Population Growth and Distribution in Australia: Policy and Governance Challenges for a More Balanced Settlement Structure

ABSTRACT

Over the next three decades, Australia's large cities are expected to experience major population growth, while many regional areas will likely be faced with shrinking and ageing populations. This paper asks how official population projections are considered in strategic spatial policy frameworks for Victoria and South Australia, and what land use planning responses are proposed to address increasing spatial disparities. The analysis shows that policy priorities are overwhelmingly focused on growth, whereas the needs of declining regions are largely ignored. There is a worrisome lack of strategic policy thinking on how to manage existing and likely intensifying spatial imbalances.

摘要

在接下来的三十年里，澳大利亚的大城市预计将经历人口的大幅增长，而许多地区可能会面临人口减少和老龄化的问题。在维多利亚州和南澳大利亚州的战略空间政策框架中如何考虑官方人口预测，以及提出哪些土地利用规划应对措施来解决日益扩大的空间差异是本文的主要内容。分析表明，政策重点绝大多数集中在增长上，而人口减少地区的需求在很大程度上受到忽视。令人担忧的是，在如何管理现有和可能加剧的空间失衡方面缺乏战略性政策思考。

KEYWORDS:

• Population projections
• Australia
• urban and regional planning
• balanced spatial development
• land use policies
• spatial disparities

Introduction

Australia’s urban settlement structure is dominated by a handful of large metropolitan centres along the coastline. In 2021, almost 70% of the nation’s 25.4 million inhabitants lived in the Greater Capital Cities (ABS 2022a). Historically, Australia’s capital cities have grown faster because international migrants have preferred to settle in major cities over regional areas¹ (Australian Government 2022). In recent years, peri-metropolitan cities and accessible coastal locations have also recorded growth, whereas smaller rural towns and especially remote areas are experiencing declining populations (Australian Government 2022, ABS 2023a).

Projections prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) prior to the Covid-19 pandemic expected the national population to grow from around 25 million in 2016 to close to 36 million by year 2050, and to around 50 million by 2075 (ABS 2018, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 2018). Since most of this increase will be the result of net overseas migration, these population projections have prompted intense political and public debate about the desirable scale and distribution of population growth. The discussions have also focused on the housing, infrastructure and economic development needs resulting from a growing population.

During the first years of the Covid-19 pandemic, in 2020/21, border restrictions largely prevented overseas migration into Australia. Domestically, there were more moves from the cities to regions, both within states and inter-state. This resulted in a population drop in most capital cities, while larger regional cities close to a major capital city and coastal towns grew (Australian Government 2022, ABS 2022b). Although the Australian Government (2022, p. vii) acknowledges that the Covid-19 pandemic is presenting “significant uncertainty around projections of future population”, current assumptions are that net overseas migration will recover to normal patterns by 2024/25, albeit with a slower growth rate over the next years than previously assumed (Australian Government 2023, ABS 2023b).

While the exact implications of the Covid-19 pandemic on the growth and distribution of the population remain to be seen, questions such as what settlement patterns should be encouraged and whether population growth should be diverted towards smaller centres to ensure a “sustainable” Australian population (Malo 2018), remain relevant. In the context of the pre-pandemic projections, the then-Coalition federal government, under Prime Minister Morrison (2018-2022), proposed the introduction of visa conditions that would require a percentage of international migrants to live in “regional Australia” for several years upon arrival, before being allowed to settle in their preferred location. This prompted widespread concern that without accompanying measures to mediate the local effects on housing and labour markets the economic and social problems of major urban areas would be transferred to smaller towns (Molloy 2018, van Kooy and Wickes 2019).

The contested debate on the growth and distribution of Australia’s population warrants a closer look at the public policies potentially able to support a more balanced settlement structure, and the attention given in current spatial policy frameworks to projected population changes and their impacts. Since urban and regional planning is the responsibility of Australian states and territories, the analytical focus is on this level of government, while acknowledging the influence of the federal government on spatial development outcomes through immigration policy, regional economic development and infrastructure funding. The guiding question for this article is:

• What policy responses to projected population changes are proposed in current urban and regional planning policy frameworks of Victoria and South Australia?

To answer the question, a policy content analysis of current regional spatial plans was undertaken. The analytical focus is on South Australia (SA) and Victoria, neighbouring states that experience significantly different population trends. The analysis was initially conducted during the second half of 2021 as input for a larger research project (published as Beer et al. 2022). For this article, the analysis was updated in late 2022.

In the next section, the arrangements for urban and regional planning in Australia are introduced. Then, international scholarship on policy approaches aimed at influencing the distribution of settlement patterns in democratic nations is discussed, followed by an explanation of the methodological approach. The findings from the policy content analysis are presented in the penultimate section, before drawing conclusions.

Urban and Regional Planning in Australia

In Australia, urban and regional planning is the responsibility of the governments of the six states (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia, and South Australia) and two territories (Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory). State and territory governments have enacted their own planning laws and procedures and decide on powers for urban and regional planning to be delegated to local governments. As a result, Australia’s state jurisdictions have different planning systems. However, neoliberal policy reforms over the past decade in many states, aimed at removing “planning barriers” to economic development, have moderated some of the differences in the arrangements for strategic spatial planning and local land use planning (Goodman et al. 2013; Ruming et al. 2014).

Based on the constitution, the Australian government should only become involved in urban policy if required by national strategic interests (Spiller 2022). This provision has been used sporadically by national governments, with any attempts at national urban policy conducted “under the constraints of constitutional, financial, ideological and political factors” (Hu 2020, p. 201). The most ambitious and comprehensive, albeit short-lived, decentralisation policy to date was launched under the Australian Labour government of Gough Whitlam in the 1970s, which sought to realise a more balanced settlement pattern by strengthening regional “growth centres” (Bolleter et al. 2021).

In recent years, the interest of successive Australian governments in urban or spatial development policy was driven by “big city” issues. This prompted a focus on urban renewal and investments in urban infrastructures, intended to enhance the “productivity” of cities and thereby strengthen the nation’s competitiveness (Ruming et al. 2014). Any national “spatial” policy is exercised primarily through sectoral funding for transport infrastructure and economic development. Population distribution and settlement patterns are also, directly or indirectly, influenced by federal immigration policy. There are no explicit efforts at policy coordination, prompting criticism from professional organisations and academics of “spatially-blind” national policy initiatives that “influence the shape of our cities and regions unintentionally” (PIA 2018, p. 7) and contribute to a widening gap between prosperous regions and those lagging economically (Tomlinson 2016).

Since the 1980s, Australia has undergone a series of far-reaching market-oriented policy reforms aimed at deregulation of capital markets and resulting in reduced capacity of the public sector. Consequently, state and territory governments – traditionally the main investors in the infrastructures and services that support economic activity in different localities in their jurisdictions - are now commonly faced with the need to attract private investments to provide “public” infrastructures and services. Policies aimed at changing land use patterns are consequently generally more effective in thriving real estate markets (usually urban centres) where more investors will be interested in realising projects, than in areas affected by a shrinking population that are perceived to reflect adverse long-term investment conditions (McCann 2017).

Decisions about infrastructure investments and service provision in Australia's states and territories are informed by official population projections. These are prepared at national and at state/territory levels.² The nationwide official population projections based on the 2016 census, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 2018 (ABS 2018), incited considerable debate about the challenges resulting from a quickly growing Australian population. In response to an independent Inquiry into the Australian Government’s role in the development of cities (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 2018) that recommended the preparation of a “national plan of settlement” and argued for stronger land use planning systems, the then Coalition government published Planning for Australia’s Future Population (Australian Government 2019). This acknowledged the need for investment in infrastructure to reduce congestion in the major cities and to improve the “connectivity and access to essential services to make regional Australia an attractive place to live and work” (Australian Government 2019, p. 36). The report also proposed other measures to reduce population pressures in major cities (such as putting an annual ceiling on the number of permanent migrants) and to stimulate growth in the regions (through e.g. offering regional skilled visas with a requirement to live and work outside the big cities for three years before being eligible for permanent residency). There was no attention to policy coordination, nor - aside from the proposal for fast(er) rail connections between capital cities and regional towns - to land use planning. The proposals were criticised as a “patchwork” of measures (Freestone et al. 2018, Burton and Nicholls 2019) that fall far short of the recommended national spatial development framework that would allow coordinated planning for population growth, infrastructure, and economic development beyond political and budgetary cycles.

Planning Approaches for Population Growth and Decline

Australia has shied away from a formal national settlement policy and as will be shown later, this provides the context for state government's lack of inclination to balance big city growth with the requirements of smaller settlements through their land use planning systems. Yet, there are convincing arguments for pursuing balanced spatial development, and an increasing number of international examples of planning for regions in decline.

Planning systems in many Western democracies now have a mature suite of urban growth management tools at their disposal to coordinate conflicting demands on land, infrastructure systems and the environment within urban boundaries (Forster 2006). By contrast, planning for shrinkage - whether caused by population loss or economic decline, or a combination of these two drivers (Wiechmann and Pallagst 2012) - is a more recent challenge. Recent scholarly analyses on shrinking cities and regions have offered categorisations of approaches to planning for shrinkage that are emerging in different contexts. Eraydin and Özatağan (2021) suggest distinguishing between policy approaches aimed at recovery (with policies aimed at restoring growth and eradicating signs of shrinkage, such as through urban regeneration schemes), adaptation (policies aimed at re-orientation and incremental adaptation, such as through diversifying the economy or improving the urban environment), and transformation (search for alternative pathways towards a resilient urban or regional economy). Transformative approaches require replacing the traditional objective of “growth-at-all-cost” (Audirac 2018, p. 14) with other goals. They also demand considerable political support, government leadership and coalitions among different public and private institutions and the civic society (Radzimski 2016, Eraydin and Özatağan 2021). Examples include enhancing liveability in a smaller city (in Youngstown, USA), improving quality of life (Detroit, USA), or increasing community well-being (in Vitry-le-François, France) (Özatağan and Eraydin 2021).

Politicians can be reluctant to support planning for shrinkage (Zhou et al. 2022). This may partly be a result of the lure of the traditional “growth paradigm” and the change in mindset therefore required to adjust to new socio-economic realities. Dealing with shrinkage requires regional rather than local thinking (Hospers 2014), with the resulting need for new governance arrangements potentially presenting additional hurdles for effective policy responses. There is also an important economic component underlying the reluctance of many local and regional governments to accept that shrinking populations may require different trajectories (OECD 2012, Aalbers and Bernt 2019).

Strategic policy frameworks at a higher spatial scale can provide an important framework for addressing complex transformation challenges, coordinating relevant policy areas, and managing socio-economic interdependencies across administrative boundaries (Hospers 2014, Jones 2017). Yet, developing and implementing integrated spatial strategies requires considerable public sector capacity and territorial actors willing and able to cooperate on prioritising planning intentions across diverse interests and to (re-)structure governance arrangements. A 2001 OECD review of strategic spatial planning systems found that the effectiveness of strategic plans in complex and fragmented multi-level governance arenas relies on “persuasive and mobilising capability rather than command and control power by facilitating multi-level participation” (OECD 2001, p. 28). To support the realisation of strategic planning frameworks, funding mechanisms, including cross-sector agreement about strategic urban development projects, need to be established (Ziafati Bafarasat and Oliveira 2021).

Yet, even with wide-ranging support for integrated spatial visions and appropriate governance arrangements to support them, ensuring that strategic spatial plans remain relevant for decision-making processes over a time horizon of 15–30 years presents challenges. Many (and arguably increasing) uncertainties affecting long-term land use planning directions necessitate a rethinking of the role of strategic planning and the approach to using it effectively. In recent years, European governments have therefore begun to experiment with adaptive policy frameworks that can more dynamically respond to changing framework conditions than earlier generations of “static” strategic plans (see e.g. Rauws and De Roo 2016).

Australia may have some way to go to achieving such inspiring comprehensive-integrated spatial visions. State-wide policy frameworks have been criticised for being prescriptive and confined to the setting of parameters within which statutory local land use planning is exercised (Albrechts 2016). There is no tradition of comprehensive-integrated spatial development frameworks in Australia that would compare to those of European countries and regions of the late 1990s and early 2000s (Dühr 2007). More “visionary” planning approaches have been tested in some of the recent (and often short-lived) metropolitan-scale experiments (see e.g. Butt et al. 2021), but these are clearly only concerned with challenges related to rapid urban growth. For example, efforts by the (recently abolished - see Harris and Kent 2023) Greater Sydney Commission to propose a polycentric spatial development vision of “three cities” for the metropolitan region and to align land use, transport, and infrastructure planning (Greater Sydney Commission 2018) were criticised for having “almost nothing to say about the rest of the state” (Freestone et al. 2018).

Methodological Approach

The geographical focus of analysis is on two neighbouring Australian states that are experiencing different population trends: South Australia and Victoria. Previous analyses have also identified differences in planning approaches and governance arrangements, such as for example in relation to the attention given to metropolitan-scale planning (Ruming et al. 2014, Butt et al. 2021). Different public health responses during the first two years of the Covid-19 pandemic meant that SA recorded an increase in population during this period, whereas the strict lockdowns in Victoria resulted in it being the only state to record a loss in population (ABS 2022c).

The policy documents analysed for this article had all been prepared prior to the pandemic (and as of 2023 are still valid), using official population projections that were based on the 2016 census. Given the major disruption of the pandemic, the study therefore also raises wider questions about the “service life” of strategic policy documents that are prepared with at the time of adoption current (but eventually invariably outdated) information, yet are expected to guide government decisions and actions over several decades.

To answer this article’s guiding question, a comparative content analysis was undertaken of 25 strategic spatial plans (15 for SA, and 10 for Victoria, see Table 1). All documents are available online. Content analysis has been defined as a method that enables replicable and valid inferences from textual and/or visual information (Krippendorff 2018). The content analysis focused on identifying policy responses to projected population changes in regional towns. Based on the literature review, these might include strategic approaches to promoting a decentralised settlement structure by strengthening smaller towns, or specific policies aimed at recovery, adaptation, or transformation of declining areas.

Table 1. Regional land use plans analysed for South Australia and Victoria.

	South Australia	Victoria
Regional Australia	Yorke Peninsula Regional Land Use Framework. A Volume of the Planning Strategy for South Australia (2007). Greater Mount Gambier Master Plan. A Volume of the Planning Strategy for South Australia (2008). Port Augusta Structure Plan. A section of the Far North Region Plan (2010). Far North Region Plan. A Volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy (2010). Kangaroo Island Region Plan. A Volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy (2011). Limestone Coast Region Plan. A Volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy (2011). Mid North Region Plan. A Volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy (2011). Murray and Mallee Region Plan. A Volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy (2011). Eyre and Western Region Plan. A Volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy (2012). Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale Character Preservation. Addendum to two Volumes of the South Australian Planning Strategy: The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and Murray and Mallee Region Plan (2013). Andamooka Structure Plan (2013). Kangaroo Island Sustainable Futures. Addendum to the Kangaroo Island Plan: a Volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy (2014).	G21 Regional Growth Plan (2013). Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan (2014). Gippsland Regional Growth Plan (2014). Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan (2014). Hume Regional Growth Plan (2014). Loddon Mallee North Regional Growth Plan (2014). Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (2014). Wimmera Southern Mallee Regional Growth Plan (2014).
Metropolitan region	The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. A Volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy (2010). The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. 2017 Update (2017). The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. 2017 Update. Implementation Plan 2017/2018 (2017).	Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. Metropolitan Planning Strategy (2017). Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. Five-year Implementation Plan (2019).

The attention given in the documents to policy coordination with other spatially-relevant sectors (such as transport or economic development) and proposals for multi-level and cross-sectoral governance arrangements were also considered in the analysis. Harris and Hooper (2004, p. 147) have argued that analysing the “character and extent of spatial references across different policy sectors” allows an identification of government's intentions “to facilitate ‘joined-up’ policy and address complex issues of geographic distribution and spatial equity”. This is especially pertinent in the Australian context, where previous research has found that much of what is presented as “strategic” spatial planning are effectively decisions on (transport) infrastructure investments without much effort to coordinate these with other policy areas such as land use policy, housing, or economic development (Ruming et al. 2014, Hu 2020).

The assessment of the attention given to managing projected population changes, their spatial implications and proposed policy responses covered the analysis of both the policy text as well as – where included –maps. For the latter, the approach drew on previous interpretive policy analysis (Harris and Hooper 2004, Dühr 2007) to examine the proposed spatial concepts as well as any attempts at visualising spatial interdependencies within the region and beyond.

The policy documents were systematically analysed with the help of a framework of guiding questions, as follows:

• o How is population growth considered in the policy document, and what are the spatial implications discussed in relation to projected population changes?

• o What policy responses are proposed to manage population growth or decline in regional towns?

• o What policies, and which spatial concepts, are promoted to support a more decentralised settlement structure?

• o What is said in regional plans about policy coordination with other “spatial” policy areas, such as economic development or (transport) infrastructure?

• o How is the coordination of local-level planning with higher-level government policies envisaged, and what governance arrangements (incl. with non-governmental actors) are proposed in relation to the management of population change in regional towns?

• o How does the policy document propose to realise its policy objectives on managing population growth (or decline) in regional towns, and/or to achieve a more balanced settlement pattern? What is said about plan implementation?

Spatial Policy Responses to Population Projections in Regional Plans of South Australia and Victoria

According to Australian census data (ABS 2023a), in 2021 there were 6.5 million people living in Victoria (of which 4.9 million in Greater Melbourne) (Victoria State Government 2019a). South Australia (SA) recorded a population of close to 1.8 million in 2021 (of which 1.4 million were living in Greater Adelaide) (Government of South Australia 2019a). Both states are characterised by a dominant capital city, with population projections suggesting that without coordinated policy intervention spatial imbalances will become even more pronounced.

South Australia

Official projections prepared before the start of the Covid pandemic suggested that SA’s population would grow from around 1.7 million in 2016 to around 2.1 million by 2041 (Government of South Australia 2019a). The share of the state’s population residing in the Greater Adelaide Capital City region was projected to grow from 77,5% (1.3 million) in 2016 to around 79% (1.62 million) by 2041. During the same period, most regional areas were expected to stagnate or even decline (Government of South Australia 2019a).

A recent major policy reform was formalised with the 2016 Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act (PDI Act) (Government of South Australia 2016). The PDI Act sets out the requirement for a series of statutory planning instruments to be in place. These include State Planning Policies, which are the overarching but mostly thematic and largely non-spatial umbrella policies that together with regional plans and the Planning and Design Code (Government of South Australia 2023) are intended to provide SA's strategic planning policy framework. Under the PDI Act, the first set of 16 State Planning Policies were adopted in 2019 (Government of South Australia 2019b). The Planning and Design Code replaces all previous 72 local development plans and sets out state-wide arrangements for land use zoning and the principles for development assessment. It had a phased roll-out, with the full document released in early 2021, and has since already undergone several amendments.

An important focus for reform was the streamlining of development assessment processes, and this has arguably come at the expense of strategic policy thinking (Dühr 2023). The preparation of the new regional plans only began in 2023, after the Planning and Design Code had been finalised. According to the state planning department's website (Government of South Australia undated), at the time of writing their adoption is envisaged for 2024. The regional plans will be prepared for seven planning regions, the boundaries of which were determined in a 2020 review (Government of South Australia 2020). Besides Greater Adelaide, six “country” ³ planning regions (Eyre and Western; Far North; Kangaroo Island; Limestone Coast; Murray Mallee; and Yorke Peninsula and Mid North) have been defined. The planning regions are a consolidation of the previous twelve SA Government administrative regions that had been adopted in 2006 for planning, monitoring, and service delivery (Government of South Australia 2019c).

With the new generation of regional plans under development, for this article the currently still valid regional plans that were prepared under the previous Development Act of 1993 were analysed. Although twelve regions had been defined under the previous legislation, as shown in Table 1 only eight volumes of the South Australian planning strategy were adopted, with some also not fully corresponding to the defined administrative government regions (Government of South Australia 2019c). Additional, smaller scale, regional planning documents were introduced at various points in time. Those prepared include a Master Plan for Greater Mount Gambier and Structure Plans for Port August and Andamooka (Table 1). A process launched in the mid-2000s to replace regional plans through Regional Land Use Planning Frameworks was abolished once work began on the planning reform. Only one such framework, for the Yorke Peninsula, was adopted, and except for a smaller spatial coverage there are no significant differences to the regional plans (Government of South Australia 2007). The regional plans and corresponding policy documents are “official volumes” of the “Planning Strategy for South Australia”. They were prepared by the state government and expected to provide policy directions over a period of 10–15 years.

There are strong parallels between the country regional plans to the extent that except for some region-specific information they seem almost interchangeable. The documents are of prescriptive character that all recite the same three objectives: to maintain and improve liveability; to increase competitiveness; and to drive sustainability and increase resilience to climate change. There is no discussion of what such general objectives mean in different parts of the region, nor what place-specific policies would be needed to respond to the potentials and challenges of different localities. The regional plans are virtually devoid of spatial concepts. Only the metropolitan strategy, the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and its 2017 update (Government of South Australia 2010, 2017), include concepts such as activity centres and transit corridors, although these clearly only concern sub-spaces of the metropolitan region.

None of the regional plans considers how spatial development could or should be steered in response to projected population and economic changes. In all the regional (and sub-regional) plans shown in Table 1, the content analysis revealed an almost mantra-like focus on population growth as being a precondition of economic growth (or, vice versa, on economic growth as a precondition to attract people of working age to regional areas). This “growth discourse”, and the resulting policy directions, stand in considerable contrast to the projected trends for many parts of regional SA of an, at best, stagnating population. For example, the Regional Land Use Planning Framework for the Yorke Peninsula (Government of South Australia 2007, p. 3) discusses the expected challenges from a declining and ageing population for the region, but policy directions exclusively focus on population and economic growth instead of offering an alternative perspective suitable for a shrinking region. Inter alia, the section on the “need for a regional framework” states that “increasing economic investment in regions” (Government of South Australia 2007, p. 3) will attract younger people and people from overseas to regional locations.

Given that economic investment in stagnating or declining regions will require either considerable direct government intervention or the provision of incentives for private investors, it is concerning that there is no discussion in any of the regional plans about how the envisaged economic growth (and the population growth this is expected to prompt) will be realised. Indeed, there are only vague and open-ended statements on plan implementation, such as the suggestion that “together, councils and agencies will determine long-term land-use and infrastructure priorities and how best to focus their efforts on implementing these priorities” (Government of South Australia 2012, p. 6). Any consideration in relation to plan implementation essentially rests on the requirement that the respective regional plan had to be included as a relevant consideration in local development plans (which until the adoption of the Planning and Design Code were the main instrument for deciding on development permits).

In summary, the analysis of SA's regional plans revealed little constructive engagement with the spatial implications of population projections. Irrespective of the actual and expected population changes in different parts of the state, the focus in all policy documents is universally on population growth as a prerequisite for economic growth as well as (in turn) on stimulating economic growth to attract a population of working age. Although the analytical sections of the plans and strategies acknowledge that the population is ageing and in many rural areas also declining, these insights are not translated into policy directions for shrinking regions that would be able to offer an alternative perspective to the traditional “growth-at-all cost” mindset. Equally, the suite of plans does not add up to a state-wide perspective on future directions for spatial development and fails to provide a response to existing and in future likely increasing spatial imbalances between the metropolitan region and other parts of the state.

Victoria

Victoria is the second largest Australian state by population. Official projections prepared by the Victorian state government prior to the Covid-19 pandemic expected the state’s population to increase from 6.5 million inhabitants in 2018–11.2 million by 2056. Most of this population growth was predicted to occur through international migration. The population of Greater Melbourne was projected to grow from 5 million in 2018–9 million in 2056, while some rural areas were expected to experience a declining population (Victoria State Government 2019a).

The legal basis of Victoria’s planning system is the Planning and Environment Act of 1987, with subsequent successive reforms aimed at a harmonisation of local planning approaches to increase “efficiencies” in development assessment processes. Strategic land use planning policies for Victoria are set out in the current version of the metropolitan planning strategy Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 (Victoria State Government 2017) (and its accompanying 5-year Implementation Plan (Victoria State Government 2019b)) and in Regional Growth Plans for the eight “country” planning regions. These are: Central Highlands, G21 – Geelong Regional Alliance⁴, Gippsland, Great South Coast, Hume, Loddon Mallee North, Loddon Mallee South, Wimmera Southern Mallee (DTPV 2023).

Victoria's eight Regional Growth Plans were adopted in 2013 and 2014 (Table 1). They are intended to provide a provide a long-term perspective to 2041 and give direction for detailed land use planning in key regional centres. The plans are supposed to be prepared by regional partnerships, and then published by the Victorian government. However, except for the G21 Regional Growth Plan (G21 Geelong Region Alliance 2013), which is clearly informed by regional partnership priorities, there are considerable parallels between the Regional Growth Plans that suggest significant steering by the state government.

The Regional Growth Plans emphasise the spatial concept of a networked “state of cities” that is to be supported by improved transport connections between regional centres and Melbourne. The “state of cities” concept was introduced in the “first” Plan Melbourne, published in 2014 (Victoria State Government 2014a), and is carried forward in the current metropolitan strategy. The vision expressed in Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 to turn “Melbourne into a city of centres linked to regional Victoria” (Victoria State Government 2017, p. 10) is evidently driven by the need to relieve population growth pressures affecting the state’s main urban agglomeration. The focus is on strengthening Victoria’s ten largest regional cities through investment in housing provision and employment opportunities and by ensuring that “the right infrastructure and services are available to support the growth and competitiveness of regional and rural industries and their access to global markets” (Victoria State Government 2017, p. 130). The emphasis on infrastructure connections, especially rail transport, echoes the federal government’s “faster rail” policy (DITRDC 2018) and corresponding state transport infrastructure policy (Transport for Victoria 2018). The Australian government’s “20-year plan for a faster rail network” (DITRDC 2018) includes a commitment to the construction of the Geelong to Melbourne fast rail connection, whereas other potential rail corridors, notably Melbourne to Greater Shepparton, Melbourne to Albury-Wodonga, Melbourne to Traralgon and Melbourne to Ballarat, are marked as requiring further investigation.

The regional plans all follow the same structure. As the document titles openly communicate, the emphasis is on “unlocking the growth potential” of regional Victoria. This is to be realised through a strengthening of regional labour markets, expanding markets for local goods and services, and providing a greater diversity of affordable housing and employment opportunities in regional centres. There is a clear mismatch between the analysis sections of the strategies (that for the more remote areas identify population stagnation or shrinkage) and the resulting policy directions (which are universally focused on population growth). Thus, “Part D: Regional Growth Plan” of all country plans only identifies “future directions for regional growth”, but not also policy options for shrinking areas. The policy vision is consequently more convincing in the plans for regions projected to grow in population than those affected by decline. For example, the Regional Growth Plans for Greater Geelong, Central Highlands and Loddon Mallee reflect their “near metropolitan” locations, with a strong emphasis on urban growth management and improved connectivity of the regional towns of Geelong, Ballarat, and Bendigo to Greater Melbourne. For the G21 Geelong Region, where considerable population growth is projected due to the proximity to Melbourne, the Regional Growth Plan states that this “is not a plan to encourage growth, rather it is a plan to manage the inevitability of growth” (G21 Geelong Region Alliance 2013, p. II).

On the other hand, the universal growth discourse stands in stark contrast to the reality of population trends in especially the more remote parts of Victoria. For example, the Wimmera Southern Mallee Regional Growth Plan acknowledges that while most parts of the region “are not expected to experience significant population growth between now and 2041, there is a need to consider how land is used to facilitate economic growth” (Victoria State Government 2014b, p. 1). The policy principles for this region are explicitly targeted at supporting economic and population growth, with no policies tailored to the recovery, adaptation, or transformation of shrinking areas.

Other regions, such as the Central Highlands, are expecting decline in their more remote parts while areas closer to Melbourne are experiencing population growth. However, the Regional Growth Plan for the Central Highlands (Victoria State Government 2014c) does not offer a context-sensitive approach to these projections. This is despite the acknowledgement that “the ability to spread the benefits of population growth will be constrained to a large degree by market demand, … . The need for population growth to be underpinned by employment growth places limits on where growth should be directed” (Victoria State Government 2014c, p. 16).

Importantly, all regional growth plans remain very general on how policies will be implemented and stay silent on how proposed infrastructures outside of those corridors already earmarked for federal and state government investments will be funded to realise the vision of the networked “state of cities”. For example, the Wimmera Southern Mallee Regional Growth Plan emphasises that “implementation of this plan is critical to realising its strategic directions” but concedes that this will primarily entail requiring local planning scheme amendments “to include key elements of the plan” (Victorian Government 2014b, p. 77). Given that local governments are the smallest and poorest tier of government in Australia and usually have limited resources to effect change on their own (Beer 2007), the reliance on statutory local planning to achieve ambitious strategic policy goals seems oddly mismatched.

In summary, the analysed Victoria state documents all present a dominant “growth discourse” that arguably prevents a more constructive engagement with alternative policy directions for regions affected by population decline. While managing population growth will be a key task for the larger cities, there is a rather astounding lack of consideration for the needs of shrinking regions, let alone the formulation of a state-wide vision for spatial development. It has been argued that the successive expansion of Melbourne’s urban growth boundary since the early 2000s in response to projected population growth prevented a more fundamental rethinking of the approach to strategic spatial planning (Goodman 2017, Freestone et al. 2018). Indeed, and despite the expressed vision of a “state of cities”, the analysed plans lack a policy perspective for the spatial development of the entire state. The focus on accommodating and/or stimulating population growth is inevitably presented from an urban perspective. Yet, proposed infrastructure connections to regional “growth areas” will likely only prompt an expansion of Melbourne's commuter belt rather than strengthen regional towns to develop their own profile in Victoria's urban system.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This article has analysed the attention given in current policy frameworks of South Australia and Victoria to the spatial implications of projected population changes. Despite differences in population trends and arrangements for land use planning, there are strong similarities in the analysed 25 plans in relation to a rather staggering lack of context-sensitive policies for stagnating and shrinking regions. The “growth mantra” is dominant in all plans, irrespective of the actual and projected population changes. It is based on an assumed causality of population growth leading to better economic performance, and - vice versa - of economic growth attracting people to the regions. Yet, as Wiechmann and Pallagst (2012) have shown, population growth can occur despite economic decline, as can population decline despite economic growth, which suggests that more reflective policy perspectives are needed to deal with such complex relationships and their spatial implications than are currently evident in the analysed plans.

Australia’s spatial structure, with dominant capital cities and a lack of medium-sized cities, presents challenges for realising a more polycentric and balanced settlement structure (Self 1995). Much of the policy attention of recent decades has been focused on the metropolitan regions, and as the analysis shows there is currently no convincing vision for “regional Australia” nor for the spatial development of the entire state. Even a potentially useful concept to support balanced development, that of Victoria's “state of cities”, is presented almost exclusively in terms of benefits for the major agglomeration instead of offering a more nuanced perspective on the development perspectives of different parts of the state. This lack of policy attention to widening spatial disparities and the almost exclusive focus on “big city problems” has consequences not only for the stagnating or shrinking regions that may feel “left behind” (MacKinnon et al. 2022). A decentralised settlement structure could not only boost the buoyancy of regional towns and increase their attractiveness for businesses and people, but also relieve the growth pressures on the major cities.

There are several policy implications that arise from the research presented in this article. First, there is a clear need to expand the current narrow policy focus on urban growth and accept that for some regions shrinkage will be inevitable. Instead of the currently dominant “growth at all cost” paradigm, alternative policy responses for stagnating, declining and/or ageing regions are needed that can help to overcome a view of regional towns as the “overspill” areas for big cities and instead support them in forging their own regional development paths. Considering alternative trajectories for the recovery, adaptation or transformation of shrinking regions requires a shift in (political) mindset, and considerable – and concerted – strategic policy efforts for such policies to be designed and implemented. New governance models will be required to develop place-sensitive policies across public, private and community actors and coordinate action. Examples from overseas could inform more suitable responses to population trends and projections in the more remote parts of Victoria and SA.

Second, if regional planning in Australia is to present real strategic value and able to guide investment decisions, more attention is needed to policy coordination and plan implementation. State government funding for regional policy is limited, especially in comparison to infrastructure and other federal budgets (Beer 2007). Available public resources could be used more effectively if all “spatial” policies - land use planning, transport, economic development, and so on - were better coordinated across policy sectors and government tiers. In terms of implementation, including a requirement to respect strategic policies in statutory local planning can clearly only be one mechanism. A commitment to fund major projects of strategic importance in the regions would arguably be more impactful, especially if embedded in an integrated spatial vision for the future development of the state. The current approach, of proposing investments in rail connections between regional towns and capital cities but leaving the provision of housing and social infrastructures in smaller settlements to “the market”, will likely merely prompt an expansion of the commuter belt of large cities without much value for regional communities.

Third, a rethinking of the role of strategic plans in Australia's planning systems is needed, away from the currently prescriptive model towards forward-looking and integrated spatial policy frameworks. This will require strengthening the involvement of regional communities and local governments in strategy development to ensure that policies reflect actual regional needs. Moreover, the Covid-19 pandemic has shown that for plans and strategies to matter over their intended 15–30 years policy horizons, they need to be resilient to changing framework conditions, including major shifts in population changes. Overseas experiences could offer inspiration for the development of flexible and adaptive planning strategies. Action plans, underpinned by lasting financial commitments for the realisation of key projects that are reviewed regularly, might help in expanding the “shelf life” of planning strategies by ensuring they can be adjusted to changing circumstances.

Acknowledgements

The research on which this article draws was funded as part of the AHURI Inquiry on “Growing Australia’s smaller cities to better manage population growth” (https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/386). The author thanks Andrew Beer (UniSA) and Simon Pinnegar (UNSW) for suggestions on the analytical approach and Jack Wilde (UniSA) for research assistance. The feedback of reviewers and journal editors is gratefully acknowledged.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute: [grant no. 20/PRO/32260].

Notes

1 In Australia, the terms “regional” and “rural” are often used interchangeably and used to denote areas that are non-metropolitan (McManus and Pritchard 2000). Correspondingly, "regional development" is "usually equated with non-metropolitan or rural development … . as if regions exist up to the edges of the capital cities and then disappear" (Beer 2007, p. 124).

2 The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) produces nationwide population projections for Australia that are updated every five years, as well as population projections at the State and Territory scale, using a consistent methodology. State and Territory Governments also produce projections for their own State/Territory a variety of sub-state geographies. These are updated at different times (mostly every 2–5 years) and prepared using different methodologies, which makes them difficult to compare across jurisdictions (Wilson 2019). State/territory government projections are important because they are used by state/territory government departments for their analysis, planning, and budgeting (Wilson 2019).

3 Rural or non-urban, i.e. those not part of the Greater Adelaide metropolitan region.

4 The "G21 – Geelong Region Alliance" is a formal alliance of governments, businesses, and community organisations to facilitate regional planning and project coordination across five municipalities (Colac Otway, Golden Plains, Greater Geelong, Queenscliffe and Surf Coast) (https://g21.com.au/about-g21/).