-stretched hospital waiting lists and shrivelling access to basic services, such as childcare, are genuine. These challenges require solutions. Smart forward planning and better management are the pathways to sustainability." Yet along with its advocacy for high population growth the property sector also lobbies hard for tax breaks, low infrastructure charges and Govt. hand-outs via the first home vendor subsidy. So who then is to pay for this 'smart' growth? Not the property sector according to the existing experience. And then there's a myriad other issues like: - 'smart' growth is a fallacy: check out the failed experience in Seattle USA. - utility costs spiral due to increasing marginal costs of production, public open space shrinks, bio-diversity disappears, productive land IS lost to suburbia. It can't be otherwise because THERE IS NO MAGIC PUDDING! - property speculation drives public and private debt levels that lead inevitably to deflation and economic recession. High growth becomes necessary merely to keep the escalating debt levels afloat. Do you think that your efforts to be convincing and urgent with your communication may be at odds with being entirely honest? Or are you honestly clueless about economics? Your summary of things suggests so.

    Posted Thursday, 1 September 2011 3:52 PM

  • Pramgatist said...

    "Concerns about increasing congestion, declining housing affordability, over-stretched hospital waiting lists and shrivelling access to basic services, such as childcare" This is just a small sample of the list of issues associated with a perpetually-growing population and has been carefully selected to only include those that can be solved through building more infrastructure. What about the bigger issues of energy and water. More water can be made through deslination (at the cost of much energy) but the energy is not going to keep growing to match the needs of a growing population. If peak oil is not already with us then it certainly will be well before 2030 or 2050. Once the cheap oil runs out then a growing population spells only a declining quality of life and environment for the remainder of the population. As for debt, Prof Steve Keen has shown categorically that our total debt has been steadily increasing from the mid 1960s until now with barely a blip each time we had a recession. All of this through periods of growing population. Mr Verwer, if not now, when do you propose that we stop growing our population and at what total level? Mathematically, we cannot grow forever so when do we reach the limit?

    Posted Thursday, 1 September 2011 6:41 PM

  • Matt Moran said...

    Peter, it strikes me that you've equated growth with growing population size. (Correct me if I'm wrong). But in any case, what size would you suggest Australis should grow it's population to given Australia has decreasingly viable farmland and topsoil and extremely variable rainfall? Remember that we had a decade long drought not so long ago and likely will have as bad or worse again. Further, in the face of looming oil shortages, and indeed all fossil fuels, many of the technologies we use now to boost productivity what can we use as fertilizer in the stead of oil derived fertilizer and an increasing stream of asylum seekers? If we were to look at some form of decentralisation agenda, where would you advocate building towns/cities or increasing population concentration? Are you aware that over 90% of Australia in relation to farmable land is classified as either very poor or ordinary? Would you also advocate continued high immigration and pro while we have 2 million under employed and growing poverty? Or would it be better (and more productive) to put more effort into getting people off welfare? In relation to building infrastructure, projections for significant oil shortages are looming - articles by the likes of Nicholas C. Arguimbau are compelling given that they show a general convergence to the next few years and this is backed up by recent announcement by UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security (ITPOES). Given we have rapidly increasing debt, and rapidly depleting resources and how much more expensive it's going to become to build infrastructure, what strategies do you suggest to realise the necessary infrastructure and increased services given that we are failing to keep up with current demands? Lastly, by what metrics do you assert that our quality of life is better and that the air is cleaner? Lastly, it would seem irrational to continue to believe in perpetual growth given that all known renewable and non-renewable resources with the exception of perhaps the sun are increasingly struggling to keep up with our current demand. I'd be very interested in your response as to how we can continue to grow while slowing and/or stopping the depletion of our life support system. By all means, investment in technology, education and training can help us improve productivity in the short term, but no long term plan can honour your argument without leading to the local and global sacrifice of increasing biodiversity and ultimately, mass decimation of the human population. Many Australians understand this - it's actually quite basic logic. Economics needs to broaden it's way of measuring economic by factoring in the health of the planet.

    Posted Thursday, 1 September 2011 7:15 PM

Post Comment
* = Required Information

Subscribe