“All infrastructure in South East Queensland is totally inadequate”

Yes, just about! It certainly isn’t just water supply or health or congestion on our roads or the power network, but many others that Kevin Pittman didn’t mention, such as overall environmental degradation, both of the natural and humanised environment, and the police force and law enforcement in general.

“Are politicians going to try to slow down growth in any way until we fix any of these problems? The answer is 'No'.”

Well we finally have an author who has at least asked the great taboo question!

“State and local government are addicted to the extra revenue they get from a growing population. And many politicians and local government councillors are addicted to the campaign funding they get from “civic-minded” developers - legislation to constrain growth is unmentionable.”

Yes… and this is the absolute key point that we need to get around – and make our governments accountable for implementing balance, instead of grossly pandering to this future-destroying continuous growth dogma.

No matter what government does, the problems won’t be fixed until they get it through their thick heads that the growth (human expansion, not technological development) issue itself MUST be addressed head-on, and full-on.

It is quite clear that the Queensland government has more than it's hands full just managing the problems of the South East, let alone those of the rest of the state. And the inescapable conclusion is that it is seriously under-delivering to all.

Yet, we still have this absurd situation where we fly MPs from Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton and Roma all the way to Brisbane to listen to endless debate about problems in the South East. What a waste when they could have remained closer to home working on their own problems and comming up with solutions that might actually work.

It is the first duty of any professional to his clients, to recognise those circumstances and situations when they cannot deliver the quality and quantity of the desired service. Merely "faking it" in the hope that one won't get caught out is normally regarded as a serious breach of professional duty of care.

And there is no shortage of MPs from legal and other professional backgrounds that have had this drilled into them before they entered Parliament.

So when will they be true to their own professional ethics and split the state into two or three new states within the commonwealth so that the elected representatives can bring the proper focus and attention to the problems of their own region. And actually fix something after a proper process of careful consideration.

Ersats autonomy like regional medical boards etc, will not fix the fundamental problem if the decision makers are still spread too thinly over too many nuances within too many issues. We need a regional state health minister, working with a federal health minister, and liaising with local MPs at both levels, to spend their own regional share of GST funds on their own priorities.

But anything would be better than the joke we've got now.

Because of the crises (continuing to grow) it is clear that the Beattie Government (which has been in power for a long time has no idea of how to govern Queensland.

"The real problem - is that we have an ageing society where the supply of young people is less than we need --."
'Taint necessarily so.
Apart from currently living beyond the means of our environmental and social resources, the "real problem" is more likely to be an unbalanced society in regard to age structure - whether young or old. And the only way to give some permanance to overcoming that is to stabilise our population.
We would then need to adjust our social/economic system to such stability and the subsequent slow variation of its age structure and associated health and productive capabilities.
On a per-capita basis, costs such as health and education associated with the first twenty years of the younger portion of our population are far in excess of the aggregated costs associated with the post-workforce component.
The basics for stabilisation are in place - Australian women have already chosen a fertility rate of 1.8, less than the 2.1 replacement level, although it will be another generation before that takes effect. When it does, immigration can be adjusted to provide stabilised numbers.
However, what seems to be the "most likely" situation (according to demographer Peter McDonald) is a population increased to 31.9 million by mid century. That supposes the most likely immigration intake, and represents an increase of about half above Australia's present population.
The most ardent advocates of increasing population are the Business and Property councils; and Governments (of all persuasions) that depend upon income from such things as stamp duty from property sales, and election campaign support from the noisy end of the business community. As long as the numbers increase, age structure is only a subsidiary consideration.
Bernefits from population increase accrue to only a select few of present society. The downside of a slide towards a Mexico City style of social environment is left to future residents for remidial action.
It is no fun, watching an accelerating slide in that direction.

"On a per-capita basis, costs such as health and education associated with the first twenty years of the younger portion of our population are far in excess of the aggregated costs associated with the post-workforce component"

Education, certainly. Young people go to school.

Health, I think not. Curious to see this data.

Rest assured I won’t go to Queensland: the sunshine isn’t lovely, it’s far too hot and you don’t even get a decent winter. I like winters. The rest of your problems sound familiar.

“Anything would be better than the joke we’ve got now”

Perseus, it’s tempting to believe this given how absurd things are, but it ain’t so. I can’t imagine things would be better if Costello or Beazley was our illustrious leader. Perhaps it would be a little better with Rudd or Gillard or even Vaile….who knows!

In fact I think that any leader or government that appeared to be a little bit better would only lead to a worse outcome….. because we MUST have a government that is VERY much better if we are going to get past our looming woes. A little bit better would mean that the same momentum would continue, just slightly slower and with less concern from the public.

So perhaps if we had a really bad leader, it would galvanise public opinion against them…. and onto the side of sustainability.

Now there’s a thought. Hey…. maybe I should be promoting Costello for PM afterall!!

As for splitting Queensland into two or three or more states, I don’t think it would have a positive effect at all, and would very likely have a horribly bad outcome… especially for as long as the continuous growth paradigm remains entrenched.

Bringing “the proper focus and attention to the problems of their own region” could well mean a major escalation in population growth, water usage, environmental degradation and all sorts of other bad things….. for as long as we continue to worship the maximum human expansion paradigm.

There is actually a very positive thing that comes out of the Qld government being little more than an SEQ regional government, if that is the case – a relative centralisation of this insidious continuously increasing pressure on our resource base, quality of life and future integrity.

So you do want to depopulate the bush, Ludwig. And you do want to discourage improvements to people's lives, the better to promote your ideology. I had nailed you for a nutter already but it is nice to have the confirmation. You keep circling around it but can't help yourself, can you?

Mmmmmm.

I have entertained debate with you on one of your passionate subjects Pers, and in a totally proper and inoffensive manner.

I would have thought you’d welcome that. It does afterall give you a chance to reinforce your point of view and add a bit more substance to it. But all you can do is go silly and get offensive… without addressing the debate at all.

Tell you what; in the morning when you have a little less alcohol in your system, and you can think a little more clearly – have another go a replying to my post. There’s a good boy. Now in the meantime, sleep tight

Re: sustaining growth

This word ‘growth’ has two very different components –development and expansion.

One is highly desirable and the other has had its day.

Development, in terms of better technologies and improved efficiencies is good, but it is well and truly time that expansion ceased in this country.

The first is sustainable and the second is NOT.

They are diametrically opposed when in comes to sustainability and protection of our future.

When our governments and business sectors espouse growth as an automatic and unquestionably good thing, let’s all realise that they deliberately (or in ignorance) lump the good and the vested-interest bad aspects together.

They’ve also hijacked the word ‘development’ and often use it to encompass expansion.

And of course the word ‘sustain’ or ‘sustainability’ has also been hijacked, and is often erroneously used in place of ‘maintain in the short term’.

So the language that surrounds this issue that sits right at the core of most of our really big concerns - politics, environment, economics, social fabric, future integrity – is confused. And the powers that be seem perfectly happy with that.

Your problem, Ludwig, is that you have crossed the line to witholding benefits to a particular area, the bush, because those benefits would only help maintain activities that do not meet your ideological objectives. And once you have crossed that border between disagreement and discrimination, it is only a very small step to taking actions that will actually harm that community.

And it is clear that a number of other people who work for your employer, the Queensland government, have also already crossed that line. And you actually want my respect?

Oh well, I guess you know what you mean by that Perseus, but I haven’t a clue.

Now, on 28 July I took you up with inoffensive and sensible debate on something that you hold dear to your heart. Are you going to respond, or shall we just assume that you don’t have a reply and that my argument prevails?

There is no such thing as sustainability.
It only exists in Man's imagination.
To sustain the world means to put growth into reverse.
We must shrink Mankind at the same rate that mankind is growing.
A nuclear war may do it and from that fallout for most of the world's population to get terminal cancer.
Then we could be approaching sustainabilty.

Well Perseus – obviously you don’t have a reply and therefore we must assume that my argument prevails!