The obvious and sensible solution is less people.
Win win all through.

ateday, that way we get neither good infrastructure nor the means to fund it.

I am all for infastructure in our big city's, as long as it is the right sort of new works. There is a limit to the amount of cars you can stack into a city.
We need more public transport,from outer city limits to city.
The people that live within city limits should be enough traffic within, without the addition of more from outer limits.
There needs to be a circle around an area, those outside the circle are on public transport.
There has to be space within city for the uninterupted flow of public transport.
Put public transport ahead of more roads and more cars on the city roads .

Ateday is right. Immigration is running ahead of capacity to pay for increasingly more expensive infrastructure in cities not designed for those numbers.
About 70,000 net pa , one third of current, would enable infrastructure building to catch up. Those who advocate high immigration and complain about not enough infrastructure should nominate what extra taxes they wish to see imposed to pay for it.

Both wacko parties are are the same: big immigration and wasting our money on junk projects instead of infrastructure. Again, there is only one answer. Refuse to vote for the blockheads, and demand better politicians.

Outrider, I would like to see it financed with extra debt rather than extra taxes. Firstly because future generations will be the main beneficiaries so it's a bit unfair to have the present generation bear all the cost. Secondly because the infrastructure will boost productivity, causing tax revenue to rise even without higher tax rates or new taxes. And thirdly because the economy is currently weak; a fiscal stimulus is needed.