“Despite the potential benefits of developing a national plan there are major obstacles, primarily stemming from state and local governments seeing it as a threat to their autonomy,” writes planning columnist MIKE QUIRK. 

Australia’s population is to increase from 28 million currently to around 39 million by the mid of 2060s, according to the federal government’s 2026 Intergenerational Report (IGR) projections. 

Key assumptions are for life expectancy to increase, fertility rate per woman to decline from 1.5 to 1.34 children and annual net overseas migration (NOM) to average 235,000 a year, a level seen as necessary to offset falling birth rates.

As Simon Kuestenmacher (the “Stats Guy”) observed, the population is predicted to age with relatively fewer workers supporting relatively more retirees.

He argues the level of NOM should be the outcome of a national planning exercise. Given the demographic changes, how many doctors, nurses, engineers, construction workers and IT workers are needed? How many can be trained locally and how many need to be attracted from overseas? 

The IGR does not focus on the location of activity despite the federal government’s migration policy, infrastructure decisions, housing programs and regional development initiatives all influencing where people live and work.

Based on the view that agglomeration (a cluster of disparate things gathered together) economies of cities increases productivity, the report simply says capital cities are expected to grow far more quickly than regional areas.

Increasing density in major cities is the default option (with the possible exception of the Sydney-Newcastle high speed rail (HSR), much to the chagrin of some residents.

However, do the productivity benefits sufficiently outweigh the negative impacts of high growth including increased housing costs, worsening congestion, the creation of heat islands, loss of vegetation, longer commutes and the inadequate provision of transport, schools, health and utilities infrastructure?

Increased housing costs have flow-on effects to fertility, workforce mobility, wealth inequality and intergenerational equity. They reduce labour mobility by preventing workers from relocating to areas where employment opportunities are strongest, limit access to jobs for lower-income households and increase travel times and transport costs. 

The Planning Institute of Australia’s report Growing Well: National Plan for Australia’s Growth, released in April calls on the federal government to establish a long-term framework to manage the country’s population growth that better aligns land-use planning with infrastructure delivery, economic development and community services. 

The national plan, by examining the benefits and costs of different population growth scenarios, would enable governments to plan for growth in a more co-ordinated, integrated and strategic way based on a better understanding the trade-offs between policy choices in housing, infrastructure, migration and regional development.

The broad scenarios identified to accommodate population and economic growth were Mega-regions in which the largest cities continue to dominate; Connected City Regions characterised by faster intercity transport; New Cities; Regional City Networks and Climate Resilient Cities where settlement is determined by assessment of climate risks. 

A national plan would assist in the development of the right housing in the right locations by evaluating the housing needs of the community in terms of dwelling price, type and location.

After assessing employment opportunities, social and physical infrastructure, it would advise on the best locations to manage growth. 

Despite the potential benefits of developing a national plan there are major obstacles, primarily stemming from state and local governments seeing it a threat to their autonomy, the short-term focus of politicians and the complexity of the assessments required. 

In these polarised times a national approach would be labelled by some as Communism, as naïve and idealistic or the issues are too complex for objective priority-setting and it would result in little more than sophisticated pork barrelling.

Proposals would likely be challenged by disgruntled states perhaps replicating disputes surrounding the Grants Commission’s attempts to fairly distribute goods and services tax revenues. 

The criticism of the Albanese government’s prioritisation of the Sydney-to-Newcastle HSR is indicative.

One of its major benefits is the increase in land supply in the greater Newcastle area.

Concerns include the project (estimated cost $93 billion) is diverting much needed funds from health and education, the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne Corridor would have been less costly and easier to implement and the financial analysis is flawed. 

Another concern is the lack of influence and under-resourcing of strategic land-use planning in existing bureaucracies. 

Where, given the poor analytical base of most metropolitan plans, are the skills to undertake the complex analysis required for a national plan?

For example, the 2018 ACT Planning Strategy’s policy to increase the share of development in established areas was made without evaluating housing demand, the net environmental impacts of increased car-dependent development in surrounding NSW or the potential greenfield supply in the territory. Furthermore, the ACT’s feeble justification of light rail does not suggest the existence of competence.

In the current politicised environment, a comprehensive consideration of location has been placed in the too-hard basket.

If a growth pattern that improves housing affordability and economic productivity is to develop, location has to be given a greater weight in decision making. 

Mike Quirk is a former NCDC and ACT government planner.

News all day, every day at CityNewsQBN.com.au.