Chapter 2
Summary of issues
2.1
This chapter provides a broad summary of the evidence received by the
committee. In particular, this chapter:
-
explores definitions of regional capitals;
-
provides a snapshot of regional capitals across Australia, and
assesses current trends, challenges and opportunities;
-
briefly considers funding arrangements for regional capitals at
the federal level; and
-
discusses some solutions available to the federal government to
promote growth of regional capitals.
Australia's regional capitals
2.2
What is a regional capital? The committee received a range of answers to
this question. Regional Capitals Australia (RCA) describes regional capitals by
function and provided the following definition:
Regional capitals serve as hubs for larger regional areas.
They provide their own communities and those in smaller surrounding communities
access to education, jobs, personal and professional services, recreation and
opportunities for cultural participation along with a host of other amenities
that are essential to support strong and vibrant communities across entire
regions.[1]
2.3
A number of other witnesses and submitters offered a description of
regional capitals focussing on the function of the city, with many using hub
and spoke imagery. Mr Charles Jenkinson, Executive Officer, Regional
Development Australia – South West explained the key role that Regional
Capitals perform in their communities in the following way:
Regional development works like a hub-and-spoke system.
Basically, if you have strong regional centres, you have strong regions...I think
it is important to worry less about how many people there are in that centre
and more about how strategically important it is to the area it serves.[2]
2.4
In this sense the function of the city is more important than the size
of the city. For example, coastal Broome has a population of 15 000 people. In
contrast, inland Bendigo has over 100 000 residents. Yet, according to RCA, both
these cities are regional capitals because of the 'role they play in the wider
region'.[3]
2.5
This is particularly the case in Western Australia (WA). For example,
any regional centre with a population of 30 000 is considered significant in
WA. However, regional capitals in the eastern states tend to be around 60 000
to 100 000.[4]
The WA Local Government Association defined a regional capital as a local
government area with a population of more than 10 000, not located in or close
to Perth, with strong economic and population growth prospects.[5]
2.6
Other witnesses agreed that size should not be a determinant of what is
a regional capital, rather it is the relationships that the city has with
neighbouring towns. For example, Dr Leonie Pearson, Regional Australia
Institute, observed that the size of regional capital is not a determinant of
productivity.[6]
Nevertheless, the Regional Australia Institute did acknowledge that population
size is important, and that 'once you get to the 50 000 mark you start to have
a real city development type pathway'.[7]
Classifications used by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics
2.7
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) describes RCA's definition as
a 'useful descriptor, noting that consistent criteria should be used to define
the geographic boundaries.[8]
The ABS has a number of classification tools that may be helpful in defining
regional centres and capitals.
2.8
The ABS geographic classification Significant Urban Areas (SUA) is
applied to concentrations of urban development with a population of 10 000 or
more that contain at least one urban centre located in the same labour market.
This classification captures regional centres that cross states. For example,
the towns of Mildura (VIC) and Wentworth (NSW) share a labour market, access to
services, flow of people and geographic proximity, and therefore could be
considered a 'single regional centre'.[9]
2.9
The ABS also measures regional remoteness. This is a way of measuring
access to services based on population proximity, by road, to towns and cities.
The ABS contrasts the role of regional centre that is close to a capital city,
such as Newcastle or Geelong, with regional centres that are some distance from
the services offered by capital cities, such as Broken Hill, Mt Isa and
Mildura. A person living in a remote regional centre will be much more reliant
on that centre, due to their distance from other large cities.[10]
2.10
Population density can also be used to define regional centres, as
generally services will be concentrated in locations with denser population.[11]
The ABS has done work on internal migration across Australia and developing
methods to analyse (and predict) population fluctuations.[12]
2.11
The ABS emphasised the importance of a consistent and sound evidence
base upon which to define regional capitals and centres, acknowledging that a
range of different factors may be considered, including: population, natural
resources, economic activity, proximity and relationship with other regions.[13]
2.12
The Grattan Institute noted that the remoteness measure used by the ABS
has both advantages and disadvantages.[14]
The advantage is that it provides a 'single objective measure for dividing
Australian regions'. However, the measure can combine regions that have little
common. For example:
-
inner regional includes regional satellite cities near capitals;
and
-
most coastal and inland cities are classified as outer regional
as they are further from a major city, yet this classification covers both fast
growing coastal cities and slow growing inland cities.
2.13
Professor Paul Burton described the ABS's categorisation of urban areas
and settlements as outlined above as 'unhelpful'.[15]
2.14
During the hearing in Canberra the ABS suggested that it was not best
placed to provide a definition of regional capital, as this was a policy
decision.[16]
However, the ABS did provide further information about data sources that could
be used to arrive at a definition:
There are a wide range of data sets that may be used to
describe regional differences, covering population, economic and environmental
characteristics. Such data sets exist within the ABS as well as with other
agencies and data providers. In order to make objective and consistent
comparisons it is recommended that nationally consistent data sets are used.
There are a number of portals where regional data sets could be found,
including the Australian Government's National Map interface which provides a
very good range of environmental and land based data, as well as some selected
ABS population data. The regional data sets that can be sourced from the ABS
are described in summary through the ABS Data By Region interface, which can be
found on the ABS web site home page.
If required, the ABS can provide guidance about use of
specific data sources for particular purposes, such as describing the population,
economy or role of a regional centre.[17]
Classifications used by the
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
2.15
The Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (the
department) submitted that the term 'regional capital' is used by major
regional centres which have 'self-identified' as such to 'build a particular
commercial identity to attract government funding and private investment'.
However, the department submitted that there was no objective criteria for
using the term, and the 'point at which a regional centre becomes a regional
capital is unclear'.[18]
2.16
The federal government uses a range of classifications for regions for
the purpose of making assessments under individual policies and programs. The department
provided the following example:
[W]hen reporting funding arrangements and grants programmes,
the Department will generally report based on Local Government Areas, since
Australian Government funding for small-scale, local projects is principally
directed to local governments. In terms of the Department’s research findings,
the statistical areas used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) are
used, as this is the basis on which data is collected and analysed. Both forms
of demarcation of regional centre boundaries are used in this submission as
required.[19]
2.17
Generally, the department refers to 'regional centres' rather than
'regional capitals'. This term does not distinguish between different regional
centres and recognises that all centres 'have important, though varying, roles
to play in their broader regions'.[20]
The department describes regional centres in the following way:
A regional centre fulfils important functions as a service
access centre and transport node for the towns and communities in the surrounding
region. Our conceptualisation of a regional centre is a functional and dynamic
one, which takes into account the diversity of their locations, populations,
infrastructure and economies, as well as their context in the wider region.
Given this conceptualisation, regional centres can have
extremely diverse characteristics. For example, some regional centres such as
Geelong are located in close proximity to capital cities, with high populations
and well diversified economies providing access to higher order goods and
services to a relatively dense network of surrounding towns. In comparison,
other regional centres such as Port Hedland are situated in remote regions,
with low populations and relatively less diverse service provision to a
sparsely populated region...[21]
2.18
The department uses three methods to classify regions, and each is
useful according to the particular purpose: administrative, statistical and
functional.[22]
2.19
Administrative regions are geographic areas connected to government
functions and powers. Two examples include local government areas and service
provider regions. Local government areas are defined geographic areas that fall
within the responsibility of a local government council or indigenous
government council. Service provider regions are also defined geographic areas
within which particular services are delivered (for example Medicare Local
delivery areas).[23]
2.20
Statistical regions are geographic areas used for collecting statistical
data. For example, the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS).
Classifications of this kind include Significant Urban Area and Remoteness
Classes.[24]
Australia is divided into five remoteness classes, ranging from 'Major Cities'
to 'Very Remote'. These classes cover a region rather than particular population
centres and so are different to regional centres. The department notes that
'they are still a useful data source for analysing differences across regions'.[25]
2.21
Functional regions consist of social and economic relationships rather
than defined geographic areas. Functional regions are useful when considering
labour markets, for example, which often include both a regional centre and
surrounding hinterland.[26]
Second cities
2.22
Although not mentioned in the terms of reference, the committee received
evidence that large regional capitals might be better characterised as 'second
cities' and government funding should be particularly targeted at promoting
growth in these cities. For example, the Committee for Greater Geelong
advocated for a second cities policy and the recognition of Geelong as a second
city. [27] Professor Jan den Hollander,
Vice-Chancellor, Deakin University cautioned that there may be some
difficulties in defining what a second city is.[28]
Professor Paul Burton considered that a second city designation might be most
useful in providing a facility for similar cities to work together, although
there would also be a degree of competition for finite government funds.[29]
Conclusion
2.23
RCA's definition of 'regional capital' in relational terms – that a
regional capital is a regional city that performs a capital city role for its
residents and neighbouring communities – is a useful definition supported by
many witnesses and submitters.[30]
However, the critique provided by the ABS and the department has merit and demonstrates
the importance of having a precise definition, particularly if the term is used
to determine funding eligibility. This interim report uses the terms 'regional
capital' and also 'regional centre' interchangeably, recognising that more work
needs to be done in this area.
2.24
The committee has not yet formed a view on whether some large regional
centres should be designated as second cities. However, it is clear that the
challenges and opportunities experienced by large regional centres such as
Geelong, Wollongong, Newcastle and the Gold Coast differ somewhat from many
other regional centres.
Development of regional capitals in Australia
2.25
This section provides a snapshot of regional capitals across Australia
by assessing demographic trends, challenges and opportunities, as well as the
impact the changing environment will have on regional capitals. Consideration
is also given to the strategic importance of regional capitals to their local
communities and Australia more generally.
Trends in regional centres
2.26
Population in Australia has increased in cities and regional centres and
declined in small rural inland towns.[31]
The department provided the following explanation for the following graph
illustrating this trend:
The blue area, which represents the size and distribution of
the 1911 regional population, shows that at the beginning of the century the
Australian population living outside the capital cities was spread among a
large number of relatively small towns. In 1911, some 40 percent of this
regional population lived in towns of between 200 and 1000 people. The green
area, which represents the size and distribution of the 2006 population living
outside the major capital cities, shows the reversal of this pattern, with a
clear shift in the regional population to larger centres.[32]
2.27
The department has identified four key trends occurring between 1911 and
2006 in Australia:
-
the settlement of Northern Australia;
-
the growth of coastal towns and cities;
-
the emergence of larger centres; and
-
the disappearance of many smaller towns.[33]
2.28
The Regional Australia Institute observed that the urbanisation trend in
Australia since the 1970s has not been people moving to capital cities; rather,
it has been people moving to regional cities and towns. As a consequence of
this trend:
There are now 4½ million people living in regional cities
around Australia, which is a population of the same size as Sydney and
Melbourne. If you include a broader suite of small places, which this inquiry
does, then you go beyond that up towards five million people.[34]
2.29
Yet despite this reality, most urban policy discussions focus on capital
cities. The Regional Australia Institute – and a number of other submitters –
called for greater focus on regional cities.[35]
Mr Jack Archer stated that these policies should 'shy away from big grand
national sweeps' and instead seek to 'understand the development pathways for
different pathways and support those and support locals to pursue them'.[36]
2.30
The growth of regional capitals can be attributed to a range of factors,
including the reduction of the cost of communications and transport and new
technologies in agriculture. These developments have resulted in some people
moving from rural areas to urban environments – both major cities and large
country towns.[37]
Strategic importance of regional capitals
2.31
Regional capitals perform an important strategic function in their local
communities. RCA reports that regional capitals contribute 15 per cent of
Australia's Gross Regional Product and hold a labour force of more than 2
million people. Further, 40 per cent of Australia's exports are produced in
regional Australia, and much of this output passes through regional capitals.[38]
2.32
Regional Capitals also offer a number of non-economic benefits. RCA
submits that these benefits include:
-
a good alternative to congested and sprawling urban capital cities;
-
a substantial base infrastructure that can be developed, as required;
-
faster freight access to south east Asian countries (in northern
Australia, compared to east coast capital cities);
-
affordable house prices at 20-30 per cent lower than state capital land
prices;
-
land available for business and residential development;
-
a model for efficient and sustainable growth; and
-
diversification of the national economy.[39]
2.33
These claims were substantiated by a number of other submitters to the
inquiry.[40]
Challenges facing regional capitals
2.34
Despite the many advantages that regional capitals enjoy, each has its
own challenges. For example:
-
some regional capitals, particularly those on the coast, have ageing
populations (this leads to lower productivity, increased health costs, and less
return on rates)[41];
-
higher unemployment[42];
-
generally lower productivity rates compared to the national
average[43];
-
year 12 completion rates and tertiary entrance rates lower than
the national average[44];
-
the cost of dealing with the impact of drought and other extreme
weather events[45];
-
maintenance of infrastructure from a low rate base[46];
-
challenges raising debt finance[47];
-
urgent infrastructure needs[48]
; and
-
freeze on indexing for federal financial assistance grants.[49]
2.35
ABS research indicated that of the 55 Regional Development Australia
Committee regions surveyed, all identified at least one threat to their economy.
For the majority, this was the region's reliance on a smaller number of
industries and the impact that failure of these industries would have on the
community if the economy of the regional centre was not diversified.[50]
2.36
The Planning Institute of Australia cautioned that the 'most significant
weakness' for regional cities is 'the lack of a national plan to co-ordinate
and identify the relationships between regional capitals and Australian state
capitals'.[51]
Funding
2.37
A large number of submitters identified funding as a key issue facing
regional capitals.[52]
The committee heard that it is impossible to determine whether funding is
adequate or, indeed, how much funding is reaching regional areas.[53]
2.38
RCA conducted an infrastructure assessment of federal program funding in
regional capitals. The RCA concluded that the only predictable funding programs
were Roads to Recovery and the Black Spot programs. These programs were
targeted at addressing the need for 'urgent repairs to decaying or dangerous
infrastructure not to generate economic activity and growth'.[54]
2.39
The Grattan Institute investigated the effectiveness of government
investment in regional Australia and concluded that 'growth is primarily driven
by economic factors governments don't control'.[55]
The Grattan Institute criticised the regional equity approach to funding and
recommended that government funding be allocated on the basis of the number of new
residents in a regional centre (and not on the current population). This is
because regional growth is not being achieved through investment.[56]
The Grattan Instituted observed that:
Local job attraction schemes, regional universities, small
scale roads and major infrastructure are all expensive, but they do not appear
to materially accelerate slow-growing regions. But not investing in regions
where we can get the best return for our tax payer dollars, we sacrifice higher
overall productivity and economic growth.[57]
2.40
As a consequence of the regional equity approach, based on population,
residents of high growth areas are treated unfairly, because funding is not
directed to rapid-growth centres near capital cities and on the east coast.[58]
The Grattan Institute was careful to make clear that it was not suggesting that
funds should be stripped from smaller and slower growing parts of rural and
regional Australia, noting that these regions are 'great places to live' and
should be provided with services 'that increase wellbeing' (such as schools,
hospitals, transport etc.). However, governments need to recognise that this
support is provided for equity reasons and not because the support will promote
'self-sustaining economic growth'.[59]
2.41
The Grattan Institute identified 'bolting' and 'lagging' regions by
state on the following table.
2.42
This evidence received a varied response from other witnesses. Not
surprisingly, a number of witnesses rejected the conclusions of the Grattan
Institute, particularly those from the regions that had been characterised as
'laggers'.[60]
2.43
The RCA suggested that funding should be much more targeted – proactive
rather than responsive – and cited an OECD recommendation that described what
regional funding should look like:
-
a shift from subsidy approach to one based on strategic
investments to develop the area's most productive activities;
-
a focus on local factors as a means of generating new competitive
advantages, such as amenities (environmental or cultural) or local products
(traditional or labelled);
-
a shift from a sectoral to a territorial policy approach,
including attempts to integrate the various sectoral policies at regional and
local levels and improve co-ordination at the national government level;
-
decentralisation of policy administration and, within limits,
policy design to those levels; and
-
increased use of partnerships between public, private and
voluntary sectors in the development and implementation of local and regional
policies.[61]
2.44
These proposals are worthy of closer consideration, particularly in
Australia's federal context.
Local infrastructure investment
2.45
RCA provided three case studies where infrastructure spending for
particular regional capitals would provide benefits to the city and the
surrounding area based on population, economic structure, demand for services
and strategic importance to the region.[62]
The committee also received submissions that contained business cases for
infrastructure development from local councils. There is no doubt that most,
if not all, regional capitals would benefit from further investment. The
difficulty is how to do this within existing funds. Which programs are
ineffective? How can the money be spent better?
2.46
Many witnesses and submitters considered that the answer was not to
simply increase funding to regional capitals. Reviews of existing funding
arrangements are necessary to first identify what funding is available to
regional cities, and whether it is achieving intended outcomes. This is no easy
task. As discussed earlier, the Regional Australia Institute, an independent
not-for-profit organisation told the committee that it was 'factually
impossible to make a decent assessment' of whether regional capitals are
underfunded.[63]
Investment in 'soft' infrastructure
2.47
Submissions and evidence given during hearings reminded the committee
that development and investment for regional capitals should be much more than
just investment in transport and other 'hard' infrastructure. For example, soft
infrastructure including investments in health, social, education
infrastructure are also very important for regional centres.[64]
Investment in these types of infrastructure will require co-operation with
states. Reflecting on this reality, Mr Kim Houghton described this as
'critical enabling infrastructure' – things that promote the 'liveability' of a
city:
Liveability brings the employers, employers bring the wages,
the wages go up and you get into that virtuous cycle. So we keep coming back to
those core things which the Commonwealth has a limited role in. That is why
Jack is saying that if we look at an inducement to get those multi-tiers
together and the silos across the individual state governments in order to set
up the right pathway for that particular city at that particular time, that is
where the biggest gain is going to be made.[65]
2.48
The committee heard that policy makers must make an effort to consult with
local communities prior to announcing funding initiatives. There is a
perception – accurate or otherwise – in many regional centres that policy
makers in cities are not in tune with the needs and desires of regional
centres. Sister Mary Ryan, Centacare Geraldton noted that:
Geraldton is not the same as Sydney. It is not even
the same as Perth—and even a lot of the places in Perth do not understand rural
areas. It is about consultation. It is not just about us consulting with the
community about what the real needs are and the way to solve these problems; it
is also about governments consulting with people generally and not saying, 'If
you do, people give you the big wish list.' There is a need for proper forums. [66]
2.49
The committee was also reminded that the statistics reporting growth in
a particular regional capital are not always indicative of the social outcomes
in that city.[67]
Other issues
Lack of data
2.50
A number of submitters expressed concern about the poor quality of data
available to decision makers pertaining to regional capitals.[68]
Professor Fiona Haslam-McKenzie, Co-Director of the Centre for Regional
Development, University of Western Australia, reported that generally there is
poor collection of data, huge variability between regions and lack of
consistent population data. Particularly, in relation to Western Australia, it
is often 'very difficult to know exactly how many people are using resources
infrastructure in regional capitals'.[69]
Furthermore, it is often difficult to work out who is responsible for
collecting the data. As discussed earlier, the Regional Australia Institute
advised the committee that it is impossible to work out how much funding
regional capitals are receiving. Mr Archer told the committee:
It
is factually impossible to make a decent assessment of that situation. The
information about how money from different levels of government is flowing into
these places is impossible. I suspect that none of the governments know.
Individual programs are doing their thing as best they can. It is not like it
is wilful neglect but, across the broad complexity of government, one of the
biggest challenges to the institute's work is there is no information base
around that. One of the challenges we have—and we did not respond to that part
of the inquiry's terms of reference, purely because we did not feel we could
put the evidence on the table.[70]
2.51
A number of submitters also discussed the central importance of a five
yearly census, describing this work as a key source of data to assists future
planning.[71]
The importance of universities to
regional capitals
2.52
Universities are present in many regional capitals and make a key
contribution to the educational, community and social life in those cities. The
committee received submissions from a number of regional universities and also
heard evidence of their importance during hearings.[72]
2.53
A key point of contention arose from the Grattan Institute's suggestion
that the government should reduce investment regional universities as such
investment was not providing a good return. The Grattan Institute concluded
that regional universities in Australia do not:
-
encourage additional productivity-enhancing innovation by local
firms;
-
promote higher rates of tertiary education participation and
attainment; or
-
help retain more skilled young people in the region.[73]
2.54
The Grattan Institute's analysis focused on the economic contribution
made by regional universities to their regions and did not consider the
contribution that regional universities may make to the cultural and community
life of the region.[74]
2.55
In hearings and submissions, universities stridently rejected these conclusions,
and suggested that the Grattan Institute had misinterpreted the data and in
some cases relied on incomplete data.[75]
The universities that appeared before the committee made a persuasive case that
they are a crucial part of their regional capitals and provide multiple returns
on investment. For example:
-
regional universities limit 'brain drain' from regional areas[76];
-
students who study at regional universities are much more likely
to continue to work in rural and regional areas[77];
-
regional universities encourage participation rates in education
in regional and rural areas[78];
-
the cost of sending a student to a capital city is upward of
$20,000 per a year per a student, and this takes both the student and these
funds out of the local community, further this cost is out of reach for many
regional students [79];
-
Regional universities provide areas of specialisation relevant to
their local communities and work closely with local businesses to enable local
communities to grow [80];
-
Many regional universities in large cities have study hubs and
campuses in smaller cities and towns, thus providing educational opportunities
to the wider community [81];
-
Regional universities are significant employers in their cities [82];
-
Regional universities are important for mature age students who
wish to upskill but because of family, employment and other constraints are
unable to relocate to cities to study[83];
and
-
Regional universities provide other non-educational benefits.[84]
2.56
Indubitably, universities perform a critical function in regional
capitals and their surrounding communities. The committee was also impressed by
the role performed by study hubs such as the Geraldton Universities Centre
(GUC). The GUC is not a university or a registered training organisation. It is
a not-for-profit organisation based in Geraldton that supports local students
who are enrolled in distance education.[85]
With the support of the local community, the GUC provides support for nine
different university programs, including: nursing, social work, engineering and
teaching.[86]
Through its work the GUC has boosted university participation in Geraldton and
assisted in addressing skills shortages.
The need for national leadership
2.57
A primary concern of many was that Australian government policy did not
reflect a particular focus on supporting regional capitals to grow and achieve
their potential. Indeed, the need for a national integrated policy for regional
capitals at both the state and federal level was identified as a key starting
point to develop regional capitals. The recent Infrastructure Australia report Australian
Infrastructure Plan is indicative of the focus on capital cities.[87]
Mr Houghton, Regional Australia Institute, described the focus on large roads
and urban congestion as a sign that regional cities are not even 'on that
radar'.[88]
2.58
Mr Archer, Regional Australia Institute, told the committee that:
Our view is that regional capitals are an issue that requires
national leadership. They occur in every state and territory, but their
development relies on local, state and federal government working effectively
together, because local governments are leading local planning and doing a lot
in the local community, the states are investing in health, hospitals and roads
and so is the Commonwealth. I think there is an opportunity for national
leadership to assist these places to get the focus they deserve, the resources
that can support their development and coordination between the activities of
those three levels of government, because we have not had a level of focus on
these places, at the moment, and I think we are missing significant growth
opportunities as a result.[89]
2.59
RCA called for a regional development policy that recognises the
distinct role that regional capitals play.[90]
2.60
Professor Paul Burton called for national urban policy/settlements
strategy, and urged that this strategy must reflect and influence state and
territory plans. Professor Burton warned that if a national strategy is not
developed then:
...regional towns and cities will continue to make their
individual cases for more growth (or in some cases limits to growth) in
isolation and without reference to any sense of a bigger picture. While some
regional towns and cities might succeed in their ambitions, most will not and
are likely to devote scarce resources in pursuit of unfeasible and implausible
ambitions.[91]
2.61
This perspective was supported by many witnesses and submitters.[92]
2.62
The committee heard that a policy response to support growth in regional
capitals would have flow on effects not just for that regional capital and its
region, but also for the capital city in that state. For example, for every 100
000 people who find a job in a regional capital, around $300 million a year in lost
productivity through congestion is saved. Further, because house prices in
regional capitals are lower, mortgages tend to be smaller, and so residents
tend to spend that money in the local economy.[93]
2.63
Regional Australia Institute suggested that the government follow the
successful incentive program used in the United Kingdom, City Deals. This would
require the government to look for opportunities in regional capitals and
assist those regional capitals through incentive funding to address gaps in
particular projects to ensure they are achieved.[94]
The committee hopes to explore this innovative policy suggestion further if its
inquiry is continued in the new parliament.
Conclusion
2.64
The absence of a definition of regional capitals illustrates, in part,
the failure of Australian governments to develop a nationally co-ordinated
response to developing regional capitals and second cities. It also reveals the
eagerness of those regional centres which identify themselves as regional
capitals to achieve policy recognition from all levels of government.
2.65
Strong regional centres are crucial to developing and maintaining strong
regions across Australia. While each regional centre has its own strengths and
weaknesses, some aspects are typical. Regional capitals act as service hubs to
the wider community providing access to health care services, education
opportunities, employment, and social and community infrastructure. Regional
capitals also offer lifestyle benefits that are harder to achieve in
Australia's capital cities, such as affordable housing and absence of
congestion, while also offering access to universities, jobs and healthcare. Many
regional capitals are also experiencing growth at a rate faster than the
national average.
2.66
Despite these advantages, regional capitals face a range of challenges –
and the evidence demonstrates that this varies between centres. Again, however,
some consistent themes have emerged. Regional capitals struggle to attract
investment, often compete against each other for government funding, some pay
much higher insurance premiums and many have demographic challenges such as an
ageing population, low education attainment or high unemployment. A number of
regional capitals have pressing infrastructure needs and struggle to work
within an inflexible government grant system.
2.67
The committee has been delighted to receive a range of recommendations
from submitters to address these challenges. Unfortunately, the committee has
not had adequate time to fully consider the merits of all these alternatives. Given
the importance of regional capitals and second cities to Australia's future, the
committee requires more time to discover, explore and assess all relevant
perspectives as they impact on the terms of reference. Given the time
constraints on this inquiry, such an analysis will only be possible if the
committee is given the opportunity to continue this inquiry in the 45th
Parliament.
2.68
For these reasons, the committee makes no recommendations at this stage,
but notes the potential for the committee to recommend to the Senate the
re-adoption of this inquiry early in the next Parliament.
Senator Glenn
Sterle
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page