Queensland Premier Anna Bligh is considering offering a $3000 boost to the Federal Government's first-home owner's grant as a bonus for those buying in regional areas: http://wl.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26366364-5006786,00.html

The motivation is to try and slow population growth in the burgeoning southeast corner of the state.

Well! At least Bligh is effectively finally admitting that there is a real population problem in SEQ and that something really tangible needs to be done. Of course this has been bleedingly obvious to anyone with more than two active braincells for at least a couple of decades, but I suppose we here in Qld should be grateful that our great leader has lifted her blinkers, just a tiny bit.

But sending people elsewhere is hardly the solution. It could be part of a solution, in combination with disincentives for people to move to Queensland and a strong ongoing rebuke from the Qld Government to Rudd for imposing such an absurdly high population growth rate upon the country.

Now that Bligh has made the first move on the population subject, the Greens, the Opposition and all sorts of other organisations and individuals must not let it end there.

We all MUST push for much more to be done in order to quickly achieve stable populations in overloaded areas and then for the whole country in a slightly longer timeframe.

Incidentally, if Bligh is successful in redirecting a significant portion of new home buyers, then most of them will presumably end up going to Cairns, Townsville, Hervey Bay and other big population centres that already have rapid growth rates with all the concomitant problems and really also need to be directed towards stable populations. Yes, these regional cities are presumably what Bligh means by going 'bush'!

Bligh's bonus is more a matter of spreading the problems around than implementing any sort of real solution.

3 grand cash and a job and I'll go.

I agree that it's a dumb idea.

All it will do is artificially inflate house prices in regional areas.

Did anybody hear AM this morning, broadcast from the Logan urban nightmare just south of Brisbane? Scary.

I think the State Government should relocate. In the US where they have less centralisation, State Government capitals are always different to the financial capitals.

They could choose a town already with a pretty good airport or a town where an airport could be useful. Up north logical due to water availability but would require non invasive collection process.Hmm .

Moving people before jobs makes no sense.

A joke surely, from our Anna.

This, when governments have the means of decentralisation at their finger tips. In fact equaity demands it should be done.

Each electorate should recieve similar government expenditure, by locating a similar number of the public service, in their location.

Would a paper shuffling public servant notice the difference if they worked in a sealed high in the brisbane CBD, or a now abandoned bank valt in longreach, provided the air con worked.

I do not suggest moving Brisbane people out to the bush, although some may choose to follow the jobs, but just some of the jobs. Locals could then choose to stay in their home area, with decent prospects, & not gravitate to Brisbane. Done over 15 years, there would be little pain involved, & much to be gained, with a real slowing in the growth of our capitals.

In the UK, where you can miss a county, & it's capital, if you blink, & the US, with it's much smaller states, this spreading of government has been done, by accident. Here it will take an inteliigent act, so perhaps I should not hold my breath.

There was a rumour doing the rounds that Peter Beattie anointed Anna Bligh as his successor as a clever strategic ploy to dilute any future criticism of himself.

Decisions like this might turn out to be the fulfilment of that strategy.

As a result of Bligh's mooted decentralisation bonus, there have been calls for her to cap the booming population in SEQ, as we would expect.

She has admitted that poor management of population growth will cause a crisis in livability. So of course the idea of stabilising population needs to be up for major consideration.

But alas, dear old Anna has just poo-pooed it entirely, straight up. She is just not even going to consider working towards a population cap, which effectively means that she is just going to continue to subject SEQ to ever-greater pressure on water supplies, roads and other infrastructure, the natural environment, and peoples' quality of life.

She can see the problem but can't get past suggesting some piffling token-effort response to it. I was initially pleased that she had made a move on the population issue. But now I have fallen right back into my normal state of utter disgust with her worship of never-ending rapid-expansionist, totally antisustainabilityist politics.

The editorial in today's Courier Mail is excellent.

Here are some quotes:

'The Premier is finally acknowledging that the sustainability of southeast Queensland's phenomenal population growth is an issue very much worth discussing and not just in terms of how good it all is for the economy.'

'The Premier has arrived very late in the debate. Nonetheless we welcome her presence...'

'There is much about her government's approach to population and growth issues that needs to change...'

'The development of a population policy for Queensland has the potential to be one of Ms Bligh's most important contributions to the state.'

'Ms Bligh said it herself yesterday; Poor management of population growth will cause a "crisis in livability" It will be a fundamental test of her leadership to ensure the [SEQ] region avoids such a future.'

----
Now we really do need to keep prodding Anna into some meaningful action of the subject. It is afterall, IMHO, the most important issue of all for her government and for the people of SEQ.

So does this mean that she may have to consider 'de-amalgamating' the many regional councils she and back flip beaty fought so hard to amalgamat.

So who pays for this now? Us, I supose!

Ludwig

Just for curiosity which other political party is *trying* to address the population issue?

How are you going to stop people coming into Queensland?
Queensland for the Queenslanders Hey.

How are you going to stop Queenslanders breeding and then choosing to live in the SE?

Mind you there are far too many wild cards to say if this is a good idea or not job availability is a key downer.
Let's stop tourists they consume/pollute too.

"... which other political party is *trying* to address the population issue?'

None Xammy. Not the Libnats, the Groans nor anyone. But curiously there was a mention in the Courier Mail yesterday that Bligh has been niggled for ages by these parties over the subject. I say; phoowey to that!

"How are you going to stop people coming into Queensland?"

The most likely way is by making SEQ a highly undesirable place to live compared to NSW, Vic, etc....which is what is going to happen in the near future if Bligh doesn't take some serious action on population growth. That'll at least skittle the growth rate in the southeast corner, although it will probable have a big affect on the whole state.

But in terms of what the government can do - they can implement all sorts of incentives and disincentives, regulations and laws, to get people to go where they want them to go and not go elsewhere, in just the same way as developments of all sorts are rigorously examined [well, in theory!] before approval is granted or rejected.

Gee, this sort of thing sits right at the most basic purpose of government - that is, to properly plan growth and development and all the connected factors in order to get the best result for communities and individuals.

When you think about it, for the Qld Premier to allow population growth to just continue and at a very rapid pace, while it is so obviously having enormous negative effects, just sits in absolute contrast to one of the core purposes of government!!

This government is abrogating its most basic responsibility here!

The Opposition, Greens, and every one else and their dogs should be making the point that Bligh should not have a choice. She must not be allowed to choose to just let things get worse and worse due to increasing population pressure and everything that goes with it. She should OBLIGATED to deal with the issue in a decisive manner!

Despite Ludwig's bitterness towards the Greens, and hence his propensity to misrepresent them on every possible occasion, the Qld Greens have made strong and detailed submissions to successive SEQ Regional Plans around the general issue of sustainability since as long as I've been involved with them.

This is from the current policy:

<< Reform the SEQ Regional Plan, and ensure all future Regional Plans:

* The basis of the SEQ Regional Plan must be achieving ecologically sustainable development. Priority should not be given to population growth at the expense of the environment and social arms of sustainability. Population projections should not be used as planning targets or requirements at regional and local levels.

* Conduct a full assessment of the carrying capacity of the SEQ Region including water availability, infrastructure capacity and critical wildlife habitat, both now and in a climate-constrained future. Ensure the SEQ Regional Plan does not provide for development beyond the ecologically sustainable carrying capacity of the region.

* The SEQ Regional Plan should be revised to focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation through regional planning designed at reducing Queensland’s emissions. The region’s carbon footprint should be identified and targets set to reduce greenhouse gases by sector.

* To provide for a diverse range of housing needs including affordable housing, while ensuring that housing affordability is not used to justify ecologically unsustainable overdevelopment.

* To fully protect significant regional biodiversity and wildlife corridors, including the habitat of endangered and vulnerable species and SEQ koala habitat, and protect endangered and of concern regional ecosystems from further development.

* To provide more open space and recreational land at the regional and local levels (with a target of 4 hectares per 1,000 people), but not at the expense of conservation areas. >>

http://qld.greens.org.au/policies/planning-and-development

The only mainstream political party to have a policy regarding ecological sustainability in SE Queensland is the Greens. It helps neither Ludwig's cause nor his own credibility to try and obscure that.

Ludwig,Hasbeen, rehctub and ilk.

Interesting to note that the conservative voters are all hot and bothered too....Yet not a week ago some of the same posters were kicking up wild about the inability of land rich widows being unable to subdivide.

Note the contradiction? Who else is going to buy the newly subdivided land but.......more people. Perhaps subdividing for new people is ok only when they do it. After all those houses would be exclusively for those currently living in ...um boxes?

And to add injury to insult, cry Madam Bligh down when she cancels conservative engineered mass development land. Pray tell what do you think that does if not limit population growth? In accordance with Ludwig's suggestions. You lot can't have it both ways. Credit where credit's due.

Conservative have to either stick with business as usual i.e. endless growth or support her steps to depopulate the SE . Sure more could be done but what other options are being presented by the conservative side?

Unless it's all viewed from a selfish or party dogma prisms.
In which case discussion is irrelevant it's simply an anti Labor rant.
Negativity for the sake of negativity.

Examinator, that last post is beneath you. It is a disgusting bit of spin.

You know damn well that my post was about elderly folk being able to live out their lives in the homes where they have raised their kids, & shared their lives, without being attacked, to strip them of a few bob of pension. The last thing they want is the worry, & hassel of subdivision, even if it were possible.

examinator
I run a small business and have done for 20+ years.

Now I have made some mistakes over my time and, I have paid dearly for them out of my own pocket. However, if anyone in business made as many errors or resided over as many 'stuff ups' as these fools they would have been broke long ago. And guess what, We Are broke! But, nobody is accountable.

At best she can hope and pray that those on the other side can't get their act together and, at worst, she may well topple at the next election.

Either way, she will have most likely teed up a lucritive job in the private sector, as seems to be the trend in politcs lately,

BUT! She will walk away, having placed out state in it's worst financial possition in modern history and not hav contributed ONE RED CENT towards the mess. She will still be a very wealthy woman.

Now my comment on council amalgamations. How will these now stretched bodies cope with any further workload associated with re-directing population to the bush?

One more point. I have always felt that if a person resides in the same house for over 10 years, then their rates should be capped. Rates, not services!

As for the 10ht, let them live out their life and they will pay tax when they are gone.

Even if one subdevides the remaining 8ht they have to pay tax.

It is simply another 'money grab' by a 'cash strapped' government that has wasted many opportunities and billion of dollars along the way. And that, is un-deniable!

Apart from moving state government operation centres I think the incentive should go to retirees to move away. The immigration is required to pay for the baby boomer retirement so they should make room in job centres for the incoming. So the state government (and Federal) should look at where the best regional health centres are, or the easiest to upgrade and build both low cost and rather fancy communities for people that will not depend on work availability. perhaps the government could pay an extra $20 a week in pensions in regional areas to cover the higher costs of food and petrol.

Sorry Missus, that tends not to work.

A mate of mine was a real estate agent at Burrum Heads, a lovely spot, between Maryborough & Bundaberg. He reckoned he sold most of the houses about once every 4 years. This was due to retirees buying in, then selling out.

The driving to the main centers became a problem, but the main one was support. Just when they started to need to call on their support network, of family & friends, they had moved 400 to 1400 Km from that network.

Yes there is public funded help available, to some extent, but this is less available the further you are from suburbia, but it was the moral support, during illness, that sent most of them back home.

Most of these people had holidayed at Burrum Heads for some years, & thought retirement living was going to be a longer holiday. For a very large number, the dream did not work.

Hasbeen,
If subdivision wasn't an issue why raise it then? Just to grizzle at Labor governments plural perhaps?

So if I understand you correctly You want your ladies to live on a property too big for them to physically manage .
Make a capital gain for the benefit of their children, grand children.
And also have the tax payer to pay in the mean time.
Odds on when capital gains are charged all and sundry will complain. What's wrong with this picture? Answer Reality!

Rehctub
According to your posts from the first to now
You were the 'average' bloke who was taking home $35 k with a tribe of children.

Now you're a you are a 'small' business. With sufficient cash to buy your children 'decent cars' , have 10 htrs and hoses for them. Last time I looked horses were expensive to keep properly, with feed supplement shoeing, vet bills, tackles etc. One can assume you have super, investments etc.

Good for you!
Doesn't sound too average to me though.

Now your problem is capital gains. Ok, you may consider your property as super but it was your choice to enter into land speculation so who's problem is that?

I paid capital gains too but what the hell that's the law and I was contributing to society. I just didn't make as much as I hoped I would ….That's the risk you take for the big bucks.

BTW ; Anna Bligh didn't blow the money I seemed to remember a WFC perhaps you missed it but it hit a lot of people....it was created by greedy entrepreneurs in the US.

Your self interests is tending to blind you to reality.
A. the conservatives want business as unrestricted as usual new WFC
B. Would have the same laws .

NB I have no problem with differences between peoples wealth but I do wish they'd appreciate what they have rather than what they don't have and why everybody else should pay.

examinator, rehctub here;I don't quite know what you're on, but I wouldn't mind trying some one day, as how you got that dribble out of what I said ammazes me.

1. I don't live on 10 hct, I do have a 'hoby farm', about 700hct but I don't live there and I definately don't own horses.

2. I have been married to the same lady for almost 25 years, I have two great kids and love my family and work. So I'm affraid I'm not your average bloke.

3.Now your problem is capital gains. Ok, you may consider your property as super but it was your choice to enter into land speculation so who's problem is that?

Absolutely no idea where this came from!

4,5,6,7 & 8. Anna Bligh didn't blow the money. Now this one takes the cake!

As I said, I don't know what you're on, but I would surely love some!

Thanks for that particularly good post CJ. Possibly the best you've ever written, or perhaps the only good post you've ever written?! ( :>|

Yeah the Qld Groans...er, Greens, have got the right idea. Their planning and development policy is good. It could well be that they are a whole lot better than the national Greens and a whole lot better than they were in ~1996 when I left them.

But..... where's the publicity on this all-important issue?

Are the Qld Greens really trying to push this stuff? Or are they not particularly interested or perhaps spinning one thing in writing and doing something else in practice?

I don't know. I used to be in the Qld Greens and even ran as a candidate in 1995. But I have lost touch with them.

I haven't lost touch with the subject at hand though, and it seems to me that they have never tried very hard to get Beatty or Bligh to deal with population growth or sustainability.

Would you be so kind as to provide a bit more detail on just how they are in practice dealing with these issues in Qld.

Rehctub,
My apologies my memory is obviously flawed when it comes to your earlier posts. I am clearly confusing you with someone else.

The 'it's my super' argument is one that I hear a lot from people with with large land holdings. Aging farmers and hobbists alike.

I read your post and that of Hasbeen in his topic, where you seemed to complain about capital gain. Given CG is a state tax, I figured the condemnation of Bligh in this one were linked.
The horse thing was hasbeen sorry.

As for Bligh personally responsible for the blowing of the budget and not dealing with legacies from previous decisions it isn't as clear. Perhaps you can enlighten me where she blew it. Given I don't live in Qld all the time I may have missed something.

Desalination plant, pipes linking dams,Extra for hospitals, legal costs for same, the gateway up grade, the Goodwill bridge, BCC extra funding , Travison dam where please? They all seem either reasonable or legacy items to me.

Given there was an election in the middle and she won comprehensively To complain not seems more than a little churlish, or myopically self interested i.e. the people of the Mary river valley. They tried to make it a state issue but failed miserably. policy by for small pressure groups is counter productive for the whole...

The major issue that occurred in her term was The GFC definitely not her creation. The mining ind stalled and means to combat the crisis hence the cash flow crisis therefore the budget issues.

NB I wasn't convinced about the dam but democracy rules.
NB I am neither for or against her.

Many who slam her are against her politically and as such party political bias runs amok ...particularly With Hasbeen and some of Ludwig's reasoning. Your views also seem to come into the conservative mind set.

No criticism intended just observation.

Will the $3,000 even cover relocation costs for people who choose to leave Brisbane for the bush, or even for a regional centre like Townsville or Cairns? Not likely. And in cities like Townsville and Mackay, blessed with ridiculously high property prices as a result of the mining boom, buying your first home is quite an ambitious project to say the least.

Otokonoko
I would think only those that are going anyway will get the $3,000. It is not enough incentive in itself is it. You are right, not enough to motivate people to move. No plan.

Also infrastructure. Mackay was a good example. They were allocated infrastrucure funding based on resident population which did not include the 10-15,000 people who lived in tents, cars, motels etc due to housing shortage. Did someone ever wonder why so many tourist in Mackay? lol.

However this is how it goes. The government follows the population around and then has the problem of providing infrastructure after they move somewhere. There needs to be a plan to encourage people to an area where there is a plan in place for future growth. Why keep repeating same mistake. Ooops too many people moved here now we need road and water and houses.

There are no visionaries, no long term planning, no mission statement. They should be making the state sound like the next hotspot for the world to take notice. BRICQ nation!. :)

It's a pity that Ludwig can't just acknowledge when he's wrong, but has to conceal his ignorance with snark.

<< Would you be so kind as to provide a bit more detail on just how they are in practice dealing with these issues in Qld. >>

Do your own homework - I've already provided a link to the website where all the policies and media releases are located. Bear in mind that the Qld Greens' budget is minuscule when compared with the ALP and the LNP.

I will, however, point it out when you're egregiously wrong.

Dear oh dear CJ, what do you expect me to say now?

How about the obvious –

If you could have provided ANY evidence for the Qld Greens dealing with issues of population and sustainability in practice then you would have, given that you are a member n all.

“I will, however, point it out when you're egregiously wrong.”

Er, a good way to have shown that I was wrong would have been to show where the Greens are actively pursuing their planning and development policy, or actively criticising Bligh over the subject of this thread or the wider issue of southeast Queensland's massive population growth, wouldn’t it?

Come on, you're in the party and you are (apparently) concerned about development and sustainability. So you ought to know about this all-important stuff.

It is perfectly reasonable for me to ask you and it is piss-weak for you to just tell me to go do my own homework. I can find things on their website, but that wouldn't help very much. The 'word' from an insider such as yourself (well.... someone who is a little more in touch with the real activities of the party) would be of more value.

It seems that you have effectively shown that I am quite right.

Ludwig - I'm neither a Greens spokesperson, nor an "insider". I'm just an ordinary "grassroots" member who lives too far out in the bush to even attend meetings. If I wanted the information you're demanding, I'd have to telephone or email a spokesperson and ask them.

Which is why I suggest you do your own homework if you really want that information, rather than ignorantly and incorrectly suggesting that the Greens are unconcerned by rampant development and population growth in Queensland. I've pointed you to the Greens' policies on sustainability and the SEQ Regional Plan, and to the website where contact details are listed for spokespeople.

Like I said, it's up to you to do your own homework. I'll just continue to point out where you get it wrong - I also won't be responding to your dumb question on Hasbeen's dumb thread, except to say that I certainly don't agree with you.

So then CJ, you have admitted that you are quite out of touch with the party that you are trying to defend! You just don’t know what the Greens might or might not be doing in regards to population, development, sustainability and our terribly off-track Qld premier! Extraordinary.

How can you not know, if you are interested enough to be in this discussion and to be in the Qld Greens. It doesn’t add up at all?

The assertion in your post of 19 Nov that I have a “propensity to misrepresent them on every possible occasion” is as is so often the case with you, just words with absolutely no foundation. You apparently don’t have a clue as to whether I’m right or wrong!

Unfortunately, it appears to be an accurate representation of them for me to say that they are doing nothing of any significance about population and sustainability.

Now I’ll just have to assume that you do indeed agree with me regarding Rudd’s expenditure of the national surplus, as I stated on the ‘The loin [sic] that turned out to be a mouse’ thread, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3222#76832 but that you are just not going to admit it.

It is a sensible question, which could lead to meaningful debate. But nooo, you won’t be in it. That's a bit weird! (:>/

Now let's get this straight.

Ludwig's OP rightly criticises Anna Bligh's mooted $3000 top-up of the First Home Buyer's grant. I and several others agree with him.

The next day Ludwig is asked by examinator "... which other political party is *trying* to address the population issue?"

Ludwig's reply: << None Xammy. Not the Libnats, the Groans nor anyone. But curiously there was a mention in the Courier Mail yesterday that Bligh has been niggled for ages by these parties over the subject. I say; phoowey to that! >>

I reply by pointing out that << the Qld Greens have made strong and detailed submissions to successive SEQ Regional Plans around the general issue of sustainability since as long as I've been involved with them. >>

I then quoted the appropriate section of the Qld Greens' Planning and Development policy and provided a link to the Greens' website.

I also made the point that << the only mainstream political party to have a policy regarding ecological sustainability in SE Queensland is the Greens >>

Some days later Ludwig acknowledges his error in a roundabout and snarky way, and then wants me to provide "more detail on just how they are in practice dealing with these issues in Qld".

I tell him, in effect, to go jump and do his own homework.

Now I'm repeating that sentiment :)

Incidentally, Ludwig - how many submissions have you made to regional plans in Qld on the issue of sustainability? How do you in practice deal with these issues in Qld - beyond babbling on in online forums and slagging off at the ALP and the Greens?

Thanks for the summary CJ. Not sure why you felt the need to express it though.

As I implied if not directly stated previously, putting one’s position in writing is one thing while pushing one’s barrow vigorously is another thing altogether.

The Qld Greens have done the first and done it well. But I can’t see that they are doing the second to any significant extent.

I am very wary because there is a history of this sort of thing. The national Greens have some good policies, but just don’t act on them by all accounts. Similarly, the Australian Conservation Foundation has had a good population policy but has just been pitiful in addressing it.

So, which party is trying to address the population issue? My answer remains; none…as far as I can see.

Now, how about going and doing a bit of the most basic research so that you know what the party that you belong to is really doing in this regard. You can then speak with some authority instead of making a fool of yourself by asserting something and then admitting that you’d “have to telephone or email a spokesperson and ask them” about the exact thing that you asserted!

Then you can share your new-found information with us.

You refused to answer my perfectly relevant and neutral question on the ‘loin’ thread. So why should I answer your questions here?

Come on, we went over this a couple of years ago. I made it clear then that I am willing to answer your questions if you answer mine, which of course is perfectly reasonable. It’s got to be a level playing field here CJ.

Aww gee, I can’t resist in answering your question;.’How many submissions have I made?’

Many.

Well bully for you, Ludwig. Now off you go and do "a bit of the most basic research" for yourself before you put your foot in it again.

Do your own homework. I've got better things to do than pander to your obsessions.

Bye.

Bye bye Ceej
….
Now we might be able to get down to some meaningful discussion!

If Bligh is willing to commit a many millions of taxpayer dollars in bonuses to incentivise people to locate away from SEQ, then why wouldn’t she be willing to implement disincentives for people wanting to move into SEQ, by way of erecting new taxes, levees, surcharges, etc for new residents??

She’d be increasing state revenue and not imposing a further drain on current taxpayers. Sounds eminently sensible and politically achievable to me! Wouldn’t she get a lot of support from the voting public of SEQ if she did this?

This really is so basic. In a region with obvious population pressure, people should definitely have to pay extra to move in. Either this or we should have a one in one out system, whereby people can only move in at the same rate as current residents leave or drop off the perch!

This sort of approach wouldn’t stop population growth in Queensland, as all areas outside of SEQ would be free of this population pressure levee, or perhaps some areas would have a smaller levee. So it would work to decentralise incoming population in just the same way, but more effectively, than Anna’s silly $3000 bonus idea.

Ooow, no respondents!

Pity about that. The silly exchange with CJ has sent everyone scooting away from this very important topic.

I'll just have to start a new general thread!

Yeah, you did a good job of derailing your own thread.

Perhaps you'll learn something from that.

Oh hullo CJ. You said bye bye but you didn’t leave, you just lurked and loitered around out the back, peering in the window and through the keyhole. Why am I not surprised?

Yeah, silly me for engaging you in a discussion. I should have just ignored you.

Someone who sings the praises of an organisation that he belongs to and is then found to be completely lacking in knowledge as to what his organisation is actually doing about the very thing that he is praising them for, deserves to be ignored.

I mean, what a drongo!!

Apparently not.

Apparently so you mean, old buddy.

I learnt, as I said, that I should have ignored you.

But then if I had, you wouldn’t have been exposed as a drongo who praises of an organisation that he belongs to and is then found to be completely lacking in knowledge as to what his organisation is actually doing about the very thing that he is praising them for!

Now, maybe you’ve learnt something from this discussion: that you must not assert things that you completely don’t know the veracity of. Especially when you can so easily be caught out!

A similar theme to this derailed thread was commenced here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3279