News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Not all rural infrastructure needs help 

Not all rural infrastructure needs help

30 Aug, 2010 10:32 AM
The three regional independents are calling for more spending on infrastructure outside the capital cities, but a leading demographer has warned not all areas are equally ­deserving.

According to The Australian Financial Review, Peter McDonald, professor of demography at the Australian National University, questions whether anything will help reverse the historic shift from the country to cities and from the inland to the coast.

In a recent study for the Local Government Association of Queensland, he predicted that the state's population would grow 54 per cent in the next two decades but the north-west, which covers half of the seat of Kennedy, would rise just 12 per cent.

He said targeted investment, payroll tax incentives and housing subsidies might encourage people to move to a few growth areas, such as Mackay, which would then grow faster than the rest of the state.

Professor McDonald said the mining boom didn't necessarily justify building infrastructure in regional areas. He said the mining workforce largely operated on a fly-in, fly-out basis from coastal cities like Perth or Cairns.

The population of Mount Isa, in the seat of Kennedy, has barely grown in the past decade. Professor McDonald said it made more sense to spend money in the areas where fly-in, fly-out miners had permanent homes.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Obviously the Professor is well qualified to make this statement but I have some questions. Would the population changes he predicts still occur if rural infrastructure was upgraded and rural communities had investment that actually created things for the future rather that the investment we have now such as the short term mining boom which will leave a much weakened rural landscape into the second half of this century? Could be said that business & government won't waste investments in rural communities that they know will go through a short mining boom and then struggle to survive on the leftovers of soil & water resources that used to support them. Could it also be said that we should redirect a better percentage of the billions in profits & government royalties into real investments that will help these rural communities survive & grow. When the miners are finished, and leave with their $$Billions, where will the money come from then? Could it be said that rural communities will decline, not because it is a forgone conclusion but because they are being treated as saleable throw away resources to be traded on stock exchanges by companies & governments both domestic & foreign.
Posted by Shooter, 30/08/2010 3:28:09 PM
The professor has just described the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. Roads are not used because they're not maintained, and are not maintained because they're not used. Miners fly in and fly out from their bases on the coast because there was no family friendly infrastructure in the mining areas. There is no family friendly infrastructure in the mining areas because the miners fly in fly out. How many more people does the good professor think Australia can cram into the coastal fringes?
Posted by Qlander, 30/08/2010 5:48:19 PM
I have just completed an assignment outlining a few problems from the marine science perspective of this shift. Coastal ecosystems are currently at their limit, if much more land is developed the marine coastal system will not be able to cope. So from a marine management perspective, any incentive to stabilize population growth on the coast is a plus. We need tax incentives to raise population in rural areas... this will lead to breaking the 'vicious cycle'.
Posted by matt, 2/09/2010 10:25:01 AM
This is the standard self-serving infotainment from the metrocentrics at LGAQ. Put a new state government in a region and the Grants Commission's estimated $180 million "minimum administrative structure" that delivers the core head office functions of government will circulate 3.5 times through the regional economy and add $630 million to regional GDP. And 15% of this ($95 million) will come straight back into the new government's coffers from standard fees, state taxes and GST. Thus leaving only $85 million to be recouped in savings and efficiency gains to completely offset all costs of duplication. In the case of North Qld this would only be 1.2% of their $7 billion share of the Qld budget. And in New North Wales it would be less than 1% of their $9 billion share of the NSW budget. And these modest targets are just a fraction of the savings to be gained when services are delivered by a lean responsive government just up the road instead of from an overblown dysfunctional mess some 1500km away. The Qld government wastes $85 million on rural doctor's locums alone where a new regional state would fund its own medical school to fix the problem properly.
Posted by Ian Mott, 2/09/2010 12:05:20 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
27 August, 2010
POLL
Q: Are the current record lamb prices sustainable for the industry in the long term?

Yes
(37.2%)

No
(49.9%)

Unsure
(13%)

Total Votes: 401
Poll Date: 29 August, 2010

Most popular articles




Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...