With an election looming, all parties have a chance to put forward policies on regional development, yet we really hear little about this. Its potentially a vote winner for both country and city people - maybe its just that no-one has cottoned onto it yet. Reforming our tax system to promote business investment AND personal migration to regional areas benefits both those areas, and would help to lift population pressures on the large cities.

Personal tax reform could be easily implemented with few changes to the current system, and without significant compliance for businesses or employees. We already have things like zone rebates, which are personal tax offsets for workers living in defined zones. However, these zones could be expanded (eg to include central west NSW rather than just the far west), and the offset amount increased to accurately reflect the additional cost of living. Currently its $57/year for most of NSW, which is just a joke!

Additionally, things like capped FBT exemptions (available to health employees now) could be extended to people living in these zones. This would help employers provide an employment package that could compete on a monetary basis with those offered in our cities. Regional Australia is suffering from a terrible skills shortage, and tax incentives to help make potential incomes competitive would go a long way to attracting more people to a tree-change rather than a sea-change.

Postcodes could easily be used as the basis for determining eligibility, the same way that the zone rebates are currently administered (as well as current exemptions for remote housing FBT).

With more people attracted to work in businesses in regional areas, populations would grow (in many cases BACK to levels that were previously there, so not placing any greater strain on environments and infrastructure), allowing many centres to head back towards a self-sustaining population base, that is large enough to support more industry, more services (think hospitals re-opening, bank branches re-opening) and a better quality of life for all people living there, as well as for those in the cities for whom population pressures should be released.

I'm all for using taxes to achieve 'structural changes,' for example carbon taxes, which could help achieve what you describe, if the lifestyle lead to fewer emissions:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html

However I don't see the point behind your goal of shifting people to the country against their will. People in the city already pay higher rent and put up with a lot of other things like traffic, smaller backyards, water restrictions etc. Why is it a good idea to make them pay, on top of this, more than their fair share of the tax burden? Country people already get far more spent on them than city people per person from public coffers.

There are some things about modern economies that simply work better when people live close together. That's why there are more higher paying jobs in the cities. It is not some kind of unfortunate accident that can be fixed by getting people out of there. Your scheme would cost society in the form of lost government revenue and a less efficient economy, while achieving very little. People already have a choice to live in rural areas. They choose not to. There is nothing inherently bad in this choice. It is not a choice that the government needs to interfere with.

If you are lonely, move to a bigger town. There are plenty of people in the country who live there because they don't like lots of people. Don't ruin it for them.

You misunderstand my point freediver. There is actually a skills shortage in various regional areas at the moment. Business cannot attract the type of employees that they need. The main reason is that there is a perceived income disadvantage, and a perceived career disadvantage. Country employers at the moment cannot afford to compete wages-wise with the cities, but the suggested reforms would help make that possible. What I propose is only that the overall discretionary income discrepany be addressed, not to actually give a higher income to country people than city people. Overtime as an inflow of people helps to build economies of scale in regional areas, that assistance wont be needed, and it can be scaled back appropriately. Using a postcode basis, the tax system would be able to tailor assistance to areas more in need of assistance than others. There would be some impact to general revenue, but if you consider that providing businesses with the employees that they need will boost productivity and therefore profits, thereby adding more tax revenue back into the system, I suggest that the reform could be tailored to eventually pay for itself. Moving people out of the cities (not forcefully of course, but where they see it beneficial with the wide open spaces, fresh air, lack of peak hour traffic AND a decent wage) will help ease current pressures on housing (think no more rental crisis), the public transport system (imagine trains running on time) and the roads network (dont worry about new roads spending in the likes of Sydney as it wont be required). There are a lot of potential benefits for both city and country people, as well as the economy as a whole.

No, you miss the point. The fact that you only want to throw a small amount of money (a few billion $?) at this scheme and only increase wages a bit does not mean it needs no justification.

"There is actually a skills shortage in various regional areas at the moment.

No kidding? There is a skills shortage everywhere. If the skills shortage were localised there would be no mandate for government interference. The higher salaries and lower living costs would be enough to draw people out. Where the skills shortage is worst, wages are highest. You can get paid $100k for a job in a mining town that would only pay $50k in Sydney. Should the government prop up the wages there? Or should they prop up wages in backwater coastal surfing towns where the only job is at maccas serving burgers to the other locals who turn up to get their dole book signed?

"What I propose is only that the overall discretionary income discrepany be addressed

So you want some kind of skewed communism, where everyone gets paid the same amount, but ignoring the cost of living or the value of the work being done?

Maybe your family owns a farm and is having trouble getting people to come out and work for minimum wage doing back breaking work in the middle of nowhere. Is that it?

freediver,
You are rather insulting to Country people who work hard at primary employment to put bread, breakfast cereal, bacon and eggs, vegetables, milk and beef on your table.

I have lived in the City for 21 years - now retired - but I spent 36 years of my early life working in the country. I find people in the city create work for themselves - like washing car windows or selling Chinese imported gadgets. These are toy jobs compared to growing grain or vegetables essential to every persons survival.

freediver, Try surviving on products not originaly gathered from the country people who produce our raw products. They are essential for our very survival. We do not need gadgets, but we do need food, so let us give better planning and development for services to country people. City people merely move money around on books or computers, while country people feed us all.

You drive the latest lambourgini on world class expressways while country people drive a 6 year old holden ute on 40 kilomerers of corrugated dirt to get their produce to a transport head or a local market. Let us give them essential assistance.

Nicely put Philo! Thanks!

Freediver, my family does own a farm, but hasnt employed any outside labour (apart from shearers) since 1947 (when my dad got pulled out of school at 9 and put to work full time).

But my argument is not for farmers. Its is for regional communities. These include your noted coastal backwaters. Just because they are on the coast doesnt mean that they are not capable of supporting communities and industry.

Mining is a different kettle of fish, and this is where I find an approach much harder. A postcode basis is a nice easy way of administering such changes - afterall we dont need to increase red-tape further. But that doesnt take the mining industry into account. One of the major issues in a mining town is that the mine can afford to offer $100,000 for a job that a local employer can only afford to offer $40,000 for (or less). This hits hardest where towns host start-up mines. Over a number of years there can be a flow-on effect to other local businesses, so that their profits increase and they can afford to offer more competitive wages. But this takes time.

My job is a great example. I could probably make an extra $20,000 a year if I moved to Sydney. Not to mention that the career opportunities would be much greater and I'd have more diversified options if I wanted to specialise. It would probably cost me another $15,000/year to live. Whilst I couldnt think of anything worse than moving to Sydney, if my employer was able to offer another effective $5000/year to at least make the earnings on par, then they might be able to find someone to come and fill some of our vacancies.

There are lots of other strategies that could be employed, but differentiating on personal taxation would be a quick and easy approach (something that appeals to all our political parties!).

"You are rather insulting to Country people who work hard at primary employment to put bread, breakfast cereal, bacon and eggs, vegetables, milk and beef on your table.

I didn't insult anyone. But if they start demanding special treatment from the government I will expect them to justify it. Just saying 'Oh wouldn't it be nice if more people lived the way I choose to' doesn't cut it when you are asking for billions of dollars of other peoiple's money.

"I find people in the city create work for themselves - like washing car windows or selling Chinese imported gadgets. These are toy jobs compared to growing grain or vegetables essential to every persons survival.

Did you know that the majority of food grown in the world is grown in urban environments? If you think a few veges is all we need to get by then perhaps you should go back to the country and forgo any cars, white goods etc as they all come from overseas, at least in part.

"freediver, Try surviving on products not originaly gathered from the country people who produce our raw products.

What does this have to do with government subsidies? This is just getting stupid. Of course we need to eat. What we don't need to do is waste money. We are not going to go hungry because the government refuses to give you handouts.

Freediver, no-one is asking for handouts. What I've suggested is merely a way to assist in kickstarting regional economies. If you like, restrict the suggested benefits to people moving to the regions, so that those that are already there dont get a benefit. The only problem with that is that you then end up with people working alongside each other that have different effective spending power despite producing the same. So, dont think that would work. What I am trying to suggest though is a way of attracting skilled people to a regional area, not to boost incomes of those that are already there.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about country people, and farmers in particular. Assume you are a little miffed about the extensions to drought relief. The government continues on its path of "handouts" in the guise of interest rate subsidies, despite farmers groups ASKING for low-interest loans instead of grants/subsidies. This idea was knocked back by the current federal government two years ago. So farmers take the only assistance option open to them, grants. Which would have been cheaper to the general public??

"Freediver, no-one is asking for handouts.

What's the difference between a $2000 handout and a $2000 tax refund?

"You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about country people, and farmers in particular.

No. It's the whole handouts thing. Farmers are fine. Very few of them are the sort of person to demand free money from the government.

"So farmers take the only assistance option open to them, grants. Which would have been cheaper to the general public??

Depends on the amounts involved. Interest free loans do cost money. They are just more popular with the punters because people who don't understand the economics think giving someone $2000 worth of interest deductions/subsidies costs the government less than giving them $2000.

I am suitably chasised. Ok then, what's your solution for kick-starting regional economies (and again I am not just talking about outback Australia here, but most places outside capital cities), dealing with overpopulation and corresponding resources strain in the cities, and dealing with the housing crisis in the cities. What I have suggested is not an end-solution to any partiuclar problem, but something that can have an impact on ALL of these factors. And its simple to administer and monitor the costs of - not a great deal to go in additional administration, which is the bane of any targeted assistance programs. But I am open to suggestions....

That time limit thing is really annoying. Here is part one. Not sure when they will let me post part two

"Ok then, what's your solution for kick-starting regional economies

Why try to kick start them at all? We should not be directly subsidising industries like that. For the most part, centralisation in a natural response to economic pressures. That is, we are better off that way. This may change in the future. The migration of major shopping precincts from 'downtown' into the suburbs is a good example of this. Again, some people decry the loss of the old 'downtown' and want to government to prop it up, but people prefer to shop in the burbs.

There is however a rational economic argument for a few things, such as:

* helping to start regional tourism industries. This is just to start it. If it then can't stand on it's own two feet we should not keep pouring money in. However, the government does advertise Australia as a whole and it is reasonable to plug the outback as part of that. Obviously the Barrier Reef and some other regional places already get a lot of funding this way. You could justify continued funding on the increased government revenue from overseas travellers, but you would have to actually do the maths and prove it, not just wave your arms in the air and say it will all work out in the end..

* You could get some government agencies out of the state and territory capitals. I think the NSW government moved a call centre out to the Hunter Valley. Again, you have to be careful that this doesn't increase the cost of the beuracracy to taxpayers, especially if there is a need to the buraaucrats to all be in the same place. The last thing you need is different buraaucrats at opposite ends of the state not working together as a team because they have never met in person. This may work best for those agencies responsible for agriculture, forestry, mining, fisheries management etc. Call centres also work because they can be anywhere (even India). Having more government funds spent in the cities could distort the economy towards the cities, but showing that you would be better off moving them out would be difficult and would need to be done carefully. Perhaps it is a good candidate for one of Kevin Rudds many enquiries.

* You could fund research into how modern technology could allow people to work from home more easily. This sounds good in theory, but there are teething problems. Broadband in the bush may help, but again you have to justify the cost. Also, research into new primary industries such as aquaculture, native food breeding programs and other industries that are anchored to the land or sea. This will play into the sustainability debate. Wind farms are another good regional industry. They are far more decentralised than coal fired power stations. On the oter hand, solar will probably end up on people's roofs. Geothermal will be a regional industry, but will end up looking just like mining.

"dealing with overpopulation and corresponding resources strain in the cities, and dealing with the housing crisis in the cities

This is dealing with itself. As house prices go up in the cities, people will sacrifice income to work elsewhere in order to get the better lifestyle, cheaper housing etc. There is no need to government interference in this. You have to let people figure it out for themselves.

I travel on Sydney trains three days each week through the city. It is interesting to note the majority of commuters are from nationalities where overcrowding and poverty is normal. They rarely leave their national peers who have settled in the City. They know little about Australian farms and assume they are poor subsistence.

Australian Agriculture is among the best in the world (when not in drought) and create great export dollars for this nation. The farmers are not paid equal to a fair share of their produce. The farmers are still paid prices they received ten years ago. If real price flowed to the farmers the country towns could survive within our economy.

"This is dealing with itself. As house prices go up in the cities, people will sacrifice income to work elsewhere in order to get the better lifestyle, cheaper housing etc. There is no need to government interference in this. You have to let people figure it out for themselves."

Umm but its not working itself out. We are still seeing a migration from the rural/regional areas to the cities, which in turn is increasing the pressure on existing infrastructure, housing prices and services.

Of course the government should have some hand in managing population movements. The free market is notoriously bad at managing social change. You say people will sacrifice income to work elsewhere, not if there aren't any jobs to work at they wont.

Decentralising government will have two main benefits. Firstly, dumping a government agency or department in the middle of a depressed region will help to stimulate the local economy, the new influx of people and jobs will be more than welcome. Secondly, it will encourage the development of new infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the new population.

Hey Freediver, "team" and bureaucrats" are not words that should be used in the same sentence, whether they are in the same office or at different ends of the country! :)

A few points:
* windfarms might be good for green power generation, but dont require much employment

* "lifestyle" is no longer considered sufficient to entice people out of the cities

Far north QLD is a great case in point. Larger centres like Cairns and Townsville are crying out for all sorts of employees. They have the Reef and rainforests on their doorsteps, good sized business centres with a number of services and industry ready to roll ahead, but they cant get people into the area. Housing isnt cheap (at least on par with suburban metro areas), but incomes still cant be competitive at this stage. Why, because businesses cant produce without the employees that they need, so its a catch-22. This is why targeted programs to help attract employees are likely to need to run short-term only, particularly in some locations.

This isnt just about dusty little outback towns, its about anywhere outside of the capital cities. Regional Australia means more than Broken Hill.

"Umm but its not working itself out.

Yes it is. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean it isn't working. Since before recorded history, the march of progress ahs been reflected in the movement of people off the land and into villages, then towns, then cities. Now you want to try to stop this, yet you haven't offered any reasonable justification for it. Things change. Quit trying to make everyone live in the past.

"Of course the government should have some hand in managing population movements.

Why? Should people not be free to move wherever they want? Should a person be penalised for moving away from you?

"The free market is notoriously bad at managing social change.

True. The only thing which is worse at managing it is government. Especially when it is driven by people with funny ideas about what is in the country's best interest.

"* "lifestyle" is no longer considered sufficient to entice people out of the cities

by whom?

"Far north QLD is a great case in point.

You think a bunch of white people should want to live in the tropics? I've been there. Nice holiday, but I wouldn't want to live there. Remember that the cost of air conditioning is about to go up. Where I live now you can get by with no heating and no air con.

"Housing isnt cheap

That's because there has been a recent influx of people into some of these areas.

"Why, because businesses cant produce without the employees that they need, so its a catch-22.

No it is not a catch-22. If labour is cheaper, businesses in the area will grow and there will be a motivation for more businesses to come. I have worked in a high tech company that did just that - it moved to a more regional area to suit the lifestyle desires of the employeees. The same thing that makes employees want to move will also make employers want to move. The only difference is that employers will look harder at the long term prospects, not temporary affects.

freediver:

"Why? Should people not be free to move wherever they want? Should a person be penalised for moving away from you?"

Of course they are free to move wherever they like. However the government can make it more attractive to live in a location. This can be done by improving services and infrastructure. This is something that governments have been doing for the last good thousand years, so I don't know why its such a radical thought today.

The government cannot make one location more attractive without punishing people who move to some other location. You are not simply requesting that regional areas be made a nicer place to live. What you are asking is that money be taken from people in the large cities and given to people in regional areas. This needs justification, not assumptions.

Freediver, the comment re lifestyle considerations not being sufficient is attributed to a number of business leaders in Cairns when trying to recruit from Brisbane and Sydney. The main sticking point is income. I'm not referring merely to white people either - dont make those sort of assumptions. There are plenty of people of "coloured" backgrounds who are perfectly good employees and whose skin types (and possibly even their acclimatisation from country of origin) suits the tropics. White-skinned people will suffer just as much on the beaches of Bondi than in an office complex in Cairns.

As far as cheap labour goes, the businesses are already there (in many cases). The rate of potential growth is quite rapid and what's holding back is the lack of employees.

No-one is trying to make people move out of the city onto the land freediver - you dont need to make wild exaggerations of the position of other posters in order to make your point. The aim is simply to encourage them to consider moving to areas where they have better living conditions, and provide a workforce to regional business. As regions continue to grow in strength, the need to the extra encouragement will wane and it can be phased-out as required. The US has been very successful at fostering industry and growth throughout its countryside, not just in a handful of major cities. Cities have indeed grown up around some of the areas of industrial development. The US is markedly different to Australia, but some of the benefits that they have achieved from this approach could also be brought to bear here.

"Freediver, the comment re lifestyle considerations not being sufficient is attributed to a number of business leaders in Cairns when trying to recruit from Brisbane and Sydney. The main sticking point is income.

This is not becuase income is somehow more important than lifestyle, or one is insufficient. It's because income is what they negotiate over. It's not like the boss is going to say, OK I'll throw in a 10% better lifestyle for you and a free savings account, how about that? Every business, including those in the city, have the same problem - employees cost money. There is nothing special about Cairns, except that the lifestyle will make people prepared toa ccept a lower salary.

"The aim is simply to encourage them to consider moving to areas where they have better living conditions, and provide a workforce to regional business.

I realise this. I have responded. It costs money. That money has to come from somewhere. Thus, you have to justify it. Merely pointing out that there is potential for growth is not a justification. Cities have the potential to grow also. It's not like one sort of growth is better. The growth you envisage for regional areas will come at the expense of growth in cities. You assume this is a good thing, but that is not a reasonable or valid assumption.

"The US has been very successful at fostering industry and growth throughout its countryside, not just in a handful of major cities.

The US, and most other places, has far more fertile land throughout the country. The US has also been great at fostering growth in cities.

"The US is markedly different to Australia, but some of the benefits that they have achieved from this approach could also be brought to bear here.

Your almost there. I can tell that soon you are going to attempt to provide some justification for the billions of dollars you want to throw at this problem. Don't stop now. I just hope it is something more substantial than 'hey, let's try to be more like America'.

As soon as I have a spare 24 hours you will get some form of financial analysis. I'm in the process of putting together the figures,just hard getting some of the numbers required. Therefore at this point its a theoretical discussion, which I believe has its own merits (this IS called online opinion, not online facts). The other difficulty is that any factual discussion has to rely on forecasts,which by their nature are not good future predictors. One can come up with how much this might cost,but not necessarily what the long-term financial impact will be - its in this area that assumptions need to be made,which you will evidently not be happy with. That's why I have sought discussion over the qualitative outcomes before the quantitative ones.

"Cities have the potential to grow also. It's not like one sort of growth is better." Yes,cities have the capacity for economic growth, but space,resources and pollution have become major concerns. This is especially evident in Sydney,Melbourne and Brisbane/Gold Coast. These limitation factors can be difficult and expensive to overcome. Hence in some cases it may be cheaper and more beneficial to the country overall to encourage growth in different areas,which is one of the points of this discussion.

Yes the US has been good at fostering growth in cities as well as regional areas. My point is that it has used government policy to work on BOTH,not just one. Our policy on the other hand has been centralisation, and some of the problems with this are now becoming evident (see above). Yes,the US has more fertile land,but I thought we were getting away from the farming debate. I'm talking about regional industries - farming already gets assistance, although not to the extent of ths US and EU. Surely we are smart enough to come up with ways to utilise our space that dont involve farming (or giant quarries). The US has been able to foster and create regional industries that DONT rely on a farming base - we can learn from them in this instance.

"As soon as I have a spare 24 hours you will get some form of financial analysis.

I don't need the numbers just yet. It would help if you at least gave hints as to why we should sacrifice growth in one area for growth in another. So far you have focussed almost exlcusively on the growth that is gained, while ignoring the growth that is sacrificed.

"Yes,cities have the capacity for economic growth, but space,resources and pollution have become major concerns. This is especially evident in Sydney,Melbourne and Brisbane/Gold Coast.

As opposed to say New York, Tokyo and London? Is Brisbane near some kind of limit as to how far you can scale up cities and still get net economic benefits? Please enlighten us.

"My point is that it has used government policy to work on BOTH,not just one.

Are you saying our government has ignored regional areas? That's a rather odd assertion, given that we are one of the few countries on earth with a major party dedicated to representing the interests of regional areas. Many analysts, such as Jared Diamond, believe that regional areas get too much and that this is harming our society. He points to a few reasons behind this, such as our cultural 'affinity' for the bush, which is at odds with the reality of life in Australia.

"The US has been able to foster and create regional industries that DONT rely on a farming base - we can learn from them in this instance.

The US just has big cities inland. That's all. Most of your ideas would not create industry dispersed through rural areas. It would transfer it from some cities to others.

I'm not advocating that every town will be a mecca for industrial growth, more that there is decent potential for good growth in some areas, and that government and policy has a role to play in promoting and fostering this growth. Yes the US has cities inland. These have grown up over time around industry. They have sought over time to move industry off the seaboard (yes I know that Cairns is on the seabaord), and away from just a few major port hubs. We can benefit from doing the same. We are not the US and should not aim to be, but we can learn and benefit from some of the approaches that they have taken. There are concerns that have been raised with other approachs that the US have used (such as enterprise zones), and what I am looking at is a different approach to the same problem. Yes it will have its problems and inequities like any other approach. Ideally we can come up with something that is as effective AND fair as possible.

New York/London/Toyko do not have some of the restrictions that our current large cities have, in particular water. I put it to you that there are already massive complaints about crowding, housing shortages and transport concerns now, without growing to the sizes of your examples. What I propose is the help generate a reasonably consistent growth rate for the country as a whole, but slow it down in areas (such as Sydney) that are unable to cope with their current growth rates. Its governments job to help regulate this.

This post limit thing is getting tedious and frustrating. Hopefully I will have the OzPolitic forum up and running again today. I will try to take this up there.

part 1 of 2

"They have sought over time to move industry off the seaboard

What active policies did they use, if any? I would assume that it just happened that way, due largely to economic pressures - the same pressures leading the collapse of many small towns across the US and Australia.

"New York/London/Toyko do not have some of the restrictions that our current large cities have, in particular water.

Perhaps you didn't know, but Australian use more water per person than most other countries. We do not have a water shortage problem. We have a water wastage problem.

"I put it to you that there are already massive complaints about crowding, housing shortages and transport concerns now, without growing to the sizes of your examples.

Of course, people complain about everything and anything. But they still choose to live there don't they? The government isn't forcing them? As you pointed out earlier, there is not a shortage of jobs in the bush. Employers are crying our for more people everywhere. City jobs just pay more because most businesses perform better ina more centralised environment.

"What I propose is the help generate a reasonably consistent growth rate for the country as a whole, but slow it down in areas (such as Sydney) that are unable to cope with their current growth rates. Its governments job to help regulate this.

Sydney is able to cope. What you cite as restrictions and inabilities to cope are not in fact real limitations. If they were, there would be no need for the government to intervene - people would just move elsewhere. The problem with what you hope to achieve is that Sydney and the other capitals can easily absorb even more people, if they want to pay the price.

It is not the government's role to regulate which regions grow. The only justification you have given for this control is growth limits in the major cities. If those limits were in fact real, there would be no need for the government to intervene because the 'limits' you mention would do a far better job. Other than that, you have given zero justification for charging people in the city more than their fair share of the tax burden, just because you have some funny notion about where people ought to live. You are trying to solve a problem that does not in fact exist, yet your solution would create real problems.

A big problem with trying to attract people into the country - it's cities that are vital to our economic wealth. A good page summarizing this argument is here: http://www.zompist.com/jacobs.html

A better solution would perhaps be to encourage the formation of a new urban centre in Australia - say in the North West, which could almost certainly support a great deal more people than it does currently, and already has a rapidly developing economy based on tourism and the resources boom. Encouraging new migrants into this area could potentially help decrease the pressure that immigration is putting on water resources, housing prices and urban infrastructure along the Eastern seaboard.

wizofaus,

Cities are our economic wealth generators, this is true to a certain extent (leaving out mining and successful agri areas). However we can decentralise our population without seriously affecting our ability to generate wealth.

Of course what is required is a commitment to infrastructure development (telecomms, decent transport links, etc, etc), job creation (dropping a government department in the middle of a regional area would be a great start) and so on.

The benefits would include reducing pressure on the services and aging infrastructure in our major cities, going someway to reducing the demand on the environment around our major cities as well as opening up new areas to home buyers (and helping to reduce the housing pressures we currently face).

"However we can decentralise our population without seriously affecting our ability to generate wealth.

What makes you think that? You mentioned improved transport. Wouldn't transport infrastructure get a lot worse if the same amount per person was spent on a decentralised population? How much would transport have to improve if most of your trips were 300km instead of 10km?

Freediver, a lot of the transport basics are there, they just are currently underutilised. Some roads etc would need upgrading, particularly around certain areas, and country people would need to get used to more road traffic. Rail networks have been in place for decades and have been allowed to deteriorate, but could be brought back into service without the need for whole new systems (as is required in the major cities now). Networks for export could also extend into non-capital ports, rather than further clogging Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane. In NSW in particular we hear constantly about the need for new roads in Sydney, well we dont need new roads a little further out, we just need targeted upgrades. Not only would the upgrades increase carrying capacity, but would cause greater efficiencies for the current users. Dont forget that most of the goods that you consume come from outside your city, so there is already the transport systems in place to deal with trucking things from one end of the country to the other (and in some cases back again).

All assuming, of course, that road-based transport remains viable for much longer (which basically depends on how quickly electric vehicles can be introduced before the global oil supply situation gets critical).

Dont forget that most of the goods that you consume come from outside your city, so there is already the transport systems in place to deal with trucking things from one end of the country to the other (and in some cases back again).

I think you ignore much of the benefits of centralisation. For starters, only part of what I consume is produced outside of a city. Also, If the population were decentralised, you would drastically increase the amount of transport required. We don't truck goods from one end of the country to the other, but if you want to use that analogy, your proposal would involve trucking them from one end of the country to the other, then back again.

"The US has been able to foster and create regional industries that DONT rely on a farming base - we can learn from them in this instance." - Country Girl

Agree fully, if we are to have long periods of drought, perhaps farmers to employees as well as employers. Work in the local supermaket, repair the roads and paint public buildings.... Dollars in the their pockets.

Also, if conditions fail here, in Oz, move offshore.

O.

A more rational pricing policy for water would encourage decentralisation as well as encouraging greater efficiency:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1191830430/1#1