By the way the independents carry on, it is easy to get the impression that things are really bad in the bush – high unemployment, low incomes, widespread despair, etc. According to Bob Katter, there are four suicides per week among farmers, while never quoting the suicide rates in the cities or among small business owners whose businesses fail.
The reality is quite different; many areas away from the capital cities have been booming – for a variety of reasons. Moreover, now the drought has broken in many parts and there are high prices for many agricultural days, the description ‘salad days’ springs to mind (laugh now).
Many years ago, I undertook a study at the Productivity Commission looking at the impact of National Competition Policy on Rural and Regional Australia. The “bush”, it seemed, were very unhappy about aspects of NCP, including the dismantling of various forms of regulation affecting agricultural products – dairy, sugar, wheat marketing, etc.
What we found at that time was that the attribution between what was happening in the bush and the various initiatives under the NCP was at best flimsy, and that there were always winners and losers. For example, dairy farming in parts of Victoria, with its natural advantages, did very well out of deregulation.
It was certainly true that the smaller towns were shrinking, with the larger ‘sponge’ cities growing instead. Think Horsham, Sale, Wagga Wagga, Tamworth, Bathurst, Port Macquarie all growing strongly, but at least partly at the expense of smaller hamlets that no one outside the districts can name. We would need to ban the car if we want these smaller towns to cease shrinking.
Sea-changers and, more latterly, tree-changers have contributed to the vigour of the bush, as cashed-up city folk seek alternative lifestyles – yes, all those advantages of living in a country town as opposed to a big city.
If we look at objective indicators such as unemployment and net incomes (housing costs are much lower in general in rural and regional Australia), there is not as much in it between the city and bush in contrast with what many seem to think. And of course, there is no direct accounting of the favourable social amenity of rural life compared with battling congested freeways, packed trams, potential social isolation, etc. that big city life can entail.
Taking recent unemployment figures, for instance, the differences are insignfiicant. The unemployment rate in Sydney 6.4 %, rest of New South Wales 6.3 %; Melbourne 5.9 %, rest of Victoria 5.8 %; Brisbane 5.2 %, rest of Queensland 5.6 %; Adelaide 5.4 %, rest of South Australia 4.3 %.
The real point is that there are always trade-offs in life – the benefits of life in the bush are offset by some costs, but surely no one can expect a public hospital on every corner. It is important that government subvention in the bush does not distort this trade-off to the point that citizens in the city subsidise their country cousins for their choice of lifestyle or vice-versa.
Ah, but unless we get good follow-up rains we’ll be in deep trouble.
Ken Nielsen
1 Sep 10 at 2:44 pm
We’ll all be rooned
Steve Edney
1 Sep 10 at 2:46 pm
I once knew a farmer in S E Queensland. It was at the time One Nation was really threatening. This fellow told me he had been trying to get power put through to a new house he was building but SEQEB, as it then was, demanded $30,000.
One Nation said they would nominate in that electorate and within a week SEQEB had been instructed by the government not to charge for extensions.
“So who do you think I’m going to vote for?” said my friend.
Ken Nielsen
1 Sep 10 at 2:50 pm
From what I have seen, the greatest threat to a lot of rural communities is green policies that shut down or strangle their industries. ie, locking up forests as national parks and banning logging as one example. If I were a rural independent, I’d be bashing the Greens harder than Iron Bar bashed….errr… drunken local folk.
boy on a bike
1 Sep 10 at 3:24 pm
“you can’t expect a public hospital at every corner” – very glib. Just you try the public hospital at Tralgon and you would not be so clever.
And we moved here because the jobs were here – no fancy ‘lifestyle’ choice either. The latrobe Valley is often smelly and sooty.
Medicare is at best a middling vetinary service. If you want a laugh tell a patient to ‘talk it over with their family gp’
john malpas
1 Sep 10 at 3:41 pm
Just you try the public hospital at Tralgon and you would not be so clever.
Medical services in the bush, indeed anywhere outside the major cities, are crap. The reason is the Federal government’s policy until recently of heavily restricting the number of doctors. It turns out that doctors would rather live in the city, so when there’s a shortage, the regions lose out. There is no government fix for this, aside from deregulating medicine and allowing more doctors. Incentives to get them to move to the bush, turning nurses into quasi-doctors and all those other silly schemes won’t work.
daddy dave
1 Sep 10 at 3:55 pm
It’s tough to be out bush
Where the tofu shops are rare
And the latte’s few and far between
And there’s cowpats everywhere
We’re a rough and ready lot
Who roam the outback ranges
We’re the yuppies makin’ yippie,
Not to mention the tree changers,
It’s tough to be out bush
The trains are rather frightful!
They rarely stick to schedule, but…
The views are just delightful!
TimT
1 Sep 10 at 4:18 pm
How come there is always a shortage of doctors in the bush but hardly ever a shortage of vets?
asf
1 Sep 10 at 4:20 pm
You might struggle to find a decent doctor out past the mallee country, but you try finding a decent shearer in Toorak.
Infidel Tiger
1 Sep 10 at 4:22 pm
Are you able to quantify how good things are in the Bush to any extent Judith?
For example;
Are we set to increase our relative power with regards to food production? Manufacturing? Specifically are we set to do this away from the main centres?
karl
1 Sep 10 at 4:34 pm
There are actually very few trade-offs for living in the bush, and the reasons most people live in depressed rural areas has nothing to do with the cost-benefit mythology of economists. People are born into rural life, and in many cases lack the means to move to the city, or refuse to do so due to having to farewell their friends and family.
THR
1 Sep 10 at 4:39 pm
THR: Yes, but everyone has choices which are made according to a mix of economically rational reasons and other reasons.
I know many who love living in country towns and would never move to the smoke.
Fact is throughout history large numbers have moved from the bush to the city.
Ken Nielsen
1 Sep 10 at 4:44 pm
Fact is throughout history large numbers have moved from the bush to the city.
This isn’t really history. It’s true now, and throughout much of the world. The thing is, if everybody in the country wanted to move to the city, there’s no way they’d be able to, due to lack of jobs, exorbitant costs, etc. There are good reasons why we ought to provide decent social services and infrastructure to country folk, rather than crediting them with imaginary trade-offs for living next to a power plant in the Latrobe Valley or something.
THR
1 Sep 10 at 4:50 pm
There are actually very few trade-offs for living in the bush,
There’s very few commies. That’s a big selling point.
Infidel Tiger
1 Sep 10 at 4:52 pm
You’ve forgotten that champion of the rural proletariat, Bob ‘socialism in one electorate’ Katter.
THR
1 Sep 10 at 6:02 pm
Nobody I know who lives in ‘the bush’ complains about it, except for medical services. That’s the main problem.
But let’s remember that ‘the Bush’ is not monolithic. There’s coastal areas and inland areas; mining towns and agricultural towns; tourist areas and places where tourists seldom tread; poor regional areas and prosperous ones. Towns that are within an easy drive of a metropolitan area, and towns that are not. Lots of diversity out there.
daddy dave
1 Sep 10 at 6:42 pm
For. Certain knd of politician, it is very important to talk down the bush. For their constituents, theirs is a noble pursuit, better than other choices, and they are more worthy than the parasites that live in the city and don’t understand. But they have not received their just reward. Government’s main function is to make sure they get it. For example, if the noble atherton dairy farmer in the seat of Kennedy wants to produce as much milk as he likes, even though the district already has mor milk than they need, well bob katter’s job is to make sure the price they get is at least cost plus. Because they deserve it. And if some single mother in the city has to pay more to feed her kids to make that happen, well that is because she deserves it.
Sorry if that appears narky, but I have just spent the last week listening to noble primary producers who expect to win the lotto when a CSG company comes onto their land, because they deserve it.
Entropy
1 Sep 10 at 6:55 pm
Bollocks THR. Most people in the bush have a car, and for those that don’t they can either hitch a ride or catch a bus. There aren’t any invisible force fields stopping them at the city limits. As for your second point about people in the bush being unwilling to leave family behind, that applies to all migrants, regardless of place of origin.
asf
1 Sep 10 at 7:00 pm
THR: …the reasons most people live in depressed rural areas has nothing to do with the cost-benefit mythology of economists. People are born into rural life, and in many cases lack the means to move to the city, or refuse to do so due to having to farewell their friends and family. (emphasis added)
In other words, THR, you are saying that people make decisions about moving or staying put taking into account the costs of moving (relative to their income) and the benefits of having family and friends nearby. Sounds like economics to me.
TN
1 Sep 10 at 7:11 pm
Well, I wasn’t thinking so much of farmers as of country towns, crippled with entrenched, multi-generational poverty and misery. The idea that they can all just magically up and go is nonsense. The idea that country towns, in a small state like Victoria, ought to be condemned to fourth-rate services and infrastructure is also nonsense.
THR
1 Sep 10 at 7:22 pm
Well, I wasn’t thinking so much of farmers as of country towns, crippled with entrenched, multi-generational poverty and misery.
To put it bluntly, that characterisation applies more to indigenous communities than other rural communities. There is certainly crippling multi-generational poverty and misery in those communities.
daddy dave
1 Sep 10 at 8:10 pm
“Well, I wasn’t thinking so much of farmers as of country towns, crippled with entrenched, multi-generational poverty and misery. The idea that they can all just magically up and go is nonsense.”
A lot of them are for the welfare and low costs.
.
1 Sep 10 at 8:19 pm
The idea that country towns, in a small state like Victoria, ought to be condemned to fourth-rate services and infrastructure is also nonsense.
What do you propose, THR? I think for instance the level of service we get here is shit compared the NYC.
For instance we don’t have say a Sloan Kettering where there are specialists actually focusing on very specialized areas of cancer in our big cities.
What do you propose.
DO you notice one element here?
Do you notice that the key ingredient to all this is population and there are far more people on the left that wish to limit the size of Australia’s population. These towns will never have access to good services unless their population increases.
JC
1 Sep 10 at 8:20 pm
JC nails it.
Population increase is the only way to solve these problems, what the bush lacks is sufficient economies of scale for any non-agricultural business to thrive.
Yobbo
1 Sep 10 at 8:45 pm
The current unemployment rate in metropolitan Australian is 5.6 per cent, in non-metropolitan Australia it is 6.1 per cent. The towns THR speaks of don’t exist, unless, as DD says, you are talking about Aboriginal welfare ghettos.
asf
1 Sep 10 at 8:55 pm
yeah, JC is so full of wonderful insight – the reason that he doesnt go west is the same reason that everybody else doesnt go west, hence why ‘the bush’ is sparsely populated..
…but if you want to ‘prime the pump’ with incentives then go ahead
Make sure there is an NBN
rog
1 Sep 10 at 9:13 pm
There’s a role for government, particularly in the context of extremely expensive housing, to entice people to the bush.
It’s ludicrous blaming a population shortage on the left. The people hysterical about population are entirely right wing degenerates, who think a few Afghans on leaky boats will sink the Centrelink system.
As for depressed towns, I actually wasn’t thinking of Aboriginal ghettos in Central Australia. You guys should get out more. There are plenty of economically depressed towns in Victoria, for instance, which is why I mentioned the Latrobe Valley earlier.
THR
1 Sep 10 at 9:47 pm
You guys should get out more. There are plenty of economically depressed towns in Victoria, for instance,
I take your word for that. I don’t know Victoria very well but I’m quite familiar with regional NSW and QLD, and that’s not the picture I get from those states at all.
There’s a role for government, particularly in the context of extremely expensive housing, to entice people to the bush.
Yes, to an extent. Although perhaps removing subsidies for city living would be better than incentives for country living.
daddy dave
1 Sep 10 at 10:14 pm
“I have just spent the last week listening to noble primary producers who expect to win the lotto when a CSG company comes onto their land, because they deserve it.”
Not to detract from the general tone of the thread, but go fuck yourself with something sharp. If mining companies want to destroy the farmland, they should buy it first. The fact that the state governments are busy flogging off the mineral rights that should belong to the freehold owners is a problem not caused by the farmers.
Tim Quilty
1 Sep 10 at 10:16 pm
It’s ludicrous blaming a population shortage on the left. The people hysterical about population are entirely right wing degenerates, who think a few Afghans on leaky boats will sink the Centrelink system.
How can you even say that with a straight face THR? It might have been true 30 years ago, but it’s now the greens and their friends who are behind the lower population scare campaigns.
Yobbo
1 Sep 10 at 10:25 pm
Ludicrous? Entirely? Most modern-day Malthusians are Green or luvvie Labor voters.
dover_beach
1 Sep 10 at 10:26 pm
So the government needs to fund more services in the bush to entice people to live there because inner city housing is expensive? That makes no sense at all.
Plus you are ignoring the fact that additional services for the bush will cause rural house prices to rise, thus making housing in rural townships less affordable.
asf
1 Sep 10 at 10:34 pm
The solution to rural disadvantage is called cities.
Entropy
1 Sep 10 at 10:35 pm
How can you even say that with a straight face THR? It might have been true 30 years ago, but it’s now the greens and their friends who are behind the lower population scare campaigns.
Bullshit. The Western Sydney/QLD electorates wetting their pants in fear of asylum seekers are neither lefties nor greens.
The solution to rural disadvantage is called cities.
A small state like Victoria ought to be able to recreate some of the logistics of Europe, where small cities of 100-500k are perfectly viable places to live and work. As it stands, that isn’t the case. I’m not suggesting that country folk should be subsidised whilst city-dwellers are neglected, but I do think that some here are attributing rather idealised and imaginary benefits to country life.
THR
1 Sep 10 at 10:47 pm
Actually, the argument that I’ve used here for the country applies equally well for the city. We might as well say that folks in the ghettos of Broadmeadows or Dandenong are privileged and undeserving of government services because, after all, they get cheaper housing.
THR
1 Sep 10 at 10:51 pm
rog – the NBN isn’t being built in the bush (where do 97% of Australians live?). So how will non-existent infrastrucutre attract doctors?
“There’s a role for government, particularly in the context of extremely expensive housing, to entice people to the bush. ”
1. Do nothing and let price differentials work 2. Reduce the indirect taxes on building a new home, which stand at 31% of property value. 3. Scrap BASIX which makes a house in NSW cost $12500 more. 4. Reduce the size of Government expenditure and stop centralising it’s functions.
“A small state like Victoria ought to be able to recreate some of the logistics of Europe, where small cities of 100-500k are perfectly viable places to live and work.”
The Murray Darling has 2-3% of our rainfall runoff. This is enough water to support 11-13 million people.
“but I do think that some here are attributing rather idealised and imaginary benefits to country life.”
The problem is you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“We might as well say that folks in the ghettos of Broadmeadows or Dandenong are privileged and undeserving of government services because, after all, they get cheaper housing.”
By you reasoning the best way then to justify more services would to be prohibit any building. BTW, you have missed the point, which is population agglomeration makes the provision of services and economies of scale easier to occur. WHich would require getting rid of as many building restrictions as possible.
.
2 Sep 10 at 8:17 am
“Think Horsham, Sale, Wagga Wagga, Tamworth, Bathurst, Port Macquarie all growing strongly, but at least partly at the expense of smaller hamlets that no one outside the districts can name.”
Anyone who follows NRL knows where Junee is. Anyone who follows AFL knows where Culcairn and Mangoplah are.
.
2 Sep 10 at 8:20 am
By you reasoning the best way then to justify more services would to be prohibit any building. BTW, you have missed the point, which is population agglomeration makes the provision of services and economies of scale easier to occur. WHich would require getting rid of as many building restrictions as possible.
No, my point was that the bush is not automatically ineligible for government spending simply because its citizens have obtained some kind of ‘trade-off’ (i.e. cheap housing, according to Judith). By this reasoning, the government should be focusing its infrastructure efforts on Toorak and Vaucluse, since these areas don’t offer the cheap housing trade-off.
And building restrictions is a red herring. It’s like a joker that libertarians keep up their sleeve when they don’t know what they’re talking about. Are you seriously suggesting that the bush is inundated with housing restrictions, and this is the primary factor driving (supposed) low population and lack of services?
THR
2 Sep 10 at 8:37 am
“(i.e. cheap housing, according to Judith).”
Yeah ok. But it’s not entirely bullshit. Look at Strathfield Council. You have to pay $42 and hand in an application to prune a tree.
You think this is bullshit.
http://www.strathfield.nsw.gov.au/system/files/f2/f4/o579//FORM%20Tree%20Removal.pdf
Can you imagine trying to build a house where it costs $42 to APPLY to have permission to PRUNE, not cut down a tree?
Some country towns are cheaper because they’re not infested with this madness.
If you think the taxes are BS, here are the facts:
See graph 16 and table 6:
http://www.appliedeconomics.com.au/pubs/papers/gw03_house.htm
Table 6: Fees, Taxes and Charges on New Residential Development
Land Development
Building
Developer Infrastructure Contributions
Major Roads
Drainage
Public Open Space
Sewer and Water Headworks
Recycled Water
Community Facilities
Roads and Transport Levy
Stormwater Retention
Land Restoration
Clearance Fees
Water Corporation
Council
Land Titles Office
Electricity
Development Assessment Commissioner
GST on Development Costs
Stamp duty on sale of the land
Land tax on land holdings
Council Fees and Charges
Building Permit Levy
Training Levy
Kerb Deposit
Water Corporation
Development Application Fees
GST
State Taxes and charges
Stamp duty on the sale of a house
Training levy
Long Service Leave Levy
Compulsory Home Warranty Insurance
Infrastructure levies
“By this reasoning, the government should be focusing its infrastructure efforts on Toorak and Vaucluse, since these areas don’t offer the cheap housing trade-off.”
No, they should be leaving people alone. How can they help people in Toorak? Why is concentrating Government departments in cities and then making them ever alrger going to help country towns?
People in the country don’t get entirely compensated for a lack of economic agglomeration through lower land prices. But they also don’t make their land overly expensive.
.
2 Sep 10 at 8:51 am
I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the prosperity and wealth in a number of Victorian towns I’ve visited in recent years – much of this achieved in spite of government intervention. For instance the Bright/Ovens/Wangaratta area must have been hit quite hard when the Vic Govt outlawed tobacco farming). They survive and prosper through a combination of tourism, culture, logging, taking up other sorts of agriculture, and catering to tree-changers/sporty types/Melbourne visitors, etc. More services would be nice – increased buses/more trains to the area would help to bring in tourists, I’m sure – but they certainly don’t seem to be suffering.
Of course this doesn’t hold for all country areas. But that’s just the point – talking about bush/city divides, and uniform suffering across all rural areas is just a myth.
All that being said this post and my earlier comment have just furnished me with a nice poem that I might at some point put up on my blog, or use in some Melb. poetry slams coming up, so thanks folks.
TimT
2 Sep 10 at 12:14 pm
“It is important that government subvention in the bush does not distort this trade-off to the point that citizens in the city subsidise their country cousins for their choice of lifestyle or vice-versa.”
This is the nub of the matter. Governments tax the entire country but spend mainly in the capitals (e.g. ATO programmers in Sydney and Melbourne), so the country ends up subsidising the city.
2dogs
2 Sep 10 at 2:32 pm
Hang on, government spends more in the city because more people live in the city – ‘… the country ends up subsidising the city’ is a very misleading simplification.
TimT
2 Sep 10 at 5:19 pm