Decentralisation record appalling

A lead article (Peninsula News, June 27) which suggests that member for Gosford Chris Holstein is inviting young Sydney dwellers to move to the Central Coast encouraged by a $7000 house grant seems to be contradicted by a front page report in the Sydney Morning Herald (June 29).

In that report, it is made clear that the $7000 is meant to encourage people to leave the rat race "to move from Sydney, Newcastle or Wollongong to regional NSW".

The Government definition of Sydney "stretches from the Hawkesbury to the Blue Mountains and the Central Coast".

This would suggest that the Central Coast is not included in the scheme.

If it was, and the sentiments expressed by Mr Holstein seem to suggest that, the plan would be grossly short on logic.

Why should people be encouraged to move to the Central Coast from Sydney?

The unemployment rate here is significantly higher than the average and employment generation is in fact a high priority.

Encouraging people to move here, by the enticement of $7000, would add to the already high level of people commuting to Sydney.

Surely, we need employment generation encouragement here not the overflow of people wanting to leave Sydney.

The Government is to be congratulated in aiming to decongest Sydney but moving Sydneysiders to regions immediately adjacent to Sydney, here and on the South Coast as well, would simply mean further extending Greater Sydney - and its problems.

That is not decentralisation and de-urbanisation.

As to the merit of the Government's decentralisation plans, employment generation surely would have to precede or accompany the movement of people leaving Sydney for the (country) regions.

What will they do about that?

Have they got the will and the resources for it or is this a major national problem which would involve abolishing the states altogether?

The record of effective decentralisation by state governments is plainly appalling.

Email, 29 Jun 2011 Klaas Woldring, Pearl Beach