Housing greed

“Foreign home buyers backflip”, The Age, 24/4. The Federal Government reversed its baffling decision to allow foreign investors to buy homes in Australia unimpeded. Though I have to wonder if this is due in part to an election taking place later this year.

I am utterly sick of this country’s obsession with housing – more accurately, the property market being regarded as a form of wealth generation. A house is first and foremost a place to live in. I am also sick of living in what seems to be a semi-permanent construction zone, sick of the increasing overcrowding and overdevelopment that is making my neighborhood and many others stressful to live in, sick of the ugly monstrous houses that are blighting once-pleasant streets. This columnist expresses similar feelings:

Our suburbs are changing as swathes of properties are being bought by foreigners seeking a home purely as an investment. Because they’re investors, often they’re not personally interested in the communities they are buying into. For some there’s no respect for community, history or heritage. Perfectly good houses that come with large leafy gardens are being flattened to make way for massive mansions with tiny courtyards. Many of the buyers are families of overseas students, and other temporary residents who have little connection with the area they buy into. The real trouble is that we can’t turn back the clock. Daggy, but liveable – and affordable – houses are being razed and replaced by monstrosities that sometimes soar three storeys.

I honestly wish the property market would collapse. I want the quiet neighborhood back that I used to live in, want these ugly new houses razed. I would like to firebomb the housing estates spreading like cancers over what open land remains around Melbourne.

I have not been writing much out of such despair. I am powerless to do anything to stop this destruction.

A collection of letters from The Age:

10/4:

Population

In the year of biodiversity, Michelle Grattan writes an entire article on population without mentioning the word “environment”.

– Julia Thornton, Surrey Hills

Ever since huge numbers of immigrants have been arriving in Australia, the majority of the population has always been against their arrival. We are continuing the tradition.

– Con Vaitsas, Lakemba

Given the rapid population increase that is putting pressure on housing, hospitals and the transport network, what is the government’s policy on increasing the death rate?

– Roger Farrer, Hampton

Politicians asking wrong questions

If climate change represents the “greatest moral challenge of our time” then population growth represents the greatest moral foundational question of our time, especially considering Australia’s coal-fired per capita carbon emission rate. While we have a moral obligation to accept as many refugees as possible, immigration policy is another matter.

What is the ethic of poaching skills from developing countries? Unfortunately, politicians of both persuasions, in alliance with the business lobby, have pre-empted the outcome of any debate with the dubious premise that rapid population growth is both desirable and necessary, the only pertinent questions being where and when, not how and why.

Crowded cities, choked transit routes, pressure on food and water resources and a general loss of public amenity are just a few likely problems that, according to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, represent challenges we can rise above if “we do it properly”. Do it properly? Hmmm, let’s have a look at the evidence so far. Two words say it all. River Murray.

– Dave Mack, Macclesfield, SA

Growth end in itself

A point largely overlooked in the debate is that growth has become an end in itself akin to a religious belief. Once, economic growth was a means to the end of meeting people’s needs. Now growth is an end in itself and population growth is the means, feeding it through increases in consumption and the labour force.

Many years ago anthropologist Professor Bill Stanner compared this worship of growth to a cargo cult in which he said “God is goods, and the GNP the outward and visible sign of his glory and his power”. He could have added “and to hell with the environment”.

– Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge

Lower family size

The human population explosion is about more than crowded Melbourne trams; it’s a global issue, and I commend Kevin Rudd for reversing John Howard’s policy of denying aid to overseas family planning programs. Rudd pledged up to $15 million over four years to such programs. This means, for example, that East Timor – which now has to import food – might have a chance of lowering its average family size of seven children. It’s also more likely the mother will not die giving birth to her final baby.

Tony Abbott must talk about his policy on aid to family planning and maternal health programs for our neighbours.

– Pamela Lloyd, West Brunswick

Start slowing now

That majority of Australians who are happy with a population of 30 million but not happy with 36 million needs to recognise that unless we put policies in place now, the population isn’t somehow going to slow down at 29.5 million and stop at 30. The bigger it gets the faster it grows, so we need to start slowing down now.

Incidentally, when we reach 30 million there will be the same amount of water as there is now so we’ll need to get used to having about a third less water each. As we will also have reduced our total carbon emissions by then, too, we will have to cut them further by another third.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

Cut complacency

Michelle Grattan’s comments on the broader solution to managing Australia’s population are concerning (Comment, 9/4). The argument for “sustainability” earned a half-paragraph, with reasoning that we will simply work something out. We live in one of the driest countries. Australians do not need encouragement to be complacent.

– Angus Carter, Albert Park

11/4:

Less is more

What welcome news you bring. The Rudd government is going to consider population levels seriously, hopefully as part of a long-term strategy for a sustainable Australia. I believe a population of 20-25 million is a good target. This will allow infrastructure to catch up with demand, environmental degradation to be curtailed, housing pressures to ease, greenhouse gas targets to be met, adequate water resources to be found – the list goes on. Our addiction to raw growth must be changed to an enthusiasm for sustainable development, putting quality before quantity.

– Gordon Payne, South Fremantle

26/4:

Welfare for well-off

While it is heartening that the government has reversed its foreign investment real estate policy (“Foreign home buyers backflip”, The Age, 24/4), it needs to do much more if it is serious about tackling the issues of affordability and access.

Our housing system is increasingly divisive and continues to lock an increasing number of people out of home ownership and into relatively insecure rental arrangements. It is appalling that government policies support this and the wealth creation of an increasingly small proportion of the population – property investors and real estate agents.

Negative gearing and other tax perks that drive demand and inflate prices are a form of welfare. It is perverse that taxpayers are subsidising those who least need assistance, reinforcing social and economic exclusion in the process. Surely the government is responsible for the welfare of all its citizens?

– Sonia Martin, Camberwell

Insensitive agents

Estate agent Adam Gillon might get a “warm, fuzzy feeling” about overseas property buyers being at his auctions (The Age, 24/4) but he clearly doesn’t have adult children like myself who feel hopeless and dejected about ever being able to get into the property market.

In the current real estate climate it is insensitive comments like Gillon’s that give real estate agents a poor reputation.

– Diana Holten, Surrey Hills

Population Minister

On 3/4, PM Kevin Rudd announced the appointment of a Population Minister, in the form of Tony Burke, who is already Minister for Agriculture. It seems that, in an election year, he is realizing that his assertion of supporting a “big Australia” is at odds with the views of many citizens. Whether this appointment actually achieves anything seems dubious; it appears more of an appeasement to such citizens. Tony Burke is to spend “12 months writing a population strategy” – conveniently ending after the Federal election.

A letter from the H-S, 7/4:

Population debate overdue

Rudd has finally woken up to the fact that a growing majority of voters do not agree with government policy of the massive population increase being forced on us. It is overloading our infrastructure and damaging both environ ment and the quality of the wonderful Australian way of life. However, one wonders whether he is serious or not? If he’s really serious, he would have appointed Kelvin Thomson Minister for Population.

Thomson is the clear-sighted MP who was courageous enough to speak out in Parliament last year and ignite the population debate across Australia. We owe him a debt of gratitude.

When will the Victorian Government and Opposition appoint a minister and shadow minister for population? Victoria is being swamped more than any other state in Australia. Time to say, “we are full”.

– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash, Camberwell

Not surprisingly, property developers oppose any curb on population, because it will affect their profits – never mind the environmental and social cost. Urban Taskforce Australia are the enemy!

Tony Burke claimed today that “it is impossible to cap the nation’s population growth”. Bullshit! They’re the government – they could cap growth if they really wanted to, but they are beholden to corporate donors and business lobby groups such as the one previously mentioned.

The Age letters, 3/4:

Given Melbourne’s over-population, the government should stop wasting taxpayers’ money on major events designed to attract more people.

– Matthew Engert, Preston

5/4:

Sustainability is the key for the 22m already here

Now that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has appointed a Minister for Population (“Rudd flips on ‘big Australia’ ”, The Sunday Age, 4/4), the appointee needs to look not just at what might not be sustainable in the future but, rather, what’s already unsustainable for many of the 22 million people at present coastally crowding Australia. He should have been put in the job yesteryear.

Incredibly, shamefully, our indigenous people are still sheltering under bits of wood and scraps of corrugated iron and there’s virtually no social housing program worthy of the name.

Renters are paying almost as much as home buyers and the immigration influx has no regard to the shrinking overall resources. Government-hoarded land needs to be freed up and councils need to stop allowing landlords to pack houses to the rafters and charging families by the room.

Too much time is being spent cataloguing already recognised public health problems and listing piecemeal solutions that are one, two or even three federal elections away.

Hotels and liquor outlets don’t need to be open all night long and it might be good to see more than just one politician actually physically exercising in public.

It’s the present that’s the problem. Fix that and the future will take care of itself.

– Brian Haill, Frankston

Zero is the marker

Well done, Kevin. Devoting some attention to this global issue, following your earlier over-the-top enthusiasm for a projected 2050 population of 35 million in this dry, dry land, is welcomed.

Overpopulation is a world problem, not just a coming Australian issue. But I worry that this will become migrant bashing when it really hinges on fertility, worldwide. Already, the Liberals’ new right-leaning leadership is turning the announcement into a call for a loathing of the handful of asylum seekers who arrive here by boat.

Let’s forget the previous government’s mantra of “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country” and stop funding the third and subsequent births and get back to the real universal need – zero population growth. If Tony Burke is to make a mark, that has to be his contribution to stabilisation of the world’s population.

– John Gourlay, South Yarra

On the wrong foot

While it’s wonderful that the government has at last recognised the need for a population policy, and given Tony Burke the job of writing it, it seems to have already decided some important aspects of it. For example, one of Burke’s jobs is to determine what size population we can sustain, while another is to see how we can boost the population in rural areas. Isn’t that jumping the gun a bit?

If he can find any rural areas with too much water, food and fibre production, wildlife and clean air and not enough high-density living, where the people want more traffic and crime, then maybe he could suggest increasing the local population.

Until then, perhaps it would be better to work on finding the sustainable level, rather than starting with the assumption that the rural population is too low.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

People issues to ponder

Tony Burke will be Australia’s first Population Minister and will draw up a strategy on how to support the growing population and its effect on infrastructure and services, housing, congestion, the environment, agriculture and water.

It seems his brief is to take population growth as a given and come up with some ideas on how to cope with it.

If we have a Population Minister, people might think we have a population policy. Questions for Minister Burke: Will you establish a figure for our maximum desirable population after a rigorous assessment of our limits to growth? Then, will you tell us what you will do to prevent this total being exceeded?

– Roy Arnott, Reservoir

6/4:

Given Melbourne’s overpopulation and associated problems, perhaps the Victorian government should stop wasting taxpayer money on major events designed to attract more people here.

– Matthew Engert, Preston

Asylum not the issue

IT IS heartening that Kevin Rudd has taken note of the electorate’s disapproval of his own views on population policy, even back-flipping on his vision of a “big Australia”.

It is disheartening that he has chosen to announce his about-face during renewed and dated rhetoric directed at him by the Opposition Leader following the increased arrivals of asylum seekers.

Even more worrying is Tony Abbott’s populist response, linking border protection with the population debate. If politicians continue to link asylum with immigration, then an independent population policy will never be achieved.

The issue of asylum and skilled migration intake are separate in policy and quota. Australia has a tiny quota for genuine refugees that pales in comparison to the government’s massive immigration quota.

Asylum and “boat people” are a red herring that will ultimately blur and confuse the electorate in what is a serious debate. The debate is about whether Australia will choose to be smaller and smarter or, like Tony Abbott’s mouth, be big and stupid.

– Shaun Dumbrell, Williamstown

7/4:

Close our borders

I teach English to new migrants, and, at a personal level, their reception couldn’t be better (Alison Sampson, Comment, 6/4). But, in a few years, migration has quadrupled, and got out of control, delivering 1 million people every 3.2 years. In the same short time, Australia’s education system has fallen rapidly behind other OECD countries that aren’t taking such numbers. Health systems creak; crime accelerates. It’s all our youth I worry about, not recent migrants. How can Ms Sampson be so narrow?

Tim Colebatch, on the same page, rightly asserts that quadrupling immigration in a decade has crippled the housing market for future generations.

Australia is not the inevitable, or sole, destination of the world’s migrants. But the future hopes of young couples to own a home are disappearing with every new million arrivals.

What about those who are already here? Close the borders now. God knows we have enough problems internally.

– Robin Rattray-Wood, Rosanna

8/4:

Population

The government’s plan to double Australia’s population in the next 40 years must be a scheme to attract new Labor voters: nobody currently living in Australia seems to think it’s a good idea.

Warwick Sprawson, Brunswick

Population growth is a global, as well as a local, problem and a major cause of climate change. The two should be tackled the same way – with global and local solutions.

– Julia Thornton, Surrey Hills

Run on the cheap

We live next to a railway station in the inner suburbs, and a medium-density redevelopment is under way a few doors up (Tim Colebatch, Comment, 6/4). The unfortunate part about this is not the building, which is mediocre enough, but the cars. Parking is already under pressure because of the station.

No off-street parking has been provided, nor does the council require it – and there is always an expectation that every household will be able to have one or more cars. What makes this a bad idea in narrow inner-Melbourne streets is, as always, the car.

There is no magic bullet to solve overcrowding. Increased housing density will just lead to other intractable problems.

Turning down the immigration tap while we work out what we’re going to do about it is a good start. Reinstating the Foreign Investment Review Board’s role is another. As my dad always used to say, “This country is being run on the cheap.” Nothing has changed.

– Charles Meo, Northcote

Too popular

There’s been a steady deluge of articles about the population debate, as well as a related issue: housing affordability. Problem is, while the debate drags on, the population continues to grow. The housing shortage is directly attributable to growth, but no politician is game to drastically change the system. For me it is dismaying to see the older houses and gardens in my suburb and others be demolished and replaced with ugly cramped townhouses and enormous multistory houses with barely any room for vegetation, as well as open land be smothered with housing estates that are spreading like cancerous growths. I absolutely hate how Victoria has changed since the early 1990s, when Jeff Kennett’s Liberal government came into power and instigated a massive social upheaval which has been continued under the Labor government following it. It is horrid to live through. Victoria’s population growth is now the fastest in Australia. Popularity sucks!

“Inquiry call as population tops 22 million”, ABC News, 25/3. Various population experts, the Federal Opposition and the Greens want an inquiry into what population is sustainable for Australia. The last such inquiry was in 1971!

“Australia’s population growth is already leading to a range of pressures”, ABC News, 25/3. An overview of Australia’s population issues.

“Carr wants migrant intake cut to curb growth”, SMH, 25/3. Bob Carr, the former Labor premier of NSW, says Australia’s immigration intake should be slashed by half to slow population growth. The Stable Population Party is also quoted:

A new party pushing for a stabilised population capped at 23 million was gathering support, its Sydney convener, William Bourke, said. The Stable Population Party of Australia wants to keep the national population static despite a projected population increase to 9.2 billion globally, from 6.8 billion now. “Australia’s extreme population growth is either causing or exacerbating our economic, environmental and social problems,” he said. The main problems were housing affordability in cities, soaring power prices, scarce water resources and a straining health system. Migration and inducements for families to have more children were contributing.

“Australian population growth double the world average”, H-S, 26/3. Australia’s population growth is 2.1% – higher than China, the US, Canada, Indonesia and most other nations. This should be considered a disgrace!

“Victoria’s population boom could be recipe for disaster says Labor MP”, H-S, 26/3. MP Kelvin Thomson again is a sole voice speaking out against unchecked growth.

Collected letters

Some letters. I tried sending two in but neither got published.

Herald-Sun:

19/3:

I agree with Ian Thomas (50/50, March 17), the world should be practising zero (or even negative) population growth. Governments promote population expansion purely for monetary reasons, not the environment. The world cannot sustain such a large population.

– J. Meulblok, Buckley

29/3:

Rudd not tuned in on population

Australians are feeling the pressure of an overstretched water system, health system, public transport and rising house prices because of over population.

Independent researchers and even the Greens are calling for a massive cut in immigration, and Kevin Rudd does nothing.

He is either completely out of touch with everyday Australians, or he is putting his own interests ahead of ours — either in recognition of the fact that migrants usually vote Labor or his own desire for a UN job.

– Alison Smith, Point Cook

30/3:

Thank God for China and its one-child policy. We need the same here. Population is killing our planet and its reduction is more important than any global warming debate.

– Tim and Christine Stafford, Mt. Eliza

31/3:

Fulfilling Rudd’s population wish

Is it any wonder that more and more economic migrants are try ing to get to our country?

After all, was it not a few months ago that our PM stated that he wanted a bigger Australia, and a rise in population to more than 35 million?

Would-be settlers can read, and obviously think we are an easy touch…which, of course, we are.

– P.A. Blyth, Williamstown, SA

The Age:

27/3:

City’s newest suburb

So Victoria’s population growth is the highest in the nation (The Age, 26/3). Are we supposed to celebrate the fact that the combined populations of Ballarat, Stawell and Ararat are arriving in Victoria annually?

Does John Brumby seriously expect us to believe Melbourne is going to continue to be the “world’s most liveable city” with this reckless growth?

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan has put the states on notice regarding extending growth boundaries to accommodate this unparalleled growth and shortage of housing. I don’t think it will be long before Ballarat is our newest western suburb.

– Shaun Dumbrell, Williamstown

Not open for debate

Andrew MacLeod has told us we should not debate the size of the population of Melbourne as it, apparently inevitably, heads from 4 million to 8 million (“Docklands Mark II”, The Age, 26/3). But will we be allowed to debate the possibility of 16 million? 32? 64? 128?

When cells in the body grow uncontrollably, it is a disease called cancer. The same applies to the population of our city. Melbourne at a congested 4 million provides culture, entertainment, sport, universities and first-class hospitals. There is nothing that a city at a hyper-congested 8 million can provide that one of four cannot.

The green-wedge strategy adopted 40 years ago was not to have an ever-shifting boundary whereby green wedges were slowly converted to development corridors but to set the permanent shape for the metropolitan area. London has managed to retain its green belt for 60 years, while more than 80 per cent of the population of England lives outside its major city.

It is well past time that the government adopted a serious program to make some of our regional cities serious metropolitan alternatives to Melbourne, so that we can all preserve our suburban gardens.

– Chris Curtis, Hurstbridge

A scary future

As a teenager I’m worried that the population in Australia is getting out of control. As I get older, adults will find it increasingly difficult to buy a house. Is this how we want our future to be?

– Georgia Stewart, Kew

1/4:

More dangerous than crocodiles

Thank you for the reports on the human population surge in Melbourne (“People our biggest import as Melbourne gets squeezier”, The Age, 31/3).

Unfortunately the same claims can’t be made for the birds, butterflies, native grasses and orchids, frogs, skinks, quolls, and all the other non-economic populations that we are too selfish to share the planet with.

Victims in another way of this human population obesity are the suburban jam-makers and preservers, who see their old neighbours’ fruit trees chopped down for yet another set of grim concrete boxes, with their ugly and useless box hedges, and “gardens” of pebbles from some abused Chinese river bed.

And we humans think that crocodiles are dangerous.

– Pamela Lloyd, West Brunswick