Queensland’s transport infrastructure has failed to keep pace with the state’s booming population growth despite big-ticket projects like the Clem7 tunnel and the duplicated Gateway Bridge.

A report by Engineers Australia argues that governments will need to spend much more to make sure that infrastructure keeps up with the needs of Queensland’s growing population.

Roads were deemed to be among the worst, across all states, given a C- rating.

Here are some other ratings:

Rail C-, ports B, airports B-, potable water B-, wastewater B-, stormwater C, irrigation C+, electricity C, gas C+, Telecommunications B.

(From Courier Mail 17 November)

---

This report is talking about keeping up, not getting ahead! We need to increase expenditure enormously - beyond our capabilities – just to stand still, in the face of rapid continuous population growth. Or….. we heed to STOP or greatly reduce this growth rate.

In short; not only are we not ‘moving forward’ in terms of basic infrastructure and other basic quality-of-life indicators, but we are progressively going backwards, due very largely to rapid population growth, not just in Qld but across the whole country.

We need to completely dismiss the mantra from governments, economists and big business that a high rate of population growth is needed in order to maintain economic health, provide skilled workers and improve our quality of life. While sensible people have known this for years, it has been driven home by this report from Engineers Australia, which I would have considered to be a fundamentally pro-continuous-growth organisation.

We’ve had a great deal of debate on OLO about population growth. I want to step past that and move on to the next phase. Let’s assume that continuous rapid population growth is definitely a bad thing.

The INTENT OF THIS GENERAL THREAD is to discuss how, in the face of a very strong rapid-continuous-expansionist business and economic sector, we get our state and federal governments to slow it right down to a stable level.

It simple HAS to happen. So how do we make it so?

Your thoughts?

get rid of state level of governance...completly

let the federal..oversee the local councils..meet local needs

disolve all the water/electicity..etc boards
and jail the board members

its time to get tough on the realmcriminals
what ever level of govt their do their abuse from

form one police force./.that is charged to find real crime
not police fundraising policy..

[revenue raising..for state based quango's]

clean-up the boys club and mining industries
seize the public service pension scemes

and give everyone the same public service base pension rate

make becomming a politition based on their quality of service
not party loyalty

Here's a bit more info on the Engineers Australia 2010 Queensland Infrastructure Report Card:

http://tiny.cc/1fml9

I note that there is nothing within the ten recommendations regarding the stabilisation of population. The nearest thing to it is number 6:

< Introduce programs to facilitate demand reduction rather than demand management... >

Well, how about across-the-board demand stabilisation by way of population stabilisation?

I commend Engineers Australia for this report card, but they are sadly missing the most important recommendation of all:- the need to get off of the continuous growth / continuously increasing demand / continuously increasing pressure on existing infrastructure and services bandwagon.

Ludwig

So you want population growth advocates to acknowledge that providing infrastructure for a rapidly growing population is a problem?

I would predict a great deal of interest in discussing the intellectual and moral shortcomings of any with a word against Australia's high growth rate, but infrastructure? No way.

Ludwig says:

"... We need to increase expenditure enormously
- beyond our capabilities – just to stand still,
in the face of rapid continuous population growth."

I suggest one of the things that needs to be expanded upon is that as to WHY the envisaged increase is 'beyond our capabilities'. How did we manage to acquire the infrastructure we already possess? Could it be that it was effectively funded, albeit at maybe one or two removes and displaced in time, from Australian exports made under substantially better terms of trade than have latterly prevailed?

I don't instantly see how it will help rectify matters, but I sense a better recognition of the extent to which Australia has been effectively overpopulated from, say, post WW2, rather than during, say, just the last three decades, might help gain a better understanding as to what our priorities should be with respect to those infrastructure projects that are within our abilities to complete.

An overwhelming impression I have is that while any given number of projects may be quite desirable, we may not necessarily be getting value for money so far as the quoted prices may be concerned. If various collections of vested interest combine such as to effectively require the public to buy a 'Rolls Royce' or nothing at all with respect to infrastructure investment, it strikes me that requiring effectively 'open book' contracting in those projects that are determined to be priorities must become the order of the day.

It is also highly likely that costs of infrastructure are being inflated by over-prescriptive regulatory environments imposed at our own hand. Too many so-called 'stakeholders' having input that does nothing other than inflate costs and impose delays.

The instant migration is stopped in its tracks, the problem of Australian population GROWTH evaporates, but so too does a lot of employment and growth-related business opportunity. With that evaporation of business activity there is likely a drastic drop in government revenue from the shortly to follow deflation of the property bubble.

Australia needs a high-value export the world MUST buy.

Liquid fuels.

OUG, I can't see that it would make much difference if we only had two tiers of government. The government-being-in-bed-with-big-business problem exists at all levels, and this is indeed the overriding problem, isn't it?

We just don't have independent unbiased government. Not by a bloody long way.

While I tend to agree that we don't need the state government layer, I can't see that eliminating it would in itself help us move towards a sustainable future.

One of the big factors has surely got to be to completely abolish the donations regime, so that all government funding comes from neutral sources and there is no pressure on politicians to do favours for their funders.