CONCLUSION
This report is intended to address the Committee's Terms of Reference,
but not in a way that presents a definitive economic and social survey
on the problems and possibilities of regions. Rather than undertake, from
its own perspective, an assessment of those factors that contribute to
the disparity in employment levels between different regions and also
between regions and capital cities, it has drawn together concerns expressed
to the Committee about the condition of regional Australia, specifically
the lack of investment and employment opportunities, as well as, for country
regions, the disadvantages suffered as a consequence of being beyond the
reach of metropolitan services and amenities. The Committee has also pointed
to fundamental deficiencies in the approach to regional development of
successive governments, at all levels, which may have inhibited development
in some regional areas. It emphasises that the frequently recurring press
stories of decay in rural towns and regional localities, and of endemic
unemployment and social problems facing many people in the regions, are
real and present realities that have political significance. They present
a continuing challenge to leadership at the national, state and regional
level.
The oft-quoted McKinsey report placed great stress on leadership at the
business and regional level, and of the need to create a learning environment
to improve leadership. In doing so it referred not only to political leadership,
but also more especially to local and regional business leadership. The
report re-affirms the critical role of government as a `change-leader',
whose vital function is to seed world-class regional leadership teams.
Of paramount importance to this process, is the need for successive governments
to maintain in their regional leaders, a self-help attitude from the `bottom-up',
as well as to maintain a focus on the importance of export and trade.
The Committee has no answers to any claims of weakness in the levels of
entrepreneurial leadership in Australia, regional or metropolitan. Modern
government, limited as it is to the extent that it is able to influence
the rate and direction of investment, is also limited in changing the
social order and the culture necessary to facilitate the kinds of economies
that function in parts of Europe and North America. These developments
are often referred to as models for Australian regional development. Many
of our regions, however, lack `critical mass', just as they lack competitive
advantage in an era of `globalisation'.
The Committee has therefore had to deal with the fundamental issue of
how serious the `regional problem' really is, and whether the undoubted
regional disparities are a serious cause for concern. There appear to
be some who doubt that they are: those who argue that Australia itself
is a region on its own, and that only the national condition, taken as
a whole, needs to be considered. The Committee finds this attitude, admittedly
an oversimplification, unsatisfactory not only on the grounds of equity
and considerations of lifestyle, but because it is clearly rejected by
the evidence that has been presented to it.
The Committee believes that there would be long-term economic benefits
(and political benefits) in treating selected regions as special economic
redevelopment zones, despite fears of short-term accusations of regional
favouritism.
McKinsey and Company stressed the importance of regional entrepreneurial
leadership. This committee stresses the importance of political leadership
at all levels. It does so because conventional economic solutions appear
to have little application to the problem of regional disparity, and more
particularly to the disparity between Sydney and the rest of the country.
When governments talk of the importance of `getting the fundamentals right',
they usually mean that this is important to the already dynamic and growing
sector of the economy and the workforce which is competing directly in
the global economy.
The Committee takes the view that if governments at all levels are genuinely
concerned about the decline of regions, the extent of their concern should
be measured by the degree to which they accept the principle of a coordinated
approach to regional development. The Committee is aware of the potential
– even the likelihood – of tensions and clashing philosophies
and agendas that would characterise any process that was developed to
carry projects through. This would be one of the many challenges facing
regional Australia, but one that ought not to be beyond the political
skills of a nation approaching one hundred years of federation. It is
the Committee's considered view that, while recognising that regional
development is regarded as a state government function under the provisions
of the constitution, the Commonwealth must lead in the establishment of
coordinated policies and maintain an overarching role to give continuity
and certainty even as administrations change over time. This provides
a real challenge and an opportunity for cooperative federalism. The Committee
hopes that the opportunity afforded by the Regional Australia Summit will
not be missed, and that national development challenges will be treated
by governments as seriously now as they have been in the past.