I’m often asked whether councils should write to Federal Ministers to push a particular project or issue. The answer obviously differs according to the circumstances. But there are common lessons and I’m happy to pass them on.
The starting point is to recognise that there are a myriad of ways of trying to engage with federal ministers, such as:
- Community Cabinet meetings – a great mechanism if you can swing such an event.
- Random meeting to coincide with other business while you’re in Canberra – not recommended unless there’s some substance to the meeting.
- Submission to a Federal enquiry – yes, provided it’s followed up with a meeting.
- A grumpy email letting off steam – not recommended.
- Quick chat to a Minister after he/she has spoken at a gathering – okay for starters.
However most attempts to engage with Federal Ministers fall short because councils are not clear about their desired outcomes, don’t have a strategy, and therefore don’t have a strong pitch.
And if you haven’t a strong pitch, then your request gets swept aside in the maelstrom of paper and emails flying around Canberra.
Reflect for a moment – the Prime Minister receives 148,000 items of correspondence annually, and every approach gets a response (except for the loonies). Given the huge workload involved, the pedestrian letters and submissions receive a reply from a Senior Executive Service (SES) officer within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet or the line department to which the correspondence was referred.
The Department of Innovation is a bit different. It advised me that while its Minister receives a more modest 3,500 letters per year, around 65 per cent (2,275) require a considered reply. Of this, Minister Carr replies to approximately 45 per cent (1,000).
All up, I’d say the 45 Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries pump out close to 300,000 replies annually. What is not generally understood is that each of these replies undergoes three or so drafts in the Department, with senior officers often ruminating over the best form of wording to ensure there is no blow back from the Opposition.
To my mind, this is a huge waste of resources – officials would be better employed developing solutions to problems, rather than mindless wordsmithing.
Anyway, getting back to the point, to get traction with a Minister it’s best to pitch your letter or submission around solving a problem in the context of Federal policies or programs.
This provides a context for departmental officials and Ministerial minders (who perform quite different roles) to sit up and take notice.
Outlined following are some problem areas, and some examples of how councils could make a pitch for some mutually beneficial solutions.
Export ban on live cattle
The immediate problem is that Agriculture Minister Ludwig overreacted with his ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia – simply put, he misjudged the economic and social dislocation to northern Australian communities.
However the long term problem is that the shipment of live animals is inherently cruel and uneconomic when compared with the best practice solution, the shipment of chilled beef.
You are probably thinking about the standard line that Indonesia doesn’t have sufficient refrigerated capacity to go this route. This is undoubtedly true at present, but what if an alliance of councils in affected regions proposed to Prime Minister Gillard and Minister Ludwig the offer of land and locational incentives for a chain of export abattoirs? This could be the game breaker, with the other elements being:
• financing of refrigerated capacity in Indonesian centres, using World Bank finance, multilateral aid or our own aid program.
• Australian and Indonesian Government subsidies for the respective nodes (the Feds’ $30 million hardship package might have been saved
• Mandatory joint ventures between Australian and Indonesian companies along the whole supply chain to provide the glue
• Long term contracts and export insurance via the Australian Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) to reduce the risks.
Forestry restructuring
The problem here is the need to create jobs in Tasmania in the face of the Feds’ forestry restructuring program. Another $120 million is to be rolled out, following the hundreds of millions of Federal assistance poured into Tasmania over the last four decades.
What if a council, or alliance of councils, suggested to PM Gillard and Regional Development Minister Crean that the three levels of government form an alliance with industry associations to chase new industries and new international players? Sounds revolutionary, but it hasn’t stopped New Zealand (Tasmania’s mirror economy) doing exactly this!
Food labelling
The problem here is that our food manufacturers are being swamped with cheap foreign product, and the current labelling arrangements provide no idea to concerned consumers of the true local suppliers. Former Health Minister Blewett’s recent review gets nowhere near a solution. And I’m willing to bet that a food poisoning scare involving foreign product will blow the issue sky high.
Given that food value adding is critically important to many regions, I believe it most appropriate for councils in the Goulburn Valley, Lockyer Valley, Adelaide Hills, Riverina, Sunraysia. Swan Valley, Tasmania, central and northern Queensland to be pitching to PM Gillard, Health Minister Roxon and Industry Minister Carr for decent food labelling combined with real anti dumping action.
I could provide a dozen further examples. My point is that councils should be bold and persistent by pitching sensible solutions to national problems. This can start a productive relationship with Federal officials and their political masters.
As Local Government moves to Constitutional recognition, you owe it to your constituents to step up to the plate. Ring us for a chat.
Federal grants update
Tourism (TQUAL) grants – the successful applicants in the first round have just been announced – the program runs for four years, and $40 million will be distributed. Next round opens in February 2012.
RDA Fund – Round one winners to be announced soon. Second round could conceivably open next month and close before Christmas.
‘Clean Energy Future’ program – part of the carbon tax policy arrangements, and commences in July next year. Councils in regions with significant coal or manufacturing activity should track this closely. Measures include:
- Steel Transformation Plan – $300 million for innovation in steel manufacturing
- Coal Sector Jobs Package – $1.26 billion over six years to assist with emissions from gassy mines
- Clean Technology Program – $1.2 billion to support low emissions manufacturing
- Clean Energy Finance Corporation – to invest $10 billion in renewables and low emissions technologies.
Commercialisation Australia – a very good and quite accessible program for companies trying to commercialise their ideas. We are currently preparing submissions to this end.
Stormwater grants – the final round has opened. Around $90 million is available, with a closing date of 7 December.
Healthy Communities Initiative -$566,000 per grant is available for up to 47 Local Governments – closing date is 19 August (so you may have missed it).
*Rod Brown is a Canberra-based consultant specialising in industry/regional development, investment attraction, clusters and accessing Federal grants. He also runs the Cockatoo Network. He can be contacted at apdcockatoo@iprimus.com.au or phone (02) 6231 7261.
Go to the blog at www.investmentinnovation.wordpress.com for 550+ articles on issues relevant to Local Government.
