NSW Planning Minister rejects mass immigration madness

THE UNCONVENTIONAL ECONOMIST IN CONCLUSION …


‘The situation is made worse by the vertical fiscal imbalances embedded in the federal system, whereby the Commonwealth raises 82% of total tax revenue, the states and territories 15%, and local government just 3%.

This imbalance has left the states – who are the primary providers of public services – to being heavily reliant on the Commonwealth for funding to cope with the population influx bestowed on them by the federal government’s mass immigration program.

How do our federal politicians propose that our state governments provide all of the economic and social infrastructure necessary to accommodate such rabid population growth in Sydney as well as Melbourne? Because the experience of the past 15 years of mass immigration has been one of monumental failure.

The reality is that maintaining a mass immigration ‘Big Australia’ policy means that Sydney and Melbourne will continue to be crush-loaded as their populations swell by the millions, placing extreme further pressure on infrastructure and housing, and destroying living standards for incumbent residents.

Rob Stokes is well justified in pushing back. Victoria’s politicians should too.

NSW Planning Minister rejects mass immigration madness

By Unconventional Economist in Australian Economy

September 23, 2019 | 5 comments

Two years ago, NSW Planning Minister, Rob Stokes, pushed-back against the federal government’s blind march towards a ‘Big Australia’, claiming it is leaving Sydney forever struggling to keep pace:

Rob Stokes said the state government was left trying to retrofit the NSW’s infrastructure and services to an expanding population, without a clear, transparent trajectory of NSW’s future population.

“It’s impossible to plan if you don’t know what you are planning for,” Mr Stokes said. “There’s no overarching narrative of where we are going”…

Mr Stokes said states were at the mercy of the federal government’s migration policies while bearing the bulk of the infrastructure costs associated with adapting to a growing population.

“Whether it’s planning for patient beds, medical services, the number of new schools and where they are located, housing affordability, or transport routes, ultimately we are planning in the dark if we don’t know what the population is going to do.

“Why are we frightened about having a policy on this? We have policies on everything else.”

Today, Rob Stokes has hit-out once more, arguing that population policy should not be left to the treasury department:

[Stokes] observes that predictions about population growth in Sydney and NSW are almost always wrong, mostly because they cannot anticipate federal immigration policies.

“What is clear is that decisions by the federal government about immigration have profound impacts on the size and distribution of population that the states are left to plan for – without knowing how many people will rely on public services into the future,” Mr Stokes writes…

Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, along with his state counterparts, have said they would work towards a national population framework by the end of the year. While Mr Stokes said this was heartening, he also suggested treasurers and treasuries should not have exclusive carriage of the issue.

“From a treasury perspective, population growth is just another term for economic productivity. Strategic planning takes a broader view of the complexity of human settlements, so that the economy exists to serve the population, rather than the population being increased to serve the economy,” Mr Stokes writes…

Anyone that lives in Sydney will agree that living standards are being eroded, with roads, public transport, schools and hospitals all crush-loaded and housing becoming hideously expensive.

Worse is yet to come with Sydney’s population projected to grow by 94,000 people per year (1,800 people per week) to 9.7 million over the next 48-years, effectively doubling Sydney’s population:

Sydney’s feverish growth is also projected by Infrastructure Australia to erode residents’ access to roads, public transport, jobs, hospitals, schools and open spaces, irrespectively of whether Sydney builds-up or builds-out:

The situation is made worse by the vertical fiscal imbalances embedded in the federal system, whereby the Commonwealth raises 82% of total tax revenue, the states and territories 15%, and local government just 3%.

This imbalance has left the states – who are the primary providers of public services – to being heavily reliant on the Commonwealth for funding to cope with the population influx bestowed on them by the federal government’s mass immigration program.

How do our federal politicians propose that our state governments provide all of the economic and social infrastructure necessary to accommodate such rabid population growth in Sydney as well as Melbourne? Because the experience of the past 15 years of mass immigration has been one of monumental failure.

The reality is that maintaining a mass immigration ‘Big Australia’ policy means that Sydney and Melbourne will continue to be crush-loaded as their populations swell by the millions, placing extreme further pressure on infrastructure and housing, and destroying living standards for incumbent residents.

Rob Stokes is well justified in pushing back. Victoria’s politicians should too.

SOURCE: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/09/nsw-planning-minister-rejects-mass-immigration-madness/