Several ideas in the developing northern Australia discussion paper were ditched by Abbott almost as soon as they saw the light of day - including different taxation zones (which he conceded was likely to be unconstitutional, the same reason John Howard and Peter Costello rejected it on every one of the many, many occasions it was raised by the Nationals during the Coalition's last term) and the idea of cutting the aid budget by $800 million to pay for new medical facilities in the north.
The Coalition also immediately jettisoned the proposed ''first term initiative'' of moving federal departments to northern Australia. As the government quickly pointed out, many public servants responsible for policy delivery already lived outside Canberra. Presumably the ones advising future Coalition ministers would need to stay within earshot in the national capital.
And since the Coalition is planning major savings from cuts to the public service and sweeping changes to the way it does things, spending money moving people and departments around the country could run a little bit counter to the plan.
If these ideas were so obviously out of the question, it is unclear why they were included in a document sent by the opposition finance spokesman to premiers just last month, and included on the list of things the Coalition ''proposes to do'' in its first term.
Saturday, February 09, 2013
For Bob and Gina
Lenore Taylor does a good job looking at the politics and improbabilities of the Coaltion's leaked discussion paper about developing Northern Australia:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
But... is it a good idea or not?
One problem they have in the NT is overdependence on the public sector.
Another problem they've been banging on about for ages in the mining sector generally is the difficulty of finding enough people for a job.
Another problem is the lack of willingness of people to move to areas where there are lots of jobs. These people are not only in remote parts of the NT but also in in the heavily populated eastern states.
This plan seems to knock three birds on the head with one stone. I think it could work well. (Actually expect Labor to steal some of the most sensible aspects of the plan shortly and claim it was their idea all along.)
I am somewhat skeptical of all government programs to promote development in geographic areas. There are reasons why some areas don't attract people - they are crappy places to live.
But I don't claim to have read much on the topic.
I suspect there is a lot of right wing dreaming that goes on about the potential for the far North. However, I think it was Harry Clark who once mentioned at his blog that the whole issue of its potential for agriculture had been looked at in detail years ago, but dismissed because of the poor suitability of the soil types up.
I also heard last week someone on talk back radio claiming that Darwin is always going to be limited by its water supply - a lot of it come from bores, and geographically, there is no where to build a dam, and this is true about a lot of the Northern Australian coast. I hadn't ever really thought about that before, but sounds about right.
Post a Comment