In 2010 I visited
Queensland on several occasions to give speeches about rapid population growth,
in Brisbane, on the Sunshine Coast, and at the Woodford Folk Festival. I
encountered great unhappiness at the impact rapid population growth was having
in Brisbane and South-East Queensland, and was not surprised when the
Queensland Labor Government was defeated in 2012, although the scale of the
defeat was remarkable.
In many respects the
Queensland Government had fallen victim to the same problems that had beset the
Victorian Labor Government which was defeated in 2010. But like the Victorian
Labor Party the Queensland Labor Party has now pulled off an astonishing
turnaround, apparently regaining office in a single term and toppling an
elected Premier in the process. Ted Baillieu was replaced by his own party and
did not get to contest the election; Campbell Newman lost his seat.
Political commentators
are astonished at this growing political volatility. Kevin Rudd was elected as
Prime Minister and replaced by Julia Gillard before the 2010 election. She in
turn was replaced by Kevin Rudd before the 2013 election. It is now widely
speculated that Tony Abbott, too, will not get to seek re-election as Prime
Minister. So what is going on?
No doubt factors like
broken election promises, the 24/7 media cycle, the Global Financial Crisis,
and voters choosing State and Federal Governments of different complexions, are
having an impact. But one feature of the past decade is regularly overlooked.
In 2004 Australia had a net migration program of 100,000. Then in the space of
three years it ratcheted up to well over 200,000, where it has stayed. This doubling
has given Australia rapid population growth for the past decade – we now have
an extra million people every three years. Prime Minister Howard, who
introduced this rapid increase, lost his seat at the 2007 election.
I have become convinced
that rapid population growth and political instability go hand in hand. I think
of this as the Witches' Hats theory of government. Think about those Advanced
Driving Courses that require drivers to drive in slalom fashion through a set
of plastic or rubber orange cones, commonly called witches hats. The driver's
mission is to avoid the hats. If they hit a certain number, they fail the test.
I think the re-election
task of a government has some similarities. It you think of each hat as an area
of public policy, such as education, health, housing, transport, aged care etc,
if a government mucks up an area of public policy it is akin to hitting one of
the witches' hats. If a government hits a number of hats, ie fails a number of
public policy tasks, it is likely to be voted out, just as the driver who hits
the hats won't get their Advanced Driving Qualification.
Now it seems pretty
obvious that if you're a driver, you are much more likely to avoid the hats if
you are travelling at 50 kph, whereas if you're driving at 100 kph, you're
pretty likely to hit some hats. And if you're a government you're much more
likely to solve peoples' problems if you have a population that is growing
slowly, rather than one that is growing rapidly.
The Queensland and
Victorian Liberal Governments were elected on the back of public discontent
with issues such as planning, public transport, cost of living, housing
unaffordability and job insecurity. But as these things had been caused by
rapid population growth, and the growth continued, they did not solve those
problems, and paid a massive electoral price for it. For example Governments
get punished for trying to sell off public assets. They do it to raise money to
build new infrastructure, or pay down debts incurred as a result of past infrastructure
building. But they would not need so much money, or so much infrastructure, if the
population wasn't growing so fast. The Queensland academic Jane O'Sullivan says
that population growth of 2 per cent doubles the infrastructure task compared
with that in a stable population.
It is not only in
Australia that rapid population growth drives political instability. It happens
right around the world. Governments in the Scandinavian countries with slow
population growth are able to solve people's problems and enjoy considerable
political life expectancy. Countries which have high birth rates, like Egypt,
Nigeria and the Philippines, have chaos. In the Pacific Islands Samoa has had a
relatively stable population, and stable government, for decades, whereas Papua
New Guinea and the Solomon Islands have had neither.
It is not fashionable
to focus on our past decade of rapid population growth as a cause of Australia's
political instability and volatility. Some are happier focussing on the alleged
personal qualities of our leaders – they heap praise or derision on Anna Bligh,
or Tony Abbott, or Campbell Newman, when the fact is that a different leader
with the same policies would have led to the same result. Others want to
interpret election results through a highly ideological prism, and come unstuck
as a consequence of believing too much of their own propaganda.
It is probably too
late for Tony Abbott. But perhaps his successor, or successors, and other
political leaders around Australia, might want to ask themselves "do I
want to be yet another casualty of our equivalent of the Colosseum, or do I
want a respectable time in office, as Prime Ministers and Premiers had as
recently as the 80s and 90s?" And
if so, isn't the way to improve my political life expectancy to slow the population
car down and focus on solving people's real life problems?
