Kevin

<< "Good transport systems support the productivity of urban areas, supporting deep and productive labour markets ... Transport corridors are the arteries of domestic and international trade." >>

Transport corridors throughout Australia such as an efficient, fast, environmentally sustainable Rail Network? I'd like to see that.

<< As (former US) president (Dwight) Eisenhower said, "the plan is nothing, the planning is everything." >>

As far as I am concerned, the doing is everything. Time to act now. You have the numbers, stop playing to the Libs - they have nothing to offer except impediment.

Don't just talk about it - DO IT.

Great to see an article from the PM.

As acknowledged, GDP does not reflect all factors including wellbeing and happiness. These measures are vastly overlooked and underrated.

We certainly do need better infrastructure in our larger cities but we also need to ensure that there are better transport networks connecting regional areas.

The only reason larger urban centres produce the vast majority of goods and services is that we have allowed that to happen and forgotten all the benefits of decentralisation.

Strong transport networks throughout regional centres ensure that some of those urban-made goods and services can be produced elsehwere, thus contribute to reducing some of the pressures on cities. It also ensures regional areas are not left to die a slow death and that health and other services are not diminshed for rural residents.

The agricultural sector is supported when regional services are allowed to prosper and rail/road to ship transport networks - such as in the AusLink proposal - are strong.

History has shown us that we are not good at future planning and thus the inherent infrastructure problems in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.

What mechanisms would ensure we don't repear the mistakes of the past? Can we see past the Big Australia concept and instead promote sustainability and ecological responsibility?

Kevin Rudd in this case exhibits a Maginot Line mentality. The Maginot line would have been great if the Germans had agreed to fight WW1 over again. However, it was inadequate for WW2.

Cities have grown because they gather the creative, the ingenious and the productive so they can communicate with each and generate a vibrant society. Due to technology this reason for cities is becoming irrelevant as much of our creativity in the arts, sciences and other activities can be aided by the internet, email, conference calls etc. Creativity is a lonely process. We get together in groups to bang ideas off each other to foster our lonely creative actions. We no longer have to congregate in groups as we can achieve much of our interaction through the aid of technology. It is possible that concentrating humanity will become less and less necessary. Information technology can replace much of the infrastructure devoted to moving humans physically. We have the opportunity to plan small, integrated communities rather than service the dinosaurs that cities are becoming. It would be good if Rudd planned for the future rather than the past.

What has all this central planning achieved so far. Well it has given jobs to lots of planners and bureaucrats who have planned all this congestion that we now have to live with. I found Kevin's speech very confusing. Was he telling us something that we don't know or was he trying to advise us that Central planning from Canberra is about to take over Australia and that we may not need State or Local government.

Kevin; Leave Australia and go overseas to some country where you can impress people who know no different. Show pony.

Mr. Rudd,

Good to see you at this post. I agree with your comment about infrastructure however this very infrastructure, roads, ports and airports can not cope with the population we have now so why are you so adamant that an increase in population is a good thing.

Surely if we want a quality of life for our children with some of the icons of Australianism to be preserved we must cease this constant increase in humans. If "economic growth" is supposedly so necessary for our future prosperity then we had better find a way of doing something different instead of more of the same.

Guy
We have severe limits on our replenishable resources and rely on our primary production for income. We have plenty of trained people to work in the production of mining or extractable resources if they are not consumed building houses and domestic infrastructure i.e cities.

Yes, we may need more consumption. Yes, we may need to grow the economy. Yes, we need more markets and sales of commodities or products for a future but we need to look at it all in a different light or we will not have a future worth leaving for our children.

This evades the central question.

The Commonwealth will do a better job of urban planning than the state governments because….?

Unless you can answer that question why bother?

At the moment the states are hamstrung by limited revenue raising power and dependence on the Commonwealth for funding. Perhaps a better answer is LESS, not more, centralisation. Reduce the Commonwealth's tax take, give the states greater revenue raising power, and leave the urban planning to the states.

I have a feeling that state governments would be more responsive to local concerns than Canberra. In fact I have a sinking feeling that civil servants in Canberra will ride roughshod over the concerns of the locals.

Occasionally I visit Sydney and stay with a friend in Ultimo. It's a pleasant walk to the Chinese Gardens which I generally visit or the local restaurants and bookstores. A short bus or train ride will take me to the State Library or the theatre. I can walk to the one of the ferry stations which take me to all the great harbour locations. I can walk along North Head, South Head or on the other great trails accessible by ferry.

I have also seen the dreary regiments of tract houses in the western suburbs. I imagine it is too much of a trek for them to see most of the places I mentioned above. If they work in the city during the day they probably don't feel up to making the journey again during the evening or weekends. They may just want to revive themselves so they can battle another week.

Planning for human needs would consider the lives of people in the western suburbs. Since I am not one of them I can't be sure what they need or want. They will probably not have much if any input in any planning. I think it possible that they might like best to get out of there altogether - where jobs are not far away, where parks, streams and forests are accessible, where there is a local store one can walk to, where there is a sense of community (they may already have a sense of community. I don't know.) The area looks to me like a horrible place to live, and I doubt that the residents are satisfied with it.

In "Cities in planning spotlight" (2/11/2009) Mr. Rudd argues a larger role for central government in city planning. The government has already played a useful role is in transport planning, but needs to incorporate the Internet in planning. The NBN can be used to improve city transport and help combat climate change.

The federal government funding Melbourne rail improvements and rejecting the Sydney Metro, has sent a clear signal that transport needs to be planned. The NSW government has since made some progress with a study of light rail: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/10/proposed-sydney-cbd-metro-system.html

Recent research predicts a larger rise in sea level than previously thought. None of the proposals currently being prepared for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (CoP15) will be sufficient: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/10/climate-change-and-sea-level_30.html

The Internet is available and rapidly expanding, so it can be deployed to combat climate change faster than other technologies, such as Metros or solar power. Friday's "Govhack" shows how government and community can work innovatively online: http://govhack.org/

Data from the $100M Smart Grid Project could be made available for energy saving projects: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/10/australian-government-100m-smart-grid.html

Web carshare projects could be funded: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/11/car-share-example-of-green-technology.html

Free WiFi for public passengers and a national smart ticket could be introduced.

Other proposals I put to the APEC Climate Change Symposium in Canberra last week: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/apec_climate_change/

1. GREEN COURSE: Broaden the content and add multimedia, mobile phone and village classroom options to the ANU/ACS Green Technologies course to make it available in APEC countries at the local level: http://www.tomw.net.au/green/

2. INNOVATION COMPETITION: Expand the InnovationACT project to the APEC region. In a one year trial Australian and Korea will have teams of students working online on climate change innovations. Prizes will be awarded for the best project: http://iact.anu.edu.au/

3. GREEN CERTIFICATION: Expand the COA Green ICT certification scheme to APEC, providing web tools to ICT green certify organisations: http://computersoff.org/news_display.asp?newsid=17

4. PROTECT CULTURAL RECORDS: Many cultural institutions are located near the sea and will be at threat from inundation due to climate change. Training and resources for government and non-government cultural institutions to catalogue and digitally preserve their materials can be provided. Background: http://www.tomw.net.au/2005/emuseums/report.shtml

What Kevin avoids mentioning is that infrastructure does not create resources, it only distributes them. We are entering a resource-limited age but you will not find mention of "energy" or "oil" in Kevin's text. The fact that water availability is finite is also not mentioned. All resources issues are exacerbated by population growth but population growth is not inevitable - it is driven by government policy. The stresses of growing population and finite/dwindling resources are diametrically opposed - and when the system breaks down it will break big-time.

The other thing Kevin doesn't mention is that the current infrastructure problems, like the public transport issues in Sydney, would not be near so severe is the population had not grown by record amounts over the past decade.

And then there his great plan for halving carbon emissions in the next 40 years - while at the same time championing a doubling in population. Do you really expect to be able to pull that off? And then there is the record amounts we have had to spend on water infrastructure for our cities, now the drought made it obvious we have out-grown our existing water supplies. $9 billion in SE Queensland, $5 billion for Melbourne, god knows how much in Adelaide and Perth. Look at those numbers - they represent a substantial fraction of the supposedly huge CFC stimulus.

And then there is our ever rising house prices - which unlike other places in the world is driven by a genuine housing shortage, which is driven by - guess what? Frankly Kevin it looks to me on the population issue you just haven't connected the dots.

What I'd like to see from you is not more articles on how you are going to spend your way out of fixing these problems - it is an article explaining how an increased population benefits those of us already living here - in the long term. That is something I would really like to understand because from where I sit, the path you are proposing we going down looks like pure insanity.

Perhaps then we need to be paid $150,000 compensation for living in rural areas so we can relocate to the city.

Apparent that Government is working for business efficiency rather than human development. Pigeon holes for wage slaves in the city are expensive so please send money. We are sinking from neglect and lack of business investment in area..though we do have water at least..so send us packing as rural refugees. We are being discriminated against for where we live.

Otherwise our fight for separation that rises sporadically for 150 years will be renewed. This time we will win and plenty of migrants from other tropical areas will be glad to call this paradise home.

Excellent posts everyone.

Especially the questioning of population growth. If we are to be sustainable, we must ensure that our population is kept at replacement levels only. Unless climate change miraculously produces rain in Australia's centre, we will remain, for the most part, living on the coastal fringes.

If you would like to ensure that Kevin Rudd gets your message please consider sending him the following letter:

http://www.dirtykev.org/letter/index.php

Mr Rudd;
Have you considered asking the people of Sydney, Melbourne and
Brisbane whether they want seven million residents ?

I ask you to read this saying and think about it;

Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a
finite world is either a madman or an economist.

I will now mention the politically unmentionable.
Peak Oil ! It is here now, it happened in July 2008.
We will not have the energy required for the plans you have outlined.

Irrespective of what you wish, it will not happen, we cannot supply
the water or food for a vastly increased population.

Which are you, a madman or an economist ?

Cities I think are best capped at 2 million people. I find it strange that Sydney has the same population as all of Queensland. Does not make sense.

There needs also to be a reason to keep land you are not using. North of the tropic of Capricorn how many people?, I am not sure but would say less than 1 million people with lots of summer rain. Again no sense to be headed toward cities of 7 million.

I am sure China is looking at the Eastern section of Russia as they appear to treat as wasteland as their population become more urbanised. Meanwhile China bursts at the seams. If you do concentrate all the population in one area the land will look ready for takeover. Ignore at your peril. Decentralise. If business can use offhsore human resources then they should be able to use regional centres as well.

I hate to say but our cities should have been planned about 50 years ago.

It's pretty obvious why our cities are so gridlocked and unlivable. I will refer to Germany, and most other countries in Europe. Unlike us, they live dispersed in thousands of tiny villages and tiny cities, and connected by a high-speed countryside expressway. You could drive from Hornsby to Newcastle in about 30-40 minutes (the time it takes for most east-Sydney and inner-west residents to drive to the beach).

We on the other hand went for the US/Asian model of compressing all of these places into a single, massive urban sprawl, and as such most of our freeways had to be compromised and turned into street roads- which are slower both because of numerous intersections and traffic lights, and safety reasons.

The only way to fix this is to build major highrises in urban centers, convert highrise work buildings into highrise apartments (most tend to be computer offices, and thus could be replaced by work-at-home employees), and also for the government to draw plans to re-design our freeways- voluntarily buying houses and properties that obstruct the plans and replacing them with lanes, bush or empty space.

In short, you want to further urbanize the urban centers, and get residences AWAY from the freeways so they can be redeveloped into something a little more practical for traffic- and these may include replacing traffic-light crossings with merge lanes, or building a parallel tunnel below the road- or an elevated expressway above it.
This would at least make an improvement of linking the city- and neighbouring cities, closer to the CBD, at least

Instead, we designed our city mostly from country roads, and let whoever build whatever in every space there was. Sadly even our urban centers are built around some of the most nonsensical road systems I've ever seen- so the problem remains.

Kevin Rudd attributes to governments a capacity for knowledge and implementation that has no basis in reason or evidence.

If it is true that government has this superior competence, why only stop at planning? Why not all aspects of the provision of goods and services? Food, water, clothing, friendship, iPods, sex...?

(We can only cringe to imagine how bad sex could be made if providing it was a government responsiblity. We could have the Sexual Planning and Assessment Act, and regulations, the licensing, the compulsory insurances, the appeal tribunals, the redistributionist schemes for social justice for the sexually disadvantaged, the equitable provision of sex policy, supporting a 'deep and productive' market for sex: a bureaucrats' paradise.)

What politicians never mention is that the funding for their social engineering projects will be taken under compulsion from society, and given to a legal monopoly of force.

So, what is there about the original problem, to think that compulsory funding of a monopoly will result in a better outcome than would have obtained from voluntary payment for competing services? Answer: nothing.

Rather than promoting further governmental self-aggrandisement, I wish Kevin would think about what he can do to get government out of our lives, not further into it.

Here's a simple answer, which involves no social engineering, & avoids giving even more control of our lives to this control freak.

It's called decentralisation, but with a difference.

We simply allocate the same percentage of public service to each electorate. In todays world there is no reason to have a great heap of them in Canberra, or Sydney.

Just think of NSW, if we got 45% of the NSW state government wage bill, paid to country people. Sydney might even become liveable again, as population followed the public purse. No forced movement of staff, just the good jobs move. Done over a 15 year time frame, it would not even be too disruptive

Just imagine the change in the ABC, if it's head office was moved to, say Dubbo. QLD health would be a different animal, & much improved, if it's management was moved to Barcaldine.

As the only large employer left in this mechanised world of Oz, government is the only entity that could work decentralisation effectively, & this would bring some equity to those who fund the nation, the people of the regions. So, lets not plan the cities so much as plan the country.

Remember the experiment where they crowded more & more rats, into a fixed space. At a certain level of crowding, they started killing each other, for no obvious reason.

When you look at the behaviour of some of our young folk, on a night out, you have to wonder if, perhaps, we haven't reached that level in some of our cities all ready.

One of the major problems with all infrastructures is that nothing can be built to cope with ‘peak demand periods’ otherwise they would suffer from ‘mass overkill’ during ‘off peak times’.

Take roads, where the vast majority of problems occur during ‘peak hour’.

So, why not offer incentives for ‘off peak travel’, which, if managed effectively, could alleviate the congestion on many of our roads.

Let’s say we implement a system whereby all vehicles pay a sliding rate of toll depending on the time of travel.

At present, they get charged the same rate to cross the gateway bridge at 7 am as they do at 1 am, yet, if say between 10 am and 3pm a discount of 25% was offered and travel between 10pm and 3am was ‘toll free’ many would take advantage of this. Especially heavy vehicles which cause chaos during peak travel times.

Of cause there are always those who have to travel at peak times, but at least the ones who don’t may opt for the alternative.

No matter how many roads or rail links you provide, they will never cope with peak hour travel so it’s time to ‘think outside the square’ and look at ways to better manage what we have, rather than continue expanding which simply encourages more cars, more trips and more convenience

We should become sustainable and when we are invite others to join us not the way that Rudd (big business) wants, especially as we do not know what the future holds with climate change and peak oil. We should be invoking the uncertainty principle.

Rudd is not serious about climate change if he was then expanding the population is not compatible with his rhetoric.

The increase in population is being foisted up on us by being told it is good for us when clearly it is not. Just takes roads when getting to work is many times longer than it used to be.

When I first saw that Kevin Rudd had posted an article on this forum, I was hoping to see something illuminating. However, apart from stating the obvious that the cities are congested and it is costing Joe Blogs a small fortune, he has offered no solution except a vague mention that the federal government needs to step in and clear up the stuff up left over the last decade by labor NSW.

But even there the article is completely devoid of specifics.

In short, Kevin, talk is cheap. If you propose to actually do something about it you will have my full support and maybe even my vote.

Unfortunately this will mean stepping on the toes of labor buddies, and this might mean that someone won't like you, so I personally am not holding my breath.

<Rather than promoting further governmental self-aggrandisement, I wish Kevin would think about what he can do to get government out of our lives, not further into it.> was posted on this string.

Implicit in it is an idea that I think is false. That idea is that the only force in our lives that prevents us from being free, autonomous individuals is government.

We live in a complex society. That is a truism that applies to indigenous people living in tribal conditions also. One difference between them and us is that the identity of the different forces on them and us is not the same. Corporations, unions, advertising agencies and a host of other entities determine our existence.

Government is only one force in our lives. Sometimes it is oppressive. Sometimes it is liberating. It is liberating when by laws enforcing truth in labeling, ensuring competition etc. it acts to restrain the control the other entities have on our life.

During Roosevelt's administration in the US corporate interests realised they could not cope with his appeal during his administration so they formed the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) which promoted the idea that government is the enemy and we would all be better in a laissez-faire economy. Of course a laissez-faire economy embodying free competition is the last thing that corporations want. In the 1950s the AEI helped form the Australian Enterprise Institute which promoted the same ideas here. The AEI succeeded in altering public perceptions in the US and gained national power with the election of Reagan there. The Australian Enterprise Institute succeeded in altering public perceptions in the US and gained national power with the election of Howard.

Australians and Americans have opted recently for somewhat less corporate control, but the Enterprise Institutes have succeeded in implanting the idea that government planning is bad. We are not going to be free, autonomous individuals, and government planning may be good or bad depending on how it is done.

In the case of transportation networks and population distribution we need some good planning.

David, the only reason people think that Government planning is bad, is because it always is bad. The usual result is the unexpected consequence.

Far too much of our planning is by graduates of just a couple of schools. It appears that these schools are run by a mixture of ratbag greenies, & a couple of blokes who admire Holland, & want to duplicate it here.

Until we get 6 months pick & shovel road work, around somewhere like Bourke, as part of the undergrad course for planners, it's most likely going to stay that way. Dreamers are very bad planners.

This fixation on trying to force public transport use onto a decentralised city, & its work force, would be a joke, if it weren't so deadly for business.

One huge problem with government planning is the personel they have to choose from.

Often the leaders of sections or departments are 'under achievers' in the 'real world' so in essence, the governments are left to choose from second tier skill levels.

Take a town planner on say $150K per annum. That's chicken feed compared to someone high up on the board of a development company on say, $2mil plus.

I as a butcher can earn far more than these so called gurus and that's with my limmited education and lack of degrees.

Until we have less people employed by governments, right from the planners up to and including the PM, earning 'real money' we will continue to receive poor value for money.

After all, who is going to work for the government for less than $200K a year when they can pull six figure salaries from private enterprise and only have to be answerable to the shareholders at best.

Put real people in charge. People who have made it from business, people who have risked their livelyhoods. The late Kerry Packer, Lindsay Fox, or the late Richard Pratt are a few examples.

Sparkeys, plumbers and brickies are on more money than most of these gurus. Many don't work weekends and are in the pub by 4.30PM.

As the old saying goes, 'If you pay peanuts, you only get monkeys' and this is no more evident than what we see in governments in Australia today.

david f
The fact that other people exist, and that we have to deal with them in order to achieve our own goals, and the fact that they form themselves into voluntary associations with which we have to deal too, does not mean that they are using force in the way that government is. The difference between government and all other legal organisations is that government uses force and threats to get their funding and enforce obedience, and the other organisations don't because it is rightly illegal.

The fact that corporations, unions, etc. don't want open competition, and hope to cultivate some special favouritism from governments, giving them protection and privileges as against their competitors, is an argument against government intervention, not in favour of it.

"We are not going to be free, autonomous individuals, and government planning may be good or bad depending on how it is done."

It is not for you to tell other people they are not going to be free, or should not be free. The question is, what force is justified to prevent them doing what they want, provided that are not aggressing against others?

Government's attempted planning of society is not ethical, because it alone exercises a monopoly of force and threats, and there is no reason why force or threats should be the basis of social co-operation unless it is to prevent aggression, which does not qualify urban planning.

As to whether government planning 'may be good or bad, depending how it is done', how would you prove that?

Usually this assertion depends on an underlying method that we count only the benefits, but not the costs. In fact most people asserting the benefits of government planning are completely unaware of their underlying assumption disregarding the costs. But obviously if we disregard the costs, anything will seem beneficial.

Are you making the same assumption?: http://mises.org/daily/3804

A few more points:
-For traffic congestion- just increase the strictness of applying for a full licence- less idiots on the road, the remaining road users are safer and can get around faster (we might even be able to push the speed limit back up), and less jams.
And to further build on it, everyone in the nation must re-sit a driver's competence test measuring their judgement and perception skills, control of their own vehicles and logic when approaching road circumstances- and be immediately banned if they cut across multiple lanes at the last minute for a turnoff, try to make a right turn into a driveway on a busy street when there is a roundabout only meters ahead, or drive slower than 20km under the speed limit in a camera zone- and will be given no explanation why as to not already know painfully outlines why they should not be allowed to control a car.
Do that, and watch situations GREATLY improve!

For planning- absolutely, positively MUST be the government entirely behind it. Private companies, accountable to NOBODY except shareholders, must not under any circumstances be allowed to get any input on public infrastructure at all, outside a single contract to construct it per government regulations. Unless you expect to tell me a private company will build the (expensive) roads and similar alterations, out of the kindness of their hearts with the broad public in mind, I will remain skeptical and be thinking about the Lane Cove Tunnel, Telstra and Qantas as examples of the 'success' of previous attempts (considering the people running Telstra and MacBank are the richest in the country, I might add). Face it, companies expect to make a profit, which means that the input will always cost us more- for essentially the same thing minus the broader wellbeing of the public when drawing up the plans.
Pay more peanuts, you just get a gorilla.

Peter Hume wrote commenting on my quote:

"We are not going to be free, autonomous individuals, and government planning may be good or bad depending on how it is done."

It is not for you to tell other people they are not going to be free, or should not be free. The question is, what force is justified to prevent them doing what they want, provided that are not aggressing against others?

Dear Peter,

I recognise reality. We are not going to be free, autonomous individuals because nobody can be and live in society. We have many constraints put on us. I am just recognising the existence of forces that prevent us from being free, autonomous individuals.

You also wrote:

Government's attempted planning of society is not ethical, because it alone exercises a monopoly of force and threats, and there is no reason why force or threats should be the basis of social co-operation unless it is to prevent aggression, which does not qualify urban planning.

Dear Peter,

Government does have a monopoly of force but not of threats. Private individuals or corporations have many threats at their disposal. Groups or individuals can shut up less well-resourced opponents by threats of defamation suits for one example.

It would be good if nobody, including the government, used force. However, I prefer government to have a monopoly of force and protect me against criminals who use force illegally. I feel safer in a democratic country ruled by law.

The fact is that there is great planning in our society. The corporations could not exist and remain profitable entities if they did not plan their activities. However, their planning may not be in the interest of the general public. Democratic government represents the interests of the general public. That justifies planning.

You also wrote: "As to whether government planning 'may be good or bad, depending how it is done', how would you prove that?"

By examples of good and bad results from planning. Effective planning must consider both benefits and costs.

Real estate developers should be kept off government boards which control planning

Quite apart from their accountability to shareholders, private businesses are also far more accountable to the public than governments are.

This is because a) every payment is voluntary, b) you know how much you paid, c) for which service, d) for whom. Even those who didn't buy from the business have an accurate account: they know they paid nothing and were not forced to consume or to pay for others to consume the service.

By contrast, most taxes are hidden. When did any government ever give you an account of how much of your money they have taken? And spent on what? For whom? What corporations got handouts and subsidies taken from your pay packet?

There is no evidence for the common assumption that government represents society. For starters, voting is compulsory. You can't build any theory of consent on that. Then, you only get a vote once every three years. Then, you don't get to vote for any policy, but only for a person. If he lies, you have no remedy in fraud. Then, there is no way to distinguish policies you want, from policies you don't: you only get to vote on a bundle. Then, there is no way of knowing whether a majority in fact voted for a given policy, or not. There is no way of knowing what back-room deal was done with party factions to bribe vocal minorities in marginal seats.

Every dollar is a vote in the market democracy, and everyone votes multiple times per day - directly. Profit is a direct result of the behaviour of the masses in preferring a given service because it satisfies their most urgently-felt wants.

The market is far more representative of society's will than any government ever has been, or ever can be. If it is true that government planning is beneficial, then there is no need to use force to fund it, is there?

The problems of the Lane Cove Tunnel and Telstra are problems of government planning, not markets:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/009796.asp

King Hazza
I will give you three examples of how useless our QLD gov is when it comes to planning and doing things.

1. Suncorp stadium redevelopment.
The gov called for tenders, then paid in excess of three times the original price (I think), yet, if that had been a public company paying the bill, the contractor would have been told to 'suck eggs' when they presented such an inflated bill.

2. The goodwill bridge.
Original tender quote, about $13.5 millon. End price $63 million.

3. Northbank develpoment.
I recall it was 'Watpac' who was the succesfull applicant, yet, once they won the tender it was then put to public comment and rejected and, concequently, 'canned'. No doubt it will be a 'law suit' in waiting for the 'tax payer' to once again fund.

How can any government approve any project, then pay double, tripple or even quodruple for the job simply because they hold the 'public cheque book'?

Private enterprise would simply not allow it's self to be 'walked over' like our government or the shareholders would simply dump the stock.

What a load of hopeless twaddle this article is!!

Come Prime Minister, what we need from you is an explanation as to why continuous massive expansion is in our best interests.

Fifteen years ago there was a major national Federally funded exercise to try and determine Australia's carrying capacity and hence optimum balance between quality of life and environmental wellbeing.

The results were pretty profoundly conclusive; that we should stabilise out population at about 24 million and steer away from the continuous expansionist paradigm and towards a dynamic steady-state economy. One of the major contributors to this finding was the Federal Government's scientific arm - the CSIRO.

Crikey, what sort of drug is Rudd on? He's rabbling on about healthy cities while doing his damnedest to stress out our already highly stressed cities by pushing more and more people into them at a record rate! And he's got absolutely no mandate to do this!!

Our highly unillustrious PM absolutely MUST tell us why the Carrying Capacity Inquiry finding no longer applies or why he has chosen to go directly against it.

I'm looking forward to seeing a follow-up article on OLO next week!!

Problem with government/private contracting is that both groups mostly pay another (usually the same) company to construct the infrastructure (hence why toll boths tend to be installed on the finished highway or tunnel).

The major problem is post-construction ethics and responsibilities.
The government simply pays the cost of construction and maintenance- a private company expects to make a profit (as lets face it, no private company would spend hundreds of millions, reaching billions on something they will get no return over).

As a result, these infrastructural projects intend to get the maximum charge out of public users they can get away with, and because of shareholder interests being the primary concern for the company, there is a greater incentive to charge more, and cut corners for services.

Public-owned infrastructure only charges to cover costs (unless the government is corrupt and greedy- although in a more precarious position if the public didn't like it. A private company really has no choice but to try to get additional money out of it any way they can, with the only consideration being if the people they're ripping off have much other choice but to use these roads.
For NEW roads, it would mean little change has made to traffic jams, and if EXISTING roads are acquired, it makes traffic WORSE as it creates an incentive to use others.

Initial construction of the project can be outsourced by either party with little difference- but the ownership and running is a different story.

I must admit that I am in support of 'public run assetts, to some extent, as it at least offers employment to some who would otherwise be almost un-employable if they were to seek work in the private sector.

Who will ever forget the debarcle whereby a govenment employee was paid $60,000+ per year to sit around as the job he was employed to do was made redundent, however, the government, due to their own IR laws, were unable to sack him and he refussed to take a redunancy payout. To funny!

The truth of the matter Mr PM, is that simply providing more roads, or more dams will only encourage further expansion so in reality, we should be seeking better ways to manage what we have rather than expanding.

As for your continuing push for population expansion, this is your choice, not ours.

Our choice however is to close the doors for a while, take stock and get our affairs back in order.

Make shaw our hospitals, roads, water supplies, power supplies etc etc can cope with the present load, rather than your open door policy which is allowing hundreds of thousands in each year which simply means we continue to devide the cake, so much so, that is it crumbling.

One would think that 'back flip beaties' actions of 'come on, come to QLD' would have paved the way for a directional change in policy, considering the enormous presure he placed on our infrastructure but obviously, you lot are slow learners.

I'm not one that endorses population expansion at all- I agree with your suggestions.

I suspect the PM doesn't want to hear views that contradict with his goal of population expansion.

This is such an important issue but the views of opponents of unfettered population expansion are not being taken into consideration.

When a leader makes arrogant statements like "I make no apology" in reference to plans for Big Australia - you know another nail has been driven into hopes for greater democracy.

We need more Independents to come on board in Federal elections on this issue or the Greens to make their position clear. It is not until the major parties feel some pain in the polls that they might start actually listening to the people they purport to represent.

Even a referendum on this issue perhaps including some options on an optimal population cap/replacement policy which would enable us to continue to fulfill humanitarian obligations

'This is such an important issue but the views of opponents of unfettered population expansion are not being taken into consideration.'

The above is true. However, in the Westminster system if the opponents are neither in the government nor the opposition there is no way that the views can be heard.

Is there a point in joining the Greens? Can that help?

Good points Pelican and David.

And I actually think voting for the Greens WILL help- or at least, ordering candidates from the least to most enthusiastic pro-growth lobby first to last.

Either which way, The Libs, Labor and Nats need to go- their days of concern for the public and not their own pockets has long ended, and the only way to expect anything to change is to vote for someone else.

Of course, if we ever HAD CIR, chances are they might not have even bothered joining- but sadly not the case at the moment.

If Kevin Rudd is so proud of his "Big Australia" policy, it is curious that he didn't mention it before the last election.

Yes Divergence, isn't it interesting that Krudd is following a line that he never even mentioned prior to the election.

This is an extremely serious matter.

We've got a PM who is undertaking a DISASTROUS political agenda, and he's got absolutely no mandate from his constituency.

He is critically stressing our ability to achieve a healthy future that is in balance with a healthy environment. He is also critically threatening our system of government.

If Rudd has achieved one thing in his nearly two years as PM, it is to make Howard look a whole lot better than he ever looked when he was in power!!