Voterland, I feel very strongly that it is time to pull immigration right back to net zero. Then after and only after we have made the necessary improvements to all the services, infrastructure and environmental damage that we so desperately need, should we think about raising immigration again.

I’m not happy at all with the idea of Sydney still getting a million more people over the next 20 years.

As for spreading the population growth around, I would want to be very careful about enticing people to go it where it is most needed or least damaging.

I would suggest that some of the larger regional centres are big enough now and that many smaller towns would benefit the most from some population growth in terms of spurring a greater diversity of businesses and services.

The previous Qld PM, Anna Bligh, was thinking in much the same way as you appear to be doing: imploring people not to settle in the overcrowded southeast corner but to move instead to regional centres. But all the large regional centres up the coast were already struggling with rapid population growth, and didn’t need it to be boosted.

So to do it properly in NSW, it would require very careful analysis and then a comprehensive financial incentives scheme to get people to move to the right places.

I have to confess up front that I wouldn't live and work outside a major city even if you paid me several million dollars. In fact if you did pay me several million dollars, I'd immediately go and put a down-payment on an apartment in New York, or London... So it will come as no surprise to learn that in my view, Sydney is nowhere near big enough yet.

The most exciting and dynamic cities in the world have populations over ten million. They have grown that size because people want to be there, not because they are forced to do so.

While pontificating that "Sydney’s population should be capped at its present level or fall" might give some people the warm-and-fuzzies, it suffers from the problem that the legislation to enforce such a decision would be both unrealistic and unworkable, not to mention undemocratic and counter-productive. A few moments thought is all that are needed to realize this simple reality.

Social engineering experiments have never, ever had the results that are advertised beforehand, and invariably create infinitely more problems than they "solve".

I feel sorry for Pericles as he/she simply does not understand the future.
The days of large cities are ending.
No choice, energy decline will enforce that.
In times of high unemployment and economic decline as zero growth
changes to contraction it will be the outer suburbs and towns
in the country that will be livable.
The inner cities will be a virtual madhouse of crime due to unemployment
and food shortage due to transport costs.

I know it is impossible but governments today should ban new
construction in Sydney and Melbourne, and ban the export of natural gas and coal.
Also all immigration should be stopped. We will not have the energy to
support our present population in the more distant time on the
presumption that we do ban energy export.
On the presumption that we are stupid enough to export all our gas
and coal, then the problem will occur much sooner.

Solar and wind cannot supply enough power, even if we can solve the
energy storage problem. No such system can cope with a week of
overcast, windless cold days.
What is needed 10 years ago is a crash program on geothermal energy
and nuclear energy. Unless we do that before we exhaust our other
energy sources we will not go back to the steam age, but to the horse
and cart age.

<< I have to confess up front that I wouldn't live and work outside a major city even if you paid me several million dollars. >>

Pericles, are you really that strongly city-centric? I find it very hard to believe that if you were offered a single million dollars to live somewhere like, Cairns or Bunbury or Launceston, with the freedom to move after five years, that you wouldn’t jump at the chance. May be you wouldn’t, but I reckon millions of city dwellers would.

In fact, for a million dollars, most people would move to Oodnadatta or Marble Bar or Eucla tomorrow!

Cities << … have grown that size because people want to be there, not because they are forced to do so. >>

Um… not true. Lots of people have to go where they can get a job, but would much prefer to live in a smaller centre with less congestion and shorter travelling times. Many people are strongly compelled, if not forced, to live in cities, against their desire.

Many people want to be in regional cities, small towns, on farms or right out in the back blocks on cattle stations, and dread the thought of living in a big city.

With the right sorts of financial incentives, many city dwellers could be enticed into less congested environs.

continued

<< While pontificating that "Sydney’s population should be capped at its present level or fall" might give some people the warm-and-fuzzies, it suffers from the problem that the legislation to enforce such a decision would be both unrealistic and unworkable, not to mention undemocratic and counter-productive. >>

Pericles, the first step: to reduce immigration to net zero or at least to a much lower level, is extremely easy. This alone would be half the issue dealt with.

Then financial incentives, land releases, building approvals, complete no-development areas as with national parks and all of that sort of stuff, would go a long way towards getting people to live where they are happy and are best placed in the interests of a healthy community, environment and nation.

It shouldn’t be difficult and it is certainly not unrealistic, unworkable or undemocratic. It is just an extension of what government has always done.

In fact, it is surely a core duty of government to plan this sort of thing and to make it happen effectively.

I wouldn’t call it social engineering, but rather just sensible planning for our national future.

Thanks for your sympathy, Bazz, but it is entirely misplaced.

>>I feel sorry for Pericles as he/she simply does not understand the future.<<

I suspect that I am not alone in that lack of "understanding". 

There are, I am aware, people who do think that they "understand" the future. Nor are they afraid to share this "understanding" with me at every opportunity. However, I happen to believe that they are no more able to predict the future than I am. They just think they can, which is an entirely different proposition.

>>The days of large cities are ending... it will be the outer suburbs and towns in the country that will be livable<<

Such certainty is impressive. But how is it that "outer suburbs" will survive, once the city has become "a virtual madhouse of crime"? I find your logic entirely unpersuasive.

And that's my point, Ludwig...

>>Lots of people have to go where they can get a job, but would much prefer to live in a smaller centre with less congestion and shorter travelling times.<<

Maybe they think they would "prefer" that lifestyle, but if there are no jobs there, why would they? If the jobs are in the city, that's where people will be. And if you somehow manage to force the jobs out of the city into the country, will you not simply be re-creating the same problems that you believe exist in the cities? 

>>With the right sorts of financial incentives, many city dwellers could be enticed into less congested environs.<<

Ok, maybe they would. But who will provide those financial incentives? And would the other benefits of city living - the theatres, the concert halls, the restaurants etc., all of which depend upon a densely-populated area - follow?

They can't all become botanists, you know.

>>In fact, it is surely a core duty of government to plan this sort of thing<<

I fundamentally disagree with that statement.

>>I wouldn’t call it social engineering<<

You may not choose to call it that. But that is precisely, exactly what it is