Would building new city in Australia's north help with nation's defence?

[tajmahal]

Hi i'm new to this forum so not sure if I've posted this thread in the right place. General question want to ask people on this site is if you think Australia's strategic defence would get easier / more complicated if the country built a large new city on its north coast? Currently there are no cities in Australia's north only small towns and it is very hard to defend.
[Mod edit: Link to blog deleted]

 

[My2Cents]

Sounds like someone wants to build another Brazilia.

Question:

1. What is the reason for the city's existence?
   • New seat of government?
   • Transportation hub?
   • Industrial center?
   Without a reason to exist and attract people it will fail. Brasilia succeeded because it was the new capital of Brazil, which attracted many businesses that had to have regular access to the government bureaucracy.
2. Access, more specifically do you have a good location for a port that can be protected from storms? This is an absolute necessity, you will need it to bring in materials and export whatever it is the city produces. Then there is the transportation network, which is all but non-existent in that area. Much of the ‘Great Northern Highway’ resembles a dirt road. And there are no railroads.
3. Climate – I believe that the area can expect to be hit by several tropical cyclones per year on average.
4. Water – you claim Australia has more on the north coast than elsewhere, but is it usable?
   Storm surges routinely send saltwater many miles inland through rivers and swamps, rendering it unhealthy to drink. You may need to create an impoundment area (i.e. a dam) some distance inland and pipe the fresh water to your new city. Is there a proper location to do so?

Defense wise, the city would probably have a negative effect. Any foreign military force landing in northern Australia will be in a logistics nightmare with no access to a commercial port of any size. And with no significant local population centers to defend the Australian armed forces can fight a completely mobile defense, trading space for time as they wear the invaders down until the invaders gives it up as a bad idea or the US reinforcements arrive. A city with a port in the area changes all that.
:coffee

 

[tajmahal]

I can understand your point that building a large northern city (with population in the millions) would make it only harder for ADF to defend the country in some respects, and not easier. But applying the same logic, if we removed Melbourne or Sydney from Australia would it then make it even easier still? I mean even fewer immobile sitting targets to have to protect - the ADF could be totally flexible in deployment. But wait - doesn't a country need money and manpower to sustain a proper fighting force? So build more cities and be stronger - doesn't that make more sense??

HK gets more typhoons then Darwin, heck the word typhoon comes from chinese 'tai feng'.

Economy built on: business migration (entrepreneurs), student migration, mining services, manufacturing exports (by building free trade area), and possibly defence base nearby.

 

[My2Cents]

I can understand your point that building a large northern city (with population in the millions) would make it only harder for ADF to defend the country in some respects, and not easier. But applying the same logic, if we removed Melbourne or Sydney from Australia would it then make it even easier still? I mean even fewer immobile sitting targets to have to protect - the ADF could be totally flexible in deployment. But wait - doesn't a country need money and manpower to sustain a proper fighting force? So build more cities and be stronger - doesn't that make more sense??

Only if it generates an economic surplus. You have yet to define why the city should be there at all.

HK gets more typhoons then Darwin, heck the word typhoon comes from chinese 'tai feng'.

So, they are 2600 miles apart, and Hong Kong has a VERY protected harbor. And your proposed city seems to be 600km to 1000km from Darwin, so the weather in Darwin is not very relevant.

Economy built on: business migration (entrepreneurs), student migration, mining services, manufacturing exports (by building free trade area), and possibly defence base nearby.

Only if you have a harbor for export. Where is the harbor?

 

[ngatimozart]

I can understand your point that building a large northern city (with population in the millions) would make it only harder for ADF to defend the country in some respects, and not easier. But applying the same logic, if we removed Melbourne or Sydney from Australia would it then make it even easier still? I mean even fewer immobile sitting targets to have to protect - the ADF could be totally flexible in deployment. But wait - doesn't a country need money and manpower to sustain a proper fighting force? So build more cities and be stronger - doesn't that make more sense??

HK gets more typhoons then Darwin, heck the word typhoon comes from chinese 'tai feng'.

Economy built on: business migration (entrepreneurs), student migration, mining services, manufacturing exports (by building free trade area), and possibly defence base nearby.

The business hubs of Australia are centred around the state capitals in the south and east, i.e., Brisbane (QLD), Sydney (NSW), Melbourne (VIC), Adelaide SA, Perth (WA) and Hobart (TAS). Canberra is the federal Capital. In the north there is Darwin (NT). Mining attracts the workers and pays good money so large number fly in fly out. Australia doesn't have a population pressure problem but it is increasingly having a water problem and it will reach a point where the availability of fresh water will not meet the requirements. To use one of your examples most students would not want to live in the north because it's hot and all the universities are down south. I don't think you understand the size of Australia and the logistics involved if a large city was built in the north. Finally all the main Australian infrastructure is in the south.

Take for example Port Hedland in the Pilbara (WA). It has a population of about 18,000 and 11 jokers for every shelia (my nieces fair love those odds ).This time of year its 40 degrees. It's a mining town & port with no rail connections from Perth, Darwin or over east. So everything has to be either shipped in by sea or trucked in from Perth; milk ,eggs, bottled water, meat, fuel - I mean everything. It's an 18 hour non stop drive from Perth to Port Hedland; 1200 miles. That makes it expensive, very expensive. My sister has a boarder living with her. For the room and board that's AU$500.00 per week. To rent a three bedroomed house its around $AU$2000.00 per week. Thats just an average house. So you will have same problems if you build city up north.

As My2cents has explained, there is also the strategic asset of having space to able to utilise for defence. If someone was to invade in the north then the ADF have a lot of space to use until help arrives. There is only one road down the middle through the outback,and the coastal roads. The environment itself will be a big advantage to the ADF because outside of the big wet there isn't a lot of water to be had unless you know where to look. It is also where the ADF train. Then there's the crocs who'll take you when you're filling your water bottle at a billabong or the snakes. Australia has the ten most venomous snakes in the world. So actually why would you really want to invade up north. Not a lot there except the outback, snakes crocs and if your an enemy very cranky ADF personnel, and kiwis who would be over there fairly quickly. Last point. The ability to manoeuvre in battle has always been a strong point and if the ADF was committed to defending a large urban and industrial centre then they would be tied to and lose the advantage of manoeuvring that free space gives them.

 

[tajmahal]

OK - fair points. But to change the topic a bit, how likely is it that Australia will get invaded anyway?

You mention hot and dry climate, but that's actually more descriptive of the red centre / red middle of Aus which port hedland sits in. Actually the far north (the tip) is more green and lush, with high average rainfall. The climate would be more like Singapore.

In Port Hedland things are expensive because its a small market with poor infrastructure links. If a big city were built, this problem would not occur.

 

[My2Cents]

In Port Hedland things are expensive because its a small market with poor infrastructure links. If a big city were built, this problem would not occur.

Could you explain what you mean by "poor infrastructure links"?

Because I don't think what you mean by them is what the rest of us do, if you think that they just occur because the city is bigger.
:type

 

[ngatimozart]

OK - fair points. But to change the topic a bit, how likely is it that Australia will get invaded anyway?

You mention hot and dry climate, but that's actually more descriptive of the red centre / red middle of Aus which port hedland sits in. Actually the far north (the tip) is more green and lush, with high average rainfall. The climate would be more like Singapore.

In Port Hedland things are expensive because its a small market with poor infrastructure links. If a big city were built, this problem would not occur.

Mate I suggest you bone up on your geography and go look at a map. Google maps are good. Port Hedland is a working port. Actually it's the busiest iron ore resource port in the world. It is usually loading six 300,000 tonne a time any given time. You didn't read what I wrote because I clearly stated why Port Hedland is so expensive and the size of it's market has nothing to do with it. Acvtually it is a captive market. Read what I wrote again. The reason Port Hedland is so expensive is because everything has to be freighted in from Perth 1200 miles away by sea or by road. Simple as that. Port Hedalnd has a very larghe infrastructure but it is devoted to iron ore mining and export of said ore.

 

[tajmahal]

Mate I suggest you bone up on your geography and go look at a map. Google maps are good. Port Hedland is a working port. Actually it's the busiest iron ore resource port in the world. It is usually loading six 300,000 tonne a time any given time. You didn't read what I wrote because I clearly stated why Port Hedland is so expensive and the size of it's market has nothing to do with it. Acvtually it is a captive market. Read what I wrote again. The reason Port Hedland is so expensive is because everything has to be freighted in from Perth 1200 miles away by sea or by road. Simple as that. Port Hedalnd has a very larghe infrastructure but it is devoted to iron ore mining and export of said ore.

Hi, let me rephrase - low population base and small market - which means that transporting food etc. is relatively more expensive. A large city would a) produce a lot of its own required products and b) a large market would push down prices of shipping goods from elsewhere.

It's the reason why basic commodities are so expensive in places like NZ, yet so much cheaper in places like US - large market size means greater economies of scale, more competitors, more rigorous market and lower prices.

 

[swerve]

I can understand your point that building a large northern city (with population in the millions) would make it only harder for ADF to defend the country in some respects, and not easier. But applying the same logic, if we removed Melbourne or Sydney from Australia would it then make it even easier still? I mean even fewer immobile sitting targets to have to protect - the ADF could be totally flexible in deployment. But wait - doesn't a country need money and manpower to sustain a proper fighting force? So build more cities and be stronger - doesn't that make more sense??

HK gets more typhoons then Darwin, heck the word typhoon comes from chinese 'tai feng'.

Economy built on: business migration (entrepreneurs), student migration, mining services, manufacturing exports (by building free trade area), and possibly defence base nearby.

Hong Kong exists because of China. Where is the hinterland of this hypothetical city?

Cities grow because they have an economic base. Where is the economic base of this city? Mining? Doesn't work. Not enough manpower needed to generate a self-sustaining base, & the localities aren't attractive enough for contract workers to stay on & try some other business.

Why are people going to move to this city? What is there to attract them? Why would anyone want to set up a business there? What will they sell, to who? Where will they get their inputs? Who will they employ?

You should read up on the processes of economic development. Establishing new cities only works when there's a good reason for the city to be where it is. The fact that 213 years after the first British settlement there is no big city up there is, in itself, very strong evidence that there's no economic basis for one.

Big cities aren't built out of nothing. A nucleus is established, & they then grow of their own accord. A state can force this process by moving large state enterprises there, but the effectiveness of forcing still depends on the underlying attractiveness of the location. Ask yourself why Canberra & Brasilia are dwarfed by other cities in those countries, despite having the huge advantage of being national capitals. Look at Washington DC, which 221 years after being founded in a much more advantageous location than where you propose, & with the benefit of the biggest, freest-spending government in the world being based in it, is now the core of the seventh largest conurbation in the USA. Only two of the six ahead it are older cities. Why did the other four outgrow Washington? Then look at Shenzhen, which is twice the size after only 22 years despite not having any government functions for anything outside its own boundaries. Ask yourself what explains that difference.

Basically, mate, it won't work.

 

[tajmahal]

Hong Kong exists because of China. Where is the hinterland of this hypothetical city?

Cities grow because they have an economic base. Where is the economic base of this city? Mining? Doesn't work. Not enough manpower needed to generate a self-sustaining base, & the localities aren't attractive enough for contract workers to stay on & try some other business.

Why are people going to move to this city? What is there to attract them? Why would anyone want to set up a business there? What will they sell, to who? Where will they get their inputs? Who will they employ?

You should read up on the processes of economic development. Establishing new cities only works when there's a good reason for the city to be where it is. The fact that 213 years after the first British settlement there is no big city up there is, in itself, very strong evidence that there's no economic basis for one.

Big cities aren't built out of nothing. A nucleus is established, & they then grow of their own accord. A state can force this process by moving large state enterprises there, but the effectiveness of forcing still depends on the underlying attractiveness of the location. Ask yourself why Canberra & Brasilia are dwarfed by other cities in those countries, despite having the huge advantage of being national capitals. Look at Washington DC, which 221 years after being founded in a much more advantageous location than where you propose, & with the benefit of the biggest, freest-spending government in the world being based in it, is now the core of the seventh largest conurbation in the USA. Only two of the six ahead it are older cities. Why did the other four outgrow Washington? Then look at Shenzhen, which is twice the size after only 22 years despite not having any government functions for anything outside its own boundaries. Ask yourself what explains that difference.

Basically, mate, it won't work.

Hong Kong exists in spite of China - not because of it - do you not realise that the communists hated the very notion of Hong Kong?? HK is capitalist and was basically always a Western outpost. Even the Central Government today is ardently trying to divert investment and growth away from HK to the 'new' financial capital of the East, Shanghai. HK existed only as an entrepot between the developed East (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) and the West. Its economy today is suffering as a result of China's neglect towards it - just ask any banker who has worked there since before the handover.

A new city in Australia would be entirely different from HK, so you seem to have missed the point there too. Australia should not try to build a trading port because all of Australia's trade goes out of other ports already. As Bernard Salt said, Australia needs a new northern city simply to cope with population growth - it starts and ends there. Melbourne and Sydney for all intents and purposes are already full, and cannot grow much more without diminishing existing living standards. And Australia's south is getting drier, while the far north has much more rainfall. After an initial government investment, natural, sustained organic growth would ensure that private industries grew and gradually replaced government institutions as the key source of employment. Just look how government expenditure as a result of ACT's GSP has decreased from virtually 100% in 1930 to only about 60% now - and that city's growth has been severely retarded by nimbyist politics and extremely poor urban planning.

Any new city built in Australia no matter where it was could only come about as a result of huge government investment. But the benefits of diversifying Australia's population could be equally huge over the coming decades as it allows more 'breathing space' and less cramming of existing cities IMHO, enabling the country to continue along a strong population growth trajectory without seriously impacting living standards.

And over the long term, there is absolutely no doubt that continued population growth would make Australia's defence force stronger too. Population * incomes = economic power = military power, in blunt terms.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hi, let me rephrase - low population base and small market - which means that transporting food etc. is relatively more expensive. A large city would a) produce a lot of its own required products and b) a large market would push down prices of shipping goods from elsewhere.

It's the reason why basic commodities are so expensive in places like NZ, yet so much cheaper in places like US - large market size means greater economies of scale, more competitors, more rigorous market and lower prices.

You are really showing your ignorance. Basic commodities, for example food in NZ can be expensive because the domestic market competes with the export market. NZ has a free markett economy and no tariffs on foreign imports except oil, alcohol and tobacco. It has nothing to do with transport or freight costs. We grow most of our own food and if you incluse CER and look at the Australasian markets as a single market then we grow all our on food except for rice. We import about 66% of our fuel. Our petrol is cheaper than the UK even though they have the North Sea oil. Like Swerve says, there is nothing in the hinterland in northern Australia to support a large city. You need to broaden your education beyond a single economics 101 text book. Get onto Google Earth and have areal good look at the Northern part of Australia from about 23 degrees South north. Then go Google some facts.

 

[swerve]

Hong Kong exists in spite of China - not because of it - do you not realise that the communists hated the very notion of Hong Kong?? HK is capitalist and was basically always a Western outpost. Even the Central Government today is ardently trying to divert investment and growth away from HK to the 'new' financial capital of the East, Shanghai. HK existed only as an entrepot between the developed East (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) and the West. Its economy today is suffering as a result of China's neglect towards it - just ask any banker who has worked there since before the handover.

A new city in Australia would be entirely different from HK, so you seem to have missed the point there too. Australia should not try to build a trading port because all of Australia's trade goes out of other ports already. As Bernard Salt said, Australia needs a new northern city simply to cope with population growth - it starts and ends there. Melbourne and Sydney for all intents and purposes are already full, and cannot grow much more without diminishing existing living standards. And Australia's south is getting drier, while the far north has much more rainfall. After an initial government investment, natural, sustained organic growth would ensure that private industries grew and gradually replaced government institutions as the key source of employment. Just look how government expenditure as a result of ACT's GSP has decreased from virtually 100% in 1930 to only about 60% now - and that city's growth has been severely retarded by nimbyist politics and extremely poor urban planning.

Any new city built in Australia no matter where it was could only come about as a result of huge government investment. But the benefits of diversifying Australia's population could be equally huge over the coming decades as it allows more 'breathing space' and less cramming of existing cities IMHO, enabling the country to continue along a strong population growth trajectory without seriously impacting living standards.

And over the long term, there is absolutely no doubt that continued population growth would make Australia's defence force stronger too. Population * incomes = economic power = military power, in blunt terms.

Your knowledge of history is as poor as your knowledge of economics. Hong Kong flourished for 100 years before the communists ruled China, & flourished even more after they took over the country. With the demise of Shanghai as a financial & trading centre, Hong Kong became China's window on the world. Far from it existing in spite of China, the communist party has, apart from brief spells, protected it. Communist China provided Hong Kong with water & electricity for many years, & directed a large part of its foreign trade through it. Its economy is doing just fine at the moment, growing fast - but expats are no longer paid grossly inflated salaries, so their personal economies are not doing well. I thought everyone knew by now that the incomes of bankers are not a good reflection of the health of an economy.

HK was founded as an entrepot between China & the West, when there was no "developed East", & has always filled that role. It has never had a significant role as an entrepot between S. Korea, Taiwan & Japan & the west, but has been an important entrepot between Taiwan & China. Shanghai is not the new financial centre but the revived one: until WW2 it was a greater entrepot & financial centre than Hong Kong, centred on the International Settlement, where Chinese writ did not run.

You say that a new city could only come about as a result of huge government investment. By saying this, you are admitting that you are wrong. How can you not see that? If there was a sound economic basis for it, government investment (in infrastructure, etc) would follow organic growth, & be largely financed by it, as elsewhere.

Rainfall is not a reason to build a city. The west coast of Chiloe has very high rainfall - but it's a lousy place for a city, & only has one village. The towns are all on the drier east coast.

Australia is not exactly crowded, & there's no shortage of water for drinking & washing. Is Newcastle full? And what about existing northern towns & cities? Townsville? Cairns? Darwin? Katherine? Why are these places not growing at spectacular rates, if the north is the place to be? Katherine has an airport, a good railway, roads. Its produce can get out & imports can get in easily. Surely, if it's such a good region for growth, it should have tens or even hundreds of thousands of people.

If this hypothetical city isn't going to trade, how will it live? It can't be a dormitory town for other cities, because it will be remote from them. What will its people produce? Where will they get what they consume, without trade? You've not thought this through at all, have you?

I don't give a wet fart what is said by a self-publicist generating sound bites to sell his books, & I mistrust anyone who quotes such people.

 

[kato]

Basic commodities, for example food in NZ can be expensive because the domestic market competes with the export market.

Not just in NZ, in AU too. A good example are tropic fruits, which - right next to the plantations producing them for export - will cost you around five times as much as in Europe.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

OK - fair points. But to change the topic a bit, how likely is it that Australia will get invaded anyway?

In the next 20 years (2010-30) about 0.001%. In the 20 years after that (2030-50) about 0.01%. Even in WWII when the circumstances that can never occur again were ripe for it Australia was not invaded. Even in the 1960s when Indonesia invaded four out of six of her neighbours Australia was not invaded. This northern invasion mentality demonstrates both a lack of military understanding and an irrational fear (phobia) amongst those who subscribe to it.

As Bernard Salt said, Australia needs a new northern city simply to cope with population growth - it starts and ends there. Melbourne and Sydney for all intents and purposes are already full, and cannot grow much more without diminishing existing living standards.

Mr Salt wrote an article in the Australian a few months ago calling for a defence base on the north west shelf to help kick start settlement. Every ‘fact’ about the military he used to argue for this was wrong. Stuff like the Army base at Townsville being there because of the Battle of the Coral Sea – its there to acclimatise troops before their deployment to south east Asia – and how military units were deployed to Darwin under the Army Presence In the North (APIN) program to support the liberation of East Timor. APIN was to boost the Darwin economy (and did so by 25%) and is a significant loss in defence capability and had little or no impact on INTERFET. Using the ADF has regional pioneers may be great for regional economies but it causes great damage to the ADF.

However I won’t doubt him in demography where he is no doubt an expert. However when talking about a new city and a new northern city I very much doubt the easiest solution would be a green field site in the Kimberly or Pilbara. There is a reason they are underpopulated and that is they are very hard environments to live in.

A far more likely place to build a new multi million population city is the north coast of NSW. For one people would actually want to live there and for two it has the infrastructure to support such construction. Second to that would be major development of a central or northern Queensland coastal town (Gympie to Cooktown).

And over the long term, there is absolutely no doubt that continued population growth would make Australia's defence force stronger too. Population * incomes = economic power = military power, in blunt terms.

Australia’s population growth has never been held back by a lack of cities or urban space. Also our military power has decreased substantially in the past 60 years while our population has doubled.

 

[lopez]

I personally advocate for construction of new cities in the south and east, as they are needed make economic sense and have the added advantages of preparing for imminent invasions. From the kiwis and angry penguins ...:flash

 

[ngatimozart]

I personally advocate for construction of new cities in the south and east, as they are needed make economic sense and have the added advantages of preparing for imminent invasions. From the kiwis and angry penguins ...:flash

To late mate because the kiwis are already there. The last one is just trying to find the light switch to turn out the lights. And I saw on the TV the other night the penguins had taken up flying. Apparently they had good & bad news for the passengers in the plane that were flying. Chief Penguin pilot said that the good news was they were landing. that bad news was that it was going to be a crash.

 

[tajmahal]

You are really showing your ignorance. Basic commodities, for example food in NZ can be expensive because the domestic market competes with the export market. NZ has a free markett economy and no tariffs on foreign imports except oil, alcohol and tobacco. It has nothing to do with transport or freight costs. We grow most of our own food and if you incluse CER and look at the Australasian markets as a single market then we grow all our on food except for rice. We import about 66% of our fuel. Our petrol is cheaper than the UK even though they have the North Sea oil. Like Swerve says, there is nothing in the hinterland in northern Australia to support a large city. You need to broaden your education beyond a single economics 101 text book. Get onto Google Earth and have areal good look at the Northern part of Australia from about 23 degrees South north. Then go Google some facts.

Your lack of knowledge about your own country is astounding, so let me enlighten you. The reasons why basic items in new zealand are more expensive compared to the developed world: 1) much lower incomes, 2) nearly bankrupt government which unlike developed countries cannot afford to subsidise production of basic household goods but instead has to actually tax it, through your country's warped version of the GST; selling even more of your country's key assets to Australia as they are doing now will only be a short term fix; 3) small market with virtually monopolised industries which charge what they like to the domestic market because they essentially run the country (e.g. Fonterra and the other cartels) knowing the government wouldn't dare interfere. 4) much lower capital investment which lags the rest of the world causing factors of production to be much higher than they would otherwise be; 5) and yes, NZ's completely isolated geography does have an impact mate, the cost of importing all the things your country needs has proven so prohibitive that NZ's shipping regulation standards have been totally compromised they're now shambolic - just look at what happened to the rust bucket Rena and its maverick crew to see what that leads to.

There are probably plenty of other reasons but enough said I think. If you're still not convinced that the NZ economy and the Key government is really failing its citizens, just look at the kiwi exodus to Australia. It's only going to get worse.

 

[Todjaeger]

Your lack of knowledge about your own country is astounding, so let me enlighten you. The reasons why basic items in new zealand are more expensive compared to the developed world: 1) much lower incomes, 2) nearly bankrupt government which unlike developed countries cannot afford to subsidise production of basic household goods but instead has to actually tax it, through your country's warped version of the GST; selling even more of your country's key assets to Australia as they are doing now will only be a short term fix; 3) small market with virtually monopolised industries which charge what they like to the domestic market because they essentially run the country (e.g. Fonterra and the other cartels) knowing the government wouldn't dare interfere. 4) much lower capital investment which lags the rest of the world causing factors of production to be much higher than they would otherwise be; 5) and yes, NZ's completely isolated geography does have an impact mate, the cost of importing all the things your country needs has proven so prohibitive that NZ's shipping regulation standards have been totally compromised they're now shambolic - just look at what happened to the rust bucket Rena and its maverick crew to see what that leads to.

There are probably plenty of other reasons but enough said I think. If you're still not convinced that the NZ economy and the Key government is really failing its citizens, just look at the kiwi exodus to Australia. It's only going to get worse.

It honestly sounds at this point that you have not fully thought through the implications of founding a new, large population centre in northern/northwestern Australia.

There would need to be an enormous investment in basic infrastructure to make a settlement of any significant size work. This basic infrastructure would cover power generation and distribution, water collection, treatment and distribution, as well as transportation and comm links. Unless one expects the Commonwealth to subsidize the entire endeavour, at a cost of billions to Australians, there needs to be something to draw people to settle in a given area, and then there needs to be economic activity people engage in, otherwise the settlement will not be self-sustaining.

For a better appreciation of what is involved, consider what the costs are to establish a cattle or sheep station at a new location, and then imagine that on a macro scale.

As for having a go at NZ because others have pointed out some serious faults in the idea, not cool. For one thing, it is fftopic, for another it diminishes the quality of the topic by attacking other posters and/or their countries, instead of concentrating on debating, attacking or defending an idea. Also, some of the basic facts are not even correct.

The cost of an item is independent of a lower (or higher) income. The cost of an item depends on the relationship between supply & demand, as well as the cost to get the goods to market. Where income level becomes involved is in standard of living, which is the relationship between income level and cost of living, which itself is an aggregate measure of the cost of goods and services for a given area.

Now back to the actual thread topic. If there was a major population centre in the north/northwest, that could potentially aid the security situation of Australia by providing a location that the ADF could draw upon the city's infrastructure to support ADF operations in or from northern/northwestern Australia. By the same token though, if such a centre did exist, it would significantly reduce the available depth of defence because there would now be an Australian location which a hostile force could threaten or even capture to make use of the available infrasture themselves.

Not to mention there has still been no justification for a city being located in such an area, who would fund the required investments in infrastructure, or what activities the city would be engaged in to make it self-sustaining.

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

Your lack of knowledge about your own country is astounding, so let me enlighten you. The reasons why basic items in new zealand are more expensive compared to the developed world: 1) much lower incomes, .

Low incomes tend to cause lower prices, not higher. Low incomes = reduced effective demand. Low incomes = lower input costs for domestically produced goods. Low incomes = lower wholesale & retail markups (shop workers etc. paid less).