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.