Question Time

POPULATION GROWTH

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:21): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the 30 Year Plan and in particular some figures in one of the technical documents.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am studying the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and also the technical documents on the website which the minister claims support this plan. I note that under section 2.2 'Population growth and demographic change', the fourth dot point states that the annual population growth rates over the next 27 years will average 1.2 per cent per annum, above the current growth rates of 1.1 per cent per annum and above the average of 2001-06 growth of 0.85 per cent per annum.

When you study the ABS statistics and its predictions on growth rates in South Australia, it is alarming to see that the government projects that by 2036 we will have a population of 1.85 million in the Greater Adelaide area, yet when you look at the ABS statistics, even its most optimistic statistics say that it will take us until 2056 to reach 1.85 million and, in fact, in 2026 it will be less than 1.4 million. My questions to the minister are:

1. Why are the 30 Year Plan population predictions in conflict with the ABS figures?

2. What advice has he received from Planning SA in relation to the optimistic predictions in the background technical papers?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:23): It was Planning SA in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Economic Development that actually reviewed the population targets for the state and, indeed, they were established before the 30 Year Plan itself was devised or before the process began.

Those particular predictions that are in the 30 Year Plan were based on some of the most recent performance. Yes, South Australia's population growth was very low until several years ago. It has now increased significantly. This government has introduced policies that will help assist that growth and, of course, population growth also reflects economic conditions. If you have suitable economic conditions, population will come to this state, and that is exactly what has happened under this government.

So, there was a significant debate within government about what the population targets would be, and they were accepted by cabinet and that then became the basis on which the 30 year plan was devised. Regardless of whether or not those targets were achieved, what would be the difference if the population target were achieved in 25 or 35 years? Either way, this city—the Greater Adelaide area—needs a plan. Whether it is for 25 or 30 years is not really important. The population targets we have are a best guess, and they are a prediction, because no-one knows accurately what the future holds in terms of population. Certainly, we believe those population targets are realistic; they reflect the population growth of this state over the past few years and, regardless of whether that target is achieved in 25 or 35 years or some other period, we still need a change in direction for how the city should grow.

What is important about the 30 year plan is that it sets goals in relation to how much of that growth should be accommodated within the existing boundaries, in other words, through infill or brownfield development, and how much should be greenfield. We have set that 70/30 target, which is very ambitious. It will be difficult to achieve that but, if we do not achieve it—if we cannot get at least 70 per cent of our growth as infill—there will be much more pressure on our greenfield areas, so it is important that we achieve that objective.

That applies regardless of whether the population goals in the 30 year plan are achieved within 25 or 35 years. Either way, we need to change and reshape the direction of Adelaide. I am happy for there to be a debate as to what that might be but, really, it does not change the fact that we need a viable plan for this city over the next 30 years, and that viable plan needs to look at all the issues related to sustainability and other factors. We need to look at better water sensitive urban design, and we need to minimise the infrastructure costs of a growing population. As I said yesterday in answer to a question from the Hon. Mr Wade, we need to reduce our dependency on motor vehicles. That is why this plan is imperative.

I look forward to comments on that plan over the remaining two or three weeks, and obviously we will be looking closely at the input to that when consultation closes at the end of this month but, regardless of that, one would hope that the community accepts that we do need to plan better for our city. The population targets are realistic, we believe, and are based on performance in the recent couple of years. The ABS, on the other hand, tends to make very conservative population projections, based on historical data.

What the honourable member does not seem to realise is that the economy of this state has been growing rapidly in recent years. We have been outperforming the rest of the country, and it is inevitable that, if we have that sort of growth—and this government intends to see that we do—and as there are more jobs here, the population of this state will grow. In any case, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the original population growth target in the State Strategic Plan was 2,000,000 by 2050, an increase of 400,000. With recent projections we are now seeing that we would reach 2 million well before that, in the 2020s. We would reach that goal by then (somewhat earlier) and, because of that, we have to plan for it. The alternative is to do nothing, which is essentially the policy that we had during the 1990s of just waiting to see what happened.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: What was the plan? What was the plan of the previous government in relation to dealing with growth? The plan was just ad hoc; it was just to keep adding suburbs on. The fundamental point of a 30 year plan for Adelaide is that we do need a change of direction. Our city needs to be made more sustainable. We need to incorporate water-sensitive urban design; we need to consolidate our population within some areas, and we can do it in a way that still preserves the heritage of the city. Unless we deal with those basic parameters within the 30 year plan, this city will face much greater difficulties in the years ahead. It is imperative that we start to change that direction as quickly as possible.

Looking at other cities, Brisbane's population will increase by about 400,000 in five years. We are talking about that happening over 20 years or more. Similarly, Perth, I think, is growing slightly less than Brisbane but at a similar rate. In Melbourne they are talking about 5 million people or more in their plan.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Go and look at the Melbourne plan. They are the targets. Other cities are planning for those particular targets. Is the honourable member opposite really saying, 'Let's just bury our head in the sand and hope it all goes away'? Given their economic policies and the stance they have taken on a whole lot of issues, that is probably what will happen and this state probably will wither and die.