The key to shifting population from the unsustainable metropolitan centres to regional centres that can deliver the basic infrastructure for a fraction of the cost is interest rate differentials.

See my post at "workers flee Sydney's unaffordable housing" above.

We know that housing markets seem to follow each other. First sydney and Melbourne take off, followed in turn by Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth and then the regions. But at the moment we have a "one size fits all" monetary policy that sees interest rates rise to take the heat out of the Sydney and Melbourne housing markets but which also cuts off any price rises in regional centres before they even start.

But if we had a number of new regional states and the existing city states then the Reserve Bank would be able to implement a proper system of differential interest rates that actually fit the economic circumstances in each.

This would ensure that each housing market gets the brakes applied as and when it begins to overheat but leaves lower rates in those markets that have not overheated. The existing metropolitan markets would lose some of their volatility as excessive growth would be slowed when needed and the depths of recession would be more quickly responded to with lower rates.

Some regions would experience lower rates on a continual basis which would compound the attraction to those who had been priced out of metropolitan markets. And in the long term population would shift and be more evenly distributed. And much less of the compounding cost of metropolitan infrastructure would be built into the entire country's cost structure.

Professor Troy ,
I just wish all the learned academics who know so much about how to save water and the environment would be brave enough to say to Governments in a block, "We must curb our Population and Economic Growth ", to save not only Australia's but the world's natural environment and the future for our childrens' children.

I wrote this several days ago, came up against that confowwwnded 2-post-in-24-hours limit and couldn’t post it before I went bush.

Perseus, I would love to think that interest rates would be sufficient to get people to move where they are best suited to the resource base and environment. But I can’t see it. Afterall, there are pretty huge differentials in real estate prices, rents, rates and other expenses between declining country towns and in-demand growth centres. People continue to live where it is expensive, and understandably so when all the services and quality of life factors are considered.

Also, if it was as simple as interest rates, or a wider implementation of monetary policy, then why wouldn’t have governments implemented it, given the outcry about the rural decline across the country?

Unfortunately, the incentive regime would need to be a whole lot stronger.

Qld Premier Peter Beatty is considering regulating the rental market to stop auction-like bidding between applicants and to strive to have rents reflect the true value of properties. This is something new. I think it is a notion that should be developed widely.

Governments should be regulating the whole property market much more effectively. So to this end, I agree that monetary policy should be adjusted as part of an incentive package towards decentralisation.

But only within a genuine sustainability policy framework that must include a cap to the overall population and to various cities and regions that are under population growth stress.

This sort of stuff, ie the population growth and distribution factors, really does need to be considered with a least as much vigour as the issues of pure water use, greywater recycling, water restrictions, tanks, dams, pipelines, desal plants, etc combined!

Another thread hijacked by Ludvig's population hobby-horse.

I've discontinued email alerts for this thread accordingly.

Sylvia.

Oh dear Sylvia

Can I suggest you either debate the issues or stay out of the discussion, but for goodness sake don't knock people who wish to raise and debate vital aspects of the relevant subject!

Would you like to address this statement from my last post;

“This sort of stuff, ie the population growth and distribution factors, really does need to be considered with a least as much vigour as the issues of pure water use, greywater recycling, water restrictions, tanks, dams, pipelines, desal plants, etc combined!”

By the way, my “hobby horse” is sustainability, not population. The only reason I have anything to say about population because it is the big factor that gets left out all the time… and yet it is intimately related to the water issue and most other environmental issues.

Surely you are not one of those narrow-minded people who thinks that it is just fine for everyone to be under tighter and tighter restrictions, to feel compelled to recycle their greywater etc, due to a severely stressed water resource, while the number of people drawing on that resource continues to increase with no limit and no objection!

By the way, you and I have had entirely amicable exchanges on this forum. Have you forgotten who you get along with and who you don’t? Or doesn't it matter?

What crisis? Haven't you noticed the rain, have you looked at a weather map lately? Have you noted the Bureau of Met's long term forecast?

The only crisis I see is that of governments creating fear and panic in order to increase taxes by both hiking water prices and creating a demand for water tanks.

Nobody has raised the issue of dengue fever plus other mosquito borne diseases. Does anybody here have any idea how to treat stagnant water? Have any of you actually seen what this does to the top of the water you propose to drink? Does anyone actually know how to treat this water?

I suspect not. The reason we got rid of these antiquated water collection methods is simple. Health. Why recreate that problem without thinking?

Again the answer is simple. Panic and fear. I have to have my water in case. I must have more water than any of my neighbours. It's just another keeping up with the Jones's situation and so many are being sucked in.