The answer may be to decentralise population out of the present capital cities. This could only be done by either:

1 create more states with tax incentives to move business elsewhere
2 Induce business to build towns with production centres, and housing estates for employees.

(an idea to build a solar electricity grid in Moree is an idea in this direction. Apparantly this type of industry would employ as many people as the coal industry does now.)

Maybe the present government’s ideas on Federalism (with 2 levels of govt) will accomplish something in this area?

Taxes will attract business into decentralisation. Businesses provide jobs in those areas?

On the housing issue, I agree with you Dave Lankshear. If housing was not an investment article, house prices would be lower, which would mean less people renting and more people owning their own roof over their heads.

House prices are still relatively low in some suburbs in Sydney. Trouble is that yuppies and newly weds want to live close to the city in high priced housing. You can buy a 20 year old 3 bedroom house on a quarter acre block in, say, Ingleburn or Minto for less than $350,000

But Ken, you don’t agree because the investment thing is only a smaller part of the equation. The real increase in demand seems to be over 52 thousand people settling in Sydney every year.

You would see population growth being reshuffled, not stopped. Why do these rural centres want to end up a mess like Sydney? We don’t have to actually grow our rural towns into cities, and cities into mega-cities. This is not a leap in the dark. If you want to see what Wagga Wagga would look like after a lifetime of 5% steady growth, you don’t need a time machine. Just jump on a plane and Bangkok. How’s the traffic? The infrastructure? The quality of life? The very air you breath? Hmmm, yummy.

Dannii, those are profound questions. Google “Steady state” economics. Maybe even add in + CSIRO. You’ll be amazed at what comes up. Our whole financial system depends on growth, the stockmarket depends on growth, everything depends on growth and we live in an increasingly smaller world. So in a society rushing in the wrong direction — growth — it’s not like us Christians can take a stand or anything. We just have to get on board and enjoy the ride.

yeah, GREAT questions Dannii. The questions of a genius really....

I live for your praises Geoff.

Geoff asked (or was it Dannii?)

What else is there?

And that IS the question.

Leaving aside the ‘third way’ gobbedlygook of Clinton / Blair / Giddens (and if anyone can actually understand Anthony, I have the number of a good psychiatrist), there is a need for a new way of thinking.

Dave, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Ken’s suggestion: For decades the problem in rural areas has been DEpopulation. Just forget about increasing the number of people in rural towns for a moment - simply maintaining their existing populations would take some of the pressure off our major cities.

But there is also a case for having towns of a sufficient size to justify a multi-purpose hospital, university and the sort of services we have come to expect in a modern city.

Not to mention the abomination which is ‘Brisney’

There are critical questions for the future of our country which require a bi-partisan approach - and we waste our time on nonsense such as ‘The Republic’ (and I’m a nominal republican) ‘Bill of Rights’ (No thanks, that’s why I elect politicians - not judges) and other ‘Motherhood’ statements.

I dont have a problem with community participation: But it requires structure and definitive objectives - not a non-directional ‘free-for-all’…

with arbitarily determined outcomes.

Rob

Sorry Geoff… I was very tired, and thinking of something on Facebook at the same time as blogging, and got my wires crossed. Or is that broadband confused? Or did I have my electrons in chaos?

Geoff, this CSIRO Sustainability Network paper discusses the way the western world creates money. “Debt as the driver of economic growth and excessive consumption”. The article itself is only a few pages long, but the whole PDF is about 700kb with a few other articles you might find interesting as well.

Rob, I see what you are saying and Ken, I agree with your strategy if that’s what it’s about. Sorry for any misunderstanding. However, the whole notion of agriculture needs an emergency level discussion amongst our soil scientists and energy experts in the face of peak oil and climate change. The most reliable method of producing crops may be far more bizarre than anything we’ve thought of so far. If food towers really work, I wonder what impact that would have on rural communities whose main purpose is agriculture.

Rob Callander said:

I dont have a problem with community participation: But it requires structure and definitive objectives - not a non-directional ‘free-for-all’…

with arbitarily determined outcomes.

Dave, your equation that decentralisation = Bangkok situation doesn’t take in the question of “planned” decentralisation. Australia does have other building ordinances which Bangkok doesnt have.

One would have to plan things, taking in the big picture, which includes green issues. A master plan if you like.

Unfortunately you will remind us of the oil/power problem which is surely coming. How do we get around in such a plan?

But we can’t just be all doom and gloom, merely pointing out the hurdles and difficulties.

The biggest problem is always the indifference, selfishness, and ignorance of the general populace. A populace who’s ideas are played upon by the media and politicians. We can’t seem to get together and settle on a master plan. (Will it be a Liberal or Labor master plan etc?)