Draft National Urban Policy Released
“The National Urban Policy Is Back, But It’s Not Bold Enough Yet!”
A good National Urban Policy should have a vision and be a coordinated framework for urban development, ensuring efficient use of resources across states and cities. It should align investments in infrastructure, transport, services, and housing, enhancing access to funding. A good urban policy would prioritise sustainable, inclusive growth and investment that supports the development of climate-friendly, people-friendly, liveable urban spaces.
Unfortunately, the draft National Urban Policy for Australia, which is out for consultation now until 4 July 2024 (A National Urban Policy for Australia | Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts), lacks many of these qualities. Better Streets has a set of recommendations to improve the policy and will be meeting the Cities and Suburbs unit at the Australian Government to share with them. Feedback from individuals and organisations is highly recommended.
TLDR: Pages 34, 35 and 41 are the most important to read from a Better Streets perspective. We suggest you read these and comment specifically on those pages.
Better Streets president Sara Stace explains the Recommendations:
1. Create an Implementation Plan
As recommended in the UN guide on How to Formulate a National Urban Policy, it needs to have an Implementation Plan setting out what the government will do, when, the baseline data and how it will be monitored. Progress then needs to be reported annually. Currently, each chapter includes ‘discussion’ about what the Australian Government is currently doing, muddled into the policy sections.
2. Provide clear, unequivocal recommendations for the Australian Government to action
The policy also needs to be absolutely unequivocal about what it considers to be best practice (e.g. mixed-use infill with good public transport and amenities) and worst practice that should be strongly discouraged (e.g. unfettered urban expansion that will be car-dependent for decades).
The Australian Government has a number of levers it can pull, such as:
Import regulations and duties (e.g. remove duties on e-bikes, e-scooters, electric vehicles; add much higher duties on SUVs and utes; ban the import of high-bonnet private vehicles)
Tax incentives to encourage sustainable transport (e.g. Belgians are paid to ride a bicycle to work)
Health care (e.g. Medicare rebates for GPs to provide Active Health Plans)
Funding for infrastructure (e.g. fund cycleways, and change the rules on Blackspot funding to require consideration for walking and cycling, and stop funding road expansions that don’t take into account climate and health)
Funding for schools (e.g. increase funding for local schools with small catchment areas)
All grants to state and local governments are tied to performance outcomes such as climate change mitigation, health, equity and improved places.
3. Provide evidence and remove the platitudes
The 2011 policy was accompanied by detailed evidence - in the form of discussion papers and the annual State of Australian Cities reports. This draft includes a wide range of platitudes, such as ‘Adequately housing our workforce will support productivity and growth in our cities, improving our lives and ensuring we can adapt to future challenges’, and unsubstantiated claims, such as ‘areas with greater childcare availability have higher female workforce participation rates’.
4. Focus solely on urban areas, and differentiate between demographic and spatial issues
For a National Urban Policy, it fails to mention any city. Not one! We recommend that the draft policy refer to Infrastructure Australia’s 2021 Australian Infrastructure Plan which clearly articulates ‘Place-based outcomes for communities’ and defines Fast-growing Cities, Smaller Cities and Regional Centres.
It also needs to be clear about what are urban issues, and what are more general. For example, prioritising local circular economies or using sustainable procurement practices are not specific to urban areas, and therefore have no place in an urban policy. If these things matter to the Australian Government, put them in the relevant policy.
Whilst every chapter mentions First Nations people (the 2011 version unfortunately didn’t) it is scant on detail about other demographic groups and spatial distribution. For example, children are only mentioned in relation to childcare (20 times), while teenagers and the elderly aren’t mentioned at all.
5. We support the goals and principles, with refinements
The Principles are the strongest section of this draft:
Principle 1 on city planning should refer to the COAG Reform Council review of metropolitan planning systems (further details here)
Principle 2 on purposeful placemaking mentions the National Urban Design Protocol. The Australian Government should take back custody (it was parked during the LNP years) and refresh the document and its governance.
Principle 3 on delivering outcomes is worthwhile, but the examples of how this will be done are not specifically urban issues.
Principle 4 on improving the evidence base should refer to previous attempts, such as the State of Australian Cities reports and the National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard, both of which were delivered by the department that the Cities and Suburbs unit now resides in. Both have been ceased but could be revived in some form.
Principle 6 on innovation is also worthwhile, but could be more specific - for example, ‘understanding the competitive advantages the city offers’ could point to case studies.
