Sunday, June 22, 2025

Australia: we have a city problem! (Part one)


Australia’s large cities are facing extraordinary population growth pressure, with symptoms manifesting themselves in everything from shortages of housing to health care, education, transport and other forms of essential infrastructure. This pressure is fuelled almost entirely due to Federal Government immigration policy.  

The situation is exacerbated due to our historic reliance on a small handful of cities to accommodate our population: 70% of Australians live in our 8 largest cities. By comparison, in the USA their 10 largest cities account for just 26% of their total population. To get to 70% of the population of the United States, you would need to include 120 of their largest cities, not 8.

Source: author research

In Australia, by the time you are outside our top 5 cities, you start to encounter cities of 500,000 people. By the time you get near #10, you are essentially at a rounding error for Melbourne or Sydney. The curve drops off sharply in Australia, while in the USA there are many cities of 1 million or more and the curve is less pronounced, especially once you exclude the global mega city region of wider New York.

The focus on our largest cities getting larger is unlikely to change without some policy interventions (more on that in part two of this). For the time being, the largest cities are perceived by locals and immigrants alike to offer the greatest opportunities for employment, education, health care and general amenity. This explains why immigrants are overwhelmingly choosing to settle there.

Ironically, as the large cities get more and more crowded these perceived benefits are increasingly compromised: housing costs are escalating, traffic is worsening, and access to social infrastructure gets harder. The impression however hasn’t changed the preference to settle in these large cities, despite the obvious drawbacks in housing – to the extent that our housing affordability now ranks as some of the worst in the developed world relative to incomes.

Why Australia isn’t developing a number of second tier cities capable of reducing the pressure on the major capitals is nothing new. As City Growth Strategist & Economic Geographer George Wilkinson III pointed out in his chapter in “The Next Australian City” by Suburban Futures, even on the eve of Federation in 1901, “it was contended that the capitals were congested cesspools with state centralisation being a regrettable outcome.” To entice reluctant regional votes over the line, it was promised that Federation would herald an era of decentralisation. It didn’t.

None of this is to deny that many regional cities are experiencing solid growth relative to their size. The average growth over ten years for the largest cities (Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth) was 20%. Many regional centres grew just as fast or faster in that time. Places like Geelong (Vic), Busselton (WA), Ballarat (Vic) and Toowoomba (Qld) for example are just some of the regional cities which grew by significant percentages in the 10 years to 2024.

But if you exclude the actual growth numbers in places like the Gold Coast-Tweed (135,624) or Sunshine Coast (91,202) there are not many regional cities growing by significant numbers of people despite the high percentages: they are coming from a relatively small base. Busselton’s 25% growth for example only represents an additional 9,036 people. That pace of growth will still pose a challenge for the local council tasked with accommodating it, but in real numbers it’s not going to help relieve the pressure we are placing on the larger capitals. In the same period Busselton grew by 9,000 people for example, Brisbane grew by nearly half a million people.

 Table of select non-capital city regions with the highest % growth rates

Australia lacks any form of settlement strategy, something the Planning Institute of Australia has repeatedly argued for: “When it comes to planning strategy, we need a greater focus on place-based infrastructure planning and funding, common infrastructure demand and population scenarios to make a real change.” Hear hear.

As our major capitals hurtle toward an uncertain future driven by growth they have no control over and with limited resources, it is timely to ask why more isn’t being done to explore opportunities to spread the population load more equitably. Are there centres in Australia capable of accommodating many more people than they have at present? Are there opportunities to nurture a series of second tier cities of between 300,000 and 1 million, where opportunities for employment, housing, health care, education and environmental amenity are at least as good as those found in the major centres? If so, where would you start, and what levers are at our disposal?

Part two will explore some ideas.


8 comments:

  1. Hi Ross, what do you think about creating a few new states (e.g. NQ with Townsville as a capital) and relocating public servants from existing capitals? The new state capitals will also attract other intraregional migrants and could help spread the population better than it is now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree new states is logical but also unlikely ever to happen. Relocating public servants has also been a proven failure. Better in my view to set up a place with tangible drawcards such that it becomes a magnet for people - rather than a place they are forced to go to?

      Delete
  2. Another good post RE. For mine - unless we decentralise say half of the state + federal workforce to true regional towns - those say 200km + away from the capital CBDs - this is academic for now. Regions will get bigger - without this kickstart or reboot - when the capitals become too crowded, congested and fall in quality across a range of metrics - and we aren't there yet - maybe decades away at current growth rates. We also need heaps more people in Oz - like 100m+ - as we lack economic scale and unless we get smart about what we do and how we do it, and real quick, then the only game in town is growth. Ha, pun not intended!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh and its me again - I forgot to add the the USA was settled by the Irish/British etc from east to west, and until they hit the western deserts, every new frontier was better - better river system, soil fertility, climate etc - and once they crossed Arizona and Nevada - it was the land of milk and honey and the pacific. We obviously don't have this free kick.

      Delete
    2. 100m people is ridiculous, Michael. How would this make the nation better?
      Whether we like it or not, Australia is rich because of its resource base. A circa four-fold increase in the population would dilute our resources across circa four times as many people, making us poorer per capita. Then there is the decline in liveability that comes from a much larger population.
      Australia's population has grown by 8.7m (46%) this century, the fastest growth in the developed world. It has not improved our living standards, as nothing has kept pace (e.g., housing, infrastructure, etc). The nation's productivity growth stinks, we have the smallest manufacturing share in the OECD (and it continues to shrink), pervasive skills shortages, etc.
      Again, how has Big Australia population growth made us better off? Isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same mistakes and expecting a different result?

      Delete
    3. It's all academic really Michael. There is much logic in developing larger regional cities but little appetite to do so. The current Labor Govt seems quite happy with crowding major capitals with useful idiots. Why would they invest in regional towns and cities that are mainly National Party seats? But as you say, the decline in quality of life in big cities will slowly push more people to look elswehere. The options at present are limited.

      Delete
  3. hi Ross,

    another thought provoking paper.

    australia has significant challanges and the idea of strengthening secondary cities is worth consideration particularly by our Commonwealth Government.

    more leadership at Federal level is needed to address this national challange by people that are creative geniuses

    complex urban pattens are emerging and even more complex relationships are developing between the States and leadership by people that big note themseles and dont know what they are doing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your last line perfectly describes government in Australia!

      Delete