HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-03-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

POPULATION GROWTH

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:44): I move:

That this house calls upon the state government to reassess its commitment towards achieving a population of two million and, instead, commit to a growth in quality policy.

I can recall lecturing on this topic many years ago with my fellow lecturer Graham Smith, who was of a somewhat different political persuasion from mine—he was an active member of the communist party—and a fantastic person. We were lecturing on this topic many years ago, and when I say 'this topic', I mean the concept of a steady state economy. I will explain.

It means that, instead of growing in quantity—getting bigger in population and generally expanding in numbers—you focus on growing in quality. So, you seek to have the best hospitals, best schools, less crime, fewer prisons (because you have less crime), and people living longer and having a higher state of wellbeing. When I gave notice of this motion, minister Karlene Maywald, wearing her hat as Minister for Regional Development, said, 'We are doing this.' I acknowledge that in the strategic plan there is quite an emphasis on quality provisions, but the point I want to make in this motion is that you have a target of two million people but what do you do then? How do you turn off the tap when you reach two million?

I take a keen interest in what happens interstate, and the government of Victoria announced a significant expansion of land available for housing in Melbourne and is talking about how they are going to become bigger than Sydney, which seems to be more the goal than whether they are necessarily going to be better than Sydney. But they are talking about a population for Melbourne of six million people, and my question is: why? Why do you want to end up like Singapore or Hong Kong? Why would you want a country to be like India or China rather than Switzerland or Sweden, or some other country such as that? The point I am making is that this call for more people—a growth in quantity—even acknowledging that the strategic plan makes reference to quality, I think is misguided. I do not see any real justification, or any compelling justification, for having a bigger population.

I draw members' attention to some recent articles, one of which was in The Advertiser, which reported that a task force is being set up by Monsignor Cappo. (I do not know how the good monsignor gets time to rest, because he is leading all these committees.) This one is entitled SA Population Ambassadors Group. It is made up of a lot of honourable people—Peter Vaughan, Anne Skipper, Michael Hickinbotham and the monsignor himself. The heading was (and they almost certainly did not write the heading but some talented subeditor did), 'State must attract a lot more people'. Why? What is the reason for that? What is the justification? Some of the arguments given relate to not having enough skilled people and that we need more people for the mining industry.

In a later article (I guess in response, in part, to that but also to the state government's strategic plan), Professor Tim Flannery, in the Sunday Mail of 24 February, is reported as saying that 'populate or perish' is a flawed policy under the major heading of 'Migrant plan alert'. I quote from that article written by David Nankervis. It states:

Renowned scientist and author Tim Flannery has fired a broadside at the state government's push to attract more migrants to South Australia.

And he said the water crisis made any government's policy of increasing population unsustainable.

He questioned why the government was bringing professional migrants to the state instead of training SA's unemployed to fill skilled job vacancies.

'Why is it you would want to bring in more people when there are chronic unemployment problems in parts of Adelaide which must be addressed—(especially) in the northern suburbs towards Elizabeth?' said Professor Flannery, the 2007 Australian of the Year and former SA Museum director.

'There should be more emphasis on helping those who are already there in the state than just bringing more people in.'

In fairness, I think that the Monsignor is also involved in upskilling and trying to get more people involved in the mining industry—people who traditionally may have been excluded because of a lack of skills. I think it is true to say that the state government is aware of that issue and is not simply trying to bring in people from overseas: it is trying to upskill, especially the marginalised section of the community.

Getting back to the main issue, Tim Flannery is right in the sense that the catchcry 'populate or perish' is outdated and, in my view, inappropriate. What we should be doing in South Australia and Adelaide is putting the emphasis on being the quality state with quality people (and this would be a paradox in a way, I guess) and you would attract people who would want to live in a state that had low levels of crime, fantastic educational facilities, the best universities in the world, and all that sort of thing. Ironically, that would bring in people, but they would be people who would come because of that focus on a quality of life.

Books have been written over time. This principle is not new. John Stuart Mill enunciated the concept related to the steady state of the economy (he did not call it precisely that), but it does not mean zero growth. It is a little like when people used to argue about population policy: it does not mean that you do not grow at all, it means that you grow, as I said earlier, in terms of quality, a focus on lifestyle, wellbeing, reducing illness and all those sorts of things, rather than simply saying 'Let's have more people.' I notice that, in relation to the plans announced for this huge expansion in the development of Melbourne, the question arises: how will you cater for their needs in respect of water and transport?

For members who are interested, yesterday a very big article appeared in the Melbourne Age, focusing on the very issue of Melbourne expanding, not just significantly but dramatically. What I would like to see is the state government finetune the Strategic Plan so that the emphasis is very much on being a leader in this state and in Adelaide, not simply to have two million people. As I said at the start, you will not be able to stop at two million. You cannot get around at night with a torch and a pair of pliers and suddenly stop the population growing. Once you get to two million you can guarantee that you will have well in excess of two million, and then what do you do?

It is a little like the policy on selling off open space: you cannot keep doing it, because at some time you will run out of open space. Likewise with population growth: you cannot suddenly curtail population growth, because two million in a few years or 20 years will become 10 million some time down the track, and on it goes, and for what purpose? Why would you want to have more people if you do not currently look after the people you have and ensure that they enjoy the highest standard of living? I do not mean that only in a material sense: I mean it in every sense of the term. Why would you want to have more people if the people you currently have are not adequately housed, are not fulfilling their ambition and are not able to achieve to their maximum?

Why would you want more people if you are not adequately dealing with issues such as mental health, or if you have not brought down significantly—hopefully eliminated one day—anti-social and criminal behaviour? Why bring in more people when you have not dealt with the situations which you currently confront? To me, it does not seem logical or rational. The issue of water is an argument, but I do not think it is the most compelling one because, if you want to, you can generate water by desalination. For that to happen you would have to do something—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: You could have unlimited desalinated water here if you go down the nuclear power option. I do not think the Premier wants to go down that pathway. I have an open mind about nuclear energy and always have had: I like to keep an open mind about all things. We could fix our water problem, over time, by using nuclear energy to desalinate, but that will not happen in the short term, partly because, at the moment, we are locked into gas and cheapish brown coal from Port Augusta, even though it is a significant contributor to global warming. The reality is that we will not suddenly stop generating power from Port Augusta.

I do not think water is the key issue. If you really want to provide the water you can, through desalination linked in with nuclear power, because reverse osmosis uses a lot of energy to turn saltwater into desalinated water. We could do many things in relation to using stormwater and greywater better. We probably would not need to focus much on desalination at all if we used Adelaide's stormwater better and greywater more effectively.

I will conclude on this point: I acknowledge that the State Strategic Plan does refer to quality aspects, but I would urge members (and I can provide a lot of material if they are interested) on the concept of the steady state economy that you grow, that you are not just growing simply for the sake of it and to have a larger population, if it is not going to be a better state and a better society, not just for a few but for all South Australians. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:56): I indicate that I do not support the motion from the member for Fisher. There are many things that the member says in this house with which I do agree, but not this one. I think the population of South Australia does need to increase to 2 million, and it is vital for the future of this state. As evidence for that, I will provide some detail on the workforce needs of this state as we approach the next 10 years.

Currently, there is a good workforce environment. There are 775,000 South Australians in work, but I am told by very well-credentialed people that, over the next eight to 10 years, there will be a need for 340,000 new people to enter the South Australian workforce to replace those who are retiring, and through economic growth opportunities. The retiring numbers are something like 300,000. That indicates the immense number of people born during the war and immediately after the war—the baby boomer generation, which I think goes until about 1962; which is my year of birth—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The Attorney confirms that I am at the tail end of the baby boomers. With 300,000 people retiring, a lot of important skills and knowledge, economic growth and business acumen is being taken away from the workforce, so it is really important that we get more people in the state to fill that void. The development opportunities which will occur over the next 10 years and which will require the additional 40,000 people cannot be met from the existing population.

There is no doubt that unemployment is at 4.8 per cent and youth unemployment is at 18 per cent—that fluctuates between 17 per cent and about 25 per cent for most months.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: As the member for Fisher confirms, it is a dodgy figure because it relies on a youth between the ages of 15 and 19 seeking employment where he or she only has to work for one hour per week. However, it is important because the workforce planning needs really do indicate, I believe, that it is impossible to fill that void of the number of people we will need over the next 10 years from the existing South Australian population.

I believe that the Strategic Plan vision is for two million by 2050. On an average figure that requires an additional10,000 per year. I understand that, in the last three years, that number has been met—and let us hope that it continues. Another interesting factor is the housing needs for population growth. I am advised that there are approximately 600,000 homes in South Australia (metropolitan and regionally). To accommodate two million people, instead of the 1.6 million (or a little less) that we have at the moment, it will require an additional 300,000 homes. That, in itself, will create an enormous amount of work and a need for materials.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The target continues to grow. We are advised of that constantly. Housing numbers will be an important one, but it will put pressure upon the urban growth boundaries. I know that the government reviews that constantly and there have been some extensions to the northern and southern boundaries quite recently. However, as a regional member of this house, I would hope that it allows regional communities to also have a strong future.

Many people are leaving at the moment, which is very frustrating for me. Some are being drawn to the opportunities in the north but others are leaving for employment opportunities where there are better rewards.

Debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT