While the Labor Party’s implosion was not unexpected, Simon Crean’s role as the sacrificial lamb wasn’t part of the scipt.
He was a damned good minister — resolute in his support for regions, bottom-up processes, creative solutions and best practice projects. This extended to his genuine passion for the arts community and his quiet and resolute championing of constitutional recognition of local government.
So it’s timely to reflect on the regional development settings. We have a Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) that is coming to an end. Its initial promise was $1 billion, but this was whittled back by tranches of it going to flood relief, etc. The 55 RDA committees have beavered away with submissions and the results were mixed.
Warren Entsch, Liberal Member for Leichhardt, sees it as follows: “With all the hype and promises of the RDA, not a cent has been spent in Far North Queensland since its inception. This government can’t go on raising people’s hopes and expectations, but achieving nothing.”
Mr Entsch is right to some extent, because the success rate of submissions over the four rounds has probably been 15—20 percent. But he goes on to argue that the RDA should be shut down and instead focus on programs that have been proven to be successful, such as the Regional Solutions program. Please NO! This would be the worst possible outcome, because it would jettison a potentially great means of assisting regions.
To explain, many regions feel disconnected from federal processes, despite community cabinet meetings, the RDA Fund and strong levels of transport and infrastructure expenditure. The problem seems to be that the locals still see the federally funded projects as part of a political game, rather than part of a structured, long-term process.
The solution surely lies in bedding down the RDA philosophy, which is that a focus on competitive advantage, strategic partnerships, innovative thinking and persistence will deliver outcomes. So, rather than disbanding the RDA and starting yet again, please let’s think about some strengthening and tweaking:
- continue with the RDAF — Australia is a big country; offset savings are possible by collapsing some of the smaller, marginal programs
- encourage each of the 55 RDA committees to focus on three or so Lighthouse Projects, with the expectation that the feds will either fund or help progress them via Action Teams. See below
- annual budget of say $1 million for each RDA committee so that they can commission expert studies, organise trade missions, develop regional brands etc. – this is called devolution
- apply more pressure on the states to inject funds into the process
- recognise that the drivers of rural and urban regions are quite different — separate programs are justified
- place 20 or so federal coordinators in-region to crank things up: i.e. each is responsible for two to three regions.
Lighthouse Projects
As flagged above, the RDA shouldn’t only be about money. Many projects don’t proceed because local stakeholders don’t know how to take them forward, or who to talk to, or they lack confidence and commitment. This is classic coordination failure. It is what Simon Crean was all about addressing, and the Federal Government can be part of that process if its officials are unshackled. Here are two examples:
Example 1 – Remote area housing
I was recently at a Planning Institute Australia symposium where speakers from the Pilbara and the Mackay region separately flagged the problem of astronomical housing rentals due to the lack of housing supply.
Seriously, this has been going on for a decade in the Pilbara. Likewise the high cost of Aboriginal housing (average $450k per dwelling) arguably stems from broadly similar issues.
But the quality and cost of transportable homes are now very attractive, so presumably there is coordination failure — i.e. the stakeholders just can’t organise it. If the regions are serious, and the feds are serious about whole-of-government, then Minister Mark Butler (now in charge of housing) could possibly put one of his bright officers onto an Action Team with reps from, say, the Western Australia and Queensland housing departments, the HIA, some builders, the relevant RDA committee and councils and address the problem. The other, more arduous, route is via a COAG committee.
Example 2 – Regional infrastructure
At the same PIA conference, the issue of regional infrastructure funding was raised, specifically the problem of Infrastructure Australia not being able to fund small regional projects, even if a group of councils was to bundle up some synergistic projects with sizeable value.
The concept of bundling projects is not new. Indeed it is vital at a regional level. However, if Infrastructure Australia is not able to get involved because of its restricted mandate, could an Action Team involving the Federal Department of Infrastructure, its state equivalents and the institutional investors address the problem? The problem surely isn’t going to disappear.
Rod
Brown is a Canberra-based consultant and lobbyist specialising in
industry/regional development, investment attraction and clusters, and
accessing federal grants. He also runs the Cockatoo Network.
Phone: (02) 6231 7261 or 0412 922 559
Email: apdcockatoo@iprimus.com.au
Blog: www.investmentinnovation.wordpress.com (750 articles)
