Speech to the Murray Region Futures Conference 2010,Infrastructure Planning and Population
19th July, 2010
The subject of population and planning is one that has shadowed me for most my career. As a young chairman of a country town council, I was anxious to see my town grow and for its people to have every possible service and facility.In my early days as a Federal MP, I was involved in what was probably the first ever parliamentary inquiry into Australia's population, where we looked at all of the associated issues of population growth and infrastructure needs.
The chairman of that inquiry was Barry Jones, a man who defined the term "deep thinker". Yet for all our efforts - and for all the intellectual horsepower contained in Barry's head - there was no consensus on what Australia's population should be and what we as parliamentarians should be doing to ensure the nation could cope. This was 20 years ago and the enquiry probably ahead of its time.
Perhaps that lack of consensus only reflected the views within the Australian public. The committee received submissions advocating an Australian population ranging from five million to 250 million.
We will always have a spirited debate about a sustainable population for Australia, from any number of angles. Kevin Rudd, as you will recall, seemed to be a fan of "a big Australia". Julia Gillard says she is not.
The Greens want a vastly reduced population to protect the environment, yet argue the case for vastly more refugees.
Former Prime Minister Rudd, quoted as favouring a population for Australia of 36 million by 2050 - but if immigration continues at the level of the last two and a half years, demographers tell us our population would be 42 million by 2050 or almost double the current number.
The Coalition also realises that we cannot swing wildly from one extreme to the other, and there must be serious policy work, consultation and proper process. The economy slows dramatically if there is no population growth, our population must be sustainable.
I recently addressed the General Assembly of the Australian Local Government Association on similar issues, and I commented that probably half the delegates there were desperately seeking a larger population and were spending ratepayers' money encouraging new investment, new industry and more people.
The other half were resisting higher density living, urban sprawl and industry encroachment, and some even had population caps.
That tells you there is nothing easy or straightforward about this issue, and certainly the idea of planning for our infrastructure needs is one of the hardest jobs imaginable.
But we do need to act now. Within three months of taking office, a Coalition government would re-constitute the Productivity Commission as the Productivity and Sustainability Commission and task it with an annual review of Australia's infrastructure needs based on short, medium and long term population predictions.
We would expect the recreated Productivity and Sustainability Commission to provide key analysis on the infrastructure requirements of our nation to support its projected population.
Growing population builds a bigger and more productive economy - but at an increasing cost to our resources and the environment.
It is fair to say Australia could have any size population we wanted, because there are plenty of people trying to get here to live. But the real decision we have to make in the population debate is: what compromises are we prepared to make to our environment and lifestyle to accommodate more people?
Where do we put all these people? How will the groaning infrastructure in our cities cope? Are the regions prepared for an influx of migrants from overseas or the cities? What will happen to the people excluded by local population caps?
Economic modelling by Price Waterhouse has found that to deal with a projected population of 36 million by 2050, Australia will require 173,348 kilometres of new road, 3254 new public schools, 6.9 million new houses, 1370 new supermarkets and 685 new department stores.
These are daunting projections, but let's not forget that they are only forecasts. In 1947, the projected population for Australia in 2000 was eight million, a long way short of the 20 million we ended up with. Even then, at the dawn of the great wave of European migration to our shores, our planners were unable to foresee what would really happen over the next 50 years.
In arguing for a population of 100 million, former Telstra CEO Ziggy Switkowski pointed out last week that after 240 years of white colonisation, the population of the United States in 1848 was 22 million, or the same as Australia's today after 230 years of white colonisation.
The population of the US is now almost 310 million. Stopping population growth may not be all that easy.
Dr Switkowski, the son of Polish immigrants, is a thinker for whom I have some time, even if he suggests that perhaps Victoria could have a population similar to a country of similar size - Italy.
I'm not sure I agree that your state should or could support 60 million people.
But I do agree that to deal with a greater population, in the words of Ziggy, "requires ambition, a strong economy and vision, to plan our cities, develop our regional centres, provide critical energy (and) invest in education". He is absolutely right, and let me add "courage'.
I do not believe Australians are ready to embrace a much larger population but we should be planning now - and acting now - for the Australia of 2020 or even 2030.
As we are now in an election campaign, you will forgive me for taking a crack at the Gillard Government. With her elevation to the prime ministership, Ms Gillard added one word - sustainable - to the title of the Population Minister, Tony Burke.
The minister has taken three months to even name the members of his population panels, giving even the most unbiased observers reason to doubt that the 12 month deadline to produce a population strategy will be met. It certainly looks like a short term election fix to me.
In government, the Coalition's approach to planning for the future was different. My predecessor as Transport Minister and leader of The Nationals, John Anderson, created Australia's first national transport plan in AusLink.
That was a good example of clear vision and the hard decisions needed to set this country up for the future, based upon the expected doubling of the freight task between the middle of this past decade and 2020.
AusLink survives under the Rudd and now Gillard administrations, although it is all marketed under the "nation building" banner. My concern is that only parts of the nation are benefiting from this building, and even then there are delays and big cost overruns.
The prospect of Asian or South American style cities stretching from south of Sydney to Bundaberg, or Melbourne to Sale and Portland, is pretty unappealing. Who would want to live there even if the water supplies, transport systems, energy needs and services can be supplied.
On the other hand many country towns would love to welcome a few thousand more people who would help o make their services more sustainable.
Nation building means more than building the coastal cities and coastal strip. It means looking to our inland regions as well. People will freely and happily move to regional Australia if they believe the infrastructure and services are there. That is what we want to provide if we win the next election.
The regions beyond our capital cities have historically been the economic backbone of the nation and the engine room which generates most of our exports. But the powerful forces of globalisation, overseas migration and urbanisation have meant that, in the 21st Century, our capital cities have become the focal points of much of the nation's economic activity and the places where most people live.
Australia has urbanised dramatically over recent years. We do have a two speed economy - one in cities and one in the country. Services are increasing retreating to the cities. Power and decision making is city centric.
Every member of the current Federal Cabinet lives in a capital city. The Regional Development Minister lives in Sydney and his Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Agriculture live in neighbouring electorates. Is it any wonder regions find they do not get a fair share?
Creating dynamic, stable, secure and viable regional economies is essential for Australia's future. Government cannot redress uneven growth across regions, or solve the uncertainties of international markets. But the regions have the capacity for much better economic performance, and practical support for regional economies will help to make them more competitive.
As you know, regions tend to have an ageing population. Their best and brightest young people often leave for the city, and most do not return. Migrants from the city or other countries do not typically settle in the regions most in need of new blood and new ideas. As new industries and enterprises emerge, regional economies must
diversify to ensure their future.
Australia has something of a history of regional development programs which have been delivered by different levels of government without much coordination or evaluation. We need to work on that process, delivering a fair share for the regions while at the same time coordinating in partnership with state and local governments. For a start, under the financial agreements we have with the states, the Commonwealth should be insisting upon identified funding proportions for regional areas.
On behalf of the Coalition, I announced last month that $1 billion would be set aside for a Regional Education Fund, above and beyond existing funding. Again, this is the sort of program that will encourage people to live in the regions in the knowledge that their children will be able to reasonably access higher education.
We also plan to retain the Better Regions Program, but broaden it from the corrupt Labor version which prevents anyone other than Labor candidates applying for funds.
Finally, I am disappointed to hear that the Minister for Water, Penny Wong, is not here to speak at this conference, as she originally promised. I would certainly like to hear what she thinks about the critical issue of water and irrigation for communities dependent on the Murray.
The guide to the long term plan for the Murray Darling Basin is meant to be released next month, but who knows whether it will happen during an election campaign. Any further delay will just add to the uncertainty and confusion that is rampant among irrigators and farming communities.
In government we led the way in introducing water resources reform. Sadly, our successors have hijacked water resources to address the environmental concerns of the big cities and has spent billions on piecemeal water buy backs without any clear strategic plan. Water has been bought in the Murray Darling Basin at the cheapest price, without any assessment of the social or economic impact on regional communities.
We remain committed to major investment in the re-plumbing of regional Australia to save water and create more options for water use for the environment, towns and farms. The Nationals in Coalition will also un-freeze the $5.8 billion set aside as part of the $10 billion National Plan for Water Security for infrastructure. Farmers are willing to make savings and to share water with the environment, but they need support. You can have more water for the environment without taking it away from food producers and regional communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on these important and critical issues for regional Australia, and indeed the nation as a whole. I look forward to your questions.
