This is from an article on the drum by William Bourke on onfrastructure:

"The best information I currently have is a recent report by Curtin University which found that state development costs including infrastructure for new suburbs are $684,000 per dwelling. At the national average of around 2.6 people per household that’s approximately $263,000 per person.

"What is the full cost to Australian taxpayers once you include all state and federal costs? $500,000 per person? Hopefully more detailed information will soon come to light and we’ll all know.

"Infrastructure Partnerships Australia reports that we have a national infrastructure backlog of $770 billion. It’s becoming clear why we have impoverished government budgets at every level.

"Putting aside the enormous and often ignored environmental and social costs for a moment, does this evidence help demonstrate that population growth on our thin green coastal strip has reached the stage where diminishing returns have become negative? That is, uneconomic. Or are our politicians too frightened to tell us?"

If Malcolm King is right, why is there such a large infrastructure backlog, which we can see for ourselves with traffic congestion, long hospital waiting lists, skyrocketing utility bills, etc.? Why won't the government put out the figures? As William Bourke says in the above article

"It’s a real challenge to find information on the per capita cost of infrastructure for some reason. Growthist governments and business groups don’t normally leave that sort of information lying around."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39930.html

Interesting, Divergence. It would be nice to know the actual value. But if Malcolm's figure is accurate, I can understand his stance. You might also note that the idea of an infrastructure backlog is contentious.

I've never heard of the Curtin study. Looks like CBD and fringe development.

This is the methodology. WA? Future Perth, 22 studies? I'll have a look later.

"For determining the infrastructure costs of inner city and fringe developments, the main source of data was drawn from a paper prepared for the Western Australia Planning Commission in 2001. The report, titled Future Perth, was compiled by Environmental Resource Management Pty Ltd (ERM) with the intent to identify the economic cost differences between developments in inner, middle and fringe areas. It reviewed the information produced by 22 studies across Australia, America, and Canada and sorted the cost findings into three different measures of urban form: inner, middle, and outer. The Future Perth report drew on studies that ranged between the years of 1972 to 2000 but adjusted the reported costs to 1999 prices. "

It is always possible to argue about exactly how much infrastructure is needed and how much we should pay for it, but that doesn't affect the general line of reasoning. Just think about how much public and private infrastructure is needed to support your family's lifestyle: roads, bridges, sewers, water mains and water treatment plants, power plants and power lines, schools, hospitals, etc. This is all very expensive. A new migrant needs all the infrastructure right away, but he isn't required to (and usually couldn't) pay up front. If immigration is modest, this isn't a major concern. People emigrate as well as immigrating, and there is some slack in the system.

At present though, with our 1.8% population growth rate, overwhelmingly from immigration, we are adding 1.3 milliion people every three years, almost exactly the population of Adelaide. The infrastructure costs of adding the equivalent of a new Adelaide every three years would have to be enormous. If the new migrant is skilled and on a decent salary, he will eventually contribute enough to pay for his family's share, but it may take decades. In the meantime, our government is piling on still more people. The only alternatives are (1) borrow the money (but how would it be paid back if growth continues?), (2) raise taxes on existing residents, and (3) let the infrastructure become overstretched and deteriorate. The economist Richard Denniss explains this well

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/solution-to-asylum-seekers-find-the-real-problem-20130426-2ik3t.html

Nothing to do with your instrumental migration analysis. It's not a tax per head measure as Gov gets monies from corp tax, bonds, sale of assets, offshore and onshore investments, loans, etc. The SPP are ridiculous reductionists hell bent on an anti-immigration agenda as I have written elsewhere and most recently here.

Your preferences tell all.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/54774

Hi Divergence,

< The infrastructure costs of adding the equivalent of a new Adelaide every three years would have to be enormous. >

That is precisely what we dont know.

Hi Malcolm,

Family planning has had terrible failures, but such services have been available and successful in developed countries, and many developing countries also. My interest is in seeing people have a choice.