HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Urban Development and Planning. Given the questions already asked today, will the minister please explain, for the benefit of those opposite in particular, the bases for the population projections within the draft 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: —and their consistency with the objectives of the State Strategic Plan and the ABS estimates?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:50): I am delighted to receive the honourable member's question, because it gives me a chance to put some facts on the record. As we have discussed already, the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide maps out a response to the challenges facing this state as we tackle the issue of where to house our growing population. Essentially, that was the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. We also want to locate the new jobs that will be required to support our economy.

During the next 30 years we anticipate a steady population growth of 560,000 people in the Greater Adelaide Region, consistent with the State Strategic Plan's objectives. This will require the creation of 282,000 new jobs and demand for the construction of 258,000 additional homes to accommodate our larger population.

I concede that in terms of this state this is an ambitious target, but it does not hurt to set a high bar if you want to impose a discipline on government policy making. However, I would argue vehemently against those who suggest that those population forecasts are overblown. In fact, they are supported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics high projections.

In a media release this week, the Hon. Mr Parnell accused the government of 'loading up' our population forecasts to justify planning for new development outside the urban growth boundary. That is wrong—and demonstrably so. Mr Parnell stated on radio yesterday that he is not a statistician. I think that is about the only thing that he said in his entire statement that was accurate.

The projections adopted for the 30-year plan were produced by a team of very experienced and highly regarded demographers and statisticians within the Department of Planning and Local Government using ABS data. The Adelaide Statistical Division (ASD) figures and 'the rest of the state' are the only population projections that are publicly released by the ABS below the all-of-state level. So, if you look at the state figures that the ABS provides, you have the Adelaide Statistical Division and you have 'the rest of the state'.

I assume that Mr Parnell has used these Adelaide Statistical Division projections; however, I am advised that the population of the Adelaide Statistical Division is currently approximately 150,000 less than the population of the Greater Adelaide Region covered by the 30-year plan. It is important that the geographic distinction between the Adelaide Statistical Division and the Greater Adelaide Region is made clear. I table a map delineating the Adelaide Statistical Division within the area covered by the Plan for Greater Adelaide.

The Adelaide Statistical Division covers 1,800 square kilometres. This equates to just 20 per cent of the Greater Adelaide Region, which covers some 9,000 square kilometres. In addition to this, what Mr Parnell fails to mention is that the ABS produces 72 population projection series to cover the most likely range of future scenarios. The series presumably used by Mr Parnell is not the one viewed by the department's demographers as the local one to adopt when you are planning for growth during the next 30 years. It assumes large net losses of people interstate, which runs counter to the government's policy objectives. ABS series VI—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Just wait. The ABS series VI is the most logically consistent high growth series for South Australia as it assumes high fertility, high overseas net migration gains, and small losses interstate through net migration, consistent with the aims of South Australia's Strategic Plan. This is because we will continue to have jobs available in South Australia, and, if we ensure that we have an adequate affordable land supply for families, this should ensure that working age people are attracted to stay and work here rather than move interstate.

I am advised that the ABS series VI high projection is even higher than the population projection scenario used for the 30-year plan. The 30-year plan estimates are therefore entirely consistent with ABS higher projections based on high fertility, high overseas net migration gains and small losses interstate through net migration.

We are taking the view that the way our state is managed can affect population growth. We are sitting on the cusp of a mining boom and we are putting in place policies now to attract and maintain a working age population. To put this into an everyday context, I am advised that the current average weekly population increase for Greater Adelaide is 310 persons. The 30-year plan for Greater Adelaide anticipates an average weekly increase across the entire time frame of approximately 360 persons, which is hardly an overly ambitious target.

Treasurer Wayne Swan last week underlined the need to plan for a high growth scenario. In foreshadowing the latest intergenerational report, Mr Swan suggested that Australia's estimated population is expected to rise to more than 35 million people by 2049, up from the previous projection of 28.5 million by 2047. Remember, we are talking in 30 years about an extra half a million people in this state. In this scenario, we are saying that in two years the projection across the country has risen by 6½ million.

So, while this is across a 40-year period, rather than a 30-year period, if South Australia retains its 7 per cent proportion of the total Australian population, we would be looking at a state population, under Mr Swan's figures, of 2.45 million. That result is more than consistent with South Australia's Strategic Plan, which has established a long-term target of a population of 2 million by 2050, a target we expect to achieve well before that deadline.

Even today, the ABS released the March quarter population figures for 2009 which show South Australia's growth continuing at very high levels. As at 31 March 2009, Australia's population had grown to 21,779,000, an increase of 439,100 people compared with the previous year. During that same period, South Australia achieved a growth rate of 1.2 per cent. I have the figures here for March and, if you look at it, that is 18,600 for the 1.2 per cent growth. Just multiply 18,600 by 30 and see what you get—and, given that it is compounding, it will be more than that. That is what we got in the past 12 months. So, those people who are challenging these figures should look at the stats that have been released today.

South Australia's Strategic Plan commits the government to delivering on jobs and economic growth and reversing the decline that would have been the fate of this state if we had not adopted policies to attract investment, jobs and migrants to South Australia. What we are seeking to achieve through the 30-year plan is to provide an alternative to urban sprawl. Unless we can achieve the objective of the 30-year plan, which is to try over the three decades to put 70 per cent or more of Adelaide's growth within the existing areas, we will have more greenfield development and more urban sprawl than we want.

I think the question for Mr Parnell, who is questioning these figures, is whether he supports continued and sustainable economic growth for South Australia, or whether he is advocating a smaller population and a decline in our state's enviable living standards.

The 30-year plan shows how we can tackle the challenges of an ageing population, climate change, rising fuel prices, demand for affordable housing, and water security without forcing the economy to stagnate, which would be the inevitable consequence of adopting the Greens' policies. Of course, the alternative would be a shrinking population, less government revenues to support health, education and infrastructure, greater reliance on a smaller workforce to support an ageing population, and the inevitable fall in living standards.

By all means, let us have a debate on the 30-year plan and on the population targets, but let us do it on the facts. We need to look no further than today's figures from the Bureau of Statistics.

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