NedKelly

She is taking her ideas from the UK labour party. They started all this bogus nonsense with the Big Conversation some 7 years ago. Then ignored everything they came up with and did what they were gong to do in the first place. Same with Krudd, he had a similar con going with the Canberra summit where they had 1000 people to come up with ideas that were then conveniently ignored. What sort of way is this to run the country? Stupid labor.

IvanM

Don't you want to live there?

In the fifties the idea that Australia would have a population over 20 million seemed ludicrous. All I am saying that if the infrastructure is provided this nation can take a lot more people. The East coast is barely developed bar a few cities. You go from Newcastle to the Gold Coast and there is just a bunch of small towns.

Sustainability is another important part. Moving from growth to steady is challenge and requires a change in tactic.

spalen

Ive worked out the ALP win strategy, they are throwing up so many targets (in pieces of crap legislation, weak policy, screw ups by their leader, mining, rudd vs gillard etc) that the tacticians and strategy team in the LNP will be so busy trying to work out which of the thousands of rich veins to attack and reply on that by the time they make a decision the election will be over and ALP will win.

its a cunning ploy indeed.

I know, why dont they put someone in charge of climate that the people can really relate to, someone famous, perhaps an ageing rock star hippy activist..... oh... wait....

iamthecreaturefromuranus

It is a difficult problem to tackle.
I can see that Australia could probably do with more people. It's a huge nation with not many people in it, but those who argue for an influx of people to tackle the issues of 'aging populations' and I don't just mean here in Australia, have to see that its a policy that really can't go on.... and I'm not convinced even works.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

..and that's the change that nobody seems to want to face. The answer, at the moment, to the demand for more infrastructure, seems to be, get more people.

Where's the logic in that?

Lack of infrastructure.. get more people in to pay for it.
Infrastructure can't cope.. too much demand.. too many people.
Lack of infrastructure.. get more people in to pay for it.
Infrastructure can't cope.. too much demand.. too many people.
Lack of infrastructure.. get more people in to pay for it.
Infrastructure can't cope.. too much demand.. too many people.

It's a never ending circle.

koalakim

I'd agree. When we were coming out they were doing a big recruitment drive for SA because unless SA and Adelaide get more people the infrastructure, jobs, services etc can't grow but then people seem to be reluctant to go there because they're aren't so many jobs etc.

3 years ago when we arrived we did a trip around WA and we visited many of the towns north of Perth up to Denham. They were all trying to grow these towns, especially Denham. We'd got chatting to an English girl who had lived there 28 years and she said a whole lot of land had been cleared for housing and schools to get people to go an live up there, so they could start to grow the town. However, the down side is the total lack of infrastructure there...no doctor (well he comes in twice a week if the plane can land!), hardly any shops etc so the vicious circle begins because unless there were more facilities why would you want to go and live there? We all know that the "promise" of something either takes forever or never happens.

It is a problem Australia faces in years to come and the only way to do it is to offer some big incentives to leave the big cities and grow the country or new towns and that is going to cost.

IvanM

A policy of just bringing in builders to build is unsustainable. What people do not want to face is to pay to build the infrastructure for the current population.

Planned and resourced continued migration is fine. That is not happening now.

Mr Grumpy

Australia need the construction of an entirely new city. One that the entire nation can focus resources on to construct very quickly and populate in large numbers - most likely at least 500,000.

Town Planners reckon the best place to construct a new city is the SE coastal region of NSW - probably around Bega or Eden. It receives the rainfall, is within reasonable distance of Sydney, Melbourne, Wollongong and Canberra.

However the other states would fight this because it would require national resources to go to NSW.

koalakim

I think Australia could "move forward" a hell of a lot easier if we were all just one country, working for the benefit of Australia and not states fighting against each other! It's too small..

ex_exile

Yep, absolutely.

Also the states dont have the concentration to plan past the next election which is why Australian infrastructure is so crappy, there are no votes in a transport scheme that will come online in 2016 but there are negative votes when you tell people you are going to be digging up their gardens in 2010 to sink the tunnel. Long term strategic projects need to be taken away from the states.

man_called_Horse

Heard on the radio the coalition is looking to cut immigration by 100,000

asprilla

Who are these town planners that you speak of?

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Couldn't name names but the concept of a 'new city' down Bega way is something I have heard more than once since arriving here. If you were going to build a new city then it probably is the 'right' place to put one, for all the reasons mentioned. Will it ever happen.... probably not until they ringfence Sydney and Melb and stop them forever growing outwards..

IvanM

Apparently Sydney has some although they are normally overruled by the minister for Meriton.

ABCDiamond

Was that an announcement by the Labor party saying what the Liberals will do ?