No Bazz, no more, & no more bureaucrats either, I'd just like them spread around a bit, & a bit thinner in those 5 major cities.

Lets face it, you have more chance of kicking some sense into them, if they are close by most of the time.

We cannot have real growth if we have to borrow our potential from foreign private central banks who keep us as their debt slaves.

Money has no intrinsic worth and only is a symbol of our productivity.Why do we let bankers own the very soul of our creativity?

It may take some time ; but the concept of endless growth with a finite landmass, is an outmoded concept.

What is required is acknowledgement of :

1. the demand side of the housing ( the need for population growth) is not questioned
2., that the direct financial incentive of growth promotion by financial services and infrastructure providers, is not articulated
3. that the destruction of our unappreciated ancient forests (Sydney bushland) is brushed a side
4. that the paving over of our finest farmland on the outskirts of Sydney is also totally ignored
5. that a generous and caring Australia ( with appropriate, culturally sensitive, foreign aid )can have full, vibrant employment and stable housing costs, without economic growth, if we stabilise our population numbers .

What is missing is a discussion of the Opportunity Cost of population growth.

For example, it is a no brainer that it is better to spend $4 billion on universities, research and export manufacture, rather than spend $4 billion on a road upgrade caused by population growth.

It is also a no brainer to train our thousands of unemployed 15-25 year olds for the mining jobs, rather than bring in overseas workers. It doesn't matter if mining projects are delayed 2-5 years.
They will still go ahead, but on terms set to benefit all Australians.

The reality is , that endless growth is not possible.

Full employment is possible with stable economic output, if you don't increase population numbers.

No, it is not the end of progress. New products will be developed within a stable population scenario.

Sydney has become ugly, expensive and choked while Clover Moore and Kings Cross are disaster areas. People in the irrigation areas can sit on the riverbank and watch full rivers flow to the sea as their farms and businesses fade away. I am sure they get a warm feeling saving Richard Kingston’s birds by losing their irrigation water. Western New South Wales continues to be depopulated and everyone would love to move to coast to access its services and lifestyle.
Maybe the Sydney Greens with their desire to make their locale clean and pristine will build more dams to keep the rednecks somewhere west of Penrith and Windsor where they can’t despoil their city.

Planning Minister Brad Hazzard’s recent Green Paper on Planning invites wide community participation.
Some Sydney residents say higher density housing has not made homes more affordable or available than 20 years ago.
Voterland, has released very early results of it’s Voter Reaction Survey.
70% or more of residents who have initially responded say that:
They think :
progressively higher density has not made housing more affordable or more available in Sydney
advances in IT will lessen the need to travel to city offices
rebuilding and widening roads and highways attracts more traffic, creating traffic jams at either end
High priority - 90%+ of respondents said:
Sydney’s population should be capped at its present level or fall.
their suburb should be left as is with only minor changes & housing density not to be increased
residents themselves are better than government at building enjoyable, inclusive communities
existing open space & bushland in Sydney suburbs should be retained as such
infrastructure should be funded by government bonds rather than private/public partnerships
governments should not privatise public assets without specific voter approval
government should drive most new economic development to regional cities
There should be more rail and light rail in Sydney suburbs; rail services between all NSW cities
freight should be transported by rail instead of by road on trucks
They want:
Sydney’s prime role to be making its residents happy.
residents to have the most say on what happens in their area;
government plans to be submitted to residents at local council and state elections
developers to have no right of appeal to the Land & Environment Court
growth to be in NSW regional cities where land is cheap & is flat to assist energy conservation
more government offices to be located in regional cities
They prefer:
detached houses in their area
some transport corridors to be dedicated to pushbikes
new major roads to be toll free
The government is giving NSW residents a chance in a lifetime to work with government. We should grab it with both hands. Take the Voter Reaction Survey on http://www.voterland.org/campaign.php

Ludwig, Banjo & Ralph,
Your idea of capping Sydney’s population sounds wise and likely to be popular with many. Regional NSW has lost a lot of young people to the cities and would probably like to win some back. More health care, education resources and cultural activities can be provided with slightly higher populations in the country without damaging it’s rural quality. Talk is of adding 2 million people to Sydney over 20 years. If that was halved by a tighter limit on immigration and spread around the 30 regional NSW cities, it would mean 30,000 extra people into each of those cities over 20 years – 1,500 per year. Most regional cities could cope okay with that.
So how would you feel about halving the NSW immigration intake to 1 million and spreading it around the regional cities at an average of 1,500 p.a. ?