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.

Fester, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Could you please clarify. Thanks.

----

Forrest, Australia HAS all the exports it needs to get its essential infrastructure and services up to scratch and then progressively improve them.

The thing that is holding us back is the constantly and rapidly increasing pressure on our infrastructure and the enormous demand for ever-more of it.

This factor is surely much more significant than fluctuations in prices as the dollar changes in value against foreign currencies or as the price of our major exports varies.

I'm with you all the way regarding liquid fuel security, in the face of peak oil, as we have discussed at some length on this forum. But I'm not sure that exporting liquid fuels is the answer to our financial security or ability to recover the lost value of our infrastructure and service sectors.

Could you elaborate on what you envisage. Thanks.

ludwig/quote..<<..The government-being-in-bed-with-big-business problem exists at all levels,..and this is indeed the overriding problem,..isn't it?>..you nailed it in one

but we need to wake-up...govt...so one complete level;dying...could affect a change...a change the so called charter of honesty...and policing...media exposure..et-al...has..*not corrected

<<We just don't have..independent unbiased government.>.thats the trouble...its only too biasede..to serving business as usual..serving the same old elites...not the cash-cow...ie not the people...<Not by a bloody long way.>>

<<the state government layer,..I can't see that eliminating it would in..itself help us move..towards a sustainable future.>>if its not fixing..things..its not working...[we need councils..for local SERVICE..we need federal..for international..affairs]..

state is there purely serving its..statists agenda..for the clive palmers..of this world....state govt..*could EASILLY do..what palmer...does*...all his type does..is join the dots...and take the cream...giving minimul..to anyone else..[except pennies to HIS party]

if<<all government funding comes from neutral sources>>

there is no such beast...funds come from people paying their bills..[with those GETTING more...PAYING more..by giving a fair share..BACK to the people]

and there is a huge..pressure...$*$*$*power/$..power'$..on politician's...to do favours*..for their funders..

who shall allways*be..those making the big buck$*$..
be it free land...free resource...free labour...
or just a nice free*lunch..[or power]

hang em all
know god is watching

To all you hundreds of thousands of readers out there who are critically concerned about the issue of infrastructure not keeping up with population growth… within a political paradigm in which we are constantly told that this sort of growth is good for us and will improve our lives …check out the address by Peter Taylor, Chief Executive of Engineers Australia, at the National Press Club this Wednesady 24th November:

http://www.npc.org.au/upcomingspeakers.html

<< know god is watching >>

OUG, I often feel that if god is out there, he's watching very closely, with great glee, at what man is doing.

I get the impression that he likes change, dynamism, the corruption of stable ecosystems, peak and crash events and the like, and is very much on the side of the big, aggressive and greedy businessman and the very biased what's-in-it-for-me politician.

I don't think he's at all worried about us destroying our future when we could very easily be putting ourselves onto a sustainable footing with the maintenance of a high quality of life.

I think he'd be looking at the Earth in the bigger picture and be seeing humanity's population explosion and release of fossil carbon as the dawn of a fantastic new era: the Anthropocene, where after the Homo sapiens crashes into oblivion, evolution will surge forward and take life on Earth and intelligence to a whole new level.... in a few million years time.

So maybe we should just stop trying to fight it and accept the inevitability of it all, and just enjoy the ride while we can.

hi ludwig...the expression..{'know god is watching'}
..should be prefaced..[post-dated...]
sorry cant find the right word

followed by*...[...*from within..*each of us]

[that we do to the least..
we do*..TO*..him]

im sorry i didnt ex-plain..it better

he hasnt got glea...nor sorrow...
*except that he shares with EACH of us...

[it is enough that..*he sustains..US/..*all...our living]
indeed all living...

via the..'natual'..process..
as he does FOR*..all living..
all logic..all law..all life..

its my fault..i wasnt as clear..as i..intended to be

once we know these truths..its hard to judge others
and easier to see-k..the good..[god..in everyone]

god has no concern...about this material realm
he knows we are all...ET-ernal spirits..with eternity before us

[this reality is much like a sand-box]..were we can play...but not really hurt anything...learn to love..learn to appriciate..EVERYTHING

l-earn..our place...learning to put everything...in its place

so i agree/..lets enjoy the ride...but at least respect..EVERYTHING...here now...lest we entertain-t angels unaware

we learn..to care here
earning our next..{tomorrows}..reality..

purely..off..of..todays* efforts..
in time..we all..*learn to care

This thread has been really disappointing.

The failure for basic infrastructure to keep up with continuous population growth or to be maintained for the existing population and not fall into decline, let alone be steadily improved as we have been told would be the case over the years due to the (touted but false) economic benefits of continuous population growth, amounts to an extremely important subject.

Population and growth issues have received a pretty good response on OLO, with many articles and general threads addressing it. But this time it flunked.

Not sure why, but I am very tempted to think that it was because the question I posed is just too hard to address. To reiterate:

< 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 simply HAS to happen. So how do we make it so? >

I can’t answer this. I think that the forces of continuous growth and antisustainability have got it totally sewn up and that it will take a massive upheaval to our society for us to break out of it.

But I’m not going to leave it at that. I’ll keep pluggin. Stay tuned for more general threads on this vitally important issue!

I asked the same sort of question here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11330#192320

And again it went nowhere.

Ludwig posts, on Monday, 13 December 2010 at 9:01:13 PM:

"I asked the same sort of question here
[on the comments thread to the article
'Populate for lower living standards']:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11330#192320

And again it went nowhere."



The question(s?) as you put it on the 'Populate for lower living standards' comments thread was:

So, how do we get our government to really
embrace sustainability, including a stable
population and an economic system that is
not predicated on a continuously bigger turnover
every year (or every quarter for that matter)?

How do we overcome the fundamental democracy-destroying
connection between the business community and economists
(or more correctly; pseudoeconomists or false economists),
and government?

How do we make our government uphold one of its
most vital roles of being independent of undue
influence by powerful players with deep pockets?


Your general question posed in the opening post of this topic, 'Queensland’s infrastructure report card', more or less encapsulates these questions.



Could it be that your questions are too big, too ramifying, for users to address?


Should some of the premises upon which your questions are based themselves be re-examined?



From users' points of view, how do they continue to make a living and exercise some form of direct control over how they will benefit from foreshadowed but as yet unspecified changes to the economy?

I know I have wanted to address your posts for some time now, but see myself as having to say the unsayable, to skip too many steps of reasoning, in order to do so with any brevity. With the eight posts per day limit in this part of the Forum, potentially what amounts to a 2,800-word article could be posted to this otherwise seemingly languishing topic without hogging the discussion. If set up ready to go in a series of text documents, and the posting timed for a quiet time on OLO, there would be little likelihood of the continuity being broken up by others' posts.

Does this approach make any sense?

thank forrest..for asking the questions[without following links]

quote..<<how do we get..our government to really
embrace sustainability,>>

we dont get..the govt to do anything
IT AINT LISTENING..to little people
only big-wigs..or party machine/men..or their pay-masters
or the public[self]..services..

ie lawyers..looking for new cash steams
out of..the people pocketts

<<a stable population..>>
its easy...tax new-comers...
a base rate to settle here..

<<an economic system..that is/not predicated
on a continuously bigger turnover every year>>
easy as...instead of giving leases away to the rich
[like cleve palmer..and his latest 65 BILLION lease[via a 20..billion loan deal]..arranged by blight co-signing..on behalf of govt

GOVT GETS THE LEASE..itself..and develops it..ITSELF

making 40 BILLION
instead of..half a billion in royalties
over the next quater of a century

<<How do we overcome the fundamental democracy-destroying
connection between the business community..and pseudoeconomists[false economists),and government?>>

thats not going to be easy
but lets start with restoring the upper house
and setting a base pension..for ALL public servants

then taxing those with too much cash
or too much debt...[the big users must pay]
the more you use
the more you pay

<<How do we make our government..uphold one of its
most vital roles..of being independent of undue
influence..by powerful players with deep pockets?>>

thats too easy
any giovt worker...is banned from cash dealing
during..or after public service

any movement of their assets..[off shore]...
gets a tax rate of 50 percent...

failure to declare assets/income..immediate forforture
and trwason charges

to whom much is given
much is expected

after public service..your money is no good here
you live on past credit..via pension stipend
but loose it...if you go offshore

was that all the questyions
i still have more answers

govt should be run out of school districts
adminesterd locally via mens/womans co-governing..
half of the budget..each...

meetings held at the same time/place
[the local school..who runs EVERYTHING..to do with government..FROM THE SCHOOL]..via the weekly meetings..that spend this weeks revenue[down the middle]..paying the small bills first

govt insures[underwrites]...everything within its district
its role /purpose being..to preserve value/security/function-ability..of assets [locally]..and enhance..the skills/talent of its trust..[the people]

need anything..
just go to school..!

[see previous posts]