Place Shaping and Governance

in Remote Australia

Dr Boyd D Blackwell*,

Prof. Brian Dollery**, & Dr Bligh Grant***

*Post-doctorial Research Fellow, UNE Business School and CRC REP

**UNE Business School and Director, Centre for Local Government

*** UNE Business School and Deputy Director, Centre for Local

Government

boydb@une.edu.au

Presentation made to the 2012 ANZSEE

Conference, Green growth or de-growth? 12 – 15

November, 2012, Bond University, Gold Coast

Outline

• Introduction

• Place shaping and self government

• Place shaping and governance in remote Australia

• Characteristics of remoteness

• Geographical spread of remoteness, ATSI and mining

• Remoteness problems but also success stories

• Governance structures

• Implications: potential for place shaping

2

What is place shaping?

• Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, England (Lyons, 2007)

• The creative use of powers and influence to promote the general well-

being of a community and its citizens. It includes:

1. local identity

2. represent community

3. regulate harmful and disruptive behaviours

4. community cohesiveness, debate, smaller voices

5. disagreements

6. local economy success, sensitive to environment;

7. local needs and preferences, right services to right

people; and

8. other bodies, respond to complex challenges e.g.

natural disasters

3

Place shaping and self government

• Bottom-up approach required

• democratic institutions of self government

• local government critical role socio-economic improvement in developing

countries (despite admin hurdles) (Grant and Dollery, 2010)

• Hole in Australia’s heartland needs fixing (Walker, Porter and Marsh, 2012)

• crisis in governance in remote Australian

• an urgent need for systematic change (Walker, Porter and Marsh, 2012, p. 9)

• they comment on the role of government

• our focus different, current institutional theory

• impacts not just ATSI but non-ATSI people as well.

• focus on ATSI alone futile; we share the problem together

4

NT 1978

Place shaping and remote Australia

• Many areas of remote Australia are unincorporated

– do not have locally and democratically elected

local government (Blackwell, 2012)

• How then do these people go about shaping

their places?

5

1. A say in decisions that affect

them.

2. Equitable and sustainable

financial flows.

3. Better services and a locally

responsive public service.

4. Local control and

accountability where possible.

5. Inclusion in a greater

Australian narrative.

Walker, Porter and

Marsh (2012) ?

ARIA in continental Australia (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2011)

85% of area

BUT 4% of

population (Chaney, 2008)

6

...and 60%

of mining

platform (Walker, Porter

and Marsh,

2012)

Locations of ATSI communities (DCITA, 2006)

Note

distribution

of ATSI

communities

7

Problems associated with remoteness (See Blackwell, Dollery and Grant (forthcoming) for references)

Factors:

• Institutional

• Environmental or geographical factors:

• Health and wellbeing

• Cultural

• Economic

8

Comment on problems and adaptability, resilience and

innovation

• Factors are interwoven and compounding/confounding

• Order of factors important

• institutional factors paramount

• Contrast traditional hierarchy of needs

• Pattern versus hierarchical thinking (Bell, 1998)

• There are ATSI success stories

• Despite media focus

• Resilient (could find water, drill through hard rock)

• Adaptable (shifting settlements as found water)

• Forgiving (restrictions on civil liberties)

• Giving (cultural exchange and awareness)

• Innovative (hemi-parasitic plant, quandong)

• Remote Australia – their home, they love

• ‘a place that nourishes and provides meaning and

identity’ (Walker, Porter and Marsh, 2012, p. 9)

• at odds with typical view

Source: Iga Warta 2012, p.3. 9

A number of hurdles to tapping into ATSI initiative,

entrepreneurship and innovation

• ‘Nanny state’ – state ‘baby sitting’

• Private property versus common property rights (e.g. Iga Warta)

• Liquor prohibition – Qld reintroduce alcohol to ATSI communities

• ‘Horses for courses’ – ‘one size does not fit all’;

• BUT no systematic approach to remoteness problems,

• multitude of state and Cth approaches that confound and exacerbate (Walker, Porter and Marsh, 2012)

• Generally, an inability to shape one’s own place

• Why concept of place shaping is so important to the future of remote

Australia

10

Governance structures

• Multi-level Governance (MLG)

• Polycentric Governance (PG)

• Multi-Perspectival Governance (MPG)

• Jurisdictional integrity

• Type I and II entities

• Examples

• Functional, Overlapping, Competitive Jurisdictions

(FOCJs)

• ‘Fragmegration’

11

Multi-level Governance (MLG) (Baker, Hudson and Woodward, 2004)

• Multiple levels, domains of governance, multitude of players

• No territorial or hierarchical boundedness

• Players and actors operate at different levels, overlap domains

• Allows:

• more thorough analysis of actors, their impacts on shaping places

• Identify lack of authority and responsibility for place shaping in

remote Australia

12

Level (e.g. Global Financial Governance)

Group of three (UE, North America, Japan)

International Regulatory Authorities (WTO. IMF, World Bank)

Regional-level governance (EU, APEC etc.)

National-level governance (USA, Australia)

Subnational-level governance (State of Kentucky, Garrard

County; NSW, Armidale-Dumaresq Council etc.)

Source: Adapted from Hirst and Thompson (1999)

• Networks governance form in democratic society (McGinnis and Ostrom, 2012)

• multiple levels of organisations

• from the public, private, and voluntary sectors

• overlapping responsibility and functional capacities

• Important role for local solutions to complex policy problems

The basic idea is that any group of individuals facing collective action problems

should be able to address that problem in whatever way they best see fit. To do

so, they might work through the existing system of public authorities, or they might

establish a new governance unit that would impose taxes on members of that

group in order to achieve some common purpose (McGinnis and Walker, 2010, p. 293).

• ‘can also work in some of the ‘poorest regions in the world’ (McGinnis and

Walker, 2010, p. 295)

MLG – framework for understanding the

polycentricity of authority and power in human systems

PG provides a way in which government should operate

Polycentric Governance (PG)

13

Multi-Perspectival Governance (MPG)

• builds on MLG and PG by Hooghe and Marks (2003)

• Normative analysis i.e. how governance should be organised

• ‘New Perspectives of Regional Governance’ (Dollery, Buultjens and Adams 2011)

• Identify two types of MLG, Type I and Type II

14

Characteristic Type 1 Type II

Jurisdictional function General purpose Task specific

Membership Non-intersecting Intersecting

Jurisdictional levels Number limited Number unlimited

Design Systemwide architecture Flexible

Source: Adaption of Hooghe and Marks (2003, p. 236, Table 2) Driven by:

• the spillovers they create

• the negative externalities

they extinguish

• capitalise on the

efficiencies of their specific

task

Can only be a member of

one state in Australia

Covers a range of

functions and activities

e.g. security service

Arbitrary boundaries,

drive monopolistic returns

Lean and flexible adapting to

demands of governance change

Type I and II governance structures

• Type 1 governance structures

• e.g. Australian constitution and federation of states

• flexibility constrained but their durability assured by government authority

• Remote rural councils provide services normally produced by (Dollery,

Buultjens & Adams, 2011, p. 247):

• state agencies e.g. aged care and

• private firms e.g. banking facilities and funeral parlours

• Competition between sectors, overlapping – i.e. Type II/FOCJ, like in

education

• Jurisdictional integrity:

• ‘legal and political competence’ of Type I and II entities ‘to operate in a spatial

and functional realm’ (Skelcher, 2005, p. 89).

• Boundary integrity: external integrity or ‘degree of autonomy over a defined

spatial and policy domain’ (Dollery, Buultjens and Adams, 2011, p. 249)

• Relational integrity: ‘a measure of the democratic relationship between the

governmental body and the citizenry it services’ (Skelcher, 2005, p. 93)

15

Jurisdictional integrity and Type I and II

Characteristic Type I Type II: Club II: Agency II: Polity forming

body

A. Boundary integrity High Low High Medium

Response to

intersecting

jurisdictions

Inflexible Flexible Inflexible Flexible

Creation Constitution or

legislation (top-

down)

Self generated

(bottom-up)

By government (top-

down but then arms

length)

Resourced by

government,

industry, individuals

Public Policy delivery General Specific Specific General

Constituency Undefined Explicitly defined

(members)

Moderately defined Well defined

locally/regionally

Legitimacy Electoral system

Member benefits Government

mandate

Popular Participation

Consent Elected

representatives

Self interested

assessment

Appointed board Deliberative

approach (board &

constituency)

Accountability Voters Organizational SHs:

Cost Benefit

Government:

performance

Constituency:

democratic process

and policy

achievement

16

Competency constraint

Source: Development of Skelcher (2005, p. 98, Table 2) and

Dollery, Buultjens and Adams (2011, p. 250, Table 3).

B. Relational integrity

Examples of Type I and II governance structures

• Across Australia:

• Commonwealth, State and Local Governments, Type I

• Regional Organizations of Councils, Type II: Club

• Murray Darling Basin Authority, Type II: Agency

• Regional Development Australia, Type II: Polity forming body

• In Remote Australia:

• Local land councils, Type I e.g. Central Land Council (CLC) under the

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976

• Warlpiri Youth Development Aboriginal Corporation (2012) -Type II club

• youth development program of the Warlpiri people, Northern Territory

17

Remote Australia – Type II continued

• Outback Communities Authority (OCA,

2010), Type II agency.

• Tanami Regional Partnership Agreement,

NT, Type II polity forming body

(Indigenous Studies Program, 2011).

• Includes NT, Commonwealth, local

governments, CLC (representing local ATSI

communities), and Newmont Mining

Corporation.

• Goal: Share responsibility achieving

improvements for ATSI people;

• Focus: ATSI employment and business

development (Newmont 2008, p. 73)

• NB: not accountable to a constituency

on basis of democratic process

• but is accountable by way of policy

achievement.

18

Source: Regional Development Australia 2012

Functional, Overlapping and Competing Jurisdictions

(FOCJ) (Frey and Eichenberger, 1999)

• Functional: have a specific purpose – its size matches this

• Overlapping: geographically and different for each FOCUS (indiv. FOCJ)

• Competing: with democratic institutions for regions, communities and

citizens

• Jurisdiction: power to collect taxes from constituents to finance their

function

• Strong political competition makes governments suppliers of policies that

take care of citizen’s demands and thus increase welfare... Nevertheless

political competition has often been disregarded (Frey and Eichenberger, 1999,

p. 3)

• People can choose;

• efficiency gains and greater political accountability

19

REMOTE AUSTRALIA: Insurmountable cost

of provision; and free rider problems

Fragmegration

• complex interactions, fragmenting forces of

localisation & integrative forces of

globalisation (Winters, 2004)

• Rosenau (2003) introduced concept in Distant

Proximities: Dynamics Beyond Globalisation

• phenomena both remote and close to hand,

• at same time distant but near

• acknowledging them globally but affect people

locally (Winters, 2004).

• Concept allows us to

• humanize governance arrangements

• Individuals gain agency by understanding the

‘macro and micro interactions’ in governance

arrangements (Winters, 2004, p. 285).

• ‘people count... that all... actions originate with

individuals who may then form aggregate

entities that engage in salient behaviour’

(Rosenau, 2007, p. 308).

20

8 fragmegration sources at 4 aggregation levels (Rosenau 2007)

Micro

(individuals)

Macro

(collectives &

states)

Micro-macro

(individuals &

collectives

interact)

Macro-macro

(collectives

interact)

skill revolution

organisational explosion

bifurcation of global

structures

mobility upheaval

weakening of territories,

states and sovereignty

authority crisis

globalisation of national

economies

microelectronic

technologies

21

People able to link distant events with proximate circumstances

New in/formal organisations created at every community level & world

part

Flourishing of innumerable actors other than states > WWII

Vast and rapid movement of people, people overboard

As seven other forces take affect

Authority structures are undergoing disaggregation Churches, Mafia, Govt

Free enterprise economic systems and reduced trade barriers

Allowing like minded people to coalesce and take action collectively

Positive and Normative Analysis

Implications: Possibilities for remote Australia

• Type I & II not mutually exclusive but coexistent

• can help match heterogeneous characteristics and

preferences

• not one size fits all

• BUT, there are Type I institutional hurdles for remote

Australians

• if removed may well allow for improvement in wellbeing

22

Implications: Possibilities for remote Australia cont…

• Type II structures via fragmegration allow for liberalization of institutions

• driven potentially by individuals

• i.e. self determination

• i.e. place shaping but not necessarily with local government

• NB: cost of provision, free rider problems, possibilities of benefits of FOCJ

• Do options of Walker, Porter and Marsh (2012) go far enough?

1. ‘Innovation Regions or Zones’ with high level political support to trial

changes and with defined scale and scope

2. Productivity Commission Inquiry into governance reforms’ ability to

drive micro-economic stimulus to remote Australia

3. Outback Commission – has mandate and authority to focus on remote

Australia, change the dynamic of under development, sustain change

and regional coordination

23

Type I /

II?

Type II?

?