Submission 0330
Issues Paper on a Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia
Name: N. L. Carter
Suburb and State: Roseville Chase, NSW 2069
Date of Submission: 7 March 2011
Submission to the Sustainable Population Taskforce
By N. L. Carter
Summary
The (mainly economic) arguments for a high population are false. The social,
lifestyle and environmental costs are real. Our international obligations to
reduce our carbon footprint cannot be met if we continue to increase our
population. That planning and lifestyle change can offset the irreversible
damaging effects of over-population are fantasies promulgated by individuals
and groups with special interests in ever-increasing population and
consumption.
1.
Real Costs of Increased Population
As a child growing up in suburban Sydney I was able to roam in a large tract
of bushland, virtually unchanged since the arrival of the First Fleet. Birds,
lizards abounded there. A creek of pure, clean water flowed through it to a
backwater of Sydney Harbour. Immediately after World War II part of this area
was ‘cleared’ and a large number of Housing Commission homes were built
there. The creek was covered over and became a storm-water drain.
I was deeply shocked by this transformation. A few years later another large
tract of land from the same area was devastated. I recall standing and looking
at this land, which resembled photos I had seen (in my father’s ‘Anzac Books’)
of landscapes in France in World War I ripped to pieces by artillery fire. In
1960-2 a third housing development further reduced this formerly beautiful
place so that only a fairly small part of the original bushland remains.
This taught me three things: (1) that every house (including the one I grew up
in) built on bushland or farmland entails a cost to our environment and
ourselves; (2) that such damage can never be restored or replaced; and (3)
these losses are very real, even though they are not identified and quantified
in money terms.
And the more people, the more damage.
1
2.
Self Interest-Based Special Pleading for Increased Population
I learned later that there no matter how close we get to the end of a finite
resource (such as native bushland), there are always those who argue (from
financial self interest) that they should consume (‘develop’) it and that they are
acting in the interests of all. And they get media support.
Example 1.1:
In 1968 the Department of Defence indicated that it was
planning to vacate certain lands on South Head, Sydney Harbour. Almost
immediately, one of the Sydney afternoon newspapers published an interview
with the Mayor of Woollahra in which he stated that the land would be a
perfect location for “Terrace Development”. Very soon after that, the same
newspaper, or its twin, published a photograph of the residual (remnant)
bushland on Dobroyd Head and Grotto Point, Balgowlah, under a large print
heading ‘Not Used At All’ (or words to that effect). An Editorial cried out in
apparent anguish “Return This Land To the People“. It was fairly obvious that
‘these people’ were real estate and development interests, not those looking
for a home to raise their kids in, and that they cared not a fig for needs for
open space and for kids to experience nature in places close to their homes.
Example 1.2:
Harry Triguboff, a Sydney developer, asserted in an
article published by the Sydney Morning Herald (October 11, 2006) that
“Sydney must grow or die” and that coastal national parks should be cleared
and used for housing. “If people want to see trees they can go to the
mountains” he said. Hyperbole? By his own admission this man contributes
heavily to those NSW political parties capable of forming government, which
presumably lobbied the Federal Government for increased immigration, and
hence demand for housing.
No one in the development lobby has ever suggested an upper limit to growth
of Sydney or the need to link this with long-term government policies on
population. Presumably Sydney will have to grow to Perth and then die,
having devastated the environment, and us, on the way.
2. Influence of Wealthy Lobby Groups on Public Policy
It is impossible for the ordinary citizen to follow the processes and outcomes
of lobbying. There is a reasonable basis for suspecting that governmentsponsored population growth is mainly a response to lobbying by business
and property interest groups such as the above. Maurice Iemma’s first public
announcements upon becoming Premier of NSW included that he would
repeal the ‘Vendor Tax’ (as repeatedly and publicly demanded by the
developer lobby), but also that he would ‘… lobby the Federal Government for
increased immigration …’, thus increasing enormously the demand for
housing and construction (and, of course, for other goods and services). It
beggars belief that these two announcements, coming together and straight
after Bob Carr’s resignation, were not connected through the influence and
political donations of property and business interests.
2
There is a political constituency in Western Sydney which has become a
pawn in the game of making money, I believe, by suggesting that any drive to
look critically at population targets represents an attack on recent migrants to
this country. Of course it does not. All Australians and their children, born and
yet to be born, stand to lose if we destroy this country by over-populating it.
Many assert the social benefits of increased population through immigration
since the Second World War, and in many ways I agree. Because of it we are
now a more multicultural society, which is a strength, and I believe in general
a more outgoing and tolerant one as well. As in other fields however, it is
possible to reach a point of ‘diminishing returns’ beyond which the benefits of
each unit increase in population decrease, and may even on balance become
negative. I believe we have now reached that point.
3. Planning As a Tool For Mitigating Effects of Overpopulation
It is often asserted that all will be well if we ‘plan for’ increased population
(code for ‘… large increases are inevitable and therefore it is useless for you
to oppose them…’).
The history of European settlement of coastal Australia shows that we cannot
rely on ‘Planning’ to offset the effects of too rapid population increase. Here
are just a couple of examples from NSW and Queensland.
Example 3.1: In 2006 a Sydney developer wished to build a number of
residences on certain farming lands on the Hawkesbury River. At the same
time (October 6, 2006) The Sydney Morning Herald published an editorial
stating that “Sydney must grow” and that if they get in the way “lettuces can
be grown somewhere else”. The developer won out. Most of Sydney’s
lettuces are now freighted from an area of Queensland was recently
devastated by cyclone Yasi. If those demanding more growth of Sydney get
their way, there will be millions more people in Sydney and few, if any, market
gardens to feed them. So when cyclones hit again, as they surely will, where
will Sydney’s “lettuces” come from? Not from backyards, since again due to
the population growth protagonists, high-rise (’chook house’) dwellings will
predominate.
Example 3.2:
In another irony almost too ludicrous to bear, most of
Sydney’s bananas now come from North Queensland farms, because banana
plantations on coastal NSW became much more lucrative for developers, in a
market fed by people cashed up from selling their Sydney homes at prices
pushed sky-high by demand due to population increase (combined with tax
breaks and unlimited bank borrowings from overseas).
These Queensland banana farms have been wiped out twice by storms in the
last five years, even though climate change with its predicted more frequent
and intense storms has only just begun. Why is it not asked whether these
banana plantations are in the wrong place?
3
The history of residential development on the Australian coast also provides
many dismal examples of destruction caused by dysfunctional planning.
Example 3.3:
In 1972 I wrote to our then local MLA, Mr. Healey,
pointing out that a particular NSW North Coast beach would be ruined by
erosion if developed for housing and suggesting that the sole structures (two
wooden shacks) on the dunes be resumed. The Minister for Local government
(Mr. Cutler) replied in a letter dated 30 June 1972 that he could not do that but
that the State Planning Authority had now brought the NSW coast under
planning control. The Premier Mr. Carr also noted in a letter to me of 11
October 1985 that the NSW Government had enacted a Coastal Protection
Act, which with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act of 1979
would prevent further inappropriate rezonings of coastal land.
These measures must surely have been subverted because recent reports by
the CSIRO have identified many thousands of homes on the coast threatened
by sea-erosion (as well as some Sydney suburbs at risk from future rises in
sea level). Many of these properties are at risk even without the anticipated
sea level rises and storms associated with climate change.
The damage to beaches and natural foreshores caused by the interaction of
natural forces and property development will be even more complete. (The
NSW Government recently rejected a strategy of ‘planned retreat’ to mitigate
future sea-erosion).
Who will count that cost to ordinary Australian citizens, who love their
beaches and coastal landscapes? No one. Why? Because the losses will not
show up as debits to that absurd measure of ‘growth’, the GDP, and because
there are short-term financial gains to be had from these developments. They
were, and are, never ‘mistakes’. They make money.
The history of coastal development in Queensland is redolent of the same
destructive processes. Who will forget the coastal development and erosion of
the Gold coast in the 1960’s when sand had to be transported from elsewhere
to repair beaches which had been formed and maintained by natural forces
without human help for thousands of years? And how will future generations
ever comprehend why Brisbane was built on a flood plain, its vulnerability to
flood increased by even more frenzied development after the tragedy of the
1974 floods?
We all sympathise with people affected by the Queensland floods, and for
those whose homes on the coast were swept away by the ‘wave surge’
associated with cyclone Yasi. I don’t have any qualifications as a civil
engineer or town planner, but even I can see that these homes should never
have been built where they were, and that they will inevitably be impacted by
storms again and again in the future.
This situation has come about in Australia because of rapid population
increase fuelling and fuelled by a money-based, short-sighted planning
4
system. With continued population increase there are many more disasters to
come.
4.
Lifestyle Change
It has been argued to me that since we have been able to change attitudes to
such things as smoking and the use of car seat belts we can change our use
of resources such as water and energy (open space and biological diversity
are seldom mentioned). But we are not meeting e.g. Kyoto commitments to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions now. How will we meet any future
international commitments with the increases in population which property
and business interests keep on telling us (falsely) are inevitable? Where will
the political will to change come from when a large proportion of the members
of Federal Parliament (including the leader of the National Party) do not
accept the overwhelming view of the world’s scientific community that
imminent climate change is due to human activity?
To the extent that they are open to government control, population increases
should be required to follow demonstrated changes in lifestyle and improved
planning processes, and a rational case then made for such population
increases. Instead, we find that fantasies of a future change in lifestyle and
creation of a perfect planning system are being used to justify increases in
population motivated by quite different considerations.
Recent surveys have shown that the bulk of Australians are opposed to
further rapid increases in population. This is not bigotry as some have
suggested. It is common sense. We have all seen the failure of infrastructure
to keep up with population growth and we don’t believe that can be changed
by changing governments. Road congestion and other infrastructure,
including hospital waiting lists are often discussed. But there are other things
which we Australians once took for granted, which are seldom mentioned. I
get back to beaches. Most of us live on the coast near cities. Climate change
will reduce the size of all our beaches (each one centimetre rise in sea level
will reduce the width of beaches by one metre). Storms will become more
frequent and intense. Even without climate change some beaches near
Sydney have been utterly destroyed by erosion due to high-rise development
(e.g. Collaroy, near Sydney).
A future of coastal megalopolises with many more people, smaller and fewer
beaches, less and less urban bushland and open space - harder to get to and
more and more crowded when we do. Why should we put up with that?
5.
Arguments For Increased Population
Australia’s population is increasing at a greater rate than any other developed
country, and we are the second worst polluters per head of population in the
world. The more of us there are, the worse for ourselves and the world. But
still, it is argued this is a ‘good thing’.
The arguments for increased population are mainly along the following lines.
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A bigger economy means more wealth;
We need more skilled workers;
We need many more people for Defence;
Immigration counters population ageing;
A larger population means more creativity.
We owe it to the rest of the world.
1.
A bigger economy. That a bigger economy means more wealth (all
else equal) may be true of gross GDP. It is not remotely true if by more wealth
is meant a higher per capita GDP. Most countries with the highest per capita
GDP have populations half that of Australia.
Measuring wealth solely by GDP is transparently wrong. We all know that
some of our most precious public assets (uncrowded spaces, natural
bushland and beaches) have no economic value. It becomes quite farcical
when newspaper columnists rate our community’s wealth by the prices of its
houses. Rather like saying we are richer if food prices go up.
2.
More skilled workers. We are told we need more skilled workers. If we
lack skilled workers it is because we have failed to train them at the rate they
are needed, and the need is increased by increased population. Mining
companies may need them in the short term but only if it is assumed that we
must get the minerals out before the world no longer wants them. This may be
true of coal, but then our long-term wealth (in farming land, water security,
biodiversity) may depend upon some of these coal deposits being left where
they are.
On visiting the Pilbara recently I was amazed at how non-labour intensive
extraction and transport processes were. Ore-trains several kilometres long
driven by a single driver?
We have had 60 years of government-sponsored population increase through
immigration, plus natural increases of more than 100,000 every year since
1982. Why do we still have a skills shortage if population increase and
immigration are the answer?
3.
Defence. It is said that a larger population is needed for our defence.
Surely this is the modern version of the “Yellow Peril” argument. There are so
many nations in our region with vastly greater populations that if this were
valid we might as well give up the game now. The truth is that our defence
depends primarily on diplomacy, technology, a committed and skilled defence
force, and defence treaties, not on population.
4.
Population Ageing. Some believe that population ageing, which
affects all developed countries, is bad, and can be prevented or slowed by
immigration. Both notions are humbug. A letter to the editor of the SMH by
Professor Catherine Betts of Swinburne University (6 July 20010) succinctly
explains why. Her views are supported by reports from the Productivity
Commission among others.
6
Professor Betts concluded that the only way to avoid population ageing was to
“… have a large family and die young”. Join the Third World economies?
5.
Creativity. Recently it has been suggested that we need many more
people because large populations are more creative. I have not seen any
evidence that there is a causal connection here. Radar and the jet engine, the
antibiotic era (beginning with penicillin), television, even the digital revolution
began in medium-sized countries with a history of academic freedom and
excellence. Their commercialisation and development were done elsewhere.
The U.S.A. may be given as an example of high population and high
creativity. Other countries with vastly greater populations may be cited to
support the reverse. On the other hand, by their own admission the
differences between rich and poor are possibly greatest in the U.S.A., an
immigration-based country like ourselves (National Geographic Atlas of the
World Sixth Edition).
6.
We owe the world. We owe it to the rest of the world (to overpopulate)
because they have.
We are a world food producer in some categories. The more of us, the more
we eat, the less for them.
7