Planners are meeting in Adelaide – here’s what’s keeping them up at night
Darren Crombie, president of the Planning Institute of Australia, took time out during the institute’s big planning congress in Adelaide on Thursday to run through some of the big issues confronting his members.
You could say they’re the things that keep a lot of people awake at night right now: climate change, urban heat, sea level rises, land use management, housing, Indigenous rights in planning, equity – just to name the most intense at the top of the pile.
But with his long background in Queensland government planning, specialising in infrastructure, combined with his role to manage a hugely diverse bunch of professionals you quickly sense Crombie has cultivated a diplomatic approach to the intensity bit.
Consultation, bringing people with you, diversity of views is more his forte.
Even so as the conversation warmed up, Crombie was happy to make some strong points – especially on the value of social housing delivered by government – and the general responsibility of planners.
It was clear that planners were best placed to think about long term outcomes that benefitted the public good, he said, and this needed to be encouraged.
So, what are the big issues his members are engaged in – especially the 700 or so that are attending the three-day conference that ends on Friday?
First and foremost, Crombie wanted to sing the praises of the PIA’s award winners.
Among these he was keen to aim a strong spotlight at the Indigenous winners in the cohort and the embrace of Reconciliation as a core goal of institute activities.
“We’re well and truly on the path to much better ensure that reconciliation with First Nations People is better understood,” he said during our telephone chat.
“We were a very early supporter of the Uluru Statement From the Heart, and we amended our own constitution to recognise and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in approaches to land use planning and management and that this is integral to their law, customs, their livelihood and wellbeing.”
His sense was that the majority of planners supported this.
There have been some “really solid steps” in planning with Country, he said, but clearly with “a long way to go”. “My sense is that most planners are very supportive.
“As a profession, we deal with Country every day, even if we don’t think of it that way.” His travels through many outback and disadvantaged parts of Queensland underscore the urgent need for better outcomes.
First Nations issues are “absolutely and front and centre” of the profession, he says, followed by digital data and its opportunities, and stakeholder engagement.
In the next few years, a big effort needs to be made in housing and climate change, he adds. These are areas that loom large for the federal government.
Results on climate from various levels of government across the nation so far are a “mixed bag”, and here’s where the diplomacy kicks in: “Some governments have done more, and some have more to go.
“It’s the issue of our age.
“There’s not a lot of folk who can think really long term on how to deal with the intergenerational challenges; how we don’t make bad decisions. Some do better than others.”
And the challenges vary. Places like Queensland have serious issues with flooding, sea level rises and climate induced natural disasters. Southern states must deal with more periods of intense heat and bushfires.
There are no single solutions.
A barrier to better outcomes Crombie says, is that a “collective society” we don’t understand the consequences of our decisions as much as we should. He’d like to see the ability to not perpetuate mistakes, such as continuing to build in flood plains. But also, to develop ways to reduce the need for air-conditioners and to understand how effective more tree canopy cover can be for that.
This ideally means everyone in the field being alert to the potential outcomes and to not expect someone else to fix the problems. It’s a complex system we’re in, he says, and these are “very long-term issues.”
“I think we should be acting in the public interest and be very mindful of the impact coming down the pipe.”
Crombie is encouraged by the federal government’s recent budget announcement to support cities and suburbs.
“It’s important that the Commonwealth is actively involved, even if they don’t have the Constitutional hooks to play with.”
The institute has been a long-term supporter of a national settlement policy for instance, that can plan for the patterns of where people can live and how to support those patterns of population distribution with appropriate infrastructure.
“Otherwise, everyone’s just taking a stab in the dark.”
Part of the role of the Commonwealth is to provide strong reliable information that’s consistent across the country including for climate.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics, he says, does an “awesome” job but we need more. Including on good consistent climate data.
Housing crisis needs strong government intervention because this pays multiple dividends
As for the growing politicisation of immigration and population policy in response to the housing crisis, Crombie is not at all concerned this should be taken seriously.
“We’re a big country; we have big space.”
He likens Australia to Canada, – similar population, three tiers of government, dependence on food, energy and mineral production and a population dotted around the coast in Australia and the US border in Canada.
“They’re easily carrying 40 million.” We’re slated for 30 million.
We need that growth, he says. Especially as the population ages.
But the housing; the housing
But of course, we need a lot more affordable housing and a better range of housing options that hopefully won’t be driven by speculation or as part of an investment category. “That’s one of the things that distort the market, rather [we need] housing to be treated as a human right.”
On social housing he thinks there are big dividends that would flow from government investment. As a Queenslander, he’s seen the fruits of his state’s attitude to social housing as part of infrastructure. They’re huge.
First, it’s public money flowing to a public good.
Then there is the opportunity to train apprentices because large infrastructure projects need skilled people while housing can take young people and give them the skills to go and build more housing.
And with good planning you can put that where it’s needed. And government has plenty of well-located land, he says.
“I’m not a believer in putting affordable and affordable and social housing on the fringe. I would much rather see more diverse housing provided in suburbs”. Especially around planned infrastructure such as transport.
But what about the growing opposition to density even around train stations?
But that’s wading too close the NIMBY Badlands, and Crombie diplomatically suggests this and the topic of how to capture the windfall gains of infrastructure may be best left to a more considered long form discussion.
We agree.