OPINION: The inexorable growth of Auckland City is a reaching a near crisis point. We constantly hear about rocketing house prices, choking commuter congestion, and now even some people living in garages and cars. And if that is not bad enough, the Blues and the Warriors can barely win a trick.

The solutions to this problem vary. One response is denial. There is no problem: Auckland is a thriving, bustling metropolis. Others see the urgent need for greater government investment in infrastructure: taxpayer money is required to build more roads, a light rail network, affordable houses and so on. Another call is for the freeing up of surrounding rural land for urban sprawl. Currently, the majority of migrants arrive in Auckland and stay there.

According to a New Zealand Government website: "It's the region of choice for over half of new migrants. They're drawn here by Auckland's job opportunities, good climate, stunning natural environment with beautiful harbours, beaches, and parks and its vibrant, cosmopolitan centre."

Supplied Professor Rex Ahdar of the University of Otago.

READ MORE:

* House prices rise, but not in Auckland

* Warning of unstable Auckland house prices

* Silence of council not golden during housing boom

* Auckland's housing boom is spreading and that is a problem: economist Rodney Dickens

* Laughter at PM's suggestion Auckland homeless should try Work and Income

Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of the crippling house prices, soaring rents and brutal traffic. Here is a proposal. Given that a sizeable chunk of Auckland's expansion is due to migrants, is it time to consider a policy of directed dispersal? What do I mean?

Those who wish to migrate to New Zealand would no longer have the unfettered freedom to choose where they wish to live. Rather, the Government would direct them to regions and provincial cities so that migrants would be more evenly spread throughout the country. They would be required to live in the designated town or region for (say) five years. After that they could shift to wherever they want. A certain percentage will make a beeline for Auckland. But a fraction, probably at least half, will put roots down and will see that Gisborne, Masterton and Timaru are all actually nice places to live and raise a family.

Why, the immigration consultants never told us about the merits of Hastings, Dunedin or Wanganui.

A liberal democratic government cannot direct its citizens to relocate to another part of the country, but I can do something about those wishing to adopt New Zealand as their home.

I realise that a modest attempt at dispersal has already been implemented. The Government introduced changes to the points system for skilled migrants and entrepreneurs in 2015. Such migrants are now granted more points if they agree to work outside of Auckland and agree to stay in non-Auckland towns for at least 12 months. The small coterie of Syrian refugees has been similarly diffused to the regions.

Would my proposal work? Perhaps.The policy of compulsory dispersal of "forced migrants" (refugees, asylum seekers) has been implemented the UK since 2000 and also tried in several other European nations. Part of the rationale has been to facilitate integration into the host culture and to counteract "ethnic clustering", as the social scientists politely term it. The beneficial effects upon the regions are hard to gauge. Certainly, population decline or stagnation would be ameliorated. My city, Dunedin, could, in my opinion, easily cope with another 5000 plus residents per year and could comfortably grow by 30 per cent over the next decade. It has the schools, civic amenities and the land for housing.

What are the objections? Can we send migrants to towns that have no employment, no spare housing? And what about the family and cultural networks that tend to attract migrants to Auckland in the first place. Birds of a feather flock together. There are, after all, not many Somalis or Syrians in Invercargill, last time I checked. True. But a few lone individuals would not be marooned in a town that lacks kinship or cultural supports, but rather, diffusion would see a minimum number of such migrants being placed in the particular locality (say at least 5 or 4 families or 30 to 40 individuals).

What about the jobs? Well, the skilled migrants and entrepreneurs, by definition, are capable souls and it would be a strange thing if they were unable to display their talents in any place other than a city of 1.4 million.

Which cities would be selected? The Government would decide. Perhaps the migrants would have a choice of regions: for example, zone A (east coast of the North Island), B (lower west coast of the North Island) or C (Southland and Otago). These details would need to be worked out.

The distorting effects of the unabated growth of the Auckland metropolitan region affect the whole of New Zealand. The diversion of taxpayer funds to a seemingly ever-expanding city-cum-region necessarily means fewer dollars are spent everywhere else.

The crisis, if that is what it has become, calls for new ideas and innovative policies. This is one partial solution to throw into the pot.