08.03.2017
The Get Out of the City campaign initiated by Barnaby Joyce and being promoted by our own local MP Mark Coulton to convince parliament of the merits of de-centralising federal departments, is all well and good.
Relocating government offices from capital cities to regional cities would no doubt contribute to the growth of businesses within the boundaries of the regional cities.
But how does moving an office from one (big) city to another (smaller) city do anything for regional development?
It seems to me that if our government representatives are really serious about developing whole regions, then the decentralisation argument needs to be taken further.
The staff of relocated federal government offices will buy or rent their homes and spend their wages in the city where they are employed.
Apart from a coffee and a sandwich if they’re passing through, there is little to be had for the surrounding towns.
They will not drive to Coonamble to buy their groceries, have their haircut or get their car repaired.
It is difficult to see how shifting staff from a big far away city to a smaller city nearby actually benefits the rest of the communities in the region or the region’s economy as a whole.
If, on the other hand, the federal government and (perhaps by fiscal encouragement) the state governments were to focus on de-centralising the staffing and purchasing practices of the services and facilities they manage, then whole regions would benefit.
The additional wages of a few well-paid public servants, the local purchasing to supply the daily needs of locally-based government offices, and a few more public works contracts to local tradesmen, would have significant positive effects on the economy of any small town – and on the regional centres nearby.
The populations of smaller towns spend money in regional cities – we and all our neighbours do it often and in a myriad of ways. (groceries, haircuts, car repairs and more!)
This does not work both ways, or not to any great extent. The regional cities are highly absorbent and largely self-contained.
Their money does not circulate to the outlying towns and villages. The ‘sponge city’ effect is well documented and widely known.
Surely it makes sense for the government to spend its (our) money where it will benefit the most people?
Put government jobs, local purchasing for government offices, maintenance and construction contracts back into small towns and see the money circulate right throughout the region – even back into the regional cities.
Barnaby Joyce talks about the savings to be had from moving staff and offices out of Canberra. If the savings work in this instance, then why can’t they work for state government agencies if they were to devolve staff back into the highly-affordable smaller towns instead of having them huddle together in large expensive office blocks in regional cities, where housing prices are also comparatively high.
Every small town has vacant buildings where government offices, banks and the like used to operate. The government still owns many of them. I’m sure they could give themselves a great rental rate.
Opposition spokesman Anthony Albanese was interviewed on the radio about the current decentralisation debate. He said, “We support the economic growth of regional cities.” I’m not sure if he meant to say ‘regional areas’, but at least he was being honest. Both governments seem hung up on helping regional cities while small towns and villages wait in the too hard basket.
Barnaby says “Public service jobs are a huge driver of downstream jobs, especially when placed in regional and rural towns. Regional Australia deserves the benefits of public sector employment just as much as any capital city. After all, regional Australia supplies the water, food, electricity and gas which powers our cities.”
We agree. Regional areas deserve their share of the tax payer’s dollar. Let’s look for solutions that spread the economic benefits across regional Australia, not solutions that shift the benefits from one city to another.