Sydney tent city: Homeless people leave Martin Place after new laws

New South Wales has a conservative state government...

Their attitude towards people (especially poor, homeless and disadvantaged persons..) is pretty well along the same lines as the British tories --  putting property before people, and prioritising business and tourism over housing/welfare problems..

'Homelesness' in itself is a bigger problem on the whole here than in Britain, though not as bad as in the USA --  even though Oz's population is less than 40% that of the UK, we have more homeless people overall --  meaning that the proportionate level of homelessness here is more than double that of the UK  !

Unaffordable housing prices, expensive land close to cities, insufficient public housing, "free market"/economic rationalist policies, wage stagnation, job shortages out in regional areas --  all of these have had a part to play over the past three decades..

Genuine question Wolf (or Veya), forgive me taking it back to basics, but with so much available land in Australia, why is building new housing such a major problem?

Is much of the land uninhabitable / privately owned?

How do they get the tents to stay on the ground?

Raggamuffin wrote:
How do they get the tents to stay on the ground?

Tying heavy things like sandbags, bricks, concrete blocks, metal weights to the peg loops can be one option, when there isn't anywhere to stick a tent-peg into...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
How do they get the tents to stay on the ground?

Tying heavy things like sandbags, bricks, concrete blocks, metal weights to the peg loops can be one option, when there isn't anywhere to stick a tent-peg into...

Thank you. I couldn't see anything to keep them down and I wondered how they got tent pegs into concrete.

Anyway, homelessness is a big problem here too. These people can't be left to wander around the streets, unless they actually want to - believe it or not, some people like that lifestyle. Most don't want to though, they just don't know what else to do. They need a chance to stabilise their lives.

eddie wrote:Genuine question Wolf (or Veya), forgive me taking it back to basics, but with so much available land in Australia, why is building new housing such a major problem?

Is much of the land uninhabitable / privately owned?

76% of Australia's landmass is desert/arid and semi-arid...

3/4 of the remainder is rocky, mountainous or rugged..

Leaving only around 6% as good quality arable farmland.

Even placing housing on the edges of the semi-arid areas, would mean that you would still need to provide jobs, schools, hospitals, shops and requisite infrastructure..  Unfortunately, far too much business in Australia has been located too close to major cities on the coast, meaning that most support services and infrastructure is also clustered around those city centres...

As in Canada, Brazil and Russia as well, it's this "tyranny of distance" that has hamstrung so much development over the past century --  even though Oz gov'ts had introduced some positive 'decentralisation policies' back in the 1970s to help spread the population out more, those policies were largely abandoned and let lapse in the later 1980s;  while at the same time the state guvm'nts reduced their spending on public housing...

Over the last couple of decades, land prices have shot up during the "resources boom", while wage levels on average stayed pretty flat. In addition, too many immigrants have settled in around Sydney and Melbourne, and aren't moving out yo the regions fast enough..

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, homelessness is a big problem here too. These people can't be left to wander around the streets, unless they actually want to - believe it or not, some people like that lifestyle. Most don't want to though, they just don't know what else to do. They need a chance to stabilise their lives.

Apart from underlying problems like chronic unemployment and under-employment, mental health issues, alcohol and drug abuse, family dysfunctions, etc. affecting many homeless groups, there is one other over-arching issue that affects many homeless people living on the streets in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane (and in many cities in the US, Canada and NZ as well..) :

Many of those people have grown up around those cities, and have never known anything else..   While I might be prepared to "go bush" if I found myself in a similar predicament --  many of those people simply can't and won't consider moving out onto the fringes of regional areas --  basically, many of them are mortally scared of the bush, the great outdoors, wild places, wide open skies.

And, again, there is a lack of support infrastructure out in many of those fringe areas, as well -- health services, education, shops, running water, electricity, sanitation, communications..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, homelessness is a big problem here too. These people can't be left to wander around the streets, unless they actually want to - believe it or not, some people like that lifestyle. Most don't want to though, they just don't know what else to do. They need a chance to stabilise their lives.

Apart from underlying problems like chronic unemployment and under-employment, mental health issues, alcohol and drug abuse, family dysfunctions, etc. affecting many homeless groups, there is one other over-arching issue that affects many homeless people living on the streets in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane (and in many cities in the US, Canada and NZ as well..) :

Many of those people have grown up around those cities, and have never known anything else..   While I might be prepared to "go bush" if I found myself in a similar predicament --  many of those people simply can't and won't consider moving out onto the fringes of regional areas --  basically, many of them are mortally scared of the bush, the great outdoors, wild places, wide open skies.

And, again, there is a lack of support infrastructure out in many of those fringe areas, as well --  health services, education, shops, running water, electricity, sanitation, communications..

If I won millions on the lottery, I'd like to start a homeless shelter, but I guess it's not that simple even if you have the money. As you say, a lot of homeless people have issues, and simply putting a roof over their head won't solve those. Also, what happens when the shelter is full? Do you turn people away? Do you put a time limit on how long they can stay? I bet there are all kinds of rules and lots of red tape too.

Interesting topic and thanks for the answer wolf.

It seems to me that unless Australia find masses of money to turn that arid and uninhabitable land into land that can be used, this problem is only going to get much worse.

Is there not a scheme whereby homeless people could be given food and shelter whilst working on making uninhabited lands, habitable, which ultimately would give them somewhere to live and work? Massive project undeniably.
I'm not even sure if it's possible but surly there's a way of making this land usable and workable?

eddie wrote:Interesting topic and thanks for the answer wolf.

It seems to me that unless Australia find masses of money to turn that arid and uninhabitable land into land that can be used, this problem is only going to get much worse.

Is there not a scheme whereby homeless people could be given food and shelter whilst working on making uninhabited lands, habitable, which ultimately would give them somewhere to live and work? Massive project undeniably.
I'm not even sure if it's possible but surly there's a way of making this land usable and workable?

That's not a bad idea. It would give them something to work towards and they would form a comradeship of some kind.

eddie wrote:Interesting topic and thanks for the answer wolf.

It seems to me that unless Australia find masses of money to turn that arid and uninhabitable land into land that can be used, this problem is only going to get much worse.

Is there not a scheme whereby homeless people could be given food and shelter whilst working on making uninhabited lands, habitable, which ultimately would give them somewhere to live and work? Massive project undeniably.
I'm not even sure if it's possible but surly there's a way of making this land usable and workable?

The Jews were able to do so Eddie, maybe they need to learn from the Israeli's

Palestine. Land of Promise

In 1938, the United States Department of Agriculture sent Walter Clay Lowdermilk to the “Near East” to make a survey of land use. These photos are from his book,  Palestine, land of Promise, published in 1944, which examines  the “geological setting of these these areas, the state of their population, and the present achievements of Jewish  agriculture and industry”

Tel Aviv

Beth Hakerem

Before and after reforestation:

He writes (p.85)

...the newcomers in Palestine became pioneers, building their own economy in a backward and neglected land...These pioneers in Palestine found the country denuded of trees and depleted of its natural fertility.

With an innovative spirit that persists even today, the Jewish community began transforming the land using scientific agrarian methods

(p.91) The Arab cow gives about 800 quarts of milk a year, but the cows in Jewish settlements average 3500 quarts,  while some prize specimens among them give more than 5000 quarts yearly.

(p.92 )The native Arab hen is a scrawny fowl which lays an average of 60 small eggs a year. Jewish settlers have introduced the leghorn hen and crossed it with native breeds,The resultant new strain is heavier and lays an average of 150 large eggs per year.

(p.94) The most outstanding achievement of Palestinian agriculture is the scientific production of citrus crops... The Arabs quickly adopted the modern methods of the Jews and together the two communities have built up a citrus industry which before this war made Palestine the second largest citrus exporting country in the world.

It was not just the land that prospered- it was the people as well.

(p.151) In the course of 18,000 miles of automobile travel through the Arab lands, I was impressed by the relative progress made by Palestinian Arabs as compared with the Arabs in neighboring countries

(p.152) The higher wages paid in Palestine have attracted considerable numbers of Arab immigrants and seasonal laborers from other countries. According to a government estimate the non-Jewish immigration to Palestine, both legal and illegal was between 25,000 and 30,000 in the period between 1922 and 1925.

(p.157) Arab infant mortality is rapidly declining in all of Palestine but it is lowest in the localities closest to the Jewish settlements.The reduction in the death rate is due in part to the health work of the Palestine government but must be attributed mainly to the activities of the Jewish health agencies,among which Hadassah, the American Jewish Zionist Organization has played the outstanding part.

Lowdermilk concludes:

(p.228) ...a people with faith and devotion born of a long tradition has changed desolation into fertile fields, fruitful orchards and reforested slopes. Ancient cities have been rebuilt and the commerce on their streets quickened, long-unknown resources have been brought into the light of day and sent to the distant marts of the world. After centuries of darkness which crushed the hopes of Palestine's miserable inhabitants, a new force has come into the land and made it live again. The possibility of a new day for the entire Near East is hidden in the fertile fields, the flourishing villages and cities, the co-operatives and the factories of Jewish Palestine

http://proisraelbaybloggers.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/palestine-land-of-promise.html

While the overall idea is probably quite viable, there are several aspects that need to be considered :

* Avoiding environmental damage (stuff the environment up front, and then you would be looking at relocating those same groups, in another 10 or 15 years..);

* Teaching people to farm "sustainably" (avoiding problems that occurred with 'soldier settler' programmes after WWI creating the infamous "dust bowls" in Oz and the US..);

* Encouraging people to move out hundreds of miles away from the coast, family and friends;

* Encouraging doctors, nurses, teachers and other support staff to move out to those regions;

* Having reasonable employment, housing and training policies in place -- to prevent exploitation, usury, property speculation, etc..

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:Interesting topic and thanks for the answer wolf.

It seems to me that unless Australia find masses of money to turn that arid and uninhabitable land into land that can be used, this problem is only going to get much worse.

Is there not a scheme whereby homeless people could be given food and shelter whilst working on making uninhabited lands, habitable, which ultimately would give them somewhere to live and work? Massive project undeniably.
I'm not even sure if it's possible but surly there's a way of making this land usable and workable?

The Jews were able to do so Eddie, maybe they need to learn from the Israeli's

Palestine. Land of Promise

In 1938, the United States Department of Agriculture sent Walter Clay Lowdermilk to the “Near East” to make a survey of land use. These photos are from his book,  Palestine, land of Promise, published in 1944, which examines  the “geological setting of these these areas, the state of their population, and the present achievements of Jewish  agriculture and industry”

Tel Aviv

Beth Hakerem

Before and after reforestation:

He writes (p.85)

...the newcomers in Palestine became pioneers, building their own economy in a backward and neglected land...These pioneers in Palestine found the country denuded of trees and depleted of its natural fertility.

With an innovative spirit that persists even today, the Jewish community began transforming the land using scientific agrarian methods

(p.91) The Arab cow gives about 800 quarts of milk a year, but the cows in Jewish settlements average 3500 quarts,  while some prize specimens among them give more than 5000 quarts yearly.

(p.92 )The native Arab hen is a scrawny fowl which lays an average of 60 small eggs a year. Jewish settlers have introduced the leghorn hen and crossed it with native breeds,The resultant new strain is heavier and lays an average of 150 large eggs per year.

(p.94) The most outstanding achievement of Palestinian agriculture is the scientific production of citrus crops... The Arabs quickly adopted the modern methods of the Jews and together the two communities have built up a citrus industry which before this war made Palestine the second largest citrus exporting country in the world.

It was not just the land that prospered- it was the people as well.

(p.151) In the course of 18,000 miles of automobile travel through the Arab lands, I was impressed by the relative progress made by Palestinian Arabs as compared with the Arabs in neighboring countries

(p.152) The higher wages paid in Palestine have attracted considerable numbers of Arab immigrants and seasonal laborers from other countries. According to a government estimate the non-Jewish immigration to Palestine, both legal and illegal was between 25,000 and 30,000 in the period between 1922 and 1925.

(p.157) Arab infant mortality is rapidly declining in all of Palestine but it is lowest in the localities closest to the Jewish settlements.The reduction in the death rate is due in part to the health work of the Palestine government but must be attributed mainly to the activities of the Jewish health agencies,among which Hadassah, the American Jewish Zionist Organization has played the outstanding part.

Lowdermilk concludes:

(p.228) ...a people with faith and devotion born of a long tradition has changed desolation into fertile fields, fruitful orchards and reforested slopes. Ancient cities have been rebuilt and the commerce on their streets quickened, long-unknown resources have been brought into the light of day and sent to the distant marts of the world. After centuries of darkness which crushed the hopes of Palestine's miserable inhabitants, a new force has come into the land and made it live again. The possibility of a new day for the entire Near East is hidden in the fertile fields, the flourishing villages and cities, the co-operatives and the factories of Jewish Palestine

http://proisraelbaybloggers.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/palestine-land-of-promise.html

Further to the above :

In 1949/'50  the US and Britain chose agricultural officers and teachers from Australia's CSIRO and dept's Agriculture to help set up farming systems in Israel, working off Australian experiences in dryland cropping and grazing...   (One "irony" being that Israel is now a major exporter of irrigation equipment and desalination plants --  many of those into America and Australia..).

The problems down here aren't so much with the techniques for "sustainable" agriculture, so much as getting the 'political will' to make things happen..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

The Jews were able to do so Eddie, maybe they need to learn from the Israeli's

Further to the above :

In 1949/'50  the US and Britain chose agricultural officers and teachers from Australia's CSIRO and dept's Agriculture to help set up farms in Istael, working off Australian experiences in dryland cropping and grazing...   (One "irony" being that Israel is now a major exporter of irrigation equipment and desalination plants --  many of those into America and Australia..).

The problems down here aren't so much with the techniques for "sustainable" agriculture, so muchmas getting the political 'political will' to make things happen..

But that was decades after Wolf Jews had made the land habitable

As seen the Jews made the land habitable from the 19th century and after when most of it was uninhabitable.
Hence why its a utterly ridiculously to say the Jews stole land, when they bought up land when they came to the British Mandate of Palestine and previously the Ottoman Empire, where nobody was living in and made it possible that people could.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:Genuine question Wolf (or Veya), forgive me taking it back to basics, but with so much available land in Australia, why is building new housing such a major problem?

Is much of the land uninhabitable / privately owned?

76% of Australia's landmass is desert/arid and semi-arid...

3/4 of the remainder is rocky, mountainous or rugged..

Leaving only around 6% as good quality arable farmland.

Even placing housing on the edges of the semi-arid areas, would mean that you would still need to provide jobs, schools, hospitals, shops and requisite infrastructure..  Unfortunately, far too much business in Australia has been located too close to major cities on the coast, meaning that most support services and infrastructure is also clustered around those city centres...

As in Canada, Brazil and Russia as well, it's this "tyranny of distance" that has hamstrung so much development over the past century --  even though Oz gov'ts had introduced some positive 'decentralisation policies' back in the 1970s to help spread the population out more, those policies were largely abandoned and let lapse in the later 1980s;  while at the same time the state guvm'nts reduced their spending on public housing...

Over the last couple of decades, land prices have shot up during the "resources boom", while wage levels on average stayed pretty flat.  In addition, too many immigrants have settled in around Sydney and Melbourne, and aren't moving out yo the regions fast enough..

Thanks for the info Wolf, but would you not agree that the 6% is substantially a large area based on its population size? I mean the Uk could fit into Australia 31 times and has a population of over 60 million. Australia's population is 24 million. Which means you could still roughly fit the landmass of two Great Britain's into your arable land?? Not trying to knock here either mate. Just saying that Australia does have far more space and clearly has the same problem as the UK. In that it does not have enough infrustructure.

It just seems to me that it's a relatively (though not necessarily "easy") basic problem to solve.
You have large groups of people who need homes, who can be trained to build and farm the land. Okay it's on a financially massive scale, but it's not impossible. Australia has the space and the homeless are the workers, paid in food and allowed to sleep in tents "on the job" with a basic home at the end of it.

It's something worth considering as a starting point.

eddie wrote:It just seems to me that it's a relatively (though not necessarily "easy") basic problem to solve.
You have large groups of people who need homes, who can be trained to build and farm the land. Okay it's on a financially massive scale, but it's not impossible.  Australia has the space and the homeless are the workers, paid in food and allowed to sleep in tents "on the job" with a basic home at the end of it.

It's something worth considering as a starting point.

Excellent point.

I already gave you a green on another thread, so you will have to just settle with a thanks instead.

eddie wrote:It just seems to me that it's a relatively (though not necessarily "easy") basic problem to solve.
You have large groups of people who need homes, who can be trained to build and farm the land. Okay it's on a financially massive scale, but it's not impossible.  Australia has the space and the homeless are the workers, paid in food and allowed to sleep in tents "on the job" with a basic home at the end of it.

It's something worth considering as a starting point.

Yes. Of course there needs to be some basic planning as to what happens afterwards to make sure that they won't be in the middle of nowhere, but it's a good start, and if absolutely everything is planned in detail, it would probably stall at the first hurdle.

eddie wrote:Genuine question Wolf (or Veya), forgive me taking it back to basics, but with so much available land in Australia, why is building new housing such a major problem?

Is much of the land uninhabitable / privately owned?

Pardon me for answering, but I think Wolf has already said:

Wolf wrote:...the same lines as the British tories -- putting property before people, and prioritising business and tourism over housing/welfare problems..

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Genuine question Wolf (or Veya), forgive me taking it back to basics, but with so much available land in Australia, why is building new housing such a major problem?

Is much of the land uninhabitable / privately owned?

Pardon me for answering, but I think Wolf has already said:

Wolf wrote:...the same lines as the British tories --  putting property before people, and prioritising business and tourism over housing/welfare problems..

So why have the labour party and its equivalent also done the same in both countries, putting actually profit/business before people. Not property, as if there was enough properties and infrastructure, there then would not be any homelessness. No one political group is innocent here

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:It just seems to me that it's a relatively (though not necessarily "easy") basic problem to solve.
You have large groups of people who need homes, who can be trained to build and farm the land. Okay it's on a financially massive scale, but it's not impossible.  Australia has the space and the homeless are the workers, paid in food and allowed to sleep in tents "on the job" with a basic home at the end of it.

It's something worth considering as a starting point.

Excellent point.

I already gave you a green on another thread, so you will have to just settle with a thanks instead.

Thanking you muchly.

Just seems a simple enough concept once you get round the red tape of it all.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:It just seems to me that it's a relatively (though not necessarily "easy") basic problem to solve.
You have large groups of people who need homes, who can be trained to build and farm the land. Okay it's on a financially massive scale, but it's not impossible.  Australia has the space and the homeless are the workers, paid in food and allowed to sleep in tents "on the job" with a basic home at the end of it.

It's something worth considering as a starting point.

Yes. Of course there needs to be some basic planning as to what happens afterwards to make sure that they won't be in the middle of nowhere, but it's a good start, and if absolutely everything is planned in detail, it would probably stall at the first hurdle.

I agree in that it would take a lot of planning and money, but it doesn't look as though the list of homeless people will get smaller, does it?

At the end of World War One, both the American and Aussie governments had a common problem --  large numbers of returning soldiers with no jobs to go to, and therefor no possibility of finding a home close to the main towns and cities...

With a view of at least "being seen to do something", one of their more stupid plans was the notorious 'Soldier Settler Schemes'  --  where the Federal guvm'nt gave willing returned servicemen a block of rural land out on the fringes, a little money, and the hope of building a new life..

Unfortunately the politicians overruled their own agricultural and economics experts, and existing experienced farmers' groups, and blindly jumped in head first;  with the inevitable result that both countries fucked up badly --

*  The great majority of soldiers offered this chance were from Urban and Suburban backgrounds, with zero experience of farming or rural living;

*   No education or training, or extra help from government departments was even offered;

*   These unprepared people were then told that they had to clear the land (with no regard to erosion control, shelter belts, windbreaks, shade trees, water tables, biodiversity..) and start farming that year, producing crops within three years --  otherwise that land grant would be forefeited, and offered to the next in line;

*  Most of the land was low to poor quality, often either needed special work  --  or in most cases should have been left alone as wildlife refuges, conservation corridors and shelterbelts;

*  Many of those allotments were far too small (often only between 160 and 640 acres..), considering that it was largely 'marginal' as agricultural land --  meaning that most grants were too small to be viable grazing and cropping properties --  even before poorly prepared non-farmers were sent out there and openly told to abuse the land..  

The result of that blindly stupid political interference was the infamous "Dust Bowl" storms that ravaged inland areas of the USA and Australia during the 1920s and '30s.  Often blamed on ordinary farmers using bad methods, the underlying causes came down to politicians with an eye only to the next elections,  ignoring their own departments and pushing ahead with foolish propaganda policies (Much like current government attitudes towards deforestation, water security, climate change, habitat loss, and similar problems..).

Agreed !

I say fuck these geranium
rich pricks choosing to be homeless cause they feel they're too good to move out to blacktown, out of Sydney all together or other areas where they could possibly afford to live!!!

too good to live with the 'housos' (Council housing for brits)
spread bullshit about it being unsafe etc. want to stay with sight of the water and fancy lattes. fuck these selfish wankers.
keep kicking them out. there is not even Need to build more houses there are whole towns with vacant houses, these pricks just wanna live in the inner city.

@eddie
these geranium are too useless to build a fucking long drop toilet let alone a house.
notice they all have fancy fucking tents not just stuff they scrounged around for, these people KNEW they were CHOOSING the street rather than live elsewhere.
Not like the real homeless dudes that live out in Parramatta or other less affluent but more realistic areas to live.


Every single Person that choose to put a tent in the Busiest, most expensive foot traffic street in Australia, turned down housing in outer suburbs.
As someone that grew up poor in an outer suburb, these people make a mockery of our national charity.

Wolf wrote:At the end of World War One, both the American and Aussie governments had a common problem --  large numbers of returning soldiers with no jobs to go to, and therefor no possibility of finding a home close to the main towns and cities...

With a view of at least "being seen to do something", one of their more stupid plans was the notorious 'Soldier Settler Schemes'  --  where the Federal guvm'nt gave willing returned servicemen a block of rural land out on the fringes, a little money, and the hope of building a new life..

The US Congress did get wiser at the end of WWII.  They came up with the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP), helping millions of vets to obtain degrees and advanced training in all areas. Better education = better jobs = purchase your own home.

The live and learn.

veya_victaous wrote:I say fuck these geranium
rich pricks choosing to be homeless cause they feel they're too good to move out to blacktown, out of Sydney all together or other areas where they  could possibly afford to live!!!

too good to live with the 'housos' (Council housing for brits)
spread bullshit about it being unsafe etc. want to stay with sight of the water and fancy lattes. fuck these selfish wankers.
keep kicking them out. there is not even Need to build more houses there are whole towns with vacant houses, these pricks just wanna live in the inner city.

@eddie
these geranium are too useless to build a fucking long drop toilet let alone a house.
notice they all have fancy fucking tents not just stuff they scrounged around for, these people KNEW they were CHOOSING the street rather than live elsewhere.
Not like the real homeless dudes that live out in Parramatta or other less affluent but more realistic areas to live.


Every single Person that choose to put a tent in the Busiest, most expensive foot traffic street in Australia, turned down housing in outer suburbs.
As someone that grew up poor in an outer suburb, these people make a mockery of our national charity.

Are you serious Veya? These aren't actual poor people in those tents??

Not really they all feel they are too good for the 'council housing' to use the British term, they all unwilling to move away from the very expensive inner city.
they are a spin off of the occupy wall street movement.

the major of tent city literally said he doesn't see why they should have to move to where I grew up and used to commute to the city from. he said they should be given council housing in an area that even earning over 100K I would not be able to afford. they are deluded selfish spoilt brats.

I say chuck them in the ocean and let some Immigrants, that are at least making every effort to improve their life, in instead. I'm sure they wont screw their noses up at a housing commission home no matter where it is

veya_victaous wrote:I say chuck them in the ocean and let some Immigrants, that are at least making every effort to improve their life, in instead. I'm sure they wont screw their noses up at a housing commission home no matter where it is

I've been in desperate times myself Veya, I'd not turn my nose up at being offered a home no matter where it was or what it was.  
You're right. Those people deserve nothing.

Thorin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


76% of Australia's landmass is desert/arid and semi-arid...

3/4 of the remainder is rocky, mountainous or rugged..

Leaving only around 6% as good quality arable farmland.

Even placing housing on the edges of the semi-arid areas, would mean that you would still need to provide jobs, schools, hospitals, shops and requisite infrastructure..  Unfortunately, far too much business in Australia has been located too close to major cities on the coast, meaning that most support services and infrastructure is also clustered around those city centres...

As in Canada, Brazil and Russia as well, it's this "tyranny of distance" that has hamstrung so much development over the past century --  even though Oz gov'ts had introduced some positive 'decentralisation policies' back in the 1970s to help spread the population out more, those policies were largely abandoned and let lapse in the later 1980s;  while at the same time the state guvm'nts reduced their spending on public housing...

Over the last couple of decades, land prices have shot up during the "resources boom", while wage levels on average stayed pretty flat.  In addition, too many immigrants have settled in around Sydney and Melbourne, and aren't moving out yo the regions fast enough..

Thanks for the info Wolf, but would you not agree that the 6% is substantially a large area based on its population size? I mean the Uk could fit into Australia 31 times and has a population of over 60 million. Australia's population is 24 million. Which means you could still roughly fit the landmass of two Great Britain's into your arable land?? Not trying to knock here either mate. Just saying that Australia does have far more space and clearly has the same problem as the UK. In that it does not have enough infrustructure.

Britain has a couple of advantages when it comes to gardening and farming, generally speaking :  deeper and better quality soils, on average;  and a more consistent and more abundant water supply...

Australia is the oldest and driest continent on Earth (although, Antarctica does have lower rainfall..),  with an average soil depth of less than 150 mm/6 inches (compared with nearly 2 metres/over 6 feet over in Britain, and many parts of many Euro' countries like France, Germany and Poland..).

Secondly, if people simply try to clear and irrigate and fertilise marginal lands, without any regard to proper husbandry, management and environmental concerns, such an approach produces even more problems, such as :

* water pollution
*  erosion
*  acid soils
*  salinity
*  compacted soils
*  increased levels of pests, predators and diseases
*  increased risks of bushfires and flooding
*  loss of tree cover, shade, windbreaks, wildlife, biodiversity
*  loss of soil nutrients

Proper planning and preparation is necessary to moderate all such potential problems, and many times politicians and corporate interests will hinder progressive work, rather than assisting it.

Australia currently produces enough food to feed around 60 million-plus, so can manage to export around 60% of our annual production. At current rates of agricultural development, Oz's rural output will double over the next couple of decades, with expanding irrigation projects in Qld and WA..

However, to accommodate a commensurate increase in population (keeping in mind that Oz will have to keep on exporting most of its food production, to maintain foreign capital inflows and a healthy trade surplus..) extra attention must be paid to protecting water supplies, increasing tree cover, avoiding pollution, and looking after soils and wildlife...

In the long run, Australia may well be able to produce enough to feed 200 million people, after allowing for things like better recycling, more efficient water use, desalination, increased hydroponics, better grazing strategies, better recycling and composting --  but environmental conditions mean that in reality our population should be kept well below that 50--60 million level..

Otherwise, massive environmental degradation would follow, if the population here ever reaches that of Britain or Germany.  

While the world is on course to hit a population of over 10 billion in the next few decades,  the planet simply doesn't have enough natural resources to look after 10-->>11 billion souls --  the outfalls from an inevitable population "crunch" will hit before the end of the 21st century..

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Pardon me for answering, but I think Wolf has already said:

So why have the labour party and its equivalent also done the same in both countries, putting actually profit/business before people. Not property, as if there was enough properties and infrastructure, there then would not be any homelessness. No one political group is innocent here

Back in the Reagan/Thatcher "greed is good" years of the mid-1980s, we saw major political parties from both sides --  Tories and Labour in Britain,  Liberals and Labor in Oz and NZ, and many of their contemporaries in Western Europe, "taking a step to the right",  and incorporating more of that "more pragmatic" free market/economic rationalist/'trickle down' philosophy into their economic and social policy making...
 
This included the notions that governments should have less of a hand in providing more affordable 'public housing' --  and their hope was that "market forces" could have more influence,  and hopefully private investors would take up the slack..

Unfortunately,  the great majority of property investors and new home builders are only interested in the top 40% or so of the real estate markets.  Even when new investors might buy into the bottom end of the market, many of them renovate and upgrade their purchases --  further reducing the available number of entry-level "affordable" residences..

And with many politicians these days among the largest groups of property investors,  many of them are in no hurry to change the current market situation, for either low income groups or young potential new home buyers...