Unlike the UK, Australia does not have a lasting national urban policy tradition, and we sometimes import policies from it. The Commonwealth government has long been intervening in cities, from addressing housing shortages to funding urban infrastructure, but has always avoided adopting formal national settlement strategies.
Sometimes the Commonwealth claims that there are no constitutional cases involving urban planning. However, we are satisfied with spatial planning at the local, metropolitan and regional levels, so planning at the national level is also meaningful.
We are satisfied with the federal government’s investment transactions with various cities and regions – the so-called city transactions. Why not use this financial influence to drive a more systematic reform plan? The reforms focus on how to manage our metropolitan areas and how to fund the urgently needed investments in infrastructure.
So far, nine city transactions have been announced. These include Townsville, Launceston, West Sydney, Darwin, Hobart, Geelong, Adelaide, Perth and Southeast Queensland. Can this seemingly special collection of city transactions be part of a more coherent and effective national settlement strategy? Can we translate these plans and strategies into lasting challenges for action?
Are we alone here?
In the UK, urban policy has been based on the principle of “bending major plans” for many years, focusing on areas where government assistance is most needed. This is sometimes used to demonstrate that little or no new funds are allocated to urban policy initiatives. However, it also reflects the reality that the main expenditure plans of the national government are often larger and the actual fiscal influence is greater.
We also need to recognize that growth and development are not just about investing in hardware infrastructure such as roads and railways. Schools, hospitals, parks and cultural facilities play a vital role in creating a space-friendly, livable community.
When these facilities lag behind the rapid construction of houses, our towns and cities are poorer places to live. They are also not resilient when we are better able to cope with environmental changes and technological disruptions in the 21st century.
Why choose a national strategy?
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Sustainable Development Goal 11, recognize that the development of national urban policies is an important foundation for achieving sustainable urban development. But in Australia, we have not yet established a long-term federal funding agreement for the sustainable development of major cities. We also have no incentive to reform the way we manage and provide public services and infrastructure within metropolitan areas.
The strategy of building metropolitan governance and financial reforms will help Australian cities compete and succeed in a globally connected world of the 21st century. At the same time, it can still base decisions on local preferences and capabilities. This reform may be a core feature of the partnership between countries and cities.
This national urban partnership can provide a better framework for making individual city transactions more effective. Agreements can include national performance outcomes and help drive reforms in metropolitan governance and financing. It can also provide a platform for national solutions to solve the problems that our growing population may live and live.
By focusing on the size of the metropolis, we can also better answer questions such as “Who should be the metropolitan leader in Australia?” and “Who represents the metropolitan community and work with them to make tough decisions about their future?”
Currently, our country and its agencies work at the metropolitan level. We have local governments that understand that they focus on their local issues. Only occasionally local councils can establish cooperatives in regions or metropolitan areas. Local government consolidation is not the solution to this problem, as local and metropolitan-scale institutions still play an important role.
What will the National City Partnership look like?
Australia has five metropolitan areas with a population of over one million. When regional cities with a population of more than 100,000 are also considered, 17 major cities and metropolitan areas can participate in the development of national urban partnership agreements.
The core principles of this partnership may be:
Cooperation between different levels of government has economic and social significance – for example, metropolitan areas of large cities, perhaps the main regional cities and their hinterland in rural areas and regions.
Allowing reforms in cities and metropolitan leaders to speak on behalf of major urban communities and collaborate with stakeholders such as business and non-government actors
Strive to involve the public and summit groups in thinking about the future of their region
Plan for action into action through ongoing community support and a coordinated federal investment plan.
The Commonwealth needs to take the lead
The federal government’s disengagement at this time will be disastrous, so we hope that Minister Alan Tug can bring the city into the government’s policy agenda.
Taking a business-as-usual approach to federal intervention may not make things worse, but it will not create reforms in Australia that need to thrive and sustainably grow.
The strategy of developing a national-city partnership agreement provides a way forward. It will provide a framework to make city transactions more efficient. This partnership can lead to a new generation of metropolitan and city leaders, help raise public dialogue about the future of our cities, and promote financial reforms that enable them to serve and be accountable to the community.
All of this should appeal to governments that want to see policy development and development, and our cities will become more prosperous, livable and vibrant.