Abbott's new cabinet - the end of regionalism?

Abbott's new cabinet is a tough move away from the fundamentals that were key to the two terms of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments. Abbott calls it a "return to the basics".

(See Abbott's press release http://australianconservative.com/2013/09/tony-abbott-announces-his-ministry-%E2%80%93-a-team-to-build-a-stronger-australia/ )

And early acts of dismissal of heads of the public service and the doing away with government departments and government agencies, proves he means what he says.

Sackings

With the key sackings being Dr Martin Parkinson, Dr Don Russell, Blair Comley, Andrew Metcalfe and Tim Flannery, huge changes are already under way. There is a strong element of "kill the messenger" in the first four sackings. These high profile bureaucrats had become too closely associated with Labor policies they were working on, on the nose for Abbott, and they paid the ultimate price for it.

Parkinson had had a number of run-ins with the Opposition over the time of Abbott's ascension into office. Parkinson will remain in Treasury until the Treasurer brings out his first budget. The others were given their marching orders, immediate! Comley and Russell had become associated with the scientists and global warming policy, and Metcalfe with asylum policy.

This is not how it is supposed to work. If a public service head is successful in implementing policy, that should be seen as a plus. Public service in Australia are not politicians aligned to particular parties; they have no power to influence the direction policy development goes in. They are told by the politicians and they implement it. But Abbott learnt sitting at the right hand of Howard, and is doing him proud.

On the other hand, Flannery was always associated with the global warming policy.

He played a major role in getting Australians generally to understand the character and reality of "global warming" and getting the government to take it seriously. He was continuously denigrated by the Opposition under Abbott, and was expected to go.

Disbanding the Climate Change Commission

The disbanding of the Climate Change Commission was no surprise to anyone. Abbott has always been associated with the skeptics.

Within a few hours Flannery began setting up a private association to carry on the work of Climate Change Commission the http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/; they started collecting donations yesterday, and at the end of the day had collected $400K!

Serious, immediate & fully intent

Some might have been surprised at how quickly the new government moved, and with such intensity and purpose, given the lack of policy being made clear during the election, but few are surprised at the direction of the changes. It seems Abbott had developed serious plans; he just wasn't telling anyone about them.

Departments scrapped

The scrapping of departments is telling.

The main axing was the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport (700 employees) and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (590 employees) and AusAID (1500 employees). It was said that the idea was that the functions of these department will be "moved to" other departments.

Moved to

What does "moved to" mean?

There is a difference between being "added to / taken over by" and being "subsumed by" other departments. Only time will tell the full impact of these decisions to "axe", but their destiny says a lot about intention. The likelihood of being "subsumed" is high on the agenda. Heads are likely to roll.

Subsume

Future handling of "federal policy for" is as follows:

• regional development, territories and local government was moved to the Department of Infrastructure.
• arts was moved to the Attorney-General's department.
• sport was moved to Health.
• resources, energy and tourism was moved to the Department of Industry.
• AusAID was moved to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Economic versus Community/Social

There is a general theme running through all of these decisions to scrap/axe/move/subsume. This could be said to be best identified by the traditional "Economic versus Social" divide.  All of these domains of government policy have both economic and community/social aspects. The community/social aspects received considerable consideration, policy development, legislation and funding under the previous government.

These moves can be expected to bring about immediate changes dominated by a general intention to change focus towards existing, long-established departmental objectives.

This means significant changes are intended to the functions/activities being brought into the takeover department than those performed under the outgoing government, dominated by their economic benefits. This is the reason for the scrapping of the department.

We know this because, if you move the focus away from the "community/social" to the "economic", this can be easily achieved by the takeover department. If you don't, the takeover department needs to undergo some significant realignment, unlikely in these circumstances. This means "subsume" is the correct word, and can be expected to be accompanied by considerable staff sackings.

• As far as Infrastructure is concerned, regions are places that must exist because of their role in economic activity and they have resources and provide considerable economic prospects. They need to be linked and efficiently developed and given over to economic enhancement. Social aspects of regions, quality of life, personal involvement, governance, are of little interest to Infrastructural considerations.
• As far as the Attorney General's office is concerned, the arts have considerable economic prospects but dominated by delivery under contract with keen interest in ownership, copyright, insurance, worth and wealth. Social aspects of the arts are of little interest, especially education and community.
• As far as Health is concerned there are considerable economic benefits to be had from proper engagement in sport, especially obesity, insurance, and long term medical costs. Social aspects of sport are of little interest, especially quality of life and community.
• As far as Industry is concerned resources and energy are interesting only in reference to raw materials for production or for export. Social aspects of resources and energy, such as detrimental effects and quality of life, are of little interest to Industry.
• As far as Foreign Affairs & Trade are concerned, AusAID should be restricted to friends and associated with long term development of the returns of trade. The social aspects of AusAID, especially quality of life, life expectancy, etc. of people living in foreign countries, are of little interest.

Does this mean the end of regionalism?

One question that is of interest to this website is the future of regionalism in Australia.

What is regionalism?

Regionalism is an understanding of the importance of focus on the region to both the economic and social aspects of life of those living within the boundaries of the particular region, when compared to those living in other regions.

Is this regionalism?

The movement of "regional Australia" to the Department of Infrastructure is not regionalism.  It is rather anathema to regionalism. It recognises that there are regions, that is to say, you need to understand the characterstics of the region you are looking at in order to formulate proper policy, but for this department, the region is only interesting for its contribution to long term economic progress.

What changes will apply in the region in the long term?

In his presentation to COAG under Labor at its last meeting, 2 July 2013, Infrastructure Australia Chairman, Sir Rod Eddington AO, presented a 50 Year National Infrastructure Plan that shows us the focus under the Infrastructure Department:

"Our aim in preparing this Plan has been to provide governments and the community with a clear set of actions to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the growth of the Asian economies over the next halfcentury.

The actions include:

1. Establishing a single national infrastructure fund;

2. Moving from grant funding of infrastructure to a system that encourages private investment;

3. Selling or long-term leasing of government infrastructure assets and re-investing the proceeds in new infrastructure;

4. Wider application of user pays funding arrangements, especially but not only in the freight sector, but on the proviso that users get a say in scoping new projects; and

5. Improvements to project governance and procurement to reduce the cost of developing new infrastructure.

"If adopted and pursued with vigour, these reforms will ensure that Australia secures the infrastructure it needs."

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/coag/index.aspx

Conclusion

This means that the movement of regional development to the Infrastructure Department will cause similar considerations to be applied, and will result in the end of regionalism in Australia.

There is a lesson to be learned from this, for anyone interested in the both the economic AND the social aspects of regionalism. Unless regionalism is accompanied by and concomitant with changes to governance as proposed by this website, it will never result in anything but marginal, temporary, and in the long term meaningless, change.