BCA should be clear about economic growth

Comments on Ben Packham “CEOs say Australian lifestyle is under threat without moderate population growth”, 28/02/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ceos-say-australian-lifestyle-is-under-threat-without-moderate-population-growth/story-fn59niix-1226013441955

It should be no surprising that BCA is calling for this, because it is in business interests to do so. After all, BCA represents businesses.

However, it can be an entirely different matter for the Australian public at large.

For the latter, it is per capita that matters more and also there is a distribution of the nation's wealth between business owners and the general public. They can have very different implications.

The argument that a 36 million population by 2050 is a "sensible" target that will strengthen the economy and improve communities lacks convincing factual backup, if the current lack of infrastructure and the consequential deterioration of real living standard taking that into account is used as a guide.

Growth without productivity means little to the majority of the Australian public. Most residents would prefer higher productivity or higher per capita growth than lower productivity growth and lower per capita growth with a larger population.

BCA should not confuse the public with weasel words like economic growth, because it means very differently to different people. It must be upfront with the Australian public on what it means too.