CHAPTER 6
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
The feeling in rural communities is that the Government has deserted
them. Essential services have been withdrawn (or converted to a user-pays
system) without recognition of the particular impacts on rural towns
and people. Cuts have had a demoralising effect on rural communities
and rural people. The general feeling… is that the Government should
`get back to basics' and start to `put people before profit'. [1]
6.1 The Committee's visits to centres in both rural and metropolitan
regions brought it face to face with expectations that governments have
a responsibility to address the problems of regions in economic decline.
While the Committee understands the sentiments expressed by people from
regional areas affected by economic restructuring and the rationalisation
of public sector services, it is equally aware of the limitations of government
intervention in overcoming the difficulties faced in these areas. Some
economic and social changes affecting regional areas are beyond the control
of governments, and it is no longer possible to imagine governments of
any political persuasion sanctioning artificial and ultimately futile
measures to create jobs in industries which cannot operate viably in a
market economy.
6.2 In the matter of realistic expectations of economic policy, however,
there is always `the other hand'. The Committee takes the view that regional
economic policy is not a matter of deciding whether or not to institute
a Five Year Plan, or of putting the issue to one side in the hope that
the political consequences of allowing the regions to `sort themselves
out' will not be too severe. Regional policy involves more than `getting
the fundamentals right'. It involves implementing effective and acceptable
measures for amelioration of the effects of closures and retreats. It
involves reassuring regional populations that coordinated government strategies
will be implemented and may be relied upon for an extended period of time.
6.3 The Society of St Vincent De Paul might be expected to have a perspective
on Australia's regional problems influenced by its essential work among
victims of change and loss. Yet the Productivity Commission has stated
similar views:
Governments want to `do something' in respect of regional development,
they have a range of regional policies in place, though they are often
applied in an ad hoc manner and with limited coordination between
the spheres of government. This has resulted in a somewhat spasmodic
approach by government to regional development and created a perception
in country Australia that there is a lack of commitment by governments
to regional developments. [2]
Government as indirect employer
6.4 The role and responsibility of governments to provide a large measure
in employment security remains a vexed problem. All governments and parties
accept this responsibility, notwithstanding the limitations on their ability
to achieve acceptably low levels of unemployment. In practice, governments
are unlikely to ever again put themselves in the role of direct employment
for the purposes of reducing the numbers of unemployed. Evidence given
to the Committee on such measures as `Work for the Dole' has been equivocal.
As a measure for `work socialisation' it has its supporters, but its impact
in the real world of work in regional areas was questioned by some witnesses.
A strong submission addressing the role of the government as `indirect
employer', presented by the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission,
set out the responsibilities of governments in some detail, in particular
their role in managing employment services, training, and in ensuring
adequate measures to compensate for inequalities in the distribution of
wealth and the maintenance of income support and other forms of social
welfare. [3]
6.5 The present economic environment as experienced by unskilled, low-paid
and unemployed workers in disadvantaged regions of Australia highlights
the importance of the indirect employer preserving adequate market incomes
and a robust system of income support and social wage provisions. The
indirect employer's role of ensuring security in work and access to adequate
rates of market income remains the primary means of preventing poverty
and ensuring the dignity, cohesion and development of individuals, families
and communities. [4]
6.6 More significantly, the submission points to the responsibility of
governments to develop long-term strategic plans for economic development
and to address the problems experienced by the states in dealing with
their service obligations.
Doubtful past legacies in regional development
6.7 The first attempt at a federally coordinated approach to regional
development was made at the Premiers' Conference in 1944 and was intended
as an element of the post-war reconstruction effort. [5]
No firm policies were ever arrived at as friction developed between the
states and the Commonwealth over their respective roles. It is worth noting
that submissions and testimony to the Committee did not indicate that
any distinction was made in local communities between Commonwealth and
state agencies. The withdrawal or down grading of services is evident
in both spheres of government, and it is likely that the niceties of constitutional
argument would be regarded with impatience in the regions.
6.8 Commonwealth government interest in regional economic policy in the
past half century has been sporadic. This may be attributed in large measure
to constitutional arrangements which give direct responsibility for regional
matters to the states. Historically, Labor governments in power at the
Commonwealth level have tended to favour more interventionist policies,
reflecting a national or centralist approach to economic development.
The Albury-Wodonga growth centre initiative in 1973 is an example of this
approach, as is the Better Cities Program implemented nearly twenty years
later.
6.9 The Albury-Wodonga experiment was described in a submission to the
Committee as having a chequered history, giving `as clear a picture of
the spectacular, often irrational and even unpredictable changes wrought
by ideology and/or politics'. [6] The ambitious
program was scaled back within two years of its inception, and now the
Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation (AWDC) has been reduced to the
status of land developer and a subsidiary of Investment Albury Wodonga.
Interestingly, the submission also points out that in 1975 the AWDC was
staffed by 105 public servants but by 1986 Albury-Wodonga had one of the
lowest proportions of public (civilian) employment of any large regional
centre in Australia. [7]
6.10 The first steps by the Hawke government into regional development
policy were relatively modest. A number of initiatives commenced in the
early 1990s. In addition to the Better Cities Program the government established
a Regional Development Taskforce, commissioned an influential report on
business investment in the non-metropolitan regions, established the Regional
Development Program (RDP) and channelled funds to regional areas through
the Working Nation program. Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) were also
set up in 1994 through Working Nation, under the umbrella of the then
Department of Employment, Education, and Training (DEET) to provide communication
between Canberra and the regions. Under the current government the approach
to regional development was restructured. As outlined in Chapter 2, the
RDP was discontinued and with it funding for the Regional Economic Development
Organisations (REDOs). In its place the Government implemented the Regional
Assistance Program and expanded the role of the ACCs to cover those functions
previously undertaken by REDOs.
6.11 The expert reports and policy experiences of the early 1990s cut
new ground in that they recognised the need to take up the challenges
of planning and investment at local levels. This was in contrast to the
'top down' approach of supporting regional development through the guiding
hand of the Commonwealth.
Community expectations of government
6.12 There was overwhelming evidence given to the Committee through submissions
and at public hearings that the most threatening and disheartening developments
faced in regional areas, particularly in the smaller towns, was the withdrawal
of government services of all kinds. Business decisions were one thing;
government decisions to withdraw services was seen to indicate a lack
of commitment to rural communities and sent unmistakable signals to the
business sector that further investment in regional enterprises would
not receive the support of governments.
6.13 DEETYA's submission to the inquiry, however, argued that:
The level of Government funding and services is unlikely…to be
an important constraining factor on private sector investment and activity
in many parts of non-metropolitan Australia. [8]
6.14 DEETYA bases this opinion on research undertaken by McKinsey and
Company in which it was found that only 3 per cent of businesses regarded
poor infrastructure as a constraint on their investment, and the provision
of other government services was not raised as a significant constraint
on business. It could be argued that this provides only a partial picture
as it ignores the indirect impact that the withdrawal of government services
has on the population dynamics of a community. While it may be the case
that the provision of government services in and of itself may not be
an important determinant in the investment and locational decisions of
business, the Committee heard on numerous occasions that population critical
mass was a key determinant of business investment. When government services
are withdrawn from a community this has a direct impact on the population
level and aggregate income of the area. In turn this may lead, through
a negative multiplier effect, to some businesses in the area becoming
unviable, potentially leading to a further reduction in population and
income. This situation is certainly not conducive to new business investment,
not because public services were withdrawn but because investment is simply
not profitable.
6.15 This view is supported in the submission from the South Metropolitan
Perth Regional Development Organisation:
…non-metropolitan regions are likely to have more close economies
and to be affected more by increases and decreases in government service
levels and funding. There is evidence that such changes can have significant
impacts upon non-metropolitan regional economies, by triggering cumulative
causation processes which can see a region gain or lose the critical
mass needed to sustain economic growth. [9]
6.16 While it can be argued that the centralisation of government services
in regional centres has some legitimacy, the Committee does not believe
that governments in general have provided adequate transitional mechanisms
to allow smaller regional areas to adjust.
6.17 Generally speaking, the benefits of economic rationalism have been
bestowed unevenly across Australian society. Inevitably they have been
of most benefit to the better educated workforce in service industries
linked to new technology and with connections to international markets.
Deregulation of financial services and telecommunications by successive
governments since 1983, and the demise, through withdrawal of tariff protection,
of industries which once offered mass employment to the unskilled, have
accelerated this process.
6.18 The policy changes required to achieve micro-economic reform - a
process which continues - may well have been necessary to ensure the economic
health of the nation overall, but it comes at some cost to regions which
see themselves as having become the sacrificial lambs on the altar of
economic rationalism. Any claim of long-term advantage is small consolation
to those who might well expect governments to frame deregulatory processes
within a broad strategy which addresses the social consequences of economic
change.
6.19 The conventional response has been: let the market determine. For
those who miss out there is a safety net of social welfare, which is,
according to submissions and evidence, either insufficient for those in
genuine need or over-generous to those who might otherwise choose to work.
6.20 The Committee received a strong impression from submissions and
witnesses that the role of government should extend beyond this. There
was particular criticism that `government' was uncoordinated in its approach
to regional matters; that policy vacuums existed because the buck could
so easily be passed between three spheres of government. An impression
was gained that of the three spheres of government, only local government
had a determined interest – for obvious reasons – in regional
development and employment, and that state and Commonwealth governments
were equally responsible for cutbacks in the provision of services to
regional areas as can be seen in the chart below.
Source: Submission No. 166, Department of Employment, Education, Training
and Youth Affairs, vol. 7, p. 113
6.21 The Committee does not deny that such intervention presents difficulties.
Evidence given to the Committee indicates a strong awareness of the futility
of throwing taxpayers dollars at `make-work' projects in regions of high
unemployment. [10] There is awareness of the
need to provide prospective industries with a well-trained workforce.
The Committee is certainly aware that investments are a matter for commercial
judgements not necessarily influenced by local, state or Commonwealth
incentives. The Committee does not, however, accept the view that market
forces bear equally on the judgements that must be exercised by business
on the one hand and by governments on the other. Governments make decisions
on the basis of achieving social and economic goals for the common good.
Governments must therefore ensure the conditions for maintaining the highest
possible levels of social equity in the context of economic deregulation.
The pursuit of increased efficiency and increased national wealth, essential
to growth and social harmony, is not incompatible with planning and regulation
of development to ensure that employment opportunities continue for those
living in both metropolitan and country regions.
Historical tendencies toward centralism and uniformity
6.22 The political culture of Australia has been marked by a strong reliance
upon government regulation and upon the expectation of a high level of
government services. This has been part of the historical experience since
the settlement of 1788, with impact on Australia's economic development.
The apparatus of centralised decision making and administration began
with colonial governments. Local government, on the North American pattern,
had no chance to develop because of the sparse populations and the legacy
of military government.
6.23 The centralising tendencies in Australian government over the past
sixty years have been a continuation of this tradition. It is hard to
believe that the delegates to the constitutional conventions just before
federation would have anticipated such an evolution. This is most obviously
seen in the dominance of the Commonwealth through its taxation monopoly,
through the centralist policy initiating processes of major political
parties, and in the majority of decisions of the High Court which have
strengthened the legislative powers of the Commonwealth Parliament at
the expense of the state parliaments. Thus, despite regional policy being
regarded as the responsibility of the states under the provisions of the
constitution, the Committee was confronted with a strong perception in
regional areas that the Commonwealth should maintain an overarching role
in coordinating and facilitating regional development policy.
6.24 The Australian economy has been described as a series of highly
differentiated regional economies and neighbourhood labour markets, thus
challenging assumptions of a national uniform approach to dealing with
regional problems. An interesting point made to the Committee referred
to the limitations posed by our determination to apply national solutions
in an inappropriate way:
One thing that Australia does not do – and I believe the United
States does and does it well…- is that when we change policy we
believe it has to be universal: it has to happen everywhere in the country
all at the one time…We are not very prepared to engage in little
social experiments where we try a policy in a particular area and treat
it as an experiment to see how it goes. In the United States…there
are lots of little examples where government will concentrate a policy
change in an area to see how it goes…perhaps find out which policies
work well… and then generalise it to the wider community. We do
not do that. [11]
6.25 When asked why not, the witness replied that the reason was political
and instanced the DEETYA – ABS evaluation of the Working Nation program:
Their argument all the time was that we cannot do something in a particular
region because if it goes bad the political fallout is enormous, and
if it really works well we are depriving all of these other people and
only concentrating the benefit in this one little area…I do not
think the idea of quarantining a region for a policy experiment is a
problem ethically or politically. [12]
6.26 This theme emerges also in the submission from the former Department
of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs which noted the political
difficulties of implementing regional policy at the Commonwealth level.
…central government policies are often hampered by problems of
execution. Political and community pressure may cause regional programmes
to be spread too widely, contrary to the key principle of concentrating
on only a limited number of weak regions – whether these be the
most severely disadvantaged or those with some potential to generate
self sustaining growth. Dispersing assistance too widely means that
either resources are wasted on stronger regions or are diluted too much
to achieve significant change where it is most needed. Political pressures
can also lead to the frequent and perhaps unnecessary revision of regional
policies, thereby undermining their effectiveness. [13]
6.27 It has been argued that, in Canada, the political pressures on governments
to get results in the provinces has resulted in frequent changes to the
federal approach to regional development and not always for the better.
In the 1960s and 1970s, regional policy was conducted under the auspices
the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (DREE). The primary instrument
used to effect regional development policy were agreements signed between
the federal government and individual provincial governments. The idea
underlying the agreements was to promote joint federal-provincial economic
development planning around the comparative advantages in those provinces.
Costs were shared between the federal and provincial governments although
the relative contributions varied depending on the fiscal capacity of
the province in question and in the case of the poorest provinces the
federal contribution was as high as 90 per cent. This approach was characterised
by a high level of cooperation between ministers and bureaucrats at two
levels of government.
6.28 Following criticism of the department, a decision was made in 1982
to abolish DREE. It was replaced with the Department of Regional Industrial
Expansion (DRIE) which aimed to link regional development with the economic
objectives of industry, trade and commerce. It has been argued that this
reorganisation led to a reduction in federal commitment to regional development
given the dual mandates of the department. [14]
In addition, all other government departments also had to consider regional
development issues, meaning that provincial governments now had to deal
with a range of federal departments in negotiating agreements rather than
just one, undermining the efficiency of federal-provincial cooperation
that was attained under DREE. It also appears that under DRIE there was
no longer a focus of regional policy on the most depressed areas, that
is, the Atlantic Provinces.
6.29 Under public and political criticism that the government had abandoned
the regions the Canadian government established the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency in the late 1980s to promote regional development in the four Atlantic
Provinces. Under heavy lobbying from the other provinces, the government
later set up agencies to cover the Western and Central Provinces and also
Quebec. This approach was aimed at generating cooperation among the provinces
in the region. It also had the added benefit that it provided a high profile
for the federal government in the region. It has been argued, however,
that such an approach has made it increasingly difficult to get national
coordination in regional development policy and also that it resulted
in harmful competition between the regions. [15] This would suggest that there is an important
role for federal governments to play in coordinating a decentralised approach
to regional development.
6.30 Unlike governments, private investors are under no such pressures.
Government funding as equity in joint ventures with private investors
would be under no such restraints either. If government is serious about
encouraging local initiative and local entrepreneurial leadership it will
be in no danger of disbursing its assistance too widely. Associate Professor
Tony Sorensen suggested in his submission that an appropriate Commonwealth
policy would be to provide financial incentives to promising projects
that would enable and reward successful risk taking. [16]
It is second nature for private investors to look to comparative advantage.
The industry cluster idea for development (as described in Chapter 2)
is based on the principle of comparative advantage yet governments appear
reluctant to embrace any policy that suggests that they are `picking winners'.
One witness before the Committee, when asked to suggest a process to assist
the emergence of strong regional leadership, said: `…I would tend
to run a model. I would pick two or three regions where you had confidence
of there being players with some of the skills. Some regions do not have
them.' [17]
6.31 Walmsley, writing in 1980 and in 1990 looked at the role of government
in dealing with the stresses of economic and social change, differentiating
between adaptive strategies and maladaptive strategies. Adaptive strategies
stress decentralised systems of control, consultation processes and holistic
rather than specialised or segmented perspectives. This has not been the
approach taken by successive Australian governments. Walmsley saw the
centralisation of control and decision-making – endemic to the weak
federal system in Australia – as tending toward equating size with
efficiency. Maintaining control of policy within the Department of Prime
Minister and Cabinet and the Treasury excluded many legitimate interests
from the consultation processes. Another maladaptive process was that
which encouraged a preoccupation with equating importance with measurable
inputs and outcomes. Concepts like `well-being' are not easily measurable
but are no less important for this. [18]
The State in retreat?
6.32 If one clear message came out of all the public hearings conducted
by the Committee it was a cry of complaint about the withdrawal of government
agencies and services from the regions. The reasons for this retreat have
already been alluded to. Basically it reflects the way governments now
do business with their `clients' in an age of austerity. Agencies are
now providing services on a `corporate' model in order to reduce staff
overhead costs. The `corporate' model allows a degree of devolution of
authority from ministers and a corresponding degree of operational independence.
It takes agencies `off budget' but puts more pressure on them to perform
within budget. This trend began first with state governments faced with
ever reducing amounts of Commonwealth disbursements to cover an increased
level of demand for their services. Along with corporatisation went the
wholescale rationalisation of staff in large departments like education
where the reductions in areas like curriculum support were little short
of drastic. This was particularly felt in Victoria and South Australia.
In New South Wales a wholescale restructuring of regional offices of the
Department of School Education caused particular pain in some centres.
If the states were ever considered profligate in their provision of services,
this is clearly not the case today.
6.33 As previously noted, submissions and evidence to the Committee has
not made much distinction between Commonwealth and state provided services.
State agencies noted for having reduced staff levels and therefore levels
of service are the regional health services and the railways and regional
offices of main roads departments and education departments. Apart from
the regional health services it is the loss of income to regional centres
which appears to have been more of a concern than the loss of services.
Health services on the New South Wales north coast, which is a population
growth area, particularly for low income retirees, are mentioned as being
underfunded. [19]
6.34 A submission from the Temora Shire Council gives a stark representation
of the decline of smaller towns as the agencies of the state in regional
areas retreat to larger cities to consolidate their presence. [20]
Temora is a wheat belt town in south west NSW with a population of nearly
6 000. Its losses are thus catalogued:
- with the rationalisation of electricity and the abolition of the Northern
Riverina County Council 70 positions have gone;
- the wheat seed research station moved to Wagga Wagga;
- privatisation of the TAB cost 2 jobs;
- Temora TAFE progressively downgraded with unspecified job losses and
diminished educational opportunities for local youth;
- State Rail Authority staffing greatly reduced;
- Grain Handling Authority office moved to Wagga Wagga;
- Temora and District Hospital beds reduced from 56 to 39 and the loss
of its pathology section;
- loss of senior police positions to West Wyalong; and
- Inspector of Schools office moved to Cootamundra and careers counselling
centralised to Wagga Wagga to where students and teachers must telephone.
[21]
6.35 It is conservatively estimated that 130 state government positions
have been lost in Temora in the past ten years, with a significant flow-on
effect experienced by the whole community. It is typical of experiences
in rural towns across Australia. [22]
6.36 This evidence is also useful because it draws attention to the trend
of consolidating services and industries in regional centres. This has
resulted in declining populations in smaller country towns which has resulted
in some resentment. The submission from the Cootamundra Shire Council
states that much of the funding for regional job creation ventures and
business assistance has been in regional centres, where the responsible
government agencies are located, not country areas. The submission asserts,
without supporting evidence, that assistance targeted at smaller country
centres would produce proportionally greater benefit than the same assistance
provided for larger regional centres. [23]
These views are echoed by the Nambucca Shire Council at Macksville, which
submitted the following:
The regional centres not only want to become warehousing or distribution
centres – they want to become centres for regional government services
– they want to become centres for regional waste management and
so on – they want the lot. What is more , they are able to call
on the services of regionally based government officers to work in support
of their aims, whereas the smaller centres have to `paddle their own
canoes'.
With the development of facilities at the regional centre at Coffs
Harbour, we were of the opinion that there would be some benefits. That
is, it would be far better to have these facilities established in proximity
than not at all. Unfortunately, we have yet to experience these benefits
as the regional centre has become larger and larger and now attracts
local shopping dollars to a greater extent than ever before. [24]
6.37 The Committee acknowledges that rural dwellers have an understandable
desire to enjoy the same amenities and services taken for granted in metropolitan
areas. Heading this list are the full range of retail outlets. While the
Committee accepts the validity of arguments that locally owned retail
outlets produce a higher proportion of return on earning to the local
communities than do the large national chains, [25]
local consumers see advantages to themselves and their communities in
having access to the big brand stores. It provides some assurance of comparability
with city branches in item choice and prices. Advertising makes national
chains attractive to consumers. Thus inhabitants of small towns will do
their convenience shopping locally but will save the serious shopping
for the regional centre which may be within an hour's drive on a good
road. This is a `lifestyle' issue which is complementary with the decisions
of governments to rationalise regional services. As a submission from
the La Trobe Shire Council pointed out:
Regional communities – especially small ones – are being
squeezed between increasingly sophisticated community expectations and
decreasing community social fabric in many rural areas. Young people
especially find the level of facilities offered by major cities almost
irresistible in contrast to those available in even the major provincial
centres. [26]
6.38 It is not within the scope of this report to consider the rationalisation
of state services according to some measure of administrative merit. The
Committee was not in a position to make value judgements on whether the
people in Temora or Nambucca Heads are disadvantaged by the withdrawal
of railway staff, or whether the quality of schooling has diminished because
there are fewer administrators in regional offices. State governments
make decisions on the basis of cost effectiveness and believe that they
have no other choice.
The role of state governments in regional development
6.39 Most states have policies and programs to promote growth in regional
areas. Typically, they provide grants, information and some facilitation
processes. There are, however, some differences in the roles adopted by
state governments in regard to regional development. Regional development
policy at the state level is well developed in Western Australia, South
Australia and New South Wales with most structures being in place for
a number of years. The Western Australian and South Australian governments
are currently reviewing their regional development policies. The Queensland
government has also been significantly involved in regional development,
although the structures do not appear to be as well defined or comprehensive
as in other states. In Victoria, the Kennett government devolved responsibility
for regional development to the local government level and administers
only high level policies at the state level. A summary of the role of
these governments in regional development follows. It is worth noting
that no formal processes of communication exist between the state organisations
described here and Commonwealth agencies.
Western Australia
6.40 There has been a strong regional development focus by successive
Western Australian governments. The current government is developing a
statewide Regional Development Policy, the aim of which is to ensure a
`whole of government' approach to planning and support, crucial to sustainable
development.
6.41 The Department of Commerce and Trade (DCT) is the principal government
department responsible for regional development in Western Australia.
The department has a Regional Development Division that promotes and facilitates
regional economic development through the provision of information, representation
and assistance to communities, organisations and businesses. The Division
administers a number of programs designed to assist economic development
in regional areas.
- The Small Town Economic Planning Program, provides communities with
populations of less than 2 000, or less than 3 000 for local government
areas, with up to three separate grants of $10 000 for initiatives that
will stimulate local economic activity.
- Project Mainstreet is an economic renewal program, targeting medium
sized communities (2 000 - 15 000). The program aims at encouraging
these communities to enhance and promote the central business district
and the unique social, environmental, and physical characteristics of
the region.
- The Department also offers assistance for firms to relocate to regional
areas through the Relocation Feasibility Scheme and the Industry Relocation
Scheme. The feasibility scheme provides assistance to assess the benefits
of a relocation or expansion of a Perth-based business to a regional
area. The Industry Relocation Scheme assists Perth-based firms relocate
or expand to a regional area. Assistance may include capital establishment
grants, concessional or interest free loans, public infrastructure,
land, buildings and state tax rebates.
- The Regional Initiatives Fund provides grants for projects that support
economic development and job creation in regional areas or improve access
for regional communities to services. Two similar but smaller programs,
the Regional Co-ordination Fund and the Regional Projects Scheme, offer
a one off grant to government and non-government organisations, for
project feasibility studies, market research, planning and promotional
events.
- The Regional Headworks Development Scheme provides interest free loans
for connection to the essential services of water, electricity, telecommunications,
gas, drainage and sewage.
- Other schemes help regional business establish new markets interstate
and overseas such as the Regional Intrastate Travel Assistance Program,
the Regional Sample Assistance Program, and the Regional Trade promotion
program.
6.42 The Committee heard from representatives of the Department of Commerce
and Trade at its Kwinana hearings, specifically in regard to the $200
million Jervoise Bay project, a marine industrial complex proposed for
construction between Kwinana and Fremantle. The facility aims at attracting,
among other business, maintenance of oil rigs, barges and heavy lift vessels
which are currently serviced in Asian ports. The Committee noted the arrangement
whereby the Department of Commerce and Trade acts as the lead coordinator
for state government involvement in the scheme, avoiding any likelihood
of policy confusion. [27]
6.43 The Committee also heard from officers of the Department of Training
which maintains a network of Regional Employment Development Officers
(REDOs not to be confused with those mentioned earlier) in 13 regions
covering the state. REDOs identify gaps in employment and market services.
They establish links with industry and community groups and are represented
on nearly 150 regional committees and organisations in the state. [28]
6.44 The Department of Transport also has a specific policy role in the
area of regional development, through its Regional Transport program.
The Department, in cooperation with Regional Development Commissions (described
below), is introducing regional transport strategies for the coordination
and provision of regional transport infrastructure. The Department is
also aiming to ensure that regional areas' needs for access to efficient
freight and passenger transport services are met. This includes the provision
of subsidies where remote transport access is important and community
service obligations are identified.
6.45 Regional Development Commissions are statutory bodies. Each commission
has a board of management made up of community, local government and ministerial
appointments. The objectives of the Commission are to; develop and broaden
each region's economic base, identify infrastructure needs and business
development.
6.46 The Regional Development Council is the peak advisory body to Western
Australia's Minister for Regional Development on all regional development
issues, consisting of the chairpersons of the nine Regional Development
Commissions and a person appointed by the Minister.
South Australia
6.47 Under current arrangements regional development is the responsibility
of the Department of Industry and Trade and delivered principally through
The Business Centre, a division of the Department. The Business Centre
works in partnership with fourteen Regional Development Boards (discussed
below) and provides; advice and assistance to businesses and the fourteen
Regional Development Boards, as well as providing assistance for strategic
regional development projects such as the Regional Towns Program.
6.48 State and local governments jointly fund the Regional Development
Boards. In South Australia, Regional Development Boards are facilitators
of growth rather than active developers. This is achieved through the
creation, implementation and updating of strategic plans; the development
of industry networks; provision of a shopfront for business advisory services;
and liaison and cooperation with other groups involved in regional development.
6.49 Regional development policy in South Australia is currently under
review. The South Australian Regional Development Taskforce was established
by the state government in August 1998 to review regional development
policy. As part of the state government's response to the Interim Report
(released in February 1999), the Premier announced the establishment of
an Office of Regional Development, and a Regional Development Council.
New South Wales
6.50 Primary responsibility for regional development in New South Wales
lies with the Department of State and Regional Development (DRSD). The
Department offers a broad range of services and programs to assist enterprises
establish or expand in regional NSW. The role of DRSD is to: identify
and develop commercial opportunities; assist businesses relocation and
expansion into new markets; assist industry diversification and help regional
communities to recruit more industries; unite interest groups; and develop
region-wide action plans.
6.51 The state government also supports the network of 13 Regional Development
Boards, of which one covers Canberra. Regional Development Boards (RDBs)
were established in 1990 and operate under the Minister for State and
Regional Development. In conjunction with the Department, the RDBs act
as an advisory body to the Government on regional development issues and
initiatives and as a vehicle for implementing actions to further regional
development.
6.52 Business Enterprise Centres also receive funding support from the
state government. The Department contracts BECs to provide free and confidential
advice and training to existing and potential small business owners and
operators.
6.53 The submission to the Committee from the Wagga Wagga City Council
made favourable reference to the work of DRSD, but in another part of
the submission referred to an issue which frequently arises in New South
Wales: the dominance of Sydney and the preoccupation of successive governments
with metropolitan affairs. The submission noted the Country Mayors Association's
contention that:
…Neither the State nor Commonwealth Governments have commenced
to translate into meaningful policy the realisation of the benefits
of regional growth to balance Sydney and to capture interstate (sic)
migration. The focus of Government policy has been the metropolis with
little attention paid to NSW, their strong resources base and their
potential to provide jobs with population growth in contrast to fringe
metropolitan centres. People in rural centres want to see governments
demonstrate a commitment to regional areas. The regions have a difficult
time trying to break the continuing dominance of the Sydney – Newcastle-Wollongong
conurbation which has over 73% of the population in NSW and attracts
the lion share of economic investment. [29]
6.54 In its submission to the Committee the New South Wales government
cited a number of successes in its regional initiatives. One of these
was the establishment of a $125 million egg and chicken meat plant at
Griffith. Bartters, the firm involved was persuaded to locate to Griffith
rather than northern Victoria or the ACT as a result of a local road improvement
measure costing $4.7 million. [30] This is an instructive case study in the use
of incentives by state governments. It represents a tilting of the `playing
field' in regional development and suggests the likelihood of problems
arising in any future national agreements about regional development.
Queensland
6.55 The Office of Regional Development (ORD) is a division within the
Department of State Development that has the primary responsibility for
implementing regional development objectives. Its focus is to coordinate
and facilitate regional economic development policy, programs and projects
across the State. These include:
- The Regional Business Development Scheme which encourages the development
of business and industry in regional Queensland through business development
projects. Under certain conditions financial assistance covers 50 per
cent of the costs of an approved project.
- The Queensland Regional Business Advisory Service provides support
to 15 Regional Development Organisations in rural and remote parts of
Queensland for the engagement of regional business advisers.
- North West Queensland Community Benefits Strategy project involves
working with communities in Mount Isa, Cloncurry, Boulia, Burke, Mornington
Island and Carpentaria Shires and the Doomadgee community. The Department
of State Development provides a Principal Project Manager in Brisbane,
a project coordinator in the Mt Isa State Development Centre, and up
to 7 part time project facilitators to work with local communities to
determine priorities and appropriate projects.
- Four indigenous enterprise development officers have been appointed
to assist regional indigenous Queenslanders wishing to go into business
or improve their business skills. These officers have been appointed
in the Mt Isa, Townsville, Cairns and Rockhampton regions.
- The current Government is providing support for five Regional Economic
Development Corporations over a three-year period, located at Cairns,
Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton and Gladstone. These organisations coordinate
private sector initiatives to drive regional economic development activities.
In addition, Regional Economic Development Corporations play a role
in facilitating public and private sector partnerships.
- The Department also generates regional policy and is a source of regional
information. The Office of Regional Development is supporting the establishment
of the Institute for Sustainable Regional Development at the Rockhampton
campus of the Central Queensland University.
6.56 The Department of Communication and Information, Local Government
and Planning also administers the Regional Communities Program which assists
government to ensure its programs and services address regional needs.
Under this program ministerial community forums are held quarterly in
regions to identify priority issues, needs and problems.
6.57 Queensland claims to devote more that half of its capital works
budget to projects outside Brisbane, in marked contrast to the heavy metropolitan
expenditure in New South Wales. There is tangible evidence of this in
at least one development: the realignment and electrification of country
railway lines. Queensland is the only state to undertake track realignment
on such a scale, with obvious benefit to industry [31]
and travel time reduction between major centres of population as far north
as Townsville.
Victoria
6.58 The framework for regional economic development has undergone significant
change over recent time in Victoria. When the Kennett government came
to power, much of the previous system of regional development was abandoned.
Accompanying reform of local government the network of Regional Development
Boards and Voluntary Regional Organisations of Councils were replaced
by a structure in which local government assumed responsibility for development
at the local level, including funding of economic development units.
6.59 Initiatives at the state government level are usually focused on
rural areas, defined as the 47 Victorian municipalities outside the Melbourne
Statistical Division. The Department of State Development has the role
of encouraging economic development in Victoria.
6.60 The Partnerships for Growth Program is a four-pronged strategy.
The first, investment attraction, provides financial assistance
to attract footloose investment to rural Victoria particularly in industries
in which the state has a competitive advantage such as food processing,
forest products and natural fibres processing. The second strategy, expanding
local business, provides existing business with access to a wide range
of enterprise improvement programs. Strategy three, priority projects,
works in partnership with local councils and communities to identify projects
which will improve local infrastructure, and enhance the attractiveness
of country areas as places to invest. The final component, the rural
community development scheme, provides funding to build or improve
community assets which are critical to revitalising local areas and enhancing
their civic and commercial appeal. The program recognises that the quality
of these assets often influences business investment decisions.
6.61 A recent initiative being implemented by the Premier's Department
is the Rural and Regional Strategy. The Strategy aims to identify the
aspirations of rural and regional communities. The state government sponsored
five regional forums across Victoria with the purpose of developing short,
practical action plans for each of the regions. The government now intends
to develop a statewide policy framework to guide its activity in rural
and regional Victoria beyond 2001.
Need for State – Commonwealth cooperation
6.62 The foregoing brief description of state policy making apparatus
is, with the exception of Victoria, highly structured. In this respect
it also differs from the Commonwealth model of loose portfolio based programs.
It is noteworthy that the Western Australian structures are the most elaborate
being defined by statute. The fact of Western Australia's geographic isolation
is probably the root cause of proactive government policy in that state.
Yet even Western Australia considers it desirable for the Commonwealth
to cooperate with the states in many issues concerning regional development.
[32]
6.63 The recent report of the South Australian Regional Development Task
Force has also taken up the theme of state – Commonwealth cooperation.
Good intergovernmental relations are fundamental to effective regional
development. In terms of the Commonwealth, the State Government must
seek a more effective partnership based on joint / cooperative arrangements
on regional issues, and greater collaboration to overcome duplication
at the regional level. At the very least, there must be some alignment
of State and Commonwealth regional development policies and directions,
and processes to identify and eliminate duplication. As the Commonwealth
Government's current policy position on regional development sees it
as the preserve of the States, this places pressure on the State Government
to consider how it should engage with the Commonwealth. In relation
to Local Government, it has the capacity to play a more significant
role in the design and delivery of strategies, programs and services.
[33]
The importance of local government
6.64 An underlying current of evidence given to the Committee is that
regions and local communities remain the passive recipients of whatever
measures governments choose which are aimed at ameliorating local job
shortages and unemployment. Local governments' responsibilities are devolved
to it and there are strict limits to the ability of local governments
to initiate policy despite them being better able to appreciate local
resources and opportunities (Victoria is exceptional in this regard as
described in paragraph 6.57). There is a paradox here, as one submission
pointed out:
…regional communities, as represented by local government, are
much the weakest tier of government financially and in terms of powers
and duties; they also control few if any of the major macro and micro-economic
factors that impinge so much on local well-being; and, of course they
exert even less influence, if that is possible, on technology, demography,
lifestyle preferences, and corporate behaviour. [34]
6.65 The message to the Committee has been that assistance schemes should
be devolved as far as possible to regional bodies, and even in some cases,
local communities rather than be administered centrally by state and Commonwealth
agencies. This requires a culture change in the way Australians view public
administration. There is no tradition of local government exercising wide
ranging responsibilities affecting employment, education and training.
Local government is the `Cinderella' sphere of government. The subordinate
status of local government in some states is exemplified by the existence
of `rate-capping' for the purpose of serving the political agendas of
state governments, rather than as a rational measure to advance the efficiency
of local government finances. Yet it appears from the evidence given to
the Committee that of the three spheres of government, it is local government
authorities which are extending themselves to the utmost to assume the
burdens of dealing with the problem despite their very limited resources.
This observation appears to have support in a statement made in a report
commissioned by the former Department of Housing and Regional Development,
whose authors noted:
We found that local government is the tier of government most closely
associated with the development of non-capital cities. …State governments
are also important because they provide essential services, such as
education and health, but their policies can be seen to favour the capitals.
Local government is more closely tied to the interests of non-capital
cities, and may be in a better position to respond to development opportunities.
This is both an opportunity and a constraint: it is an opportunity in
the sense that many councils clearly measure their success by their
ability to attract employment or facilities to their major urban centre
or centres. On the other hand the relative weakness of local governments
within the Australian structure limits their ability to bring about
substantial change. [35]
6.66 At the Committee's Canberra public hearing, Professor Rolf Gerritsen,
Director, Australian Centre for Regional and Local Government Studies,
described the tensions between levels of government in relation to program
design and implementation. [36] He said that
undoubtedly the best research showed that programs designed from the bottom
up were more successful in the long run than programs designed from a
state or Commonwealth level and that local government is the best agency
for a region's development. However, he also pointed out that local governments
in smaller regions, although in the best position to tackle development,
were most limited financially and had often lost talented people as the
`brightest and best' members of local communities moved to the city. He
also emphasised that local councils in rural areas of economic decline,
requiring funding for projects to reverse this decline, were most fiscally
dependent upon other levels of government.
6.67 Local government also believes state and Commonwealth governments
undervalue its expertise and experience. Local government is perceived
to be a `policy free zone': an entirely `practical' sphere of government.
Yet the same could be said – with equal injustice – about state
governments. A number of local government witnesses appeared before the
Committee to make comments similar to that made by Cr Sara Coward and
Council CEO Vincent Ryan at the Melbourne hearing:
I do not think we are adequately consulted in terms of policy development,
and I think the value adding that local government can bring to state
and federal policy development is the local regional variations and
the local community variations. …
… the unemployment problem is so massive that no tier of government
can fool itself that it has a solution on its own. … All we are
saying is that local government needs to be consulted early on in the
process, in the development of the program, so you end up getting a
better quality program. Do not just come to us with the solution, because
with the actual project and the program the success of both is integral.
You cannot have a good program without a good project to do it on [37].
6.68 Local government, despite all its efforts, appears likely, under
the current federal government, to retain its status as the `Cinderella'
sphere of government in Australia. It is kept firmly in its place by state
governments. The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has long
argued for a direct relationship between the Commonwealth and local government.
In its evidence given to the Committee, the ALGA complained:
Over the years the Commonwealth and State governments have established
a variety of regional structures. The imposition of a variety of regional
structures, generally driven by specific programs, has created confusion
and precipitated the lack of coordination in regions. Most people now
working in regions are now confronted …with different organisations
competing and using the same human capital that exists within a region.
…local governments throughout the country believe that this is
an inefficient use of resources. Any improvement to the system that
enables the better coordination of effort to bring together regions
and regional mechanisms would be a distinct advantage. [38]
6.69 In 1997 the Australian Local Government Association urged the Commonwealth
to consider as a budget initiative a `regional Australia package' worth
$200 million over four years. The ALGA urged the Commonwealth to note
`a proliferation of sectorally driven and bureaucratic programs which
have added to the confusion and frustration of regional practitioners.'
The ALGA claimed that the regions had been `studied to death', with bookshelves
full of regional strategies and relatively few opportunities for them
to be implemented. The lack of coordinated effort resulted in the absence
of a strategy for identifying and assessing the priority of funding for
projects that would make a `real difference' to a region.
6.70 The ALGA concluded with advice that regional communities and leaders
were looking for a clear indication that the Commonwealth would establish
a formal mechanism to deal with regional concerns. This was necessary
to overcome the regional sense of abandonment and isolation, and to support
regions affected by the effects of global economic change. [39]
6.71 In light of this, the Committee believes it to be unlikely that
the ALGA will be enthusiastic about the Government's statement on Regional
Australia, issued in May 1999. There is a new program promised to fund
local government contributions to economic development worth, in total,
$7 million over two years 1999-2001. [40] The Government has also announced that there
will be a Regional Australia Summit held in October 1999, and, while it
must be assumed that local government will be represented, there is no
suggestion that the Government is contemplating anything like a formal
structure along the lines proposed by the ALGA.
6.72 Evidence presented during this inquiry would suggest there is much
that can be done to improve the liaison between the spheres of governments
and local stakeholders in the planning stages of programs and policies
for regional development. Such cooperation would improve the flexibility
of programs and increase the actual employment outcomes within the regions.
A common concern of regional stakeholders is that senior policy makers
and administrators based in capital cities do not appear to be aware
of regional differences and hence do not appear to be sympathetic to
individual region issues. It is strongly recommended that greater local
participation in the design, implementation and delivery of labour market
[training] services be encouraged. It is believed that greater local
or regional participation will improve service delivery, lift participation
in such programs and make them more cost effective by better meeting
the needs of the regional workforce and employers. [41]
6.73 The Committee recommends that local government should play
a pivotal role in any future structure to coordinate regional
development policy.
What can governments do?
6.74 The most fundamental question faced by the Committee, as it must
be by governments and voters, is what should be the extent of government
intervention in revitalising regional economies. That is, should governments
adopt a role which extends beyond that of providing basic
infrastructure, education and some training, and a regulatory system benignly
framed (all carrots, no sticks) to offer business investment inducements
with minimal conditions.
6.75 This invites the question of how responsibility for regional development
is to be exercised. The Committee sees no public gain from a wrangle about
powers based on constitutional considerations. It acknowledges the `grass-root'
interests of state and particularly local government in regional development
and employment. It is also aware of the political dangers which arise
from perceptions of regional favouritism, an issue which is difficult
to manage at state and regional levels. The record of the states in taking
a rational and long-term view of development issues has not been impressive.
The Committee has been told of how states and local governments have involved
themselves in bidding wars in order to attract investment at great cost
to themselves and to taxpayers and ratepayers, for the benefit of shareholders
in those firms whose directors would have been swayed by more substantial
and purely business considerations.
6.76 Advocates of the proposition that market forces should determine
the shape and distribution of business investment, argue the case for
being unfettered by governments on the grounds that governments are unfitted
to influence such matters. When they attempt to do so the results are
often counter productive.
6.77 In its Research Report 56 of March 1994 the Bureau of Industry Economics
had this to say about the role of government in regional development:
While assessments of where governments fit into the process of regional
development differ, there is broad agreement that at the minimum it
is vital for governments to get the fundamentals right. These include
management of the public sector, efficient system of business taxation,
the provision of efficient physical infrastructure, the provision of
good education and training systems, the operation of effective finance
and labour markets, the development of an effective regulatory and competition
framework, and stability and predicability in policy settings. [42]
6.78 This advice on fundamentals was echoed in several submissions to
the Committee, and in oral evidence. According to one witness:
…assistance programs, be they direct or indirect, should address…
the sorts of things that governments can do, and can do well, and which
the private sector by and large does not do. This is where governments
should be directing their energy, rather than trying to pick out particular
groups or particular firms or particular industries and attracting,
say, headquarters or firms to regions. We think that sort of thing is
not a very good idea from the perspective of government policy. [43]
6.79 The evidence continued:
What is a good idea from the perspective of government policy is providing
training infrastructure, educational infrastructure, the construction
of both human and then physical capital, transport – the things
that government does well. [44]
6.80 Advice was also given to the Committee on the dangers associated
with ill-considered reaction to regional economic crises. Some regional
centres are in decline because the economic imperatives that originally
drove them have disappeared. As one witness from South Metropolitan Regional
Development Organisation in Perth, explained:
If you are going to be diverting resources toward an area which no
longer has a comparative advantage then basically you are reducing the
welfare and efficiency of the overall economy and its ability to compete
globally. You are going to get an overall net welfare loss, albeit to
the benefit of some people in that area. Then there is a further question
of what this is going to do in the long run. If an area is in decline
and losing its basic advantage, ideally you want resources to shift
out of that area, not resources to shift back in…We are saying
that resources should be directed to where they are most efficiently
located. [45]
6.81 The Committee is aware of the need to make realistic recommendations
for measures to improve the employment prospects for people in the regions
– and by implication – the requirements for putting regional
economies on a sounder footing. Past regional development measures in
Australia have been directed to attracting industry away from metropolitan
areas. The Committee notes advice that there is insufficient economic
justification for such policies. [46]
6.82 The Commonwealth also needs to address the problem of coordinating
regional policy. As previously noted, the constitutional arguments that
complicate regional policy and responsibility for regional development
appear to be lost on most regional interest groups. Their complaints of
neglect and inaction are directed at governments both state and Commonwealth.
The Committee is concerned that the raising of constitutional issues in
this context (apart from discussions about resolving technical difficulties)
may be seen in the regions as a convenient excuse for failure to develop
national policy.
6.83 In other advanced countries with different population distributions
and political cultures, the solutions to regional problems may be seen
as the responsibility of the regions, their local authorities and their
entrepreneurs. It is because many regions lack either economic strength,
or dynamic leadership, or both, that government has a role to play in
nurturing these developments. A Commonwealth lead is essential because
only the Commonwealth has the economic levers to deal with issues of capital
investment and the resources to fund large scale infrastructure projects.
Even with substantial reorganisation of regional development responsibilities
within the Commonwealth, transfer to the States and Local Government,
or withdrawal of Federal Government involvement in explicit regional
development programs, there remains a very strong case indeed for the
Commonwealth to effectively co-ordinate the regional impacts of its
policies and programs, and in forging partnerships between the various
interests. [47]
6.84 In the recent report of the South Australian Regional Development
Task Force it was stated that:
Given the vast differences that have emerged and persisted between
regions, and their impact (politically, economically and socially),
there is a strong case for a national policy framework. Even if this
only involves a repackaging of existing sources of funding, it must
involve a more effective partnership between the Commonwealth and the
States and the regions. [48]
6.85 This is a view echoed by the Illawarra Area Consultative Committee
in its submission to the inquiry:
…[there is a] perceived lack of a long term government framework
for regional development. Many people felt that the effectiveness of
regional job creation had been thwarted by the political process. Such
politics and policy change created confusion, frustration, disillusionment
and apathy amongst the community and damaged the self help process.
It was widely proposed that governments required bipartisan State/Federal
agreements in order to establish and adequately fund long term regional
development and employment strategies.
A key component of that strategy would be the establishment and maintenance
of a peak organisation, comprising of regional leaders, and recognised
by all tiers of government. Such an organisation informed by community
input and supported by adequate financial resources would be the driver
for regional and employment growth.
Governments as such cannot reduce regional unemployment, however, they
must invest in regional infrastructure development, develop policies
that sustain regional growth and provide adequate support for communities
to make the necessary transition brought about by structural economic
and technological change. [49]
What should the Commonwealth do about the regions?
6.86 Government policy is as much a matter of process as outcome. This
is doubly true in relation to regional economic policy because of the
diversity and interests of the stakeholders. It's a policy area which
is strewn with political traps.
Outcomes
6.87 But if we consider outcomes first, it is the Committee's view that
the only satisfactory outcome is the maximisation of the economic potential
of regions, and that for some of these regions the potential for improvement
or regeneration will be limited. Associate Professor Tony Sorensen noted
in his submission `the considerable in-built redundancy in the current
rural settlement system and the marginal nature of a lot of primary production.
Given that no foreseeable Commonwealth or state policy is likely to turn
this situation around, the courageous political response might be to walk
away from the problem.' [50] Regions and regional centres with potential,
however, should be supported by government backed investment finance in
association with policies aimed at encouraging rural entrepreneurs. This
was also a recommendation of McKinsey and Company. Australia does not
use the variety of financial incentives which other OECD countries use
to encourage industry.
Process
6.88 It is noteworthy that the Government's policy paper, Regional
Australia: Meeting the Challenges, makes scarcely a mention of the
states in its opening section on the Regional Australia Strategy, yet
that connection will need to be made. It is certainly desired by the states.
The Committee does not consider an effective regional development strategy
will be feasible or credible without formal agreement with the states,
and without a lay measure of the policy and administrations shared between
the three spheres of government.
6.89 The role of the Commonwealth in this matter is paradoxical. On the
one hand, the evidence given to the Committee overwhelmingly supports
the pre-eminence of local initiative and community and business leadership.
Most growth, as the Committee heard, is generated from local capital.
Small business will only begin to make a difference when it becomes medium
sized business. The growth of individual small business is crucial to
national growth. This can only occur when a higher proportion of small
business set out to become medium business, employing more people. The
historical legacy and the current experience suggest that the influence
and support from the Commonwealth is depended upon by businesses which
will ultimately develop and redevelop the regions.
6.90 The Committee believes there is a need for the establishment of
a mechanism for consultation and discussion of regional development issues.
First, the Committee recommends that a forum, similar to the Regional
Australia Summit, should be convened periodically. The programming and
arrangements for these events should involve all levels of government.
Secondly, the Committee recommends the establishment of a Ministerial
Council on regional development involving all three spheres of government
on the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) model. The Council should
meet regularly to establish policy priorities for regional development
and discuss policy impacts on regional Australia. The consultative forum
would then report directly to the Ministerial Council.
Footnotes
[1] Society of St Vincent de Paul, A Country
Crisis: A Report on Issues Confronting Rural Victoria, Melbourne,
1998, p.10
[2] Productivity Commission, Impact of Competition
Policy Reforms on Rural and Regional Australia, Draft Report, May 1999,
p. 327
[3] Submission No. 164, Australian Catholic
Social Welfare Commission, vol. 7, pp. 17-20
[4] ibid., p.19
[5] Productivity Commission, Impact of Competition
Policy Reforms on Rural and Regional Australia, Draft Report, May 1999,
p. 318
[6] Submission No. 187, Albury-Wodonga Area
Consultative Committee, vol. 8, p. 206
[7] ibid., pp. 208-10
[8] Submission No. 166, Department of Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs, vol. 7, p. 127
[9] Submission No. 110, South Metropolitan Perth
Regional Development Organisation, vol. 5, p. 47
[10] Submission No. 195, Brisbane South Area
Consultative Committee, vol. 9, p. 31
[11] Professor Peter Kenyon, Hansard,
Perth, 18 August 1998, p. 1418
[12] ibid.
[13] Submission No. 166, Department of Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs, vol. 7, p. 152
[14] McGee, R. H., Getting it Right: Regional
Development in Canada, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal,
1992, p. 127
[15] ibid., pp. 178-182
[16] Submission No. 72, Associate Professor
Tony Sorensen, vol. 3, p. 290
[17] Mr Rod Brown, Hansard, Canberra,
18 December 1998, pp. 1571-2
[18] D. J. Walmsley, `Adaption to Change and
Uncertainty: The Social Implications for Australia', in R. Hayter and
P. D. Wilde (eds.), Industrial Transformation and Challenge in Australia
and Canada, Carlton University Press, Ottawa 1990, pp. 136-7
[19] Submission No. 99, Mid North Coast Regional
Council For Social Development Inc., vol. 4, p. 141 and Mr Paul Sefky,
Hansard, Lismore, 21 July 1998, p. 883
[20] Submission No. 96, Temora Shire Council,
vol. 4, p. 119
[21] ibid., p. 116
[22] ibid., p. 115-6
[23] Submission No. 19, Cootamundra Shire Council,
vol. 1, p. 108
[24] Submission No. 100, Nambucca Shire Council,
vol. 4, pp. 171-2
[25] Submission No. 181, Mr John Domelow, vol.
8, pp. 68-9
[26] Submission No. 77, La Trobe Shire Council,
vol. 3, p. 338
[27] Mr Ross Marshall, Hansard, Kwinana,
17 August 1998, pp. 1366-79
[28] Submission No. 217, Department of Training
(WA), vol. 10, p. 123
[29] Submission No. 185, Wagga Wagga City Council,
vol. 8, p. 154
[30] Submission No. 213, New South Wales Government,
vol. 10, p. 80
[31] Cr Alan Brown, Hansard, Rockhampton,
4 August 1998, p. 1188
[32] Submission No. 218, Western Australian
Department of Commerce and Trade, vol. 10, pp. 131-3
[33] South Australian Regional Development
Task Force – Final Report (1999), State Government of South Australia,
p. 52
[34] Submission No. 72, Associate Professor
Tony Sorensen, vol. 3, p. 290
[35] McKinsey & Company, Lead Local
Compete Global: Unlocking the Growth Potential of Australia's Regions,
Report for the Department of Industry, Transport and Regional Development,
Canberra 1994.
[36] Professor Rolf Gerritsen, Hansard,
Canberra, 18 December 1998, pp. 1509-25
[37] Mr Vincent Ryan, Hansard, Melbourne,
7 May 1998, pp. 446-7
[38] Mr John Pritchard, Hansard, Canberra,
18 December 1998, p. 1579
[39] Submission No. 97, Australian Local Government
Association, Appendix
[40] Hon. John Anderson MP and Senator the
Hon. Ian Macdonald, Regional Australia: Meeting the Challenge,
11 May 1999, p. 41
[41] Submission No. 218, WA Department of Commerce
and Trade, vol. 10, p. 151
[42] Bureau of Industry Economics, Regional
Development: Patterns and Policy Implications, Research Report 56,
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra 1994, p. xiii
[43] Professor Peter Kenyon, Hansard,
Perth, 18 August 1998, p. 1408
[44] ibid.
[45] Mr Michael Dockery, Hansard, Perth,
18 August 1998, p. 1409
[46] Submission No. 110, South Metropolitan
Perth Regional Development Organisation, vol. 5, p. 56
[47] Vigar, S., `Federal Involvement in Regional
Development Planning and Development: A Never Ending See-Saw', Regional
Policy and Practice, Vol. 6, No.1, May 1997, p. 37
[48] South Australian Regional Development
Task Force – Final Report (1999), State Government of South Australia,
p. 130
[49] Submission No. 148, The Illawarra Area
Consultative Committee, vol. 6, p. 217.
[50] Submission No. 72, Associate Professor
Tony Sorensen, vol. 3, p. 290