Interplanetary health

by Evelyne de Leeuw

There is a class of government actors and entrepreneurs that is beyond hubris. Without any hesitation or limitation, they believe that by flying to the stars we can fix our own tiny blue speck that floats in orbit in Sol’s circumstellar habitable zone. There is much to critique when we consider their space ambitions. For instance, by spending the trillions that will be launched into the vacuum of space here on Terra we could fix many if not all ails of the planet. We could give everyone, boys and girls, a quality education. We could invest in renewable energy and water systems.

These are good and hopeful arguments. However, in current deliberations around outer space three groups dominate: entrepreneurs, bureaucrats, and politicians. Like so often in discussions around well-being, communities and citizens are absent. Elon Musk and his fellow entrepreneurs may not necessarily act in coherence with advancing planetary harmony, well-being and equity. Nor will Jim Bridenstine (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Administrator) and his cabal of space bureaucrats, and certainly not statesmen (or less – failed real estate Mar a Lago faux millionaires peddling Space Forces). None will lose sleep over any human and ecological earthbound challenge to their ambitions. Space is the word.

We are slowly being prepared for a future where we might routinely leave the Terran environment, first hop to Luna, and then on to the planets – and beyond. The key motivation for such travel is not Gene Roddenberry’s aspirational humanist Star Trek agenda. Roddenberry deliberately left religion out of the Star Trek universe and adopted a harmonious multi-species humanitarian conglomerate of space quadrants.

Why go to space?

The motivation of space travel is not, or only remotely, to save our planet. It is exploration and resource extraction. Not for humanity or balance or preservation, but for money and continuing relentless growth. The forces that have brought Terra to the brink (rampant capitalism, inexorable unbalanced expansion, ecological, human and cultural exploitation and destruction) will simply be taken to galaxies far, far away. The way things go now there will not be a brighter future beyond the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud.

Don’t get me wrong. I love to while away time with Star Trek (with TNG as my favourite, but Commander Burnham may stop by any time), Babylon 5, or the Mandalorian. This is the way. Obviously. Travelling to the stars is written in humanity’s stars. But could we set some firm foundations for a better intergalactic future than Terra’s current track record, please? You may think that we have already thought about that, and that Roddenberry’s egalitarian future has been codified in some sort of treaty. You are right. In 1967 the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies came into force. Essentially, the Treaty commits nation-states and the peoples of planet Terra to be exploring space for the benefit of all. No-one can own space, no-one is allowed to weaponise it or deploy armaments into outer space.  Humanity is not to contaminate and pollute it, and just to be clear: space is not the purview of privately owned corporations, it will always be under the control of nation-states.

The future is ours

What a happy-go-lucky agreement! The future is safe in the hands of the UN body that maintains this Compact – the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, and more specifically its standing Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Or is it…? Unfortunately, the world seems to have spun out of control since the Space Treaty came into force. When both the Americans and the Russians intended to deploy weaponry into orbit in the 1980s (Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), nicknamed the “Star Wars program”) there was some feeble protest and commentary with hilarious references to science fiction.

Seriously though, there are other violations of the Treaty. The cloud of junk orbiting Earth (‘space debris’) should worry more people than just the occasional aerospace nerd. It is a unique and potentially lethal form of pollution. What the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is for the terrestrial and marine environments of our planet, the cloud of junk orbiting the third rock from the Sun is for the entire trans-planetary geosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, cryosphere, biosphere and beyond – manmade material terror in space.

But what has not entered popular disbelief properly yet is the strident breach of all these harmonious intents by the USA launched Artemis Accords.

The Americans have effectively privatised space, its exploration, and its exploitation. Space-faring nations and businesses have already made outings to our neighbours. We are eyeing Luna and Mars, and possibly Venus. Mining enterprises are already landing on smaller entities like asteroids, a proof-of-concept demonstrated by Hayabusa 2. The Americans realised that there was an opportunity to set capitalist and neo-liberal standards for our presence in space. The Artemis Accords, superficially, can be seen as an American proposal to manage the Moon in line with the Outer Space Treaty. But the Accords also suggest a platform for government and non-government bodies to agree on arrangements for the exclusive ownership of very precious commodities in space – oxygen and water not the least. And yes – in space no-one can hear you scream, so why would entrepreneurs, bureaucrats and politicians bother to listen?

When we are going to colonise space in the not-to-distant future, the things that make life possible may well be under the control of private industries. There is a current discourse around global health governance and the influence of very large philanthropies. They set opaque and unaccountable standards for priorities in international and global health – this is a potentially obscure and obscene business. And these unchecked practices will continue in interplanetary developments (and health!). Who has oversight of these dealings? Who represents those colonised? Who is accountable for allocating resources – hopefully to those who need it most? Are the disadvantaged (and I reckon there may be billions of creatures from virtually all species currently inhabiting Terra) appropriately represented in decision-making on priorities in those Artemis Accords? Why would just the Americans and a few other space faring nations and corporations control this arena at all?

From Planetary to Interplanetary Health

In recent years we have seen mounting enthusiasm for the idea of Planetary Health. The Lancet and the Rockefeller Foundation even launched a Commission and a new masthead in this area. Planetary Health is a field focused on characterizing the human health impacts of human-caused disruptions of Earth’s natural systems. It recognises that we now live in the Anthropocene, and that mankind is actively engaging in the destruction of Terran biosphere. Planetary Health has become a thriving industry, with conferences, professors and grants flying around the world – and perhaps soon away from it.

Some of this energy ought well be redirected to the near future and the assessment of the privatisation and colonisation of space. We have made terrible mistakes in the past through colonist practices, leading to vast and seemingly insurmountable inequities – particularly in health and well-being. It seems there still is time to get the next stage in our evolution right. Interplanetary Health is not a science fiction fantasy – it is a necessity. This must be the way.

May the Force be with us…

Unpacking the black box of policy, with a cube!

by Patrick Harris and Evelyne de Leeuw

One of the enduring myths among researchers is that policy-making is a black box of unknowable dark arts that is to be avoided at all costs. This myth is particularly pervasive in the field of Public Health. Public Health is a field that thinks it is enough to generate evidence to then give to policy makers to do something about.

At CHETRE, we do not subscribe to this myth. Our core interest is of course equity. We recognise that equity is largely determined by political decisions and policy institutions. And to improve health equity we have recognised that we need to know how the evidence of equity morphs into policy systems and decisions about what (not) to do. We require knowledge about what policy and political processes are. 

I (Patrick) have been thinking about what policy is for around a decade now. Over that time I have been systematically breaking down what public policy is, with the aim of better articulating how to then go about influencing public policy to be more equitable. Evelyne has been on a similar journey over the past 20 or so years. Both of us have built our understanding from the discipline of Political Science.

Very recently I was trying to explain what policy is to some colleagues who are undertaking a systematic review of the literature on intersectoral action (for health). At the same time, I was putting the finishing touches to a book on my research, the first part of which is a manifesto for how to research (healthy) public policy. I had also just published a bibliography of ‘healthy public policy’ as well as a glossary of how the concept of power plays out in policy (see sources). During that recent conversation I suddenly had a brainwave that the ‘black box’ of policy is actually a cube. So I went away and, with Evelyne, came up with the ‘Policy Cube’.

Figure 1 shows that the cube is made up of smaller cubes; they are not separate, of course, but this is a way of abstracting complex realities.

Figure 1. The Policy Cube

Each of the elements of the cube is based in the policy and political science literature, the knowledge about which can be found in the source references at the end of this blog. The essentials are as follows.

The ‘top’ of the cube corresponds to what policy-making is and what it is intending to achieve. Policy is in large part made up of processes (indeed there is a whole body of political science labelled ‘Theories of the Policy Process’). These processes are in place to influence decisions and choices, and their foundations. In turn, these processes, then choices, go on to influence ‘events’ or, what we are most interested in public health research, ‘outcomes’ – such as inequity or disease or so forth.

The left side corresponds to how political scientist break down the sub-systems that influence the processes of policy making. I tend to explain these sub-systems as ‘institutions’, although others, like Evelyne, think sub-systems is a better description. This is mostly a discourse about constructs and metaphors – but the key is that we can distinguish between different sorts of elements that influence, and operate, processes. The elements of these institutions or subsystems are essentially actors (the organisations and individuals involved in policy making), their ideas (largely based on interests and values) and structures (the rules and mandates that flow through systems).

Three other fundamentals of policy-making form the rest of the cube.

First of these is ‘Governance’, in the figure on the right side. The literature on governance is vast and sometimes confusing. A very brief definition goes ‘how we do things around here’.  Essentially it refers to the types and functions of networks of stakeholders involved in policy making. Importantly, especially in current times, these actors include but go beyond government. Government tends to facilitate governance networks to achieve various policy goals. Evelyne has written extensively on Governance for Healthy Public Policy and has helpfully divvied up three essential forms of Governance: constitutive, setting the principles; directive, providing guidance; operational, promoting individual actions.

Power is crucial to policy, and so this is the first of the through arrows in the figure. Power is a tricky and slippery concept, which is sometimes clearly visible but often needs to be explicitly brought out into view in research. Making power visible is actually achieved by clearly articulating the various other dimensions of the cube. But essentially policy is embodied by power.

Time is the final critical factor and is the second through arrow. Policy stays the same or changes (often quite suddenly) over time. Perhaps most importantly for public health researchers, the outcomes we so desperately want to observe from policy making processes and sub-systems often take a very long time to become apparent.

So there you have it! The Policy Cube. Before you go off and think you know it all, we have however a warning. The cube is what we call in academia a ‘heuristic’. It is merely a way of breaking up the black box to articulate the core dimensions of what policy making is. The reality of policy is much more messy and will be different for different policies and different contexts – figure 2! The cube should only be used to draw out core elements of what a particular policy or policy system is made up of.  

Figure 2. Heuristics are not reality
Cairney, P. (2011). Understanding public policy: theories and issues. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Clavier, C., & de Leeuw, E. (2013). Health promotion and the policy process. OUP Oxford.
de Leeuw, E. (2017). Engagement of Sectors Other than Health in Integrated Health Governance, Policy, and Action. Annual Review of Public Health, 38(1), 329–349.
Harris, P., & Wise, M. (2020). Healthy Public Policy - Public Health - Oxford Bibliographies.
Harris, P., Baum, F., Friel, S., Mackean, T., Schram, A., & Townsend, B. (2020). A glossary of theories for understanding power and policy for health equity. J Epidemiol Community Health, 74(6), 548–552.
Howlett, M., Perl, A., & Ramesh, M. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press.
Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutional Theory in Political Science, Fourth Edition: The New Institutionalism. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2017). Theories of the policy process. Hachette UK.

The SWSLHD Equity Framework and COVID-19

Presented by Evelyne de Leeuw (2 June 2020)

Presentation for the plenary of the Division of Population Health of the South Western Sydney Local Health District about the (health and social) equity dimensions of the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences – including changed use and access to emergency departments, income and employment, and social isolation.

SWSLHD Equity Framework to 2025

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [1.38 MB]

Link to the map on unemployment and poverty due to COVID-19 in Australia :

The politics of play

Play is healthy – throughout the life course. The evidence that engaged play has physical and mental health benefits is compelling.

However, the nature of play is changing. Younger generations increasingly depend on screens to play, and outdoor play tends to be constrained. ‘Roaming range’ (the territory you can and are allowed to roam freely in) has decreased over the last four generations, and Alan Davies poses a few hypotheses why that might be. Could it be, he asks, that children today:

  1. Are innately less adventurous?
  2. Live in suburbs where there are fewer interesting places to go?
  3. Have fewer playmates in the immediate neighbourhood?
  4. Have parents who are far more coddling than previous generations?
  5. Have more ways of spending their time at home?

These questions are valid but wrong. Roaming range, and the opportunity as well as the freedom to play, have reduced because our social and political systems have responded in overdrive to something called the Risk Society. Giddens postulated that a risk society is “a society increasingly preoccupied with the future (and also with safety), which generates the notion of risk,”[1] and German Ulrich Beck defines it as “a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernisation itself[2].

‘Roaming range’ (the territory you can and are allowed to roam freely in) has decreased over the last four generations.

roaning range

Source : Derbyshire, D. (2007, Jun 15). How children lost the right to roam in four generations. Daily Mail

Play and risk are inherent to human life and evolution. Limiting play and pretending that risk can be eliminated is the end of humanity as we know it. Yet – in an unstoppable juggernaut the whirlpool of media coverage, policy proposals, institutional performance accountability and individual as well as social perceptions there is the illusion that life can be risk-free – and limiting or regulating play behaviour is part of the ‘solution’.

The question, then, becomes how policies and politics that creatively manage risk and at the same time creatively and optimally stimulate play and human development can be assessed and supported. The argument is that media coverage is relentless, and social/cultural norms are phenomena virtually always unyielding to intervention. Policy is, supposedly, a sphere of influence that can be morphed. In particular policymaking at the lowest level of governance, close to the community that lives its benefits or laments its absence, is worthy of investigation and investment.

Therefore, the overarching question on the above five becomes:

What are the determinants of local (council) policymaking that would enable the maximization of roaming and play, at every stage of life, but in particular for children between 5 and 13?

We have argued[3] elsewhere that we have the theories and tools to study this question. It is time to be playful again[4].


[1] Giddens, A., & Pierson, C. (1998). Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making sense of modernity. Stanford University Press. P. 209

[2] Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. New Delhi: Sage. P.21

[3] De Leeuw, E., Clavier, C., & Breton, E. (2014) Health policy–why research it and how: health political science. Health research policy and systems, 12(1), 55

[4] de Leeuw, E. (2011) Theory and policy innovation for health: where has the creativity and fun gone? Health promotion international, 26(1), 1-3

Is local government better?

In the health field there has been a call — since the early 1980s — to make health policy development the responsibility of all sectors, not just the health care system’s. This echoes calls from administrative and political science, first voiced in the 1970s, to integrate or join up policy systems. There is a range of monikers for either, from Healthy Public Policy and Health in All Policy to Whole-of-Government and Integrated Governance. Whatever it is called, it remains what Peters has called ‘the holy grail of public administration’.

Our first feasibility study of such integrated health policy at the level of the nation-state was published in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We found that there are many parameters, intimately associated with the very nature of the nation-state and its governance systems, that do not bode well for the development and sustainable implementation of policy for health (rather than policies for, e.g., pharmaceuticals, health workforce development, practitioner accreditation, numbers of hospital beds, etc.). The emerging practice of Healthy Cities around the world from their official European WHO launch in 1986 turned out to be a ‘natural experiment’ (or rather multiple case study inquiry with an N>10,000) to see whether local contexts would provide different opportunities for evidence-based health policy.

Colloquially there have been convincing arguments that devolved governance to local systems is the ‘natural’ and more efficient thing to do. Benjamin Barber attractively argued (in his not entirely rigorously resourced book If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities) that ‘local government collects the garbage’ – and that local politics therefore would be more responsive to community needs and might well be more agile in its (health) policy response.

Based on three decades of Healthy Cities evaluations; a typology that has been developed to challenge the more traditional ‘knowledge translation’ paradigm (into an area of seven interlocking nexus theories); horizontal and vertical policy transfer theories; and an eclectic use of policy network and framing perspectives, this paper argues that although health policy making at the local level is relatively easier, its mobilisation and use of relevant evidence sources is often more convoluted. Rather than dealing with more abstract power and governance issues at the nation-state level, the fact that Council collects the garbage also requires it to shepherd a more conscientious and accountable way of generating, managing and applying the evidence to support responsive policy for health.

Read more in this new discussion paper by Evelyne de Leeuw here


Peak Urban : The glocal disconnect in the Anthropocene

Disruptions are not necessarily cataclysmic events located sharply in time. They reach tipping points. In 1956 M. King Hubbert theorised a phenomenon called ‘peak oil’ (1): the moment maximum extraction of crude oil was reached, and from that moment it would go down-hill with the world. ‘Peak oil’ would cast its doom on Planet Earth some time between 1960 and 2050 (with the majority of predictions somewhere next year).

The rise and fall of geo-extraction based internal combustion machines fuelling industrialisation is a (admittedly disruptive) blip on the glacial time scale of geological epochs. It is unsettling, therefore, that we humans are the first species in the existence of the planet to be aware of the fact that we are witnessing a shift in epochs – and are entering into one of our own making.

This is the Anthropocene – where humans have started to make a permanent impact, indelible and observable for the remaining existence of the solar system on the strata of sedimentation of Earth. The Anthropocene is the ultimate disruptor of the Earth’s systems. Geologists have debated where in time the starting point of this human caused sedimentation can be placed. The first detonation of thermo-nuclear devices in the 1940s has been proposed (leaving a thin layer of radioactive matter on the Earth’s crust), others are more ‘conservative’ and observe permanent residue of (micro)plastics in seabeds and mountain ranges as the first evidence of an Anthropocene.

I see human settlement as the phenomenon contributing most to the Anthropocene. After a slow start for about 10000 years urbanisation has picked up pace in the mid-1800s, and Earth has been famously declared an urban planet in an urban century by the United Nations soon after the turn of this millennium (2). More than half of the world’s population now lives in cities, and depending on the method of counting this may yet have reached 70%.

We have reached ‘Peak Urban’ – there is no way back. The urban environment is our future habitat and it is shaping peoples’ health potential and threats. It has suddenly become the permanent disruptor. Romantic notions of natural living surrounded by pristine environments and autarkic subsistence must now be relegated to the Holocene. The environments of our entire lives, whether we like it or not, will be constructed by human structure and human agency. No matter whether they are red (built), grey (institutions), green (natural/terrestrial) or blue (natural/aquatic) environments, our surrounds are anthropocenic and -genic.

It is therefore dramatic that we get these environments so often wrong. Wrong for human interaction and growth, wrong for health and wellbeing, wrong for social and ecological sustainability, wrong at virtually any level. If we create our own urban environment, why don’t we make better efforts at getting it all right?

At its simplest, cities have dual purpose: they concentrate things, and they move things. If one of these functions is not hitting the mark, the other will suffer. Cities thus entering into decay have a hard time emerging into health and prosperity again – let alone into sustainability. Scaled up to global connectivity and ‘peak urban’, some cities do have the value and governance systems to concentrate nimbly, whereas others find themselves isolated and on the fringe of viability – but regressing from city-hood is not an option; they simply decline into urban deserts or withdraw from the equitable provision of services, infrastructure and facilities, turning suburbia into Peak Slum and disconnected and mobility-challenged hotbeds of non-communicable disease, disability and unequal opportunity.

The growth of the local, of urbanity, has not kept pace with the global governance systems that have emerged over the last two centuries or so – those of nation-states declaring sovereignty (3). The Anthropocene created an insurmountable governance disconnect between what matters locally and what happens globally – and the other way around. City-dwellers and their representatives feel increasingly disconnected from the global discourse that drives the creation of health, sustainability and prosperity. They will be the have-nots of the Anthropocene. Millennials are filling this space in glocal connectedness through social media and the gig economy but may not contribute to traditional social and community development, leaving urban administrations that cannot keep pace with these new forms of concentration and mobility yet again left to their own – haphazard – devices. New inequities will emerge between the connected and the disconnected.

Is the glocal disconnect view of Peak Urban in this Anthropocene painting too much of a bleak picture? The future of the urban planet and this urban century surely must look better – especially for the health governance opportunities that are created by concentrations of technology and media?

Yes. There is light. Groups of communities and local governments have explicitly chosen to seek a governance role on the global podium. They have connected around values such as health (Healthy Cities), technology (Smart Cities) and other themes (Resilient Cities, Slow Cities, Age-Friendly Cities, Safe Cities). They have joined, facilitated by Habitat III in Quito, in globe-spanning networks like Sustainable Cities, United Cities and ICLEI, and have explicitly embraced multi-professionalism, the value of connected research and development, the power of committed communities and diversity, and open and transparent exchange of experience. Perhaps one of the most compelling characteristics of these glocal networks (4) is that, different from the second half of the 20th century, there is no distinction between the Global North and the Global South anymore. The urbanist Saskia Sassen (5) a few decades ago described a class of ‘Global Cities’ in which it makes no difference whether you are in Copenhagen, Seoul, Kinshasa, Sao Paolo or Chicago to navigate public transport or the food system – it appears that connected glocal cities of the 21st century, indeed of the Anthropocene, are all world cities.

Networked, distributed glocal urban (health) governance is the only way beyond Peak Urban.

Evelyne de Leeuw

1 Hubbert MK. Nuclear energy and the fossil fuel. In: Drilling and production practice. 1956 Jan 1. American Petroleum Institute.
2 McDonald RI. Global urbanization: can ecologists identify a sustainable way forward? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2008 Mar;6(2):99-104.
3 de Leeuw, E., B. Townsend, E. Martin, C. M. Jones & C. Clavier Emerging theoretical frameworks for global health governance. Chapter 6 in: Clavier, C. & E. de Leeuw, eds. 2013 Health Promotion and the Policy Process. Oxford University Press, Oxford
4 Castells M. The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2008 Mar;616(1):78-93.
5 Sassen S. Global city. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1991.

Do we deserve good cities…?

A couple of years ago I went to Buenos Aires to attend the ‘Feria Mundial de Salud y Municipios: Derecho, Ciudadanía y Gestión local integrada para el Desarrollo’ (the World Fair of Local Government and Health: Rights, Citizenship and Integrated Local Management for Development – yes I agree Latinos have a much better way with words than we have). It was a relatively stale talkfest, so one afternoon I skipped class with some Danish community development friends to explore the slums. In Argentina, interestingly, these are called ‘Villas’ – but obviously they don’t even remotely resemble the multi-million dollar abodes you would see in Point Piper.

We ended up passing around and sipping yerba mate with a bunch of heavily tattooed slum dwellers. We chatted about slum life – how it allows communities to live under the radar, but also how that invisibility becomes a problem when you require public services or rights. At one point I suggested that all of those heavies (including their mamas and glorious troupes of kids) lived in the Villa illegally. Oh no, they responded, they were very legal, and (they started pushing my Danish pals and myself up a creaky ladder onto the hot tin roof) this is how we do it: we were looking out over a dusty plain at the edge of the slum. Some of the mate-sipping youths appeared with a couple of slender tree trunks, sheets of corrugated iron and rope. Within minutes they had tied together a shed. They ran back into the Villa and came lugging back two old Pirelli tires, a table and a mattress. The tires went on the roof, the table and mattress under it. “There!” the grandfather next to me on the roof said, “Now we have a legal dwelling.” Apparently something with a roof, a table and a bed cannot be bulldozed.

I had witnessed the most rapid urban sprawl ever.

It’s legal, but is it any good?

I was reminded of this little adventure when I saw the recent debate around population growth and urban planning unfold. Population growth isn’t necessarily bad and can be sustainable – if managed well and with hygienic ideas about purpose and function – spatially, morally, economically and in terms of human development. And urban planning is not just about putting in the hardware, although in the debates on ABC’s Four Corners and Q and A it seemed that the major issues revolved around the kilometers of asphalt, tunnel, and rail.

I have said this before and I will repeat it again. Urban planning, the liveability of our cities, and the sustainability of place is built on that hardware, but they come alive and acquire meaning through the human spirit that is unleashed upon it. In good and bad ways. Let’s take a look at a report of a little while back by Victoria’s Auditor-General on public transport. The singularly most significant message in the report comes from Figure 3B. The caption should have been ‘The shoddy chaos of Melbourne’s transport network’ but of course an esteemed oversight body like the Auditor-General can’t say such things.

What the figure says is that all the hardware is in place. There are trains. There are buses. There are rails. There are roads. But what isn’t there is inspiration, commitment, pride and courage. Buses don’t connect to trains and trains don’t connect to buses. There is no seamless public transport experience. Who wants to wait at a wet draughty bus stop (it is Melbourne, after all) for a vehicle that may or may not come in half an hour? Worse – the same report shows that there is a direct relation between public transport chaos and socio-economic disadvantage: if you are poor, you are made to wait.

If you live towards the edge of suburbia you may be forced to own a car – at great expense. Because we also found that public transport inefficiencies are coupled with lacking bicycle infrastructure.

Let’s be very clear: this is supposedly one of the most liveable cities in the world. Professor Billie Giles-Corti has researched it, so it must be true. And indeed, Australia is home to a virtual raft of eminent urban planning and urban health experts, so surely we get it right, don’t we?

Well we don’t. Just because it’s legal, it ain’t necessarily right. Just like that shack on the outskirts of a Buenos Aires Villa.

What makes cities and urban growth ‘tick’?

There has been a suggestion that the liberal (larrikin?) spirit of the Australian outback has prevented a strong value based politic of urban planning in this country. Indeed, in most welfare state typologies we find this great sunburnt country of ours grouped in with the other total free market friend we have – the United States. State interference is the enemy of individual liberty, everyone should be able to do what they want, and if they want to commute every day for four hours, never see their wives and children during waking hours and suffer disproportionately from obesity, diabetes and other non-communicable disease, so be it, it is a free world.

But we know it is not a free world, and we shouldn’t suffer from shoddiness, corruption, the total absence of human dignity and a general spirit of ‘homo homini lupus’ (‘Man is wolf to man’). We have transcended that, not just in our arts and culture, but in the ideas we have about a good world.

A good world is a green and sustainable world for us and those we love, for the next generation and for our guests (thank you so much, Aboriginal Australians, you are not just the symbolic Traditional Owners and Custodians of this land, you are truly our hosts and we all should take a couple of pages out of your Dreaming). It is a world of solidarity and caring, where needed through our public institutions. It is a world of beauty and surprise that we can navigate easily and with wonder – the infrastructure for population growth and urban planning we need shall be an inspired infrastructure that takes into account long term ecological balance. To do that we need to accept that we are (part of) nature, we are not just here to mine and exploit it. Especially in the fragile ecosystem that Australia is it seems to me that far too few people realise this and act on it. In a citizenship pledge for new Australians we should include a commitment to the sustainability of this ancient and delicate land.

But we do not seem to take pride in our land and our being here. Let me conclude with another very colloquial story. I live in Sydney and I do not own or drive a car here. Every morning I walk through Bigge Park in Liverpool to my office. Liverpool Council has made a tremendous effort to rejuvenate this bit of green space. Only a few weeks back tradesmen (nope, did not spot a woman…) installed new benches. This is what they looked like this morning:


On ABC’s Q&A Jane Fitzgerald (Executive Director of the New South Wales Division of the Property Council of Australia) said “we have a choice” – and suggested (or insinuated?) that the same people who deliver such shoddy-to-the-extreme workmanship (or the people who have destroyed it) would care about the world we live in. I’m not sure they would; and I’m not sure our community peers, family elders, intellectuals, politicians, and even infrastructure developers and commercial exploiters are the folk endowed with that ‘choice’, role models we aspire to, if we want to create that world we care for.

In countries where I have lived before I arrived in Australia there is profound concern and ready action for the red (built), grey (infrastructure), blue (water) and green (nature) environment. Often there are long term plans with often a 30 year horizon to invest billions in a comprehensive sustainable future. They are inspired by vision and values. Sometimes these visions are bold and on a grand scale – an entire country’s mobility might be at stake. And often those visions and values can start small: if we are currently developing new residential districts it would only require the tiniest bit of imagination and persuasion to adapt the infrastructure to new, healthy, sustainable and future proof standards. With a fraction of guts every streetlight can become an electric car charger. With the thinnest shred of vision the vast concrete slabs that are our streetscapes are torn out and become permeable surfaces that allow green to thrive and reduce heat islands. With only a sprinkling of values we can care.