Size does matter when it comes to city services

IN March, I was involved as an advisory panel member to the Queensland government's growth summit.

IN March, I was involved as an advisory panel member to the Queensland government's growth summit.

During this event, I outlined the case for a bigger Australia to an audience that was, for the most part, genuinely interested in what I had to say.

The feedback was that no one had previously spelled out why managed growth was good for the nation and the people.

During one of the breaks, I was speaking with a senior property executive when I mentioned my disappointment that there was not a culture of open support for a bigger Australia among business leaders. I thought the case would be enhanced if the business community was more inclined to talk about the benefits of managed growth.

He agreed but added: "The problem is that if we do come out and publicly support the big Australia issue we'll just be accused of having vested interests."

I have a problem with this. In a free and democratic society, everyone has the right to say whatever they think on any subject, let alone a matter of public interest. The anti-growth lobby's rejoinder of "vested interests" is in fact an attempt to shut down any opposing argument. And most shocking is the fact that, in some quarters, this strategy seems to be working.

Powerful and compelling arguments affecting the direction of our nation are not being aired because proponents feel they are open to the charge of having "vested interests". But does this mean that the only people who can engage in public debate are those who have no interest in the outcome?

And does this also mean that anyone with so-called vested interests can never add anything of value to the debate? Or is it that any perspective that runs counter to the popular orthodoxy should be excluded.

I now understand the anti-growth lobby's stance: only listen to arguments that reinforce preconceived ideas about this nation's future population.

Consider the thinking behind an issue that flared this week in Canberra, where there was speculation that our national capital of 360,000 residents might one day grow to 500,000.

I think that we should indeed be thinking about how to manage bigger cities and especially a bigger Canberra. A city of half a million is simply better able to support the range and depth of services that are demanded by a cosmopolitan community than is a city of half that size.

And yet the very thought of a bigger Canberra has some people reeling in horror. Typically, the naysayers cite traffic congestion and, in this particular case, the difficulty in getting access to a GP as proof positive that the city is getting too big.

It doesn't occur to opponents of growth that these issues might be evidence of the need for better management rather than there being too many people.

Population growth has become a convenient whipping boy for anyone with a gripe about how their city, their town or their village is managed.

If you could magically stop Canberra growing today, do you really think that traffic congestion and GP access issues would disappear?

If bigger cities don't offer a greater range of job opportunities and life experiences, why do Australian Generation Ys flock to wicked London with 8 million people?

Forget about London, Generation Y, why not head for Dubbo? It's a very manageable 39,000 people. Although I bet there's already an active "stop Dubbo's Los-Angelean urban sprawl" movement in that city right now.

If bigger cities and bigger economies have nothing positive to offer, why are there 500,000 New Zealanders in Australia but only 60,000 Australians in New Zealand? Surely all those Kiwis would be far better off living the high life in their green and pleasant and moderately populated land.

And yet they are over here in record numbers. Why? Because they want to participate in a bigger, stronger economy with a greater range of job opportunities and life experiences.

What gets me is that no matter what argument is put forward, from Dubbo to Canberra to Sydney, the anti-growth lobby's response is always the same: growth compromises the environment, diminishes the quality of life and is evidence of a conspiracy of vested interests.

If the anti-growth lobby gets its way, Canberra would be no bigger than 360,000. But surely this is too big. Why not a national capital of 180,000? Better still, why not 90,000?

Where do you stop with this argument that smaller is better? (Except, of course, when you want to do your overseas work experience, then it's off to the biggest city you can find.)

I wonder whether there's a mild form of mass hysteria that has been whipped up over the past 15 years based around the notion of fashionable despair. Despair for a world that is supposedly in peril and, importantly, where only a chosen few can see what is unfolding.

I just hope that not too much damage is done to our underlying demography while we endure this phase of fashionable demographic despair.

Bernard Salt is a KPMG Partner

[e-mail]; www.twitter.com/bernardsalt