Page 3501 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Mulcahy might have accepted without question the common assumption that we must have growth in sectors of industry in order to ensure that they reach an economy of scale. This is an argument that may be true when you are talking about traditional industry sectors such as manufacturing, which have substantial infrastructure needs, but here in the ACT our local economy has an extraordinarily high concentration of intellect-based, creative and educational industries. It is perhaps the local economy in Australia least dependent on economies of scale. There are no vehicle factories in the ACT.
The second misconception is that economic growth equals improvements in the quality of life of citizens. One of the most common mistakes of the growth argument is that economic expansion is in itself beneficial. In fact, improving the average income of residents is a more meaningful, if still flawed, primary objective. Thus the focus should be on per capita growth, not the overall level of growth. While higher population growth would undoubtedly result in higher growth in total income, it is hard to argue that a faster rate of population growth would result in a faster rate of per capita income growth. Even if the new residents have higher than average skill levels, the additional income growth would accrue to those workers rather than to existing residents.
I question whose interests Mr Mulcahy is representing here. Indeed, the only people guaranteed to benefit from population growth are those engaged in the building and development industry. There is no doubt that the building industry benefits when it can cover more paddocks with roads, houses and shopping centres, but there is no limit to this. The building industry will keep making the argument no matter how much the city expands. A city with a stable population could continue to support a building industry, but it would be smaller and would concentrate on improving the quality of existing structures. It would be focused on enriching the existing built environment, rather than on increasing the sprawl.
An ORIMA Research survey shows that the bulk of Canberrans do not regard the endless spread of the city as a benefit. Indeed the survey found that almost three-quarters of Canberrans believe that the city’s population should be no bigger than it is now. I am not saying they are right, I am just expressing the opinion of many people in Canberra. Respondents were asked if they believed that the quality of life would be harmed if Canberra’s population reached 500,000 or more, as advocated by some business groups and predicted by the government in the Canberra spatial plan. The majority—or 59 per cent—believe that the quality of life would be harmed. Older residents, women and households with incomes of less than $50,000 were more likely to believe that the quality of life would deteriorate if the population were substantially larger. Is Mr Mulcahy representing his constituents, is he representing the development lobby, or are they the same?
I believe the development lobby has had too much influence on Canberra’s planning, and here is further evidence of it. Although I reject the assumption that population growth will automatically lead to a better quality of life for ACT residents, this does not mean I am automatically against growth. I am willing to be convinced that there are benefits in modest population growth, but this must be based on evidence of real benefits rather than broad assumptions. We do not need to have population growth just for the sake of it. If we do pursue growth, we need to be careful about the ecological footprint. We need to be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .