The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Small town life-styles > Comments

Small town life-styles : Comments

By Lyn Allison, published 28/9/2006

Decentralisation is the only possible long-term solution to the sprawling problems of Sydney and Melbourne.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Spot on Lyn. After working over the data provided by the Bureau of Transport Economics 1996 report, we found that each new settler in Melbourne by 2015 will cost the existing residents $8,000 a year in congestion related costs. In Brisbane it is closer to $12,000 a year.

In contrast, the average expenditure by state governments on each of its citizens is only $6,000 a year. So each new metro settler generates $6,000 in tax revenue but is offset by $6,000 in services and $8,000 in congestion.

Furthermore, these costs are being incorporated into the cost of delivering government services so it is no surprise that service delivery is declining.

The most successful decentralisation experiments in Australia have been Darwin and Canberra. And both of these have been associated with self governance. State expenditure is 15% of GDP so it is an important economic engine in its own right. But at the moment much of this economic engine is misfiring in the regions.

We need new states within the commonwealth so regional communities can spend their own share of GST funds on their own priorities. It is nothing radical. Just create one and the rest will soon follow. And the cities can buy some time to fix their own problems.
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 28 September 2006 10:28:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't help but agree, but not all is lost.

Traditionally local councils have been pretty disparate, though in Queensland, the arrival of the Integrated Planning Act has changed a few things.

While councillors, especially those in the smaller shires, are finding it hard to come to grips with new planning requirements, the ultimate goal is to draw these communities closer together - that's why we've seen projects like the much touted Size Shape Sustainability, (SSS) which has in many ways been an attempt at amalgamation by stealth, but still represents an an attempt to share resources of councils.

At the moment, the Southern regions of Queensland are attempting something that hasn't really been done before. Where previously the state government has forced coordinated planning upon the regions, (SEQ regional plan as an example) this time, it is being driven by councils, who are all preparing strategic growth plans and what not, and then coordinating them through wider organisations. The former local government minister Desley Boyle was pretty supportive.

While it all sounds like boring acronyms, the SEQ plan for instance has already kickstarted works on the congested ipswich road.

If the State and Federal government can cotton on to the importance of decentralisation as an alternative to vote grabbing in urban areas, we may yet be able to induce a change in the population demographic.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 28 September 2006 11:03:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cue the anti-immigration lobbyists who will once again use a potentially useful thread to instead push their own barrow:
Posted by foundation, Thursday, 28 September 2006 11:15:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn,

Just a simple observation: get rainfall maps of the US and Australia. Then you'll see why we didn't decentralise over our vast land as the US has been able to do. Then drive an hour north from Manuka and visit Goulburn. Mt Gambier is another example. Their problems will be repeated over many inland cities in the next hundred years, if my guess is correct. The example you mention of Wagga has huge problems with dry-land salinity and water supply and can ill afford a large population increase

Then consider this: the US had a population of 300 million. It's inevitable that there will be proportionatly more 'city towns', like Wagga in the US than we have, provided they have the water to support them. The same applies in Europe.

Australia is decentralising but along the coasts and mainly to the north. Inevitably, those small towns will link. How we manage that volunteer shift---maybe be green belts---is the challenge, not trying to set up greenfield sites in dust bowls. That was tried with soldier settlemets and failed dismally at great social costs.

Our cities do have problems but whether they are problems in cities or of cities I'm not sure.
Posted by PeterJH, Thursday, 28 September 2006 11:17:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn,

Do the Australian Democrats support every building in Australia collecting water from the roof for rainwater tanks for use in replacement of mains drinking water?

Do you regard collecting water from roofs to be a water resource of national significance?

When 6 million house roofs yield 70KL of rainwater each year, and all other buildings use rainwater, the total yield will be more than 500 billion litres - enough to fill Sydney harbour or supply a city the size of Melbourne.

A national rainwater tank policy will see rainwater tanks being the lowest cost source of additional water supply as a result of economies of scale in manufacturing, installation and financing.

Therefore, will the Australian Democrats ask federal and state governments to investigate the potential of rainwater tanks?

In relation to decentralisation, virtually every regional town and city has a wealth of un-used or under-used infrastructure. There is, obviously, a cost saving when abundant and cheap regional infrastructure is used instead of scarce and expensive city infrastructure.

Businesses that set up in regional areas instead of the city generate a real cost saving in terms of better utilisation of available infrastructure.

A way of reflecting this is to provide businesses that set-up in regional areas with a grant equivalent to their first 5 – 10 years of income tax paid.

The value of the grant is offset against the value of the improved use of infrastructure.

Greg Cameron
Posted by GC, Thursday, 28 September 2006 11:19:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn
I'm not sure about the prospects for decentralisation, at least the way it has traditionally been conceived of in Australia. Certainly not much was achieved from the decentralisation initiatives in the 70s such as Albury/Wodonga, Bathurst/Orange and others (Monaro, SA?). But things have changed a bit since then.

The problem has always been how to get jobs to decentralise. People like warm, coastal climates so retirees have driven a substantial decentralisation movement over the last 30 years or so. As so many jobs now serve population directly, many workers have been attracted to these places from the big cities. Trouble is these sorts of places have limited capacity - they are in limited supply and are often environmentally delicate (so of course were the capitals but most of what was lost is forgotten).

Big cities have the great advantage that they provide enormous economies of scale. They permit specialisation. Given that there are many cities throughout the world that are much, much larger than Sydney or Melbourne, we may still be a fair way from the economic limit. Improvements in electronic communications do not appear to be driving decentralisation of jobs away from cities on any significant scale (and indeed many believe they have the opposite effect).

The real decentralisation story has been happening within metropolitan areas. The great bulk of jobs in Sydney and Melbourne are now out there with the residents, well away from the CBD.

By and large, people want to be where the jobs are and the jobs want to be where the people are. Perhaps the best policy could be for all of us to stop thinking about 'suburbanisation' quite so perjoratively and start thinking about it as 'decentralisation'?
Posted by Claudiecat, Thursday, 28 September 2006 12:24:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I fully agree with Peter,JH. Australia is the driest continent on Earth. Unlike the US, we don't have major river systems from which we can conviently pump huge amounts of water. I've been down this path about decentralisation following another article about how ever increasing populations in larger rural cities have all but destroyed the charm of those places that made them what they were. Eg. Since the population of Ballarat swelled by an extra 20,000 people in the last 15 - 20 years it's been plaqued by traffic conjestion at peak times, vandalism, theft and an ever increasing water supply problem which goes back further than present drought conditions. Take a look at any of the newly developed housing areas. Blindfold anyone in Caroline Springs and take them to these Ballarat housing estates and they'll think you've been driving them around the block for an hour or so. And the place grows steadily larger and uglier every year. Maybe what we need to do is massively reduce immigration and stop people breeding like maggots on a dead sheep.
Sorry Foundation. Couldn't help myself.
Posted by Wildcat, Thursday, 28 September 2006 1:49:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In NSW, the ideal areas for decentralisation which have presented themselves are within a few hours drive of Sydney. New road networks like the M7 and M2 in Sydney allow a person from Bowral, Berrima, Goulburn to reach the centre of Sydney within 2 hours in good traffic. If the lure of the big smoke is something to be contended with, surely the growth of towns around the Southern Tablelands, The Hunter and just west of the Diving Range should be promoted first.

The best thing about decentralisation to these areas would be that extending broadband internet to these areas is not too tricky, and there is a readily avaliable architectural vernacular that can be adopted to develop these towns without affecting their feel and character. If land were opened up without taxes, and developers given pattern-books of the architectural styles that predominate in each town, and were forced to develop along the lines of traditional suburbs (2 story main drag of shops and offices, surrounded by terraces and cottages, then surrounded by suburban blocks, with land designated for parks and homestead houses on the edge), then some of these towns are perfect for development. The ratio of townhousing and cottages to suburban blocks should be enough to make the suburb walkable (15-18 minutes walk maximum between shopping districts, making it les than 10 minute walk to get there).

Take Berrima, dominated by its Colonial Grecian courthouse and prison, and its Georgian sandstone houses and buisnesses, the issueing of a handbook of Georgian, Regency and Mannerist styles, the use of Filigree lace, and the opening up of a vein of local sandstone to build them with, would enhance the feel of that beautiful town... rather than it be denigrated with concrete, glass, reinforced steel and McMansions.

To lower house-prices, and ensure a continual link with the land and rural Australia, decentralisation is essential, but it must destroy our heritage, but rather be built around enhancing it by the use of traditional architecture and urbanism. We cannot destroy these towns like we have wasted Sydney.
Posted by DFXK, Thursday, 28 September 2006 3:16:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have always liked the rehtorical style of the Democrats.

And i beleive for certain Lyn Allison has tipped a major point in future politics.

Gadget once lived near a town called Won Wron, and in the early days of settlement there was a light rail and settlement that went way into to the bush (a long way in those days) near a place called White Womans Waterhole. There is a twin history to the place, and the ruins of both tales are still there to be found. I recomend it to anybody who wants to find it.

My point is this, and it aligns with Allison (i hope). If we did it then, why shoudnt we do it again. America as we all should recognise was built on the backs of the rail networks. And did they build. We didnt. Nontheless, we could still do the rail system in the future, and it would be the best system in confronting future problems.

And now for my peice-de-resitance: Why not build nuclear powered steam trains?

I know the Left will howl, but oh what a brilliant idea! Just remember, Gadget has a real name, and Intellectual Property Rights. Lyn Allison is authorised to seek my consultation.
Posted by Gadget, Thursday, 28 September 2006 5:18:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Decentralisation works when and only when centralising national governments cede power to decentralised regional or provincial level governments that then have real power. That requires constitutional change. Not only does the federal govt have to concede powers to the states: they have to in turn concede powers to the regions. Yet all our political dynamics in Australia run in the other direction. The feds gain more and more power over the nation, monopolising taxation through the GST and income tax, snd turning the once proud states into little more than executing agencies - eg look at education! The states do the same to local shire councils, with their "efficiency" amalgamations that suck the lifeblood out of local communities.

Maybe we need more states - NSW could easily be three, South Central and North. So could Queensland. Western Australia could be three too. Victoria could be three - East Central amd West. Then we would see real decentralisation and separation of powers which is what this argument should be about.

But in Australia now, the great god of economic efficiency rules. Which is why we will finish up an authoritarian, unitary, centralised nation - unless we shake our thinking up and put a higher priority on democracy, local autonomy, than on economic efficiency ...
Posted by tony kevin, Thursday, 28 September 2006 9:27:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is barely enough water to maintain status quo. Any plan for an increase in population must include an expansion in water catchment and storage. I see more dams as the only solution. Desalination on a large scale is far too energy demanding. It's illogical to talk about the greenhouse effect and at the same time fire up huge power plants to drive desal plants. Even environmentalists will have to concede that to dam a valley has far less environmental impact than to run more power stations.
No-one wants more power stations and dams and infringe on even more of what little is left wilderness but far too many want to bring more people into the country and have more growth. Share holders want more profit, shoppers want more and better food on the supermarket shelves. All of this requires more water.
Unfortunately, the want more society is working itself into an inescapable corner.
My logic might be way off but i'll air it anyway. Like it or not people too ar part of nature and can be dealt a hefty blow by nature as we do to her. If the continent is too dry to support any increase in population and we don't want to interfere with nature any further then let's not have a population increase. Ok. If we do want more water than we have to interfere with nature, period ! It's how we interfere that's the question. Ever heard of the Bradfield scheme ? No ? Go and Google it. makes sense to anyone with sense. How about flooding Lake Ayr ? The resulting evaporation from such a huge expanse of water fresh or salt, could quite possibly cause a weather pattern resulting in the greening of much of the presently arid interior. To flood Lake Ayr would not entirely be environmentally unacceptable considering that it does flood naturally occasionally. The solution is staring at us but because of our political system ie. tunnel visioned, revenue ravishing minority groups dictating a supposed democracy, the problems will increase in pace with the demand for water
Posted by pragma, Thursday, 28 September 2006 9:33:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
appologies for posting here accidentally. pragma
Posted by pragma, Thursday, 28 September 2006 9:40:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foundation, you might be able to refer to me as an anti-immigration lobbyist. You'll generally pick up an anti-immigration theme. However in the context of this issue, immigration can provide a tool to promoting decentralisation, if any government is game to try. Why not give immigrants restricted settlement areas. Eg they cant live in any city with a population of more than 100,000. Or even better, restrict them to a certain distance from these population centres. Combine this with the added benefit of tax-based incentives for businesses to invest in regional centres, then you are in with a chance.

However, by far the biggest problem to overcome is our distinct lack of water in the vast majority of Australia. Even if they can be convinced to give the green lawn a miss, most Australians will struggle with constant dust-storms every time the wind gets up. Industry also needs water to operate. Again, solve this problem and we are in with a chance. Until we have the ability to at least move towards solving the water problem, there is no point investing in infrastructure to promote decentralisation - its wasted resources.

Still, I'm all for cutting NSW (Newcastle/Sydney/Wollongong) off the rest of this state and seeing how long they can fend for themselves.
Posted by Country Gal, Thursday, 28 September 2006 10:50:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, this article ranks second only to the load of absolute rubbish that brought me onto this forum in November last year.

What a collywobbly load of bunkum!! !!

Lyn Allison doesn’t even mention or allude to high population growth or immigration. So if we are going to ignore this all-important factor, then what’s the freaking point of decentralisation?

Without addressing the population issues, with even the most concerted efforts at decentralisation, we would end up with various growth centres, some for better, some for worse, and would still have about the same growth pressure in Sydney and Melbourne. For that matter, we HAVE had considerable decentralisation from the large cities for many years, into SEQ, NQ, SW WA, Darwin, etc….without it leading to solutions to population pressure in the large centres.

Decentralisation may well be part of a solution that is premised on population stabilisation. But it is just completely whacko to pronounce it as THE solution in the absence of an overall population or sustainability policy.

I am disgusted that the leader of the Democrats, who are supposed to have some understanding of sustainability issues, can espouse such crapulous.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 28 September 2006 11:27:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foundation

It seems as though you are only too keen to lay into anyone who might possibly appear to be anti-immigration. So let me clarify my stance.

I am for net zero immigration, which is something in the order of 30 000 per annum. So I am nowhere near being anti-immigration.

I am for population stabilisation in the interests of sustainability. But that does not preclude the reasonably free movement of people in and out of and all around the country.

Now, do you have a problem with this?
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 28 September 2006 11:36:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Zero net migration was an ON policy.
They as did the Democrats once spoke against mass immigration and the need for a population policy.

The Democrats come very late to the national infrastructure party.

We live on the dryest/most arid, populated continent on the planet.

For increases in population you need water, to have a water supply you need infrastructure... no government has invested in such a way for almost a generation.

ON had a WATER policy and in the early days backed Senator Ernie Bridge and his Watering Australia Foundation. Funnily enough parts of that policy are slowly being adopted by the Liberals lately.

Without water and proper infrastructure you cannot secure decentralisation or population increases. Good to see the Dems catching up to One Nation on this. Pity the helped kill off One Nation.
Posted by T800, Thursday, 28 September 2006 11:50:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FROM CAPE YORK

"What do we need and where"?

On a social scale I say it is about social development and town planning.

The Issue - "Sharing Servicing Provisions".

This is about affordablity Yes!

I flip your focus now to point to a Canadian report that may work if we consider and compare these demographic indices to issues we have in Australia.

Social networks need more transport and communication networks. They need plans that are pro-active local and regional development plans that attack underlying problems of cause , critically.

See Counter-Acting Social Drift on http://www.miacat.com/

The essay promoting a reason to support the Cook Shire Mulit-Purpose Event Plan, for example, integrates an open or "No Closed Door Policy", for obvious reasons.

As with all issues to do with people, it engages a pro-active preventive measure that considers the impact of people's life-quality and how all forms of mobility impacts on their individual lives.

What’s more, it is a rural example where location is considered against the systematic degradation of our human needs in favour of capital development, especially now as we see the entrance of new wave privatisation's in social networks where the emphasis is becoming the new buz for servicing the inter-capital "partnerships"?

What does this mean?

With privatisation, governments lost the ability to enlist civic support of regional development programs without massive direct subsidies.

This means governments be it in large cities or small townships appear to find themselves without remedy for the disorder in human relations they create for people at ground levels.

Wasted is the human capital, where human needs work as assets, through two way communication, at both levels.

How to engage people?

If it is considered in Urban and Regional Development, then Lyn Allison quotes well how '17th century economist David Ricardo pointed out in another context, to explain how unrestrained expansion leads to marginal inefficiencies and diminishing returns: each additional house adds excessively to the burden on city infrastructure, and costs of supplying these services rise exponentially when the sprawl exceeds its natural limits.'

This smacks of under-development!
Posted by miacat, Friday, 29 September 2006 1:29:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia

Population (in millions): 19.73
GDP per inhabitant (in US dollars): 27,000
Density (inhabitants per km2): 2.57
Average age (in years): 36
Life expectancy at birth (in years): 80.13

USA

Population (in millions): 290.34
GDP per inhabitant (in US dollars): 37,600
Density (inhabitants per km2): 30.15
Average age (in years): 35.8
Life expectancy at birth (in years): 77.14

England

Population (in millions): 50.10
GDP per inhabitant (in US dollars): 25,300
Density (inhabitants per km2): 384.13
Average age (in years): 38.4
Life expectancy at birth (in years): 78.16

Japan

Population (in millions): 127.21
GDP per inhabitant (in US dollars): 28,000
Density (inhabitants per km2): 336.69
Average age (in years): 42
Life expectancy at birth (in years): 80.93

The under population of Australia is the major problem, not enough people to support additional infrastructure.

When Australia has a population of 100 Million we should be able to sustain ourselves.
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 29 September 2006 6:17:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are putting the horse before the cart Steve...

We can't support a population of 100,000... we can barely support what we have now.
Posted by T800, Friday, 29 September 2006 8:29:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Water is like gold or iron ore. It is a resource. But of course it is much more than than because we cannot live without water. Therefore, in a country like Australia it will become increasingly more precious in $$$ as well as political, social and environmental terms.

When the rainfall pattern starts seriously shifting further north as a result of climate change, I believe decentralisation will gradually follow in its wake.

Why? For the obvious reason that we need to drink water but also too because industry needs water. If the cost of water becomes too expensive in our major cities which are already in trouble, industry may decide to relocate: Perhaps overseas or futher north where it is predicted the rainfall will become much higher.

Given the political instability which already exists in our immediate neighbours, and which may intensify with climate change, it is realistic to assume industry may migrate further north in Australia.

If industry chooses to go troppo, then the workers will follow. And I use the term 'troppo' advisably. :)
Posted by black cockatoo, Friday, 29 September 2006 9:42:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The decentralisation polices pursued by the Whitlam Government between 1972 and 1975 attempted to redistribute people after an inert era of Liberal Party policy on urban planning. The focus of decentralisation was certainly very political – some of the models were: Albury-Wodonga, Townsville, Campbelltown (Sydney) and who remembers Monarto, in South Australia (perhaps a good idea, but certainly now a phantom white elephant in the desert)?

The legacy of decentralisation is mixed – huge amounts of financial resources have already been given to this idea. Albury-Wodonga had a target population of 300,000 by year 2000 (In 1978 the target was revised to 150,00). When the Albury-Wodonga Development Repeal Bill was debated in the NSW legislative Council in mid-2000, the population of the combined cities was about 72,500 (NSW Hansard, 2000).

A later removal of funding by the Fraser Gov’t in the Albury-Wodonga plan certainly ensured that decentralisation did not work (not that there were any guarantees it would). The dominance of Australian Labor Party policy between 1983-1996 showed some innovation with ‘cost-effective residential land development’ or ‘Green Street’. Much was accomplished under the ‘Building better cities program’ which is now associated with sustainability ideas based on the UN ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeirio in 1992. There’s certainly a lot of ‘theory’ out there – the simple concept of decentralision is certainly in need of more sophistication. New terms, like ‘Smart Growth’ , ‘ecological sustainability’ etc. spring to mind, however, if half the population won’t even consider the recycling of water it doesn’t matter where they settle – they’ll be pushing the proverbial uphill.
Posted by relda, Friday, 29 September 2006 10:16:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Better than drinking though!
Posted by Gadget, Friday, 29 September 2006 10:34:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pragma, that may have been an accidental post, but very interesting all the same.
Posted by Wildcat, Friday, 29 September 2006 11:25:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual the Zero population fetishists have cluttered what could have been a sensible thread with water and other considerations that are tossed in without any consideration of character and scale. As I have had to stress time and again on other threads, water is not a limiting factor if every new house has a decent sized water tank and storm runoff is captured for parks and industry.

Now for the topic itself. We are deluding ourselves if we think Ballarat or Lithgow constitutes decentralisation. IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN ANOTHER FORM OF SPRAWL.

Albury-Woodonga failed because it did not have an autonomous state government included. This left that region with a minor inflow of government funds but with the normal leakages intact.

State government outlays are 15% of GDP and if every government dollar was returned to the community that paid the taxes then there would be no contraction in regional economies. But we know that at least 20% of government outlays are on head office and other centralised overheads. And we also know that close to 15% of government employees wages (their superannuation) is taken out before it even gets to the community and is either invested overseas or in the capital cities. And that means that a third of each state government's 15% of GDP is not circulating in the regions.

And that means that the regions have to increase productivity by 5% just to maintain a static local economy while the capitals can still grow with zero productivity gains. And this is what drives the urban sprawl and all the congestion costs and environmental impacts that come from it.

The only way to plug this regional leakage of funds is to form new states with new capitals that become new engines of growth. But if the cities won't let go then they'll get no sympathy when their problems get worse and worse.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 29 September 2006 12:48:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"form new states with new capitals"

Eh? I do understand your point, but would this work? More inefficient governments? Or are you proposing that these new states would be small enough to simply replace local govt's?

Regarding water, every single day I drink a bit of water that has been through somebody's washer, down their shower plughole, greased the s-bend for slick sausage-disposal, flowed down the Ganges... etc.

And I'm alright. tic.

We don't have a shortage of water, we just lack the infrastructure to catch it, shift it around and store it. And of what we do have, we waste an awful lot. Last time I checked, 40-50% of domestic water use is expelled as 'grey-water' which could with minimal treatment be returned to storage. Guess what? This alone would solve almost every current water shortage in the country! But the return-flow infrastructure doesn't exist. If it did, as previously suggested, excess rain could also be sent to storage, along with massive amounts of storm-water runoff that currently head out to sea.

We COULD do it, even without drinking water that we might perceive as having been poo-water.
Posted by foundation, Friday, 29 September 2006 1:13:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“…and if every government dollar was returned to the community that paid the taxes then there would be no contraction in regional economies.”
The multiplier effect of this would be to encourage economic growth only in those areas of industry and high employment (Gov’t would not have funds to stimulate economy in struggling areas). Regional economies are currently severely affected by drought; without Government injection, many rural economies will fail. People will generally relocate to urban or larger regional centres.

Ultimately, the balance will probably be about making our cities and urban areas more ‘liveable’ whilst retaining a few key regional centres. A few country ‘outposts’ will remain, where community self-sufficiency has taken advantage of a niche tourism market or a ‘natural’ resource – the ability/ opportunity to be a part of the ‘consumer’ population will be less, as goods and services etc. are less available.

Urban Sprawl is both exacerbated and related to a high and inefficient energy consumption. Bigger houses, longer travelling times and water wastage = high inefficiency.
Posted by relda, Friday, 29 September 2006 1:57:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh relda, as a rural-dwelling resident of a very small town I find your comments mildly insulting, uninformed and patronising. That we will only survive if we’re self-sufficient etcetera. I’m surrounded by profitable businesses, dairy, wool, lamb and beef farms, corn, beans, broccoli, avocados, asparagus. Export industries in grains, timber, lamb etc. And then all the secondary businesses, retail, hospitality that support them. I can tell you right now, without us, cities would perish. Without cities, life in the bush would be different, but we’d still be here. Probably just band together, run our own ports and continue to operate profitably in international markets.

We have plentiful domestic water, drawn from an environmentally friendly local weir that has never run dry. Now our profligate city-dwelling cousins are greedily eying off our excess rather than looking to fix their own problem (wastefulness).

We don’t have a public transport system that is haemorrhaging cash at every rivet. If we must go somewhere, we must drive. That’s fine. But why is my tax spent supporting this system in the city?

“You can’t cut down the trees”, they cry, ignorant of current already-sustainable (and ever improving) practises. Yet there are more 4WDs per capita THERE than HERE! And we actually drive up steep hills, ford rivers and frankly don’t have much bitumen. Oh well, at least our vigorous regrowth will suck up some of your unnecessary C02 emissions.

I could go on forever, but the word limit has beaten me again.

- - - - -

“Urban Sprawl is both exacerbated and related to a high and inefficient energy consumption”

That would appear logical, but I read recently a survey of 4,000 dwellings which showed that high-rise apartments are responsible for almost double the greenhouse gas emission per resident when compared to detached houses. Mid and low-rise were also higher per resident, while townhouse developments had the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per resident. The report was by EnergyAustralia and the NSW Planning Department.
Posted by foundation, Friday, 29 September 2006 3:03:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
T800

I am most certainly not putting the cart before the horse. We could fit the population of Australia into Victoria easily. We could then afford decent facilities like public transport and water and electricity infrastructure.

The only way for regional centers to grow is for our population to grow.

It is only with a much larger population that we can afford the infrastucture for this vast land.
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 29 September 2006 3:53:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn Allison & the Dems & Labor types would likely pin a photograph of me on their dart boards for suggesting this but I believe an easy way to make moving away from the major population centers attractive would be to re-draw electoral boundary’s to reflect land area rather than just head count .
Posted by jamo, Friday, 29 September 2006 7:11:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How many children do you have Steve Madden? I am interested because quite a lot of people who advocate a larger population only have one or two at the most. Politicians notoriously fit into this category.

You will have to have more than that for a growing population. I can hear the roaring for more immigration, except many migrants only have one or two kids at the most, so we are faced with the same problem.

The average number of children per woman in Australia is 1.7, which is below replacement. We cannot expect other countries to purpose breed Australian citizens, and we don't want to for social stability.

Some people want everything - so long as it not to hard - like raising kids.
Posted by Angelo, Saturday, 30 September 2006 10:50:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve... sorry to disagree again but you are wrong.
If suddenly we had a population of 100,000,000 we don't have the infrastructure to support them.

Infrastructure comes first.
Water comes first.

Otherwise there is kaos and death.

BTW, most arid populated country?
Do you understand why we are coastal dwellers?
We can't and maybe never will be able to support 100,000,000 people.
Posted by T800, Saturday, 30 September 2006 11:09:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
foundation,

It seems the urban 4WD’ers have reason to also feel mildly offended as well – but I agree, in urban areas they seem an aberration. Again I agree, medium density town housing is probably the way to go – and yes, high-rise structures have been proven to consume energy inefficiently.

It would seem, your local area is quite self-sufficient, with its natural resource – sadly it’s not the norm for many if not most rural areas. Globalisation is bringing about some unpleasant change –our ‘Aussie’ parochialism doesn’t equip us for survival. As mentioned by another poster, our comparatively small population cannot cope with huge infrastructure – extensive arterial road networks, cabling, pipelines, power grids and other networks etc. cannot be spread indefinitely over vast spaces.

The leadership our communities provide is going to be crucial – grass roots leadership, not the top-down ‘high-profilers’. Planners have mostly generated community through adversity – the community formed here is one of opposition. As vague as this might seem, the acceptance of new technology, so called hard planning and engineering solutions is increasingly dependent on supportive communities receptive to change
Posted by relda, Saturday, 30 September 2006 11:19:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with T800 and Ludwig. We desperately need to have a population policy as a first step.

Perseus. You may have stated your house tank thoughts time and again, but that does not make it right.

It probably will reduce reliance on reticulated water in the summer rainfall areas, i.e. The north and eastern coastal fringe, but not worth a bumper in the dry summer areas. Have you any idea how much water is required for, say, 5 hot months with little or no rainfall.
I live in a dry summer area, with my own water supply, and I know.

Steve. If you believe what you write about a high population. Well you a lost cause.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 30 September 2006 11:41:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Angelo,

I am puzzled by the idea that Australia is running out of people. According to ABS figures approximately two babies are born and one net migrant arrives for every person who dies. A fertility rate of 1.7 plus a modest rate of immigration is more than adequate to maintain the population in the long run.

Australia has about the same amount of arable land as France, but it is of much lower average quality. Arable land doesn't exist in much of Australia so unlike the US we don't need to provide infrastructure over much of the country. We are more like Algeria or Tunisia, where they don't worry much about providing services to the Sahara.

More people are not always better. Living standards increased dramatically for the survivors of the Black Death. According to the ABC's 'Thousand Years in a Day' series in 2000, those living standards weren't matched again in Europe until the late 19th century. There is no correlation among developed countries between population size or growth rate and GNP per capita (see the CIA World Factbook). Scandinavian countries are near the top of the pops on the UN Human Development index despite small populations, and low population densities and growth rates. There is a correlation between population growth and social inequality. Steve pointed to the big per capita GNP of the US, but not the fact that the median wage is no better than in Canada or that it is worse to be in the bottom 10% in the US than in any other OECD country (graphs from State of Working America, Economic Policy Institute, www.epinet.org).

I agree that decentralisation would help deal with the diseconomies of scale in big cities and give many people a better life. It is not a panacea to allow unending population growth
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 30 September 2006 11:48:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We desperately need to have a population policy as a first step."

I agree wholeheartedly, but not one that is influenced by "agendas" like many espouse on this site.

With Australia, its economic zones, exclusive fisheries and claims in the Antarctic, less than 20 million people lay claim to one sixth of the world.

Is this sustainable? I think not.
Posted by Steve Madden, Saturday, 30 September 2006 1:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Small states may well result in the merging of local government into the one administration as is already the case in the ACT. But that would be up to the new state concerned, not us.

Polling by AJ Brown of Griffith Uni found that about 45% of Australians support some form of government reform and this was fairly evenly split between those who wanted to eliminate states altogether and have larger local governments and those who wanted new smaller states for regional communities. The rest just hadn't thought about it at all but once the options are explained, they appreciate the scope for improved governance.

But when we look at these options closer, they are essentially the same option. The key element that the "abolish the states" people wanted dealt with was the distant, one-size-fits-all, metropolitan government. But by cutting the existing state into a number of smaller ones, we do, in fact, abolish the existing one and replace it with more regional specific ones with the same powers.

At a recent forum on the topic in Sydney, Prof. Wiltshire, former head of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, responsible for disbursing federal funds to the states, outlined the problems in ensuring the funds go to the intended communities. He finished his talk with the urge to "get out there and form new states".
Posted by Perseus, Saturday, 30 September 2006 2:59:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve, you do of course realise that your desires to greatly boost our population have been shared by many throughout the history of Australia. That mindset has almost exclusively been held by those in positions of power where they would have made it happen if it was possible for it to happen.

But of course, it hasn’t been possible, due to the natural limitations of this continent. We would have had a population comparable to that of the US by now if the same sort of resource capacity existed here. Our small population on a large land mass is due directly to our very poor resource base, most significantly water and fertile soils.

But then you now all of this. So why do you push for us to grow a much larger population?

It’s as crazy as Perseus’ notion that a simple reshuffling of government could greatly boost populations in regional areas.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 30 September 2006 3:48:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn Allison is an "under-the-carpet" representative. Like so many of her Parliamentary colleagues. It is very hard work being a politician,harder for statesman, especially a woman in that bear-pit. And Lyn does not make the grade: she treats symptoms rather than their causes, while labelling the treatment "long term".
It is the sort of thing our politicians, of all colours, have been dealing out to us since 1994. In that year, the (Labor) Government held an inquiry into the possibilities for Australian society, under the constraints of resources, landscapes, climate, for various numbers of people.
The Government did not like the outcome, and ignored it.
In 2002 the (Liberal)Government received the report it had commissioned into "Options to 2050 for Australia's population, technology, resources and environment" (short title Future Dilemmas). The Government did not like the outcome, and only released it to the public under its imprimatur after lengthy delay.
In spite of Governments' grumpiness about them, both are valuable sources of information for anyone who wants to point to our future directions, based on fact rather than fanciful wish. As are other sources in a similar vein, such as Doug Cocks' books People Policy, and Future Makers Future Takers.
While we do need people to remain on the land, in sufficient numbers and sufficiently committed to looking after it for fair return, shifting an ever-expanding urbanised population into new areas is no "long term" solution. If Lyn Allison, as a concerned Australian, had taken the trouble to do the homework encompassed in the above available exercises, she would be aware of it.
As for contributor Steve Madden - what to make of someone committed to 100 million people for Australia? Googling "Steve Madden" brings up a New York-based footwear house. However, if Australian, would he have ever experienced the beauty, and the terror, of viewing, while shadeless for the coming day, a mid-summer centralian sun rising, overpowering, giant-like from beneath a parched horizon teetering on the brink of desertification?
Posted by colinsett, Saturday, 30 September 2006 5:27:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australian agricultural exports $26.3 billion FY 2005. Agriculture uses 59% of our water.

If we didn't export our water we would have plenty to serve our needs.

We are one of the most "resource rich" countries in the world. Yet we sell cotton to China (and buy the T shirts back) and iron ore to Korea (and buy their ships and cars back).

$30 billion in the "Future Fund" why don't we spend it on infrastucture, rail, roads, telecommunications? Too hard, lets export our water and buy crap back.

The Romans 1900 years ago figured it out why can't we?

Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. - Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121 AD - 180 AD)
Posted by Steve Madden, Saturday, 30 September 2006 6:14:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn, I agree with your article. Australia should move from dominance of a few cities to a network of environmentally and socially sustainable smaller mini-cities. Under present economic systems everything we do is economically inefficient - profit, consumerism, market forces. We should have no inertia to subsidise dispersed mini-cities if they meet environmental and social sustainability criteria. The townships Claudiecat mentioned were new towns. It is existing towns we need to redevelop and re-enter into a settled network.
Posted by West, Sunday, 1 October 2006 10:39:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, so limited decentralisation may have some merits (but only within a paradigm of population stabilisation).

Of course, redeveloping existing towns is preferable to building whole new towns, or “mini cities”.

Depending on a bunch of variables, the optimum size for a ‘city’ is about 100 000 to 120 000 thousand, according to a reputable report I read a few years ago (which I can not remember the source of).

So (with reference to my part of the world), Mackay is getting there, while Townsville and Cairns are past the optimum level. Does this then mean that we should be striving to halt population growth in T and C in the same way as we should be doing in the large cities? Does it mean we should be encouraging growth in Albury/Wodonga and many other centres with the intention of raising their populations to about 100 000?

How many centres would we need to raise their populations to 100 000 in order to relieve the growth pressure on Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and SEQ?

While the net effect in these smaller centres may be positive in terms of quality of life for the average person, there will be considerable downsides for most current residents. In fact, my feeling is that most existing residents will suffer a net loss in their quality of life, while it will be new residents that will make the majority of the gains.

In some cases, the effects may be quite drastic. For example, Cairns suffered awful problems with increased crime rate, increased unemployment and increased costs of just about everything during its rapid growth phase of the late 80s and 90s. This really knocked around local residents badly.

Once we have worked out where population growth in the name of decentralisation is the least damaging, or where it does not have a net negative effect, we will be left with very few centres suitable for significant growth... along with lots of small country towns which can grow a bit with almost entirely positive benefits.

So I have to seriously question the real merits of mass decentralisation
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 1 October 2006 2:52:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Population explosians are fine for those who can negotiate cheaper wages, fine for developers who can level the bush for more and more housing, fine for supermarts ect.
But not so good for supplying hospitals, medical services, schools and all the unglamourous things a population expects.
Not to mention crime and all the services that go with keeping criminals away from society.
In your brave new world of expanded population, some one has to pay and it is always those who can least afford it.
Posted by mickijo, Sunday, 1 October 2006 3:45:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Decentralisation - Is gameplay for election cycles. We have lived and experienced demise of small country environments. These regional centre's are hubs for trainee & apreticeships forming tomorrows expertise other than 457visa's. our relocation dominated by centralisation.
Posted by KT, Sunday, 1 October 2006 4:18:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absolutely right Mickijo

And for as long as we worship gross economic growth instead of average per-capita economic growth, the situation is unlikely to improve. For all our ‘healthy’ economic growth figures over the last decade or more (since the last recession), average per-capita economic growth, in real inflation-adjusted terms, has declined and most services have declined along with it.

There is no indication that things would be any different in new cities or population-boosted towns under a program of decentralisation.

One thing that really amazes me is the lack of outcry from the community about the obvious decline in so many of our services – water-provision, health, education, in fact just about everything, despite the ‘Costelloesque’ positivity about the economy. Can’t people see that they are just plain being duped by our illustrious leaders, with the constant message that we’ve got to have growth and that faster growth is better? Can’t they see that the sort of growth that we are getting is not getting us anywhere?

Can’t good thinking people in positions of influence such as Lyn Allison see this…. and see fit to push for a limit to the absurd self-defeating type of growth that we are getting via high immigration and the push for a higher birthrate, and a constantly greater GDP? ….so that the good-science and good-development type of growth actually has a chance of winning us a better quality of life, or at least slowing the decline?

Again, I express real anger and great sadness that Lyn has seen fit to advocate something like decentralisation as a total solution, while not even mentioning anything to do with continuous growth.
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 1 October 2006 4:44:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we are going to follow our politicians and sweep unwanted difficulties under the carpet - yes, just where will we put our prospective urban centres?
With the present rate of "progress?" we need to accommodate a million shiny new citizens every four years. Then, for decentralisation, a Canbera-sized place will be required each year for three years; followed by maybe a breather for a year. That will be the pattern to eternity; because it is deemed impossible to change our present outlook.
Plonk another Canberra anywhere along the east coast - any one year let alone every year; and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth from the present residents who consider their once-attractive pads already overcrowded.
Put them anywhere along the Darling or the Murray or near their feeder streams, and there will be frosty reception from those people already dependent on those rivers' system.
Maybe build them on stilts along that old seabed, the plains of western Queensland where the rivers don't run often - but when they do they run too wide for the comfort of cities that size.
There are many other choices, but are those any better? It would be interesting to hear of adequately considered sites, and why. But I do not expect such consideration to be given - especially when carefully assembled data on society's choices have been so studiously avoided since 1994. But maybe Lyn Allison will prove me wrong. I wonder; in hope, not expectation.
Posted by colinsett, Sunday, 1 October 2006 5:09:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Am glad to see that the topic has had a constructive response. The burying of issues of 'nation building' and rational resource use involving environment, decentralisation and population issues as preconditions for immigration increase (or not ) and development is a measure of how much say Australians have in their own futures has been lost, in the last twenty years.
Consequently we witness travesties like the rape of Tasmanian rainforests, with all the lies that have gone with that. And meanness toward indigenes.
The planning issues used to have a home with the ALP, but like the Howardists they have become infatuated with neo liberalist property-rights obsessions and ideology, "reform", "competition" and "efficiencies" all bespeaking of surrender to, rather than management of, globalisation and change.
Posted by funguy, Monday, 2 October 2006 2:44:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have used the phrase before,'Progress can be likened to a dog chasing it's own tail'.
More and more needs exactly that. There may be profit in it but there is very little gain.
We once had lots of bustling little townships, then the banks decided profit was not high enough and pulled out followed by staff and so the towns began to shrink bit by bit.
Now there is a turn around and little towns, particularly those near the coast, are expanding. Even the smaller places are filling up but where is the industry to sustain them?
Our industries have been sent offshore to take advantage of cheaper wages while we depend on selling ore.
Asian nations are waxing fat while our young people are going untrained . What is going to maintain the larger population in the future if the ore and gas give out. "Who cares!" say the politicians,"We are OK Jack!"
We do not have visionaries in parliament.
Posted by mickijo, Monday, 2 October 2006 3:41:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"water is not a limiting factor if every new house has a decent sized water tank and storm runoff is captured for parks and industry"

If this is what you think, then you havent tried living in a low rainfall area. My family hails from a region with an average rainfall of 15 inches a year (that's 375mm for those that prefer the new system). Our 6 bedroom, 2 loungeroom house collects water into 3 large tanks. The shearing shed and machinery sheds also collect into another 2 large tanks. This rain that is collected is enough to get by (so long as we dont water the garden), as we have a twin tub washing machine (and use only 1 lot of water for washing and 1 lot for rinsing), and all share the same bathwater (no shower has ever been installed because they use too much water). In 100 years we have never run out of water, but we are mightly stingy with it. I would suggest that if you are looking to build an American-style population spread, you would have to go far outside the belts in which 1 decent-sized tank would suffice for water supplies.
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 2:47:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At one time, a lot more of Australia was settled. But they had established their farms and communities in better times. When the normal cycle of low rainfall returned, farms and towns were abandoned.

From reading this thread I'd venture that few people have lived in the country. Could I say and hopefully without offending anyone, that it is a useful exercise to list what you yourself would require to move to a country or regional town. Not for a short holiday, but for life.

It is easy to say that others should take the leap to the bush when one in living comfortably in a city with employment for oneself and for the children if and when they come along.

Rather than recommend new regional centres, what about looking at why the present regional towns are collapsing? Because in many country towns the WW2 widows are about all that remain. Some towns are propped up only by grey nomads buying fuel and afternoon tea.

To test the mettle of Canberra politicians and bureaucrats, what about locating some federal departments in regional areas? There is NO reason whatsoever why (say) Centrelink, the Health Insurance Commission or others really NEED to be in Canberra. What about the Department of Veterans' Affairs? Its clients in Canberrra are actually serrviced by the NSW office notwisthstanding the fact that its Canberra administration is LARGER than its NSW office which does service clients.

Centralisation suits senior bureaucratic gnomes (State or Federal) and the major political parties and it is a contributing cause to the death of regional towns and cities.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 3 October 2006 3:28:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wait for global warming! Depopulating the coasts will no longer be a problem.

But what will they flee to?
Under resourced and debilitated rural towns.
fluff
Posted by fluff4, Wednesday, 4 October 2006 10:00:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn,
It is timely of you to take another look at decentralisation in the light of Twenty First Century imperatives: Landcare, livlihood and the well-being of the community.
Intentional Communities, with guidance from relevant Authorities together with incentives from relevant Institutions, merits our consideration; and our imagination, as a way of putting Life back into the country.
People having, or acquiring, skills appropriate to the needs and potential of the region, can come together with cooperative advantages.
Posted by gulliver, Thursday, 5 October 2006 2:12:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having waded through some 50 odd contributions, my offering is to suggest a radical experiment. The NSW Government is proposing to locate some 250 000 Sydney bound 'residents' to the Lower Hunter over the next 25 years.
An eccentric developer has amassed some 2000 ha of wine country land adjacent to a yet-to-be realised freeway (f3)and has bedazzled Planning Minister Frank Sartor to the extent that he has given a conditional approval for much less than the 50 000 'residents' proposed.
My suggestion is that Sartor offer the developer a 'deal' relocating his 2000 ha some 20 km west - lower rainfall but still within 70km of coast - onto a soon-to-be vacant(2015) open cut coalmine site. This is currently serviced by a rail spur which could be 'looped' back to western Sydney (140km away). A little imagination is needed.
Mine voids (holes) with suitable lining would provide a water source as well as recreation, microclimate effects.
Living styles would have to be architecturally unique along the lines of that attempted in Eden a disused Cornish UK mine site. But in terms of climate change this would be no ordinary outer Sydney suburb of McMansions.
'Residents' would be using alternative power sources, particularly existing methane. Some government inspired incentives to counter the property values argument would also be helpful.
Should it prove attractive and feasible, there are another 19 open cut mine sites that will be clamouring to come aboard, the first of them in 2012. A 'synoptic plan' put out by the Dept of Mineral Resources has been trying to figure out some future for these huge holes in the ground. Despite regular updates, they are going nowhere. A radical re-think, like an experimental new city may be what is required. Any takers?
Posted by jup, Thursday, 5 October 2006 2:47:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It would seem, your local area is quite self-sufficient, with its natural resource – sadly it’s not the norm for many if not most rural areas."

Not the norm? Rural Australia generates about half of national export revenue, despite having only around one-third of Australia’s population. In terms of export wealth generation, the average country person is more productive than their city counterpart. Maybe if Australia still had a manufacturing sector worth a damn, our cities might actually contribute their fair share to national export earnings. However, the reality is that there is a significant disparity between what regional Australia contributes to national GDP and what it actually receives in return in terms of Federal and State investment. In my opinion, it's a real pity that Australia no longers has a party that represents non-metropolitan voters, especially as the Nationals are nothing more than sycophantic cheerleaders for the Liberals. Otherwise, it's likely the issue of decentralisation would be on the national agenda.
Posted by Dresdener, Saturday, 7 October 2006 12:49:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Rural Australia generates about half of national export revenue, despite having only around one-third of Australia’s population.” – Quite true. However, these statistics don’t reveal the majority of export earnings are made through mining and energy.” Farm-sector export earnings are at A$28.3 billion in 2006/07… export earnings from minerals and energy in 2006/2007 (July to June) will rise to around A$108 billion” (ABARE). The mineral resources boom is currently propping up most of Australia, with China basically underpinning it

Mining towns, as important as they are, do not represent a fair and equitable cross section of rural Australia.

Living in rural S.A. I see the relationship between town and country as one of co-dependence - the raw produce/material by one is equally supported by the technology and infrastructure supplied by the other. The ‘guts’ is being virtually ripped out of many towns, in part, through a loss of vital infrastructure. Government and business often simply rationalise an economic downturn with a removal of services.

Unfortunately, the farm sector does not provide the primary engine of growth in many areas of rural Australia. In the Murray-Darling region of NSW, one of the most important farming belts, agriculture employed just fifteen per cent of the population at the 1996 Census. (2006 will undoubtedly show greater decline.)

In part, the declining number of people employed in farming in many regions reflects the shake-out of farm enterprises in recent decades. The consensus among analysts is that the number of farms in Australia has been falling by around two per cent per annum.

An assessment of the Realpolitik of world trade suggests Australia’s pursuit of agricultural trade liberalisation is nothing short of chasing a mirage.

Environmental degradation, drought and long-term declines in rural terms of trade are squeezing farm incomes. Trends in agricultural production are increasing dependence on large-scale capital investment, with implications for debt and farm size. Service industry restructuring is seeing the flight of businesses from small towns.

The ‘politically’ built and often quite wasteful ‘entertainment/sport’ centres in rural marginal seats parallels a decentralisation policy, which historically, has shown itself a political furphy
Posted by relda, Saturday, 7 October 2006 10:20:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy