Work category: Work

Building the economy we could have: Beyond investment to stopping the bad 

A version of this article was originally posted on The Point.

Many policy discussions centre on how to spend more and spend better, patching up after the fact. But this investment framing misses a crucial third pillar of prevention: stopping harmful activities from happening at all or before their impact gets even worse. Check out the latest reflection for our series ‘Building the economy we could have’. 

Gambling advertising is a hot topic in Australia right now, with a range of groups and political players calling for more to be done to stop ads popping up on our screens. 

Taking action to stop an activity known to be causing so much harm to so many Australians and their families is not really in question: the push and pull between the parties is more how much action to take and how firm government needs to be.  

Banning gambling ads is a great example of how important stopping bad things is. Yet it seems to be the exception that proves the rule: so often policy discussions instead swirl around spending to patch up after the fact. It is rare to focus on stopping bad things from happening in the first place. 

Compared to how and how much to spend and on what, far less attention gets paid to avoiding costly repair and remediation, and yet this can be much cheaper than the vast sums of public money spent fixing the damage caused by policies that allow, and sometimes even subsidise, harmful activities.  

There are so many examples. Think about the ‘direct costs from extreme weather events, which are estimated to grow by 5.13 percent each year (before inflation) and reach $35.24 billion (in 2022 dollars) by 2050.’ Or what about the health impacts of pollution in the air from truck and bus exhaust, which costs about $6.2 billion each year. Children at childcare centres on busy roads are exposed to air pollution that is equivalent to eight cigarettes a day, according to scholars at the University of Melbourne. 

In relation to chemical pollutants, the Centre for Policy Development (CPD) reports that if they had ‘been regulated early, the enormous cost of clean-up – and the impacts on human health – could have been prevented’, but now, as the CPD explains, the ‘cost of remediating Australia’s approximately 160,000 contaminated sites is impossible to quantify, but a thorough clean-up would almost certainly amount to hundreds of billions of dollars’. 

And because of child poverty, various Australian governments spend at least $16 billion annually on government services like child protection, health services, legal system costs, homelessness services and education services, and the need for Jobseeker and Family Tax Benefit in later life.  

These costs are illustrations of failure demand: demands on public services and budgets that arise because various systems, institutions, policies, and practices fail to prevent harm in the first place, let alone create the conditions for people and planet to thrive. 

What is needed is upstream prevention that stops problems before they start. This is 3-4 times more cost-effective than treating them later. This is further evidence of the very real fiscal benefits to be obtained from creating an economy that better aligns with what people and planet need. Preventing harm would deliver benefits for communities and the natural world (most importantly), while also reducing avoidable public expenditure: a potential prevention dividend.  

Taking prevention upstream to the economy 

Conversations about prevention tend not to go as far ‘upstream’ as the economy. Yet how the economy operates and for whom matters to people’s ability to thrive, and that of the planet. Going as far upstream as the economy makes it necessary to ask which activities are enabled; who benefits from them; who bears the costs; and how are resources treated and distributed? 

There is ample evidence of the environmental impacts of how we produce and consume, and inequalities within them. The socio-economic determinants of health are not disputed, but what is seldom acknowledged that much social policy is necessary because of economic policy that does not share our wealth and resources effectively.  

Acting on this evidence requires investment spending and early intervention, which is all well and good. But the investment framing misses a crucial third pillar of prevention: stopping harmful activities from happening at all, or before their impact gets even worse. 

Currently, many laws, taxes, and subsidies still permit or actively encourage activities known to cause harm, creating downstream costs for government and society (incidentally, these downstream costs align with the International Monetary Fund’s definition of ‘implicit subsidies’).  

Stopping the bad 

Addressing the fact that our economy actively encourages harm and causes downstream costs would require governments not just focus on adapting to shocks, but become more proactive in stopping the causes of harm in the first place. 

The first task is to identify what is permitted, but which is proven to:  

  1. Damage health, the environment, or economic security 
  1. Shift costs onto the public while profits remain private, or  
  1. Persist only because they are familiar, not because they work. 

Then legislators need to regulate out activities and behaviours that create more harm than good via bans, phase out, tax hikes, subsidy removals, tighter licensing, restrictions and limits, or withdrawing other forms of government support.  

Crucially, this would be accompanied by transition plans and support to avoid unfair burdens or unintended hardship for affected groups. Alongside nurturing the new, the task is to let go of the old and no longer necessary: ‘hospicing the old’ in systems thinking terms. 

Fairness: to individuals and enterprises doing the right thing 

Taking steps to ‘stop the bad’ would shift the onus away from blaming individuals and avoid infamous ‘lifestyle drift’: a phenomenon ‘where policies tend to recognise upstream factors in their rationale but drift downstream to “life-style factors” when recommending action and defining impact measures’.  

It is also about fair competition: if a practice is profitable only because its costs are borne by the public, that’s implicit subsidies, not efficiency nor genius entrepreneurship. 

Already happening 

The biggest quality of life improvements often come not from new spending, but from deciding that certain harmful practices are no longer acceptable.  

Around the world there are examples that show the effectiveness of stopping bad things happening: 

  • New Zealand’s restrictions on zero-hour contracts. 
  • Sao Paulo, Amsterdam, Edinburgh and the Australian Capital Territory are restricting the use of outdoor advertising (either outright or for certain goods, such as SUVs). 
  • Scotland’s smoking ban twenty years ago has seen rapid reductions in heart attacks and respiratory admissions (including reduced admission for child asthma by 18 percent), and healthier workers. 
  • Asbestos is banned in new buildings in many countries. 
  • Brazil’s “Dirty List” of firms using forced labour. 
  • France has banned short haul flights for journeys where there are suitable alternative train options. 
  • Wales has a moratorium on building major new roads. 

Conclusion

If efforts to stop the bad were to become more deliberate than simply sporadic, debate would move from the Treasurer’s calculator to the auditor’s assessment, and ultimately to the legislator’s pen. We’d spend less time and money fixing preventable damage, and more time building an economy that doesn’t create the damage in the first place. The gambling advertising debate shows that when the case is clear enough, stopping the harm becomes common sense. Imagine if we applied that same common sense across the board.

The ideas that have informed this piece were first mooted at an event hosted by NESTA Scotland at the Edinburgh Futures Institute in early 2026. 

Check out our series, ‘Building the economy we could have’ for more. 

Building the economy we could have: Interview with Neighbourhood Economics  

The economic development framework, Community Wealth Building, is receiving increasing attention worldwide after Scotland passed a law that brings the framework to a whole country and our last instalment of ‘Building the economy we could have’ explored the history of the concept and how it works (See our explainer here). To better understand what it looks like in practice for Australia, The Next Economy’s Economic Change Project Officer Josie Foster sat down with Annie Smits and Bill Mithen, Co-CEOs of Neighbourhood Economics to discuss how they’re applying the framework to Norlane and Corio in Victoria.  

Their motto? A fair economy isn’t impossible, it’s overdue. 

Josie from TNE and Annie and Bill from Neighbourhood Economics

What is Neighborhood Economics all about?  

Annie: Neighborhood Economics is committed to places of disadvantage and thinking about those places and re-imagining those places through an economic lens. Part of our theory sits in the idea that places of disadvantage often get looked at through a health lens, or an education lens, or a services lens, but rarely through an economic lens, and if we don’t think about local economies, we won’t shift the conditions of places like Norlane and Corio, which is where we’re working, 

Why did you pick Norlane and Corio as the location to pilot Neighborhood Economics? 

Bill: Norlane is the most disadvantaged place in the state for Victoria, and Corio is the fourth most. I’ve worked in Geelong for a long time, it’s where I grew up, and I currently live. We both worked in places where disadvantage is prevalent and have seen that things in places of entrenched disadvantage just don’t shift, it doesn’t matter the amount of capital or labour or time or effort that people put in, the conditions stay the same.  

Norlane and Corio are two of those places. There’s also been a significant amount of work done in Geelong on entrenched disadvantage, so we feel like starting in a place where the preconditions are already set and organised, made sense. 

Can you tell us about the industrial history of Norlane and Corio? 

Bill: Norlane and Corio have a story that is similar to lots of places that have been left behind, where they powered the industrial transformation of the Australian economy and the manufacturing part of the Australian economy, and as that has changed over time to become a more services-based economy, these places have often been left behind. They were typically working-class places that had – in Norlane and Corio’s circumstance – large manufacturers; Ford being one. There’s an oil refinery that still exists in Corio [and] International Harvester had their head office there too.  

Going back a bit further, there was a whisky distillery as well. There were big manufacturing organisations and businesses that employed lots of people. And as globalisation came in, as trade conditions changed within nations, and tariffs shifted, as a country we really became unviable in those industries, and so they shut down. This meant a whole heap of jobs left with them, and the nature and identity of those suburbs changed forever. 

What drew you to Community Wealth Building? 

Annie: Community Wealth Building is a practical economic development framework that has five levers that can be pulled to shift the economy in a place. The reason we go to the economy is because fundamentally the economy is the starting point of disadvantage and inequality, and if we don’t start at that place, we won’t get to actually shift the conditions of a place. We’ll do good things for people or with people, but people will remain locked in or locked out of participation in an economy and continue to be left behind.  

Bill: The levers are essentially; land, labour, ownership, finance and procurement. So that’s using land for local benefit, having a finance system that supports local institutions and local organisations, doing more socially beneficial procurement, having greater plurality or democratic ownership and having a just labour market.  

Annie: One of the other things within Neighbourhood Economics that Bill and I talk about all the time is what we call “our matters” – the things that matter in economic development that have been left out of how we talk about local economies. They are democratic ownership, shared value, distributed power, and human connection.  

Democratic ownership is important because if we don’t go to the heart of ownership – who owns what and how wealth is concentrated – we will never push back on this sense of extraction and wealth accumulation.  

Shared value goes to this sense of whoever creates value in the system is rewarded at that place, including the environment and First Peoples. Distributed power, which sits right alongside democratic ownership, is how do we distribute power and decision making differently and closer to the action or the people. Then human connection – if we’re well connected as human beings and see ourselves in the other, it’s less likely that I’m going to extract from you or take from you in inappropriate ways. 

How has this idea been received in the local area? 

Bill: We’ve just released a suite of reports, and in the production of those we’ve talked to lots of people. We talked to just under 20 business owners in Norlane and Corio, from very small corner shops and retail stores to large manufacturing businesses. We’ve spoken with nine “anchor” institutions – these are larger organisations that have economic power and can really control the economic trajectory of a place. We sat down and interviewed nine CEOs of those organisations, and then we also had these kitchen table conversations with about 40 odd residents of Norlane and Corio to really understand what life’s like and how the economy actually works and what they experience in the day-to-day life. 

Community Wealth Building is not necessarily new for Geelong, because there’ve been organisations and people have talked about it for a little while, although it’s having a bit of a moment. There is a good sense of goodwill from those bigger organisations and civic and business leaders to try and do something, and this is another reason why we chose Norlane and Corio. What they’re not sure about is what to do and so to have a framework that is different – and there’s an acknowledgement that we have to do something different – that has got some proven capability internationally, there’s a bit of interest and excitement about that. Harnessing that and turning intention into action is going to be part of our trajectory. 

Who is responsible for making community wealth building happen? 

Annie: All levels of government, but it can’t be left to just one. What we’re finding is that there’s lone voices within government that are supportive, and that will hopefully grow momentum. At all levels of government, there is conversation around the fact that we need to shift things around how our economy functions. Sometimes other groups are using the term “wellbeing economy”, which is not exactly the same, but it’s parallel and heading in the same direction.  

Bill: The connection with the wellbeing economy is important. The way I articulate it or see it is that a wellbeing economy is the thing we need. We need an economy that places wellbeing at the centre. How you do that is through using the framework of community wealth building. There is more to it than that, but that’s one of the reasons why we chose Community Wealth Building, because it’s really practical.  

Annie: We would say also that there’s this sense at all levels of government it can’t just be left to local councils, it can’t just be left to federal government, it can’t just be left to state government, and it’s not just Treasury, or it’s not just the Premier’s office. It’s got to be across government that there’s a buy-in on this, and it’s really interesting that, like, in Victoria, for example, that the Victorian Department of Health and VicHealth have really led the conversation around wellbeing and the connection of wellbeing and economy and a healthy functioning economy. So, this doesn’t just sit with Treasury, or with the economic and finance people; it sits right across government and at all levels of government and other places as well. 

What are you hearing from some of the people who may have been left behind economically? 

Bill: A range of things. Mostly ambition. The people we spoke to want all the same things that we all want. There were stories of neighbours connecting with each other and helping each other and supporting each other. There were stories of regeneration and people finding a place to be in Norlane and Corio that was really helpful to them. But there were also heaps of other stories that aren’t anywhere near as positive. These were about the difficulties of unemployment and the fact that systems – disability, employment, health, housing or otherwise – almost feel like they’re actively working against their well-being rather than trying to support them. But people were incredibly grateful to be heard, which was humbling. 

What would you like to see happen to bring community wealth building to areas in Australia?  

Bill: Community Wealth Building is still relatively unknown, which is a challenge, so the more people that know about it the better. One of the things we talk about is: what stopped Community Wealth Building from becoming either the dominant or a dominant practice of economic development? What are the barriers to it? Probably the biggest barrier is the status quo of power. How you break and shift that is really difficult. But people knowing about it, what it is and what it isn’t, is really important. People seeing that it actually is an economic development framework that is legitimate and reasonable, and can work, and is able to be used to build people’s wealth and their wellbeing is really important that it’s not just a fringe idea. It can be done by mainstream economic development. It’s just a choice. 

And your final thoughts? 

Bill: The big thing about Community Wealth Building for me at the moment is that it’s so much more than three words that you put in a sentence, even though that’s how many people will understand it. It’s actually an economic development framework that has five levers that you need to pull and shift and change all at the same time. There’s a lot of work in it, and we will do ourselves a great disservice if we don’t hold ourselves true and focus on exactly what it is. 

Annie: I agree. For Bill and I in creating Neighbourhood Economics, part of our frustration was that both of us had done a fair amount of work in economic development, and we probably potentially worked in one, a single lever, but then found the frustration of ‘why hasn’t this shifted something’, and so the really important piece is that we’re pulling multiple levers to reimagine local economies. 

Find out more and about Neighbourhood Economics: https://neighbourhoodeconomics.org.au/  

Check out our series, ‘Building the economy we could have’ for more. 

Uralla’s Renewable Energy Strategic Action Plan is here

Two years of listening, testing and co-design have led to this: a practical plan for how NSW’s Uralla Shire can manage large-scale renewable energy development on its own terms – protecting what the community values while sharing the benefits of the transition fairly. 

This is not a plan for or against renewable energy. It’s a plan to make sure development happens with the community, not to the community. Our residents have been clear: Uralla’s character, farmland and way of life must be protected, and any development must deliver lasting value for our Shire.

Mayor Robert Bell

When regions are faced with large-scale renewable energy developments, local leaders face a choice: drive the change or get swept up in it. Uralla Shire Council chose to lead, successfully applying for transition support from The Next Economy under the Striking a New Deal project*. 

That move laid the groundwork for the community-led Renewable Energy Strategic Action Plan, endorsed by Council after a lengthy feedback process with community. 

Here we look behind the scenes at how this journey unfolded, what we learned from our experiences working with the Uralla community and what this means for the transition more generally. 

Access the Plan | Read Council’s media release   

A Shire at the centre of the transition 

Uralla Shire sits inside the New England Renewable Energy Zone (REZ) – one of the areas key to decarbonising Australia’s energy system. Solar, batteries and transmission projects are already shaping the region. With multiple wind projects planned, Uralla will be the centre of construction activity. It is already gearing up to host the largest share of temporary construction workers within the REZ.  

Uralla’s location within a REZ brings real opportunity: investment, jobs, training, building lasting infrastructure. But also, real pressure: from housing, water, roads and services, through to the very social fabric of Uralla that locals are proud of. 

While Uralla Shire Council can’t make the decision on whether these projects go ahead – that sits with the state and developers –they can, and have, worked with the local community to decide how the Shire prepares, what it asks for, and what ‘good’ looks like in its own patch. 

The role of The Next Economy 

Together, The Next Economy and Council worked with members of the Uralla community to understand what it takes to proactively shape the roll-out and impacts of the New England REZ, not just respond to them. 

The process included interviews, workshops, school sessions and surveys with more than 150 locals between December 2024 and July 2025. Landholders, business owners, young people and community leaders across the Shire were engaged. 

When people are involved early, it’s easier to identify concerns, and ensure new development strengthens what the community values. 

Saideh Kent, project lead, The Next Economy

Local insights were brought together with national best practice and expert input to build a plan that is grounded in the local context and priorities, and not a cookie cutter model brought in. The result is a renewable energy strategic action plan that:  

  • Sets out what good development looks like, in Uralla’s own terms 
  • Gives Council a clear, evidence-based basis for its conversations with government and industry 
  • Identifies where the Shire needs to act now to stay ahead of construction pressure, including on housing, water, roads, services and nature 
  • Points to how renewable energy investment can leave a genuine legacy, not just short-term disruption. 

Real-time results

Already, the work has brought real-time results, with Council:  

  • Identifying potential sites suitable for housing development and seeking community feedback
  • Collaborating with other councils and EnergyCo to coordinate infrastructure investment  
  • Working with Armidale Regional Council to improve water supplies and drought proof townships 
  • Partnering with the University of Newcastle to set up a recycling hub for solar panels. 

From one Council’s experience to a national conversation 

There’s no shortage of toolkits, guides and case studies for renewable energy development. What’s often missing is something that pulls it altogether and puts it into practice – a clear, tested picture of what success can look like when a regional community leads its own transition.  

Project lead Saideh Kent, is collaborating with colleagues at Uralla Shire Council, to identify the practical, place-based insights for what good renewable development requires – and what makes it possible – to share with other regional councils. Stay tuned. 

Why this matters beyond Uralla 

The energy transition is one of the biggest drivers of economic change across regional Australia right now. It is more than just the construction of poles and wires, it is a major national investment in a new industry located in regions that have not been part of the system before, and with that comes broader social, economic and environmental considerations and impacts.  

Left unmanaged, it can strain the things communities value most and rely on for their livelihoods and way of life. However, if managed well, with community at the centre and positioned as a strategic partner to development, the energy transition can not only move at a scale and pace that is required but can help to build resilient and thriving regions whose economies are working better for local people and their place.  

This ground-up, place-based approach to regional economic development and managing local economic change, is underpinned by The Next Economy’s broader work on macro-economic systems change and wellbeing economies – driving an economy that works for people and the planet, not the other way around.  

The work in Uralla is a real-world example of that thinking in practice – demonstrating what good development looks like for Uralla Shire, how the community can shape local economic transitions (and the economy), and the imperative for government and industry to get behind them when they do.  

*The Next Economy works with government, industry and community across Australia’s regions to shape a transition that strengthens – rather than undermines – local identity, resilience and shared prosperity. Striking a New Deal (SaND) is a national collaboration between The Next Economy, RE-Alliance, the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal (FRRR), Projects JSA and host councils including Uralla Shire. 

Read earlier stories

Community insights from Uralla

Striking a New Deal for Uralla Shire

Getting a better deal for regions hosting renewables

Read more about what came across during community engagement via Council’s website: A shire-wide conversation: community insights for Uralla Shire’s energy future.

Stories from the Road(map) 

The Hay Economic Transition Roadmap is a practical, locally driven plan designed to strengthen the regional economy, build on agricultural and transport advantages and secure long-term local benefits from renewable energy developments underway. 

Developed by the community and convened by Hay Shire Council with support from The Next Economy, it brings together community, business, industry and governments around a common direction for coordinated action. 

In April, we got to catch up with a few of the Hay community members who contributed to the Roadmap, and to hear what they had to say about the opportunities, challenges and momentum already building on the ground. 

Check out our main Roadmap video, then dive into what members of the Hay community had to say below. 

“We’re looking at what we can do that uses renewable energy to generate things that our farm and local industry need. A part of that is looking at a hydrogen plant.” 

– Monica Morona, Business Development Manager

Hear more from Monica

“The roadmap is important to Hay because it secures Hay’s future. Knowing that there’s jobs and opportunities for future generations. We’ve got to keep up with the times and Hay has to do that as well.”

– Gary Brown, business owner, Hay Newsagency and Alpha1 Property 

Hear more from Gary

“The Roadmap will help support our endeavours in agriculture here, because if we can bring secondary income to a lot of these primary production properties it gives us the benefit of having a sound other income stream.” 

– Richard Cannon, landholder

Hear more from Richard

“Hay’s history to date has been on predominately agriculture returns. Now going forward we’ve got that opportunity to pick up secondary industry … If the region wins, then we all win together and that’s a great outcome.”

– Jasen Crighton, Owner and Operator, Crighton Engineering 

Hear more from Jasen

“The roadmap has been really important to see some of those opportunities in agriculture, and I think if we have another opportunity to embrace an industry that might be able to safeguard us from some of the highs and lows that the ag community faces then we should embrace it.”

– Fiona Paterson, landholder

Hear more from Fiona

Read more about the Roadmap here:

Find out more from Hay Shire Council:

🎥Chris Grose – scoutfilms.com.au

Building the economy we could have: Community Wealth Building

This instalment of ‘Building the economy we could have’ explores Community Wealth Building and how this approach can bring health and social benefits while building resilient communities to better weather turbulent times. 

A decade ago, one in twenty Australians rated their life satisfaction as very low. Today it’s one in ten: nearly 2.2 million people now living below what statisticians call the “wellbeing poverty line. It happened while the economy, by its official scorecard, kept growing. But growing for who? 

It’s clear Australians want healthy and thriving local economies that work for people and our environment, not profit alone and a different approach is needed to make sure wealth is shared and kept locally.  

It’s in this environment that the economic development strategy of Community Wealth Building has started attracting increasing interest. But what is it? And what can it offer us here in Australia?  

What is Community Wealth Building? 

Community Wealth Building is an alternative to the trickle-down assumptions of a growth-first model of economic development. It puts people at the centre of the decisions made, with a focus on predistribution of wealth, ownership and resources, making sure it is designed from the start to genuinely work for people and provide long-term, lasting changes in the economy, addressing the root causes of inequality and poverty (See Predistribution). 

There are five main pillars that guide Community Wealth Building:  

  • Progressive procurement of goods and services 💸 (Spending): Using anchor institutions, such as local government and big employers like hospitals, universities and other public institutions, to harness their procurement to bolster local supply chains and support local business development, spending, and investment. 
  • Fair employment and just labour markets 👷‍♀️(Workforce): Using these same anchor institutions and worker-owned cooperatives to ensure employment practices and wages are fair, pay a living wage and create more opportunities for equitable and local economic participation and control over work. 
  • Socially productive use of land and property 🏡(Land and property): Public land and property assets are used to create shared wealth for people, bringing local land and development under community control. 
  • Making financial power work for local places 🏦 (Finance): Wealth and savings are harnessed and reinvested for the local community using public and community banks and credit unions as well as targeting superannuation investments. 
  • Plural ownership of the economy ♻️ (Inclusive ownership): The promotion of different business ownership models to build wealth for local communities, such as cooperatives, social enterprises, public ownership.  

History 

Community Wealth Building emerged as an economic development model in 2005, through the work of The Democracy Collaborative, who describe themselves as an ‘Action-oriented Think-Do Tank’ in Cleveland, USA and in the work of The Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) in the UK.  

Community Wealth Building came about from the desire to create economic democracy and a path forward that built fairness into the model of our economic system, inspired by the Civil Rights movement and the New Deal in the US as well as successful worker cooperatives such as Mondragon Corporation in Spain. 

The Cleveland and Preston models 

In 2008, Evergreen Cooperatives was set up to bring Community Wealth Building from concept to reality in Cleveland, with Evergreen’s founders and local ‘anchor institutions’ helping to set up worker-owned cooperatives with the aim of creating high-quality jobs, making neighbourhoods vibrant and sharing economic ownership with the community.  

Evergreen acquired small and mid-sized businesses, converting them to employee ownership, creating living wage jobs, training new employee owners and then providing ongoing business support to the worker cooperative. Evergreen Coops now include a commercial laundry, insulation services and a coffee roastery and cafes. 

Across the Atlantic in the north of England, following the Global Financial Crisis of 2007/2008, Preston Council was facing severe cuts to the budget after the loss of over a billion pounds in government grants. The business-as-usual approach would have been to slash council services and supports, pushing more people into poverty and economic disadvantage without doing anything to support people to have employment and options for good quality jobs.  

However, a Preston City Council representative attended an event in London with The Democracy Collaborative and one of their co-founders, Ted Howard. Ted was then invited to Preston to discuss Community Wealth Building, and from there, Preston worked to implement the pillars of Community Wealth Building via local anchor institutions.  

In 2025, they celebrated ten years of the ‘Preston Model’, with outcomes that clearly demonstrated how aligning the economy with local need can be a mechanism to deal with other problems such as mental health, life satisfaction and wages. 

In fact, The Lancet, the world-renowned medical journal, studied the model and found a reduced prevalence of depression, lowered antidepressant prescriptions, and improved life satisfaction. Plus, it raised the median wage 11 percent!   

Preston proves something that most of us would have an idea about already: that a thriving local economy that keeps wealth flowing in the community provides economic improvements as well as health and wider societal benefits.  

It also proves that an approach to mental health without addressing some of the root causes, such as economic insecurity and poverty, will simply be treating the symptoms, allowing the problems to continue (See Lifestyle Drift, The Economy We Could Have, Upstream Briefing) 

Scotland brings the idea to life across a whole country 

Scotland has recently passed a groundbreaking piece of legislation that introduces the benefits of Community Wealth Building across an entire country. The Community Wealth Building Act requires Ministers to publish a Community Wealth Building statement setting out the measures they intend to take to implement the pillars. Across Scotland, local authorities (local governments) will work with relevant public bodies to create and implement action plans for their area.  

Neil McInroy, a leading expert working with CLES and The Democracy Collective who has also been an advisor to the Scottish Government on Community Wealth Building, states that the power of this is that it moves Community Wealth Building from something that is optional or opt-in, to something that is system-wide. 

What is the potential for Australia? 

Many regions in Australia are starting to ask how they can look at economic development differently, including those in which we have worked such as Hay in NSW and south west Queensland. The economic blueprint we worked on with the South West Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, includes a possible first Community Wealth Building step: meeting with key anchor institutions in Roma to identify spending or contracts they could commit to prioritising local suppliers or First Nations organisations. 

In Geelong, Annie Smits and Bill Mithen from Neighbourhood Economics are working to bring the concept to life in a place hit hard by previous waves of economic change where resources left. Norlane and Corio, two suburbs of Geelong, were once home to the Ford factory and auto industry, and today are two of the most disadvantaged communities in Australia.  

Neighbourhood Economics joined with SGS Economics & Planning to launch a suite of new reports in May this year, including Community Wealth Building: What will it take? This report explores what’s standing in the way of adopting Community Wealth Building as a model of local economic development in Australia. 

Other Australian Community Wealth Building activity includes: 

  • The City of Sydney, which released a discussion paper at the end of 2021 as a first step in the policy development process 
  • SGS Economics & Planning prepared a working paper on how Community Wealth Building could benefit Melbourne’s eastern region or the Victorian Government and the Eastern Region Group of Councils in 2024. 

Our next instalment in this series will be an interview with Bill and Annie from Neighbourhood Economics on their work in Geelong and what is needed to bring Community Wealth Building to life in Australia.  

Check out our series, ‘Building the economy we could have’ for more. 

Building the economy we could have: Nightingale Housing

To build the economy we could have in Australia, changes must be made to the housing market as access to and ownership of housing is a huge driver of inequality. Currently the way the housing system operates seems to be a far cry from one designed to provide housing that is socially and environmentally friendly, at affordable or accessible prices. Instead, Australia has become a place where ‘investors’ look to make a profit. 

Melbourne’s Nightingale Housing offers a different model. As a not-for-profit, Nightingale doesn’t add a profit margin, delivering homes ‘at cost’.  Apartments are sold not to investors, but to residents and housing providers, and caps are set on resale prices. One-fifth of apartments are prioritised for key workers, people with disabilities, First Nations people, and single women. 

They also have a focus on minimising resource use and building strong community ties. Social connection is fostered via shared spaces, such as rooftop gardens, BBQs, and laundries. Recycled, natural, and local materials are used where possible, with energy-efficient features, like double glazing and insulation. Rooftop solar and water harvesting support the gardens, while the complex includes bike parking and are deliberately based near public transport to avoid the need for a car.

Our Economic Change Project Officer Josie toured one of the Nightingale apartments in Brunswick, then sat down with Toby Dean, the Head of Community at Nightingale Housing.  

Toby works to ensure there are foundations for friendly relationships with existing and future residents. He also focuses on engagement with Community Housing Providers to help more people access to quality and secure housing. The conversation covered what Nightingale does and changes we need in the housing market in Australia to build the economy we could have.

Our Economic Change officer Josie, touring Nightingale
The interior of a 2 bedroom apartment
Integration is a priority, with plants and trees planted and cafes and retail.

Can you tell me a little bit about who Nightingale is and what you are trying to do? 

We’re a developer, essentially, so we operate in a system that’s primarily driven by profit, but we’re a registered charity and a not-for-profit. We buy blocks of land and build housing that puts community and environment first. 

What are some of the ways that you put community and environment first? 

At the core of our project, we typically sell to owner occupiers, we sell at cost, and we sell a portion of our building to community housing providers to have affordable housing mixed into the building. We care about everyone that’s living in the community, and we hope it’s a mix. We typically build small footprint homes, which is one of the first steps to a more sustainable living system, to have smaller homes and more efficient homes as well, with things like solar panels, 100% green power, and well insulated. 

 What are the sorts of ways that Nightingale aims to create more of a connection between neighbours? 

In a typical Nightingale apartment building, there are studios, and one-, two-, or three-bedroom apartments, and then on top of that, there are shared spaces that are designed to have both a practical function and a community driven function. So, bike parking, laundries, sometimes a guest house, a bath house, and rooftop garden spaces. All those areas are designed for people to do their washing or to garden, but also to get to know their neighbours and share resources as well. 

Bathhouse that can be booked by residents
Communal bike parking
Shared play area for children

Where are the Nightingale projects? There are lots around Brunswick in Melbourne, but where else? 

We have a rental project in Sydney, projects in Fremantle, Adelaide, Ballarat, Melbourne. Our next few projects are local, one in Preston [Melbourne]. We’re also continuing to do some townhouse projects in Alphington and other suburbs. We hope to do another project in Adelaide, and then it’s uncertain what will happen after that. 

We are Melbourne-focused but hope to expand that out, not only to capital cities, but typically we target areas that have good transport infrastructure, so that people can live without a car, like Wollongong or Newcastle. We aim to build close to public transport, close to amenities, and close to things like schools and education and jobs and infrastructure as well. 

What are the things that are core to Nightingale?

We always use 100% green power, we prioritise shared spaces, good internet, sustainable buildings. And then on car parking; we just don’t believe we’re in a car parking crisis, we’re in a housing crisis, and for us to build homes and then add a private car park onto it, it adds a considerable cost. For us, we think the biggest barrier is getting people into home ownership. 

What do you think is the hardest thing about being a developer in the housing market that we have in Australia? What are the barriers that Nightingale faces? 

I think it’s always tricky to challenge the status quo. Typically, development is a profit-driven industry, which we’re obviously kind of sitting outside of that. 

We want our buildings to perform well, and for it to be sustainable financially and environmentally, but it is tricky. There’s limited access to concessional finance in Australia, and there are a lot of barriers that can make development tricky. And construction costs are expensive, land is expensive.  

Have things gotten easier or harder since you’ve started in 2013? 

I think it’s probably been a mix. We’re still a small organization, there’s only five or six people that work here full time, and we’ve been through the ups and downs of the development industry. I think in some ways it’s got easier, people know who we are, people understand what we’re trying to do. There’s also been a big shift in planning laws that encourage medium-density or high-density developments and understand that not every home has to have a car. We’ve got past some of those battles. I think conversely, construction costs have increased so that it’s hard to build homes that people can afford to buy. You can build luxury apartments, but to build apartments at cost, typically for first home buyers, it’s gotten expensive.  

Absolutely, and when you’re in inner city suburbs as well, where the median house price is high, “affordable” for the area, might not be affordable for a lot of people. 

Yes. And “affordable” is a tough metric. There are proper definitions of it, but I think it’s more important for a home to be affordable on a person’s income rather than relative to market, which is what some people use. 

Diverse spaces built in like art studios and a meditation centre
Grassy rooftop area for sitting
Veggie gardens on the roof and BBQ space

Do you see the not-for-profit developer space getting better in Australia, or do you see a lot of examples of ‘ethical washing’?  

I think it’s gone both ways. There has been a shift to appreciate good development, and to appreciate good density, with the rise of kind of the YIMBY movement, and the changes to planning laws, and everything like that, which encourage development. I think, conversely, there’s still a lot of poor development, or density that’s not appropriate for the place. I think the general population now have greater expectation around sustainability requirements, about insulation, about acoustics, and comfort, and non-flammable cladding. 

What else has changed for the better since you first started out? 

The building codes have changed for the better, the energy requirements have changed for better. I think in general, we’re moving in a better direction, I just wish people would be more concerned about sustainability, affordability, and making respectful places to live where people enjoy living there. I also live in a Nightingale project, you get to know your neighbours, you feel cared for, and there’s a sense of connection that is important. 

What do you think about the situation in general in housing in Australia?  

I think it’s about acknowledging that it is tough for a lot of people; for renters, for first home buyers, even for those downsizing. I think that a lot of Australians are kind of wary or cautious of change, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that you can make changes in the housing system. Nightingale still finds it difficult, we’re not just cruising through as an organisation, things aren’t easy. I wish we had greater access to concessional finance and there were more not-for-profit developers operating in our space, so we weren’t one of the few.  

What do you see needing to change from a government approach? 

People talk about housing affordability, I think that’s a good term, but it’s relatively abstract for a lot of people. I think that housing in Australia is too expensive, and the cost of housing needs to decrease, or our wages need to increase. I think that the recent changes by the federal government were supportive.  

The changes to capital gains tax, and other changes that they’re bringing forward, I think are positive. I think that they will see housing perhaps get closer to wage growth, not increase as exponentially as it has, and for property not to be seen or viewed as a tool for wealth creation. We always wish for more, but I’m super appreciative of those changes. I think it was brave to do some potentially not popular decisions.  

I think there needs to be a strengthening of tenancy laws, for renters and anyone out there in the housing market, and I think there should be support for first home buyers. I also wish there was an increase in public and community housing funding. 

Thanks for your time, Toby. And thanks for showing me around! 

 Thanks for coming. It’s nice to share with people what we do here at Nightingale Housing! 

Head to www.nightingalehousing.org for more information.

Check out our series, ‘Building the economy we could have’ for more case studies, explainers and interviews that show what is possible in Australia.

Internal garden for cooling and greenery
Rooftop garden to allow access to greenspace
Internal garden for cooling and greenery

Building the economy we could have: Beyond ‘Lifestyle Drift’  

Overview:  

  • Too much focus on individual action and change puts responsibility for change at the feet of individuals, as if they were separate and not touched by the wider dynamics wrought by policy and economic dynamics. 
  • In public health this is called ‘lifestyle drift’.  
  • This lets the economy – and those who shape it – off the hook, while individuals bear the brunt of wider economic trends.  
  • Rather than blaming individuals for ‘wilting’ when the conditions around them don’t enable them to thrive, it is those economic trends are where change is most urgent: including decent work; businesses that harness profitability is a means, rather than a goal in its own right; and economic activity generated from the local up via community wealth building. 

The economy is a major upstream cause of many of the problems Australians face downstream. The economy creates the causes that compel certain behaviours, invoke certain reactions, and deliver harmful impacts.  

Yet often the emphasis of policies and programs is choices and changes individuals needs to make. In the public health sphere, this shift in emphasis from the wider context to individual lifestyle choices has been referred to as ‘lifestyle drift’. Here Dr Katherine Trebeck shares her thoughts on the need to move beyond it. 

What lifestyle drift means 

Firstly, let’s look at what lifestyle drift actually means. It’s a term used by public health scholars and, as you may have suspected, it’s not as fun as it might sound. It’s what happens when those designing policies might understand the external conditions (upstream factors) that drive health inequalities, such as the quality of work and access to decent housing. However, when it comes to action, the focus drifts downstream to questions of lifestyle, where the individual is in the frame, rather than the economy.  

Another way to think about the problem with such an approach is ‘wilting-plant-syndrome’, a concept described by poet and clinical psychologist Dr Sanah Ahsan.

Ahsan wrote: ‘If a plant were wilting, we wouldn’t diagnose it with “wilting-plant-syndrome”; we would change its conditions’. 

‘Wilting-plant-syndrome’ is seen all too often in policy and economic thinking today, where downstream individual action is seen as the problem, not the wider conditions causing the problems. The consequence of the thinking inherent in both lifestyle drift and wilting-plant-syndrome is that the onus of action is placed on individuals, as if they were separate and not touched by the wider dynamics wrought by policy and economic systems. 

What lifestyle drift looks like 

Health is an area where it is hard to avoid seeing the lifestyle drift phenomenon play out.  

As Kriznnik et al say ‘the main assumptions underpinning interventions to address health inequalities … remain focussed on individual responsibility’. For example, when people are struggling with their mental health, they are offered therapy or antidepressants. This might help someone manage, but it won’t address the challenges they face in their lives such as poverty, a hostile workplace, the stress of being unable to pay bills, or the anxiety of precarious housing. You can see a focus on individual action in a recent briefing about tackling obesity, where the suggested changes mostly revolved around mechanisms that supported or compelled individuals to act differently. 

Lifestyle drift is also evident in a 2025 Australian Productivity Commission report calling for a National Prevention Investment Strategy. In all 95 pages of the report, the word “poverty” appeared only twice (once in a reference), and the word “inequality” only three times. To its credit, its list of primary prevention measures included economic support for families (while important, arguably transfers are also an after-the-fact response downstream). But in the same vein, it also described parenting education (where the onus is on the individual parents to change). 

We Aussies aren’t the only ones at risk of wilting plant syndrome and lifestyle drift:  

  • A few years ago, the World Health Organisation published a list of ‘best buy’ interventions on non-communicable disease, which positioned the individual as the unit where change needs to happen (through education, taxes on unhealthy food etc). Poverty was mentioned only in passing and inequality ostensibly ignored. 

These individualised framings cut through. For example, poor diets are often attributed to bad individual choices. Research found that in the UK Victorian-era notions of deserving and undeserving poor prevail, with the researcher observing that some providers of foodbanks depicted food charity as a ‘choice’, seeming to endorse ‘the classic deserving/undeserving divide while individualising food insecurity and obscuring the systemic issues’. 

Shifting the blame for environmental harm 

Shifting of responsibility to individuals, often by large corporations, is rife in environmental issues, from litter to the concept of a personal ‘carbon footprint’. For example: 

  • An ad launched in the US a few years ago showed an actor canoeing through polluted water, then walking toward a highway, only to see someone throwing rubbish out of their car window. The end of the ad states that ‘People start pollution. People can stop it’. This was part of the Keep America Beautiful campaign, an initiative designed and funded by packaging business, such as American Can Co, Owens-Illinois Glass Co, Coca-Cola and Dixie Cup.  

How lifestyle drift dodges the real issue 

The problem with all this focus on individuals is that overly emphasising individual action lets the real culprit off the hook: the economic system itself and the rules and players within it that create a misalignment with what people and planet need. It ignores the political decisions and deep-seated assumptions that have carved out the shape of the economy of today.  

As scholars writing in the Lancet conclude, individualised framing absolves corporations and government of blame. It serves to ‘effectively [neutralise] the effects of social context and airbrushes out of the picture a number of important contextual agents and institutions—specifically the state, markets and industry’. 

Well-known epidemiologist Professor Michael Marmot and colleagues warn that: 

an ‘individualistic approach to health … is a convenient mechanism for those in and with power, and wider society, to abrogate responsibility for creating the conditions for a healthy society’.  

Time to put the spotlight on the economy 

The reality is that it is the economy that drives many of the challenges Australia confronts today, from people’s sense of grievance and lack of hope for the future to species loss; from homelessness to increasingly chaotic weather. The economy is a major upstream cause of the many problems Australians face downstream. The economy creates the causes that compel certain behaviours, invoke certain reactions, and generate harmful impacts. 

Take the unhealthy behaviours, such as lack of exercise or reaching for processed food. Many are not so much a matter of free choice, but options taken when agency is bounded and curtailed. Sometimes people simply do not have the extent of autonomy and choice that the prevailing economic discourse, with its emphasis on individuals maximising their own self-interest, might imply.  

‘Causes of the causes’ is how Professor Michael Marmot describes the social pressures that drive harmful behaviours: such as reduced physical activity due to safety concerns, or stress leading to smoking or overeating.  

A leading authority on the social and economic determinants of health, Professor Sharon Friel, documents the various evidence of how and to what extent the economy matters to health. Socio-economic inequalities are critical factors: it was recently reported by health scholars Dr Sarah Hill and Dr Edward Jegasothy that one-fifth of ill-health in Australia could be avoided if everyone had the same socio-economic conditions as the top 20 per cent. 

So, where to from here? 

The story that needs to be told is how many economic policies are deepening inequality, and how deliberate policy choices – like tax concessions for the wealthy, weakened unions, and the emergence of precarious work – have shifted wealth upward and eroded protection for workers, while increasing insecurity and instability for many.  

When policy and decision makers are discussing outcomes, they need to take account of how market logic and profit motives have reshaped access to basic needs in areas such as housing, education, and often health and care provision. This transfers risk from institutions to individuals and undermines collective support, and spurs an understandable response: people turning to personal insurance for support when sick and to their homes and share markets to provide a decent livelihood in their old age. 

Conclusion: what would be better? 

‘An indigenous analysis of the same thing would look more at the context to try and find out what actually happened’ – Tyson Yunkaporta, Indigenous scholar 

The alternative to lifestyle drift and wilting plant syndrome is looking upstream to how the economy operates: the terrain of jobs, what sort of work is paid for, ownership of firms, costs of goods and services, and provision of core services. Instead of just instructing and coaxing individuals to change, it means turning to the realm of the economy as a critical arena for prevention. It is the economy where risks such as poverty, precarious work, and homelessness, can be truly addressed, as opposed to simply patched up. 

The economy we could have means implementing policy instruments that ensure, for example:  

  • People are paid enough, have job security and conditions that support a healthy life 
  • Profitability is a means, rather than a goal in its own right  
  • Economic activity is generated from the local up via community wealth building, rather than hoping in vain for it to trickle down  
  • Basic needs such as food, shelter, education, and health care are affordable 
  • Sources of unearned wealth, such as inheritance and rent and land values, are taxed more than income 
  • Economic activities which make money from people’s struggles or profit as a result of doing harm to the planet are, if not banned, at least minimised  
  • Prices of goods and services reflect their true cost in terms of what it took to make them, both in environmental terms and via people involved being compensated for their efforts  
  • Success is measured in ways that reflect what people and planet need. 

The economy we could have means grappling with the purpose, design, and delivery of the economy and resisting lifestyle drift.  

Fortunately, there is no shortage of ideas and practices that show what is possible.  

Check out our series, ‘Building the economy we could have’ for more.

Announcing: Erinch Sahan’s Australian tour in partnership with The Next Economy

At The Next Economy, we are excited to team up with Erinch Sahan for his Australian tour to share ideas, provocations, and proof of what is possible in the world of business and investment.  

Businesses and investment matter in Australia. They have a significant role in shaping economic, ecological, and social outcomes – for good, and sometimes for ill. So how can business and investment ensure that their activities and ways of working contribute to an Australia that future generations will be proud of?  

Erinch is a globally renowned thought leader with expertise in business design and investment. Join us to hear from Erinch and widen the discussion about the critical role of business and investment in building the economy we could have.  

Who is Erinch Sahan? 

Growing up in Sydney in the 1980s and 1990s to Turkish immigrant parents, he began his professional life in the corporate sector, and from there, has increasingly focused on making businesses a positive force in the world.  

His experience is varied: he has been CEO of the World Fair Trade Organization, a senior associate at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, and recently the Business and Enterprise Lead at Doughnut Economics Action Lab. He is currently leading the investment portfolio at the UK’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), driving its move to mission-related investing.   

TNE’s Economic Change Program Director, Dr Katherine Trebeck, has worked with Erinch over the years and is constantly inspired by his ability to question what business can do and how it needs to change to enhance its positive impact. She describes him as “not just one of the boldest thinkers in business design, but someone who shares incredible case studies and stories of innovative business leaders delivering tangible impact”.   

Find out more about Erinch: 

👂Listen to Erinch’s episode on the BBC’s Bottom Line – Decisions That Made Me: https://www.bbc.com/audio/play/p0l7c12y

👀 Watch Erinch’s latest TEDxPrague:

Get involved!  

These are the public facing events in the works. We will be updating this as we get closer to the dates so subscribe to our newsletter for updates, and follow our LinkedIn and Instagram so you don’t miss out!

Melbourne:  

Transforming Business and Investment into a force for good. Erinch Sahan, with special guests from Regen Melbourne and Social Traders.

📅 Date: Tuesday 6th of October, early evening

📍 Location Greater Melbourne Foundation Hub

🌍 Hosted by: The Next Economy and Greater Melbourne Foundation

🎟 Tickets:  Event page and tickets coming early August!

Canberra:  

Redesigning business and finance to unlock economic transformations: Australian National University Saving the World Webinar.

📅 Date:  Thursday 8th of October, 12.30pm-1.30pm  

📍 Location: Online webinar

🎟 Tickets: Register here. 

Sydney: 

What would business look like if it worked for everyone?

📅 Date:  Wednesday 14th of October, 6pm-8pm

📍 Location: Yirranma Place, Darlinghurst

🌍 Hosted by: The Next Economy and Paul Ramsay Foundation

🎟 Tickets: Coming in August!

This trip is generously supported by WWF, Paul Ramsay Foundation, and Greater Melbourne Foundation. 

If you would like to support this trip or find out more about events, please email j.foster@nexteconomy.com.au  

Building the economy we could have: Predistribution

To build the better economy we could have in Australia, we need to think differently. Dr Katherine Trebeck, economist and Economic Change lead, is a big fan of predistribution. Here she explains why. 

I often use a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ as a metaphor to explain the array of shifts in policy and practice needed to build an economy in service of people and planet. No single piece is sufficient on its own, but together, enough changes have potential to build towards to an economic system that gets things right for people and planet first time around. 

To grapple with this array of actions, it can help to loosely cluster the pieces into the four corners of that jigsaw puzzle: the ‘4Ps’ of purpose, prevention, predistribution, and people power. 

Here, I want to offer a few notes on the predistribution corner as it is so often missing from the conversation about the economy, with focus instead on taxation and how to better fund programs for those who are impacted by the inequalities built into our current system (‘compensating the losers’ as a report from a US think tank rather bluntly puts it). 

Australia used to do fairly well in terms of predistribution (that is, for white, able-bodied males). But no longer; we’ve become an ‘assetocracy’ where access to assets tends to be what shapes peoples’ life chances and life choices.

Credit: Jess Harwood, for The Next Economy

Predistribution is about pre-emption and prevention, and a critical element of upstream change that builds a better economy for all of us.  

‘It is not enough to…try to balance the inequalities generated in the market through retrospective tax and transfer. It is necessary to transform and democratise the institutional content of the market economy, rather than just compensate for its inequalities.’ – Gabriella Ramos et al 

Origin story 

The term predistribution was coined by the American scholar Jacob Hacker who describes it as ‘market reforms that encourage a more equal distribution of economic power and rewards even before government collects taxes or pays out benefits’.  

Predistribution’s political moment in the sun came in 2011 when Ed Miliband, then leader of the UK opposition Labour party, was in the audience for a speech that Hacker gave in Oslo. Miliband returned to the UK and – briefly – championed the idea. 

But predistribution is one of the most important ideas that should be high on the political agenda. Let’s look at why it matters, what it is, how it plays out in practice, and the implications for policy. 

What does predistribution mean? 

The essence of the idea of predistribution is ensuring that the market economy does more of the heavy lifting in delivering a more balanced divvying-up of resources. British scholar Martin O’Neill explains it as ‘the particular ways in which the economy can be shaped to disempower the privileged and to empower the disadvantaged’. Its focus is on market mechanisms that determine the distribution of wages, profits, and other flows and stocks of money.  

Government comes into the predistribution story via its role in creating and shaping markets so that the results are aligned with public goals: using rules, incentives and other levers to shape market outcomes. This includes boosting (or curtailing) the bargaining power of market players such as workers, employers, and wealth holders.  

Therefore, it differs from government using tax and benefits to shape the distribution of economic resources after market outcomes have emerged: this is redistribution.  

We’ll come to some specifics in a moment, but you could expect to see predistribution in the form of:  

  • Strong standards for workers (such as regulation, procurement, support for unions, and living wages). 
  • Regulation of the financial system and corporate governance; including provisions to stop harmful activities.  
  • Ensuring more people have a share of capital ownership, including owning businesses via worker or commubity cooperatives. 
  • Spending to bolster people’s opportunities and bargaining power in the labour market (think education and other public services: so they are not dependent on someone’s income) and groups like unions who can stand up for workers. 
  • Addressing how affordable certain goods and services are (for example, via price caps, subsidies, or direct provision): rather than only focusing on how much money is in people’s pockets; also being concerned with how far it stretches. 

Why it matters 

Inequality arises in and can be addressed via two realms. Firstly, what is sometimes called the ‘primary’ realm of work, wages and occupational pensions, and then in the secondary realm comprising taxes and benefits. Predistribution is about action in the primary realm. Here the wages that workers earn are the outcome of ‘a complex process of implicit and explicit bargaining between workers, employers, and (where they exist) unions’: the influence of each compared to the others matters, and is a function of various rules and regulations. 

This is of interest to anyone interested in economic inequality because this realm is where the bulk of the balance or imbalance of economic resources arises: the ‘biggest single factor in determining the distribution of market income is the relative shares going to wages on the one hand and to capital incomes (rent, interest, dividends, and capital gains) on the other’.  

In Australia, ‘capital gains arising from accumulated wealth have produced large increases in passive, unearned income that have added further to the wealth of the rich‘.  

Evidence from around the world bears this out too: in global terms, four fifths of inequality stems from what was going on prior to the government getting involved via tax and transfers, with only one fifth being the result of tax and transfers. The lower levels of inequality in Europe ‘cannot be explained by more equalizing tax and transfer systems… “Predistribution”, not “redistribution,” explains why Europe is less unequal than the United States’, according to Blanchet, Chancel and Gethin.  

So, there are a range of reasons which mean that predistribution is worth focusing when thinking about how to achieve a more balanced distribution of economic resources: 

  • Redistribution is not enough. As Hacker says, taxation and benefit payments ‘cannot do the work on their own’. 
  • Predistribution, in contrast, does not require government to spend substantial quantities of public money. Instead, in reducing inequality at source governments can generate fiscal savings by reducing the need for spending downstream (on benefits), thus freeing resources to spend elsewhere.  
  • There are a range of real politik reasons why redistribution is harder to pull off:  
  • Policies that are about spending (for example welfare payments) are challenging politically given concerns (reasonable or otherwise) about budget deficits and overall debt.  
  • Governments that do seek to be proactive on the redistribution front often face resistance and even backlash, as Hacker describes. He explains that the wealthiest have a tendency to complain – loudly – about increased taxes on their income and wealth.  
  • On the other hand, it is often easier to harness the ‘political space’ for action on predistribution measures than it is for taxing and benefits provision. 
  • Finally, although not noted by its original proponents, predistribution also matters because of the growing recognition that economic growth-based agendas are incompatible with keeping the world’s environment within planetary boundaries. Redistribution tends to rely on the economic growth: grow, tax, and spend back via welfare. So taking the science around the environmental limits to growth seriously compels consideration of mechanisms to ensure a good life for more people without having to rely on the grow and redistribute recipe. 

Implications for action  

Convinced that predistribution is worth getting behind? Superb. What might you want to think about encouraging – or, if you happen to work in the right place in government, actually implementing? 

Actions that policy makers need to be prepared to implement to promote predistribution include: 

  • Support for worker owned cooperatives (for example, via reduced taxes, simplified legislation, and education of ancillary services so they are more supportive of cooperatives). 
  • Legislation for worker rights and conditions (such as job security, being able to request flexible schedules and access to paid leave for family care). 
  • Regulations to strengthen the position of trade unions (what Hacker describes as a ‘countervailing power’) and corporate governance that puts workers on company boards. 
  • Enactment, and enforcement of minimum wages set at the level of living wages. 
  • Curbing extremes of high pay (for example, increased taxes when CEO to median pay exceeds a certain ratio). 
  • Broad based service provision that bolsters people’s endowment of human capital (such as decent education, vocational training, and health services). 
  • Addressing affordability of basic needs (for example, via provision of affordable housing, price caps on important services, and competition policy). 
  • Support for people who would otherwise struggle in the labour market to access good jobs (perhaps even a job guarantee). 
  • Regulation of financial markets and promotion of financial stability: for example, of how financial institutions behave (reducing high frequency trades, for instance); shifts in corporate governance; and ensuring capital flows to productive activities (rather than subsidising harmful activities and products). 
  • Promotion of fair trade. 
  • Public procurement with social goals in contracts. 

Conclusion  

Predistribution is a critical lever for generating a more balanced distribution of wealth. It’s an upstream mechanism that heads off inequality before it arises by shaping market outcomes to be fairer, rather than depending on government to even things up once inequality has emerged. There are a range of actions governments and other economic players can take to predistribute economic resources. Now it’s time to start talking about it more and putting the changes in place to make the most of its potential to create the economy we could have! 

NB A shorter version of this piece appeared in The Point: https://thepoint.com.au/opinions/260428-redistribution-or-predistribution-another-way-to-think-about-tackling-inequality  

Download our printable/shareable resource about Predistribution.

Predistribution Explainer

Read ‘The economy we could have’: https://nexteconomy.com.au/work/the-economy-we-could-have-new-paper-out-now/

Check out the series: https://nexteconomy.com.au/work/new-series-building-the-economy-we-could-have/

South West Queensland launches economic blueprint for future

Six councils spanning one of Queensland’s most distinctive outback regions have launched a Future Economy Strategy: a practical, community-led plan to diversify local economies and manage change on their own terms. 

Developed by the South West Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils (SWQROC) in partnership with economic development agency The Next Economy (TNE), the Strategy covers the Maranoa, Balonne, Murweh, Quilpie, Paroo and Bulloo local government areas – a vast region defined by deep community resilience, extreme weather events and a changing agriculture and gas sector. 

The Strategy was shaped by more than 77 contributors – council staff, producers, First Nations organisations, local businesses and community members – and identifies seven opportunity areas tailored to how the South West Queensland economy actually works. 

View from the Cunnamulla hot spring. Credit: The Next Economy

From converting waste to energy at the Roma saleyards, to green ammonia feasibility in Balonne to stabilise fertiliser costs, to the Cunnamulla Aboriginal Corporation for Health coordinating 33 visiting services for remote residents – the plan is grounded in what is already working and what communities say needs to come next. 

“This region has capable communities that pride themselves on practical problem solving.” Simone Talbot, SWQROC Executive Officer, says. “Global changes such as geopolitics, weather extremes and the cost of living are prompting us to consider what does ‘transition’ mean for our region. Our vast distances mean we are at the very limits of energy infrastructure and are heavily reliant on road transport and so we need to think differently about future opportunities and how we participate in a future economy.”   

The Strategy includes a tailored roadmap for each of the six councils, scaled to real staff and budget constraints. In Quilpie, that means exploring microgrids and back-freight opportunities to cut costs. In Murweh, it means expanding on tourism assets like the Cosmos Centre and WWII heritage sites. In Maranoa, it means managing the coexistence of wind, gas and agriculture through early community engagement on the Bottle Tree Energy Park. 

“What struck us most was how much is already happening here,” says Saideh Kent, project lead at The Next Economy. “These communities are progressing local solutions that suit their context. Our job was to listen carefully about their experience of transition and change, connect the dots, and build a plan that reflects the unique assets of South West Queensland and reflects what the community actually wants and needs. Not what someone from outside thinks transition should look like.” 

The publication of the Future Economy Strategy follows a significant milestone earlier this year, when a delegation of SWQROC mayors travelled to Canberra to present key messages directly to federal politicians and agencies. There, they made the case for coordinated investment in local solutions to housing, digital connectivity, freight infrastructure and workforce transition for fossil-fuel-exposed regions. 

“We went to Canberra because we wanted decision-makers to hear directly from us, to understand our context and consider an approach to change that is appropriate to our economic, social and climatic environment,” Simone says, adding: “This region has always contributed to the national economy. Now we’re asking for support to back our own solutions so we can keep contributing into the future.” 

Where to from here 

SWQROC will now move into implementation, with councils progressing priority actions from their individual roadmaps while coordinating on regional challenges too large for any single council to tackle alone. This includes on waste recovery, energy advocacy, freight and logistics, housing and workforce initiatives. 

The Strategy also sets out clear asks of industry, the Queensland Government and the Federal Government: from proactive planning for gas expansion and contraction and transparent local procurement, to rural grid upgrades, regional waste solutions, improved telecommunications and co-investment in worker housing. 

“This region is already managing change and transition, adopting innovative approaches that build on their local strengths,” Saideh says. “This Strategy brings together and builds on this ingenuity looking at the opportunities to create a resilient future.” 

The South West Queensland Future Economy Strategy is available here:

Download South West Queensland Future Economy Strategy

Read more:

What if economic development starts with the wrong question?

TNE program director Jacqui Bell joined economic development practitioners from across NSW this week to explore what a wellbeing economy looks like in practice – and what the Hay community’s approach to transition can teach the rest of us. 

Earlier this week, TNE program director Jacqui Bell presented to economic development practitioners from across NSW local and state government at the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development’s 2026 Regional Economic Development and Investment Attraction event. 

Her session took a slightly sideways look at the economy: exploring what a wellbeing economy looks like and grounding this big-picture conversation in the practical work Hay Shire Council and the Hay community have been doing to think differently about economic change.  

Across the broader event, a clear theme emerged: councils and regions are navigating increasingly complex conditions, from renewable energy development and industrial growth to shifting investment patterns, housing pressures, workforce demands, infrastructure constraints, planning system challenges and community cohesion. The scale, pace and constant state of flux are making it increasingly difficult for regions to manage change, plan strategically and act with confidence. 

Local government is deep in the trenches of this work – trying to govern and lead through overlapping economic transitions, often with limited resources, unreasonable timeframes and imperfect information. 

For us, this points to the need to rethink approaches to economic development: to redefine what “good” looks like, work with regions rather than doing development to them, and build from each place’s unique strengths, local economic system dynamics and advantages. 

As Jacqui noted: “For many regions, maybe the question is no longer ‘how do we get certainty?’ or ‘how do we attract investment?’ but instead: ‘how do we organise early enough to manage the downstream impacts of our current economic system, while addressing upstream drivers and shaping new opportunities to create value?’” 

“In a world where certainty is harder to come by, the challenge is not waiting for perfect conditions. It is building the local knowledge, capability and confidence to navigate uncertainty – and shape development in ways that leave regions stronger for the long term. 

“As we shared in our session, the economy is not fixed. It is shaped by decisions, values, institutions and power – and it can be redesigned.” 

There were many bright sparks and wonderful examples of “Lego wins” shared across the two days, says Jacqui. With the right support, local governments are well placed to do this reimagining and drive the change we need to see – building economies that better serve people, places and planet. 

Investing in regions to unlock the transition

Australia is currently navigating a fundamental transformation of its energy system, shifting from a fossil fuel past toward a renewable future. Our regional communities are at the frontline of this change, hosting the infrastructure, resources and workforce that will determine our national success. 

Our In Brief: Investing in regions, unlocking the transition series offers financial decision-makers across government, investment and philanthropy a high-level entry point into regional investment and its role in Australia’s transition to a climate-safe, regenerative and socially just economy. 

The series grew from an investor experience in Gladstone in 2024 and has since expanded – in geography and subject matter – drawing on work across regional Australia, desktop research and expert contributions. 

Each brief provides a bird’s-eye view of a focus area, including key barriers and where support is most needed. Current topics include: 

  • Decarbonising and increasing the capacity of the grid 
  • Developing green export industries 
  • Regional investor insights from Gladstone 

These briefs are a starting point – designed to spark conversation, build shared understanding and support deeper discovery. Because these topics are interconnected, effective progress requires a whole-of-system approach and close coordination across sectors. 

As this space evolves rapidly, we welcome your feedback to keep the series current and useful.

Decarbonising and increasing the capacity of the grid 

Australia’s electricity power system or “grid” is the vast transmission and distribution network that transports electricity from generators to consumers. Right now it is undergoing a fundamental transformation from its fossil fuel origins toward a renewable future.

Download

Regional investor insights from Gladstone 

Industrial regions are central to Australia’s net zero ambitions. They host the resources, infrastructure and workforce that will determine whether the energy transition succeeds. Gladstone, an industrial heartland with exposure to emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries, is on the frontline of the global energy transition. 

Download

Developing green export industries 

The global shift to net zero emissions is the defining economic and industrial transition for Australia this century. While the value of Australia’s emissions-intensive exports will decline with global demand for fossil fuel, the global energy transition also creates enormous potential for new industrial growth. Early and coordinated investment can position Australia as a leading global supplier of green commodities and advanced manufacturing components. 

Download

The mechanism critical for achieving a just transition

Earlier this year, The Next Economy made a submission on how a Just Transition Mechanism could be operationalised to the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Here we explain what a Just Transition Mechanism is, why it’s needed and how we think it can be made a reality.

A Just Transition Mechanism and why we need it

The world has entered the implementation phase of the transition to net zero. While countries face different challenges, all are grappling with the multiple technical, social and economic complexities of one of the biggest transformations of the global economy since the Second World War. While national and international bodies can set climate targets, for these to be properly realised, additional support is needed to translate ambition into action in ways that will generate rapid, positive and lasting transition outcomes.

Enter the Just Transition Mechanism, a key initiative proposed under the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme at the UNFCCC. It’s intended to ensure that it’s someone’s job to guide, support and sustain transition activities to address the climate crisis while protecting and even enhancing the wellbeing of people and the environment.

At The Next Economy, we think this is critical. It is beyond the capacity of individual nations to manage the transition alone. If countries are to have any chance of achieving their climate goals, the focus needs to shift from setting targets to supporting countries in figuring out how to transform their economies to accelerate the transition to net-zero emissions in ways that reduce harm and maximise benefits.

Without this support, not only will the world fail to reduce emissions to the extent needed to tackle the climate crisis, but transition efforts may exacerbate inequality and poverty.

If designed well, the Just Transition Mechanism could facilitate the integration of just transition principles and approaches across different levels of government and global agencies, each responsible for different aspects of the transition. Not only would this help generate broader acceptance of the transition, but it would also increase the confidence of governments and investors in taking meaningful climate action at all levels.

How a Just Transition Mechanism can be operationalised

While bodies already exist both within and outside the UNFCCC to support transition efforts, more needs to be done to build the capacity of those needing support to know what they need and how to manage all elements of the transition to a decarbonised economy in a just and equitable way, and to ensure that those offering expertise and resources incorporate justice principles and a rights-based framework to their programs.

The Just Transition Mechanism can meet this challenge by ensuring that climate mitigation and adaptation efforts are managed in a just and equitable way and improve social, economic and environmental outcomes by:

  • Mapping existing resources, funds, expertise and institutions.
  • Undertaking assessments to ascertain what countries, regions, economic sectors and key actors need to support just transition efforts.
  • Matchmaking to deploy technical and financial assistance in a responsive and appropriate manner.
  • Synthesising, sharing and generating knowledge.
  • Developing measurement, monitoring and reporting frameworks to support accountability.

Turning to the design of the mechanism, the priority areas to be worked out are:

  • Scope, including whether it’s holistic and broad enough to consider justice and equity issues related to mitigation and adaptation efforts across all economic sectors, and able to offer practical and tangible support to integrate just transition considerations into existing plans and programs.
  • Governance structure and work plan, including whether it’s overseen by a committee or advisory board,secretariat, host institutions or a pool of experts.
  • Staffing, including ensuring that it is sufficiently resourced by staff with the expertise to direct resources and effectively liaise with institutions and those requiring support.
  • Funding, including whether a new Just Transition Fund is needed to channel new grant-based and highly concessional finance. 

New series: ‘Building the economy we could have’

‘Building the economy we could have’ – A series of ideas, case studies and concepts exploring how we move to an economy that works for people and planet. 

Australia’s future depends on whether we can move beyond piecemeal reforms to embrace systemic change. 

Last year, we released The Economy We Could Have – a paper that looks under the bonnet of Australia’s economy: rising inequality, the erosion of the ‘fair go’, but also a story of hope. Of momentum growing across the country, and of enterprises and communities already leading the way. 

The response was one of excitement, speaking to a deep desire for transformative economic change rather than the same old, tired recipes. Now, with Australia facing new economic pressures including an oil crisis, the impetus to act is greater.  

Cartoon by Jess Harwood for The Next Economy

So, we are doubling down. The ideas that politicians and decision makers reach for in a crisis matter. We want those ideas to be the ones that put wellbeing at the centre: dignity, purpose, participation, fairness, and nature. As a foundation, rather than an afterthought.  

That’s where our new series comes in. 

Building The Economy We Could Have explores the ideas, case studies and concepts that show how we get there. Right now, there are many isolated or ‘Lego wins’, the examples that show what can be done better, yet scattered and disconnected. We are turning our focus to see these as building blocks: things worth doing more of, and connecting across the country. 

We’ll share examples that show another way is possible and outline the potential of wellbeing economic concepts in practice, with case studies, explainers, interviews, and of course drawing on our work in regional communities looking to build resilient and thriving communities through times of change. ‘ 

The series includes:  

  • Explainers on wellbeing economy concepts and how they are showing up in Australia 
  • Case studies of enterprises, communities and policy makers doing differently 
  • Australian history showing we have charted different approaches before 
  • Interviews with people bringing fresh ideas and approaches. 

We are excited to uplift the work that is steadily charting the way forward, drawing on Australian’s strengths as people who back their neighbours, champion local ideas, and have a long track record of showing the world what policies that work for people and planet can look like.  

This series is a starting point for deeper thinking and conversation. We’d love to hear what resonates, or what we are missing. Contact us here.

Read our first case study:

Earthworker Cooperative Network

Read our explainers:

Predistribution
Lifestyle Drift

Building the economy we could have: Earthworker Cooperative Network

Earthworker Cooperative Network gives us a glance into a wellbeing economy in action, where workers build the things we need in a worker-owned factory in Morwell. 

When writing ‘The economy we could have’, our Economic Change lead Dr Katherine Trebeck came across countless ‘Lego wins’. These were the examples of a wellbeing economy in action in Australia that we could look to for inspiration on the way forward, even if there aren’t enough of them yet to add up to complete system change.  

A great example is in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, where Earthworker Cooperative, Australia’s first worker-owned factory, operates several enterprises. This includes the Earthworker Energy Manufacturing Coop, which produces heat pumps and solar hot water systems – its function first and foremost: to serve its worker owners. 

Earthworker has a vision that brings a wellbeing economy into practice: 

“…a world in which people everywhere are able to democratically determine the means of their existence, collectively meeting their needs while recognising our interconnection with each other, other species, and the environment in which we exist.” 

Earthworker has expanded to become a network of cooperatives that are committed to sustainability, both in social and environmental terms given the link between environmental harm and social injustice. 

Inside the worker-owned Morwell Factory (Photo contributed by Earthworker for our report) 

What co-ops make up the Earthworker network? 

  • Earthworker Energy Manufacturing Coop: produces new energy technology in Australia’s first worker-owned and run factory in the Latrobe Valley. Based in the Earthworker Morwell factory, it manufactures quality and high-performing stainless steel storage tanks for heat pump and solar hot water systems. 
  • Earthworker Smart Energy Cooperative helps households improve their home’s thermal efficiency and so their family’s comfort through assessments and draught-proofing. This in turn helps households save money and have more control over their energy use. 
  • The Earthworker Construction Cooperative provides residential construction, landscaping and maintenance services such as cabinet making, plumbing, pergola building, decking and more. Their motto is ‘Another world is being built’!  

There is clearly purpose behind what is being delivered by these cooperatives. Worker ownership is a mechanism of predistribution (as financial wealth goes either to workers or to the enterprise) and of economic democracy that enhances people power. By enhancing energy efficiency and being part of the renewable energy roll out, Earthworker is also helping prevent environmental challenges getting worse. In providing job opportunities to those who might otherwise face unemployment, they prevent the harm of job loss. 

So Earthworker speaks to all the ‘4Ps’ of a wellbeing economy in practice: purpose, prevention, predistribution, and people power. It demonstrates what we need more of to build an economy that serves people and planet. 

Earthworker’s logo, showing symbols of the Australian environmental and labour movements. 

What makes Co-ops part of a wellbeing economy? 

A wellbeing economy requires a substantial shift in how the economy is thought about and approached, looking for ways to benefit people and planet rather than profit for the few. 

Cooperatives (whether worker-owned co-ops, consumer co-ops such as groceries, or agricultural co-ops) are a great way to do this as they are owned, controlled and run by and for their members, creating economic democracy and a people-powered economy. They are democratically managed by ‘one member, one vote’, meaning everyone has an equal vote.   

Co-ops enhance predistribution because surpluses go back to members or the enterprise, so community wealth that stays in the community.  

Why Latrobe Valley 

The Valley has largely powered Victoria with brown coal for a century. When the coal power stations and State Electricity Commission (SEC) were privatised* in the 1990s, thousands of people lost their jobs and Victorians lost ownership of this essential infrastructure. (*Although since 2024, the SEC has been partially revived as a government-owned renewable energy company, with legislation that specifically protects it from privatisation).

The number of people employed in the power industry dropped from about 11,000 in the late 1980s to about 2,600 in 2001, causing the population to shrink significantly with nine per cent of the region’s residents leaving between 1991 and 1996. (See also The Latrobe Valley, Victim of Industrial Restructuring by Bob Birrell) 

Since then, the Valley has experienced high rates of disadvantage. In 2017 French-owned corporation Engie, announced the closure of Hazelwood mine and power station and roughly another 750 jobs were lost. 

How did Earthworker seek to address this economic injustice? 

The founders of Earthworker could see that the apparent conflict around jobs versus the environment wasn’t the full story and reflected a narrow lens. They recognised that there was a need to work together for just transition in the La Trobe Valley, and there was a dire need to create jobs that were better for workers and jobs that could contribute positively to the local community. 

Latrobe is one region where this is necessary, many other regions are also on the frontlines of economic transition that must include solutions that put wellbeing at the core, and the principles of prevention, predistribution, people power and purpose.

Australians are dissatisfied with the status quo and open to rethinking economic priorities that put people first. Earthworker shows a different model of business that can build an economy that works for people and for planet as a foundation, rather than an afterthought.

Resources:

Read our full report: ‘The economy we could have.’

Check out more about Earthworker here.

Find out more about Co-ops at BCCM, the peak body in Australia for Co-ops and Mutuals.

Hay’s Economic Transition Roadmap is here -why this more than just a plan  

Last week the Hay Economic Transition Roadmap was launched in Hay with the people who brought it to life – Hay Shire Council and around 30 of the 250 community members who contributed in one way or another over three years of deep engagement. This roadmap isn’t just a document; it’s a genuine expression of what the community wants for its future, and we’re so excited to have supported its development and have it out in the world. 

Led by Hay Shire Council with support from The Next Economy, the Roadmap brings together local knowledge, priorities and practical actions to guide the next decade of economic change – building on Hay’s strengths and preparing for what’s coming. It is designed to align investment with community aspirations and catalyse coordinated, collective action for change – with the community in the driver’s seat.  

We sat down with our Land Program Director Jacqui Bell to talk about what she’s learned over the past couple of years and what this means for how we think about regional economic transitions.  

Why are region-wide economic transition plans needed?  

Communities like Hay are navigating compounding pressures all at once – things like housing shortages, workforce gaps, industry shifts and climate exposure. Band-aids on broken systems won’t cut it. We need upstream change that builds on local strengths and focuses on practical solutions that respond to the unique characteristics of a place. That is, change that generates value locally – not simply chasing narrow national targets or technology mandates. 

Working at the regional level connects the dots between sectors and industries to tackle challenges and create new opportunities in ways no single farm, business or government agency can do alone. In agricultural regions like Hay for example, regional planning and coordination creates the enabling environment for local businesses and farmers to ‘move’ and explore new partnerships, de-risk innovation and diversify on-farm income. 

For new industry proponents, a regional plan signals where opportunity exists and how shared value can be created – and in many cases, collaboration with regional stakeholders is what makes the business case for investment stack up. For farmers, it enables economies of scale, de-risked investment, opportunities to lower external inputs and new business activities that simply aren’t viable farm by farm. We see examples of this already in efforts to get good outcomes for nature – where working at a regional level, not a farm level sometimes makes a lot more sense. 

Regional collaboration isn’t always straightforward – but there are organisations working out how to do it well, helping landholders, residents and Councils find the mechanisms and models to sustain this work over the long term. 

So, what does this look like in practice? 

Hay sits in the South West Renewable Energy Zone, a real opportunity for the region if managed well. The Roadmap process is already delivering results. From housing solutions, new agricultural industries, expanded childcare, and two renewable energy projects progressing with broad community support.  

There are many more opportunities emerging. For example, offtake industries – businesses that take locally-produced energy and use it productively – preferably for the benefit of local industries and businesses. Think freight, fuel, and fertilisers. A sustainable fertiliser business using renewable energy is already under establishment, with regional producers committed to buying at the scale needed to make it viable. 

And it’s not just new businesses. Existing ones are adapting too. A local engineering firm is moving into water infrastructure for energy projects – a specialisation with applications well beyond Hay. 

This isn’t just aspiration –the momentum is real and work is happening already on the ground. 

Jacqui shares the final Roadmap with community members at the launch in late April. 

What’s the role of Local Government in all this? 

Council plays an important role – facilitation, convening, connecting the dots, building the appetite for change, countering misinformation etc. Support for renewable energy development in a region like Hay didn’t happen because of some national campaign – it was because of the rigorous and ongoing communication and engagement that Council facilitated, the discussions they brought together, the open door they had to proponents, community, businesses. 

Why is community involvement important? 

When local people are involved and are part of a group behind a vision and supported to be champions of economic change, momentum builds. We could see this in real time last week, when one of our working group members shared how they’ve been talking to a local organisation about progressing an action in the Roadmap. This is where the magic happens – community starts to talk, and action is sparked. 

Why is regional work like the Hay Roadmap important? 

Regional work matters – it is the connective tissue that holds the regional economic system together and helps each individual component move in the right direction. It’s also critical for sectoral transitions – to understand how characteristics of a place shape or hinder the big shifts that are needed, such as the decarbonisation of agriculture, for instance. 

The work in Hay is important because it tells a strong and compelling story about what good regional development and economic transitions can look like across Australia.  Communities facing big shifts – new energy, industry change, climate pressure and workforce gaps are increasingly deciding to shape their own futures rather than wait. The ones doing it well are planning ahead, building on local strengths, and asking the right questions: What are we transitioning to? What does good development look like here? How do we make sure benefits flow locally?  

Hay is one of the clearest examples of what this looks like when it’s done well, and the lessons here matter well beyond one town  

But a Roadmap is just a document, isn’t it? 

People sometimes roll their eyes at the thought of another planning document, but for The Next Economy, the document is simply the artefact – the process, the engagement, the coordination and local capacity building is what creates change and builds momentum for new partnerships, new opportunities and community leadership of the future. 

That said, the pride that the Hay community feel for the Roadmap, and the value they see it provides them is huge. This was again demonstrated by the conversations we were part of and feedback we received from local people during our visit to Hay last week when we launched the Roadmap with the community. Having a document like this provides a strong signal to investors, collaborators and government. It’s something that everyone in the region can point to demonstrate the work they’ve done, the direction they’re heading, their priorities and what doing business in Hay looks like.  

The number of queries we and the region have had even after the soft launch of the Roadmap last week is testimony to its power. The Roadmap sends a signal that Hay is a strategic partner to change with people that have the mindsets and willingness to explore opportunities and create shared value.  

So, what should we take out of all of this? 

Hay has and is doing something genuinely impressive – a community of this size taking the initiative to plan ahead, build consensus, and deliver real outcomes.  It’s a clear example of what responsible development and economic transitions managed well can looks like across Australia. For other regions to go the distance, they need the same meaningful engagement and real backing, including funded local coordination roles that turn good plans into lasting outcomes. 

Jacqui (far right) celebrating the launch with (from left) TNE Senior Project Officer Doug Ruuska, Hay Shire Council Economic Development Officer Alison McLean and Hay Shire Council Youth and Economic Development Officer Kylie Brettschneider. 

Read more about the Roadmap
Read the full Roadmap

Empowering Hay: A community-led transition roadmap

The Hay Region Economic Transition Roadmap demonstrate how regional Australian communities can shape their own economic futures. The Next Economy has been proud to work with the Hay Shire Council and the local community to develop a sequenced, practical pathway for economic growth. 

Why Hay is leading the way 

Located at a strategic intersection of renewable energy zones and key transport routes, Hay is acting early to ensure change happens with the community, not to it. The Roadmap focuses on: 

  • Local leadership: Building on rural enterprise and natural resources. 
  • Strategic levers: Seven accelerator actions to increase regional capacity, including dedicated coordinators for housing and workforce development. 
  • Shared value: Creating conditions for industry and government to align with community-defined priorities. 

This project demonstrates what is possible when local insights are backed by strong collaboration. Hay is ready, the momentum is real, and the invitation is open for collaborators to join us in unlocking the full impact of this vision. 

Read the full report

Our evidence to the NSW REZ inquiry: lessons from the ground 

Energy lead Saideh Kent appeared before the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into the impact of renewable energy zones on rural and regional communities and industries in late March. It was an opportunity to highlight the great work communities in renewable energy zones are progressing and reinforce the critical role regions play in the development of renewable energy, says Saideh.  

The Next Economy has been working alongside Hay Shire Council in the South West REZ and Uralla Shire Council in the New England REZ for the past two years, and both councils endorsed reports of our work in the fortnight before Saideh appeared. Working closely with councils,Saideh says “you see how they are getting on with development, managing challenges and seeking the best outcomes for their communities”. 

Here Saideh shares some of her reflections…     

What we’re hearing on the ground 

The picture is more positive than the headlines often suggest. Communities are getting on with it, working alongside developers, EnergyCo and government departments to plan for what is coming and find solutions that work for them. We have seen genuine improvements in the NSW planning framework over the past two years, with greater clarity emerging around community engagement, landholder payments and benefit sharing, and EnergyCo’s funding support for local government has made a real difference to what councils can actually do – though they do remain very overstretched. 

Housing is a good example of communities turning a challenge into an opportunity. Both Hay and Uralla are progressing innovative housing solutions with developers and private investors, where short-term workforce demand creates the market conditions for investment in housing that will benefit the community long after construction is complete. 

Community engagement needs to be genuine 

Communities in REZ areas are not short of opportunities to be consulted, but the quality of that engagement matters enormously. People do not want to be asked by eight different project developers how they would like to spend community benefit funds. What they need more of is real involvement in decisions about transport routes, housing and workforce planning, all things that will affect their lives.  

Working in place provides the opportunity to bring all parties to the table to work through challenges and determine what is the best solution for local communities.  In some areas local employment targets are effective, in others, they can add stress to existing workforce shortfalls, so engaging communities in local solutions is so important. 

Local government belongs at the table 

Councils in REZ areas are doing an enormous amount of work.  Coordinating across agencies, planning for cumulative impacts, facilitating community engagement, often holding the process together in ways that are not always visible. The Next Economy supports Hay Shire Council’s call for councils to be recognised as strategic partners in the REZ planning framework, with concurrence required from councils in the development of conditions of consent. This would allow councils’ requirements and policies to be incorporated into the general terms of approval and give communities greater certainty. Continued and enhanced funding for council capability through the development and construction phases will also be essential. 

EnergyCo’s mandate and development outside the REZs 

EnergyCo’s coordination role has been valuable, but its broader authority rests on changeable footing under the current legislation. We would like to see that role clarified and reinforced so it has the ongoing mandate and funding to support communities across the full life of each REZ. I also raised the situation facing councils dealing with development outside the REZ access schemes, where cumulative impacts are just as real, but coordination support is much thinner and called for the REZ access merit criteria to be extended more broadly. 

Nature and local knowledge 

Reflecting on my evidence, an issue I did not get to raise at the inquiry but sees as critical: communities we have engaged with care deeply about the land and want to see nature-positive outcomes from these developments, which is entirely compatible with renewable energy. The University of New England is already undertaking research on biodiversity in solar farms, local farmers are keen to participate in biodiversity offset programs, and there is deep environmental expertise in the region that should be drawn on actively. We support the inquiry’s earlier recommendation calling on the NSW Government to identify ecological protection and restoration priorities for each REZ and encourage developers to contribute to positive regional environmental outcomes. 

What gives me confidence 

What stays with me after two years of this work is how capable these communities are., . Councils are coordinating across agencies, planning for large incoming construction workforces, facilitating community engagement across multiple projects, and doing most of it with constrained resources and a planning framework that has not always kept pace with what is happening on the ground.  

The opportunity on the other side of all this is significant. Better housing, lasting infrastructure, stronger local economies, nature-positive outcomes from development that is done well. But those things do not happen automatically. They take resourcing, coordination, and a framework that treats councils as partners who need support to get the best outcomes for their communities. 

That is ultimately what I wanted to leave the committee with, examples where the real challenges are being addressed by communities, that have done the hard work of showing up, engaging honestly and pushing for something better. 

Saideh at the inquiry with fellow speakers Chris O’Keefe and William Churchill from the Clean Energy Council.
 
Download the SaND Report
Download the Hay Report

Building the economy we could have: insights from Progress 2026   

Australia’s economy may appear strong on the surface, but beneath the bonnet lie deep structural challenges: from rising inequality and insecure work to ecological breakdown. These demand more than piecemeal fixes; they need upstream economic transformation.    

Our Economic Change lead, Dr Katherine Trebeck, alongside Josh Devine from Regen Melbourne, hosted a workshop at Progress 2026 on going upstream for this economic transformation. Progress is the largest social justice conference in Australia, with more than 1,500 people attendees, 140 speakers from across the world and 60 sessions on how to win the change we need for people and planet. Here are some insights from the workshop. 

Katherine Trebeck and Josh Devine from Regen Melbourne at Progress 2026.

The roots of the problems 

The workshop opened with a provocative question from Frances Moore Lappé: “Why are we collectively creating a world that none of us as individuals actually want?” 

Participants identified numerous downstream challenges facing Australians today, including:  

  • Housing unaffordability  
  • Climate-driven bushfires  
  • Indigenous land loss  
  • Loneliness and mental ill-health  
  • Youth crime and family violence  
  • Wealth inequality and poverty  
  • Misinformation and rising fascism.  

Using upstream thinking, which is where attendees traced these symptoms to deeper economic roots rather than just looking downstream at the problems this system creates, they came up with the causes of these issues. These included corporate capture, extractive production systems, property as investment rather than shelter, deunionisation, and incentives that prioritise profits over social benefits.  

The vision: naming the world we want  

Rather than spending all our time on the problems of today, the group also imagined alternatives to our current economic system. Drawing inspiration from Regen Melbourne, Indigenous wisdom, and The Next Economy’s regional research, participants named what a better economy needed to deliver: dignity, fairness, connection, and ecological care.  

“Lego wins” as glimmers of light  

The workshop celebrated existing examples of positive change, what we refer to as ‘Lego wins’, the instances of what we need more of to build the economy we could have. Examples of these wins pointed to by the participants included:  

  • Community ownership: Hepburn Wind, energy co-ops, housing cooperatives  
  • Food systems: Oz Harvest, food co-ops, farmers markets, Buy Nothing groups  
  • Environmental action: Kelp farming, native nurseries, rooftop solar uptake  
  • Social infrastructure: Community gardens, third spaces, community toy and tool libraries  
  • Policy wins: Social procurement policies, minimum rental standards, Medicare  

These examples demonstrate that alternative economic models are already emerging across Australia.  

Dominant mindsets  

Yet these ‘Lego wins’ are not yet adding up to systemic change at the scale and pace needed. Pervasive myths and assumptions lock policy into inadequate downstream efforts. Some of these myths and assumptions called out by workshop participants include:  

  • Productivity leading to higher living standards for everyone  
  • Fiscal responsibility being more important than environmental stewardship  
  • Humans are primarily selfish and competitive (homo economicus)  
  • Welfare as a ‘burden’ rather than social good  
  • Economics is a science with hard, unchangeable rules  
  • Capitalism is superior to democracy  

Steps for action  

As the workshop finished, participants were invited to share examples of work that offered vehicles for working on economic system change. Organisations mentioned as potential partners and outlets included WEAll Australia, Rewiring Australia, Common Cause, and Energy Consumers Australia.  

Rising inequality, insecure work and ecological breakdown reveal deep structural problems in Australia’s economy that demand more than piecemeal  fixes. ‘The economy we could have’ workshop showed that these issues are not inevitable — they’re the result of choices shaped by power and values — and that alternative economic models are already emerging across the country. 

Read the report ‘The economy we could have’ for more details on where we can go to from here. 

Download report

📢 Stay tuned: In the coming months, we’ll be releasing a series that dives deeper into the glimmers of light we see in Australia for building ‘The economy we could have’.  

Navigating the land sector in 2026

Jacqui Bell leads The Next Economy’s land sector work. In this Q&A, she shares her reflections on a pivotal year for agriculture and land use change, how climate risk, investment and policy began to converge in 2025, and what this means for building fair, resilient and regenerative landbased economies.   

Why is the land sector important to Australia’s economic transition?  

The land sector sits right at the intersection of Australia’s biggest transitions. It’s where climate risk is already being felt most acutely, where adaptation and mitigation must happen together, and where decisions about land use directly shape regional economies, food systems, biodiversity, and community wellbeing.  

Unlike energy or industry, the land sector isn’t one thing. It’s a bundle of economic activities – agriculture, forestry, conservation, carbon, water, mining, infrastructure – all competing for the same finite resources. How land is owned, valued, used and governed determines what’s possible economically, socially, culturally and environmentally.  

As climate impacts intensify and global markets shift, how we use land, as well as value and manage the ecosystem services it provides will increasingly inform whether Australia builds resilience and shared value – or locks in deeper inequities and long-term risk.  

Looking back on 2025, what were the defining points for Australia’s land sector?  

2025 felt like a year where multiple threads finally came together. There was a sense of catch‑up across policy, investment and public conversation about the role the land sector plays in Australia’s transition to net zero and nature‑positive outcomes. Long‑awaited strategies and initiatives began to land, and programs like the CRC for Net Zero Agriculture started to gain more traction, signalling that agriculture and land use were no longer being treated as peripheral to the transition.  

One of the most significant shifts we have seen through our work, is a growing readiness to mainstream more regenerative and climate‑resilient approaches into farming. Twenty years ago, farmers experimenting with regenerative practices were often working against the system. In 2025, we saw the enabling conditions begin to stack up: policy drivers, market signals, climate realities and finance are pointing in the same direction. That alignment as well as other broader socioeconomic factors is creating a real tipping point in willingness to rethink how production systems work across different landscapes.  

At the same time, the year exposed just how slow and fragmented our economic systems still are. There is a lot of innovation happening on farms, in communities and in pockets of investment, but it’s uneven and difficult to scale. Capabilities, ownership structures, planning frameworks and institutional inertia continue to lock in existing patterns of land use, even as the need for change becomes more urgent.  

Climate risk also became much harder to ignore. The National Climate Risk Assessment brought sharper visibility to the conditions landholders and regions will need to endure in coming decades – and, in some parts of Australia, where certain land uses and farming systems may not even be viable long-term.  

Overall, 2025 wasn’t a year of resolution, but it was a year of these shifts (and many others) coming to the surface. The challenges facing the land sector became more visible, the stakes more explicit, and the imperative for coordinated, place‑based and just approaches to land use change much harder to push aside.  

What are the biggest challenges facing Australia’s land sector right now?  

Complexity and cumulative pressure are the defining challenges.  

Landholders and regional communities are dealing with climate impacts, market volatility, policy uncertainty, workforce shortages, rising costs, and rapid land use change – all at the same time. These pressures aren’t additive; they’re compounding.  

Climate risk is no longer theoretical. We’re seeing clearer projections of extreme heat, water scarcity, flood and drought cycles that fundamentally question the long-term viability of some farming systems and, in some places, human habitation. In northern Australia, for example, the growing number of extreme heat days raises real questions about labour, productivity, liveability and safety.  

At the same time, investment and ownership structures are shifting. Institutional investors are becoming more sophisticated about climate risk and land value, enabled by digital technologies and data. That has the potential to drive innovation – but it can also accelerate consolidation, change land use rapidly, and create unintended consequences for regional economies and communities.  

Jacqui talking nature and land use trade-offs at the Better Futures Forum in 2024. 

What does a climate-safe, regenerative and socially-just land sector look like in practice?  

In practice, it’s not a single model – it’s place specific.  

A climate safe land sector integrates mitigation and adaptation, rather than treating them as separate goals. It supports farming systems that are resilient to heat, water variability and extreme events, while restoring soils, biodiversity and natural capital over time. In practice, that looks like more diverse and resilient farm systems, healthier landscapes, and multiple income streams that reward stewardship as well as production.  

A regenerative approach becomes mainstream not just because it’s ‘better’, but because the conditions finally stack up: policy settings, market signals, climate realities and finance are aligning in ways they weren’t 20 years ago. Back then, early adopters were pushing uphill. Today, there’s a genuine tipping point in readiness and willingness to do things differently.  

This isn’t just a shift at the farm level – it’s a broader system transition across supply chains, finance and policy that makes different choices viable at scale.  

Social justice means recognising power and equity: who owns land, who benefits from new markets, who carries risk, and who gets left behind. In the Australian context, it also means recognising and partnering with First Nations land stewards and cultural knowledge. It means designing transitions that support producers to continue producing good food – rather than pushing risk down the supply chain or hollowing out regional communities.  

There are real trade-offs and tensions to navigate, but the direction of travel is now much clearer (albeit still looking very messy)!  

How are farmers, landholders and Traditional Owners already leading this transition?  

A lot of leadership is already happening on the ground, often ahead of policy.  

Farmers have been experimenting with regenerative practices, climate smart production, on-farm business diversification and new business models for decades. What’s changed is the visibility and validation of that work – as well as the growing recognition that adaptation is an economic necessity, not just an environmental choice, and that there are some challenges that are better addressed at a region or landscape scale than at the farm level.  

Traditional Owners are also leading innovation, particularly where land management, cultural knowledge and economic development intersect. Land and Country are the foundations for First Nations economic sovereignty, and there’s huge potential for Indigenousled approaches to land stewardship to deliver economic, cultural and ecological outcomes – if the right structures and capital are in place.  

What we often see, though, is fragmentation: great practice, limited coordination, and insufficient system level support to scale what’s working.  

What policy changes would help speed up the shift to fair and sustainable land use?  

One of the biggest gaps is in planning and coordination.  

Our land use planning systems are no longer fit for purpose. They weren’t designed to manage cumulative impacts, rapid transitions, or competing demands like renewable energy, conservation, food production, infrastructure and critical minerals – all at once.  

The EPBC Act reforms late last year signalled a stronger role for environmental protection and nature positive outcomes through development, which is important. A big question will be how these changes interact with land use, regional economies and cumulative development pressures.  

On their own, regulatory reforms won’t deliver good outcomes. Without integrated planning, clear pathways for development, and genuine engagement with communities, we risk creating more friction and uncertainty on the ground.  

Integrated regional planning could be transformative if done well – bringing these competing uses together in a coordinated way, identifying clear priorities, managing trade-offs deliberately, and setting upfront rules about where development should and shouldn’t occur. Done poorly, it risks entrenching conflict or shifting impacts onto communities without their input. The decisions made – from zoning and go/no go areas to approval pathways – will determine who benefits and who bears the cost of transition.  

More broadly, we need policy that recognises climate adaptation as a core economic function, not an afterthought which aligns investment, land use and community outcomes over the long term. Good policy will require this work to happen with communities, not to them – with early and meaningful involvement in shaping land use decisions.  

Finally, what excites you about this work?  

What excites me is that we’re at a moment where the questions are finally shifting.  

There’s growing recognition that climate risk is a socio-economic issue, that adaptation matters as much as transition, that technology and innovation on farm is just one part of the Ag sectors transition, and that finance and climate investment decisions are driving change across Australia.    

All of these and more are creating greater opportunity and imperative to explore and demonstrate what good economic transitions looks like – and how getting it right in regions and on the ground can support the land sector to shift in a way that helps Australia navigate uncertainty, restores nature, and builds an economy that genuinely serve communities – not just markets.  

Making sense of the ISP 

The ISP runs to hundreds of pages and helps guide energy decisions across the country, yet few people read it. We chatted with climate and energy specialist Franzika Curran to break down its importance. 

The Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan, usually shortened to the “ISP”, is not the kind of document most people would pick up for a casual read. It is a large technical report full of modelling, forecasts and system planning – and it quietly shapes decisions that play out across the country. 

To help unpack what it is and why it matters, we caught up with climate and energy specialist Franziska Curran, who helped contribute to our recent ISP submission and who has spent time sifting through the hundreds of pages of the draft plan. 

Franziska, for people who have never heard of it – what is the Integrated System Plan? 

At its core, the ISP is a very large piece of analysis that asks a fairly simple question: what is the lowest cost way for Australia to meet its future energy needs while also meeting government policy goals? 

To answer that question, the Australian Energy Market Operator draws on years of data, modelling and consultation. It considers how demand might change, what kinds of energy generation are likely to be built, how much transmission will be needed, and how all of that fits together as coal power stations retire and new energy sources come online. 

The result is a long-term plan that outlines what the electricity system could look like over the next two decades, and what infrastructure would likely be needed to support it. 

It does not directly approve or build projects. Instead, it acts more like a map. It shows the pathway that planners, investors and governments are expected to follow when making decisions about new infrastructure. 

If it is a technical planning document, how does it shape what happens in real places? 

A successful energy transition requires a significant amount of new infrastructure. That includes new generation such as wind and solar, as well as the transmission lines that move electricity across the system. 

AEMO has a responsibility to plan for the transmission network needed to support that system and the ISP helps fulfil that role. 

By setting out the direction the system is expected to take, the plan sends signals to investors, network companies and planners about where new infrastructure will likely be required. Those signals then flow through into more detailed planning and investment decisions. 

Over time, those decisions shape what gets built and where. 

What changes when a project is labelled “actionable”? 

Within the ISP, some transmission projects are labelled as “actionable”. 

That label matters as transmission projects cannot progress through the regulatory approvals process unless they are identified as actionable within the plan. In that sense, the ISP acts as a gatekeeper. 

Once a project receives that designation, the project proponent can move into the next stages of regulatory approval and planning. Future versions of the ISP then continue to check that those projects still align with what the electricity system needs. 

Why do regional areas tend to host so much of this infrastructure? 

Much of the renewable energy Australia needs will be built in regional areas, and this is for a number of reasons.  

One reason is the quality of renewable resources. Wind and solar generation tends to be strongest in specific geographic areas. Building projects in places with strong resources allows the system to generate more energy more efficiently. 

Another factor is scale. Large renewable energy projects require significant land and are often built in clusters that make the most of existing or planned transmission infrastructure. 

Concentrating development in areas with strong renewable resources and suitable space can make better use of the network that connects them. If large projects were spread thinly across the entire country, significantly more transmission infrastructure would be needed to connect them all. 

What tends to determine whether this development benefits a community? 

For me, one of the most important factors is supporting local leadership. 

Where communities are actively planning for the future they want and organising around that vision, they are often better placed to shape the opportunities that come with new infrastructure. 

That kind of leadership can help ensure projects align with local development goals and that benefits are captured locally. 

That is also why I think the work of The Next Economy is so important. Taking the time to understand what communities want – and do not want – in  their future, making sure people have access to clear information about what is coming and how decisions are made, and helping communities articulate their priorities. This is so important in ensuring development supports local aspirations rather than working against them. 

What is often misunderstood about the ISP? 

For many people, the ISP can feel quite distant or abstract. It is a large technical document, and it can be easy to dismiss it or criticise it without looking closely at what sits behind it. 

But the plan represents years of analysis, modelling and consultation. It attempts to map out a pathway for a very complex transition, bringing together data about energy demand, infrastructure, technology and policy. 

It may not always make for easy reading, but it is a significant piece of work that plays an important role in shaping how the electricity system evolves over time. 

The final AEMO ISP 2026 is expected to be released in June this year.  

Navigating the energy transition in 2026 

Saideh Kent leads The Next Economy’s energy work. In this Q&A she shares her thoughts on what shaped the transition in 2025, how communities are responding, and what lessons can be learned for the year ahead. 

What happened in 2025 that shaped the direction of the energy transition? 

This year brought some big shifts. The change of government in Queensland led to a different approach to energy policy, which has affected things like the pace of investment. In some cases, approvals were reversed or delayed. That created uncertainty for communities and project developers alike and reminded everyone how important consistent policy is for long term planning. 

One thing that stands out is how communities are becoming more involved in shaping outcomes. There is growing recognition of the importance of community benefit and social impact and we are seeing councils and local groups step in early. That is a positive sign, but many of them are still doing it without a clear process or enough support. 

There has also been some mixed messaging nationally around net zero, which made things harder for people trying to understand what is happening. The National Climate Risk Assessment helped bring clarity. It gave people something solid to refer to and set out clearly why action is needed. 

What is coming through in your conversations with regional communities? 

What we are seeing is that every place is different. The transition looks and feels different depending on where you are. Some regions are preparing for coal closures. Others are experiencing rapid growth in renewables. Many are dealing with both at once. And the resources available to manage change vary widely. 

But there is a clear sense of local leadership emerging. People are asking thoughtful questions about how this will affect their community and they are stepping into the conversation. There is strong appetite to engage, but also a need for more support to navigate the scale and speed of change. 

People want trustworthy information and space to plan properly. That is something we can support. When communities have the tools and time to get involved early, they can play a powerful role in shaping how things unfold. 

Meeting people where they’re at: speaking with Uralla locals about energy at their winter solstice.

How are regional leaders navigating the energy transition? 

What we are seeing across the board is commitment. Councils, community groups, Traditional Owners, local businesses and regional development agencies are working hard to bring people together and plan for what is coming. They are balancing short term, real-time pressures with planning for the long term and they are doing it with limited resources. 

They are also pushing for a greater say in decision making – continuing to call for place based approaches that engage people early and provide local people with an opportunity to inform actions that reflect local realities. People want to be partners in this transition, not just consulted after the fact. 

What we know through our work, is they when regional leaders are provided with the resources and support they need to lead and manage change well, the outcomes are better for everyone – this includes, but is not limited to, better coordination and stronger backing.  

Are there places where the transition is already going well? 

Yes, and those examples are really encouraging. In Mount Isa and Uralla Shire, for instance, councils have worked with communities and industry to plan early, developing roadmaps for the energy transition and broader economic change in their regions, that are grounded in the realities of each region.  

Those places are showing what is possible when you bring people together around a shared vision. They are looking at energy as part of a wider picture, including jobs, housing, infrastructure and services. 

Even in places facing significant pressure in real-time, such as Hay and the Hunter region in New South Wales or Gladstone in Queensland – there is creative thinking and action underway. Communities are not sitting back waiting for others to lead the way – they are building local partnerships, trialling new approaches and looking ahead on their own terms. 

At the Roma saleyards, connecting local history with the work of planning well for change in South West Queensland. Credit: Lyndsay Walsh. 

What is most needed now as we head into 2026? 

In Australia, the energy transition is well underway. It sometimes feels like we talk about is as though it is something that will happen in the future, not something that is happening right now.  We are well into implementation so need to shift from reacting to leading – building on the knowledge, resources and capabilities that have been developed across different regions over the last 10 years – to give regions the tools, information and support they need to plan, make informed decisions and take action.   

This also means being honest about the scale of the change required, the very real impacts and trade-offs and giving people space to shape it on their own terms. 

There is still a clear need for national frameworks that provide clarity and certainty as well as support good practice around engagement, benefit sharing and accountability. But they need to be flexible enough to work in different contexts. 

Most of all, we need to stay focused on what matters to people. This is not just about infrastructure or energy supply. It is about livelihoods, community wellbeing and the future of our regions. If we keep that at the centre and back the strengths that already exist in these places, we have every chance of making this transition work for everyone. 

What does ‘good’ look like for our regions in 2026? 

2025 brought with it a rush of policy announcements.  Here at The Next Economy, we’re reflecting on what we’ve learnt through our work with regions and how they can continue to manage change well in 2026 and beyond. 

Last year brought a flurry of action on climate and nature. We saw the release of Australia’s first National Climate Risk Assessment, long-awaited reforms to environmental laws, and new national and state strategies for energy, industry and regional investment – alongside a range of net zero sector plans. What matters now is how these policies are resourced and rolled out in practice, and whether they lead to the kind of meaningful change that regional communities have been calling for.

Regions are often on the frontline of change: whether that’s shifting industry policy, rising climate risk, or new infrastructure investment. They are also home to a wealth of knowledge, capacity and strategic value. From critical minerals to renewable energy zones, from agricultural production to local manufacturing, regional communities are central to many of the systems that shape our economy. 

But while the stakes are high, regional communities are not always given the time, attention or resources they need to engage with and influence these changes. That’s a risk not only for regional wellbeing, but for the success of plans and strategies to transition the Australian economy itself. 

The Next Economy facilitating stakeholder discussions in the Latrobe Valley, a region planning for significant change. These workshops were hosted by the Net Zero Economy Authority and Regional Development Victoria. Credit: Saideh Kent.

What outcomes can development deliver for regional communities when it’s done well? 

Our work is guided by a simple question: what does ‘good’ look like when it comes to managing change in regional communities? Supporting positive change is a shared responsibility. Communities, industry, business, investors and all levels of government each have a role to play. When done well, development builds on local strengths, reflects community priorities, delivers shared benefits, and helps both people and places thrive. 

Through conversations in diverse regions experiencing major economic change, a set of shared economic goals and ideas of what good development might look like has emerged. These include:  

  • A diverse and resilient economy: Long-term resilience depends on diversifying the local industry base, supporting local enterprise, and backing emerging opportunities for a future ready economy – from renewable energy development and the decarbonisation of agriculture, to the adoption of circular economy practices and community wealth building initiatives. 
  • First Nations economic self-determination: Supporting First Nations leadership and decision making, alongside the growth of Indigenous-owned businesses, strengthens economic sovereignty and delivers cultural, environmental and economic benefits.
  • Space for innovation and local knowledge: Transition is not linear. Regions need the time, resources and forums to learn, adapt, and lead – drawing on the experience of communities. 
Doing future visioning with young people in Uralla Shire highlights what they would like development to enable. Credit: Lyndsay Walsh.

How change is managed locally will shape the future of the regions 

None of this is possible without continued investment in the people and processes that make good development possible: local engagement, collaboration, coordination and community leadership. For us, this means spending time in regions, listening deeply, understanding local priorities and concerns, and supporting people to strengthen the skills and confidence they need to lead change over time.

Our experience is that when local leadership and relationships are genuinely valued, regional stakeholders are able to shape decisions and drive outcomes as true partners. This creates stronger opportunities to deliver shared value and achieve positive lasting outcomes.

The Next Economy in South West Queensland, engaging locally to develop a regional transition plan. Credit: Lyndsay Walsh.

Looking forward to the year ahead  

We have repeatedly seen that when communities are properly engaged and supported, they are more than ready to lead. In Mount Isa, local workshops helped bring together council, community and industry to chart a path through the closure of a major mine. In Uralla Shire, community dialogues have shaped the direction of the local renewable energy plan.  

Early, inclusive planning, iterative engagement, access to supportive resources, ongoing dialogue, transparency, and a clear focus on regional wellbeing all help shape stronger outcomes over time. These aren’t new ideas to those working in or with regional communities, but they’re worth repeating and keeping front of mind as change unfolds. We’ll be sharing more reflections on what this looks like in practice in the months ahead.

With so much change already underway, and with regions at different points along their own journeys, we return to our same central questions, and support our regional stakeholders to ask of each other: what does ‘good’ look like for our community, and what will it take for us to get there together?

You can read more about our in-region engagement on this topic in these webstories:  

Walking Together: Building Indigenous Business in Northern Australia

A new report by Esparq Ventures, co-authored with The Next Economy

Esparq Ventures is working with Indigenous entrepreneurs across northern Australia to grow successful businesses grounded in culture, community and self-determination. 

Walking Together shares early insights from this work. It highlights the challenges and opportunities facing Indigenous businesses, and how Esparq’s model is helping to grow a more connected, resilient and thriving Indigenous business ecosystem. 

Co-authored with The Next Economy, the report features stories from the ground, reflections from the team, and lessons to inform policy, funding and systems change. It also captures the spirit of Esparq’s approach – walking alongside communities and backing their vision for the future. 

Read the full report here

Find out more in our Q+A with the CEO of Esparq Ventures: Walking Together: A conversation with Darryl French-Majid

Nature, people and place: why Australia’s environmental laws are critical for regions 

Australia is rewriting its national environmental laws in response to widespread recognition that the current system is failing both nature and communities. In our submission to the reform process, we shared what we’ve heard from regional Australians around how to make these laws work for people, place and the environment.

Australia’s national environmental laws (commonly referred to as the EPBC Act) are under reform, a long-awaited response to widespread recognition that the existing system has been failing both nature and communities. 

Regional Australians and communities are on the frontline of economic and environmental change. Major infrastructure and industry projects are reshaping landscapes, economies and communities at a pace not seen for decades. These developments will often fall under the scope of these reforms, and how the new national environmental laws are designed and implemented will directly affect regional people, places and industries. Getting it right for the regions is key to getting it right for the country. 

Lake Moondarra in Mt Isa, an important water resource for locals. Credit: Chris Grose

At The Next Economy, we made a submission to the recent national review process.  Drawing on years of work alongside regional communities, we highlighted how clear and effective national environmental laws are essential not only for protecting biodiversity, but for ensuring regional communities can participate in, inform, and benefit from sustainable development.  

We made a number of suggestions in our submission – including the need to involve regions as active partners in decisions around land, water, biodiversity and cultural heritage. Done well, this approach can build trust and provide long-term certainty for communities, industry and government. 

Regions care deeply about the environment, and want a say in looking after it 

People in regional areas have a deep connection to their local environments. First Nations peoples continue to care for Country they have for thousands of years. Farmers, land managers, and local organisations are restoring landscapes, protecting biodiversity, and trialling regenerative practices. 

The clear message from across our engagement is: people want to contribute to environmental stewardship, not be excluded from decisions that shape the places they live and work in. In turn, national environmental laws should reflect and support this shared responsibility. 

We’re not asking for handouts. We want the government to help us build sustainable, thriving and diverse regional communities.

Hunter Valley, NSW, resident

The pace of development is accelerating, and planning needs to keep up 

From energy infrastructure to new mines and transport projects, many regional communities of Australia are experiencing a scale of development not seen before in their lifetimes. While most recognise the importance of reducing emissions and diversifying local economies, there is also legitimate concern the speed of development could damage the ecosystems they depend on. 

For example, regional councils and planning bodies are under pressure, often managing overlapping project proposals without the resources or tools to coordinate them well. Proposed reforms to introduce bioregional planning could help manage cumulative impacts most effectively if the plans are developed transparently, with strong national environmental standards and meaningful community input.  

National Environmental Standards set the rules and benchmarks that guide how environmental decisions are made. Embedding the intent of the Standards into the reform bill itself avoids the risk of processes being inconsistent, politically vulnerable, and failing to meet their intended goals. 

What we have left in terms of biodiversity is precious and irreplaceable.

Uralla, NSW, resident 
Community hopes and concerns around how renewables might impact nature and land use, Uralla NSW. Credit: Lyndsay Walsh

Community engagement is essential to building trust 

Across every region we work in, from coal regions to those with agriculture and primary production as their foundation, people are asking for the same thing: early, clear and respectful engagement. They want to be involved in shaping the future, not just responding to decisions after they’re made. 

Good engagement can’t be rushed and should be covered in its own Standard. It needs to be local, inclusive, and transparent – especially when dealing with complex planning issues. Structured dialogue, space for different views and clear feedback loops are essential to making engagement meaningful. 

Staying informed, sharing what we are witnessing on the ground, and engaging in new ideas helps us better support Mount Isa families and individuals in need.

Mount Isa, Qld, resident

What’s needed to make these reforms work for regional Australia 

Our submission to the reform process highlighted several opportunities to improve outcomes through the EPBC Act: 

1. Participatory regional planning 

Our experience working with regions highlights that effective regional planning considers cumulative environmental, social, economic and cultural impacts. Processes should be place- based, participatory and inclusive of diverse local voices including Traditional Owners and communities, who have local knowledge of land, water and climate pressures. 

2. Safeguards around fast-track pathways 

While faster assessments may be beneficial, they should not come at the cost of strong environmental standards or community input. Trust in planning systems relies on transparent, consistent rules that apply to all projects – including large and high- risk developments. 

3. Local benefits from offsets and restoration 

Offset mechanisms provide an opportunity to support environmental repair in the regions they affect. That means investing in locally governed land care and restoration efforts that create jobs, strengthen drought resilience, and go some way in compensating for damage and impacts to local ecosystems. 

4. Embedding First Nations leadership 

It is critical that environmental laws respect cultural values and rights, including Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Recognising First Nations knowledge, governance and land management is essential to ecological restoration and climate resilience. 

5. Adapting to climate risk 

Assessment frameworks must account for a changing climate, not just today’s conditions. Climate risk and future impacts on ecosystems, water and communities should be central to all planning and approvals. 

We will know we are achieving a good energy transition when the environment is protected and nurtured.

Latrobe Valley, Vic, resident

Looking ahead: implementation will be the true test 

Sunset on the Hay Plains, NSW. Credit: Jacqui Bell

Legislation matters, but what matters more is how it’s applied on the ground. For our national environmental laws to be effective, implementation should happen in ways that: 

  • Deliver real improvements for the environment 
  • Support strong, inclusive regional economies 
  • Build public trust through transparency and accountability 
  • Reflect the values and knowledge of local communities. 

Regional Australia is where these reforms will play out – in our forests, farms, waterways, landscapes and towns. The knowledge and leadership already present in these communities is a critical part of getting it right. 

Transition in South West Queensland: local views and questions

In November, The Next Economy travelled through South West Queensland, meeting councils, industry and local leaders to explore what transition means for the region. In this piece, our energy project officer Lyndsay Walsh reflects on the trip and how planning can reflect its realities, strengths and priorities.

We’re working alongside the South West Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils (SWQROC) – a collaboration of six councils – to identify practical, locally driven opportunities that can help guide investment, attract funding, and support the region to manage change on its own terms. 

We talk a lot about transition needing to be locally defined and nowhere is that clearer than here. South West Queensland is vast, roughly the size of Malaysia, but home to around 25,000 people. That scale and spread brings unique challenges, from maintaining road and energy networks across long distances, to adapting to an increasingly variable climate. 

Reanna, Lyndsay and Saideh visiting Roma saleyards, in Maranoa.

As many of the people we spoke to pointed out: a policy written in Canberra or Brisbane simply can’t be copied and pasted here. It needs to be grounded in these local conditions, build on regional strengths, and help communities shape change in ways that work for them. 

The drivers of change affecting us all 

Right across the country, people and businesses are feeling the effects of changes happening globally. Climate extremes, shifting markets, new supply chain requirements and changing investment decisions are all influencing how regions grow and plan. 

There’s growing attention on things like food security, clean energy, land stewardship and infrastructure. Net zero targets, geopolitical uncertainty, and the push for secure, sustainable supply chains are shaping decisions about what gets built, where industries invest, and who they partner with. 

These aren’t abstract issues for South West Queensland. They are already showing up in tangible ways – from how weather affects freight and crops, to pressure on local infrastructure, or in rising insurance costs and supply chain expectations. This all points to the need for forward planning, not only to manage risk, but to actively shape the region’s future based on its own strengths and aspirations. 

Listening to how people are making sense of change 

That’s what we set out to support. Driving further west, the bitumen fading to gravel and the soil deepening from orange to red, we sat down with people in council chambers, on farms, in paddocks and over café counters. 

We workshopped with councillors grappling with long-term planning in the face of immediate pressures. We stood in the dust at Roma Saleyards, witnessing the operations of the largest cattle market in the southern hemisphere. We toured cotton farms and vegetable farms, seeing how water, land, climate and policy meet in complex ways. And we spoke with business owners and community leaders in main street shops and offices, talking through the changes they are seeing on their streets, their challenges, and what they’re excited about for the future. 

Everywhere we went, people were already doing the work of thinking ahead, weighing up risks and testing new ideas. The questions they’re asking are practical, grounded, and focused on one thing: how to make sure their communities stay strong, whatever lies ahead. 

Reanna facilitating discussion at one of our council workshops, in Balonne.

Local perspectives on transition, and our insights on managing change well 

Throughout our conversations, we heard a wide range of views about transition: what it means, why it matters, and whether it’s even the right word. 

We often hear these kinds of questions and reflections in our work. They’re thoughtful, valid, and worth taking seriously, so we felt it might be helpful to share how we responded in this context.  

  • “Transition will happen whether we like it or not, and we need to capture the benefits that relate to our shire.” 

Transition is often not a choice – it’s happening. But how it plays out locally is up to the region. With a clear strategy, communities can position themselves to attract investment, support existing industries to adapt, and pursue new opportunities that reflect their priorities. Doing nothing risks those benefits being missed altogether and exposing yourself and your community to the risks of an unmanaged transition. 

  • “Why do we need to manage change? Why can’t we just let it happen ‘organically’?” 

Change is already underway and often driven by forces outside of local control. Letting it play out without planning usually means responding late, after the impacts have already landed. Planning isn’t about forcing change. It’s about getting ahead of it, understanding what’s coming, and shaping outcomes in a way that benefits the region. 

  • “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.” 

Things might be holding up for now, but many people are already feeling the cracks – whether it’s rising energy costs, workforce shortages or the loss of services. Waiting until it breaks makes it harder and more expensive to respond. Planning now protects what’s working and helps steer change in ways that make the region stronger. 

  • “Don’t kill the patient by solving the issue.” 

This is a valid concern – sometimes well-meaning solutions do more harm than good. That’s why local and meaningful participation is critical. This work is not about imposing answers from outside. It’s about working with people who know the place best, to find the right balance between protecting what matters and evolving where needed. A careful, practical approach can manage change without causing harm. 

  • “We don’t fully understand what our opportunities are. What are we even transitioning to?” 

There’s no single answer to this. The drivers of change – from climate and markets to policy shifts – are largely global and national. But how a region responds is deeply local, and depends on its industries, people, landscape and goals. The goal isn’t to meet someone else’s definition of transition, but planning for change in a way that’s practical, grounded and focused on managing it well. Or, in other words, transition to a future state where planning is informed by an understanding of the risks and opportunities being created by change, appropriate to local conditions, and deliberate about the outcomes the region wants to achieve.   

The Cunnamulla fella taking in the sunset, in Paroo.

Developing the South West Queensland Regional Transition Strategy 

This Strategy, due out in March 2026, is about helping the region plan for change on its own terms. It will set shared priorities, highlights local strengths and constraints, and identify practical actions to guide investment, shape policy and build collaboration across the region. 

We recognise the real limitations that scale and distance create out west, the scale of change communities are being asked to navigate, and the limits of doing so without the right support. This strategy will aim to ease that challenge by setting clear regional priorities, identifying practical opportunities, and helping councils and communities advocate for the resources, partnerships and investment they need to respond in ways that work for them.  

Watch this space for further updates on the project. 

Community insights for Uralla Shire’s energy future 

Between December 2024 and June 2025, The Next Economy and Uralla Shire Council engaged more than 150 residents through workshops, interviews and surveys. People shared what matters most to them, and what ‘good development’ should look like for their Shire in NSW’s New England region, in light of the large-scale renewable energy development planned. 

This has culminated in an Insights Paper: a summary of what we heard and what it means for Uralla’s energy future. 

What we heard 

Residents’ perspectives grouped under six overarching themes, ranging from nature and land use to healthcare. Across these, the following came through clearly: 

  • There is support for a transition that is transparent, coordinated and grounded in local values. 
  • People need early, honest communication and real opportunities to participate in decisions. 
  • The renewables opportunity should be used as an opportunity for investment in lasting infrastructure and services that keep pace with growth. 
  • It is important to people that farmland, biodiversity and the rural character of the Shire be protected. 
  • Affordable housing and inclusive growth should be a priority, especially to maintain community cohesion as workers and new residents arrive. 
  • Stable jobs and training pathways linked to these developments were seen by many as a way to keep and attract young people in the area. 
  • A shared desire to preserve community cohesion and heritage so that change enhances, more than erodes, what makes Uralla special. 
     
Inputs gathered from just one of TNE's Uralla community workshops.

Read more about what came across during community engagement via Council’s website: A shire-wide conversation: community insights for Uralla Shire’s energy future.

Read previous stories and updates:  

What happens next?

These insights inform Uralla Shire Council’s Renewable Energy Strategic Plan, due out at the end of 2025. The plan sets out strategies and actions to address challenges and realise opportunities, so that benefits are shared fairly and value endures. 

What is the Striking a New Deal (SaND) project? 

SaND supports regional communities as they navigate renewable energy development in their area. Together with Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, RE-Alliance and Projects JSA, The Next Economy supports a peer-to-peer network of regional leaders sharing insights with government and industry. Read more about the partnership: Driving better community outcomes from renewable projects

SaND Uralla Community Insights Report October 2025Download

The Economy We Could Have: new paper out now

Australia’s economy looks strong on the surface, but behind the averages lie deep divides in housing, work, health and opportunity. Our new paper, The Economy We Could Have, asks what our economy is really designed to do, who it is working for, and how it can support people’s wellbeing.

Australia is at a pivotal moment. While headline statistics suggest strong performance, looking under the bonnet of these numbers reveals widening divides in housing, health, income, and opportunity. Rising inequality and climate disruption demand a closer look at our economic system: what is it designed to do – and who benefits?

The Economy We Could Have explores how Australia’s economic story has shifted over the decades, the divides created along the way, and the alternatives already being built. It sets out practical steps for governments, enterprises and communities to move beyond isolated “Lego wins” and instead embed a wellbeing economy – one that puts dignity, fairness, connection and ecological care at its centre.  

As lead author, Katherine Trebeck, puts it: 

Transformational change is possible. Australia has done it before – from Medicare to minimum wages – and we can do it again.  

The challenge

The paper traces Australia’s shift from predistribution – fair wages and public investment – to a model marked by precariousness, asset accumulation, and financial advantage for a few. It also highlights how system-compliant fixes and short-term crisis responses can stall deeper progress.

One in seven Australians live in poverty. Many face insecure work, unaffordable homes and stretched services that respond to crisis rather than prevent it. These outcomes are not inevitable. They are the result of decisions – shaped by values and power – that have concentrated advantage for some and shifted risks onto others. 

The alternatives

The good news that is change is possible. The economy is a human-made system, and it can be redesigned. Across the country, communities are already showing what that momentum for change is growing. Australians are increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo and open to rethinking economic priorities. 

One promising framework is the wellbeing economy, which according to the Wellbeing Economy Alliance can deliver the following needs: 

Nature, connection, dignity, fairness, participation

There are plenty of examples of these goals already being delivered in practice:

Earthworker Cooperative (Latrobe Valley, VIC)Australia’s first worker-owned factory, producing solar hot water systems to serve its worker-owners. 
Food Connect Shed (Brisbane, QLD): A cooperative food enterprise owned by 500+ ‘careholders’, rooted in equity and regeneration. 
Marlinja Power Project (NT): Community-installed solar panels and battery storage enabling near energy self-sufficiency – an example of climate resilience. 

Governments are beginning to respond. The Federal Government’s Measuring What Matters statement is expanding how national success is defined, incorporating indicators for health, sustainability, and social cohesion. In Victoria, the Early Intervention Investment Framework is embedding preventative health and social approaches into budget decisions, valuing long-term wellbeing over short-term fixes.

Australia’s future depends on whether we can move beyond piecemeal reforms to embrace systemic change. By learning from community-led initiatives and adopting frameworks like the wellbeing economy, we can build a more inclusive, resilient, and caring society – one that works for everyone. 

Read the full report here:

DOWNLOAD REPORT

Making renewables work for communities: the critical role of Councils

Regional Councils play a critical role in ensuring renewable energy development is fair, well managed and delivers lasting local value. Drawing on our work with regions, The Next Economy is mapping how Councils contribute at each stage of the development pathway to secure long-term community benefits.

Lisa Lumsden, Senior Project Officer facilitating group discussion with local government leaders at the Regional Leaders Summit, Newcastle August 2025.

We know our place really well and we put our communities at the forefront of our decisions

Council participant at the inaugural Regional Leaders Summit, August 2025, Newcastle

Councils across Australia are being pragmatic and strategic about renewable energy development in their region – focussing on what they can do to make the most of the situation, to minimise impacts and leverage the potential for the long-term local outcomes they want. 

So, what is involved in achieving that?   

In short – A lot. 

Drawing on work in regions such as Uralla and Hay as well as recent workshops at the Regional Leaders Summit and Gippsland New Energy Conference, The Next Economy has developed insights into the activities Councils are implementing to improve the outcomes of renewable energy development and create shared strategic value across Australia.

In mapping these over the last few months the following two groups of Council activities have emerged: 

1. Development Pathway Activities: These capture the types of actions Councils can take at different stages of the renewable energy project development pathway to:  

  • ensure community participation and development that is shaped by local knowledge and priorities; 
  • manage unwanted impacts on the community, local infrastructure, environment and local economy, and; 
  • facilitate development in a way that creates lasting value. 

The development pathway mapping helps to answer questions such as: 

  • What community engagement activities, plans and documents help Councils demonstrate they are representing their region, and at what stage of the renewable energy development pathway should that work happen? 
  • What service and infrastructure upgrades – from roads and housing to water and waste – need to be prioritised to minimise local disruptions, development delays, and to leverage improved long term infrastructure outcomes for the community? 

Timing is a critical factor for these activities, with many needing to be addressed, at or before, different points along the renewable energy development pathway (spanning pre-feasibility, through to construction, operation and end of life).  

2. Foundational Council Activities – These are the essential, ongoing work that underpins the Development Pathway Activities and help to form part of the enabling environment for strong regional partnerships through development. The foundations include:  

  • Capacity and capability building 
  • Leadership, coordination and collaboration 
  • Advocacy and inclusion 
  • Regular, clear and honest communication and engagement with the community 

Lisa Lumsden, Senior Project Officer, notes:

Councils can and are contributing to local outcomes from renewable energy development…these insights highlight how critical it is to resource Councils and regional leaders appropriately. 

The Next Economy is continuing to bring these insights together, working with regional leaders and Councils to get feedback and explore how best to share them – both to highlight the solutions being pioneered locally and to inspire and support other regions across Australia grappling with similar changes and opportunities.   

To find out more, follow The Next Economy on LinkedIn for updates and resources as they become available.

Building Hay’s future together: early insights from the economic transition roadmap

The Next Economy and Hay Shire Council have been working side by side with the local community to better understand how Hay’s economy works today and what it will take to secure a stronger future. Over the past year, more than 240 residents, businesses and stakeholders have shared their perspectives through workshops, interviews and conversations. 

The result is the newly published Early Insights Paper, which explores Hay’s unique economy, the challenges it faces, and the opportunities already emerging. 

A deeply connected local economy

What makes Hay distinctive is not just its agricultural base or strategic location on trade and tourism routes, but the way economic and social life is deeply interconnected. From local producers sharing transport runs, to volunteers stepping in where services are scarce, Hay’s resilience depends on people and relationships as much as dollars and cents. 

Turning pressure into opportunity

The final Roadmap will highlight clear areas where focused action can turn pressure into opportunity. Housing, for example, has emerged as one of the most urgent challenges. Council and partners are already exploring innovative approaches such as transitioning worker accommodation into permanent housing – a practical step that can help meet short-term needs while leaving a lasting benefit for the region. 

Grounded in local identity

Alison McLean, Executive Manager for Economic Development and Tourism at Hay Shire Council, puts it simply:  

Without this groundwork, there’s a risk of defaulting to what everyone else does. We are not Wagga, we are not Griffith – we have our very own unique economy, threats and opportunities.

From insights to action 

This paper is an important milestone, but it is also part of a broader process of engagement and real-time action being taken to manage change across the region. Over the coming months, Council and The Next Economy will continue to work with the community to refine priorities, test solutions and activate partnerships across housing, primary production innovation, workforce development and industry diversification. 

You can read the paper here:

READ THE PAPER

Read the local media release for an expanded summary here:

READ THE MEDIA RELEASE