Ludwig’s argument for “right” policies reminds me that whilst undertaking work for a Minister it was transparent the different groups around Australia all held their view was correct and that if we “had half a brain” we would do what they recommended not what others put forward. There was a myriad of opposing positions with each group convinced of its own wisdom. How is ‘right’ recognised?

In history there has always been a shortage of infrastructure of one sort or another. How the shortfall is met seems the question to answer. The difference now is we can potentially destroy the resources we need to survive.

The concentration of populations to a few cities reflects something, but what is it? Australia seems to be the most urbanised country in the world – barring city states. This seems to be folly as diseconomies of scale come into play.

One particular company I know is headquartered in Sydney despite 80% of its business being in WA, the executives like sailing on Sydney Harbour as well as rubbing shoulders socially with like minded people. Perth is seen as being less personally attractive. As a gambler always put your money on self interest, it is busting a gut to win.

Can governments change this? Kerry Packer was famously quoted during an appearance before a federal inquiry saying that governments were there to do things for him, not to him. This is the true spirit of Australia. Governments will always end up reflecting the values of the society they ‘serve’. Who then have to change their views and act on them?

It is easy to look at executives and say it is driven by them. Acting on self interest in this manner seems part of the majorities’ approach, “I’m just looking after myself”! No one will oppose it; politicians who oppose do not survive.

If we are to create denser cities we also need to hold governments accountable for adapting infrastructure to suit before the event not many years after while the problems continue to snowball.

Large conurbations required overpasses, bypasses, underpasses and a combination of public service transports, more vibrant regional business hubs to take the pressure of the CBD. Denser housing should also include access to green areas,playgrounds etc.

However this is only part of the problem - matching population to what resources can handle is the biggest problem and so far our political representatives seem hellbent on growing rather than sustaining.

Speaking to many migrants one of the reasons they moved to Australia was to avoid those dense living standards and lack of open spaces in urban areas and not living on top of your neighbours and all the problems that incurs.

We seem forever destined to repeat the mistakes of others rather than forging our own path.

Remember to write 'REDUCE IMMIGRATION' at the top of both ballot papers on 21st August. It's perfectly legal, and will not nullify your vote.

Although both sides have made noises about reducing immigration, they need to be reminded. And, remember, that the developers, retail and service industries are alway lobbying politicians to get their way.

Curmy, you asked me:

<< How is it costing us an arm and a leg? >>

By way of our taxes being spent largely on increasing infrastructure and services in order to support ever-more people, rather than on improving existing services and infrastructure for the existing population.

There are scant little real improvements happening. We really are struggling, and failing, to keep up the same level of services and infrastructure for the rapidly increasing population.

Not only is it costing us all an arm and a leg for no average personal gain, but we are paying through the nose for it as well!! ( :>/

<< Well said, Ludwig! >>

Thanks Forkes.

<< The political parties that govern us have failed for years to spread our population more usefully around regional Australia... >>

Yes. But decentralisation is of less importance than the total increase in population and our crazy continuous growth addiction.

<< Bigger populations in regional cities will lead to better facilities for all who live in such places. >>

I think that regional centres that are big enough to be thought of as cities are big enough as they are. And they all have rapid growth anyway. They don't need further growth by way of a concerted push for decentralisation of our capital cities.

I live in Townsville. One of the main pushes in the attempt to disperse some population pressure from southeast Queensland is to boost population growth in Townsville, to the extent of making it a much bigger city, in fact Anna Bligh's 'second capital' for Queensland!

We need that like a hole in the head!

She should implement incentives to get people to move to Charters Towers, Hughenden, Mt Isa, Longreach and so on instead.

When Julia Gillard was in Townsville recently, she was talking about dishing out a series of $15 million dollar assistance packages to help with decentralisation from Brisbane. Places eligible for this would be Townsville, Cairns, Rockhampton and even the Gold and Sunshine Coasts for goodness sake! There wasn't a hint of assistance for small towns that really could do with a bit of growth!

Dear oh dear!!

The anti-population argument whirls around a number of issues but none more so than instrumentalism.

Answer the question: how much is a life worth? The anti-pops premise is that we (Australians) are worth more than a Sri Lankan, Iraqi or Sudanese. Why? Because we are here and this precious eco-system is ours. All ours. Those Muslim darkies will eat us out of house and home.

That's the bottom line. Measure a carrot. How many people will that feed. Measure a white person. They're worth three carrots a day (even though we've got billions of carrots). Measure a towel-headed Muslim - sorry mate. You're only worth one carrot - and we're short on carrots.

Now the fact that we export $43B of food and import $6B due to reciprocal trade agreements (thanks NZ for the wine and cheese) means that we're chocka with food. Can we get this point over to the anti-pops? Nope. Inconvenient truth.

Have the anti-pops discussed urban design, the shrinking tax base, demographics, skills, arable land? Nope. That's because their argument isn't worth a damn unless they can say we're all doomed. Doomed, I say.