A coalition of housing groups – calling themselves the “Good Growth Alliance” – has joined forces to attack recent calls to slow immigration into Sydney. From The SMH:
The so-called Good Growth Alliance will push for a housing summit to be held within 100 days of the March election to help re-set the state’s policies on housing and planning, which the Alliance claims has been derailed into a discussion about whether or not Sydney is full.
“A – Sydney’s not full,” said Jane Fitzgerald, the executive director of the Property Council NSW.
“B – if we say that it is, we won’t plan for growth, and that will be a disaster”…
For the housing groups that have joined the Alliance, one of the problems with the recent rhetoric about slowing population growth is that it obscures the need for state and council politicians and public servants to talk to communities about where extra housing in Sydney should be delivered.
This is planning propaganda 101 by the so-called “Good Growth Alliance”: push something undesirable as inevitable, then suggest solutions that line their own pocket.
Sadly, these so-called “solutions” to Sydney’s force-fed immigration will result in deteriorating living standards for incumbent residents. This was made explicit in Infrastructure Australia’s recent modelling, which showed that traffic congestion will unambiguously worsen and access to jobs, schools, hospitals and green space will all decline as Sydney’s population grows to 7.4 million people by 2046, irrespective of whether the city builds up like New York, sprawls-out like Los Angeles, or does a London-style combination:
Last week’s population projections from the ABS also showed that Sydney’s population would continue to grow, hitting nearly 10 million people by 2066 under the medium (Series B) projection:
Given running a mass immigration ‘Big Australia’ program is a direct policy choice, why would anybody in their right mind voluntarily choose a path that guarantees lower living standards for residents? Unless of course you are an industry rent seeker like the Property Council, which gets to privatise the gains from population growth, while socialising the costs on ordinary residents.
It’s also worth pointing out that Jane Fitzgerald’s latest spruik directly contradicts her statement in March during Q&A’s ‘Big Australia’ special, whereby she called for infrastructure to be put in place first before population and housing is increased:
TONY JONES
Can I just ask a question? Why do all the houses get built before the public transport is put in place?(LAUGHTER)
TONY JONES
It’s pretty obvious…JANE FITZGERALD
It’s a great question.It’s a great question.
TONY JONES
Should there be rules to stop that from happening?JANE FITZGERALD
Absolutely.TONY JONES
I mean, you’re with the property developers.JANE FITZGERALD
Absolutely. There should be rules.TONY JONES
You’re talking on their behalf. So, shouldn’t they just say, “We’re not going to build there until you put a rail line”?JANE FITZGERALD
It’s absolutely a no-brainer, and you’d think that we would have done it before now, but we haven’t done it that way in the past, and that’s all there is to it.
Clearly, Jane Fitzgerald went off script in making such a sensible statement, and has returned to being a paid shill for the ‘growth lobby’.
