Why is a more effective model of regional governance so hard to find and implement? Ten Questions

The Federalism Project

Why is a more effective model of regional governance so hard to find and implement?

Ten Questions

A J BrownJohn F Kearney Professor of Public LawCentre for Governance & Public Policy

Griffith University, Gold Coast QLD, [email protected]

www.griffith.edu.au/federalism

Armidale, 12 October 2012


Why is a more effective model of Australian regional governance so hard to find and implement?

Because of:

A.Constitutional questions

1. Should regional governance be part of our basic political structures?

2. If so, how?

B.Cultural questions

3. Competing regional attachments (state-regionalism v. region-regionalism)

4. Australian administrative / governance culture

5. The ‘mendicant mentality’ of local and regional politics

C.Pragmatic / policy questions

6. What regions?

7. What boundaries?

8. What functions?

9. What institutions?

10. What public value / efficiency / return on investment?



Because of:



• Yes, of course

• Yes, but only in administrative (not political or constitutional) arrangements

• Isn’t it already?

• No… what’s the issue?

2. If so, how?


• New state ideas (Country Party?)• No state ideas

(provinces/regions) (ALP?)


Australian Constitutional Values Survey

• Conducted nationally in Australia by Newspoll Limited

• Originally funded by the Australian Research Council, Discovery Project DP0666833 – led by Griffith University, with Charles Sturt University, University of New England, University of Melbourne, UNSW

• Conducted by telephone over 1-8 May 2008, 1-14 March 2010,September 2012 (underway)

• Stratified random sample, respondents aged 18 years and over

• Results post-weighted to Australian Bureau of Statistics data on age, highest level of schooling, sex, and area

• National 2008: 1,201 respondents

• National 2010: 1,100 respondents


Major preferences for the future, ‘say 20 years from now’

Australia

2008n=1201

2010n=1100

Qld(2010)

NSW(2010)

WA(2010)

No federal level 7.1 12.3 19.8 10.8 13.1

No state level 30.5 39.1 48.4 44.0 24.3

No local level 32.7 38.3 39.5 44.5 30.4

Keep states and create more 8.7 9.3 13.6 5.4 12.0

Create new regional level 32.2 42.2 44.7 44.4 42.2

Overall…

Keep system the same 31.0 21.9 14.9 19.0 28.5

Structural reform 65.8 74.5 82.6 75.5 68.6

Don’t know 3.2 3.6 2.5 5.5 2.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Thinking again about how our system of government could be in 20 years, in particular, about four possible levels of government – federal, state, regional and local. Which of those four levels of government would you have in the future? You can have as many or as few as you like.


Fig 4. Main combinations of preferences, 20 years from now

31.0

26.8

13.012.0 12.1 12.3

6.75.2 5.7

4.1

21.920.9

12.0

7.16.0

3.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4a. All respondents (n=1201) May 2008 4b. All respondents (n=1100) March 2010

A. Status quo (current three levels, same number of states)B. Abolish / replace states (with regional or local or both)C. Keep fed & state govt, but less states, or abolish or replace localD. Four tiered system (fed, state, regional, local)E. No federal levelF. Federal level only (no other levels)G. More states (where not in D)H. Other / don't know

%



Because of:



2. If so, how?






r Local area Region State Australia

Local area 1.00 .201* .374* .184*

Region 1.00 .181* .280*

State 1.00 .361*

Australia 1.00

*p < .001

Strength of belonging to local area, region, state, nation (2008) (n=1201)

Multiple regression


For each of the following, please say if you think it is a desirable feature, or an undesirable feature of having different levels of government:

%

Desirabl

eUn-

desirableNeither \

dk Total

aHaving power divided up between different levels of government

67.5 26.9 5.5 100.0

bAllowing different laws in response to varying needs and conditions in different parts of Australia

56.3 40.7 3.3 100.0

cBeing able to elect different political parties at different levels of government

81.7 15.2 3.1 100.0

gDifferent governments arguing over who is responsible for a particular problem

20.9 75.9 3.3 100.0

Table 1. Desirability of features of a multi-levelled system (2010, n=1100)


NSW WA Australia Subtotals %

1. Strong federalists(a, b, c, g all desirable) 11.9 14.6 11.7

Strong / clear

federalists(1+2)

43.72. Clear federalists(divided power & legal diversity both desirable) 28.3 36.2 32.0

3. Conflicted federalists(divided power desirable, legal diversity undesirable) 23.3 20.4 22.2

Conflicted federalists/non-feds

(3+4)

32.1Subtotal — federalists 63.5 71.2 66.0

4. Conflicted non-federalists(divided power undesirable, legal diversity desirable) 10.2 8.4 9.8

5. Clear non-federalists(divided power & legal diversity both undesirable) 13.8 8.5 11.3

Strong / clear

non-federalists

(5+6)

15.96. Strong non-federalists(a, b, c, g all undesirable) 3.8 3.2 4.6

Subtotal — non-federalists 27.7 20.1 25.7

8.3Don't know (a &/or b) 8.8 8.7 8.3Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 2. Australian federal political culture (2010, n=1100)


Federal political culture, by regional belonging groups (%) (2008)

More federalist Less federalist

74.2

65.460.6


Thinking of the federal government as being the highest level of government, and state and then local as being lower levels of government. Which one of the following comes closest to your view about where decisions should be made? (2008)



Because of:



2. If so, how?






6. What regions?

7. What boundaries?

8. What functions?




Major combinations of preferences for system of government,20 years from now – case study regions (March 2010, unweighted)

8.1

12.615

16.4

4.6

18.4

16.2

20.7 19.3

33.532.1

15.2

7.1

12.7

20.7

6.9 7.55.5 5.0

8.6

1.0

2.9 3.6

6.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Greater Western Sydney (n=200) Riverina (NSW) (n=138) Central Western Qld (n=140)

Status quo (current three levels, same number of states)Abolish / replace states (with regional or local or both)Keep fed & state govt, but less states, or abolish or replace localFour tiered system (fed, state, regional, local)No federal governmentOnly federal government - no other levelsMore statesOther / don't know

%


Major combinations of preferences for system of government,20 years from now – case study regions (March 2010, unweighted)

31.4

15.2

8.1

12.912.6

15.716.4

0

5.5 5.0

1.0

9.3

4.6 3.6

18.416.2

22.9

33.532.1

12.7

6.9 7.5

2.96.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Greater Western Sydney (n=200) Riverina (NSW) (n=138) CWQ (assuming fed)

Status quo (current three levels, same number of states)Abolish / replace states (with regional or local or both)Keep fed & state govt, but less states, or abolish or replace localFour tiered system (fed, state, regional, local)No federal governmentOnly federal government - no other levelsMore statesOther / don't know

%


Central Western Queensland - ABS Statistical Division

- former RAPAD (ROC & REDO)

- current RAPAD (ROC & REDO)

- Qld Govt [Draft] Regional Plan & Reg Planning Advisory Cttee (Qld Dept of Infra & Planning)

- Outback Regional Roads Group (Qld Dept of Main Roads)

Desert Channels QldNRM regional body

Local Govt variants

- LGAQ Central West District

- Western Queensland LGA

Federal Government

- Central Qld Area Consultative Committee (ACC)

- Regional Development Australia (Central Qld)- Qld Dept Communities, DEEDI (Fitzroy/CWest)

Central WesternQueensland

Federal & State agency admin regions

0 175 350 km


Griffith

Wagga

Wodonga

Albury

Shepparton

Deniliquin

Mildura

CMA boundaries

Former ACC boundaries

Changes – new RDA boundaries

RAMROC / REROC boundary

Riverina (Murrumbidgee) & Murray region(s)


Greater Western Sydney


Natural resource

mgt regional

bodyACCTransport

planning groups

Regional health

Meeting / conference

support

Regional budgeting & resource pooling

Planning & community engagement coordination

Accounting, governance &

reporting support

Training & capacity-building

Majorprojects

Regional Coordination Advisory BoardMembership determined by local consultation and/or local

convention, including:Local government (direct)

Local government (ROC(s))Area Consultative Committee(s)

NRM Regional Body / Catchment Management AuthorityOther regional program advisory committees etcFederal

government(DOTARS, PM&C)

Localgovernment

State government(Premiers, DLG)

DirectorRegional Coordination Unit

Chair, Federal & State Regional Managers Forums

Chairperson,Deputy Chairperson

Regional Coordination Advisory Board

Secretariat

directly elected at time of local elections

Appointed

$$$

A model of regional governance (Brown 2007)



Because of:



2. If so, how?






6. What regions?

7. What boundaries?

8. What functions?



Documents

Why is a more effective model of regional governance so hard to find and implement? Ten Questions