Can we solve Australia’s city problem? (Part two)

Employment is obviously critical. Many regional centres offer jobs which pay even more than the same occupation in a major capital. Many also have more vacancies than people to fill them. The Regional Australia Institute has done some excellent work highlighting occupations which pay a premium over the big capitals. This is little known and, as the Institute recommends, is something governments could do better at in educating new arrivals and Australian residents.

Education is also highly significant. A choice of schools – government and independent – as well as possibly tertiary education are essential to many considering a move to a regional centre. Armidale, despite its smaller population, is for example home to the University of New England and has several schools with excellent reputations. The same applies to many centres in the top 20.

Health care. Hospitals, medical centres, a range of general practitioners and other professionals arevital to any healthy community. Some regional centres are endowed with quality legacy health care, while others need more investment in this. Even attracting medical workers to regional centres can be problematic, despite in some instance very high incomes being offered. The reason? Amenity. See next point.

Amenity. “Why would we want to live THERE!” This is one of the biggest hurdles faced in attracting talent, capital and enterprise to a regional centre. Often, it’s the impression of amenity (or the absence of it) which kills the deal. Families and partners are more influential than economics when it comes to decisions like this. Ironically, amenity can be a low hanging fruit. Quality parks and recreation, community facilities, vibrant main streets – these are not overly expensive in the scheme of things. I’ve often made the point that a $100m investment in urban amenity in an outer suburb or regional centre makes a very big splash. In a capital city, it will go unnoticed (and with no gratitude either!)

Environment. Too hot, too cold, too dry or too wet. Not much can be done about our climate preferences. It’s a factor for sure, but hard to fathom our fussy attitudes when you consider the economic and lifestyle miracle of somewhere like Singapore – which swelters more or less year round. Having said that, many of the top 20 non-capital city centres offer amenable environments which avoid weather extremes.

Tax. The great irony of our tax systems in Australia is that they generally treat outer suburban or regional centres the same as if they were privileged inner city areas. Why for example, is payroll tax pretty much the same for a business employing 100 people in an inner-city office building as it would be should those jobs be in a regional centre? The same applies to other noxious taxes like stamp duty, land taxes, fuel excises – all of which are typically agnostic when it comes to location. The Federal Government – which is entirely culpable for the rapid rates of population growth – shows no interest in offering major income tax or company tax concessions to people and businesses in outer suburban or regional centres. If we want to seriously turn on the ‘open for business’ sign in a regional centre, why isn’t this also on the menu?

This is not an exhaustive list, but maybe it’s the start of one? I’ve long maintained that in the same way we saw a national program devoted to inner city revival (the ‘Better Cities’ program of the late 1980s had enormous impact) we need a new approach to outer suburban and regional renewal. That will require all levels of government acting together with specific place-based outcomes in mind. It’s a nice thought anyway. I am ever hopeful. What is certain is that the current ‘business as usual’ approach to population and settlement is broken. We cannot turn to BAU to fix the very things BAU broke in the first place.