State Liberal Leader, Bruce Flegg, says Queensland Government inaction has destroyed one of the state's biggest drawcards - its lifestyle. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1873409.htm

Dr Flegg has warned people considering a move to the south-east corner that the region's water supplies are fast running out.

He says the Queensland Government's failure to plan is threatening the state's lifestyle.

"Water has highlighted it, but it's been there for quite a while in badly overcrowded public transport, appalling roads, and hospitals that are desperately struggling to cope, and increasingly housing affordability, which was of course one of the big drivers of interstate migration," he said.

But Premier Peter Beattie says the problem is not lack of planning.

"The reason we have problems is because of the drought."

Mr Beattie says while he cannot stop people from moving to Queensland, the state is only interested in skilled workers.

"Subliminally, the message we are sending is this, if you haven't got skills don't come."

Wow! Of course planning has been abysmal. There is no way anyone can deny that.

Of course Bruce Flegg is right to express caution about moving to SEQ in the circumstances. This should be fully supported by Peter Beatty.

Of course efforts should be made to temper population growth in SEQ, but not in some discriminatory manner as Beatty is doing. That is just terrible! All people moving to Qld need to be equally welcome.

But given the water crisis, this welcome needs to be cooled.

I call on Dr Flegg and Mr Beatty to stop beating around the bush and get stuck into the core of the issue here – rapid population growth that has proceeded well ahead of a lot of the fundamental infrastructure and services and which now surely must be slowed if not capped or ‘moratiorised’ (suspended), given the critical shortage of one of our most fundamental resources.

It is time for Beatty to stop saying that he cannot stop people moving to Queensland, and to start thinking of doing what governments are actually supposed to do – protecting the quality of life of current residents and doing so in an ongoing sustainable manner, instead of just accepting continuously increasing pressures on it from rapid population growth.

I reluctantly agree with this as a matter of emergency. Perhaps building approvals should halt for five years or before the water crisis is resolved. Perhaps tenancy should be halted and only tenants with ID and employment from this area should be permitted to sign new tenancies. No more new retirement villages in this time. No more new clients into retirement villages in this time. No immigration at all into this region in this time. No one buying houses without sufficient employment in this region in this time (usually first home buyers have a job, retirees don't).

This can be overidden once the crisis is resolved.

This could be discriminatory to older people but it is temporary, and it is for their welfare that such measures could be necessary. I don't think I would like my mother moving into a house that has no water.

A sunset clause is absolutely crucial to the urgent measure.

This will cripple the economy. The cold hard fact is, however, where there is no water, there can be no life.

Other parts of Australia are not much better but there is always New Zealand and Tasmania and even the Northern Territory.

Of course, Peter Beattie would not agree with this in a fit. The result of doing nothing will be devistating. Particularly to the old, frail, children and anyone who likes to take a shower after a hot day.

O Ludwig you klutz. You invent a new word and promptly mis-spell it!

Moratoriorise – To emplace a moratorium.

Pfpfpfpfpfpffff!

Saintfletcher, yes there many things that the state government could do to address population growth, both in the short-term crisis situation and in the long term.

Now is the time to implement these strategies. But some of them should stay after the water crisis is over. It would be foolish to just allow rapid population growth to return to current levels.

I don’t believe this would cripple the economy. I think we have been very badly duped into believing that rapid growth is necessary for a healthy economy.

Not that I disagree with the concept, but doesnt SE QLD already have a housing crisis, with even those employed having trouble finding accommodation? If business is booming, with resultant jobs growth, simply limiting new tenancy agreements to those who can show they have work, wont solve the problem. Maybe a redirection of infrstructure funds to elsewhere in the State or even be so draconian as refusing to allow new water connections, might make conditions less than desirable, and therefore encourage people to move elsewhere, where infrstructure is better.

SEQ is not alone in having a housing crisis or inadequate infrastructure.

The 75th birthday of the Harbour Bridge is the ideal time to be thinking about this. Governments both state and federal used to plow huge sums of money into public works which produced both infrastructure and employment. The recent economic fad dictates that govt should take a hands-off approach: Forget building stuff and the people will do it themselves. Yeah, right, think I'll just go down to the local park and erect a public monument.

Beattie has been pretty good at building grand projects compared with other states.

The bigger problems IMO are the hangover Qld still suffers from the glory days of the white shoe brigades and their influence on local councils. There isn't as much profit in providing water, roads, public transport etc as there is in bulldozing everything in sight and building the cardboard constructions we call housing these days.

Even if Qld did decide to try and stop people moving here, how could they possibly implement it? Are you going to tell grandparents they can't move to be closer to their families? Build a new version of the Berlin wall? Ask everyone to produce their CV at the border?

We might just have to accept that the lifestyle to which Queenslanders have become accustomed will change. In fact thinking back 20 years it clearly already has