Hysteria on growth threatens successful population strategy

It is just 61 years since the first Australian citizenship ceremony, in 1949, when seven men, from Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Greece, Norway, Spain and Yugoslavia, travelled to Canberra as representatives of the states and territories where they lived, and became symbols of the New Australia. The 2493 people from 35 countries who became citizens that year, reflecting postwar geopolitics, had emigrated mainly from Italy, Poland, Greece, Germany and Yugoslavia.

The new New Australia is very different. Those taking the pledge in 2008-09 came from 185 countries. More than a fifth emigrated from Britain but most others reflected current geopolitics and Australia's place in a changing world. Most came from India or China, followed by South Africa, New Zealand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Malaysia and Bangladesh.

At some point in the past decade Australians seemed to become less confident of having ''boundless plains to share'', even of the desirability of being big. The rates of immigration have varied only a little from year to year for decades, hovering just under the 1 per cent of the population that the minister for immigration, Arthur Caldwell, set as a target in 1945.

Yet in recent times political hysteria about a few thousand refugees has threatened to overwhelm a successful population strategy. Environmental concerns became a reason to stop arrivals rather than a reason to exercise imagination and ingenuity, and frustration about congestion gave way to despair about urban liveability.

The challenges of the next 40 years are crystallised in Treasury's recent Intergenerational Report, which analysed and predicted national demographics: the ageing population, declining productivity and the need to encourage participation.

As part of the analysis, the report predicted that current birth, death and immigration rates would increase the Australian population to 36 million by 2050.

The population prediction was one of the least important elements of the report but it captured the imagination of the baby boomer commentariat, who grew up when the population was less than half what is it today. It seemed that for many the jump was remarkable, rather than a predictable, incremental increase over time.

Business leaders cheered for growth; environmentalists suggested slowing down; almost no one put the prediction in the context of a corresponding global population of 9 billion.

Confusion with numbers prevailed.

Reports of a Lowy Institute poll about Australians' attitude towards population growth overwhelmingly favoured a population of 30 million or less, and asserted authoritatively that most Australians did not want the population to grow. This quickly became the received wisdom. Almost no one pointed out that the prediction of 36 million actually required a slower rate of growth of 1.2 per cent a year, just under the 1.4 per cent that has occurred for the past 40 years.

The Intergenerational Report's preoccupation was how to maintain a high standard of living with lower rates of population growth, a falling gross domestic product and an ageing population, within the limits prescribed by environmental capacity and climate change. It was not a document advocating unconstrained growth.

Population and settlement are uniquely responsive to rules and regulations. Who arrives and under what circumstances is indisputably a matter of policy, as is where we live and in what circumstances. There are economic, environmental and social factors to take into account but settlement does not happen without thought and planning, even in a market-driven economy. Knowing the population will grow provides a great opportunity to create the future. It is clear that there will be sufficient growth and scale to think imaginatively about how a bigger Australia might look and feel - about the mix of city size and style.

Despite the mythology, Australia has an urban history; most people have lived in the cities. The precise mix and nature of those cities now needs to be reconsidered. The logic of two major cities made sense with a population of 11 million, the mix of major and minor cities works (sort of) now that the population has doubled, but the best mix for a population of 36 million remains to be seen.

There are tentative signs that policymakers are looking to get a better mix between big, medium and small cities, to look at the capacity of smaller cities to grow into more interesting, yet still connected, places.

One of the biggest changes from earlier attempts at decentralisation is the presence of universities in most major regional centres. These already employ thousands of people and could be the hubs of regional economic and social innovation, reduce the gap of services and opportunities between the big and small cities, and, when combined with technology and transport, foster greater regional economic diversity in congenial environments.

Getting the balance of growth right is always a work in progress - and, as the Goss government in Queensland found in 1996, no political leader wants to be in a position where the electorate feels it must chose between koalas and roads.

Source: SMH.com