structuring regional development for the future€¦ · the second question: how are regional...

StructuringRegional Development for the Future

ATTACHMENTS TO REPORT

A Review of the Functions and Responsibilities of

Regional Development Commissions

November 2010

CONTENTS

1. Reviewof theFunctionsandResponsibilitiesofRegionalDevelopmentCommissions-TermsofReference

2. Reviewof theFunctionsandResponsibilitiesofRegionalDevelopmentCommissions-IssuesPaper

3. Reviewof theFunctionsandResponsibilitiesofRegionalDevelopment Commissions – Responses to the IssuesPaper – Submissions and Consultations: A SummaryReport(FinalEdition)

4. PricewaterhouseCoopersReport–EffectivenessandCostEfficiency of the Regional Development Commissionsin achieving their objects specified in Section 23 of theRegional Development Commissions Act 1993

5. Report of the Review of the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993(June2004)

6. Regional Development Commissions Act 1993

1. Review of the Functions and Responsibilities of Regional Development Commissions - Terms of Reference

2.ReviewoftheFunctionsandResponsibilitiesofRegionalDevelopmentCommissions-IssuesPaper

3.ReviewoftheFunctionsandResponsibilitiesofRegionalDevelopmentCommissions–ResponsestotheIssuesPaper–SubmissionsandConsultations:ASummaryReport(FinalEdition)

Review of Functions and Responsibilities of Regional Development CommissionsResponses to the Issues Paper - Submissions and Consultations: A Summary Report (Final Edition)

The review into the Functions and Responsibilities of Regional Development Commissions is subject to Cabinet confidentiality

2

Table of Contents

Introduction 4

Analysis of submissions 10

The first question: How should Government be organised to improve services and support for regional development?

10

The second question: How are Regional Development Commissions performing? 25

Chapter Page

Summary of notable submissions 43

Brief notes on meetings with DGs and RDCs 107

Brief notes on meetings with key stakeholders 126

Introduction

An overview

This document provides a summary of responses to an Issues Paper on Review of Functions and Responsibilities of Regional Development Commissions. The paper was released by the committee for the review of the Regional Development Commissions as part of a series of consultations. The review’s terms of reference will consider and report on the functions, responsibilities and structures of RDCs, including:

1. The effectiveness and cost efficiency of the RDCs in achieving their objects and functions specified in Section 23 of the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993.

2. The effectiveness of the existing model in achieving the Liberal-National Government’s commitments to regional development, including any overlap, duplication of effort and approaches in other jurisdictions.

3. Any improvements in government service delivery for regional development considering governance arrangements, administrative operations, regional decision making, regional accountability, avoidance of duplication and the roles and responsibilities of other agencies and organisations.

4. Legislative amendments that may be required.

This report is the final edition and includes an analysis and summary of all responses from States, Commonwealth and Localgovernments, peak bodies, corporations and commercially interested parties, community groups, and members of the general public.

4

Introduction

Background

The review committee

The committee for the review of the Regional Development Commissions is chaired by Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Regional Development, the Hon Wendy Duncan, MLC.

Its members include:

– Mr. Graham Thomson, Regional Development Council Chair

– Mr. Doug Cunningham, Chief of Staff to the Minister for Regional Development

– Mr. Mal Wauchope, Public Sector Commissioner

– Mr. Paul Rosair, Director General of the Department of Regional Development and Lands.

Key dates

The committee will report to the Minister in September 2010.

The extended closing date for submissions was 30th July. Submissions received prior to 13th July were included in the 1st edition of this report which was tabled at the Review Committee meeting on 17th July 2010.

Meetings with State Government Agencies, Regional Development Commissions and key stakeholders were held throughout June and July. This final edition includes a summary of these interviews and all submissions.

This report is due to be tabled at the Review Committee meeting on 23rd August 2010 .

5

Introduction

Submission questions

Respondents were requested to consider the following questions :

– 1. How should Government be organised to improve services and support for regional development?

What the model for delivering regional development should look like?

What extent is regional governance being achieved and how could it be improved?

In thinking about alternative models are there services and functions that should be grouped?

Are there any models of delivery that you do not support and why is this?

– 2. How are Regional Development Commissions performing?

How well are the RDCs achieving these functions, are there any gaps?

How well do RDCs work with local stakeholders to achieve their role?

What optimal size and resources do RDCs need to operate effectively?

To what extent are there areas of overlap with local, State and Commonwealth governments?

If there is overlap, is this affecting flexibility and responsiveness?

Are there other services or activities that RDCs could deliver?

Is the existing legislative framework adequate?

6

The Review Committee invited 600 interested parties to submit a response. The general public and other interested parties were also invited to respond through a media release, advertising and the posting of the Issues Paper on the Department of Regional Development and Lands website.

In total 207 submissions were included in the analysis of this report.

Responses to the submissions were independently reviewed, analysed and coded so as to summarise the collective views of respondents.

Given the broad range of views expressed and the fact that there was divergence from the questions posted, the representation of data in this report is necessarily generalised. Copies of all submissions have also been provided to the Review Committee.

Semi-structured meetings were also held with heads of State Government Agencies and Regional Development Commissions to be able to canvas ideas, suggestions and points of view in an informal and confidential setting. A summary of these discussions has been included in this report.

7

Methodology and submissions received

Introduction

58

38

60

42

90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Government Industry Community Local Govt RDC

Subm

issi

ons

(#)

Introduction

RespondentsCommonwealth Government

– Australian Trade Commission

– Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Commonwealth)

– Edith Cowan University (x 2)

– Indigenous Business Australia

– NRM Regional Leaders' Group (WA)

– Regional Development Australia -South West

– Regional Development Australia Great Southern

– Regional Development Australia Kimberley

– Regional Development Australia Wheatbelt

– University of Western Australia (x 5)

Industry

– Adras Property Pty Ltd

– Agknowledge

– Albany Chamber of Commerce and Industry

– Albany Enterprise Group Inc

– Ansac

– Argyle Diamonds Limited

– Augusta Chamber of Commerce

– Australian Industry Participation Management

– Broome International Airport Group

– Bunbury Chamber of Commerce and Industries

– Bunbury Wellington Economic Alliance

– Busselton Chamber of Commerce and

– Industry Chamber of Commerce and Industry of WA

– Devereaux Holdings, The Griffin Group

– DIAB Engineering

– Esperance Chamber of Commerce and Industry

– Ferrowest Ltd

– Geographe Bay Tourism Association

– Grange Resources Harley Global Pty Ltd

– Horizon Power

– Iluka Resources Ltd

– Jebsens Kalgoorlie-Boulder

– Chamber of Commerce & Industry

– Lowes Churchill & Associates Pty Ltd

– McGarry Associates

– Mid West Chamber of Commerce and Industry

– Parsons Brinckerhoff

– Plantation Energy

– M G Corp

– Rio Tinto

– SIMCOA Operations

– Solum: Wheatbelt Business Solutions

– Stocker Preston Real Estate -Bunbury

– Telstra Country Wide

– Telstra Country Wide [Southern WA]

– Tourism and Transport Forum Australia

– WAMMCO International Katanning

– Woodside Energy Ltd

Local Government

– City of Albany

– City of Bunbury (x 2)

– City of Mandurah

– Goldfields Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils [GVROC]

– Pilbara Regional Council

– Shire of Augusta Margaret River

– Shire of Boyup Brook

– Shire of Bridgetown Greenbushes

– Shire of Brookton

– Shire of Broome

– Shire of Carnarvon

– Shire of Christmas Island

– Shire of Collie

– Shire of Dardanup

– Shire of Derby/West Kimberley

– Shire of Dumbleyung

– Shire of Esperance

– Shire of Exmouth

– Shire of Kondinin

– Shire of Lake Grace

– Shire of Manjimup

– Shire of Menzies

– Shire of Merredin

– Shire of Moora

– Shire of Murray

– Shire of Narembeen

– Shire of Northam

– Shire of Northampton

– Shire of Perenjori

– Shire of Roebourne

– Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale

– Shire of Westonia

– Shire of Woodanilling

– Shire of Wyalkatchem

– Shire of Yilgarn

– Shire of York

– Town of Port Hedland

– Western Australia Regional Cities Alliance

– Western Australian Local Government Association

– Western Australian Local Government Association [Kimberley Zone]

– Wheatbelt East Regional Organisation of Councils [WE-ROC]

8

Introduction

Respondents (Continued)

Regional Bodies and Not-for-profit

– Arts Margaret River Inc.

– Augusta Community Development Association

– Augusta Margaret River Tourism Association

– Australia's North West Tourism

– Bunuba

– Busselton Foreshore Working Group

– Community Housing Limited

– Desert Knowledge Australia

– Economic Development Australia

– Greenbushes Aged Community Committee

– Indigenous Implementation Board

– Investing In Our Youth Inc

– Lions Club of Leewin

– Margaret River Community Resource Centre

– Milligan - Community Learning & Resource Centre

– Mirima Council Aboriginal Corporation

– Miriuwung Gajerrong Corporation

– Ngalang Boodja Council Aboriginal Corporation (x2)

– Ninti One Ltd

– Northcliffe Visitor Centre

– Northern Agricultural Catchments Council (NACC)

– Peel Harvey Catchment Council

– South West Academy of Sport

– South West Group

– South West Womens Health and Information Centre

– The Jaycees Community Foundation

– The Oil Mallee Association of Australia

– Tourism Council WA

– Walpole And Districts Seniors Accommodation

– Western Australian Community Foundation

– Western Australian Radio Astronomy Group


– Regional Development Council

– Gascoyne Development Commission

– Goldfields/Esperance Development Commission

– Great Southern Development Commission

– Kimberley Development Commission

– Mid West Development Commission

– Peel Development Commission

– South West Development Commission

– Wheatbelt Development Commission

State Government

– Attorney General; Minister for Corrective Services [Office of Native Title]

– Broome Port Authority

– Commissioner for Children and Young People

– Country Arts WA

– Country Housing Authority

– Department for Communities

– Department of Culture and the Arts

– Department of Education

– Department of Education Services

– Department of Local Government

– Department of Mines and Petroleum

– Department of Planning

– Department of Regional Development and Lands

– Department of Sport and Recreation

– Department of Training and Workforce Development

– Department of Transport

– Department of Treasury and Finance

– Department of Water

– Drug and Alcohol Office

– Edith Cowan University South West Campus

– Equal Opportunity Commission

– Fire & Emergency Services Authority of WA

– Forest Products Commission

– Goldfields Esperance Development Commission

– Landcorp

– Lotterywest

– Mains Roads WA

– Office of Energy

– Perth International Arts Festival

– Port Hedland Port Authority

– Racing & Wagering WA

– Small Business Centre Derby

– Small Business Centre Goldfields

– Small Business Centre West Kimberley

– Small Business Development Corporation

– TAFE C Y O'Connor

– TAFE Great Southern

– Tourism Western Australia

– Water Corporation

– Western Australia Police

– Western Australian Electoral Commission

– Western Australian Regional Development Trust

– Western Power

Public

– 29Members of the Public

9

Analysis of submissions

The first question: How should Government be organised to improve services and support for regional development?

11

What should the model for delivering regional development look like? Q1a

Types of models

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Centralised Decentralised Existing New

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


Note: 184 /207 submissions included responses to this section..

“The essential requirement for improving services and support for regional development is to maintain a strong presence in the regions.” [Kerr, David]

“Decision making needs to be devolved down to regional state government offices.” *Albany Chamber of Commerce and Industry]

“Ensure strong non-political local stakeholder representation in regional decision making capacity in the areas of policy, funding priorities and regional information to government. The current model of regional boards provides this mechanism in a functional and accessible way.” *University of Western Australia, Albany Centre]

“To counter the development of management silos, other states have ensured that effective systems and resources are placed into their regions tasked with linking regional industry back into the government’s broader economic development objectives. This hasallowed regional industry to participate in a much broader ranges of economic opportunities. Effective linkages to achieve this important goal currently do not exist in Western Australia.” *Australian Industry Participation Management]

“Any model delivering regional development should ensure regional representation and regional decision making. This is essential for Government to provide relevant services across a diverse State. It allows for unbiased advice on issues that impact regional economies and communities without being "filtered" by the Perth bureaucracy. Unfortunately it is easy to become Perth centric in our views at the expense of regional communities interests.” *Small Business Development Corporation]

“It is suggested that the RDCs be converted to Regional Development Offices and come under the auspices of the Department of Regional Development and the role of Independent Commissions be abolished. Each region would establish a Regional Planning Committee and be represented on the Regional Development Council for integration into overall strategy.” *Vinci, Charles , mcvCreative Business Solutions]

“The role of the Regional Development Commissions going forward must be focused on building community trust and capacity, in order to harness the enormous resource lying dormant within people of goodwill in all regional communities. A sense of identity, respect for fellow community members, and the value each is able to add to the region are simple basic and understood by most people of goodwill. The challenge is to allow it to happen.” *Western Australian Community Foundation+


Types of models – Quotes

“There is no single, simple answer to this question. Rather, there are different options and mechanisms for preferred machinery-of-government arrangements depending on the government's desired outcomes for regional development, the services and activities that are to be done to contribute to achieving these outcomes and the resources that are available to direct to this activity. These are close to RDCs objects and functions. As there is significant potential for overlap and duplication between these roles it is recommended the review committee considers incorporating RDC’s operations and functions into RDL. RDL is ideally placed to advocate more robustly for federal, state and local government to focus its investments in regions on projects and industry which leverage significant external funds which will maximise job creation and develop and broaden the economic base of regions. This is evidenced by the work done by RDL’s Kimberley office. To retain regional decision making, RDC boards could be maintained for each region to promote their specific regional priorities, make decisions on funding allocations and advise the Minister as required. RDL would provide executive support to the boards through its regional office. The nine chairs of the RDC boards could still form the core of the Regional Development Council, along with local government representatives and the Director General of RDL.” *Department of Regional Development and Lands]

“As the peak body for Regional Development in WA …the Regional Development Council must continue to represent the best interests of and be accountable for Regional Development at the highest possible level. The Council’s underlying structure must be maintained and strengthened in order to meet increased responsibilities.

1. The Council needs to be provided with an exclusive secretariat that can effectively and efficiently represent the interests and needs of the Council.

2. The Council must be provided with a satisfactory independent budget that will allow it to perform its functions effectively.It is suggested that the Chair of the nine Development Commissions along with the sitting WALGA President (or his nominee) and one independent Ministerial appointment constitute Council membership, reducing numbers from 12 to 9.” *Regional Development Council]


Types of models – Quotes (Continued)

13

14

What extent is regional governance being achieved and how could it be improved?Q1bi

Is regional governance being achieved?

Note: 146/207 submissions included responses to this section..

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Positive response Negative response

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


“The governance mechanisms are robust, with a good representative Board that is able to convey the needs of a large cross section of the region.” *Ball, Richard; Keston Technologies]

“As a unique model in Australia, the regional development agencies play a vital role in development of our regions. The current organisational structure, with local offices in towns, is an efficient mechanism for servicing the needs of these communities. Through this structure the regional development commissions have local insight into development needs of the region and have an excellent track record in servicing these needs.” *Ngalang Boodja Council Aboriginal Corporation]

“Because of the leadership status inherent in the board, generated by the preceding factors, the conditions are set for their decision making to be well informed, with both local knowledge and the advice of the executive arm, and influential. Most importantly, the board is formulated to deliver informed local decision making. This is crucial for regional identity, regional community engagement and provides the conditions for efficient and effective local solutions and their grass roots implementation. Moreover, governance oversight of the functioning of the boards is open and accountable to the highest standards of transparency.” *Peate, Jennifer]

“Remote Australia suffers from ‘the tyranny of democracy’ – its few votes and small voice are too easily ignored or forgotten. That the ordinary processes of government are not effective in remote Australia is demonstrated by successive governments’ extraordinary measures to address what appears to be inevitable crises.” *Desert Knowledge Australia]

“While the key Director General’s groups bring cross agency attention to issues in specific locations, there is little evidence in the regions of wide spread 'on the ground’ application of cross agency solutions. An example is in indigenous affairs, where despiteconsistent rhetoric about collaboration and co-operation, there still exists a reactive ‘drive in drive out’ crises management approach to this issue. Another example is the children‘s services area, where functions across several central agencies at a state andfederal level result in extremely poor policy and service models that fail to meet the needs of rural, regional and remote Western Australians.” *Wheatbelt Development Commission+

“The Department believes regional governance is poor as competition is occurring between the functions of local government authorities and the RDCs. The Department is aware that local governments have some concerns that RDCs are acting as a Regional Local Government Council” or depending on relevant personalities like a redevelopment authority such as EPRA.”*Department of Planning]

What extent is regional governance being achieved and how could it be improved?Q1bi

Is regional governance being achieved? – Quotes

16

What extent is regional governance being achieved and how could it be improved?Q1bii

In what ways is regional governance being achieved?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Regional stakeholders manage regional issues

Regional stakeholders have involvement in decisions

Regional stakeholders interests are promoted

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


Note: 101 / 207 submissions included responses to this section. One submission

can include multiple responses.

..

What extent is regional governance being achieved and how could it be improved?Q1bii

In what ways is regional governance being achieved? – Quotes

“The Regional Development Commission’s are responsible for a number of great initiatives that will make a sustained contribution to the growth and development of regional areas in Western Australia. This would not be possible without the intricate knowledge oftheir regions and the relationships they are able to forge with local stakeholders and communities by being physically present in the regions.” *Regional Development Australia Wheatbelt]

“Commission’s are very well placed and have strong networks with local business and community leaders. Commission’s also havesignificant links with indigenous communities and are in a position where they have brokered negotiations to achieve outcomes with the local community. Major projects have been facilitated with strong Commission involvement. These have included Coastal Shipping services, upgraded air services, and communications improvements.” *Community Housing Limited]

“Regional Development Commissions have been instrumental in working with Councils and community groups to develop a broader perspective. It is only in quite recent times that Councils have been prepared to work together to identify the overriding issues that affect all in their regions and cooperatively identify and support regional infrastructure. The outcome of this development has been a raised level of government services and infrastructure and it has underpinned the growth of private sector service delivery to country communities. It is important to understand the regional focus could, without the RDCs, again become a chaotic clamour for individual attention.” *Busselton Foreshore Working Group]

“A good relationship *with the GSDC+ is in place with local communities and there is a robust connection to State decision making structures and accountabilities. This is demonstrated by RDC senior management’s ability to deal directly with the senior management of public sector agencies and business and community sector leaders. Moreover, where necessary, to communicate directly with theMinister. Public and private sector peer relationships tangibly support regional communities and industry stakeholders through enabling informed and appropriate responses to issues raised and the reassurance that these issues are being communicated direct to senior levels across government.” *Great Southern Development Commission+

“The coming together of the nine statutory bodies through the Regional Development Council provides a well informed state-wide advisory body to the Minister that is able to provide advice based entirely on local assessments of issues and needs, given that the Chairs presence on the board of the Council is as a member of the Council, not as Commission Chairs.” *Regional Development Council]17

18

What extent is regional governance being achieved and how could it be improved?Q1biii

How can regional governance be improved?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Increased funding Capability of staff/board

Pay more fees/salaries

Hosting shared services

Coordinated planning

Local govt amalgamation

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


Note: 134/207 submissions included responses to this section.. One submission


“There needs to he governance mechanism that ensures that the Minister, on advice of the Department, can reach agreement on whatthe regional priorities are and just as the importantly, the Inter-regional priorities, to enable a more consistent approach to ‘whole of State’ priorities for the delivery of community benefits.” *Department of Planning+

“The importance of appointing board members who have a sound understanding of a range of regional issues is paramount to the success of any particular Regional Commission.” *Australia's North West Tourism]

“There needs to be the governance mechanism that ensures that the Minister, on advice of the Department, can reach agreement on what the regional priorities are and just as importantly, the Inter-regional priorities, to enable a more consistent approach to ‘whole of State’ priorities for the delivery of community benefits.” *Department of Planning]

“The Department of Regional Development would provide corporate service functions and this arrangement will improve overall governance and save between 25% to 30% of the existing RDC budget aggregate of $18.5 million, or between $4.62million to $5.55 million per annum. This saving would be better invested in improving regional capacity, planning and major project facilitation.” [Vinci, Charles; mcv Creative Business Solutions]

“RDCs currently work independently of one another across the State and tend to manage their range of services to their region inisolation of the other RDCs creating a perceived competition with one another. LandCorp would be assisted by a model which improves the coordination across regional WA and between RDCs. LandCorp suggests the Regional Development Council could act as the pre-eminent body to represent the regions providing strategic and operational advice to the Minister on priorities between RDC activities.” [LandCorp]

“Development Commissions require a greater level of autonomy and authority that will strengthen the work they do with local stakeholders. This will reduce to some extent the current overlap that exists and them being a passive passenger with State and Commonwealth governments.” *Community Housing Limited+

“New RDC-type bodies will need clear terms of reference, objective member selection criteria, good governance and peer review systems, performance criteria and regular renewal of members. Objects and functions will need to be precise and (if avoidable) not duplicate local government or other functions.” *Western Australian Regional Development Trust+


How can regional governance be improved? – Quotes

“RDL offers the following suggestions about what else it considers could be done in support of regional development: the preparation of integrated, whole of government, industry and community, infrastructure and service delivery action plans for each region that accounts for regional differences to inform government priorities and investment; increased support for regional contributions to government decision-making; greater devolution of statutory approvals to the regional level ; increased support for the emergence of regional leadership and regional leaders.” *Department of Regional Development and Lands+

20


How can regional governance be improved? – Quotes

21


Q1c

Agencies providing services that should be merged with RDCs

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Local government Tourism NRMs CRCs RDAs

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


Note: 41/207 submissions included responses to this section.. One submission can include multiple responses.

22


Q1c

Agencies providing services that should be merged with RDCs – Quotes

“Improved partnerships between Commonwealth and State Governments could exist, with RDCs being the catalyst to ensure RDAs

are delivering on the same themes at all levels of government. This could be achieved through shared or incorporated arrangements

between the two organisations. This could also help to avoid duplication on some levels, and effective channelling of resources in

other instances.” *Australia's North West Tourism]

“Under this model, DRDL will be responsible for setting a vision, key objectives, strategic directions and key outcomes for regional

development. This will inform the work of the Western Australian Regional Development Trust and the RDC in regional priorities and

regional planning considerations.” [Vinci, Charles ; mcv Creative Business Solutions]

“It is Tourism WA's view that the RDCs should continue to play a strategic and tactical role in tourism development in the regions. In

light of the recent decision to close Tourism WA's regional office network, there is an opportunity to formalize a role for the RDCs in

strategic regional investment and planning decisions affecting tourism, and it is Tourism WA's belief that this would offer significant

benefits for the sector” *Tourism WA+

“The Trust suggests the RDC review committee consider the possibility of establishing RDL offices in the regions with decision-making

and service-delivery powers and authority, and perhaps with the capacity to be an administrative host to other Government

departments, where that is practical sensible and cost-efficient. There is no need for there to be a simultaneous nine-region

implementation of such a policy. It could be rolled out in the region/s of greatest priority and the concept adjusted with experience.”

[Western Australian Regional Development Trust]

“Functions within the department *DRLD+ that should transfer to Commissions include Community Resource Centres and control of

the Regional Grants Scheme, including regional strategic reserve allocations. within this region the current roll-out of the new CRC

model is producing problems due to lack of consultation and local knowledge, whilst the administration of the latter should be

subject to a functional review to ensure adequate management of risk is balanced with rational reporting and audit requirements”

[South West Development Commission]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Expanded role for DRDL

Other Responsiveness Governance / Independence

Effectiveness Cost efficiency Accountability

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


23

Are there any models of delivery that you do not support and why is this?Q1d

Note : 88/207 submissions included responses to this section.. One submission can include more than one response in the left chart.

Unsupported models of delivery

Unsupported models Reason why expanded role for DRDL is unsupported

Are there any models of delivery that you do not support and why is this?Q1d

Unsupported models of delivery – Quotes

“Government needs to be organised to ensure sufficient services are delivered at the community level, not through a centralised

delivery model. A stronger local presence is required with greater knowledge and experience of regional needs. Decision makers in

the public sector must have first hand experience working in regional areas.” *Shire of Moora+

“The Shire supports the governance model whereby the Board of the Commission is comprised of local representatives who have

local knowledge of the SW Region including representatives from the Shire Councils. This model is preferred to any model which

advocates the centralisation of governance and decision making to the Perth Metropolitan Area or within the larger Department

Regional Development or other state departments. This model is more responsive to local needs and local priorities and ensures that

funding and development is maximised in the whole Region rather than allocated on the basis of centrally developed outcomes and

potentially narrow political considerations rather than on the basis of local regional merit”. [Shire of Augusta Margaret River]

“Trying to make a regional body comprehensively representative leads to large numbers and leads to performance difficulties; it

would mean that membership should include shire presidents, chairs of business chambers, indigenous and non-indigenous

community leaders, business leaders, and so on. That leads to an unwieldy body. It is better that such political representation

remains the province of local government and state parliament.” *Western Australian Regional Development Trust+

“The KDC acknowledges the ongoing challenges involved in supporting small scale operations of regionally based statutory

authorities and particularly in respect of IT, Human resource management and accounting services. However, KDC does not consider

that the grouping of these operational services within an agency prescribed by Government provides an appropriate or efficient

option for the Kimberley. Conversely, KDC considers that it should remain free to: retain its own ‘in house’ services or negotiate the

best value arrangements with other local partners, including other State agencies, Local Government, Commonwealth Government

or private sector providers, which ever solution provides the best service outcome in the region.” *Kimberley Development

Commission]

“The model of delivery not supported is the current situation where commonwealth and state agencies are providing similar or

duplicated services to the region without communication between agencies and no agreed regional outcomes.” *Regional

Development Australia Kimberley]

Analysis of submissions

The second question: How are Regional Development Commissions performing?

26

How well are the RDCs achieving these functions, are there any gaps? Q2ai

Are RDCs achieving their legislative function?

Note: 179 /207 submissions included responses to this section..

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


“In terms of performance I consider our Commission to be very effective, with strong community networks and relationships.”

“The KDC has proven to be a most effective mechanism to deliver Federal and State initiatives locally e.g. Ord Stage II and the East Kimberley Redevelopment Package.” *Rio Tinto+

“Overall, the Regional Development Commissions are performing well. The Commissions' links between the local business communities and State and Federal government appear to be strong. In addition to the Commissions' strong ties with established regional communities, the Commissions have been able to build strong relationships with indigenous communities that have often

been underrepresented in State and regional development initiatives.” [Angela Riley, Independent Director, M G Trusts]

“There is a vast divergence in performance of RDCs across WA. Some are very connected in with their communities and others appear somewhat more removed.” *Small Business Development Corporation]

“At a practical level, local legitimacy and a statutory framework provides each of the nine regions with a single and articulate voice at the Cabinet table. Aside from parliamentary representation, this is the only pathway open to regional Western Australians toadvocate and defend their regional interests within government.” *Robertson, Jamie+

“In general RDL considers that RDCs are effective at: providing intelligence and advice to Governments, agencies and MinisterialOffice on regional issues ; organising Ministerial and other visits to their regions ; commissioning background research and engaging consultants, as required, to assist with developing projects in their regions; contributing to facilitation and advocacy of some projects (including major ones) in their regions. In general RDL considers that RDCs have been less successful at: effecting structural change to their regions; attracting external investment to their regions; regional branding or positioning for their regions at a national or global level; managing the increased funding directed through the Royalties for Regions program.” *Department of Regional Development and Lands]

“From the perspective of Australia's North West Tourism, the Kimberley Development Commission has played a vital role in the growth and maturity of the tourism industry in the Kimberley. The KDC has been clear in its communications, and has partnered well with other organisations within the region, and which have a similar intent.” *Australia's North West Tourism+

How well are the RDCs achieving these functions, are there any gaps? Q2ai

Are RDCs achieving their legislative function? – Quotes

28

How well are the RDCs achieving these functions, are there any gaps?Q2aii

In what ways are RCDs achieving their legislative function?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Job creation Develop economy Identify infrastructure

needs

Information & advice Ensure govt. service

parity

Encourage, facilitate &

monitor

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s



How well are the RDCs achieving these functions, are there any gaps?Q2aii

In what ways are RCDs achieving their legislative function? – Quotes

“RDCs play an important role in coordinating government agencies. The current model provides the opportunity to have Regional Leaders contribute to the direction of efforts of individual commissions through its board. They play an important role in bringing together Regional agency decision makers to support proponents of new project, identifying road blocks and negotiating ways forward.” [Water Corporation]

“Regional Development Commissions provide a direct voice to government on behalf of individual regions that is not filtered by larger departmental priorities or agendas. As a statutory authority Regional Development Commissions are free to argue and promote the best case of their regional areas to attract resources and promote recognition of local needs and investment opportunity.” *Garland, John [John Garland International]

“RDCs are a partial antidote to many of the systemic issues of governments’ on‐going failure to effectively engage with remote regions and embody to a greater or lesser extent many of the key principles outlined above. However they are limited. RDCs do represent a regional government governance arrangement, and some devolution of decision‐making, but they are very limited in scope being; almost entirely focussed on economic and regional development; there is little citizen involvement or local accountability; they are generally focussed on the cities and subregions of greatest economic activity, with a subsequent lack of attention of the very remote areas of regions; they cannot address some of the fundamental reform of government arrangements (national/state) necessary to address theunderpinning systemic issues that afflict remote Australia; and they are WA government‐focussed.” [Desert Knowledge Australia]

“I think the SWDC on the whole is performing it’s role well. They promote our region well to investors, they listen to local issues, they act on potential opportunities that will benefit the SW, they pursue innovative projects, they take up the challenge on issues that don’t sit directly in any one agency or portfolio.” *Stocker Preston Real Estate – Bunbury]

“The GSDC Board and staff are totally committed to and supportive of regional development in the Great Southern across all sectors of community and economic activity. The GSDC is both strategic and practical in its activities and performance, recognising and supporting the value and benefit of diverse initiatives, priorities and projects throughout the region including education and the arts. This approach has been vital to supporting UWA’s activities in Albany.” *University of Western Australia+

Lotterywest has witnessed the long standing strategic role of these organisations in community development activities. [Lotterywest]

30

How well are the RDCs achieving these functions, are there any gaps? Q2aiii

What are the gaps in achieving their legislative function?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Funding Functions Capability Recognition Coordination Other

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s



“I would suggest that the final integration of regional local government councils with RDCs into an enhanced structure, with legislative

coverage giving authority and control for local decision making through a high level regional group with both local government and

ministerial appointments, will bring the very best available from both sectors to the table and will provide the very best regional and

political outcome.” *Thomson, Graham; LMS Pty Ltd]

“As RDCs have already gained regional credibility and community trust, I would recommend that their function be expanded so that they

take on a key role in the management and administration of significant regional infrastructure projects.” *Busselton Foreshore Working

Group]

“I encourage the Regional Development Commissions to be more focused on community organizations and supporting their work in the

regions. Many are contributing to health and mental wellbeing or to environmental issues that require funding support to keep this

community focused work going by people who know their target groups and communities well. I would like to see RDC’s providing more

support to keep these groups sustained with projections, one on one coaching and economic guidance.” *South West Womens Health and

Information Centre]

“RDC's should be focused on attracting large scale commerce and industry drivers to regions which can provide a long term prosperity and

solutions to the regional centres and hopefully limit the exodus of people from the regional centres to the large cities.” *Adras Property Pty

Ltd]

“At present, the number of government agencies involved in the planning and delivery of projects in regional Western Australia are

numerous and overlapping in responsibility… As such, our recommendation is that government ...consider an outcome that would

facilitate the following: Regional development strategy; planning scenarios and framework; infrastructure plans, plan integration;

rationalisation . In our view, the RDCs in their current configuration are not appropriately set up to deliver on all of the above.” *Western

Power]

31

How well are the RDCs achieving these functions, are there any gaps? Q2aiii

What are the gaps in achieving their legislative function? – Quotes

32

How well do RDCs work with local stakeholders to achieve their role?Q2b

How well do RCDs work with stakeholders?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s



33

How well do RDCs work with local stakeholders to achieve their role?Q2b

How well do RCDs work with stakeholders? – Quotes

“Commission’s have strong networks with local business and community leaders and significant links with indigenous communities and

are in a position where they have brokered outcomes with the local community.” *Agknowledge]

“RDC has a very strong relationship with the Indigenous community, the business community, local government and community services

and long track record of successful projects.” [Stene, Rolf]

“The KDC has played significant roles in partnering with other organisations to improve vital infrastructure across the region.” [Small

Business Centre West Kimberley]

“Some RDCs are highly competitive with other RDCs and their work with local government authorities is normally cooperative, but at

other times, local government authorities may feel threatened and its views or opinions not considered to be relevant by the RDC.”

[Department of Planning]

“The successful KDC model assisted by staff with long and substantial connections to the Kimberley. Success with large projects requires

the involvement and buy-in of a myriad of stakeholders – from various government levels and departments to community and traditional

owners to industry and local businesses. The KDC acts a central point to bring the various aspects of the project together and bridges the

gap between stakeholders.” *Rio Tinto+

“Woodside has built a positive working relationship with the Kimberley Development Commission and Plibara Development

Commission, establishing strong networks with the officers of these commissions.” *Woodside+

“The PDC has been fundamental to building a sense of ‘region’, It has given people living in the region more focus on their area and

through its Board membership has connected to the community, both directly and through media exposure of members (people like to

see someone they know in local papers).” *Peel-Harvey Catchment Council]

“The Wheatbelt Development Commission does not have the influence to compel government agencies to respond to regional

requirements.” *Shire of Brookton+

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Existing Smaller Larger Keep current More Less Core Grants

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


34

Optimal size

Note: 42/207 & 61/207 submissions included responses respectively to the charts in this section..

What optimal size and resources do RDCs need to operate effectively?Q2c

Optimal size and resources for RCDs

Resources

“The size of each RDC is likely to be a function of the size, population and complexity of the region it serves. Resources should be sufficient

to make a real difference, not merely a token gesture towards stated aims and objectives. This means a capacity to respond in a

meaningful way and follow initiatives through to their conclusion rather than merely acting as a conduit or referral agent.” [Shire of

Manjimup]

“The ability of RDCs to deliver in their regions would be enhanced by a greater injection of funds and people resources as well as

decentralized decision making. This coupled with greater coordination of activities across agencies and increased collaboration between

local, state and federal government will enable the best outcomes for regional areas of Western Australia.” *Regional Development

Australia Wheatbelt]

“Optimal size it is difficult to develop or promote an optimal size besed on population as the Department believes an optimal size should

reflect catchments around regional centres, natural resource management (NRM) catchments, and perhaps where appropriate, some

broader community interest areas.” *Department of Planning+

“Budget constraints restrict the capacity of many RDCs. A review of the Pilbara Development Commission (PDC) conducted by the Public

Sector Commission in December 2009 reported that State funding allocations to the RDC did not support its Intended operations. This

situation resulted in either tight operational surpluses or operational shortfalls across the forward estimates period and such operational

shortfalls could only be met by reducing service delivery. The review also stated that this was believed to be true across all RDCs and was

a contributing factor to RDCs having difficulty attracting and retaining skilled staff.” *Department of Treasury and Finance+

The SWDC structure has the following portfolio's and associated staffing resources supporting a total staffing level of 25 FTE: Senior

management [CEO, CEO's PA, Deputy CEO and DFO] ; Finance, administration, media and marketing (7); Grants(3); Policy (1): Information

Technology and Communication (1); Business Development (1): Human Services (1); Research(1); . Austrade service (1); and •Regional

Coordinators which act as conduits for the above (4). In this instance, excluding the senior management group, only 10% of staff

resources are dedicated to business development. [Shire of Manjimup]

What optimal size and resources do RDCs need to operate effectively?Q2c

Optimal size and resources for RCDs

Overlap with other government agencies


Q2di

36


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Suggests overlap Suggests no overlap

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


Government agencies where overlap exists


Q2dii

37

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Local government Strategic planning RDAs Natural Resource Management

RDL

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s



Government agencies where overlap exists – Quotes


Q2dii

“Overlaps between the local, state and commonwealth certainly exist.” *Heaver, David; H + H Architects]

“There are numerous organizations (including state and federal government departments and agencies) and community groups working

toward growth and development of regional areas within Western Australia. This demonstrates that there is a significant need for this

type of work to be carried out; however what this also highlights is that there is potentially a lot of overlap in the activities that these

organizations and groups are undertaking. To avoid multiple groups conducting the same activities there needs to be a better

coordination of services so that rather than doing the same thing numerous times and in numerous different ways it is done once and

done really well.” *Regional Development Australia Wheatbelt]

“It is apparent that most of the RDCs wish to take a role in land release and planning, but lack the expertise to deliver, or the willingness

to admit that the Western Australian Planning Commission has the statutory function to deal with land supply. The Department of

Planning is the Department of the state responsible for land-use planning and hence land supply provision. There are far too many

competitors already within the planning system, who see themselves as having a planning role.” *Department of Planning+

“There is considerable overlap between RDCs and some government agencies and in some instances not-for-profit organisations, not

necessarily through any fault of the RDCs. For example, the Australian Government's Regional Development Australia

committees, although with shared menibership by RDCs, has a similar mandate. This has the potential to confuse stakeholders and

communities.” *Department of Regional Development and Lands+

“Local governments have the same roles and objectives, underpinned by their general function of providing for the good governance of

persons in their districts and through their statutory requirement to develop plans for the future.” *Department of Local Government]

“DTF believes that the current constraints to RDC performance are primarily the result of a lack of strategic coordination across the RDC

network and the absence of a consistent understanding of the role and responsibilities of each RDC. This environment leads to duplication

and unsustainable models of RDC.” *Department of Treasury and Finance+

38

39

Are there other services or activities that RDCs could deliver?Q2e

Other functions or activities for RDCs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tourism Strategic planning Natural resource management Community resource centres

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


Note: 60/207 submissions included responses to this section.. One submission


“Commissions could have greater responsibility in the delivery of regional services, particularly in areas of tourism, indigenous

economic and social development, coordination of whole of government programs for the regions and regional strategic planning.”

Garland, John [John Garland International]

“The restructure of TourismWA has left a void at a local level and, given that one of the objectives of the RDCs is to promote the

region, additional resources to encompass the role vacated by TourismWA’s Development Officers should be considered.” *The Jaycees

Community Foundation]

“The Department strongly supports the RDCs having strategic input into the planning process in terms of advice to regional planning

committees and input into the development of regional planning strategies.” *Department of Planning+

“Government could avoid duplication of regional development activity by placing responsibility for all grants and community

resources with Commissions and have RDL as a department be responsible for state wide policy. Regional Development Commissions

should be seen as the vehicle for accessing Royalties for regions funds through a transparent application process with established

funding rounds for proposals to be considered. [Community Housing Limited]

“Improved partnerships between Commonwealth and State Governments could exist, with RDCs being the catalyst to ensure RDAs are

delivering on the same themes at all levels of government. This could be achieved through shared or incorporated arrangements

between the two organisations. This could also help to avoid duplication on some levels, and effective channeling of resources in other

instances.” *Australia's North West Tourism]

“The influence RDCs have concerning infrastructure and government service provision should be enhanced. Given that issues such as

electricity capacity, water and land availability, communications and transport links are key economic drivers for the regions, RDCs

may need to be empowered to ensure these issues are addressed in a timely manner within a regional context.” *Small Business

Development Corporation]

Are there other services or activities that RDCs could deliver?Q2e

Other functions or activities for RDCs – Quotes

41

Is the existing legislative framework adequate?Q2f

Is the legislative framework adequate?


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Yes No

# o

f Sub

mis

sion

s


“RDCs require a greater level of autonomy and authority that will strengthen the work they do with local stakeholders.” *Community

Housing Limited]

“Regional Development Commissions must be given the legislative power to cut through blockages with state government agencies

and enterprises such as Water Corporation to facilitate regional development.” *Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale+

“There is clearly an appetite for significant change through greater decentralisation of decision making, and thus, regional autonomy

and responsibility for the decisions made in the regions, for the regions. It is my view, and with considerable regional support, that if

this does not occur, we have missed the opportunity to enhance local governance within regions in a meaningful way.”

[Thomson, Graham; LMS Pty Ltd]

“The planning related functions contained in Section 23 of the Regional Development Commission Act (particularly in relation to

infrastructure) should be removed because there is overlap between the role of the western Australian Planning Commission and the

Regional Development Commissions. In terms Regional Development Commissions, the Department considers that their current role or

functions are not clear as notwithstanding the current provisions of the Regional Development Commission Act 1993.” *Department of

Planning]

In summary the RDCs performing an advocacy role which could be strengthened through changes to their Act so that other State

Government agencies would take the advice of RDCs more seriously. At present it Is up to individual State agencies as to whether they

take advice from RDCs or seek their input into regional issues. Many agencies do seek RDCs opinions but there is no statutory

requirement for these to be enacted upon. It is very difficult for large agencies that have a state wide perspective to take into account

nine opinions about a single issue from RDCs. Hence RDCs are considered to have limited influence on statewide regional initiatives. In

addition, it is not evident that the Act requires RDC boards to be accountable for their functions and roles. It may be useful to consider

amending the Act to mandate some accountability of RDC boards. [Department of Regional Development and Lands]

Is the existing legislative framework adequate?Q2f

Is the legislative framework adequate? – Quotes

Summary of Notable SubmissionsExtracts and quotations from notable submissions?

Government

State & Commonwealth

44

State Government

Department of Regional Development and Lands

“The review is timely, given the very significant changes in the resourcing and machinery-of-government arrangements for regional development that have occurred since the proclamation of the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 and the formation of nine Regional Development Commissions.

RDL offers the following suggestions about what else it considers could be done in support of regional development:

The preparation of integrated, whole of government, industry and community, infrastructure and service delivery action plans for each region that accounts for regional differences to inform government priorities and investment.

Increased support for regional contributions to government decision-making

Greater devolution of statutory approvals to the regional level

Increased support for the emergence of regional leadership and regional leaders.

RDCs have performed a useful function and role in the Western Australia regional environment but regional development in Western Australia needs more concentrated, coordinated effort if the Liberal National Government is to realise its vision and stated outcomes for Western Australia.

45

State Government

Department of Regional Development and Lands (Continued)

The recent increase in the number of other agencies with similar interests, considerably greater funding through Royalties for Regions and continuing reporting burden means the time is right for change.

RDL’s preference is for the changes to RDCs to be significant (option 3 – Transfer RDC functions and staff to RDL, either with or without a regional advisory board), rather than incremental (options I – Preserve RDCs as isand 2 – Centralise some RDC administrative functions to improve efficiencies and reduce cost), (See full report for explanation of options) in order to capitalise on the opportunities at hand. While greater integration with regional NRM groups is supported, devolution of existing statutory responsibilities from decision-making groups to RDCs is not.

It is emphasised that any revised or new regional model adopted must retain local decision making as a core principle and should preserve the Regional Development Council as a primary source of advice for the Minister for Regional Development.”

46

State Government

Attorney General (Office of Native Title)

“Overall, the current model for delivering regional development through the RDCs is effective and has the potential to provide:

– A central point for the coordination of government service delivery into each of the regions;

– A dedicated agency in each region with an interest in the growth and development of the region; and

– An advocate for each region within government with an understanding of the key local issues, needs and priorities.

– ..there are significant opportunities, within the State Government’s existing regional development framework, to increase the level of engagement of RDCs in native title matters in the regions.

While the current model for RDCs is generally considered appropriate for delivering positive regional economic and social outcomes, there are various factors to consider that have the potential to impact on the RDC’s ability to achieve these goals. This includes developing a clear scope and set of responsibilities to guide the activities of RDCs and the role they play within government …

The RDCs also need to be resourced with adequate funding and tools and skills to be able to meet these demands, especially given the increased responsibilities now assigned to RDCs through the Royalties for Regions initiative.”

47

State Government

Commissioner for Children and Young People

“The need to be more strategic and prudent with the State’s finances in fact provides an opportunity to concentrate funding in the areas that will have the more effect, be the most sustainable and contribute to a future society that can respond to the environmental, social and economic challenges that will need to be faced.”

Department of Communities

“As a department with a strong interest in community building but with very few staff located in regional areas, the Department looks to local partners such as RDCs to support the development and implementation of programs to assist local communities… It would be valuable to have some mechanism available for centralised planning, coordination or decision maker with partners departments.

It is also suggested that the RDCs are in a good position to take an increased role in local level planning across state government agencies and local government authorities.”

48

State Government

Department of Education

“Regional Development Commissions are ideal forums for coordinating and supporting regional development. Regional Development Commissions are an important vehicle for dealing with significant demographic issues.

The Government is encouraged to facilitate meetings with government agencies and the heads of these agencies to clarify local needs and provide advice to the Regional Development Commissions. These meetings would:

support the transfer of information to enable member agencies fulfill their mandate;

provide the agencies with opportunities to share issues and knowledge and develop support and service plans that will allow them to more effectively and efficiently service their clients;

provide the opportunity for agencies to work together to a common objective;

ensure regional development plans bring together the planning of the state government agencies into a coherent plan to meet agreed outcomes;

provide a forum for discussions that would allow cooperation with facilities, staff and operational processes to ensure scarce resources are strategically utilised; and

support strong local relationships which would compliment a clear interagency approach that has the ability to align agencies and facilitate the sharing of resources where certain agencies interact in the field.”

49

State Government

Department of Local Government

“The RDC model, of state government statutory authorities that are based in the regions, and directly accountable to the Minister responsible for administering the relevant legislation, is an appropriate approach for regional development in Western Australia, given the distinctive characteristics that apply in this State.

Nonetheless, one of those distinctive characteristics is rapid change, and RDCs, like the local government sector in Western Australia, must be prepared to adapt if they are to retain relevance. A number of larger, stronger local government entities, such as amalgamated local governments, Regional Transition and Regional Collaborative Groups, are currently evolving. In a dynamic landscape, those entities, and the RDCs, will seek to redefine their roles and responsibilities. “

Department of Planning

“The Department is of the view that there should be no confusion between the roles and responsibilities of agencies including redevelopment commissions….

In terms of Regional Development Commissions, the Department considers that their (RDCs) current role or functions are not clear…Hence the model needs to be refined in that the role of the RDCs should be defined more specifically by statue so that it is clear what they do.

The planning related function contained in Section 23 of the Regional Development Commission Act (particularly in relations to infrastructure) should be removed because there is overlap between the role of the Western Australian Planning Commission and the RDCs.”

50

State Government

Department of Sport and Recreation

“Provide a regional governance structure that:

– Provides strong leadership within each region to and for the communities within that region.

– Provides a direct voice to government on behalf of individual regions.

– Provides advice to State and Commonwealth governments on regional implications for draft statewidepolicies and strategies.

– Supports local decision making..

– Supports across government collaboration and service delivery.

– Provides the opportunities for local input..

– Ensures planning regimes and the subsequent investment strategies adopted have short, medium and long term horizons and targets.”

Department of Training and Workforce Development

“The model for regional development needs to include a whole-of-government approach to providing services, infrastructure and support for the regions. Government needs to work collaboratively to achieve common goals, with a specific agency given the ‘lead’ responsibility to coordinate initiatives and projects within each region.

The role of the Regional Development Commissions could be strengthened further by giving them greater ‘lead agency’ coordination responsibility relating to initiatives in their region.”

State Government

Department of Transport

“A model that appears to work well is the involvement of development commissions in planning and gaining support for projects and then working with other government agencies to deliver projects and services. This model probably needs to be reinforced so as not to cause confusion between agencies and the development commissions and to allow each organisation to focus on their resources.”

Department of Treasury and Finance

“DTF believes that the current constraints to RDC performance are primarily the result of a lack of strategic coordination across the RDC network and the absence of a consistent understanding of the role and responsibilities of each RDC….

An overarching theme of the EAC’s Final Report was the need to strengthen collaboration both within government and between government and the community. There is no doubt that increased collaboration between RDCs, DTF and the newly formed Department of Regional Development and Lands will facilitate a greater understanding of the synergies of their respective roles, delivering better value for money outcomes and improved services for the community….

It is within this context that DTF believes that its regional offices need to continue to grow their alignment with RDCs.”

52

State Government

Equal Opportunity Commission

“In examining a model for regional development, the Commission recommends an indigenous economic and social development strategy that does not limit rights and interests in relations to economic development.”

53

State Government

Horizon Power

“At present, the number of government agencies involved in the planning and delivery of projects in regional

Western Australia are numerous and overlapping in responsibility… As such, our recommendation is that government ...consider an outcome that would facilitate the following:

– Regional development strategy

– Planning scenarios and Framework

– Infrastructure Plans

– Plan integration

– Rationalisation

In our view, the Regional Development Corporations (sic) in their current configuration are not appropriately set up to deliver on all of the above…

54

State Government

Horizon Power (Continued)

Once in place and with a clear mandate, the body (or bodies) tasked with regional development should have the following primary roles:

– Research and Advisory

Research into local trends underpins planning assumptions. Data gathering, surveying and trend analysis would form an important part of the role of the body…

– Planning

This role could work in tandem with the WA Planning Commission and other government bodies in assisting the development of long term planning in regional areas that accounts for long term population trends, and consequently housing, labour, essential services and infrastructure needs…

– Regional advocacy and leadership

This role allows the body to act as an honest broker between government, industry and the local community. It would ensure that local needs are properly communicated to policy makers and would liaise with industry to encourage industrial development in regional areas.

Implementation and delivery

The delivery agency should have access to funding, suitably-skilled workforce, an appropriate organisational structure and clear accountabilities…”

55

State Government

LandCorp

“LandCorp supports the Department of Regional Development and lands as the key policy agency to lead policy discussions on regional development.

LandCorp .believes Regional Development Commissions have been generally effective in undertaking their role in socio-economic development of their regions. Their success could be further extended with adequate resources and whole of State coordination between RDCs.”

Office of Energy

“..The three most important factors contributing to the success of the RDC model are the need for the RDC to have clear objectives, be well supported by a central agency (eg the Department of Regional Development and Lands) and be adequately resourced to implement Government’s objectives.”

56

State Government

Tourism WA

“…WA’s RDCs have played a critical role in regional tourism development at both a strategic and project level.

Tourism WA no longer maintains regional offices but remains committed to regional tourism development. …considerable tourism development opportunities in some cases ..could be realised with a greater level of collaboration between an RDC and Tourism WA.”

57

State Government

Western Australian Regional Development Trust

“The Trust has concluded that:

– Overarching regional RDC-type advice and recommendation bodies are essential.

– A coordinating peak body like the Regional Development Council is needed.

– RDL needs to devolve more decision-making and service delivery to the regions.

“One question the RDC review committee poses is whether RDCs should remain statutory independent commissions. The overarching coordinating body for RDCs – the Regional Development Council – is also a statutory body. The options facing the RDC review committee are to leave the RDCs as statutory commissions or not, to make only the Regional Development Council a statutory body, or to recommend that none be statutory bodies.

Being a statutory body can make reform more difficult. Unless the originating legislation allows for considerable flexibility reform will require legislative change, and that process is inevitably a slow one.

While the RDCs do not need to be statutory authorities (there are savings and administrative efficiencies in them not being so), on the other hand their independence and status as statutory bodies is highly valued.

Whether as a result of the review process RDCs remain statutory commissions or not their function is needed and they should continue to fall under the stewardship of the Minister for RDL and his department.

If the RDCs were to lose their statutory status their independence and function and their recruitment and selection-criteria need to be clear and guaranteed.

58

State Government

Western Australian Regional Development Trust (Continued)

New RDC-type bodies will need clear terms of reference, objective member selection criteria, good governance and peer review systems, performance criteria and regular renewal of members. Objects and functions will need to be precise and (if avoidable) not duplicate local government or other functions.

One difficulty to be confronted is whether a regional body like an RDC should be representative of the region. It is not at present, and that should remain the case.

Trying to make a regional body comprehensively representative leads to large numbers and leads to performance difficulties; it would mean that membership should include shire presidents, chairs of business chambers, indigenous and non-indigenous community leaders, business leaders, and so on. That leads to an unwieldy body. It is better that such political representation remains the province of local government and state parliament…

The central question is this: does the Government want to devolve or delegate more government decision-making or service delivery to the regions, believing that it will deliver faster, streamlined, more efficient, more relevant outcomes?

The issue of what is a fairer system for WAs regional residents must also be considered.

A consequent question is this: if so, will devolution have to be a matter of policy judgement or is it possible to measure this policy from a social impact and cost-benefit point of view?

If Government were to agree to devolve or delegate more government decision-making or service delivery to the regions, then RDL regional offices should be created with a Regional Director, and have authority devolved or delegated to the Regional Director by the RDL Director General (DG) who would be the Regional Director’s line manager.

State Government


In the event of roll-out to all nine regions the DG would probably need an assistant/s DG/s because of the larger numbers reporting to him.

The question will be what lands planning and regional development matters are to be delegated for processing and decision-making at the regional level.

Over and above that central role there are opportunities for RDL offices to include various state licensing or approval functions in the one office, so that business and the community do not have to make multiple visits to multiple offices including to Perth, as at present.

The productivity and efficiency gains here could be significant.

Further, the RDL regional office may be able to provide administrative hosting support on a cost-recovery basis for other Ministries’ departmental officers that may not otherwise have the budget or demand to resource their own regional offices.

The Trust suggests the RDC review committee consider the possibility of establishing RDL offices in the regions with decision-making and service-delivery powers and authority, and perhaps with the capacity to be an administrative host to other Government departments, where that is practical sensible and cost-efficient.

There is no need for there to be a simultaneous nine-region implementation of such a policy. It could be rolled out in the region/s of greatest priority and the concept adjusted with experience.

60

State Government


Planning

The fundamental question the RDC review committee is asking is ‘How should Government be organised to improve services and support for regional development?’ As a guideline to addressing this question, the RDC review committee says that ‘it is important that regional development is approached in a way that best promotes coordination and integration, as well as achieving a triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental sustainability.’

It is hard to see how this can be effectively achieved without the development of required regional outcomes and regional future-based plans.

Local and regional outcomes achieved through local and regional decision-making and service delivery will rejuvenate communities widen opportunities and help address the gap between regional and metropolitan expectations.

Decision-making of a high order is made more difficult and less efficient without good planning systems.

There is no question that regional development has successfully occurred without an overall plan, but that does not invalidate the need for planning. Good planning saves time and money, integrates collaboration and coordination, and crystallises desired social and economic outcomes.

The Government has recognised the need for regional plans and has established a number of planning committees in the regions. These Regional Planning Committees advise the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on part of a region or on an entire region.

61

State Government


These committees need to be structured and resourced in a way that maximises timely performance, and the RDC review committee can assist in that goal.

In this context good planning should be continuous not static, client-based not supplier-based, regionally-based not centrally imposed, future-based not past-embedded.

Attempts have been and are being made to initiate and execute plans in the regions. The Trust’s consultation has indicated that the main issues are:

There are many plans but no regional plans yet

– Planning is by business, community, sector, silo, department and authority but is apparently not well coordinated

– Planning is needs and past based and not future based

– ABS census and other data is not sound enough and sometimes weak

– Other legislation (such as State Agreements with corporations) can impede matters

– Timely arbitration and decision-making is needed

While much planning has been done by local government and industry, a major failing has been that many plans were generally done either with no real expectation of funding or in the hope of provoking funding. This could lead to weaknesses in quality substance and focus.

62

State Government


The Trust was advised that in the Pilbara multiple plans are in existence under way or in conception for each corporation, by not-for-profit entities, by business and community organizations, by local government, and by commonwealth and state public sector bodies.

Some plans would be comprehensive very useable and of a high standard; but only some (like port authorities, local government) would be public sector and/or publicly available.

A large mass of data is theoretically available which if shared would enhance regional planning considerably; in practice most for-profit and not-for-profit organizations may continue to keep their strategic and operational plans to themselves, and are entitled to do so.

Nevertheless, what coordination and shared data could be achieved should be tried for. Considerable coordination across community industry and all tiers of government is possible. This has been restrained in the past; in particular centralised planning and budgeting do not provide the opportunity or resources for regional and local aspirational thinking and expression.

Starting with two principles, that planning should be regionally-driven and planning should be future-based -what could this mean?

Taking the Pilbara region as an example, there is no doubt that there have been significant economic business and social advances in the Pilbara, which has changed and is changing for the better. Considerable effort has also been put into improving planning in the region.

There is a clear need for an overall Pilbara plan and within that an overall plan for each major sub-region (e.g. Hedland).”

Commonwealth Government

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government “The Department acknowledges the difference in the preferred governance models for regional development

organisations, with the Commonwealth establishing incorporated not-for-profit associations (RDA’s) and the WA Government currently supporting statutory bodies. The Department is aware the RDA committees in WA are working closely with the Regional Development Commissions on the development of their regional plan... the Department suggests:

– The Review Committee to consider a mandated reciprocal representation between RDC and RDA committees. Under current arrangements, RDA committees are required to include up to two RDC representatives while RDCs are only encouraged to reciprocate.

– Consideration be given to co-location of RDA committee staff and RDC staff. This would encourage greater synergies in activities, information sharing and networking between the two organisations. Cost efficiencies may also result.

– Arrangements that are put in place are flexible enough to accommodate the different needs and priorities of the regions.

– Consideration be given to RDCs and RDA committees partnering to deliver and co-manage regional project development funding, including making joint allocation decisions taking into account issues and priorities included in the two organisation’s Regional Plans or other strategic documents. Such a partnership currently exists between the South West Development Commission and RDA South West.

– RDCs and RDA committees be encouraged to co-host forums, events and/or consultations, where appropriate. This would ensure the effective and efficient use of public resources, minimise “consultation fatigue” in local communities, present a united approach to regional development and allow each organisation to leverage off its partner’s networks.”64


Indigenous Business Australia

“IBA sees the work of the Development Commissions as a valuable adjunct to IBA’s own responsibilities in supporting and facilitating Indigenous economic development in WA…

– The role of Commissions in strategic planning and coordination of implementation could be strengthened to provide a single, place-based regional point of focus for Local, State and Commonwealth development planning.

– Commissions could have greater responsibility in the delivery of local services such as Indigenous economic and social development, small business services and tourism services.

– Regional Development Commissions could be better supported by ensuring that there is dedicated funding that can be used for development activity that is unique to each region and that it is more clearly focussed on economic and community development outcomes…

– Regional Development Commissions could be given more responsibility for coordinating and accounting for resources (grants and community resources) in their regions, with the Department of Regional Development and Lands.”

65


Regional Development Australia (RDA) - Great Southern

“Our Committee believes that GSDC makes a positive contribution as a State Government body in the region through:

– Regional community board membership ensuring that less populated but significant regional communities have a voice in regional planning and decision making

– Forming strategic partnerships within the region and with other government, business and community organisations…

– Strong advocacy for the region at all levels of government

– Forging strong links with other State government agencies in the pursuit of identifying regional priorities …

– Maximising opportunities through networking and active community consultation processes

– Working with regional communities, ensuring that State Government funding resources…be directed toward critical infrastructure and sustainable economic activities.”

Regional Development Australia (RDA) - Kimberley “..supporting and adopting regional strategic plans that all governmental agencies can work towards will

ensure that specific outcomes will be achieved on a region by region basis.

A working model could be through stronger collaboration and communication between Commonwealth and State agencies and could be achieved by a sound working partnership between the Regional Development Committees and the Development Commissions (as per the current MOU)..”

66


Regional Development Australia (RDA) - South West

“Policy/action links: The current RDC structure features a flat vertical relationship ie the number of links between RDC board and the WA Government Cabinet is very short and enables good access to government at the highest levels. The model is strong, but decision-making is not devolved. Perhaps local members of Parliament could be engaged with RDCs to enable a model that merges top-down and bottom-up benefits.

Planning: Planning is an essential function of delivering regional economic solutions but RDCs are not integrated with the planning function of government/WAPC. This is a serious weakness that should be addressed as a priority issue.

Environment: Like planning, environmental issues are important considerations in regional development. RDCs should be fully engaged with environmental regulation. It is imperative that the areas of economic interest, environmental interest and community interest come together to promote greater understanding and to deliver better outcomes.

Funding allocation: Equally sharing money across the 9 RDCs is not reasonable given the sizes of the regional populations they serve. Some regional Royalties weighting can be given to disadvantaged regions, but communities of 11,000 (Gascoyne) enjoy unbalanced per capita resources in relation to those of 135,000 (South West) for example.

Australia could look to other best practice models and move away from centralised decision-making. Similar agencies in Canada and Europe each have the kind of budgets that are shared across the whole of WA.”

67


Regional Development Australia (RDA) - Wheatbelt

“Individual regional agreements between the Department Commissions and RDA’s are necessary rather than a one-size-fits-all approach but an overarching framework to support this process would be beneficial.

Broader than the working relationship between the Development Commissions and the RDA’s, there is a need for a greater level of collaboration and understanding between the three levels of Government (i.e. federal, state and local)…

..there is potentially a lot of overlap in the activities that these organisations and groups are undertaking. To avoid multiple groups conducting the same activities there needs to be better coordination of services…”

68

Industry

69

Industry

Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia (CCIWA)

“The Regional Development Commissions (RDC) can play three critical roles in the regions. They are:

– in the planning process;

– as a regional hub for service delivery coordination; and

– in administering projects.

To ensure that the State Government has a clear understanding of each region’s social and economic infrastructure requirements, as well as to plan for future service delivery, the RDCs should develop economic and demographic projections for each region. To ensure consistent quality and comparable results, State Government departments should provide state-wide principles and methodologies, which the RDCs can localise as appropriate, for future planning.

To ensure decision makers are clear about the needs of regional WA, RDCs should co-ordinate regional meetings between the individuals responsible for delivering government services, the Director Generals of key government departments, and local businesses and the community.

State Government funding should be directed towards projects which provide the greatest benefit to the State. RDCs should, in conjunction with the Department of Planning, develop regional plans that contribute to what should be in place for a State strategic planning process. The priorities established through this planning process, and assisted by information gather by the regional forecasts, should form the basis of the allocation of money from the Royalties for Regions program. There should also be greater accountability associated with the funding distribution of the Royalties for Regions program.

Given the restructure of Tourism WA the RDC’s should support the development of the tourism sector in its regional plans and provide greater consideration for tourism amenities when facilitating new projects such as regional waterfront developments, town landscaping, the development of attractions, among others...”

70

Industry

Mid West CCI

“ One of the key planks in regional development is the regulatory and planning approvals phases and to have sufficiently senor Government personnel living in the region for which they are responsible would bring about a much greater awareness of the development issues that are relevant to that region…

Regional Development Commissions appear from the outside to be a perpetual planning and research entity with not a lot of output or constructive outcomes. RDCs could be performing, … in a much more meaningful manner if they were allowed to take equity positions in the form of seed capital in projects that presented a very significantly tested business case.”

Rio Tinto

“Rio Tinto supports Regional Development Commissions as a sensible and locally based model of regional service delivery.

Regional Development Commissions provide a direct voice to government on behalf of individual regions that is not filtered by larger departmental priorities or agendas….

Regional Development Commissions act as one central point to draw together various government policies. Delivery would be fragmented and ineffective if delivered by various government departments instead of the Regional Development Commission as a single point of local contact.”

71

Community

General Public & Regional Bodies (Including NFPs)

72

General Public

Charles Vinci - mcv Creative Business Solutions

“Current reporting relationships to the Minister are complex and fragmented for regional development policy and investment proposals. The Minister now has to deal with nine independent RDCs, (including nine CEOs), the RDC, the Trust and the Department. This arrangement is not conducive to the development of integrated and co-ordinated regional development policy and strategy.

Under the proposed business model (figure 1), it is suggested that the RDCs be converted to Regional Development Offices and come under the auspices of the Department of Regional Development and the role of Independent Commissions be abolished. Each region would establish a Regional Planning Committee and be represented on the Regional Development Council for integration into overall strategy.”

Under this model, RDL will be responsible for setting a vision, key objectives, strategic directions and key outcomes for regional development.”

73

General Public

Graham Thomson - Logistics Management Services

“It is logical to expect that we will see an increasing role for local governments on a regional basis. There is encouragement in both State and Federal arenas for this to occur. The Federal Government have made it clear for years that they would prefer that funds be distributed direct to regions, rather than go through the State process of distribution. Moreover State distribution of Royalties for Regions funds is being geared to encourage more regional decision making by local government…

We therefore should expect, and encourage, the further development of regional councils, as they mature, we should look at how they, RDC’s and RDA’s can be folded into such an enhanced regional governance structure.

Certainly, we should be encouraging this direction, rather than considering any reduction in local authority and decision making in regions.

The previous experience where regional administrators relied on Perth based control did not work. In discussion with 2 past regional administrators it is clear that the reason they were able to achieve positive outcomes, in spite of the metropolitan based departmental involvement, was because of the very close working relationship with the responsible Minister. The Minister would visit the region from time to time and decisions were made on the spot to address key issues.

74

General Public

Graham Thomson - Logistics Management Services (Continued)

This simply highlights the need to look to further regionalisation and devolution of decision making to regions across agencies, not a contraction to centralised control…

In my discussions with key regional stakeholders within Goldfields Esperance and further afield, [].. there is clearly an appetite for significant change through greater decentralisation of decision making, and thus, regional autonomy and responsibility for the decision made in the regions, for the regions.”

In my view, and with considerable regional support, that if this does not occur, we have missed the opportunity to enhance local governance within regions in a meaningful way.

It is absolutely imperative that such an enhanced structure must carry with it, all the necessary human and financial resources in order to better deliver for regions.

75

General Public

Jamie Robertson

“…three key principles .. should be retained through the reform process:

– Local skills and knowledge

– Legitimacy

– Leadership and independence

The need for strong and independent Commissions to consistently remind government (of both political persuasions) of the important role played by the regions should not be underestimated.

Max Hipkins

“In regional and remote areas of the State, planning functions would be exercised by the Regional Development Commissions, responsible to the Minister for Regional Development. Membership of the Commissions could remain much as at present, perhaps with only the addition of land use planning expertise, but ensuring that local government representatives are the majority of the members…

Development Commissions would support the following within regional and remote areas:

– Promotion of regional capitals as major service centres;

– Decentralisation of government functions to regional centres;

– Reassessment of regional port requirements in the light of increased mineral demands from China and the need for better facilities for cruise ships;

– Special assistance to combat salinity in wheat belt areas..”76

General PublicProfessor Matthew Tonts, Head of School, School of Earth and Environment (University of Western Australia)

“Given the widely recognised strengths of the WA model, I would caution against making radical changes to the structure and function of the Commissions. It is, however, clear that RDCs have limitations that need to be addressed. In summary:

– they have tended to be under-resourced in terms of their operating budgets/staffing;

– until recently, the funds available for regional projects was limited;

– their ability to achieve policy coordination across portfolios was limited;

– the geographical delineation of the regions does not necessarily reflect ‘natural’ economic or social regions;

– regional boundaries of some agencies are still not aligned to those used by the Commissions.

Alongside this is the wording of some aspects of the Regional Development Commissions Act. The Act was written during the early 1990s recession, so focuses on issues such as job creation, economic diversification etc. These are less important now than tackling labour shortages, fostering infrastructure development, supporting new enterprises, and managing economic growth. Accordingly, the responsibilities of RDC need some modification to more accurately reflect economic realities….

Western Australia is now close to a more optimal model, with the formation of the new Department to work alongside the statutory commissions. This should not be seen as duplication or competition, but as a complementary arrangement. This is, in effect, the structure in place in the European Union.”

77

General PublicTrevor Ayers, Director Economic Development Australia and Economic Development Officer, City of Bunbury

“Western Australia’s Regional Development Commissions meet the needs (of regions) at two levels:

– They ensure that each of Western Australia’s regions has a champion inside the State Government structure. …

– The semi-autonomous structure of the commissions has also enabled them to take a longer term view (greater than just the electoral cycle) of development issues and initiatives within their regions.

A significant change required in the structure of the Regional Development Commissions is for each of them to be viewed on a more individual basis. This would most likely involve each being governed by a separate Act.

It is apparent from the Review of Functions and Responsibilities of Regional Development Commissions Issues Paper and the composition of the review committee that there is substantial support within government for restructuring the development commissions so that they become offices of the Department of Regional Development and Lands. In my opinion this would be a significant and contrary step in maintaining and promoting the future of Western Australia’s regions. The best way…is to strengthen each of the RDCs to enable them to better support their local regions. This strengthening needs to take the form of devolving responsibility for all outcomes relating to their region and resourcing them appropriately as these responsibilities continue to increase in number, size and complexity.”

78

Regional Bodies

Desert Knowledge

“A number of guiding principles we submit should be applied in the consideration of government engagement and administration in remote Western Australian regions:

– Different approaches are needed for remote regions compared to more densely populated areas

– Regional and local differences (including Indigenous demography, culture and land tenure) within and between remote regions need to be taken into account and significantly affect approaches taken to governance.

– Remote Western Australian are entitled to have a say in the policies that affect them, as any person in a democracy should…

– Local decision-making and accountability (including decisions on expenditure) should be maximised

– Governance arrangements should emphasise accountability to service users, constituents and outcomes rather than upward accountability

– Red-tape, administrative and stakeholder management overheads should be minimised

– Remote Western Australians should have fair and effective access to services and funding from governments

– A durable non partisan national commitment for sustainable development of remote Australia and tailored governance arrangements is required…

RDCs already play a role in brokering multiparty agreements and projects, however, this could be extended. Whether RDCs are seen as having enough independence is a critical consideration in playing this role, as is competency.

79

Regional Bodies

Indigenous Implementation Board

“The Indigenous Implementation Board recommends that Government establish a much stronger regional presence through regional governance in order to develop and implement strategic economic, social and environmental policy that will allow regional communities to flourish…

The characteristics of [an effective regional governance model] include:

– An overarching and uniting vision to provide coherence to all regional governance structure…

– Inclusion of all sectors of regional communities...

– Adaptation to the particular circumstances of each region...

– A ‘thin governance’ approach to coordinate and guide the delivery of services ..using local knowledge, rather than adding another level of bureaucracy.

– A philosophical and practical commitment to the empowerment of Aboriginal people...

What is required is a process of engagement that brings participants together to determine the processes and structures that will work for their region…

Once a regional governance process has determined its strategy there must be the capacity to link with broader Government to implement priorities.”

80

Regional Bodies

NintiOne

“To achieve effective governance, strong processes that enable engagement with local people are fundamental. This is where we believe the focus of the Regional Development Commissions in unclear and could be enhanced. …. The Review should acknowledge the initiatives being taken by various government agencies to engage better with Aboriginal people.

We believe that the Regional Development Commissions should recognise strongly the potential that exists in remote regions for people to be trained and supported to work in regional and remote areas of Western Australia and should include a range of positive measures to support this aim.

We would therefore proposed that a development commission, focussed on the development needs of remote Western Australia be developed.”

81

Regional Bodies

Northern Agricultural Catchments Council (NACC)

“Natural Resource Management is a critical regional development concern. .. Food production and water supplies are totally dependent on a healthy natural environment.

The NACC is also mindful of the need to prepare for climate change, through adaption or mitigation. In the near future this role will become more important as our region is one of the most threatened in the world from the impacts of climate change.

Creating sustainability in our natural resources is directly linked to two key elements: preserving and protecting what is left of WA’s natural bushland and protecting and repairing the landscape and coastal areas.

The NACC believes that there are greater synergies and efficiencies to be gained from a closer or different working relationship in the regions between the Regional Development Commissions and Western Australia’s six Natural Resource Management Regional Groups.

Development Commission specific recommendations:

The actions of the development commissions should be more ‘bottom up’ and work with and complement local government, including strengthening capacity of local government. There would be great benefit in the RDCs complementing local government.

Need a long term strategy for the region, looking beyond the current mining boom to capitalising on the current wealth creation for diversification and sustainability – 20 years is not a long enough.

Local communities need to have control of the development of regional priority documents which can be tied to long term integrated State strategies.

There is no regional or State benefit in reducing the statutory powers of the Commissions; the regional models should be maintained and strengthened.

82

Regional Bodies

Northern Agricultural Catchments Council (Continued)

Development Commission specific recommendations:

– The actions of the development commissions should be more ‘bottom up’ and work with and complement local government, including strengthening capacity of local government. There would be great benefit in the RDCs complementing local government.

– Need a long term strategy for the region, looking beyond the current mining boom to capitalising on the current wealth creation for diversification and sustainability – 20 years is not a long enough.

– Local communities need to have control of the development of regional priority documents which can be tied to long term integrated State strategies.

– There is no regional or State benefit in reducing the statutory powers of the Commissions; the regional models should be maintained and strengthened.

– Decentralisation of State agencies to ensure State decision making represents the needs, and desires, of its regional constituents, is to be encouraged.

– Reinstitute social outcomes as statutory powers of the Commissions.

– Recognise and enshrine natural resource management and environmental elements in the objects and functions or regional development commissions’ (that is, recognise the role of NRM in economic development).

– A regional peak organisation or statutory body (eg development commission) should have environmental and social outcomes implicit and explicitly included in its objectives and functions.”83

Regional Bodies

NRM Regional Leaders’ Group

“We suggest that a key part of the review would be the development of a matrix of functions and organisations that covers all aspects of regional development. This would allow identification of overlaps, duplication and gaps in links. It would not only inform the review of the Regional Development framework, but potentially lead to linked reforms in other sectors to improve the whole of government approach.”

Peel-Harvey Catchment Council

“In this respect WA was ahead of the times in the formation of Regional Development Commissions which devolved responsibility for regional development down to a more local level. It was an initiative that was the envy of many in the other states… These have enabled government policy to be delivered within a local context. They have also enabled government to gain a better understanding of regional issues.

84

Regional Bodies

South West Group

“The role of the regional development commissions in infrastructure planning, coordination and prioritisation should be strengthened and be mirrored in the Metropolitan area by organisations such as the South West Group, the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council and WESROC.

This submission therefore recommends that to strengthen the role of the regional development commissions in infrastructure planning, coordination and prioritisation, the Regional Development Commissions:

– Allow for cooperation across the locality or Scheme boundaries by having similar structures for infrastructure prioritisation and community engagement across Western Australia;

– Provide for the use of technology to improve access to information and enable stakeholder engagement to improve the quality and reach of community engagement and support collaborative planning and delivery processes;

– Provide input to the Western Australian Infrastructure Coordination Committee on infrastructure planning, prioritisation and community engagement;

– Improve collaboration for industry, business and the community to understand the timing, scope and impact of planned investment in infrastructure.”

85

Local Government

86

Local Government

Western Australian Local Government Association

“The diversity across and within Western Australian regions entails that Local Governments and communities will place different expectations on the role of the Regional Development Commissions. Accordingly the underlying principle of Regional Development Commissions being governed by a Board with strong links to the region must remain. The Association and the Local Government sector would not support independence being taken away from the Regional Development Commission Boards in any way.

Regional Development policy and implementation will be optimised when Regional Development Commission boundaries align with the boundaries of other mechanisms of government. Boundaries for State Government services, such as health, education and police, should match RDC boundaries where appropriate. Further, regional development policy will be most effective when the boundaries and vision of the region align at Federal, State and Local Government level.

The Association supports Regional Development Commissions continuing to play a key role in economic development on a regional level. The Association’s submission also contends that the role of Regional Development Commissions to access and channel State Government services to regional stakeholders and communities could be strengthened. This would see the Regional Development Commissions acting as a conduit into State Government Departments and Agencies and holding them accountable for their policy and service delivery outcomes into the regions.

If the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 is amended due to the current review, there is an opportunity for the role of the Regional Development Commissions to be further strengthened to have a more strategic focus. The Association’s submission argues that “regional development” is not sufficiently defined by the current legislation, which could be amended to include a greater focus on sustainable economic development.”87

Local Government

Western Australian Local Government Association (Continued)

In conclusion, the Association believes:

– Local Governments play an important role in regional development, through community representation, service delivery and infrastructure provision

– Regional Development Commissions should continue as statutory authorities and not be centralised to become outposts of the Department of Regional Development and Lands

– Regional Development Commissions should maintain their independent Boards, with Local Government representation, local decision making and accountability

– Regional development in Western Australia would be improved if State Government service delivery boundaries were aligned

– Regional development would be improved if government mechanisms and regional development boundaries were aligned at all levels of government

– Regional Development Commissions should play become a conduit for State Government services in the regions, taking a whole-of-government approach and holding Government Departments and Agencies accountable

– “Regional development” should be defined in the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 and include reference to sustainability and sustainable economic development

– The establishment of a Perth Regional Development Commission should be considered

– The Association would be happy to discuss any aspect of this submission further with the Regional Development Commission Review Committee.

88

Local Government

City of Bunbury , Mayor

“The Model for Regional Development

– Retain the RDC’s and get them to follow the South East Queensland Model, and to be the coordinator for it.

– Flatten the structure of department and agencies and have policies to avoid their metro centric thinking.

– Improve Governance

– Reduce the Board and remove as much of the LGA and special interest representation as possible.

– Make the Board and the RDC generally more accountable and transparent.

– Focus on a Master Strategic Plan for the Region that includes all infrastructure and service requirements and to prioritise them and program them, and identify when and how they will be funded.

– Get the Board to have up to 2 public meetings in each part of the Region each year so they can discuss want they want to do, and their strategy for ensuring it happens, and to answer questions.”

89

Local Government

Pilbara Regional Council

“The general consensus is that within the Pilbara all three spheres of government are duplicating rather than coordinating effort…

The Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 should be amended to give authority to the Regional Development Commissions to be able to coordinate and direct other State Government Departments and Agencies to undertake regional development activities that are aligned to Community Strategic Plans…

The Regional Development Commission Act 1993 should also be amended to reflect a supportive role and relationship with local government, in particular working with and through the regional local government authorities.”

Shire of Merredin

“Council believes that the review committee should look to ensure that flexibility exists within the Act, enabling all RDC boundaries to be easily amended to ensure such boundaries are more closely aligned to local government groupings and the changing nature of local governments…

..there is potential to make greater use of the networks that exist within the communities to obtain feedback on issues that are confronting the communities...

RDC’s provide, and should continue to provide, a direct voice to government on behalf of the regions they represent…

The RDCs are the link between the local communities and Government and as such need to be across all important issues within their region and be proactive in dealing with these issues on an equitable basis.”

90

Local Government

Shire of Perenjori

“The State Government has failed to recognise its capacity as a major employer and service delivery agency to influence regional development outcomes through behaviour. This can include:

– Decisions affecting regions will be made in the regions;

– As much administration as possible for regional programs will be delivered in the regions;

– State investment in office space and housing will support the devolution of staff to regional locations;

– There will be a significant multiplier from state agencies operating in regional areas.

The Economic Audit Committee (EAC) was established by the current State Government to conduct a wide ranging review of the WA Public Sector. Recommendation 10 details the proposal for Community Hub models be trialled in six piloted regions/areas.”

91

Local Government

Town of Port Hedland

“RDC effectiveness has been hindered by the fact that they have little or no statutory or approvals role to play in investment/economic development decisions….

While development commissions were established to be the “key government player” in the regions, they have not been resourced to undertake this role…..

Where Development Commissions have had authority to make decisions…the process has often been long winded and time consuming….

Development Commissions have become a depository of regional information and statistics. While this function is of use, much of the data is obtainable from other sources..

The Development Commissions have needed clearer strategic direction so that they can focus on specific areas of service delivery…

The mandate and responsibilities of the Development Commissions need to be more clearly defined.

92

Local Government

Western Australian Community Foundation

“The Western Australian Community Foundation submits that the efficacy of initiatives such as Royalties for Regions and “Putting the Public First” and the development and implementation of community strategies to mitigate the effect of the intergenerational transfer of wealth, will ultimately be dependent upon Regional Development Commissions facilitating:

The growth of partnerships between communities, corporations, government, community enterprises and philanthropists/ sources of philanthropy. Partnerships which are founded through conversations between equals. These partnerships will prosper and operate as “partnerships of equals” with aligned interests, shared direction, knowledge, resources and support.

Transparency in the equitable allocation of resources from wealth creation derived from fiscal sources, i.e. transparency which will negate the perception of cost transfer from government to either business and/ or philanthropy.

Regional governance frameworks empowering community and in particular facilitating “emancipatory” governance frameworks for regional communities necessarily including indigenous communities of the area.

The role of the Regional Development Commissions going forward must be focused on building community trust and capacity, in order to harness the enormous resource lying dormant within people of goodwill in all regional communities.”

93


94


Regional Development Council (of Western Australia)

“As the peak body for Regional Development in WA …the Regional Development Council must continue to represent the best interests of and be accountable for Regional Development at the highest possible level. ..

– The Council’s underlying structure must be maintained and strengthened in order to meet increased responsibilities.

– The Council needs to be provided with an exclusive secretariat that can effectively and efficiently represent the interests and needs of the Council.

– The Council must be provided with a satisfactory independent budget that will allow it to perform its functions effectively.

– It is suggested that the Chair of the nine Development Commissions along with the sitting WALGA President (or his nominee) and one independent Ministerial appointment constitute Council membership, reducing numbers from 12 to 9.

The Regional Development Council believes the most effective way of achieving the founding principles of Royalties for Regions is through a statutory structure at the regional level. The statutory structure is generally well understood within the regions and it has a strong established brand as an advocate for the region that can represent the regional interest to the broader public sector. The statutory structure provides a level of future proofing against political dismantling of regional development. It is considered that this is vital, unless there is an alternative structure which can provide at least the same level of security…

95


Regional Development Council (of Western Australia) (Continued)

The coming together of the nine statutory bodies through the Regional Development Council provides a well informed statewide advisory body to the Minister that is able to provide advice based entirely on local assessments of issues and needs, given that the Chairs presence on the board of the Council is as a member of the Council, not as Commission Chairs.

The effectiveness of this structure could be further enhanced by:

– identifying state-wide priorities within a Western Australian Regional Development Policy against which Development Commissions can set targets, plan strategies and report on progress on behalf of the region;

– amending the functions of the Act to better reflect a simple straightforward Regional Development Policy that incorporates the principles of Royalties for Regions and requires each Development Commission to create a rolling 5-year Social and Economic Plan to guide regional planning, and inform land-use planning, for the region;

– simplifying reporting relationships between agencies within the regional development portfolio

– rationalising the State structure for regional development so that regional development commissions become responsible for all operational service delivery for their respective regions.”

96


Gascoyne Development Commission

“The Regional Development Commission structure, in place across the state since 1993, was designed to provide a clear and direct voice to Government from each region… The RDC .. model is generally the right model..

– The GDC Board generally consider that regional governance is being achieved but that there is always room for improvement.

– It is considered that, for the future, the following areas offer opportunities for delivery through RDCs:

– Regional Planning ..

– Indigenous Development ..

– Tourism Development..

– Commonwealth Government [Regional Development Australia]..

The basic components of a successful regional development model in the view of the GDC Board are as follows:

– Ability to report directly to the Minister responsible for Regional Development rather than report through a Director General/CEO in Perth.

– Status of a Statutory Authority able to develop and present cases for resources, investment and services for that region.

– Boards of management made up predominately of local people who can set priorities, make funding and grants decisions, and set priorities for the CEO and staff who are based in their region and understand their region.

– Sufficient funding and resources to make a substantial contribution to the development of the region concerned.”

97


Goldfields Esperance Development Commission

“Governance:

– Decentralised governance model should be at the heart of the Review Panel’s thinking. The GEDC believes in decentralised decision making to the regions as far as is reasonable and practicable. This implies that the GEDC is strongly supportive of local decision making and regional autonomy...

– All Government agencies, including the Department of Regional Development and Lands should be regionalised to some extent with levels of authority and responsibility built in to meet the needs of the regions…

Operations:

– RDCs must have the capacity to thing and act strategically, long term and be in a position to advance or manage strategic projects…

– Authority must be given to RDCs to be able to contribute to department regional policy…

– RDCs must have the authority and capacity to identify regional development projects and the ability to manage those project through to development phase…

The Regional Development Council should remain and its role enhanced with a more effective governance structure.”

98


Great Southern Development Commission

“ Lack of legislated strategic co-ordination and planning capacity for RDCs is constraining a cohesive approach on State-wide regional planning. Mandating strategic co-ordination and planning (but not statutory planning) to the Commissions via legislation would improve central and regional functions and outcomes. Commissions can play a key role in planning and co-ordinating responses to key regional issues…

Enhanced operational capacity: Commissions are drawn to be involved in supporting the delivery of a range services in areas where the relevant public sector agency cannot or does not support a regional presence. …

In a State as geographically vast, demographically thin but regionally productive as WA, the local input, decision making and accountability provided by the RDC model is important in addressing the imbalance inherit in the State’s otherwise centripetally organized administrative and resource allocation structures.

Although it is working well there is an opportunity to capitalize on the current RDC model through enhancing operational capacity and the regional strategic co-ordination and planning role.”

99


Kimberley Development Commission

“The KDC considers that the ideal model to support the next stage delivery of regional development in Western Australia, builds upon a network of 9 statutory RDC’s strengthened by Cabinet mandate, with adequate resources and better connected both to their regional communities and the Executive and Legislative levels of State Government.

The KDC considers that regional communities, supported by their RDC, will adopt and follow different trajectories. Regional Priorities are different around the State and that diversity should be recognised and any new structures of Government must respond to it…

The KDC also considers that the resources of Government to support regional development, should be fundamentally restructured around RDC’s as the primary delivery mechanism and be located in regions, working to the regional accountabilities of RDC’s.”

100


Mid West Development Commission

“MWDC submits that the current legislative basis for RDCs is adequate to perform the roles previously outlined notwithstanding that any boundary adjustments or modifications to Board membership including that of the CEO will require legislative change. The key ingredient requirement going forward is for RDCs to be given responsibility to undertake strategic regional planning and deliver its priorities. Coupled with greater devolution of agency power to regional areas these changes would significantly enhance the responsibility, accountability and therefore profile of RDCs which in turn would attract higher calibre staff and Board Members, ultimately leading to improved delivery of priority regional infrastructure and services.”

“One of the real frustrations for MWDC is that we don’t have the mandate to negotiate social outcomes with major project proponents. This is especially difficult when there are so many projects. We do talk to them and support them to get their projects up - and we have had some good outcomes, but ultimately we don’t have anything which forces them to sit at a table with us to negotiate lasting community outcomes. You may be aware that currently there is NO requirement for major project proponents to undertake a social impact assessment and certainly NO requirement for them to develop a social response for their projects. I have consistently highlighted this as a major failing in our current system and a lost opportunity for regional communities to really achieve lasting benefits from major projects. After all, all resources projects are found in regional WA.

101


Mid West Development Commission (Continued)

Accordingly, I advocate the following: Regional Development Commissions assume responsibility for the development and implementation of a Major Project Social Response (Action Plan) for each major project within their respective regions. Combined with CLGF, RGS, other R4R, Federal and private sector investment, we could develop a meaningful, and timely delivery of an, ‘investment’ package for regional communities. Currently MWDC is developing a MW Investment Plan to pick up on this concept, but it could be driven more strongly if we had the mandated responsibility to negotiate with major project proponents directly.

The above could best be implemented if there was an adjustment to the relevant legislation related to project approvals – ie there is a requirement for a major project proponent to develop a Social Impact Assessment and then negotiate a Major Project Social Response, with the local RDC being the lead agency. This broadly accords with the Sustainability Assessment model used in Queensland model which is regarded by many as the best practice model. An alternative may be the development of a State policy which encourages the same outcome, but whatever is in place, needs to have some ‘teeth’ for it to be effective.”

102


Peel Development Commission

“The key recommendations below could be undertaken without any changes to the legislation if the agencies provide delegated powers for planning within regions to the Peel Development Commission with the increased responsibilities that are sought.

Maintain statutory capacity of the PDC and its local Boards of Management ensuring we continue to be accountable to our regional communities as well as government.

Strengthen and increase the capacity of the PDC’s mandate with delegated power to include service delivery associated with regional land use planning, tourism, Indigenous affairs and other areas as needed.

Revise the membership of our Board to reflect representation to appropriately delivery on this increased responsibility.

Redirect existing resources into our region which will enable the PDC to increase our capacity in dealing with regional issues.”

103


Pilbara Development Commission

“The Commission supports the review of the role of the RDC’s in light of their increasing responsibilities in effecting change in regional communities and given the Liberal-National Government’ strong commitment to regional WA within a whole of government value for money environment…

The Commission believes that government can achieve improved services and support for regional development through the strengthening of regional development commissions to achieve better coordination between government agencies at a regional level…

However, in order to reduce the likelihood of duplication and confusion, greater clarity of the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of departments with regional activities, such as Department of Indigenous Affairs (and the Department of Regional Development and Lands) in relation to the roles of the RDC’s is required…

The development of a long term strategic plan should be facilitated by each RDC across its region and across sectors through extensive consultation with all client groups…

It is further recommended that RDCs provide a One-Stop-Shop to support smaller government agencies who lack the resources and thereby the ability to provide a local presence.”

104


South West Development Commission

“Recommendations: That

– A statutory model based on regional boards be the preferred model for regional development policy delivery in the regions.

– The existing distribution of Development Commission boundaries reflecting communities of common interest is retained.

– Each Commission’s resource level is reviewed for adequacy and that budget allocations are indexed to keep pace with regional cost indexes.

– The professional development and coaching needs of CEOs in remote areas is assessed by the Public Service Commission and a program implemented to ensure these needs are addressed recognising the isolated settings CEO’s work in.

– Regional Development Commissions develop regional economic and social plans that are used as a basis for setting performance targets in accordance with the Regional Development Policy.

– The review considers recommendations to Government to expand the operational role of Development Commissions to include tourism, indigenous social and economic development and Community Resource Centres.

– The review recommends the powers of Development Commissions be expanded to include a statutory role in coordinating and implementing projects of regional significance nominated by the Minister and that specific reference is made to the coordination of regional urban and city renewal program and strategic industrial parks……”105


Wheatbelt Development Commission

Wheatbelt Development Commission

“The Wheatbelt Development Commission requests that the Review Committee take into account three core principles when determining the best model for regional development in WA:

– Building on strength – improving the current model to maximise:

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Accountability

– Filling the gaps – focusing on key weaknesses of the current model

Lack of coordinated approach on State-wide regional policy

An improved balance between central and regional functions – genuine partnerships, clarity of role and responsibility and devolved accountabilities

– Getting the balance right

Project vs program balance

Central vs regional policy, compliance and implementation….

We need clearly defined roles for the Regional Development Commissions, Regional Development Council and Department of Regional Development and Lands.”

Brief notes on meetings

Director Generals and Regional Development Commissions

Director Generals

108

Meetings with Director Generals

Overview

The Hon Wendy Duncan, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Regional Development and Chair of the Review Committee into the Functions and Responsibilities of Regional Development Commissions; and Martin Clifford, Executive Officer to the Review Committee, met with Director Generals/CEOs of agencies that have operations in the regions or interests in regional development matters.

The following are the Director Generals/CEOs who we met and their agencies:

– Paul Rosair – Department of Regional Development and Lands (DRDL)

– Jennifer Matthews – Department of Local Government

– Eddie Bartnik - Department of Communities

– Patrick Walker – Department of Indigenous Affairs

– Colin Pettit – Department of Education

– Ross Holt – LandCorp

– Eric Lumsden – Department of Planning

– Rob Delane – Department of Agriculture and Food

– Peter Conran and Rebecca Brown – Department of the Premier and Cabinet

– Kate Lamont and Stephanie Buckland – Tourism WA

– Kim Snowball - Department of Health.

The meetings were semi-structured, designed for the Director Generals/CEOs to be able to canvas ideas, suggestions and points of view in an informal and confidential setting.


Overview

It was stressed by the chair to the Director Generals/CEOs that any comments made were to be treated as ‘non-attributable,’ but that core themes/messages being raised would be recorded.

This note is a general summary of the key themes and messages.

Broadly these can be grouped into the following categories;

– general points on regional development;

– RDCs direct relationships with Director Generals/CEOs;

– RDCs roles;

– views on existing structure;

– RDCs capacity;

– views on boundaries;

– views on the RDC Boards;

– views on the Regional Development Council;

– suggestions;

– broader issues;

– other notable quotes or points; and,

– summary -support or non support for how RDC’s currently operate.

110


General Points On Regional Development

A significant majority of Director Generals/CEOs expressed a very clear view that to effectively deliver government services a strong regional presence was needed, especially as you get further from Perth.

There was a very strong view from many Director Generals/CEOs that now is the opportunity to build regional development capacity over time through a stronger relationship between RDC’s, Regional Councils of Local Governments and Regional Planning Committees. There was widespread understanding that the same people end up on all these organisations and so they could be streamlined through closer relationships between them all.

A majority of Director Generals/CEOs had a strong view that there is a need for people in the regions capable of making high level decisions and co-ordinating service delivery.

111


RDCs Direct Relationships with Director Generals/CEOs

Some of the Director Generals/CEOs had nothing, or very little, to do with RDCs.

Where there were dealings some of the Director Generals/CEOs said that these were not substantial or substantive, and that the role played was coordination related rather than at a policy or higher decision-making level.

A few examples were given of joint working, but most of this was at an ad hoc/low level.

Some DG’s indicated that RDC’s were a valuable source of current information, contacts and statistics for their region, which assisted in service planning.

RDCs were not ‘players’ in the Director Generals/CEOs decision–making, they did not contribute to policy or come up with ideas. They were described as ‘reactors’ and not ‘initiators’.

More than one Director General/CEO said that they did not know what the RDCs actually do.

Notable Quotes or Points

– No evidence of making a difference.

– Do not have much to do with RDCs – have not taken a call from them in the last eight months.

112


RDCs Roles

While some of the Director Generals/CEOs were of a view that the RDCs should have statutory authority status reflecting their role and access to the Minister, a significant majority thought that they did not need this. Issues were raised on the Minister’s capacity to oversight so many statutory authorities and issues on quality control of submissions.

A few of the Director Generals/CEOs thought that the RDCs role was geared towards marketing and coordination and in part delivery of services. One described RDCs calling themselves ‘generalist’ – noting that this was all things to all people.

There was strong support for collocation of government services and, to a lesser extent, amalgamation of services. Terms used were ‘gateway to the region’ and ‘brokerage role’. One Director General/CEO warned that there was a risk of loss of focus.

There was a strong view that policy and project management should be a major focus in the regional development agenda.


– RDCs have ‘no teeth’, no authority to get things done.

– Need for a ‘planned model’.

– Current ‘fractured approach’.

– Need to beef-up regional presence.

– RDCs don’t have a policy role – don’t generate ideas.

– Need 50 to100 local champions to get things done.

– RDCs do not sit down with us and get involved in planning.

113


Views On Existing Structure

There was a very strong view from a majority of Director Generals/CEOs that the RDCs had serious capability issues and that this needed to be addressed. Ideas canvassed were getting future generations of public servants out for country service and have the Regional Development Council undertake a leadership program.

There was a clear view from some Director Generals/CEOs that there are too many players at regional level, such as in the planning realm. This situation was described by one Director Generals/CEOs as being ‘clumsy’.


– There is a lack of coordination - need an integrated structure.

– The regional development picture is mixed.

– Need to build strategic planning capacity.

– Need to look at the role of local governments and the agenda on amalgamations.

– System need to recognise urgency of action – cannot do that from Perth.

– Need to think – purpose, function, culture.

– Form should follow functions.

114


Capacity

All Director Generals/CEOs raised the issue of the RDCs capacity, the differences in capability between them and the fact that this is largely determined by the personalities and skills-set of CEO’s and Chairs.

A majority of Director Generals/CEOs made reference to two RDC’s (Kimberley and Peel) in relation to their effectiveness and ability to influence and work with the major players – this was down to the capability of the CEOs.

Nearly all Director Generals/CEOs said that they need people in the regions who have the ‘smarts’ to make things happen – to value-add early on in the piece.

Some Director Generals/CEOs said needed a very senior local ‘manager’ who would act as a mover and shaker to get things happening. They would be ‘hand picked’ and able to deal with the most senior levels of government. This is not the case currently.

Policy skills were mentioned by some Director Generals/CEOs and that there needed to be contributions made on this.


– Need to earn your stripes and be at the table with those who can make a difference – the big agency CEOs.

– Stump them up.

– Follow a Peter Stubbs model – get professional people – creative, proactive and not just a ‘club’.

– Look at Northern Territory model – regional manager at Alice Springs.115


Views On Boundaries

There was not a strong view expressed from Director Generals/CEOs for change, although there was

agreement that lining up agencies boundaries makes sense, unless there were good reasons otherwise.

A couple of Director Generals/CEOs expressed a view on the Mid-West being extended to the Gascoyne, and that there could be a north and south approach in the state with respective plans.

One Director General/CEO made reference to the notion of having planning based on a sub-region basis –aligned to ‘communities of interest’.


– Could follow the electorate boundaries approach – rolling reviews of boundaries every seven to 10 years.

– Do want to align regional boundaries just to have a nice-looking map.

116


Views On Boundaries

One Director General/CEO said that should reduce board member numbers to three as this was workable.


– It is the tail leading the dog (on CEOs relationships with chairs and boards)

– Need local representatives but also flexibility to get capable boards and staff.

Views on the Regional Development Council

A few of the Director Generals/CEOs said that the Regional Development Council should be strengthened and become more strategic, and this could be part of a move away from the having a RDCs structure and a greater role for the DRDL.

Another view was that the Regional Development Council could be the statutory authority.

117


Suggestions

Need to put people at the centre of decision-making – to break down bureaucratic barriers.

Do not forget to look at what is currently working.

Maybe there is not any one structure – need to be flexible.

Leadership from the centre and decision-making locally.

Need to focus on the big ticket items.

Broader Issues In each region where is the grand plan?

Need local government in the economic development space – not waiting for the next big project.

Need government with one voice.

Someone needs to take a helicopter view of the region.

We want less government – not more.

Other Notable Quotes Or Points RDCs have no teeth.

Need for a ‘planned model’.

Need to beef-up regional presence.

Issue of conflicts of interest if RDCs get into developers role.

Fact that things have moved on since the early 1990s – the RDCs need to do the same.


Summary - Support Or Non Support For Current Operation

The majority of Director Generals/CEOs did not support how RDC’s currently operate, indicating that DRDL should take on some or all of RDC functions.

A minority of Director Generals/CEOs supported how RDC’s currently operate, particularly the fact that they provided strong regional governance and decision-making.


– There is a lack of strategic thinking.

– Strong regional presence needed.

– There is opportunity to build regional development capacity through stronger relationships with local governments and in planning.

– Given the same people end up in local organisations could streamline them.

– Need people capable of making high level decisions and co-ordinating service delivery.

– RDCs compete with each other.

– RDCs should be the arm and legs of the region.

119


120

Meetings with RDCs

Overview

The Hon Wendy Duncan, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary and Chair of the Review Committee into the Functions and Responsibilities of Regional Development Commissions and Martin Clifford, Executive Officer to the Review Committee, meet throughout the day with the CEOs, Chairs and other Board members of the following Regional Development Commissions (RDCs):

– Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission

– Wheatbelt Development Commission

– Mid West Development Commission

– South West Development Commission

– Great Southern Development Commission

– Kimberley Development Commission

– Peel development Commission

A separate meeting has been arranged for 29 June 2010 with the Gascoyne Development Commission at its offices.

The meetings were semi-structured, designed for the RDCs to be able to canvas ideas, suggestions and points of view in an informal and confidential setting.

It was stressed by the Chair to the RDCs that any comments made were to be treated as ‘non-attributable,’ but that core themes being raised would be reported back to the Review Committee.

121

Meetings with RDCs

Overview

The following were particular areas that were of interest to the Review Committee:

– The structure of Boards, including representation and the number of members.

– Issues on boundaries.

– Whether RDCs thought there was any value in corporate services functions being centralised under some kind of hostings arrangement (see Page 8 of Issues Paper).

– RDCs taking on new roles.

– If we had a White Board to start again would we keep the RDC model or what else would we have?

– Risks, particular from relationships and accusations of patronage.

– The Role of the Regional Development Council.

– How the RDCs could be improved.

122

Meetings with RDCs

Structure of Boards

The general view was that the current structure of Boards with local government and community representation, and the number of members, works but there needs to be a focus on ensuring that the best people possible are appointed. The issue of capability is a real one and various initiatives were relayed that have been put in place to get balanced and skilled Boards.

A view canvassed was there could be smaller Boards – about 6 rather than 10 members, and we may have to pay greater fees in the future to attract the right calibre of membership.

Boundaries The general view was there no real appetite for boundary change as this would only serve as a distraction.

Other views canvassed was it would be good if departments regional operations used common boundaries based on the RDC model and where needed the Minister should have some discretion if boundaries needed to be changed for RDCs rather than having to change the legislation.

Hosting arrangements The general view was that hosting arrangements was not supported. RDCs cherished the independence they

had on corporate services and their ability to respond quickly to matters and get local suppliers paid on time. The RDC experiences with the Office of Shared Services did not lend support to an ‘outsourcing’ model.

Another view canvassed was if RDCs did have hosting arrangements this could be by a lead RDC – outside Perth!

123

Meetings with RDCs

New Roles

The general view was that RDCs were receptive to taking on new roles, especially in light of the duplication of government services in the regions (CRCs, tourism, NRM).

Some RDCs felt that RFR had expanded the roles of RDCs and was to some extent overshadowing other work that the RDCs do.

Some RDCs detailed their dealings in education, health and sporting matters and providing general illustrations of partnerships on across Government activities.

Another view was that RDCs should be involved in infrastructure implementation, as opposed to just planning.

White Board The overriding view was to maintain the RDC model.

Some of the responses were that RDCs should get more resources but one viewpoint was that it was not about resources but being flexible and responsive. Another view was that change was expected but this should be based on a ‘localised’ model similar to RDCs.

Risks The overriding view was that relationships and the potential for accusations of patronage do pose risks for

RDCs but that these are managed locally within existing governance frameworks.

Some of the responses indicated that the Minister has discretion in making appointments and on the length of such appointments; and that RDCs had to be more public in their operations and communications.

124

Meetings with RDCs

Council

There were differing views presented on the Council.

A significant proportion of respondents said that the Council had not worked effectively in the past in performing as the peak body and that there had not been full attendance or participation at meetings.

There were also issues raised on the role of CEOs, the Council’s processes and the ‘fit’ of some of the RDCs with others and how this is ‘played out’ in the Council.

There was a more positive message with the Council’s current operations.

Improving RDCs There was no singular view put forward but differing views:

– RDC operations depended on forging good relationships and RFR had allowed greater leverage.

– Planning was an overriding theme with a need for greater coordination and uniformity of planning initiatives across Governments. Need one plan for the whole region.

– Government services should be centrally located with RDCs – such collocation would present major advantages.

– More needs to be done in making the benefits of RDCs better known and measurable.

– Need to maintain the link with local people – basis for regional governance.

– Maintain (RDCs) separation from Government machinery but still have close access to Minister.

– Deal with duplications in regional development and address falling resources for core activities.

– Preserve RDCs credibility with Minister.

– The management of RFR was considered bureaucratic and time consuming and should be streamlined –program could be staggered across regions.

125

Key Stakeholders

126

Meetings with Key Stakeholders

Stakeholder 1 (former CEO)

Long history of activity on regional development. Charlie Court when Premier set up the Office of the North West in the 1960s and later there were reforms under the Burke government who set up Regional Development Authorities. Had a Department of Regional Development and the North West in the early 1980s. Had Regional Development Committees that were serviced by the Department.

Problems with a lack of resources, so prohibited from doing much.

Approach was very much top-down rather than bottom-up. Bunbury model was very strong and this, in effect, was applied throughout the State in the form of the RDC Act.

Act very much reflective of a promotions, coordination, facilitations type roles for RDCs.

Now need a stronger role with investments being made through RFR – fact that the RDCs have local ownership and this can make RFR more effective.

How can we make RDCs be more effective?

– Need highly respected CEOs – that have persona and credibility.

– Need for RDCs to have a leadership role with agency heads.

Whatever you go legislatively or administratively, without strong CEOs you will be undermined in your reforms.

Need a vision/mission for Government of regional development. The Victorian model with its strong administrative systems of support for regional development and political leadership way to go.

Also worth looking at the South Australian model – especially the changes to the NRMs – fact that they have been converted to statutory bodies and have taken on delegated roles and responsibilities.

127


Stakeholder 1 (former CEO) (Continued)

Increasingly, the issue is not one of regional representation but of competence.

In looking at models you could just give RDCs a bucket on money and let them buy services from government (similar to a UK regional assembly model).

Local government’s role has been traditionally limited – this needs to change and they should expand their role. The Local Government Act allows this to happen but the reform agenda is stagnant. Question of resources rather than just roles.

On Port Authorities – leave these alone.

Planning – the RDCs need to be given the role on strategic planning that will include land use.

On whole-of-Government State Plan this should be driven by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet –they can set up an interdisciplinary team to write a plan that could be endorsed by Cabinet.

RD Council – fact that they have no decision-making authority. They are a stakeholder committee and have not got a steering committee function. Basis for their creation and composition indicate no competency to undertake a wider role.

128


Stakeholder 2 (former politician)

Fact that RDCs did not start with an initial thought, came about as a result of a history of developments – Burke – SWDC – view

that all the regions had to have a fair go.

RDCs were a break from the centralist theme that applies to government – it was strongly resisted.

RDCs went through a period of growth 1993 to 2000 but declined after this.

RDCs never undertook all the roles under s.23 – such as government services in the region. Had problems capturing grant monies – were deprived of resources.

Suggestions – retain the model but provide more resources.

Fact that you need capacity in the regions. This achieved by having innovation and people – quality people.

Experience was that Level 9 was the start of SES but in fact could not attract people – at the start seconded most of the CEOs from other departments.

Don’t need to change the legislation to get quality people and better Board members and more resources.

Need bigger picture thinking but also more local engagement.

Local government becoming more regional and will have ‘adjustment’ – questioned the resourcing benefits of amalgamation if money not saved.

Need a body in the regions that has capacity to deliver on projects/work.

RD Council was conceived as having political clout to advance contentious issues but never took on this role. Failure of a common purpose but hoped that would have one so could be an effective lobbying force within government. Did not have TOR to reflect this role.


Stakeholder 2 (former politician) (Continued)

Key issues are:

– Need political support and leadership.

– Capable people on staff, Board and as CEOs.

– Increase resources.

– Make RD Council effective.

Questioned the workability of a Cabinet subcommittee – not a panacea.

Finally, on boundaries there are issues on the peripheral so give these to the RD Council to decide.

130


Stakeholder 3 (former politician)

Need four questions when asking about the roles of the RDCs

– Ask who controls the vision?

– Ask who controls the dollars?

– Ask who controls policy?

– Asks who controls the public sector operations?

Delegations should be down to the lowest/local levels for all these.

Fact that the ‘at rest’ position is one of centralisation.

Unless you address the four above questions you are no in fact addressing the problem.

Example in Papua New Guinea of a ‘District Commissioner’ - but this a model of some one giving orders not a governance model.

Example of Roebourne Council and planning – decision-making at the local level provides a bedrock for the future.

Need to hypothecate funding to the regions – give local control of dollars.

Selling this message, need to present a narrative for Government.

– Giving regional populations a fair go to organise their government and meet the needs as they see them…131


Stakeholder 2 (former politician) (Continued)

Key issues are:

– Need political support and leadership.

– Capable people on staff, Board and as CEOs.

– Increase resources.

– Make RD Council effective.

Questioned the workability of a Cabinet subcommittee – not a panacea.

Finally, on boundaries there are issues on the peripheral so give these to the RD Council to decide.

132

4.PricewaterhouseCoopersReport–EffectivenessandCostEfficiencyoftheRegionalDevelopmentCommissionsinachievingtheirobjectsspecifiedinSection23oftheRegional Development Commissions Act 1993

The factual correctness of some parts of the PricewaterhouseCoopers contained in the Attachment Report has been questioned by Regional Development Commissions (RDC) and the Review Committee wishes to acknowledge those concerns. The report was noted by the Committee as part of its proceedings. The concerns raised would, in any event, not have led to any different conclusions than were reached, which was independent of the report.

Of particular note was the data contained in the table contained on page 40 of the report, whose source was the KPMG Governance Review and Fraud Risk Assessment of the nine RDCs. The data contained in the table relating to the Peel and Pilbara Development Commissions was incorrect.

Cabinet in Confidence

The Review CommitteePricewaterhouseCoopers i

1 Executive summary 3

1.1 Terms of reference 3

1.2 Objects and functions of a commission 3

1.3 Methodology 4

1.4 Summary of Findings 5

1.5 The Way Forward 8

2 Introduction 9

2.1 Background 9

2.2 Approach 11

2.3 Acknowledgements 12

2.4 Constraints and challenges 12

2.5 Report structure 12

3 Context 13

3.1 Introduction 13

3.2 Rationale for the RDCs 14

3.3 Role and responsibilities of the RDCs 14

3.4 RDCs funding sources 14

4 Efficiency and effectiveness 16

4.1 Performance 16

4.2 Cost drivers 21

4.3 Strategic 23

4.4 Operational 29

4.5 Funding 34

4.6 Projects 39

5 Regional development commissions 41

5.1 Gascoyne development commission 41

5.2 Goldfields esperance development commission 48

5.3 Great southern development commission 55

5.4 Kimberley development commission 63

5.5 Mid west development commission 73

5.6 Peel development commission 82

5.7 Pilbara development commission 90

5.8 South west development commission 98

Contents (continued)

The Review CommitteePricewaterhouseCoopers ii

5.9 Wheatbelt development commission 106

6 Comparing the regional development commissions 113

6.1 Performance 113

6.2 Cost drivers 117

6.3 Operational 119

6.4 Funding 124

6.5 Projects 129

6.6 Staff competency survey 132

7 Detailed responses and benchmarking 137

7.1 Gascoyne development commission 137

7.2 Goldfields esperance development commission 145

7.3 Great southern development commission 153

7.4 Kimberley development commission 161

7.5 Mid west development commission 169

7.6 Peel development commission 179

7.7 Pilbara development commission 187

7.8 South west development commission 195

7.9 Wheatbelt development commission 203

The Review CommitteePricewaterhouseCoopers 3

“Action is the foundational key to all success” – Pablo Picasso

Regional Strategic Objectives should be based on measurable outcomes. The Regional Development

Commissions (RDCs) should refer to the Regional Strategic Objectives when drafting the RDCs specific

Strategic Plans. This will ensure that the actions taken by the RDCs are directly aligned with and

provide them with the ability to achieve regional outcomes.

1.1 Terms of reference

In July 2010, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was appointed by the Review Committeeof Regional Development Commissions (the Review Committee) to review theeffectiveness and cost efficiency of the RDC statutory authorities in achieving theirobjects and functions specified in Section 23 of the Regional Development CommissionsAct 1993.

The nine RDCs cover the Gascoyne, Goldfields-Esperance, Great Southern, Kimberley,Mid West, Peel, Pilbara, South West, and Wheatbelt regions. The RDCs are smallorganisations, but are responsible for channelling significant government funds intothe regions.

Royalties for Regions has presented major organisational challenges for RDCs as thesignificantly increased investment by government for regions has taken shape.

The RDCs also represent a significant avenue for government to direct andorganise spending on regional projects and initiatives, such as through the RegionalGrants Scheme and supporting local governments through the Country LocalGovernment Fund.

The Review Committee will consider the effectiveness and cost efficiency of the RDCs,and the effectiveness of the existing model in delivering regional development. It will alsolook at options to improve government service delivery for regional development,including effective governance and administrative arrangements to enable regionaldecision making and avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities with other agenciesor organisations.

1.2 Objects and functions of a commission

Section 23 of the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 states that the objectsof a commission are to:

maximize job creation and improve career opportunities in the region

develop and broaden the economic base of the region

identify infrastructure services to promote economic and social development withinthe region

provide information and advice to promote business development within the region

seek to ensure that the general standard of government services and access tothose services in the region is comparable to that which applies in themetropolitan area

Executive summary


generally take steps to encourage, promote, facilitate and monitor the economicdevelopment in the region.

For the purposes of achieving those objects a commission is to:

promote the region

facilitate coordination between relevant statutory bodies and Stategovernment agencies

cooperate with representatives of industry and commerce, employer andemployee organizations, education and training institutions and other sections ofthe community within the region

identify the opportunities for investment in the region and encouragethat investment

identify the infrastructure needs of the region, and encourage the provision of thatinfrastructure in the region

cooperate with:

– departments of the Public Service of the State and the Commonwealth,and other agencies, instrumentalities and statutory bodies of the State andthe Commonwealth

– local governments, in order to promote equitable delivery of services withinthe region.

1.3 Methodology

Our approach to this engagement was based on using our proven VfM methodology thatfocuses on identifying and prioritising opportunities. We have combined PwC’s audit andperformance improvement methodologies to develop a robust VfM review methodologyand framework.

Upon identifying the key influencing factors and value / cost drivers of the nine RDC’s weconducted an exercise to determine the likely future impact these factors would have onthe financial position of the RDC’s, by looking at expected and proposed changes tothese inputs. For example – where there were potential implementation of large scaleefficiency projects.

We proposed to utilise a suite of tools and analysis techniques which guided the ongoingactivities including, for example, Activity and Cost analysis, Governance and Reportingframeworks, Performance Alignment and Benefit Tracking.

The review was conducted over three main phases as follows:

Mobilise – This phase included a detailed review of existing data and other informationlikely to impact on the review to assess each RDC’s costs (assets, direct materials,indirect materials etc). In addition it focussed on the Department of RegionalDevelopment and Lands and the RDC’s strategic plan and the organisation’s valuedrivers.

Assess & Analyse – This phase involved a focused review of strategic and operationalservices, activities and initiatives as well as an overall review and assessment of costsand revenue using data and information collected and the identification of priority areasfor deep dive analysis for each of the nine RDC’s. This phase focussed on delivering the

Executive summary


scope of the outlined in the terms of reference by visiting the nine RDCs in July/August2010.

Report & Recommend – This phase of the review centred on the development of adetailed report outlining key findings and opportunities for improvement as well aspotential changes. The findings are presented to the Chair of the Review Committeethrough this report.

1.4 Summary of Findings

The RDCs display a strong commitment to regional outcomes. The RDCs spent time onidentification of the regional priorities and with some lead regional stakeholders in thedevelopment of regional economic plans for the future. The RDCs engage regionalcommunities through physical visits as well as involving the regional communities in theidentification of the key regional priorities. The RDCs identified the importance ofregional knowledge and presence as a cornerstone of achieving regional strategicoutcomes. The regional offices are an essential part of creating and maintaining theregional presence and building rapport amongst the regional populations.

The summary of findings includes:

The RDCs have the ability to demonstrate their achieved outcomes in terms of jobcreation, new businesses started, infrastructure development etc.; however theseare not captured in the current Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as reported intheir Annual Reports.

We assessed these achievements through our visits by review of documentationand systems in place as well as communication and discussions with the RDCsexecutive management team and staff and found that the RDCs were generallyeffective in addressing their 6 mandate items. There is a push by the individualRDCs to maintain their strategic focus as much as possible and this has becomemore difficult with the ever increasing pressures from the additional Royalties forRegions funding and administration requirements.

At the time of our visits in July and August 2010, the RDCs operating environmentwas efficient, although most were at full capacity and were forecasting increases inheadcount. The RDCs weaknesses lie in their capacity to marshal, coordinate andprioritise resource allocations, to efficiently support their regional objectives.

With the ever increasing Royalties for Regions funding and the RDCs reachingtheir capacity, a necessary step change needs to be made to ensure the RDCscontinued to meet their objectives. Possible step changes may include an increasein resourcing and more effective use of the resources available and/or increaseproductivity by centralising processes such as Royalties for Regions administrationand reporting and back office functions.

Key findings identified through the analysis of data and visits to theRDCs as well as opportunities for improvement are highlighted in the table below.Details of the key findings are captured in Section 4 – Efficiency and effectiveness.

Executive summary


Table 1.4.1 – Key Findings and Opportunities for Improvement

Key Findings Opportunities for Improvement

Performance

Performance information limited tocustomer satisfaction surveys andcost per project only

Accountability, performancereporting and supportingconsequences areunderdeveloped.

The timeframe between initialapplications and payment of fundsincreases the possibility of projectsfailing.

Review the current framework ofperformance reporting to align theperformance reporting informationwith the regional strategicoutcomes and ultimately s23 ofthe Act.

There is a clear need tostreamline the grants applicationprocess, timelines and monitoringand reporting.

Genuine accountability measures,to be defined, includingconsequences for underperformance.

Cost Drivers

Ad hoc responsibilities are takenon by the RDCs for which they donot necessarily receive additionalfunding or resources.

The regional cost drivers differ fromregion to region.

Strategic

RDCs cannot align their strategieswith a broader whole of regionstrategy due to the fact that nobroader regional strategies exist.

RDCs do not have a strategic planthat is necessarily aligned with s23of the Act.

Not all of the RDCs have a yearlybusiness plan.

Some of the strategic regionalfocus at the executive level hasbeen reduced due to the additionaltime spent on projectadministration.

RDCs facilitate bigger regionalstrategic projects and are involvedin the start up phase only, with nofurther involvement.

The RDCs should be a driver ofstrategic outcomes and beinvolved in key strategic regionalprojects from inception tocompletion to enable them tomonitor the outcomes achievedand ultimately complete a benefitsrealisation analysis and report onthese outcomes.

One of the key factors that needto be taken into account to ensurethat the RDCs strategy andbusiness plans are aligned is tolink the RDCs strategy and plansto whole of region strategic plans.

Executive summary



Operational

The implementation of the RDCsbusiness processes into the Officeof the Shared Service negativelyimpacted the RDCs flexibility andresponsiveness.

Desegregated systems in theRDCs are used for monitoring andreporting of Strategic and Royaltiesfor Regions projects.

A key person risk exists within theRDCs in terms of the regionalknowledge and presence at theExecutive level.

Executive are being drawn intoproject administration as thevolume of projects grow with theRoyalties for Regions activity.

Conduct a review oforganisational structure relating tothe roles of the RDCs andadditional roles andresponsibilities accumulated overtime.

Redesign strategic planning,control and reporting processes toensure there is a direct linkbetween RDC budgeting andreporting requirements to actualoperational and strategicbudgeting

Investigate and benchmark thedesegregated systems in theRDCs to determine thefunctionality and possibleimplementation of an appropriatecentralised system.

Funding

The introduction of the Royaltiesfor Regions funding negativelyimpacted on the RDCseffectiveness due to increasedallocation of time and resourcesspent on marketing andadministering the funding.

There is no distinction in theprocess between small and largergrant applications.

Uncertainty exists of what to dowith contestable funding forprojects that have beenabandoned. Contestable grantfunding not fully allocated.

Projects

There are sound governancecontrols operating over theselection and evaluation of projectsand grants with several layers ofdecision making in the RDCs.

Completed projects fundingacquittals tends to focus on thefinancial outcomes rather than theactual benefits realised.

The RDCs should focus ondetermining the strategicoutcomes of completed projectsby performing a benefitsrealisation analysis as part of theproject’s acquittal.

Executive summary



OtherObservations

Lack of client awareness andusually just because of the RDCspresence they become the firstpoint of contact for various regionalgovernment services.

The operational models for theregions differ in terms of number ofregional offices.

1.5 The Way Forward

The opportunities for improvement highlighted above define a wide rangingorganisational transformation. We believe there is the potential for enhanced regionaloutcomes but would require a demanding program of change. The challenge issignificant. Sustained integrated Government support will be required. Some investmentwill be necessary. However, we believe a prima facie case exists for a detailedinvestigation, planning and costing of an organisational transformation program forthe RDCs.

Each one of the nine regions in Western Australia is endowed with different productioncapacities, comparative advantages, geographic characteristics, institutions and assets.A region’s capacity to innovate is not its only source of growth. Equally important is itsability to create a well-educated population, to attract and retain talented people, to bewell connected to global markets, to have a business-friendly environment andinfrastructure system and a well-functioning labour market.

OECD1 analysis on How Regions Grow leads to several suggestions for effectiveregional policies:

Provide infrastructure as part of an integrated regional approach

Invest in human capital

Emphasise innovation and research and development

Focus on integrated regional policies.

One of the key factors that need to be taken into account to ensure that the RDCsstrategy and business plans are aligned is to link them to regional strategic plans. Thiswould include ensuring that different levels of government with regional influence worktogether to identify key regional issues and ultimately create a longer term regionalstrategic plan. (Consistent with the Economic Audit Committee (EAC) Recommendationnumber 2). The regional strategic plans are also important to industry and are useful intheir capital investment planning and decision making.

It is important for the RDCs to capture the regional strategic objectives and how they willwork towards achieving the regional outcomes.

1OECD Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/45/42446805.pdf


This section provides an introduction, background and approach to the review.

2.1 Background

The Department of Regional Development and Lands has commissioned a review of thefunctions and responsibilities of the nine Regional Development Commissions. A ReviewCommittee was established to report back to the Minister for Regional Development, theHon Brendon Grylls, MLA. The Issues Paper (June 2009) sets out the objectives of thisreview as:

The effectiveness and cost efficiency of the RDCs in achieving their objects andfunctions specified in Section 23 of the Regional Development CommissionsAct 1993:

– Maximise job creation and improve career opportunities

– Develop and broaden the economic base of the region

– Identify infrastructure services to promote economic and social developmentwithin the region

– Provide information and advice to promote business development withinthe region

– Seek to ensure that the general standard of government services andaccess to those services in the region is comparable to that which applies inthe metropolitan area

– Generally take steps to encourage, promote, facilitate and monitor theeconomic development in the region.

The effectiveness of the existing model in achieving the Liberal-NationalGovernment’s commitments to regional development, having regard to anyoverlap, duplication of effort and approaches in other jurisdictions

Any improvements in government service delivery for regional developmentconsidering governance arrangements, administrative operations, regionaldecision-making, regional accountability, avoidance of duplication and the rolesand responsibilities of other agencies and organisations

Legislative amendments that may be required.

The Department have asked PwC to assist the Review Committee in assessing theefficiency and effectiveness of all nine WA Regional Development Commissions inachieving their objects and functions specified in Section 23 of the RegionalDevelopment Commissions Act 1993. The job required three teams from PwC to visit thenine regional commissions within a two week period.

The key principles underlying the review were:

Accountability

– Being answerable for decisions having meaningful mechanisms in place toensure adherence to all applicable standards

Cost efficiency

Introduction


– How outputs are achieved

– The relationship between outputs and the resources used to produce them

– Within a structure of government context, the extent of overlapor duplication.

Effectiveness

– The extent to which Government’s desired objectives are achieved

– The relationship between the intended and actual results of public spending

– Within a structure of government context, the extent,

o an organisation requires resources and expertise in order to performits role

o of autonomy sufficient to hold confidence and trust of stakeholders

o to which regional participation in government activities or access togovernment decision-making is enabled compared with alternativemodels available

o of flexibility to anticipate and respond to emerging needs.

Governance

– The set of responsibilities and practices, policies and procedures,exercised by an agency’s executive, to provide strategic direction, ensureobjectives are achieved, manage risks and use resources responsibly andwith accountability.

The RDCs are state government statutory authorities whose role is to facilitate andcoordinate the development of the region in which they are based. Established under theRegional Development Commissions Act 1993, RDCs have a number of features thatgive the WA Government a significant platform from which to deliver on key governmentpolicy across all of WA’s regional areas. Typically, this is achieved by RDCs:

Being experienced in facilitating regional solutions to complex issues. Thefoundation of RDCs’ work is in functioning collaboratively to deliver acrossorganisational and sectoral boundaries (ie both within the public sector and acrossthe community and private sectors)

Being one of only two state government agencies whose ‘head offices’ are basedin the regions, and whose Board and staff are primarily located in the region theyserve. They have a direct relationship with, and accountability to, theircommunities through this proximity and their leadership by local people as well ashaving direct accountability to a Minister. The staff of Commissions are governedby the Public Sector Management Act and have the same accountabilities as allState public servants

Being the State’s regionally-based conduit between government policy andcommunity aspirations

Having well-established knowledge of their own region, relationships withstakeholders and community, and detailed understanding of the diversecommunities within each region.

RDCs are unique in any sphere of Government for this combination of local presence atall levels, direct relationship and accountability to all tiers of Government and the

Introduction


regional community. The Commissions have established expertise in facilitating regionalsolutions to regional problems.

There are however challenges for government in having nine small regionally-basedagencies governed by the same legislation but each separately operating and reportingto the Minister(s) and there have been suggestions made by other agencies for someyears that these should be overcome by the ‘standard’ model of bringing RDCs under asingle department. However it is arguable that the structure itself is one that provides thestate with a foundation for supporting local responsiveness and genuinely ‘putting thepublic first” (2009 Economic Audit Committee: Putting the Public First – Partnering withCommunity and Business to Deliver Outcomes) in WA’s regions.

The review of the Regional Development Commissions Act offers a unique opportunity toensure the strengths of the current model are maintained and improved, while areas ofweakness in the current structure are identified and acted upon.

2.2 Approach

Key features of our approach:

Stakeholder engagement – We fully understood the need to work with the nineRDCs to gain full engagement and buy-in to the analysis and recommendations.Our approach embedded significant engagement with all stakeholders acrossall steps of the process. We visited each of the nine RDCs during July andAugust 2010.

Strategic alignment – The validation and review of each of the RDCs mission andstrategy was a key first step of our review. This helped identify where key valueand cost drivers do not align back to the core principles of the organisationand helped ensure that key finding and recommendations are aligned withstrategic objectives.

Intelligent collection and use of data – The selection of critical data and themanner in which we captured and synthesised it was key to avoid reliance onbroad assumptions. Our methodology considered costs across a range ofdimensions, both qualitative and quantitative. This included demand and activityflows and drivers at all levels of the agency structure. Key to this was to identifywhat drives value/success and costs/waste early and to focus the analysis onthese factors.

During the initial phase of work, we applied appropriate service and efficiency measuresto each activity where they did not exist already to drive the necessary data capture andanalysis work. We also mapped accountability and decision processes and their impacton existing practices and controls. Finally, we analysed financial and non-financial datain such a way to understand the causal cost effects due to variations in organisationstructure, remoteness, regional population and demographics.

Clean reliable and robust data – Any review is only as good as the completeness,accuracy and reliability of the data, and the understanding of what the datarepresents. Our approach included specific data collection and review steps usinga “field” support team to work with stakeholders to outline expectations, provideinstructions and guidance, and qualify data inputs for consistency.

Use of our best practice knowledge and team’s experience – Our team hasconducted many similar reviews in public and private sector organisations. We

Introduction


leveraged these deep firmwide competencies and the team’s experience in areassuch as, for example, efficient work management and allocation, ‘lean’management techniques and strategic sourcing to identify improvementopportunities and challenge the ‘status quo’. Our challenge is always constructiveand supported by a fact base!

Appropriate use of cost drivers and benchmarks – Benchmarks provide an initialindicator of opportunity but should not be the single source of fact. We activelyapply private sector comparators but only where they are directly applicable.

2.3 Acknowledgements

We wish to take this opportunity to formally acknowledge the support we received fromthe nine Regional Development Commissions. The RDCs collectively and individuallywere open about the issues they face and assisted us in identifying improvementopportunities. We are grateful for their contribution.

2.4 Constraints and challenges

This review has been conducted within a very tight timeframe and covers a large varietyof strategic, organisational and operational issues. This has constrained our review to ahigh level examination of the RDCs as a whole and a limited number of detailedanalyses where this appeared to be warranted.

In general, we have sought to identify the most important issues and the highest impactor value opportunities. While we are confident that this report covers all issues ofmateriality, the accuracy of the identified value opportunities is limited by our high levelapproach and quality of the data provided.

2.5 Report structure

The structure of the report is as follows:

Section 1: Executive Summary.

Section 2: Provides an introduction, background and approach to the review.

Section 3: Provides the context to the review.

Section 4: Sets out the efficiency and effectiveness of each of the nine RDCs

Section 5: A Regional Development Overview (Giving a snapshot of eachdevelopment commission in terms of an overview of regional activities as well asfinances and operations)

Section 6: Comparative data analysis in terms of comparing the RDCs

Section 7: Detailed analysis of each individual RDC


This section provides the context to the review.

3.1 Introduction

A Regional Development Policy for Western Australia (2000) formulated some summarygoals, objectives and strategies that are linked to successful regional development.These include:

Adaptive communities

Enriched lifestyles and livelihoods

Developing wealth and employment

Developing infrastructure

Environment and natural resource management

Responsive government.

Established Outcomes for 2005 includes:

Government decision-making is based on a thorough understanding ofregional issues

Planning in partnership for a sustainable future

Effective government service delivery to regions

Skilled Communities

Improved regional infrastructure

Diversified regional economies

Enhanced regional investment

Fair pricing for regional residents business

Lifelong learning in the regions

Effective health service delivery

Safe regional communities

Enhanced quality of regional lifestyles

Cohesive communities

Improved environmental management

Sustainable natural resource management

Conservation and restoration of our state's natural and built heritage.

The West Australian Regional Development Council developed a number of keystrategic priorities in 2008 which directs decision making in terms of regionaldevelopment. The decision making includes the allocation of strategic RegionalDevelopment Council funding to projects that are aligned with the Council’s priorities.These strategic priorities include:

Context


Attraction and Retention of Population

Planning and Infrastructure

Indigenous Development.

There are minimal progress monitoring tools in terms of regional development outcomesand progress against set mandate in terms of s23 of the Act. Some of the currentmonitoring tools include:

Regional development progress is measured by agencies reporting againstcustomer groupings as to whether services provided match the needs andexpectations of customers in the agency's annual report.

Other progress monitoring tools have been developed such as "EconomicPerspective" publications.

3.2 Rationale for the RDCs

The RDCs serve as advocates of regional governance. They are drivers of regionaleconomic, social and infrastructure development, as is formally set out in Section 23 ofthe Regional Development Commissions Act 1993. Through the identification ofinfrastructure needs and assistance for economic activity, the RDCs can contribute tothe creation of employment opportunities, facilitate the delivery of services, and supporta broadening of the economic base of the regions. In the absence of the RDC'sactivities, regional markets may provide a lower level of infrastructure and servicedelivery and exhibit a narrower range of economic activity.

The local knowledge that is embedded in the Boards and employees of the RDCsprovide the best outcomes for local issues.

Regional offices are an essential part of creating and maintaining the regional presenceand building rapport amongst the regional and indigenous populations.

3.3 Role and responsibilities of the RDCs

The rationale for using Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) to improve the multi-levelgovernance of regional development rests on the premise that they can closeinformation gaps, and by doing so improve the quality of decision making by differentlevels of involvement thus improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the outcomes.These information gaps emerge for a variety of reasons, at a minimum becauseinformation can be dispersed among many stakeholders at the central, regional andlocal levels.

3.4 RDCs funding sources

Royalties for Regions funding, equivalent of 25% of onshore mining and petroleumroyalty revenue per annum is invested annually in regional WA. Royalties for Regionsfunding was established to supplement the existing provision of basic, essentialinfrastructure and services across regional WA.

Context


Royalties for Regions funding is important and utilised by the RDCs to leverageadditional funds into the region. There was $39.6 million R4R funding received in2008/2009, which increased to $63 million in 2009/2010 and is forecast to be a total of$90 million in 2010/2011.

Approximately 78% of Regional Grant Scheme funds can be allocated to contestablegrants, 20% maintained as a strategic reserve to support key regional projects and up to2.5% can be used to cover additional administration costs associated with Royaltiesfor Regions.

First round of Royalties for Regions funding amounted to $4.4 million per DevelopmentCommission totalling $39.6 million. Approximately $3.5 million per DevelopmentCommission was used for the contestable grants scheme.

Table 3.4:1 – RDCs’ Funding

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Regional Grants Scheme $39.69m $63m $90m

Regional Grants Scheme –Strategic Reserve

$0.04m $10m $19m

Source: Department of Regional Development and Lands

From a Strategic Major Regional Projects perspective, the following are key regionalprojects funded through the Royalties for Regions funding:

Ord-East Kimberley Expansion – $220 million

Pilbara Revitalisation Plan – $300 million

Re-development of Kalgoorlie, Nickol Bay and Albany Regional Hospitals – $86.3million in total

Exploration Incentive Scheme – $80 million

Pilbara and Gascoyne infrastructure and development initiatives $500,000

Housing for Workers – $526 million

Regional Airports Scheme – $22 million

Bunbury to Albany Gas Pipeline – $20 million.

The Regional Grants Scheme includes the following:

$5 million for each Regional Development Commission in 2009/2010

Provides new opportunities for local communities to improve and developinfrastructure and services in regional WA

Provides funding for local services and infrastructure projects

Provides leveraging opportunities

Is prioritised according to regional needs.


The effectiveness and cost efficiency of the RDCs in achieving their objects and functions specified inSection 23 of the Regional Development Commissions act 1993.

4.1 Performance

RDCs performance reporting serves as key indicators of strategic regional outcomeachievement during a specified period. The required performance reporting should bealigned with the regional strategic outcomes and reporting should include a true measureof each outcome achieved.

Opportunities for improvement from a performance perspective include:

Review the current framework of performance reporting to align the performancereporting information with the regional strategic outcomes and ultimately s23 ofthe Act.

There is a clear need to streamline the grants application process, timelines andmonitoring and reporting. This would possibly also include a less intensive level ofapproval and monitoring and reporting for smaller grants.

Genuine accountability measures be defined, including consequences for underperformance, be extended to all RDCs.

4.1.1 Performance information focuses on customer satisfactionsurveys and cost per project rather than demonstrating theRDCs actual strategic regional outcomes

The RDCs currently report on the indicators linked to legacy performance reportingrequirements. The performance information captured in the RDCs Annual Reportsfocuses on customer satisfaction surveys and cost per projects rather thandemonstrating the RDCs strategic regional outcomes achieved. This creates difficultiesin presenting a consistent picture of RDCs regional impact over their lifetime.

The difficulty of achieving consistent reporting and monitoring of RDC performancearises from the fact that their operations are based on a broad remit; they have complexfunctions and a wide variety of tasks arising from differing needs across regions.

The capability however exists within the RDCs to report on broader regional outcomessuch as jobs created, businesses created, skills development as well as fundingleveraged from other stakeholders.

The table below illustrates the individual performance reporting indicators used forreporting purposes in the RDCs 2008/2009 Annual Reports.

Efficiency and effectiveness


DevelopmentCommission

Performance Information

Gascoyne Stakeholder Satisfaction Surveys (%)

Cost per Project Hour ($)

Goldfields Esperance Stakeholder Satisfaction Surveys (%)

Cost per Service Hour ($)

Great Southern Stakeholder Satisfaction Surveys (%)

Cost per Project ($)

Kimberley Stakeholder Satisfaction Surveys (%)

Cost per Project Hour ($)

Mid West Cost of Service Calculations ($)

Client Contacts (inquiries)

Cost per Client Inquiry ($)

Client Visits

Cost per Client Visit ($)

Average Cost per Project ($)

Stakeholder Satisfaction Surveys (%)

Peel Average Cost per Unit of Service Calculations ($)


Pilbara Cost of Service Calculations ($)


Projects Completed within agreed Timeframes (%)

South West Stakeholder Satisfaction Surveys (%)

Cost per Project/Service Hour ($)

Wheatbelt Stakeholder Satisfaction Surveys (%)

Average Cost per Service Hour ($)

Average Cost per Program of Grants Conveyed ($)

Source:PwC Analysis (Individual RDCs 2008/2009 Annual Reports)

4.1.2 Accountability, performance reporting and supportingconsequences are underdeveloped in the RDCs

The analysis of the performance of the RDCs generally was not a simple process asgenuine accountability measures were not in place. At present, different measures areused across RDCs and they are, generally speaking, measurements of outputs ratherthan outcomes.

It is important for the RDCs to strike a balance between flexibility and accountabilitywhen it comes to their performance measurement. It is therefore critical for the RDCs todevelop performance management and reporting requirements that are relevant toRegional Strategic Outcomes. It is also important for the RDCs to ensure that they



outline the accountability and performance management framework which summarisestheir performance.

An opportunity for improvement is to review the current framework of performancereporting to align the performance reporting information with the regional strategicoutcomes and ultimately s23 of the Act.

Please refer to the table above and performance information as captured in Section 7:Detailed analysis of each individual RDC.

Guidance for achieving an improvement in the capabilities and competencies of goodcorporate governance will focus on achieving competence in knowledge, skills andattitudes within each organization.

4.1.3 The timeframe from the initial applications for funding underthe Regional Grants Scheme to the payment of funds tosuccessful applicants increases the possibility of projectsfailing before funding is even received

Some instances were noted where projects failed due to the timeliness of receipt offunding as a result of the timeframe from initial application to actual receipt of funding.

The current timing from opening of the applications to the time that letters are sent tosuccessful applicants is 7 months as shown in the applications process flowchart (referto flowchart on page 19) provided by the Goldfields Esperance DevelopmentCommission. This does not necessarily mean that the RDCs receive the funding todistribute the funds to the successful applicants.

Approved funding for the second round of the Regional Grants Scheme (RGS) is beingpaid to the RDCs on a pre-allocation basis throughout the financial year and notallocation all funding at the beginning of the year, by the Department of Treasury andFinance on a drip-feed.

The graphs below illustrate that if the RDCs would have the authority to approve projectfunding up to $100,000, more than 60% of the projects for the first and second rounds ofthe RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date.



Source: PwC Analysis (Department of Regional Development and Lands)

Source: PwC Analysis (Department on Regional Development and Lands)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Distribution of amounts approved for 2009/2010 RGS funding

2009/2010Cumulative %

2009/2010 % ofProjects aboveamount range

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%






This has created an even higher risk of failure of projects especially amongst smallerfunding projects that require funding as part of their start up resources.

Source: Goldfield Esperance Application Process Flow for RGS Round 2

Round opens 20October 2009

Round closes 10February 2010

Assessment bypanel members 19

February – 23March 2010

Board approvalFriday 26 March

2010

Ministerial approval30 April

Successful/unsuccessful letters sent 18

May 2010

Grants received???

2009/2010 Round open/close 20 October 2009 10 February 2010

Stage 1 assessment

150k projects sent to RDL for assessment10 February 2010 18 February 2010

Information to RDL/Minister

• List of applications• Brief ing note: # of applications, total value, etc

• Draf t local media statements released 18 February.

15 February 2010 16 February 2010

Stage 2 assessment19 February 2010

18 March 2010

Stage 2 assessment meeting 23 March 2010 23 March 2010

Information to board/GEDC board meeting

<$250k Board approval<500k Board approval/ministerial endorsement

>500k Ministerial approval

26 February 2010 31 March 2010

Send to RDL/Minister

• Brief ing note summary: # of applications, total value, etc• Analyse cost shif ting, contentious issues,

• List of applications not funded and why

• Round one application summary• Media releases and timeline

• Draf t success letters for Minister signature.Ministerial approval

1 April 2010

23 April 2010

9 April 2010

30 April 2010

Letters sent/media releases 18 May 2010



4.2 Cost drivers

Regional cost drivers should be one of the key indicators of budget allocations to theRDCs. These cost drivers are significantly different from region to region. Additional costdrivers including the ad hoc responsibilities the RDCs have to deal with on a day-to-daybasis should also be taken into account as part of determining funding allocations.

4.2.1 Ad hoc responsibilities taken on by the RDCs for whichthey do not necessarily receive additional funding orresources to take on these responsibilities eg Tourism WAand Migration Assistance

The RDCs are currently governed through the Regional Development Commissions Act1993 which clearly identifies the mandate which the RDCs need to fulfil. Since 1993, theRDCs have taken on various additional ad hoc responsibilities from other governmentservices in the regions. Some of these additional responsibilities more recently taken oninclude services such as regional migration assistance and regional tourism promotiondue to Tourism WA withdrawing regional presence.

Some of the ad hoc responsibilities accumulated over time include:

DevelopmentCommission

Adhoc Responsibilities

Gascoyne Austrade Tradestart Services

Skilled Migration Program – Regional Certifying Body (RCB)

Regional Promotion Program

Goldfields Esperance Skilled Migration Program – Regional Certifying Body (RCB)

Great Southern Austrade Tradestart Services


Tourism Industry Development and Promotion

Kimberley Regional Tourism

Mid West Austrade Tradestart Services

Regional Tourism

Peel Skilled Migration Program – Regional Certifying Body (RCB)

Pilbara Regional Tourism

South West Austrade Tradestart Services


Regional Tourism

Wheatbelt Regional Tourism Planning


Source: PwC Analysis (Individual RDCs 2009 Annual Reports)



4.2.2 The cost drivers differ from region to region egaccommodation and travel costs.

Regional cost drivers are a key factor that should be taken into account when developingthe RDC funding framework. These cost drivers are highlighted in the charts below.

Accommodation costs vary between $106,000 (Great Southern) and $288,814 (SouthWest) and travel costs between $2,549 (South West) and $212,914 (Gascoyne).

Source: Individual RDCs 2009 Annual Reports (Please note that the travel costs include operating

lease costs for vehicles and accommodation expenses include lease rentals, repairs and maintenance

of offices and cleaning services))

There are also significant variances between the rent costs per square metre in eachregion. These costs range between $200 per square metre and $845 per square metre.

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

Accommodation and travel expenses (2009)

Accommodation

Travel Costs



Source: PwC Analysis (Information received from each RDC)

4.3 Strategic

Performance measure cannot be set without a comprehensive overarching regionalstrategic plan which includes regional strategic outcomes to be met. The RDCs shoulduse the Strategic Regional Plans as a key input for developing the RDCs Strategic Planand Business Plans.

The RDC specific Strategic Plans focus should be on delivering the Strategic RegionalOutcomes as set in the Regional Strategic Plan.

Ultimately, the design and implementation of the RDCs Strategies should support theRegional Strategic Objectives and take into account the effectiveness and efficiencyof operations.

Beside the impact of their project spend the RDCs also influence stakeholders’behaviour and performance in other ways. The following examples, drawn from theevaluations and information provided by the RDCs, illustrates these activities:

The Great Southern Development Commission convened the Timber ProcessingPrecinct Working Group which made available 80ha at the Mirambeena TimberProcessing Precinct for Timber value adding. This precinct has supported industryinvestment in the region commencing with the Plantation Energy Australia plantopening in 2007.

The Kimberley Development Commission worked over a long period of time todraft the Aboriginal Land Title Agreement which created a positive regionaloutcome in freeing up Title Claim land to develop agriculture activities.

To ensure the regional strategies are achieved there is a need for an activelycooperating community, cross border regional leadership and relationships, jointownership of the regional strategies as well as strategic communication with allregional stakeholders.

$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800$900

Rent per m2



The improvement opportunities identified from a strategy perspective include:

The RDCs should be a driver of strategic outcomes and be involved in keystrategic regional projects from inception to completion to enable them to monitorthe outcomes achieved and ultimately complete a benefits realisation analysis andreport on these outcomes

One of the key factors that need to be taken into account to ensure that the RDCsstrategy and business plans are aligned is to link the RDCs strategy and plans tothe regional strategic plans.

4.3.1 Although some RDCs use their regional economic outlookto identify their regional strategy, the RDCs cannot aligntheir strategies with a broader regional strategy due to thefact that no broader regional strategies exist

A lack of strategic regional planning was a constraint to the performance of the RDCs.This was as a result of the lack of Regional Strategic Plans specifically focussed onStrategic Regional outcomes. A strategic regional plan that incorporates activities of allState agencies and other levels of Government and to which all parties are reportingdoes not exist in the current landscape.

4.3.2 The strategic regional focus differs from region to region.The RDCs focus on strategic regional outcomesdetermined in some instances by an RDC strategic plan,however they might not have a strategic plan necessarilyaligned with s23 of the Act

Each RDC either has a current Strategic Plan or a Strategic Plan that is in draft. Thisenables the RDCs to have a future Strategic vision from a RDC specific perspective.It has been noted that these Strategic Plans differ from their reportableperformance information.

The Strategic Plans could furthermore be linked to s23 of the Act in a broader sense butthere is no clear visibility in terms of direct linkages between the Strategic Plans andthe Act.



Developmentcommission

Strategic plan Annual report

Gascoyne

Strategic Plan 2010-2020

Strategic Plan with 19outcomes

Regional Development Plan

Section 1 – Discusses the 19strategic outcomes

Section 2 – Details the majorinitiatives and projects

Outlined in terms of s23 of theAct

GoldfieldsEsperance


Service 1 – Facilitating theprovision of appropriateinfrastructure and industryservices

Service 2 – Promotion of theregion and its investmentopportunities.

Outlined in terms of the 2services

Great Southern

Strategic Directions2006-2010

Goal 1 – Regional Leadership

Goal 2 – Industry Development

Goal 3 – Improve Infrastructure

Goal 4 – Natural ResourceManagement

Goal 1 – Regional Leadership

Goal 2 – Industry Development

Goal 3 – Improve Infrastructure

Goal 4 – Natural ResourceManagement

Goal 5 – Efficient AgencyPerformance

Kimberley


Service 1

The Commission will provideeffective regional developmentpolicies and strategies togetherwith accurate and accessibleinformation on the region tofacilitate and support theeconomic and socialdevelopment of the region.

Service 2

The Commission will identify,co-ordinate and promotethrough its major strategies theestablishment, improvementand diversification of theregion’s infrastructure,industries and enterprises.

Outlined in terms of the 2services

Mid West

Strategic Directions2008-2010

Community: Cohesive, healthyand educated communities

Economy: A Strong, resilientand diversified economy

Governance: Strongpartnerships that add value tothe social and economic

Service 1: Information andAdvice

To contribute to economicgrowth and employment bydeveloping strategicpartnerships betweengovernment, business, and the





development of the Mid West

Infrastructure: Timely provisionof strategic infrastructure

Sustainability: A balancedapproach to developmentwhich recognises theimportance of the environmentalongside social and economicbenefits

community, providing a centralpoint of coordination andcontact, and by raisingawareness of the Mid Westregion.

Service 2: InvestmentFacilitation

To create a businessenvironment within the MidWest region that has a diverseeconomic base and isattractive to investors

Service 3: Infrastructure andServices Development in theMid West

To facilitate the development ofinfrastructure and servicesbased on long-term economicdevelopment strategies, tosupport communities andbusinesses in the Mid West.

Peel


Government decision makingtakes account of Peel issues

The Peel has an evolving,adaptive and diverse economywith increased jobopportunities for all membersof the community

Community and economicinfrastructure is planned anddelivered to meet the needs ofcurrent and future of Peel

Peel communities areeducated, productive, healthy,safe and supportive

The Peel environment is betterunderstood and managed

Outlined in terms of the 5Strategic Outcomes

Pilbara

Strategic Plan 2010– 2015

Ensuring that there is a joined-up approach to economicdevelopment and servicedelivery from all levels ofgovernment and that this isintegrated with long termprivate sector investmentstrategies.

Enabling a multiplier effect onthe investment and economicactivity in the Pilbara, for

Business and IndustryDevelopment

Infrastructure and ServicesIdentification and Coordination

Regional Promotion andInformation Services





example leveraging the $300mRoyalties for Regions PilbaraRevitalisation Plan for its longterm benefits.

Attracting and retaining aworkforce and their families bymaking the Pilbara a vibrantand attractive place to live,work and relax.

Ensuring that everyone wholives, visits and invests in thePilbara enjoys its prosperityand benefits.

South West

Strategic Vision2005-2020

Investing in People

Infrastructure and Place

Investing in Knowledge,Enterprise and Innovation

Outlined in terms of the 3Strategic Vision Items

Wheatbelt


Service Delivery Reform

Infrastructure Development

Industry Development

Governance

People and Communities

The Economy

The Environment

The Regions

Governance

Source: PwC Analysis (RDCs Strategic Plans and 2008/2009 Annual Reports)

One of the key factors that need to be taken into account to ensure that the RDCsstrategy and business plans are aligned is to link the RDCs strategy and plans to theregional strategic plans.



4.3.3 Not all of the RDCs have a yearly business plan whichdirects operational focus to align with the strategicobjectives

A RDC yearly business plan should be drafted as an enabler and to assist the RDC inachieving their strategic objectives. The business plans will include the operationalbudget and identified operational gaps that need to be addressed in terms of resourcesetc to ensure they are able to achieve set objectives.

It was identified that some of the RDCs have a yearly operational plan ie South Westand Wheatbelt. Some of the operational/business plans however do not directly link backto the Strategic themes or s23 of the Act.

4.3.4 Some of the strategic regional focus at the executive levelhas been reduced due to the additional time spent onproject administration

One of the key regional capabilities of the RDCs is having a regional presence andknowledge that creates trust and builds report with the local communities, business andother agencies. It is also important for the executive to keep having a strategic view andmanaging the RDC rather than getting involved in the detail of administration and day today operations.

Keeping the strategic view would involve identifying strategic regional projects as well asplaying a facilitation role in terms of stakeholder management and identification ofregional outcomes in existing major strategic projects.

It was however identified that due to the additional burden placed on the RDCs from anincreased project numbers perspective, there is an ever increasing need for additionalresources. Which is now being met in part by the CEO’s being more involved in theadministration of projects.

4.3.5 It was identified that some of the RDCs facilitate biggerregional strategic projects and are involved in the start upphase only, with no further involvement

Larger regional strategic projects are key drivers in the various regions in terms ofachieving regional outcomes as well as outcomes as per the RDCs mandate in s23 ofthe Act. It is therefore critical for the RDCs not just to take on a facilitation role in the startup phase with no further involvement but rather play a key role in monitoring of the keyoutcomes and benefits realisation reporting of these strategic regional projects.

This will enable the RDCs to keep track of the key regional outcomes achieved andultimately report these outcomes as part of their performance indicators.



4.4 Operational

The improvement opportunities identified from an operational perspective include:

Conduct a review of organisational structure relating to the roles of the RDCs andadditional roles and responsibilities accumulated over time and for any future roles tobe absorbed or undertaken.

Redesign planning, control and reporting processes to ensure there is a direct linkbetween RDC budgeting and reporting requirements and their actual operational andstrategic budgeting and internal reporting.

Investigate and benchmark the desegregated systems in the RDCs to determine thefunctionality and possible implementation of an appropriate centralised projectadministration, monitoring and reporting system for all RDCs. (Consistent with EACRecommendation number 15).

4.4.1 The implementation of the RDCs business processes intothe Office of the Shared Service provided the RDCs withsome much needed relief in the administration of the RDCsoperational back-office, but negatively impacted the RDCsflexibility and responsiveness.

The implementation of the RDCs business processes provided the RDCs with somemuch needed relief in the administration of the RDCs operational back-office. The reliefcomes at a time where additional administrative burdens are placed on the RDCs interms of administering the Regional Grants Scheme (RGS) provided under Royalties forRegions funding.

With the relief from a back-office process perspective came some constraints thatnegatively impacted the RDCs efficiency and effectiveness. The OSS removed some ofthe RDCs flexibility for prompt payment and human resources aspects made itburdensome to recruit. Some of the evidence pointed to OSS being less flexible, lesstimely and more expensive.

In some instances, it was identified that invoices were allocated to theincorrect RDC

Invoices are sent directly to the OSS and if they do not have the correctinformation captured on them, they are parked and not fed back to the RDCs. Thiscreated breaches of payment terms with service providers

Some of the services taken on by the OSS were previously outsourced and costless and there seems to be a lack of communication and no straight line access tothe OSS

The process for advertising and appointing personnel became more timeconsuming and decreased the RDCs capability to act quickly on appointment ofstaff when resources are desperately needed.



Source: PwC Analysis (Information received from RDCs)

RDCOSS rolledout

Date of roll out/plannedroll out

Other systemsin use 2009 cost ($)

Gascoyne September 2009 - 40,581

Goldfields-Esperance

August 2010 - -

GreatSouthern

April 2009 - 47,000

Kimberley December 2009 - 28,633

Mid West August 2010 - -

Peel August 2010 - -

Pilbara March 2007, November2009 (Payroll)

- 43,000

South West July 2009 - 51,547

Wheatbelt October 2010 SUN GL -


4.4.2 There are desegregated systems in the RDCs that areused for monitoring and reporting of strategic projects andRoyalties for Regions projects.

Desegregated systems for reporting and monitoring of all projects are currently in placeat the RDCs. It was noted that the Department of Regional Development and Lands isdeveloping a new reporting system that will address this problem, as it will encapsulateall reporting on the royalties for regions monies across all agencies. However, it will notcapture RDC expenditure on projects funded outside of Royalties for Regions funding. It

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Kimberley Gascoyne Pilbara GreatSouthern

South West

OSS costs (2009)



is expected however to reduce the time required for monitoring and reporting asrequested by the Department.

The Department should investigate the option of expanding on the system to beimplemented to incorporate all projects administered or monitored by the RDCs. Thiscould potentially provide the RDCs with additional time and reporting capabilities andcould provide the Department with a central point for monitoring the achievement ofregional outcomes as a whole and not just focus on Royalties for Regions funding.

Development Commission Project Monitoring Tool

Gascoyne Excel spreadsheet based project tracking

Goldfields Esperance Excel spreadsheet based project tracking

Great Southern Great Southern project management database. Containsall projects and forms basis for monthly project meetingsas well as reporting

Kimberley Excel Spreadsheet with automated warning triggers forproject milestones.

Hard copy files.

Mid West Manual project file for each project.

Peel Manual project file for each project.

Pilbara Excel spreadsheet based project tracking

South West SWDC Project Management System (Projtrak)

Royalties for Regions Access Grants Database

Wheatbelt Excel spreadsheet based project tracking

Source: PwC Analysis (Observations from visits)



4.4.3 A key person risk exists within the RDCs in terms of theregional knowledge and presence at the Executive leveldue to the demographic of employees and availability ofsuitable employees with regional experience.

It is evident from our visits to the nine RDCs that the CEO’s play a critical role inregional development. This includes having that in-depth regional knowledge and rapportwith the local communities, presence within the regional business communities as wellas the ability to manage and involve multiple stakeholders to achieve greaterregional outcomes.

The RDCs CEO’s regional presence is evident from the amount of regional committeesin which they are involved. These committees consist of regional stakeholders that arefocussing on regional projects as well as other regional outcomes.

The involvement in these committees stem from the CEO’s regional presence andtrust built over years of local involvement in regional development andstakeholder strategies.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

CEO committees involvement



4.4.4 The skills and experience of the RDCs Executive appear tomatch the requirements of their role, however the Executiveare being drawn into project administration as the volumeof projects grow with the Royalties for Regions activity

Our analysis of Executive skills and experiences show that the Executive team have thenecessary skills and experience to adequately fulfil their duties. What is even morevaluable for the RDCs is that the average CEO’s years of service within the RDCs is 8years with an average of 21 years spent in their respective region.

The table below illustrates the individual RDCs CEO years of service within the RDC,years living in the region and relevant qualifications.

RDC

YearsServicewith RDC

Years Livingin theRegion Qualification

Gascoyne5 5

BA Hons in Economics (2-2) University ofLiverpool


10 22

Executive Fellow, Australian and New ZealandSchool of Government (ANZOG – University ofMelbourne)Executive MBA (UWA)BA Dip. Ed.AIAIM member

GreatSouthern 5 49 N/A

Kimberley

18 36

Completion of the Australian Institute ofCompany Directors Company DirectorsProgram, 2006Graduate and Fellow of the Australian RuralLeadership Foundation, 1999Associate in Town and Regional Planning,1973Public Service Medal, Queens BirthdayHonours List, 2007Member of the Australian Institute of CompanyDirectors, 2006Councillor, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley,1990-1992Justice of the Peace and Children’s CourtMember, appointed 1986

Mid West

6 2

1981 Certificate of Drafting1985 Certificate of Completion, NM StateContractors License Training1996 Certificate of Permaculture Design1999 Certificate of Completion – HACCP2005 Certificate of Completion – OptimalProject Delivery2006 Certificate of Completion – MicrosoftProject



RDC

YearsServicewith RDC

Years Livingin theRegion Qualification

2006 Certificate of Completion – MinisterialBriefings2008 Certificate of Completion – DrivingOrganisational Performance: Aligning Strategy

Peel

3 3

Bachelor of Education DegreeGraduate Diploma in EducationACID Membership

Pilbara

15 22

Graduate Diploma of Regional Development(UWA)Diploma of Education (UWA)Bachelor of Arts (UWA).

South West

12 25

Bachelor of PsychologyBachelor of Social WorkMasters in Business Administration

Wheatbelt 2 25 N/A


4.5 Funding

One of the key elements and drivers of the directional focus of the RDCs is the structureof funding they receive. When new funding sources are introduced into the RDCs,especially with a relative magnitude such as the Royalties for Regions funding, thiscauses a shift in the RDCs operational efforts, in terms of monitoring and reporting, aswell as strategic efforts, in terms of building their ability to align the funding to achieveregional outcomes.

4.5.1 The introduction of the Royalties for Regions (RegionalGrants Scheme) funding negatively impacted on the RDCseffectiveness due to increased allocation of time andresources spent on administering the funding.

Before the rollout of the Royalties for Regions funding, the RDCs only administered theRegional Development Scheme funding which was approximately $500,000 per financialyear. This funding was mainly used for RDCs strategic projects and was aligned with theregional outcomes.

With the introduction of the RGS funding, the amount administered by the RDCs jumpedto $4,400,000 in the 08/09 financial year and $3,500,000 in the 09/10 financial year. Thisamount is set to increase in the future years. This increase constituted a 600 – 800%increase in funding to be administered.

The RDCs were assisted by the Department of Regional Development and Landsthrough the administration fee as part of the RGS administration. The amount was set at2.5% of funding allocations for the year but limited to $125,000. The administration fee



was $110,000 in 08/09 and $87,500 in the 09/10 financial years. The administrationamount constituted a 1-2% increase in the RDCs total revenue including appropriations.

Source: Individual RDCs 2009 Annual Reports

The amount of additional effort required to administer the Royalties for Regions fundingis illustrated through the graph below. This clearly shows that the additional funding issignificant in the context of total yearly revenue ranging from 23% (South West) to 68%(Wheatbelt) of total revenue for 2008/2009 financial year. The average funding as apercentage of total revenue is 52%.


Items mentioned in some of the other themes including the 4.5.2 below and 4.3.4illustrate the additional burden placed on the RDCs.

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

Revenue and income from state government (2009)

Royalties ForRegions

Grants ReceivedFrom Government

ServiceAppropriations

Other Revenue

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Royalities for regions funding as % of total revenue (08/09)



4.5.2 There is no distinction in the process between small andlarger grant applications. The same level of approval,monitoring and reporting requirements are applicable to allgrants which impacts on the efficiency of the RDCs

The time and effort spent on assisting smaller groups develop business cases for projectgrant applications, initiation of projects, monitoring of projects and ultimately thecompletion and acquittal of project funding is significant from the RDCs perspective.

Currently, the same robust processes and rigour applies to all project amounts and itwas suggested that too much effort was directed to the administration of small grants(less than $100,000). Monitoring and compliance costs for small grants were significant,with some evidence that risk increases as amounts decrease. It is of concern that highoverheads for small grants administration are not offset by strategic results.

The distribution graphs below illustrate that more than 60% of all grants approved areless than $100,000 but require the same amount of rigour as amounts up to $500,000.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%







As per the graph below, there is an average of 10 projects per RDC with a total RGCcontribution value of less than $50,000 for the second round in 09/10 with South Westhaving 25 of their 38 projects less than $50,000 grant amount.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RGS Projects <$50,000 (09/10)



4.5.3 There appears to be uncertainty of what to do withcontestable funding for projects that have been abandoneddue to time lag of money allocation. We also noted thatsome of the RDCs did not fully allocate contestable grantfunding in the years the funding was available forallocation.

It was noted in 4.1.3. The timeframe from the initial applications for funding under theRegional Grants Scheme to the payment of funds to successful applicants increases thepossibility of projects failing before funding was even received. Some projects havefailed due to the timeframe from application to actual money allocation.

This funding currently forms part of the RDCs restricted funding due to the nature of thefunding being contestable grants and being awarded to a specific applicant. There is noclear mandate or framework in place that directs the RDCs in the due process to followin what to do with these “uncollected” funds.

We also noted that some of the RDCs did not fully allocate the contestable grant fundingin the years the funding was available for allocation.

The graphs below illustrate the Regional Grant Scheme (RGS) allocations measuredagainst the actual funding provided to the RDCs. These figures take into account theadministration fee of 2.5% of the total funding, limited to $125,000.


$0$500,000

$1,000,000$1,500,000$2,000,000$2,500,000$3,000,000$3,500,000$4,000,000$4,500,000$5,000,000

Regional grants scheme allocations (08/09)

FundingAvailable

Total




4.6 Projects

Improvement opportunities identified from a project perspective include:

The RDCs should focus on determining the strategic outcomes of completedprojects by performing a benefits realisation analysis as part of theproject’s acquittal.

4.6.1 There are sound governance controls operating over theselection and evaluation of projects and grants with severallayers of decision making in the RDCs processes includingindependence declarations by all evaluators, decisionmakers and Board members

Sound governance controls are a key element in an environment committed to reducefraud risk. KPMG performed a RDC governance review which included a fraud riskanalysis of all nine RDCs. From the results, it is evident that the RDCs is committed togood governance practises and do so by ensuring they follow the correct processeswhen evaluating project grant applications.

These good governance practises were also noted through our discussions and reviewof documents when we visited each of the RDCs. The commitment also does not justvest in the Executive and Board members approving the applications but with RDC staffpart of the initiation and assessment stages. We also noted that some RDCs providesmall grant applicants with the necessary help to complete some of these applicationcases as well as direct them to the necessary Small Business Development Centres for

$0$500,000

$1,000,000$1,500,000$2,000,000$2,500,000$3,000,000$3,500,000$4,000,000$4,500,000


FundingAvailable

Total



material and templates. Where the RDC staff member provided the applicant assistance,they would declare this and withdraw themselves from assessing the applicant’s case.

The table below illustrates the number of governance and other issues noted by KPMGas well as rating each RDCs fraud risk analysis and placing them into categories.

RDCGovernanceIssues

OtherIssues

Fraud Risk

High Significant Moderate

Gascoyne 8 2 0 1 6

Goldfields-Esperance 3 3 0 0 2

GreatSouthern 3 3 0 0 3

Kimberley 4 0 0 2 6

Mid West 2 3 0 1 2

Peel 7 3 4 0 4

Pilbara 4 3 0 0 3

South West 3 0 0 0 2

Wheatbelt 4 3 0 0 3

Source: KPMG Governance Review and Fraud Risk Assessments of the nine RDCs

(November 2009 – June 2010)

4.6.2 Completed projects funding acquittals tends to focus on thefinancial outcomes rather than the actual benefits realised.

As an enabler for the RDCs to report on the key project outcomes from a regionalstrategic outcome achievement as well as achievement of their mandate as set out ins23 of the Act, it is critical for the RDCs to monitor these key outcomes from a qualitativeand quantative perspective. This would include measuring actual outcomes achieved interms of jobs created etc. One way of achieving this level of monitoring and reporting, isto as part of the acquittal process, perform a benefits realisation assessment against thestrategic outcomes set during the initiation phase or business case of the project.

The completed acquittals viewed during our visits tend to focus on the financialoutcomes rather than the actual benefits realised. We however noted that thedetailed project knowledge exists within the regions to be able to report the level of detailrequired.

It is critical to identify how the RDCs prioritised the delivery of projects that offer highvalue added benefits for the region and reporting on the identified added benefits.


The following section highlights our observations in terms of the RDCs operations and focus through

linkages with s23 of the Act as well as key regional issues and the impact of the Royalties for

Regions funding.

5.1 Gascoyne development commission

Strategic Projects Carnarvon Youth Needs Strategic Plan – $20,000

Partnership with Country Arts WA – $240,000

Bejaling Port Preliminary Investigation – $120,000

Gascoyne Pilbara Opportunity Study – $110,000

Other Major Projects Ningaloo Research Centre

Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural Centre

Education Precinct Strategy Group

Mt Augustus and Outback Gascoyne Development

Food Industry Program

Regional Airports Development Scheme

Gascoyne is classified as very remote Australia according to the Remoteness Classes inAustralia, 2006.2

The population of the Gascoyne is administered by four local governments; Carnarvon,Exmouth, Shark Bay and Upper Gascoyne.

The Gascoyne Development Commission (GDC) is a well run office that has evolvedover its 16 years of existence.

Interestingly, the GDC have developed both a high level Strategic Plan for 2010 to 2020and this is then supported by a more detailed Development Plan for the same period.The GDC acknowledge their objectives under the Act and responsibilities including theShires of Carnarvon, Exmouth, Shark Bay and Upper Gascoyne. Furthermore, inaccordance with their Strategic Plan the GDC set out their ‘Vision’ and Missions asfollows:

Mission – ‘achieve sustainable economic and social development of the Gascoyneregion – A better place to live’

Vision – ‘the Gascoyne will be recognised as providing a great lifestyle and visitorexperience through its diversity, good employment and investment opportunities,unique natural environment and climate’.

The Strategic Plan contains 19 Outcomes identified by the GDC Board and fourGascoyne local governments as essential for the period 2010 to 2020. Against eachoutcome and agreed set of priorities is listed, with the GDC’s proposed role. Importantly,the Strategic Plan makes mention of the Royalties for Regions Scheme and itsmanagement and importance.

2Source: ABS Australian Standard Geographical Classification: Remoteness Structure, 2006

Regional development commissions


The Regional Development Plan that supports the Strategic Plan contains two sectionsas follows:

Section 1 – Discusses the Strategic Plan’s 19 Outcomes in detail.

Section 2 – Details the major initiatives and projects required to enhance theRegion’s economic and social development.

Within its 2009 Annual Report the GDC make note of the mechanics of their overall roleand how they are to achieve it through structure and governance. GDC have gonefurther with their governance and interaction with stakeholders to actually map their roleand important interactions with local communities, governments and the like calling it an‘Operational Framework’. This is copied below for reference:

Source: GDC August 2010.

As well as financial information GDC also report within their Annual Report onachievements under the Act’s requirements.

Key regional issues

The Gascoyne Region is smaller in size and economic output. The entire region abutsthe coastline and then stretches 500km inland covering pristine coastline and climates.

The total GRP of the region in 2007 was AUD 0.6b with tourism representing 0.2b andthe balance more evenly spread across mining, tourism, horticulture and fishing. Themain resource mined in the region is salt and horticulture is spread across a variety offruit and vegetable produce.

Population wise, the regions total population has remained relatively static at 10,000.

1. Maximise regional job creation

2. Broaden the economic base ofthe region

3. Identify infrastructure serv ices to

promote business development4. Provide information and advice

to promote businessdevelopment

5. Ensure general standard of

governmentserv ices and accessto those services in the Region is

comparable to that which appliesin the metropolitan area.

6. Take steps to encourage,

promote, facilitate and monitoreconomic development.

Department of regionalDevelopment and lands

Development of the Gasooyne region

Local govt authorities(Shires of Carnarvon, Exmouth,Shark Bay, Upper Gascoyne) Minister for regional development

Gascoyne developmentcommission

GDC Board

GDC Staff

GDC board priorities• Population retention and

growth

• Infrastructure improvement• Improvement in serv ices to

the Gascoyne community

• The development andsupportofbusiness

• Promotion of the region• Expansion ofeconomic

opportunities for indigenous

people/the strengthening ofaboriginal culture.

Gascoyne revitalisation steeringcommittee (repsfrom GDC, RDL and LGAs)

Gascoyne development commission work plan

Gascoyne regionaldevelopment plan

Outcomesand priorities

Majorprojects andinitiatives

Gascoyne revitalisationplan

GDC strategicplan

Report onactivities

Report on fundedproject

Regional development act



5.1.1 Summary of key indicators

Table 5.1:1 – Gascoyne Key Indicators

Key Indicator 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Total Revenue ($) 2,672,575 3,206,604 2,270,145 2,508,478 6,684,827

Total Expenditure ($) 6,451,955 1,764,831 2,035,694 2,657,722 2,361,667

FTE 15 15 13 12 12

Revenue per FTE ($) 178,172 213,774 174,627 209,040 557,069

Gross RegionalProduct ($)

538m 631m 568m DNF DNF

Local Governments 4

Area 138,000 square kilometres

Population 9,865

Unemployment 4.6% 3.9% 4.2% 4.4% 5.3%

Source: Individual RDCs Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009


Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Australian Bureau of Statistics

Impact of royalties for regions

The GDC have administered two rounds of R4R and appear to have welcomed itsintroduction and made necessary structural and management related changes toaccompany its efficient appropriation.

A number of excel based control schedules are used to manage, track and report on theR4R processes and then report periodically with board reporting and other RDLreporting. We reviewed reporting around funded projects and funds administered andfound it to be clear and informative.

5.1.2 Achievement of objects and functions specified in section23 of the RDC Act

Maximise job creation and improve career opportunities

Within what appear to be monthly ‘Activity Reports’ the GDC go to great levels of detailto report against each section of the Act including the job creation and careeropportunities requirements.

We have reviewed reports over two years and note that a number of different initiativesare allocated against this area with periodic and realistic updates on their aim, strategyand status together with value involved.



The three current initiatives here include:

Regional Indigenous Development Projects

Gascoyne Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural Centre Project – Stage 2

Education Precinct Strategy Group.

It is important to note that due to its smaller size, population and industry job creationand employment opportunities are more limited. However, those growth industries suchas tourism and mining will see continued focus by the GDC.

Develop and broaden the economic base of the region

Due to the wide range of industry in the Gascoyne those initiatives being undertaken arecorrespondingly quite broad in their range. We discussed the location of the Gascoynewithin W.A with GDC management and they highlighted the regions potential as supportto the booming Pilbara and evolving Mid-West for accommodation and housing.

The area is also well placed for agricultural exploits due to the climate and rainfallpotential. Coupled with coastal tourism the economic base presents a broad scope forthe GDCto coordinate/facilitate economic activities.

Currently the three key initiatives being developed and reported on in thisrespect include:

Mt Augustus Gascoyne Outback Development

Food Industry Program

Gascoyne Food Bowl.

From our review of each of these projects small amounts of funding are involved and themajority of work relates to tourism activities.

Identify infrastructure services to promote economic and social developmentwithin the region

Perhaps the most significant initiative discussed with GDC management was the scopingstudies conducted for a potential deep water port off the coast of the Gascoyne. We areadvised that the GDC seeded the study and this points to the feasibility of a major exportshipping port off the coast. We understand that such infrastructure could then takeforecast congestion away from the Pilbara and Mid-West ports. In turn massiveeconomic benefit would flow to the Gascoyne area.

Another key piece of social work is the local Aboriginal Centre built and developed withGDC assistance. This facility touches a wide spectrum of society and promotesAboriginal culture and art. It also serves well as a training facility and promotes tourismof the area.

Again, through their detailed reporting the identification, development and managementof all criteria in this area of the GDC’s function can be easily gleaned from the monthlyactivity reporting documents prepared by the GDC.

The two current initiatives discussed above are:



Ningaloo Research Centre

Bejaling Port Preliminary Investigation.

Provide information and advice to promote business development withinthe region

Being a smaller region and consisting of a smaller industry presence, the GDC are ableto interact with smaller business. Though not a focus of the GDC it does engage withlocal business and provides significant advice through grant processes and other regionspecific issues.

Set out below are the key areas currently underway including those which have beenreported on frequently with updates and continued focus of GDC efforts:

Austrade – Tradestart Services Program

Skilled Migration Program

Business Training and Development

Website Redevelopment

Regional Industry Directory (Capability Register)

Management Skills Development.

Seek to ensure that the general standard of government services and accessto those services in the region is comparable to that which applies in themetropolitan area

According to their monthly activity reporting document, the following articulates theGDC’s focus on this front:

‘The GDC is a crucial link in the consultation process between State Government andthe local communities. The GDC advocates for fair and accessible services across thebusiness and social sectors. It seeks to ensure equity of access to these services andthat services are of a standard equivalent to those delivered in the metropolitan area.’

Examples of the current projects being undertaken include:

Telecommunications Working Group Program

Infrastructure and Services Program

Regional Infrastructure Review

Regional Waste Initiative

Early Years

District Health Advisory Council.

The work detailed across each of these initiatives is impressive with the levels of fundingand resources available.



Generally take steps to encourage, promote, facilitate and monitor theeconomic development in the region

It was noted that the GDC appear to have outsourced and resourced particular projectsand initiatives with either externally skilled and capable professionals so as to providethe highest levels of service. Furthermore, internally restructuring of management andprocesses provides that work is allocated appropriately and managed. The activityreporting and strategic planning is a key highlight of this.

In regards to the number of grant allocations coordinated through the GDC, the regionappears to punch above its weight with respect to the numbers of applications reviewedand dollars approved and appropriated.

Being a smaller region with fewer industries and socio-economic issues it is thereforeeasier for the GDC to cover economic conditions. The levels of resources here seem towork well in this respect.

5.1.3 Resources

A copy of the GDC’s organisational structure from their 2009 Annual Report iscopied below:

Source: GDC Annual Report 2008/2009

The staffing levels at the GDC are better balanced to the size of the region and itseconomy. That is more staff appear to be spread over work areas and issues requiringattention within grants administration and the other projects.

Minister

Gascoyne development commission board(10 members)

Gascoyne development commissionChief executive of f icer

Consultants as requiredRoyalties for regions

corporate servicesManager L7

Regional projectsA/Senior projects manger

L6

Gascoyne aboriginalheritage and cultural

centerA/Center manager L6

GAHCC board

Manager corporateservice L6

Senior projectof f icer L6

Project of f icerL5

Project of f icerL5

Executiveassistant L3

Administrationassistant L2

Project of f icerL5

Project of f icerL5

Project of f icerL5

Project of f icerL5 (exmouth)



5.1.4 Economic perspective

Established industries which include agriculture, retail trade and small businessescontinue to be significant to the region’s economy.

The chart below shows the economic statistics of the region according to available dataas at this report date. It shows that the main industry in the Great Southern is fishingfollowed by tourism.

There is significant oil and gas mining activity offshore of North West Cape in theCarnarvon Basin. Offshore oil and gas revenue is not included in the statistics for theGascoyne because it is extracted from Commonwealth waters.

Source:

http://www.dlgrd.wa.gov.au/Publications/Docs/StatSnapshot_regionEconomy.asp#open#open

5.1.5 Key constraints or issues

No constraints were noted with the GDC except for the mismatch between the providedincreases in funding per annum of less than inflation at some 2% whilst grantappropriations and associated workflows have increased by over 50%.

5% 1%0%

57%

1%

1%2%

22%

11%

GDC economic statistics (% of WA total)

Agricultural 04/05

Mining 06/07

Forestry 06/07

Fishing 06/07

Manufacturing 01/02

Buidling and ConstructionApprovals 06/07

Retail Estimated Turnover 06/07

Tourism International Visitors05-07 Average

Tourism Domestic Visitors 05-07Average



5.2 Goldfields esperance development commission

Other Major Projects Kalgoorlie Hospital – $15.8 million

Port Access Transport Corridor

Eastern Goldfields Railway Upgrade

Esperance Line Upgrade

Esperance to Kalgoorlie Desalinated Water Pipeline

Federal Government Building the Education Revolution Scheme

Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison


Goldfields Esperance is classified as remote to very remote Australia according to theRemoteness Classes in Australia, 2006.3

The Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission (GEDC) is the State GovernmentAgency responsible to the Minister for Goldfields-Esperance. According to a StrategicPlan for 2005 to 2010 the objectives of the GEDC are mirrored to that of the RegionalDevelopment Commission Act 1993 (the ‘Act’). Building on this however, the GEDChave identified two key categories of the focus of their work and projects which include:

Facilitating the provision of appropriate infrastructure and industry services

Promotion of the region and its investment opportunities.

Under each of these key categories the GEDC have then set out

Key development areas

Associated strategies

Examples of projects/services.

According to their 2009 Annual Report the GEDC provides and delivers servicesincluding:

Regional Economic Modelling (REMPLAN), which accurately assesses thebenefits to community and government project.

Grants information and Royalties for Regions Regional Grants Scheme funding.

Industry Development Centre website to encourage local purchasing.

Statistics information.

Provision of a regional perspective to Government and non-government agencies.

There are three GEDC offices located in Kalgoorlie, Esperance and Leonora.




Key regional issues

The Goldfields Esperance Region is one of W.A’s most significant regions. It is thebiggest in size and represents some AUD 7b of the State’s Gross RegionalProduct (GRP).

The economy of this region is dominated by mining, in particular gold and nickelexploration, mining and extraction. Despite, such a strong resources base, the regionfaces population depletion due to remoteness issues and fly in fly out workforces.Continued economic growth in the region relies strongly on the growth of the globalresources industry from commodity prices and the demand for such resources as goldand nickel.

The recent economic downturn and associated plunge in commodity prices was felt inthe region, with the BHP Ravensthorpe project being mothballed and supporting industryand communities adversely affected. The economic recovery has returned growth to theregion with overheating related economic effect returning to the economy.


Table 5.2:1 – Goldfields Esperance Key Indicators

Key Indicator 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Total Revenue ($) 4,586,437 2,357,045 2,131,409 2,756,226 6,746,487


FTE 15 15 11 13 13

Revenue per FTE ($) 305,762 157,136 193,764 212,017 518,961


7.32b 7.03b 7.2b

Local Governments 9


Population 58,727

Unemployment 3.4% 3% 2.8% 3.4% 4.2%






The GEDC do not appear from the statistics of grants received, approved and deliveredto have effectively promoted the first two rounds of R4R. From discussion with GEDCmanagement it is apparent that the GEDC is not designed or structured to handle thisfunction. However, the office does employ capable staff members that appear to havemanaged the process.



5.2.2 Achievement of objects and functions specified in section23 of the RDC Act


A key piece of thought leadership around the region’s workforce and employmentprospects has been pioneered by the GEDC. In 2008 a detailed study of historical andforecast employment drivers, indicators and issues was covered by a study conductedthrough the University of Western Australia.

We were advised that the funding for this study was made by the GEDC and conductedover a twelve month period. From this study the key areas of strength and weakness ofthe region’s employment were detailed and assessed.

Apart from such studies and funding of projects aimed at improving employment in theregion, the GEDC’s impact on job creation has not been significant. This activity wouldbe more applicable to industry’s presence and performance in the region, combined withrelevant State Government expertise for training and employment incentives.


It is clear that the resources industry is important to the region as it represents someAUD 6.3b worth of total GRP of AUD 7b. Accordingly, the majority of industry and activityin the region revolves around this in some way.

Nearly all examples of projects, grants and events that occupy the GEDC’s time relate tothe resources industry in this respect. Noting though, the cyclical nature of this industryand its indefinite nature it should not necessarily be the long terms focus or basis of theGEDC’s function. Due to its size the region touches numerous other industries, thoughthese industries are dwarfed by the sheer scale and economics of mining however theexception in the respective indicated is growth rates. Such additional industry includestourism further south in Esperance, agriculture throughout the region and transportationfrom and to both the Eastern States and throughout the larger state.

A more diversified example of projects from different industries were then discussed withthe GEDC and we were advised that significant adjacent projects to the resources focuswere being progressed, including:

Intermodal transportation routes connecting the northern Pilbara, Kimberleyregions to vital export routes in Esperance.

Intermodal transportation routes from the Eastern States.

Potential data communication hubs, with major international telecommunicationsgroups representing investment opportunities.

The application and completion of such examples of diversified projects – initiatives andany projects/initiatives for that matter should be reviewed against actual execution,funding grants and the success of projects. It is not clear without specific guidelines andmetrics that those efforts and funds allocated by the GEDC do actually improve keyareas to drive the economic base from either a strict economic definition or shortterm/long term perspective.



In any event, the economic base of the region can grow and is benefited in some waywith development of any industry. Numerous projects across industry are tabled inperiodic publications of the GEDC with brief descriptions, stakeholders, timings andvalue. Some of the additional and newer resource industry noted outside of the typicalgold and nickel producers and engaged with by the GEDC include:

Rare earths

Coal to Oil

Iron Ore

Base Metals.


Within its Board Reporting documents, the GEDC set out two areas of review for theBoard including:

Infrastructure

Community.

Within these section numerous projects have been tabled from the Dec 08 and Dec 09Board Report we have reviewed. However, the projects and efforts here may in somecases simply refer to the lack of resources, commitment to meetings or ongoingmonitoring of an initiative whether it is at its infancy in thinking or actually roll outwith investment.

Infrastructure is noted as a key category within the GEDC’s Strategic Plan from 2005 to2010, moving forward from 2010 with this priority is uncertain.

From discussion with GEDC’s management road infrastructure is a priority agenda itemfor intermodal transportation routes to benefit the region and its infrastructure. Theprojects being contemplated here are quite significant in value and size but to do notinvolve 100% of grant monies of the GEDC. Rather time, research, expertise andthought leadership are used by the GEDC to get such initiatives rolling.

As part of annual KPI reporting, questionnaires are sent to key GEDC clients. The GEDCwere rated in the 2009 annual client survey (based on 182 responses of electronicquestionnaires sent to key clients) as follows:

92.8% agree that GEDC successfully facilitate the development of permanentinfrastructure and 92.9% agree that GEDC successfully facilitate the identificationof appropriate infrastructure for the region

87% agree that the GEDC successfully promote economic development within theregion

77% agree that the GEDC successfully promote social development withinthe region

72% agree that the GEDC successfully achieve a balance between promotion ofeconomic and social development within the region.

Source: GEDC 2008-2009 Annual Report




We were advised by management that the GEDC has little involvement with small tomedium enterprise business development in the region, apart from the allocation andmanagement of grant monies. Moreover, the GEDC is involved with governmentagencies and larger corporations for their interaction and role in the region.

In the 2009 annual client survey rated the GEDC as follows:

91% agree that the GEDC successfully assist industry, business and commerce

90.1% agree that the GEDC successfully promote new business andindustry opportunities


The level of services provided by any Regional Development Centre is importantlydifferent to a metropolitan office or service.

By its very nature a regional centre is generally more engaging with community andlocal groups over a broad range of issues. Accordingly, we expect that the GEDC areinvolved within the region on more levels than a metropolitan office and requiredto provide a wider range of services through communication, participationand development.

Examples of this are both the board and GEDC’s management involvement with localgroups, councils, bodies and private and public enterprise. Significant time by staff isrequired and consumed with representation at these events, leaving lesser time andresources for business as usual tasks of the RDC and its administration.

Interestingly though, we did note that throughout the duration of our visit in Kalgoorlie theoffice’s front doors were inoperative, preventing the public, other visitors and ourselvesfrom actually entering the GEDC office.


The adoption of a Regional Economic Modelling software product by the GEDC is agood example of intellectual property that has been developed to identify economicbenefit for the region for a wide range of project ideas. It was noted from discussionswith GEDC management that this software and expertise with its use has been usedacross a wide range of projects and ideas for both internal and external stakeholders.

We believe that the GEDC are very strong in the role of monitoring the region’sdevelopment and direction. All of GEDC’s management and board have strong presenceand background in the region and are skilled in developing analysis and ideas aroundthe same.



The GEDC has recently administered ‘Climate Change’ and ‘Carbon Pollution ReductionScheme’ projects which involved partnering with CSIRO to conduct research into theenvironmentally responsible use of resources within the region.

As mentioned the GEDC’s Strategic Plan has grouped its focus to two areas only thoughwhich do not necessarily cover at all those contemplated by s23 of the Act. Weunderstand that the GEDC are in the process currently of updating this plan and itsadoption of a more wide range of key economic activities would be beneficial forthis purpose.

5.2.3 Resources

The GEDC appear to be adequately staffed at the operational level. At an executive levelthere may be a need for an additional administrative resource to assist the COO with dayto day tasks outside of the time consuming meetings and engagements.

Source: GEDC Annual Report 2008/2009


Established industries which include mining, retail and property continue to be significantto the region’s economy.

The chart below shows the economic statistics of the region according to available dataas at this report date. It shows that the main industry in the Great Southern is miningfollowed by agriculture and tourism.

Honourable Brendon Grylls MLAMinister for regional development; lands; minister assistingthe minister for state development; minister assisting the

minister for transport

GEDC Board of managementChief : Graham Thomson

Deputy Chair: Brenda Tilbrook7 members

(2 vacancies)

Manager policyand projects

L6

Manager planning andinf rastructure

L7

Manager corporateservices

L6

Robert HicksChief executive of f icer

Senior project of f icer(Northern goldfields)

L5

Administration andproject assistant

Kalgoorlie L2

Administration assistantand client support

Esperance L2

Executive assistantL3

Senior project of f icersKalgoorlie

(1 FTE) L5(2 PTE) L5

Manager southernregion esperance

L6

Senior project of f icerEsperance L5



Source: http://www.dlgrd.wa.gov.au/Publications/Docs/StatSnapshot_regionEconomy.asp#open#open


We have performed preliminary analysis around the grants related activities of theGEDC operation and it is interesting to note that grants administered have decreasedover time and that these are significantly less than other regions especially whenconsidering the geographic size and economics of the region.

The Royalties for Regions process is also evolving and it is apparent that the GEDC’swas not originally setup to administer large grants.

17%

41%

0%6%

4%

4%

6%

8%

14%

Economic statistics (% of WA total)

Agricultural 04/05

Mining 06/07

Forestry 06/07

Fishing 06/07

Manufacturing 01/02

Buidling and ConstructionApprovals 06/07Retail Estimated Turnover 06/07

Tourism International Visitors 05-07 AverageTourism Domestic Visitors 05-07Average



5.3 Great southern development commission

Strategic Projects UWA Albany Sciences Building – $6 million

Munda Biddi Trail Foundation – Extension of Trail – $6.2 million

YMCA – Smart Start Early Years

Other Major Projects Regional Airports Development Scheme

Albany Health Campus

Albany Entertainment Centre

Albany Waterfront

Southdown Magnetite Mine

The Great Southern Development Commission (GSDC) has developed a Strategic Plancomprising the following key goals to which each project is linked during the Projectapplication evaluation process:

Regional Leadership

Industry Development

Improve Infrastructure

Natural Resource Management.

The goals above are supported by aims and activities outlined to achieve them andthese aims are as follows:

Regional Leadership – To support initiatives that build the capacity of regional andrural communities to respond to needs and opportunities for sustainabledevelopment

Industry Development – To support enterprise and industry development on thebasis of diversifying and strengthening the regional economy

Improve Infrastructure – A coordinated approach to infrastructure developmentthat facilitates business at all levels, industry and community development andimproves services to the region

Natural Resource Management – Promote and support best practice NaturalResource Management in the region.

The GSDCs Strategic Plan is designed to align with the functions and powers of theRDCs as outlined in section 23 of the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993.The supporting activities associated with the goals and aims referred to above areoutlined in the following section 5.3.2.

Key regional issues

The Great Southern Region includes 58,851 people living in an area of 38,917 squarekilometres with the major regional centre being Albany. The population is concentratedalong the coast with the inland centres catering for agricultural production andsupporting services.



There are 11 local governments in the region.

The GRP of the region in 2008/09 was 3.6B and the economy of the region is supportedby a strong agriculture sector with the key components being:

Crops/pastures

Livestock

Retail

Manufacturing

Construction and

Tourism.

There are three Sheep meat processing abattoirs in the region which provide valueadding for export and provide employment for approximately 700. Some of thechallenges faced by these facilities include availability of water, power and labour.

The impact of the global financial crisis was felt in the region with two major timberinvestment companies going into receivership. The State Government responded to thisregional crisis with the establishment of a working group chaired by the GSDC to monitorlocal impact and coordinate assistance and information to workers, landowners andcommunity.


Table 5.3:1 – Great Southern Key Indicators

Key Indicator 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Total Revenue ($) 2,462,820 3,484,334 1,381,311 1,956,995 7,645,627


FTE 15.92 14 15 14 13.6

Revenue per FTE ($) 154,700 248,881 92,087 139,785 562,178


$2.3 b $2.529 b $3.7b

Local Governments 11


Population 58,851

Unemployment 5.5% 4% 3.6% 3.6% 4.1%








The administration requirements are increasing as further rounds are added to the existingprojects. The GSDC is also becoming involved in conducting some of the audits as theapplicants cannot find appropriate service providers in the region.

The external assessor is only used on the applications where the internal assessmentreturned a high or medium risk rating. The cost of the external assessor is covered by theR4R administration fee allocation ($125,000).

Once the successful applicants are notified then the specific contracts are signed and thepayment schedules/key milestones are recorded in the Grants Database. The grantsdatabase has been developed by GSDC and is used as a workflow tool to drive the agendasat fortnightly Project Officer meetings. If it is determined that a Grantee will not meet amilestone then a contract variation is drafted and signed. This variation is then updated intothe Projects Database. Of the 84 current projects there were 79 variations.

5.3.2 Achievement of objects and functions specified insection 23 of the RDC Act


The activities outlined in the GSDCs Strategic Plan to contribute either directly orindirectly to maximise job creation and improve career opportunities include:

1 Promoting opportunities, training and services that particularly encourage youngpeople and families to remain in rural communities.

2 Expanding the range of indigenous economic and employment opportunities.

3 Supporting research and development of a diverse range of sustainable ruralproducts and industries.

4 Promoting and facilitating research, education and training initiatives linked toNatural Resource Management.

5 Supporting the growth of Natural Resource Management research anddevelopment capacity in the region.

6 Partner with rural communities to increase their capacity and support them toattract relevant resources.

Projects are assessed in line with the strategic goals outlined therefore the projects thatare selected will effectively meet the activities necessary to maximise job creation andimprove career opportunities.

Members of the GSDC are on the board of the Business enterprise centre. This acts asa forum for training and education institutions as well as business enterprises to meetand keep track of the regions employment situation as well as upcoming employmentopportunities or issues.

The GSDC select projects in line with their strategic goals. These are assessed in linewith this criteria by internal and external assessors. These projects are clearly definedunder each goal in the annual budget in order to track spend on each goal to ensure allareas are being addressed. These projects are also outlined in the annual report at theend of every year under each goal demonstrating what is being achieved.



Since round two of the R4R the GSDC also tracks the number of jobs created whilst theproject is in progress and the amount of sustainable jobs created from the project. In thelast round 524 project phase jobs were created and 260 ongoing jobs.

Relevant Projects include:

Value adding in the sheep meat industry – 700 jobs.

Tradestart

Building and Construction – Indigenous Employment.

Value adding in the timber industry. – Relocation of jobs at the collapse of Timberinvestment companies.


GSDC have outlined goals and activities to ensure that the Great Southern’s economicbase is expanded. Key activities noted to achieve this are:

1 Develop and maintain an understanding of the key factors that shape the regionaleconomy, protect the environment and maintain social integrity.

2 Facilitate major economic development projects.

3 Facilitate trade and export opportunities.

4 Encourage capital and knowledge intensive industries.

5 Develop industry partnerships to achieve market outcomes and minimiseimpediments to growth.

6 Monitor and promote the regions areas of competitive advantage to allindustry sectors.

Key projects and stakeholders for this area include:

Southdown Magnetite mine – GSDC chair the Southdown Magnetite Mine WorkingGroup which is a committee providing assistance to Grange resources as it worksthrough the planning and approvals required to establish the magnetite mine.

The Regional infrastructure group is also chaired by GSDC to improve the level ofcommunication between key agencies. GSDC aided in approval of port and mine andslurry pipeline – 600 permanent jobs.

Biomass fuel pellets/Engineered Strand Board – GSDC chairs the Timber ProcessingPrecinct Working Group in order to help add value to these industries. Key stakeholdersinclude Lignor and Plantation Energy.


One of the Great Southern RDCs goals is to improve infrastructure. This is achieved viathe following activities:

1 Work with community, business and industry sectors to identify and prioritiseinfrastructure requirements and attract public or private investment.



2 Monitor levels of social infrastructure in the region.

3 Support key infrastructure development to enhance business and industryinvestment and educational and training opportunities.

4 Facilitate the development and enhancement of regional services throughpartnerships with the private and public sectors.

Multiple stakeholders are engaged to complete these infrastructure projects. Theseinclude local government, other government agencies and businesses in the region.

Currently the key infrastructure projects include:

Energy Infrastructure – GSDC chair the South East Shires Regional Power Groupto develop options concerning power supply issues.

GSDC also represented on the South Coast Power Working Group to workwith stakeholders on demand side management and embeddedgeneration approaches.

Albany waterfront development – Partnership between City of Albany, GSDC,Department of Transport, Landcorp. LandCorp is the overall manager of projectsand until recently GSDC received funding from LandCorp for an FTE to managethis area.

Albany Entertainment Centre – GSDC has management responsibility for projectbudget and facilitated finding a stakeholder to take over (Perth Theatre Trust)when the City of Albany refused to take centre over.

Planning associated with Mirambeena Timber Processing Precinct – GSDC chair theSouthdown Magnetite Mine Working Group which is a committee providing assistance toGrange resources as it works through the planning and approvals required to establishthe magnetite mine. The Regional infrastructure group is also chaired by GSDC toimprove the level of communication between key agencies.


Most business development information is provided on request from GSDC clients. Themajority of information requested is from businesses in Perth that require regionaleconomic information for their business plans or referral to appropriate agencies.

GSDC also provide information to external parties in order to promote businessdevelopment within the region. This has included presentations to Japanese, US andIndian investors.

GSDC provide funding for market research so that information is available to willingbusiness developers


GSDC take measures such as lobbying the government, assisting other governmentagencies and investing directly in projects to ensure the services provided in the GreatSouthern Region are consistent with the metro area.



GSDC lobbied the government to overturn headway power situation. IGA waspenalised by being charged and excessive amount for power due to distance fromsub-station. GSDC lobbied government and had the policy overturned to ensurethat local businesses receive the same treatment as the metro area.

Direct investment and facilitation of projects such as Albany Grammar school andthe Albany UWA campus. These institutions seek to provide education servicesthat are consistent with the metro area in order to create a sustainable region.

GSDC administered funding for the hospital emergency department upgrade.

GSDC assisted the health departments to bring nurses to the region in order tocreate better health care services. This was in GSDCs interest as having goodhealth services will lead to a more sustainable region.

An annual client survey is conducted to determine the level of satisfaction of thecommunity with the work GSDC is performing. This is a way that GSDC measure theirperformance against their objectives


In 2005 GSDC researched and then outlined regional priorities expanding until 2010.One of these priorities included diversification in the economy with new industries suchas timber, mining, aquaculture and wine which will all create demand for infrastructure.This priority has been included in GSDCs strategic goals.

As part of the R4R program the GSDC in conjunction with an external assessor selectprojects that contribute to achieving these goals as well as allocating money from theirstrategic fund towards projects that will facilitate economic development. GSDC tracktheir annual spend on these goals to ensure they are contributing enough towards thisarea. Client surveys are also undertaken annually to gauge community satisfaction inareas such as economic development. GSDC also track the amount of jobs createdduring and after a projects.

Projects or activities undertaken to expand the economic base include:

Various market research grants and direct research on Canola crops, Barleymalting, milk and cheese processing.

GSDC undertook an industry audit to identify potential investment opportunities inwhich value could be added to industries within the region.

WAMMCO water recycling plant research funds to enable the expansion of theabattoir in Kattaning.

Specific grant to West Coast Analytical to procure specialist equipment so analysis couldbe undertaken in the region.



5.3.3 Resources

Source: GSDC Annual Report 2008/2009


Established industries which include tourism, agriculture (crops and pastures), forestryand fishing continue to be significant to the region’s economy.

Minister

Board

Chief executive officer Executive assistant

Regional managercommunity and

corporate

Development of ficergrants coordinator

Chief f inance of f icer

Administration supportof f icer (p/t)

Administration of ficer– Reception and

corporate

Communicationsdevelopment of ficer –

(p/t)

Finance assistant (p/t)

Albany Waterf rontproject manager

(Landcorp)

Regional managerindustry andinf rastructure

Senior developmentof f icer

Development of ficer

Regional developmentof f icer (p/t)

Tradestart of f icer (p/t)



The chart below shows the economic statistics of the region according to available dataas at this report date. It shows that the main industry in the Great Southern is agriculturefollowed by tourism, retail and fishing.


5.3.5 Key Constraints or Issues

Accommodation costs will be a burden in the short term as the current premiseswere shared with Tourism WA so the GSDC will not have a sub tenant rentalincome going forward.

Projects are spread over a number of years and new grant rounds increase theefforts and resources required for the management and administration of grantshowever the administration fee is a flat $125,000 per annum.

As previously co-located with Tourism WA they will need to absorb some of theshop front functions in the short term without necessary FTE allocations.

No overarching regional plan even with the participation in the InfrastructurePlanning Group, they have no mandate to bring Government and industryto participate.

41%

0%1%4%

7%6%

7%

15%

19%

GSDC economic statistics (% of WA total)

Agricultural 04/05

Mining 06/07

Forestry 06/07

Fishing 06/07

Manufacturing 01/02


Retail Estimated Turnover 06/07


Tourism Domestic Visitors 05-07 Average



5.4 Kimberley development commission

Strategic Projects Broome Chamber of Commerce – 2009 Kimberley Economic Forum

North West Expo Inc – North West Expo 2010

Shire of Broome – Finger Jetties Studies

Other Major Projects Ord Irrigation Expansion Project – $220 million

East Kimberley Development Package – $195 million


The Kimberley Region includes 35,000 people living in an area of 424,000 squarekilometres with the major regional centres being Broome, Kununurra, Derby, FitzroyCrossing, Halls Creek and Wyndham. The region has a population density of around oneperson per 12.5 square kilometres compared to an Australian population density ofaround 35 people and a United Kingdom density of around 3,075 people for thecomparable area. The Kimberley demographics includes approximately 50% Indigenousand 50% non Indigenous.

Within the region there are four Local Governments: the Shire of Broome, the Shire ofDerby/West Kimberley, the Shire of Halls Creek and the Shire of Wyndham EastKimberley, six towns and over one hundred Indigenous communities, many in remotelocations. The vast distances provide challenges in the delivery of Government servicesand building commercial capacity. Improving road sea and air transport infrastructurecontinues to enhance opportunities for business development and Governmentservice delivery.

The KDC has 3 offices from which they operate in the region which are located inBroome, Kununurra and Derby. This is an essential part of creating and maintaining theregional presence and building rapport amongst the regional and indigenous population.

Kimberley is classified as very remote Australia according to the Remoteness Classes inAustralia, 20064.

The main industries are resources, tourism, construction, pearling and agriculture.

KDC has two high level result areas/services for reporting to government:

Service 1

The Commission will provide effective regional development policies and strategiestogether with accurate and accessible information on the region to facilitate and supportthe economic and social development of the region.

Service 2

The Commission will identify, co-ordinate and promote through its major strategies theestablishment, improvement and diversification of the region’s infrastructure, industriesand enterprises.




The Kimberley Development Commission (KDC) has developed a Strategic Plancomprising the following key goals to which each project is linked during the Projectapplication evaluation process:

Service 1

Strategic project development, support and coordination

Regional and strategic planning

Corporate management and leadership development

Regional information, promotion and advocacy.

Service 2

Business and industry development and diversification

Infrastructure and services identification, development and monitoring

Development processes, partnerships and government policies

Facilitate access to funding for initiatives in the region.

Source: KDC Annual Report 2008/2009

The KDC Strategic Plan 2009 to 2010 reflects the vision of the Commission's Board ofManagement. It sets a framework for actions and outcomes that enable the Commissionto achieve the statutory obligations that are set out in the Regional DevelopmentCommissions Act 1993.

Vision

Our vision is for a prosperousKimberley region, characterisedby proactive cooperation andrespect among its people who allenjoy the benef its of economic,social and cultural development, aunique environment and a healthylifestyle.

Strategic project development, supportand coordination

Regional information, promotion andadvocacy

Corporate management and leadershipdevelopment

Regional and strategic planning

Development processes, partnershipsand government policies

Business and industry development anddiversif ication

Infrastructure and services:identif ication, development and

monitoring

Facilitate access to funding for regionalinitiatives

Service - 1 Service - 2

Corporate intent




Key regional issues

Some of the key regional issues include:

The remoteness from metropolitan areas and vast distances between townsand communities

A sub-tropical climate with marked wet and dry seasons

Sparsely distributed population

Young cross cultural population with almost equal percentages of Indigenous andnon Indigenous people

Unique, and in parts pristine, environment

Strong economic growth and opportunities for innovation

Substantial economic and social challenges exists throughout the region includingmental health and suicide.

Our vision is for a prosperous Kimberleyregion, characterised by proactivecooperation and respect among its people

who all enjoy the benefits of economic, socialand cultural development, a uniqueenvironment and healthy lifestyle.

Corporate Management andLeadership Development

Regional Information,Promotion and Advocacy

Regional andStrategic Planning

Development Processes,Partnerships and GovernmentPolicies

Infrastructure & Services:Identification, Development andMonitoring

Business and IndustryDevelopment and

Diversification

Facilitate Access to Fundingand Regional Initiatives

Strategic Project Development,Support and Coordination




Table 5.4:1 – Kimberley Key Indicators

Key Indicator 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Total Revenue ($) 2,416,687 2,820,914 2,393,963 5,258,196 9,578,035


FTE 11 12 13 11 12

Revenue per FTE ($) 219,699 235,076 184,151 478,018 798,170


DNF DNF $1.662 b DNF DNF

Local Governments 4


Population 35,009

Unemployment 6% 5.6% 5.1% 5.7% 7.4%






Key issues noted in the delivery of Royalties for Regions include:

A restriction in Cashflows due to the “drip-feed” of funds to the commission

The time consuming centralised approval process

The cumbersome audit requirements for a commission constrained by limited staffand operational capacity due to focus on regional development rather thanreporting requirements

The integration with the OSS was an operational shift for the commission whichdoes not have the additional capacity to deal with the complexity of the processeswhich are time and resource consuming

There is a perception that the State Strategic Funding process is unclear and un-coordinated and is not aligned with the needs of the development commissions

Due to the cumbersome reporting requirements, it is a constant balancing actbetween required reporting and supporting regional stakeholders develop projects

There are sound governance controls operating over the selection and evaluationof projects and grants with several layers of decision making in the RDCsprocesses including independence declarations by all evaluators, decision makersand Board members.





The KDC maximise job creation and improve career opportunities by supporting majordevelopment processes and projects. Some of these include the Ord Final Agreement,Rubibi Native Title Agreements, Browse Basin oil and gas project, Ord East KimberleyExpansion Project and the Argyle Diamond Mine. The KDC had to develop relationshipswith big organisations and build confidence within these organisations. This is more soevident by the fact that the KDC works cross regional/cross industry and not at anindividual level.

The KDC is not the lead agency behind the Ord East Kimberley expansion but createdthe rationale behind the expansion. This all forms part of the KDC’s facilitation andlinkage capabilities in the region.

The KDC also plays a key stakeholder brokerage role and is working with KimberleyTAFE and industry groups to maximise job creation and improve career opportunities.

One of the linkages between businesses and bigger companies includes theKimberleybiz.com.au website which is a web-based regional capabilities register. Itserves as an entry point to big developers and giving locals opportunities.

The KDC is also actively involved in the regional investment discussions and sits onthe Steering Committee on Employment, Education and Training (State,Commonwealth, Community)

The KDC measures it’s performance by informal and formal feedback, progress ofprojects and jobs created. This can be measured through the following:

CEO performance appraisal

Annual Customer satisfaction survey

KRGS benchmarks

KRGS survey.

The KDC involves major industry stakeholders by facilitating an ongoing partnership toprogress regional skills development and employment, especially for the unskilledIndigenous population. The KDC also emphasises the regional imperative and gainsupport for innovative initiatives to overcome Indigenous welfare dependency. Theseinclude Argyle Diamonds (Rio Tinto), Woodside, Moonamang JV (Leightons/IBAJoint Venture).

Both Argyle and Woodside have contributed to socio-economic studies undertakenby Dr John Taylor, ANU

Argyle has set regional and state benchmarks for localisation and Indigenousemployment. Kevin McLeish, Chief Operating Manager for Argyle (Rio Tinto) is aBoard Member.

Current projects in this space include:

Ord/East Kimberley Expansion



Coastal Shipping

KRGS Project: Kimberley Group Training – Kimberley Careers Club, KarrayiliAdult Education facility expansion.


The KDC have a strong presence in the region with offices in Broome, Kununurra andDerby which creates a “hands-on” image within the region. When it comes to developingand broadening the economic base of the region, the KDC was actively involved in thecreation of the Economic Development Strategy 1997-2010. This document provides acomprehensive overview of past and present conditions and trends in the economy ofthe Kimberley region. It also highlights prospects and strategies for ongoing economicdevelopment to the year 2010.

The KDC is also involved in updating the economic plan for the region to include the next5 years.

Included in the KDCs strategic projects is the Broome Chamber of Commerce, 2009Kimberley Economic Forum which they partially fund. Another major project the KDCwas a key facilitator in is the Ord East Kimberley Development which will ultimatelycreate new farmland and indigenous employment in the region.

The KDC also provides regional overviews to prospective investors and is activelyinvolved in the Kimberley LNG reference group and the Broome Planning Committee.They work with established local business and industry in support ofexpansion/diversification projects.

Another significant win for the KDC is the support provided for new cropping options.This enabled the Kimberley to produce crops like Chia (Chia is called Nature’s CompleteSuper food because it is very high in nutrition that is essential for a healthy diet includingOmega 3, dietary fibre and protein as well as vitamins and minerals and antioxidants)and Kimberley’s first rice harvest.

Support for Indigenous economic development includes tourism on the DampierPeninsula and Indigenous Arts.

Current relevant projects in this space include:

Regional Aboriginal housing project ($15 million) with potential to provide localcontracts and business opportunities

Independent Director for MG Corp Investment Trust

Contributing to Wunan Foundation’s Indigenous Enterprise Program

Ord East Kimberley Expansion Project

KRGS Project: Red Flesh Grapefruit and Ordguard research.

The KDC involves major industry stakeholders like Argyle Diamonds (Rio Tinto),Woodside, Moonamang JV (Leightons/IBA Joint Venture). This includes dialogue andflow of information between the Commission and major industry stakeholders. The KDCBoard comprises four Members with strong backgrounds in Business and Industry whichadds to the integrity of the biannual strategic planning process.




Vast distances and relatively small populations characterise the Kimberley Region.

The demographics of this region include approximately 50% indigenous and 50%non-indigenous population.

One of the key issues in the Kimberley is the indigenous housing concern. The KDC wasrequested to implement the regional housing project ($15 million) at request ofthe Minister.

The KDC’s key involvement in regional infrastructure services includes the BroomePlanning Committee and the Kimberley Interagency Working Group (KIWG) however theKDC plays more of an assessing body in terms of regional infrastructure and servicerequirements. These are done in partnership with key stakeholders and attractingregional investment through the public and private sectors to make improvements in bothareas.

Current relevant projects include:


Contributing to long term planning for Wyndham Port Upgrade

Conceptualising and administering the Ord Enhancement Scheme ($11.2 millionto enhance service delivery to Miriuwung Gajerrong people

Kimberley Mental Health.


The KDC involvement in business development involves providing relevant detaileddirect, e-mail and telephone advice on the regions opportunities, providing appropriatereferrals, presentations to business and industry individuals and groups, facilitatingintroductions and regional visits and serves as a source of information and backgroundfor many stakeholders.


Kimberley Snapshot 2009

Kimberley – A Region in Profile (formerly the Kimberley Economic Perspective),due for release in late August

Kimberleybiz.com.au.


The level of services provided by any Regional Development Commissions areimportantly different to a metropolitan office or service.



By its very nature a regional centre is generally more engaging with community and localgroups over a broad range of issues. Accordingly, we expect that the KDC are involvedwithin region on more levels than a metropolitan office and required to provide a widerrange of services through communication, participation and development.

Examples of this are both the board and KDC’s management involvement with localgroups, councils, bodies and private and public enterprise. Significant time by staff isrequired and consumed with representation at these events, leaving lesser time andresources for business as usual tasks of the KDC and its administration.

The KDC also monitors trends and issues against which to measure existing servicesand plays a facilitation role in the linkage of regional service providers as well as SmallBusiness Centres. The monitoring of services is also focussed on the monitoring ofregional housing supply and demand and cost as well as delivery of services toIndigenous population.


Mobile Phone coverage proposals


Ports/Coastal Shipping Service


We believe that the KDC are very strong in the role of monitoring the region’sdevelopment and direction. All of KDC’s management and board have a strong presenceand background in the region and are skilled in developing analysis and ideasassociated with regional development.

As mentioned the KDC’s Strategic Plan has grouped its focus to two areas only whichare broad based statements in which all levels of s23 of the Act can be referenced. Thiscould however not specifically be traced back to individual projects linked to individualsections of the Act.

As mentioned previously, the monitoring is strong within KDC and is done so through theBoard at each Board meeting. This is evident through the review of the Board minutesand level of detail of the attachments to the Board papers.

5.4.3 Resources

The KDC appear to be adequately staffed at the operational level. At an executive levelthere exists a key person risk in the CEO being the key contact and knowledge point inthe region. We have found that for all the RDCs, that the introduction of R4R placedstrategic strain on the RDCs with additional time spent on project applications,monitoring and reporting.





Established industries which include tourism, pearling and pastoral continue to besignificant to the region’s economy, however here has been a marked increase inservices and agriculture based industries. The continuing growth of the region hasensured that the construction industry is now one of the region’s most valuable and fastgrowing contributors.

The chart below shows the economic statistics of the region according to available dataas at this report date. It shows that the main industry in the Kimberly is tourism followedby fishing and agriculture.


Chief executive

Deputy manager OES program manager

OES communityinformation coordinator

Executive officer

Customer and clericalservices officer

Clerical receptionist

Grants and projectsofficer

Research officer Manager corporate Senior projects officerSenior development

officer

Administrative officer

2%

2%

0%

3%

1%

2%2%

4%

4%

KDC economic statistics (% of WA total)

Agricultural 04/05

Mining 06/07

Forestry 06/07

Fishing 06/07

Manufacturing 01/02


Retail Estimated Turnover06/07






We have performed preliminary analysis around the grants side of the KDC operationand it is interesting to note that grants administered have decreased over time and thatthese are significantly less than other regions especially when considering thegeographic size and economics of the region.

The Royalties for Regions process is also evolving and apparent that the KDC was notoriginally setup to administer large grants.

Other key issues faced by the KDC include:

The ever increasing operational costs

Limited or no funding for additional resources

No capacity for expansion or gearing up of major projects without specific funds(eg Indigenous Housing project)

Significant gap identified through KDC inability to take on significant projects as allresources are currently under intense pressure

Growing pains with integration into OSS causing problems in payment process

Too many reporting points detracting from the Commission’s core functions

Inconsistencies of data collection procedures

Overly burdensome reporting requirements and duplication in service deliveryimpact on resources available to perform core functions.



5.5 Mid west development commission

Strategic Projects Wimda Bama Arts Centre Development – $140,000 (08/09)


Apex Minerals – Wiluna Gold

Gindalbie Metals – Karara Iron Ore Project $1.8 billion

Iluka Resources – Narngulu Facility Expansion $60 million

Geraldton Boat Lifters Limited – Heavy Boat Lifter and Marine ServicingFacility $3 million +

Arcadia Group – Arcadia Waters Geraldton $45 million

The Mid West Development Commission (MWDC) has strong strategic directions whichare underpinned by the slogan of “Capturing Opportunity”.

The MWDC is also focussed on a SMART Mid West which is a proactive long termvision for the Mid West. This is through the Establishment of Smart facilities to attractSmart people linked by Smart networks to do Smart things. Smart initiatives include:

Geraldton Universities Centre

Separation Point Marine Precinct

Combined Universities Centre for Rural Health

Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory and SKA

Geraldton as a learning hub

Enhancement of telecommunications network

Morawa Education Initiative

Technology Precinct

Centre for Climate Change.

The Mid West Region includes 54,000 people living in an area of 470,000 squarekilometres with three distinct sub regions: Coastal, North Midlands and Murchison.The major regional centre is Geraldton and the MWDC operates from their officein Geraldton.

Region Local Government Population

Coastal Geraldton-Greenough

Chapman Valley

Irwin

Northampton

44,894

North Midlands Carnamah

Coorow

Mingenew

Morawa

Mullewa

5,435



Region Local Government Population

Perenjori

Three Springs

Murchison Cue

Meekatharra

Mount Magnet

Murchison

Sandstone

Wiluna

Yalgoo

3,412

Source: MWDC Annual Report 2008/2009

The region has a population density of around one person per 8.7 square kilometrescompared to an Australian population density of around 35 people and a UnitedKingdom density of around 3,075 people for the comparable area.

Mid West is classified as outer regional, remote to very remote Australia according to theRemoteness Classes in Australia, 20065.

MWDC has five strategic objectives built into their Strategic Directions 2008-2010 whichis designed to align with the functions and powers of the RDCs as outlined in section 23of the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993. These strategic objectives include:

Community: Cohesive, healthy and educated communities

Increased range of tertiary courses/student numbers

Establishment of the Mid West as a science and technology based region

Enhanced models for community service delivery

Effective community engagement and community development through the arts.

Economy: A Strong, resilient and diversified economy

Sustainable communities

Vibrant, viable regional businesses

A labour force appropriate for industry needs

Establishment of strategically important facilities

Increased awareness of the Mid West’s lifestyle, business, work andinvestment opportunities

Efficient and effective air services.




Governance: Strong partnerships that add value to the social and economicdevelopment of the Mid West

Agreed understanding on the region’s key challenges, opportunities and priorities

Improved social capacity for regional communities

Enhanced regional coordination

Effective input into State Government policy on regional development issues.

Infrastructure: Timely provision of strategic infrastructure

Timely provision of strategic infrastructure

Timely provision of social infrastructure

Affordable land and housing

Successful establishment of Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory (MRO)

Vibrant community town/city centres.

Sustainability: A balanced approach to development which recognises theimportance of the environment alongside social and economic benefits

Sustainable and efficient energy systems

Effective regional response to climate change

Enduring social outcomes from mining

Sustainable new developments

Management of resources for current and future generations.

It was however noted that the performance reporting in the annual report focuses onthree services that is not directly linked or linkable to the strategic objectives.These include:

Service 1: Information and advice

To contribute to economic growth and employment by developing strategic partnershipsbetween government, business, and the community, providing a central point ofcoordination and contact, and by raising awareness of the Mid West region.

Service 2: Investment facilitation

To create a business environment within the Mid West region that has a diverseeconomic base and is attractive to investors.

Service 3: Infrastructure and services development in the mid west

To facilitate the development of infrastructure and services based on long-termeconomic development strategies, to support communities and businesses in theMid West.



Key regional issues

The brain drain of the potential workforce due to the availability of higher educationoptions in the region.

The remoteness from metropolitan areas and vast distances between townsand communities

The Mid West economy has a heavy reliance on primary commodity exports and issubsequently exposed to market fluctuations

The fact that Geraldton is seen as a stopover to Northern WA instead of a holidaydestination thus developing tourism opportunities

Key infrastructure needs ie water, electricity and roads and rail due to theexponential growth in the mining sector in the Mid West

There is furthermore a key infrastructure need from a port perspective to meet theneeds of an ever increasing iron ore growth in the region

Protection of biodiversity and balancing conservation value againstresources development

The Mid West has a new industry (iron ore) spread over a large area

Attracting and remunerating good staff is also a key regional issue especiallyattracting staff with relevant experience.


Table 5.5:1 – Mid West Key Indicators

Key Indicator 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Total Revenue ($) 3,881,602 7,274,088 4,477,629 6,189,389 9,536,259


FTE 11 12 13 16 16

Revenue per FTE ($) 179,281 219,699 235,076 386,837 596,016


DNF $3.564 b $3.485 b DNF DNF



Population 54,984

Unemployment 5.4% 4.7% 4.5% 4.5% 5.4%








The social and economic development of the Mid West have experienced asignificant positive influence from the increased government funding providedthrough the Royalties for Regions initiatives

Convoluted administrative processes for strategic projects. Projects must beforwarded to RDL --> Regional Development Council --> Minister --> Cabinet forendorsement. This prevents projects being implemented on a timely basis

The increase in reviews/audits. Makes it difficult to focus on task at hand whenstaff are already at capacity

Projects qwith various and changing timeframes




The strategic directions 'capturing opportunity' and 'smart' Mid West region is the basisfor the MWDC to build on the objects and functions as specified in Section 23 of theRDC Act.

Project applications received are assessed in line with the strategic goals outlined in thestrategic directions therefore the projects that are selected will effectively meet theactivities necessary to meet the maximise job creation and improve career opportunities.Money from the RDC's strategic pool is also allocated to specific projects that willmaximise job creation and improve career opportunities.

Projects are monitored and reported on every month to the CEO and bi-monthly to theBoard. All projects are captured in the budget in line with which strategic direction theyare relevant to.

Set objectives are also measured through customer satisfaction surveys that arereported through the performance indicators in the annual reports.

In conjunction with local government, private stakeholders and educational institutionskey projects have been put in place under various strategic directions to maximise jobcreation and develop career opportunities including to increase the range of tertiarycourses and student numbers.

The MWDC also worked to establish additional courses at Geraldton Universities Centreand was the initial the driving force for this project. This project consists of centre madeup of Edith Cowan University, The University of WA and Curtin University that initiallyoffered 20 university places but has grown to over 50. This project provides anopportunity for the regional population to further their careers in the region as opposed totravelling to Perth for higher education. Students are then more likely to gainemployment in the region as opposed to seeking full time work in Perth.




MWDC have outlined the economy as one of their key strategic directions. Projectsimplemented focuses on building a 'strong, resilient and diversified economy'.

MWDC worked with industry and provided direct funding to establish the GeraldtonMarine Services precinct including a 200 tone heavy boat loader. This prevents boatsfrom travelling to Perth for maintenance and repairs and subsequently an increase in theboat maintenance and repairs industry in Geraldton.

The MWDC encourages students and their families to remain in the region via directinvestment and facilitation of projects including tertiary education in the Mid West. This isprovided via the Geraldton Universities Centre.

Investment in new industries to expand economic base is facilitated throughcollaboration with Central West TAFE who worked with local fisherman to successfullytrial the farming of Mulloway, which were grown from fingerlings to a plate-sized, market-accepted product.

New industries to expand economic base included the establishment of sustainableindustries rather than a purely commodity based region.

Identify infrastructure services to promote economic and social development withinthe region.

One of MWDCs strategic directions is the timely provision of infrastructure. The meansfor implementing strategic infrastructure projects is via the Mid West StrategicInfrastructure Group (MWSIG) made up of the development commission and thedepartment for planning and infrastructure. The group conducts an infrastructureAnalysis which is used to direct the Mid West infrastructure needs.

The analysis allows MWDC to better understand and identify the socio-economicinfrastructure implications of proposed resource projects and to identify and supportplanning to facilitate major projects, infrastructure development, and transport andservice corridors.

Multiple stakeholders are engaged by the MWSIG to complete these infrastructureprojects. These include local government, other government agencies and businesses inthe region. Currently the key infrastructure projects in place include the Oakajee port, railand industrial estate.

Through the Mid West Strategic Infrastructure Group, MWDC provided regional planningcoordination in support of the development of an iron ore industry in the Mid Westincluding the Oakajee port, rail and industrial estate. Oakajee Port and Rail (OPR) isprogressing according to plan for both the construction of a deepwater port at Oakajeeand a heavy freight rail link to it. The rail link will connect the northern mines at WeldRange and Jack Hills to the proposed Oakajee Port.

The MWDC is also represented on the Oakajee Implementation Group and supportedthe Department of State Development to adopt a holistic and coordinated planningapproach to the development of Oakajee and an iron ore industry in the Mid West.

Through the MWSIG, MWDC provided regional planning coordination in support of thedevelopment of an iron ore industry in the Mid West including of the construction of a330kV transmission line between Pinjar and Eneabba. This staged development will



improve the quality and reliability of the electricity supply to the Mid West region. Thenew line will provide additional capacity to supply major new loads and will enable theconnection of new generators in the region.


The customer survey provided conducted by the MWDC asked businesses thedemands, challenges and opportunities their organisation are facing. These issues willthen be incorporated into the MWDC strategic plan for example issues around the hiringof skilled labour, met by increased courses at Geraldton Universities Centre.

The MWDC also liaises with the Small business centre in the Mid West to identify andaddress business constraints.

The MWDC also promotes the region to new investors through the introduction ofinvestment opportunities into the region such as new mining ventures and linkinginvestors with local business community.

The implementation of strategies, including the Mid West Indigenous Art Strategy, andthe development of a Gateway organisation assisted Indigenous employment andbusiness opportunities.


The MWDC directly invest in projects to ensure the services provided in the Mid WestRegion are consistent with the metro area. These include:

Worked collaboratively with the Small Business Development Corporation’s SkilledMigration Unit to process a record number of working visa applications to addressskilled labour shortages in areas such as broadband communication.

Direct investment and facilitation of projects including tertiary education in the MidWest will be improved with the development and implementation of a new,sustainable financial and governance model for Geraldton Universities Centre.This institution seeks to provide higher education services that are consistent withthe metro area in order to create a sustainable region.

Providing direct funding so to enable professionals to Work with young childrenand their mothers in the Murchison area, the project leaders aim to break the cycleof disadvantage by teaching essential skills that will allow the participants tomaintain healthy relationships, hold down jobs, and to transfer those skills downthe family line.

Providing scholarships for students to attend Geraldton Universities centre. Theseplaces are predominantly in nursing and teaching with most students findingemployment in the region after completion of their studies. This is a way ofminimising the demand for teachers and nurses in the mid-west region as well asproviding career opportunities for those involved.




The social and economic development of the Mid West have experienced a significantpositive influence from the increased government funding provided through the Royaltiesfor Regions initiatives.

One of the strategic objectives outlined in the Strategic Objectives 2008-2010 includescreating a strong resilient and diversified economy by creating sustainable communities,vibrant viable regional businesses, a labour force appropriate for industry needs,establishment of strategically important facilities and increased awareness of the Mid-West's lifestyle, business, work and investment opportunities.

Another initiative of the MWDC is to request all agencies that have a presence in the MidWest to submit their draft budgets to the MWDC. This would enable the commission toidentify as an example infrastructure needs and spending planned in the region toultimately better align themselves with the regional needs.

Strategic regional planning will better position the Mid West and its communities to dealwith future challenges and to identify and capture opportunities.

5.5.3 Resources

The MWDC appear to be adequately staffed at the operational level. There seems to bean additional need for an aboriginal community liaison when aboriginal socio-economicproblems are considerable in proportion to wider community in the Mid West. We havefound that for all the RDCs, that the introduction of R4R placed strategic strain on theRDCs with additional time spent on project applications, monitoring and reporting.

Source: MWDC Annual Report 2008/2009

Honourable Brendon Grylls MLAMinister for regional development; lands; minister assisting the minister

for state development; minister assisting the minister for transport

Board of management

Steve DouglasChief executive of f icer

Melanie RossCorporate services

manager

Brendin FlaniganSenior project

manager

Wayne McDonaldAboriginal Economicdevelopment of ficer

Mark CannySenior project

manager

Neil CondonAssistant director

Corporate services MurchisonAboriginaleconomic

development

Communicationsand technology

Anne FinlayProject manager

Infrastructure andplanning

Yvette HollingsSenior project

manager

Tourism and grantprograms

Mike KendallSenior project

manager

Trade and businessdevelopment

Fleur BishopSenior f inance off icer

Rob McEachemProject of f icer

Janell kopplhuberProject of f icer

tradestart

JoanneDuncan

Customerservice of f icer

Linda ShiellA/Finance

of f icer

MargieRobinson

A/Executiveassistant




Established industries which include mining, retail and agriculture continue to besignificant to the region’s economy, however here has been a marked increase intourism and manufacturing. The continuing growth of the region has ensured thatthe construction industry was also one of the increasing sectors in the region inrecent years.

The chart below shows the economic statistics of the region according to available dataas at this report date. It shows that the main industry in the Midwest is fishing, followedby agriculture, mining and tourism.



Accommodation of Mid-West development commission. Currently at capacity withno space for chairman's office. Key meetings with overseas investors are heldhere as the 'face of the region' however MWDC shares same building withdepartment of correctional facilities and department of child protection and canbe disruptive

Necessity to pick up more functions including Tourism and Land Core functionsbut no more FTE to meet increased functions

Projects spread over a number years with new projects taken on every year andno extra FTE's to meet demand

No ability to pay FTE aboriginal community liaison when aboriginal socio-economicproblems are considerable in proportion to wider community in the MW

Complete withdrawal of Regional Tourism Development Officers by Tourism WA

Reduction in the number of Austrade Regional Tradestart Officers.

14%

8%

0%

55%

3%

3%

3%

6%

8%

MWDC economic statistics (% of WA total)

Agricultural 04/05

Mining 06/07

Forestry 06/07

Fishing 06/07

Manufacturing 01/02



Tourism InternationalVisitors 05-07 Average

Tourism Domestic Visitors05-07 Average



5.6 Peel development commission

Strategic Projects Dwellingup footpath network upgrade – $150,000

Boddington main street upgrade – $380,000

Other Major Projects BHP Billiton Worsley Alumina Pty Ltd – US2.2 billion

Matilda Zircon Limited Heavy Mineral Sands Mine – $22 million

Fairbridge WA Inc – $5.6 million

Mandurah Entrance Road

Mandurah Baptist College – $3.4 million

Mandurah CBD Upgrade – $16 million

Port Bouvard Hotel – $100 million

Wagerup Refinery – $4 billion


The Peel Development Commission (PDC) is the smallest of the nine DevelopmentCommissions in WA. There are five local government areas in a region covering an areaof 5,648 square kilometres. The local governments are the Shire of Boddington, City ofMandurah, Shire of Murray, Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale and the Shire of Waroona.Peel’s population is currently around 104,877.

The region has a population density of around 18 people per square kilometre comparedto an Australian population density of around 35 people and a United Kingdom density ofaround 3,075 people for the comparable area.

Peel is classified as inner regional Australia according to the Remoteness Classes inAustralia, 20066.

To achieve its objectives the Commission is to:

Promote the region

Facilitate co-ordination between relevant statutory bodies and StateGovernment agencies

Co-operate with representatives of industry and commerce, employer andemployee organisations, education and training institutions and other sections ofthe community within the region

Identify the opportunities for investment in the region and encouragethat investment

Identify the infrastructure needs of the region, and encourage the provision of thatinfrastructure in the region

Co-operate with Departments of the State and Commonwealth Public Service,other agencies, instrumentalities and statutory bodies of the State andCommonwealth and local governments, in order to promote equitable delivery ofservices within the region.




The PDC’s Performance Management Framework is an outcome based framework. ThePDC has 5 outcomes as outlined in their Strategic Plan 2009-2014:

Government decision making takes account of Peel issues

The Peel has an evolving, adaptive and diverse economy with increased jobopportunities for all members of the community

Community and economic infrastructure is planned and delivered to meet theneeds of current and the future of Peel

Peel communities are educated, productive, healthy, safe and supportive

The Peel environment is better understood and managed.

The PDC developed a regional priorities document and rated these priorities inaccordance with their importance for regional development. Some of these prioritiescategories include Development of industrial land, Planning, Essential Services andHealth and Wellbeing Services.

The final year of the Peel Regional Development Scheme provided $534,000 to assistwith 26 projects with a total value of $2.2 million. Since its inception in 2001 the PeelRegional Development Scheme contributed funding to 244 projects across the regionwith a total project value of $33.8 million.

The “Peel 2020 Partnership” was formed in 2003. This partnership was formed to drivethe Peel 2020 Sustainability Strategy. The “Partnership” included senior representationfrom all sectors of the Region with membership made up of the Peel EconomicDevelopment Unit, Peel Community Development Group, Peel-Harvey CatchmentCouncil, Peel Development Commission, Shire of Boddington, Shire of Murray, Shire ofSerpentine Jarrahdale, Shire of Waroona, City of Mandurah, Department for CommunityDevelopment, Department of Environment and Conservation, Department for Planningand Infrastructure, Main Roads Department, Department of Health, Department ofEducation and Training, Police Department, Disability Services Commission, Murdochand Curtin Universities, Challenger TAFE, Mandurah Senior College, Alcoa WorldAlumina Australia, Mandurah Peel Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Minerals andEnergy, the Small Business Centre Peel, Iluka Resources Ltd, Urban DevelopmentInstitute of Australia (UDIA), Peel Area Consultative Committee, Department of FamiliesCommunity Services and Indigenous Affairs, Peel Health Campus, Fairbridge and anumber of community representatives.

Key Regional Issues

Peel is classified as part of the metropolitan instead of a region on in its own right

The current economic environment in Peel indicates that Mining has the largest %GRP share by Industry in the region, but there is no indication of future growth

There exists a clear need in the region to shift the economic focus to enable theregion to be economically sustainable.




Table 5.6:1 – Peel Key Indicators

Key Indicator 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Total Revenue ($) 3,004,876 2,568,675 3,071,842 5,726,986 10,874,048


FTE 20 13 14 12 13

Revenue per FTE ($) 193,219 231,144 183,477 255,987 440,537.38


DNF $4.353 b $5.495 b DNF $6.8 billion(estimate)

Local Governments 5


Population 104,877

Unemployment 6.5% 5.5% 4.2% 4.1% 4.5%






Key issues noted in the delivery of Royalties for Regions include:

A restriction in Cashflows due to the “drip-feed” of funds to the commission

The time consuming centralised approval process

The cumbersome audit requirements for a commission constrained by limited staffand operational capacity due to focus on regional development rather thanreporting requirements

The integration with the OSS was an operational shift for the commission whichdoes not have the additional capacity to deal with the complexity of the processeswhich are time and resource consuming






As part of Peel Development Commission's (PDC) strategic plan areas have beenidentified to transform Peel into a long term sustainable region. This involves a shift intoagricultural and tourism industries however as part of this overarching goal maximisingjob creation and improving career opportunities has been identified as an area that is keyin creating a sustainable region. This includes:

Creating economic opportunity for disadvantaged

Increasing levels of employment self containment

Strengthening the regions exports

Creating strategic jobs.

Through the PDC's strategic plan, business and economic plan projects have beenidentified to meet this objective. These projects involve a wide variety of stakeholdersfrom local government as well as other government agencies and businesses active inthe Peel community. See the economic plan for details of these projects andkey stakeholder.

Each project is assigned Key Performance Indicator’s (KPI’s) in which the project needsto be measured against. PwC sighted in depth business cases for a variety of theseplans and evidence the appropriate KPI’s in place.

The implementation recommendations of the Peel Workforce Development Strategyto expand opportunities for local employment are part of the strategic direction ofthe PDC.


Stakeholders in Peel established a committee called PEDU (Peel EconomicDevelopment Unit) and consists of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the SmallBusiness Department, the 5 local governments in the Peel region as well as the PDC.This is the core structure used to identify key projects that will be most beneficial to theregion and its strategic direction.

Peel Economic Development Initiative (PEDI) designed by PEDU is a short term,focussed program of strategic activities, or interventions, to facilitate investment ledgrowth, and to create the conditions and opportunities for successful new fixed-investment into the region. It was noted that PDC is the driving force behind identifyingkey projects for the region.

The PDC strategic plan is aligned with s23 of the Act and to be the business drivingforce to achieve the strategic objectives, the PDC created a business plan outlining keymeasurements required to do so. Projects have been outlined in the PEDI to meeteconomic and infrastructure goals outlined in the business plan. The predominantfeatures of the PDC business plan are to change Peel’s focus to the agricultural andtourism industry in order to broaden the economic base, create more jobs and establisha sustainable region.



Some of the Peel Economic Development Initiatives include:

Develop and implement a new regional economic development strategy based onevidence of current and likely economic opportunities

Finalise implementation of the Local Jobs for Local People strategy (Pinjarra –Brunswick Sustainability Strategy).

Strengthen the primary industry sector through promoting the region’s capacity forcontributing to WA’s food security

Increase tourism opportunities that benefit the natural landscape and the region’sheritage/cultural assets

Increase Indigenous employment.


The future infrastructure needs of the Peel region have been identified in the PeelRegion Infrastructure Plan 2007-2027. Funded by the Peel Development Commission,WA Tourism, and the Region's five Local Governments, the plan identifies existing andemerging infrastructure pressures on the Peel region and recommends a unifiedstrategic approach throughout the Region to respond to the planning and constructionchallenges forecast over the next 20 years.

There are currently 3 key infrastructure projects in place including the Murray FieldAirport upgrade, Pipeline project and the Mandurah Bridge.

The PDC also assisted in the release of industrial land at Nambeelup, Pinjarra,Boddington and other parts of the Region for infrastructure development. The PDCsupports delivery of the region’s highest road infrastructure priorities includingimprovements to Pinjarra-Williams Road, and Pinjarra Bypass, support collaborativeplanning and delivery of a regional sporting facility.

Provide information and advice to promote business development within the region.

Business development is promoted in the region through the integration of PDC, thechamber of commerce and the small business department.

Key projects and measurement include:

Business Health Checks. The aim was to build the capacity and competiveness ofPeel Businesses in competing in tendering processes. The PDC measurable KPIis to provide health checks to 40 businesses. The health checks includedimplementation of a business plan and strategy. The PDC met the set KPI as 42businesses were provided with the health check service. The PDC expanded thehealth check to all businesses to determine the effectiveness. The results werepositive as most businesses reported an increase in confidence.

The PDC is to increase tourism by 10% over 4 years. The PDC worked to developtourism businesses in the region which included accommodation, recreation andattractions. The PDC did not meet the set KPI.




The predominant role of the PDC in ensuring government services and in particular theaccess to those services is comparable to the metro area come through education andcreating awareness in the community. The services the PDC provide is limited todirecting community members to the relevant government service they enquire about.


The PDC identified key strategic objectives that will encourage, promote and facilitateeconomic development. These include:

Maintaining growth in GDP

Diversifying the regional economy

Strengthening the regions exports

Creating strategic jobs

Increasing fixed investment

Creating economic opportunity for disadvantaged

Increasing levels of employment self containment.

Going forward PDC have hired a Research Officer whose role will include conductingsurveys with the public and private stakeholders in order to get a true snapshot of theRegion and it’s restricting factors when it comes to the economy, employment andother social and environmental factors. This will become the basis for monitoringthe economic development in the region as well as identifying futureimprovement opportunities.

5.6.3 Resources

The PDC appear to be adequately staffed at the operational level. We have found thatfor all the RDCs, that the introduction of R4R placed strategic strain on the RDCs withadditional time spent on project applications, monitoring and reporting.



Source: PDC Annual Report 2008/2009


Established industries which include mining, construction and manufacturing continue tobe significant to the region’s economy. There is however a strategic shift in the region togrow the tourism industry in the region.

The chart below shows the economic statistics of the region according to available dataas at this report date. It shows that the main industries in the Peel are tourism, buildingand construction and forestry.

Minister

Peel developmentcommission board

Executive officer

Customer serviceofficer

Manager corporateservices

Manager regionaldevelopment

Manager planningand policy

Finance andadministration

officer

Regionaldevelopmentcoordinator,boddington

Research officer

Grants officer

Senior regionaldevelopmentcoordinator

Regionaldevelopmentcoordinator



CEO





Key restraint is the beaurocracy surrounding the implementation of projects. PDChave a mature application and project methodology in place however projectcoordinators stressed the amount of red tape they have to go through.

Funding for operational expenditure is seen as a key operational issue for allRDCs including PDC.

As part of strategic plan Peel plans to transition into tourism as a key industry.

Due to tourism WA's current restructure from 40 to 14 employees, PDC is worriedthat tourism WA's presence and PDC’s integration with the tourism body may benegatively impacted.

Currently the Peel region is represented by Tourism WA as 'part of Perth'marketing campaign which the PDC believe is quite detrimental to the region whentrying to maintain a 'regional' identity. If funding permitted PDC would be veryinterested in taking on a full time tourism officer to promote the region.

Projects are assigned measurable KPI’s in order to determine the success of theproject. These are not always met but are quantitative.

6%

12%

17%

6%

7%

23%

9%

5%

15%

PDC economic statistics (% of WA total)

Agricultural 04/05

Mining 06/07

Forestry 06/07

Fishing 06/07

Manufacturing 01/02




Tourism Domestic Visitors05-07 Average



5.7 Pilbara development commission

Strategic Projects 2020 Vision Care for Rural and Remote WA – $397,000

Remote focus Pilbara Project – $341,600

Other Major Projects Aboriginal Economic Development

Nickol Bay Hospital – $10 million

Pilbara Revitalisation Plan – $180 million

South Hedland Town Centre Revitalisation – $23.3 million


Pilbara is classified as very remote Australia according to the Remoteness Classes inAustralia, 20067.

There are 4 local governments in the Pilbara; Shire of Roebourne, Shire of Ashburton,Town of Port Hedland and Shire of East Pilbara.

Within its 2009 Annual Report the Pilbara Development Commission (PDC) considers itmission to be:

‘The PDC is a progressive, strategically focussed and effective leader in the social andeconomic development of the Pilbara. It works successfully to inform, partner with andadvocate for Pilbara communities in relation to regional priorities – in accordance withthe expectations of its stakeholders.’

The PDC provide services under three program areas:

Business and Industry Development

Infrastructure and Services Identification and Coordination

Regional Promotion and Information Services.

In its 2010 – 2015 Strategic Plan the PDC focuses on four areas below to ensure thePilbara meets challenges and maximises opportunities:

‘Ensuring that there is a joined-up approach to economic development and servicedelivery from all levels of government and that this is integrated with long termprivate sector investment strategies.

Enabling a multiplier effect on the investment and economic activity in the Pilbara,for example leveraging the $300m Royalties for Regions Pilbara RevitalisationPlan for its long term benefits.

Attracting and retaining a workforce and their families by making the Pilbara avibrant and attractive place to live, work and relax.

Ensuring that everyone who lives, visits and invests in the Pilbara enjoys itsprosperity and benefits.’




Also within this Strategic Plan the PDC has set 6 goals including:

Pilbara Regional Plan

Sustainable and Vibrant Pilbara Cities

Leveraging Pilbara Investment

Strategic Coordination and Change

PDC Excellence and Integrity

Knowledge Pilbara.

Or these are shown graphically as follows:

Source: PDC Strategic Plan 2010-2015.

Key regional issues

The Pilbara has grown to become Australia’s highest export tonnage ports. EstimatedGRP for the Region exceeds AUD 8b, with mining comprising over 60% of this. Theestimated population of the Pilbara is approximately $60,000 however this is dependenton a constantly changing fly in and fly out workforce servicing the mining industry.

With growth comes constraints and this is felt most in the Pilbara with housingaffordability and the general cost of living. Due to significant demand for housing andaccommodation and shortage of supply and associated infrastructure rental and propertyprices are at astonishing highs. These issues are ramified through sustainable socialservices with limited schooling, training and community services for a bulging population.

These key regional issues mean that the average tenure of staff at the PDC is less thanone year. Following recent departures and the decimation of the PDC’s employmentstructure the office is re-building its operation and knowledge to date back to a morerealistic 12-15 FTE’s. Associated with this is the lack of generic reporting and continuityof process.

The Pilbara isthe place to live,work, visit and

invest

Pilbara regionalplan

Sustainable andvibrant cities

LeveragingPilbara

investment

Strategiccoordination and

change

PDC excellenceand integrity

KnowledgePilbara




Table 5.7:1 – Pilbara Key Indicators

Key Indicator 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Total Revenue ($) 11,578,933 9,800,182 5,331,000 10,775,000 7,979,000


FTE 11 11 10.25 13.5 12

Revenue per FTE ($) 1,052,630 890,926 520,098 798,148 664,917


DNF $6.756 b $7.636 b DNF $7.8 b

Local Governments 4


Population 47,528

Unemployment 3% 2.7% 3% 2.7% 4%






The R4R has had mixed effects on the PDC. It is noted that issues arose with previousmanagement after only one round of funding for projects. Certain management havesince been terminated and new structures in place to manage the PDC.

We have reviewed the project management and funding processes for R4R and allgrants and they appear to be tracked and reported adequately. However considering thesize and scale of the issues faced by the Pilbara it is questionable as to whether thebalance of funding here equates to that of other Regions. Also, the value of projectsapproved has not increased over time.



Due to the booming nature of the Region employment prospects in mining andsupporting industry are strong in the Pilbara. Limiting this though is the high costof living.

Without significantly altering their structure, scope and mandate it is questionablewhether the PDC can actually affect the job prospects in the region significantly at all.



It is widely reported that the Pilbara City initiatives are planned for the Region and withthis comes a funding of almost AUD 1b to implement over time. The PDC are involvedwith this process but it is not yet confirmed what its role will exactly involve.


Focus of the PDC is expectedly around catching up with the growth of the Region andproviding a basis for continued growth. With this appropriate planning is lacking toadequately assess and address adjacent areas of the economy and upcoming change.

Oil and gas growth will continue to expand the Region’s presence and attractiveness.

Outside of the long term resources growth forecasts in the Pilbara, wider industry andeconomic development are immaterial and insignificant.

Identify infrastructure services to promote economic and social development withinthe region

The cost of housing and limited housing supply is one of the key challenges for theRegion and this challenge is expected to increase due to population growth andeconomic activity associated with mining projects such as the Gorgon Gas Project. ThePDC recognise this challenge and have conducted research into the housing problemwith a goal of fixing the issue by 2015. The CEO also sits on the Pilbara InfrastructurePlanning Group and Pilbara Regional Planning Committee.

Outside of the grants scheme, annual reporting and board minutes there is little reportingor information from PDC as to the particular initiatives underway.

The PDC do publish excellent quarterly reports around the following:

Resources Mapping

Government Agency Directories

Aboriginal Claimant Groups

Indigenous Communities and Organisations

Pilbara Projects

Resource Statistics

Housing and Land Snapshots.

It is noted that a number of these publications depend on timely Census data andfunding though.

Projects undertaken by the PDC currently include the following that evidence work in thisarea, according to a Project Report from 2010 include:

Affordable Housing Initiatives

Communication Strategy

Early Childhood Development – Childcare Centre Governance andManagement program

Housing and Land Snapshot Reports



Indigenous Economic Development Officer

Jigalong Community

Newman Community Centre

Desert Knowledge Australia

Outback Business Networks Project

Pilbara Development Commission Website

Pilbara Advocacy

Whole of Commission

Pilbara Dialogue

Volunteer Pilbara – Volunteer Online Information Service (VOIS)

Royalties for Regions.

As part of the PDC’s annual KPI reporting a client survey is completed by keystakeholders. The 2009 survey as disclosed in the PDC 2008-2009 Annual Report foundthat 80% of clients agreed that the commission made a positive contribution towardseconomic and social development in the Pilbara. The survey results were managed byan independent market research firm and based on 128 responses of surveys sent tokey clients compromising Commonwealth and State agencies, Local Governments,business and community organisations.


Small business consultation is not significant with PDC. The PDC have a dedicated staffmember assigned to managing the indigenous affairs portfolio of the commission. Thisstaff member provides assistance and information to stakeholders attempting toestablish indigenous businesses in the Pilbara region.

The PDC also manage the ‘E-Pilbara’ website which is a portal for businesses to interactwith other businesses and individuals in the region (eg employment and businessopportunities, connecting businesses across projects). There are approximately 380businesses established on the ‘E-Pilbara’ website, having grown from 80 businesses 12months prior which evidences the success of the website in developing business activityin the Pilbara region.


PDC are struggling to maintain staff levels and also re-build after the recent issues facedwith management malpractice.


A wide range of literature has been produced and provided to the public by the PDC, thisis consistent with most other RDCs.



Importantly the PDC have found themselves as becoming somewhat of a social servicesand information provider to people looking for lucrative opportunities in the Region butunsure of how to succeed.

The economic development of the Region is widely reported and needs littleencouragement by State Government. Instead it requires success through association,understanding and the development of long lasting networks/relationships with industry.

5.7.3 Resources

PDC have struggled to maintain and rebuild staff levels after the recent issues faced withmanagement malpractice however the PDC has begun to achieve stability in its staffingmoving into the 2010/11 financial year. The staffing constraints have had its mostsignificant effect on the finance function which has caused difficulty and delays inproducing its 2010 financial statements. It is also noted that a lack of controls aroundrestricted cash resulted in a qualified audit opinion in the 2009 PDC Annual Report.



Established industries which include mining, retail and construction continue to besignificant to the region’s economy.

The chart below shows the economic statistics of the region according to available dataas at this report date. It shows that the main industry in the Great Southern is miningfollowed by tourism and construction.

Board

Chief executive of f icer

Executive of f icer

Manager economic andindigenous development

Corporate team leader

Administration of ficer

Indigenous development of ficer

Manager regional development

Senior project of f icer




Principal project of f icer




5.7.5 Constraints or issues

The Pilbara region is currently experiencing a severe shortage of land and all types ofhousing, particularly affordable housing, as a result of continued demand associated withthe resources sector and the lack of timely response for both land supply and housingconstruction. This shortage is impacting on the ability of towns to function as healthy andcomplete communities and remain economically viable and socially sustainable.

A number of government, private sector, industry and non government projects havebeen initiated in an effort to address the shortage of land and accommodation in theregion. This includes transient and contract worker accommodation, social housing forlower income residents, industry housing to meet an increase in the permanentworkforce of the resource sector and affordable land and accommodation to attract andretain people to the region.

The Commission has undertaken to investigate initiatives for affordable housing in theregion. The Commission has undertaken the following initiatives for affordable housing inthe region:

Lead agency with Department for Housing for the Pilbara Housing Study

Lead agency for the Stamford Report on a Model for Affordable Accommodation inPort Hedland

Production of document Summary of Housing, Land and Accommodation

Production of quarterly Housing and Land Snapshots.

The Town of Port Hedland has undertaken a Public Land Rationalisation Plan which isforming the basis for proactive recommendations from State Land Services to the

1%

77%

0%

4%

2%

5%

2%4%

5%

PDC economic statistics (% of WA total)

Agricultural 04/05

Mining 06/07

Forestry 06/07

Fishing 06/07

Manufacturing 01/02







Minister for allocation of land in Port and South Hedland. Expressions of Interest weresort from developers for 19 lots in South Hedland. The EOI requested plans for thedevelopment of the land under Residential, Commercial, Affordable Housing or KeyWorker Accommodation categories.

The EOI’s have been reviewed by a panel including a representative from the ToPH,State Land Services and the Commission. Final presentations from 3 proponents formajor sites will be heard by the panel and Murray Raven (RDL) on 10th June. Once thepanel has made their decision, recommendations will be presented to the Ministerfor consideration.



5.8 South west development commission

Strategic Projects Refurbishment of the Karla Centre in Collie – $85,000

South West Aboriginal Medical Service Mobile Centre – $200,000

Bunbury Dolphin Discovery Centre Redevelopment – $1,273,000

Busselton Foreshore Community Consultation – $50,000

Brunswick Junction Underground Power – $100,000

Pemberton Urban Renewal – $220,000

High Performance Programs – $796,000

Other Major Projects Busselton Jetty Refurbishment – $24 million

Lake Kepwari – $2.922 million


The South West Development Commissions (SWDC) Strategic Plan 2005-2020highlights that the Commission delivers its services through three key areas – People,Infrastructure and Place, and Knowledge, Enterprise and Innovation.

The South West Region includes 157,817 people living in an area of 23,998 squarekilometres and has 12 local government areas:

Local Government

The City of Bunbury

Shire of Harvey

Shire of Dardanup

Shire of Capel

Shire of Busselton

Shire of Augusta-Margaret River

Shire of Nannup

Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup

Shire of Collie

Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes

Shire of Boyup Brook

Shire of Manjimup

Source: SWDC Annual Report 2008/2009

The region has a population density of around 6.6 people per square kilometrescompared to an Australian population density of around 35 people and a UnitedKingdom density of around 3,075 people for the comparable area.



South West is classified as inner regional and outer regional Australia according to theRemoteness Classes in Australia, 20068.

The SWDC operates from offices in Bunbury, Collie, Manjimup and Busselton.

The three themes for SWDC activities include:

People

The SWDC focuses on projects which engage the community in developing a vibrantregion. This includes planning, civic engagement, community leadership and communityinfrastructure. We focus on projects which engage the community in developing a vibrantregion. This includes planning, civic engagement, community leadership and communityinfrastructure.

Infrastructure and place

The SWDCs aim is to build modern infrastructure which supports industry, maintains asense of place for our communities and values our natural environment.

Knowledge, enterprise and innovation

The SWDC aims to create jobs, develop greater job diversity and increase incomesthrough attraction and development of a diverse industrial base. Projects focus onattracting knowledge-based industries and maximising the region’s trade potential.

The SWDCs three strategic themes incorporate the goals and outcomes of the StateGovernment’s strategic aim of a ‘stronger focus on the regions’ and the Royalties forRegions policy framework.

The SWDC developed a 2009/10 business plan which is more detailed at the operationallevel. The business plan includes the SWDC focus, regional focus and a budget plan.The budget plan includes expenditure on projects as well as other operationalexpenditure. The business plan however does not link back directly to the Strategicthemes or s23 of the Act.

The SWDC also provides business investment support, export assistance, skilledmigration, grants and community development.

The SWDC also developed their own project databases for the monitoring of all projectswithin the commission. These databases includes the SWDC Project ManagementSystem (Projtrak) and the Royalties for Regions Access Grants Database. These havereporting capabilities which includes a Project Annual Report as well as a ProjectSummary Business Plan.




Key regional issues

The South West is faced with an ever increasing ageing population. The numberof people in the region aged 55 years and above is expected to grow from 24 percent in 2006 to 35 per cent in 2031

Transport infrastructure in the South West region is close to capacity and requiresmore than $750 million in improvements to allow it to cope with future industry andpopulation growth

Affordable housing strategies will be a key objective for social planning

Has one of the fastest growing regional populations of Western Australia. Thegreatest growth is taking place in the Greater Bunbury area and the shires ofAugusta-Margaret River and Busselton

Infrastructure provision and biodiversity issues continue to be major themes

Bunbury is undergoing a new wave of investment that will transform thecity’s skyline

Some sectors of the regional economy continue to experience skills shortages.


Table 5.8:1 – South West Key indicators

Key Indicator 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Total Revenue ($) 2,151,373 2,416,687 2,820,914 2,393,963 5,258,196


FTE 23 25 24 25 23

Revenue per FTE ($) 323,094 178,440 379,022 393,394 829,215


6.92b 8.12b 9.14 b 10,35b 11.3b



Population 157,817

Unemployment 5% 3.6% 3% 4% 4%






The first is a lack of clear process in relation to the administration of the centralstrategic projects fund, with no opening or closing rounds.



The second is unrealistic timeframes placed on multiple and changing requests forgrant information by the Department of Regional Development and Lands, notcovered in the SWDC/RDL MOU. Commissions have now received the thirdtemplate version for quarterly grant reports with requirements changing andgetting larger once again.

Thirdly, the administration of the Regional Grants Scheme, including StrategicReserve, needs to come entirely under the governance process of theCommission Board.

The delay between Board approval and Ministerial announcements is consideredexcessive and creates anxiety for project proponents who are ready to proceed.

Duplication of process occurs in accountability of R4R funds.

– SWDC initially is accountable for all R4R funds received, being required tohave funds and process audited, through normal accountability processes.

– In addition, there are multiple audit requirements placed on SWDC by theDepartment, by way of additional audits and ad hoc reviews to recheckcompliance with process.

– The normal accountability processes appear to be operating correctly on thebasis the subsequent audits and ad hoc reviews by the Department havenever identified adverse findings.



Job creation and improving career opportunities is a key strategic theme and capturedas such in the SWDC’s Strategic Vision 2005-2020.

The SWDC aims to maximise job creation and improve career opportunities by beinginvolved in projects improving social infrastructure, economic development and investingin people.

The function of job creation is linked to the SWDC activities of Direct Grant Funding,Research Activities, Direct Projects, Provision of Information and FacilitateInteragency Action.

The DET has requested that the SWDC provide them with independent advice onemployment and training issues, recognising that many of the training providers in theSouth West are private entities or public sector entities unwilling to disclose commercialin confidence information, many of which compete with each other.

From a training perspective the SWDC CEO is on TAFE Board and thereby has input onTAFE training agenda. The SWDC’s broader strategy is to create a diverse economicbase to facilitate choice of career and development opportunities within the region,and includes Regional Coordinators in Collie, Busselton, Margaret River, Manjimupand Bunbury.




Developing and broadening the economic base of the region is a key strategic themeand captured as such in the SWDC’s Strategic Vision 2005-2020.

When developing and broadening the economic base of a region, the SWDC includedeach town and their strategic strengths to build on these strengths and ultimately theregional economic base.

The function of identifying opportunities to broaden the economic base is linked to theSWDC activities of Direct Grant Funding, Research Activities, Direct Projects, Provisionof Information and Facilitate Interagency Action.

The SWDC has no financial involvement in any commercial project, however, mayprovide support by way of information and facilitation of projects of regional benefit. Forexample – Perdaman Chemicals Urea Plant – $3.5 billion investment.


SWDC identifies infrastructure services to promote economic and social development isa key strategic theme and captured as such in the SWDC’s Strategic Vision 2005-2020.

In developing major infrastructure projects for the region the SWDC has been directlyresponsible for facilitating major outcomes including Forrest Highway, Bunbury PortAccess Route, Bunbury Outer Ring Road Stage 1, Shotts Industrial Park and PictonIndustrial Park. Collectively these projects have an infrastructure value in the order of$940 million.

Some projects that were earmarked for future investment include:

Construction of a second railway line from Brunswick to the Bunbury Port

Completion of all stages of the Bunbury Outer Ring Road and Bunbury PortAccess Road

Realignment of the Preston River

Improvement of traffic management at Bunbury’s Eelup Roundabout

Resolution of safety and bottleneck issues on the Coalfields Highway

Refurbishment of the Greenbushes rail line

Development of Bunbury Port’s container handling facilities.


Providing information and advice to promote business development within the region isthrough providing an information service, a trade advisory service, a skills migrationservice and individual advice to business and investors through a business developmentofficer.



The South West Development Commission offers help to small and medium sizedenterprises wishing to expand, or to commence exporting through theTradeStart program.

The TradeStart office in the South West of Western Australia is a jointpartnership between the South West Development Commission and the AustralianTrade Commission.

Information services include statistical information incorporating populationdemographics, economic profile, industry trends, major project activities, indigenousactivities, South West Snapshot.


The SWDC engages with each significant Government agency at Executive or CEOlevel to provide advice on South West needs, and to gain information on South Westplans. This has included regional government agency forums where heads ofdepartments have travelled to the region for round table discussions on regional needs.

The regional coordination structure of SWDC enables ongoing community feedback andallows for a more direct relationship and accountability to the community. The SWDCundertakes a policy function, providing comment on State and Federal governmentpolicies, enquiries and State Cabinet minutes to provide a qualitative assessment ofState wide standards to the region’s interests.

The SWDC considers there are gaps in services delivered in some areas, anddisagreements in the way some services are delivered. Key gaps currently identifiedinclude a lack of regional decision making by government agencies, tourism planningand infrastructure development, indigenous economic and social development, Health(drug detox and rehabilitation), mental health services, early childhood services, socialhousing, broadband development, industry advocacy and transport.


The SWDC’s South West Information Service monitors key economic and socialstatistical data for the region. Research and survey documents for various projectsprovide a source of data by which to monitor economic and social development in theregion. Monitoring of economic development is by way of communicating on an ongoingbasis with key stakeholders within the region including local governments, privateenterprise, community groups and business peak bodies. An ongoing research functionincludes reviewing industry publications, statistical publications, bulletins andmedia monitoring.

5.8.3 Resources

The SWDC appear to be adequately staffed at the operational level which is even moreso evident by the fact that they have the largest FTE count of all the RDCs.





The South West has the most diversified economy of all the State’s nine regions.Activities include agriculture and horticulture; timber and forest products; mineralextraction, processing and manufacturing; retailing; tourism; construction; othermanufacturing; service industries; fishing and aquaculture.

The region derived most of its wealth from healthy mining and manufacturing sectors.Much of the region’s prosperity is based on its mining industry in particular alumina andmineral sands. Forestry, agriculture, tourism, retail, construction and fishing are allsources of employment for South West people.

The chart below shows the economic statistics of the region according to availabledata as at this report date. It shows that the main industries in the South West areforestry and tourism.

Minister

Board

Chief executive of f icer Executive of f icer Customer service of f icers (2)

Manager regional development

Principal policy of ficer

Principal communities of f icer

Chief f inance of f icerFinance of f icerAdministration of ficers (2)

Grant of f icerResearch of f icer

Grant coordinator

Tradestart of f icerBusiness development of f icerRegional coordinators (4)Project of f icer – inf rastructureProject of f icer – migrationCommunity relations of f icerCommunications of f icerEconomic development officer





Improvements can be made in structure of compliance and reporting withrespect to:

– The delay between Board approval and Ministerial announcements(considered to be excessive)

– Reduce duplication of processes in that duplication of process occurs inaccountability of R4R funds.

o SWDC initially is accountable for all R4R funds received, beingrequired to have funds and process audited, through normalaccountability processes.

o In addition, there are multiple audit requirements placed on SWDC bythe Department, by way of additional audits and ad hoc reviews torecheck compliance with process.

o The normal accountability processes appear to be operating correctlyon the basis the subsequent audits and ad hoc reviews by theDepartment have never identified adverse findings.

The lack of an allocation to Commissions under RGS and forward estimates leadsto considerable uncertainty in planning. The SWDC would recommend these fundsare retitled to be the South West Regional Development Fund with the Boardenabled to use the funds for both a contestable grants scheme and for directfunding of strategic projects in accordance with the scheme’s criteria.

7%3%

53%2%

5%

5%

4%

6%

15%

SWDC economic statistics (% of WA total)

Agricultural 04/05

Mining 06/07

Forestry 06/07

Fishing 06/07

Manufacturing 01/02







5.9 Wheatbelt development commission

Strategic Projects Muresk Campus Feasibility Study/Business Plan – $50,000

Early Childhood and Family Expo – $5,000

Regional Arts Australia Volunteer Assistance – $10,000

Northam PCYC Bus Transport Project – $8,000

Astronomy Interpretive Centre – $67,000

Wheatbelt Museums Brochure – $9,000

Promotion of the Astronomy WA Space Trial – $5,000

Indian Ocean Drive Signage Strategy – $5,000

Avon Primary Health Centre Scoping Study – $82,090

Wongan Arts Society Exhibition – $10,000

Accident and Emergency Entrance – $10,000


The Wheatbelt is classified as inner regional, outer regional and remote Australiaaccording to the Remoteness Classes in Australia, 20069. The Wheatbelt Regioncomprises an area of 154, 862 square kilometres, and more than twice the size ofTasmania. The region is home to over 69,000 people, making it the third most populousregion in the State. Currently the Wheatbelt region contributes approximately 46% of theState’s total agricultural production.

The environment of the Wheatbelt is as varied as the people. The Wheatbeltincorporates 43 shires stretching from the costal Jurien Bay in the north to Narrogin inthe south and Lake Grace in the East to the Avon region close to Perth. The areas to theEast are rich in minerals, including, gold, nickel and iron ore, while the remainder of theregion is mostly agricultural.

Key regional issues

Some of the key regional issues include:

Capacity to supply is the main problem within the WDC. Given the highfragmentation, geographical spread of the area and unreliable ABS data in relationto population growth it is difficult to address this issue. Some of the other causesidentified are:

– Difficulties in attracting and retaining people in the region.

– The challenge of strategic coordination of services across government andnon government agencies and 43 local councils in the Wheatbelt region.

– The lack of presence of government agencies in such a large anddiverse region.

The industry framework is fragmented as the Wheatbelt is a region made up ofsmall to medium enterprise with little co-ordination or collaboration between them.




The dominant industry in the Wheatbelt is agriculture. This industry is in a maturestage in its cycle and will impact the development of the region.

There is a general lack of awareness across the Wheatbelt regarding the divisionalboundaries between the WDC and Government Services. This lack of roledefinition has potentially duplicated work performed possibly resultingin inefficiencies.


Table 5.9:1 – Wheatbelt Key indicators

Key Indicator 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Total Revenue ($) 2,052,327 2,430,974 2,495,658 2,349,308 2,415,281


FTE 15 14 13 10 15

Revenue per FTE ($) 136,822 173,641 191,974 234,931 161,019


DNF 4 b 4 b DNF 5.6 b



Population 73,899

Unemployment 3.8% 3% 2.7% 3.4% 3.7%






Constraints currently being faced with the delivery of the Royalties for Regions schemerelates to the lengthy time gap between when an application for project funding isreceived and when funds are eventually disbursed. In the 2009/2010 year this equatedto a 9 month differential.



Job creation and career opportunities within the Wheatbelt are not a key focus for thecommission given the current unemployment rate within the region of 2.7%. Attractionand retention strategies have been implemented across the region to combat high staffturnover and encourage work within the Wheatbelt.



Several collaborative projects have been developed across the region to retain andattract including:

Avon industrial park – co sourced funding to increase infrastructure within theAvon region which created job opportunities

Heartlands WA – development of a website for the single point of promotion for theWheatbelt Region to attract workers in the area

Local Government – Partnerships for the creation of land areas to create supportexpansion of local communities and diversity

Government Agencies – Educational providers and Government Advisory Groupsto ensure infrastructure promotes the attraction of families and youth

Private Enterprise – co sourced funding to increase infrastructure capacity andcreate job opportunities within Lifestyle Villages, alternative energy projects andhousing estates.

Measuring of the job creation and career opportunity development within the Wheatbeltregion is incredibly hard due to the out of date nature of Census and ABS data used as ameasure of people within the region. The Wheatbelt Development Commissionemployee’s third parties to obtain accurate data. PwC sighted, as part of the AvonIndustrial Park project that UWA was employed to provide statistical data on thepopulation demographic within the Avon region. There is no real measure or monitoringcurrently in place to assess the impact of projects on job creation and developmentwithin the region.

Current projects in place for attraction and retention of staff include:

Heartlands WA – promoting the region as an attractive place to live, work, visitand invest

Re-development of the Muresk Education Campus

CY'OConnor Tafe repositioning strategies, to promote the bridging toTertiary education.


Additional to the information on job creation and retention the Wheatbelt DevelopmentCommission is proactive in the planning and development of expansion within theWheatbelt region. process for expansion has been listed in the Strategic OperationalPlan which covers the key expansion areas of Industry Development, IndigenousDevelopment, Alternative Energy Distribution and provision of services related to thestates mining boom.

As described in the job creation step the Wheatbelt Development Commission activelyengages with the community, local governments and government service providers toensure regional projects are created for the enhancement of the region. Additionalcurrent projects being undertaken include:

Industry Development Project with the Wheatbelt Regional GovernmentServices commission.

UWA Timber capacity research project.



Collaboration with the Oil Mallee Association of WA for the BiomassDistillery Trials.

Solar energy opportunity projects.

Australian Sustainable Development project in collaboration with Curtin Universityto explore alternative energy opportunities within the Wheatbelt.

Wheatbelt Aviation project to assess the viability of Aviation routes withinthe region.


Considerable time has been spent addressing the infrastructure service requirements forthe Wheatbelt Region. These are addressed and covered within the Strategic Plan andthrough the integrated Wheatbelt Infrastructure Services Plan. Within both avenues thecurrent measures are in place to address infrastructure services:

Regional planning process with WA Local Government Association (WALGA) viathe Regional Organisations of Council.

WALGA and CBH association to develop road planning strategy to identify priorityfreight roads. This also includes collaboration with the Mid West and GreatSouthern Development Regions.

Correspondence with Government Services such as Health and Dept Sport andRecreation to strategically place facilities in areas of need.

Volunteering WA Project via Community Resources Centre's to buildcommunity capacity.


Business development activities are predominantly handled by the Small BusinessNetwork via the Small Business Development Council. The Service delivery model iscurrently being reviewed to assess the effectiveness of the delivery methodology withinthe region. Additionally case by case scenario's are undertaken through the small grantsscheme and project assessment process which occurs on an annual basis.


Overall the standard of government services within the Wheatbelt is perceived to bepoor. This has created pressure on the Wheatbelt Development Commission to fill gapsand work with the local community to plan infrastructure, education and health projects.Local Government, the community and private sector have all been involved in variousprojects which have been mentioned above.

An annual customer satisfaction survey is run by Advantage Communication andmarketing which measures the performance of the Wheatbelt Commission on overallperformance within the Wheatbelt area based on questionnaires returned byrespondents within the area. PwC sighted the annual Client Satisfaction Survey for 2010



which indicated an increased satisfaction rate across general performance (71%) up 9%from the previous year’s figure.

The government services provided within the area are relatively ambiguous. There is ageneral lack of awareness across the Wheatbelt and a blurring of divisional boundariesbetween the Wheatbelt Development Commission and Government Services. This lackof transparency has the potentially duplicated work performed resulting in inefficiencies.Exception noted.

There is no metro benchmark in place for the provision of services within the Wheatbelt.Due to the vast differences between the Wheatbelt area, which is disaggregated with asmall population disbursed over a large area of land, and Metro, concise high densitypopulation grouping, benchmarking cannot be enacted. Accept as reasonable.


Promotion of the Wheatbelt Region is at the core of the Wheatbelt DevelopmentCommissions business. Heavy involvement within projects, described above, andmarketing of the region through community fairs and advertising campaigns areexamples of involvement. At all stages members of the local government are engagedupon with annual Wheatbelt catch ups involving all local governments undertaken.

The only performance measure in place at the moment is the third party customersatisfaction survey. Given the disparities of the region census and ABS statistics are notrelied upon for the assessment of facilitating and promoting business within the area.

Projects currently in place have been discussed above. These include the HeartlandsWA and Avon Industrial Park projects.



5.9.3 Resources

Source: WDC Annual Report 2008/2009


Established industries which include agriculture, forestry, fishing and retail trade continueto be significant to the region’s economy.

The chart below shows the economic statistics of the region according to available dataas at this report date. It shows that the main industry in the Great Southern is agriculturefollowed by fishing and tourism.

Minister

Board

Chief executive of f icer Executive assistant Administration assistant

Director regional services

Principal policy of ficer

Principal communities of f icer

Manager of f inance andcorporate services

Information records & ICTFinance and administration of f icerFinance and administrationassistant

Research of f icer (R4R)

Senior regional of f icers (R4R)

Senior regional of f icers (4)Indigenous economicDevelopment of ficerResearch/project of f icers (4)





It was noted that there is a communication breakdown in communication avenues withinthe Government service providers and the Wheatbelt Development Commission.Duplication of activities is plausible due to this breakdown.

PwC noted that there is a significant time lag between the initial request for funds andthe overall disbursement. This has caused significant problems for projects within theWheatbelt with projects collapsing before funds are disbursed.

Capacity to supply is the main problem within the Wheatbelt Development Commission.Given the high fragmentation, geographical spread of the area and unreliable ABS datain relation to population growth it is incredibly difficult to address this issue. Projectsapproved are high value cross regional development projects.

There is no real measure or monitoring currently in place to assess the impact ofprojects on job creation and development within the region.

54%

2%0%

22%

3%

2%

3%

5%

9%

WDC economic statistics (% of WA total)

Agricultural 04/05

Mining 06/07

Forestry 06/07

Fishing 06/07

Manufacturing 01/02






The following section provides some comparative data analysis in terms of comparing the RDCs. Thisincludes analysis from a Performance, Cost Driver, Operational (including executive skills), Fundingand Project perspective and compares the RDCs financial and other information as per their AnnualReports as well as data provided by the RDCs and obtained from the Department of RegionalDevelopment and Lands.

6.1 Performance

The analysis of the performance of the RDCs generally was not a simple process asgenuine accountability measures were not in place. At present, different measures areused across RDCs and they are generally speaking measurements of outputs ratherthan outcomes. The graphs below illustrate the disparate performance reportingmeasures within the RDCs.

Peel, Goldfields Esperance, Wheatbelt and South West measures performance againstservice cost per hour. All except for South West have two service offerings whichthey measure themselves against. The service cost per hour varies between $46 perhour (Peel Service 2) to $169 per hour (South West Service) for the 2008/2009 financialyear.

Source: PwC Analysis (RDCs 2008/2009 Annual Reports)

The Pilbara and Mid West measure performance against their total cost of their services.Both have 3 reportable service offerings which they measure themselves against. Thetotal cost of services varies between $492,962 (Pilbara Service 3) and $2,213,000(Pilbara Service 2) for the 2008/2009 financial year.

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Peel GoldfieldsEsperance

Wheatbelt South West

Service cost per hour

Service 1

Service 2

Comparing the regional development commissions



The Gascoyne and Kimberley measure performance against their cost per project hour.Gascoyne have one service offering and Kimberley two which they measure themselvesagainst. The cost per project hour varies between $144 (Gascoyne) and $191(Kimberley both Services) for the 2008/2009 financial year.


Great Southern measures their performance against their total cost per project whichwas calculated to be $37,786 per project for the 2008/2009 financial year.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Pilbara Mid West

Cost of service

Service 1

Service 2

Service 3

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Gascoyne Kimberley

Cost per project hour

Service 1

Service 2




Another measure the RDCs use to report on their performance is their StakeholderSatisfaction Surveys. These are also reported on differently in their 2008/2009 Annualreports. Wheatbelt reports on the 7 categories of agreement as set out in theirquestionnaires as below.


Pilbara, Great Southern, Peel and Gascoyne reports on the overall StakeholderSatisfaction Survey figures as below and varies between 80% (Pilbara) and 92%(Gascoyne) for the 2008/2009 financial year. Kimberley reports on the Stakeholder

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

Great Southern

Cost per project

Cost perProject

24%

62%

5%

8%1% 0%

Wheatbelt stakeholder satisfaction survey

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree norDisagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Don't Know



Satisfaction Survey figures in terms of their set effectiveness indicators as below andvaries between 89% (Effectiveness Indicator 1) and 91% (Effectiveness Indicator 2) forthe 2008/2009 financial year.


74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

Pilbara GreatSouthern

Peel KimberleyIndicator 1

KimberleyIndicator 2

Gascoyne

Overall stakeholder satisfaction survey



6.2 Cost drivers

Regional cost drivers should be one of the key indicators of funding allocations to theRDCs. These cost drivers are significantly different from region to region. Additional costdrivers including the ad hoc responsibilities the RDCs have to deal with on a day-to-daybasis should also be taken into account as part of determining funding allocations.

Regional IT costs (Including Communications) for the 2008/2009 financial year variesbetween $16,370 (Mid West) and $63,000 (Pilbara).

Source: PwC Analysis (Information Received from RDCs and Annual Reports 2008/2009)

There are also significant variances between the rent costs per square metre in eachregion. These costs range between $200 per square metre and $845 per square metre.

Source: PwC Analysis (Information Received from RDCs)

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

IT costs (2009 including communications)

$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800$900

Rent per m2



Accommodation costs vary between $106,000 (Great Southern) and $288,814 (SouthWest) and travel costs between $2,549 (South West) and $212,914 (Gascoyne).


Local governments per region are another cost driver to be taken into account as part offunding allocation per RDC. It takes significant costs and effort to visit regional localgovernment offices. Local governments vary between 4 (Gascoyne, Kimberley andPilbara) and 43 (Wheatbelt).


$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

Accommodation and travel expenses (2009)

Accommodation

Travel Costs

05

101520253035404550

Local governments per region



6.3 Operational

There is currently a variance of $6.6 million between the lowest total cost of services($1.66 million Great Southern) and the highest cost of services ($8.26 million SouthWest) in the RDCs.


The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) calculation from a Cost of Serviceperspective indicates that some RDCs have cut back on their cost of services whereothers cost increased over the past five years. The growth rates vary between 36%decrease (Gascoyne) and 9% increase (Peel) in costs.

Source: PwC Analysis (RDCs Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009)

$0$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,000$6,000,000$7,000,000$8,000,000$9,000,000

Cost of services (2009)

-36%

-13%-11%-10%

-5%

5% 5%

9% 9%

-40%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Cost of service compound annual growth rate 03/04 to 08/09

Gascoyne

South West

Goldfields Esperance

Great Southern

Pilbara

Kimberley

Wheatbelt

Mid West

Peel



Restricted funds as at 30 June 2009 are significant in the RDCs. These funds arerestricted due to the nature of the funding being approved project funding not yet paid toapproved applicants. These funds vary between $4,372,631 (Peel) and $14,283,609(Kimberley. These funds include RGS, RDS and other project funding. Some of the otherfunding includes major regional projects such as the Ord Enhancement Scheme in theKimberley ($8,575,536) and the Busselton Jetty Refurbishment ($4,119,465) and LakeKepawari Development ($2,922,931) in the South West.


The following table provides some financial information related to the implementation ofthe RDCs back-office processes into the OSS.

RDCOSS

rolled outDate of roll

out/planned roll outOther systems

in use 2009 cost ($)

Gascoyne September 2009 - 40,581


August 2010 - -

Great Southern April 2009 - 47,000

Kimberley December 2009 - 28,633

Mid West August 2010 - -

Peel August 2010 - -

Pilbara March 2007,November 2009(Payroll)

- 43,000

South West July 2009 - 51,547

Wheatbelt October 2010 SUN GL -

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

Restricted funds (2009)

Other

RegionalDevelopmentScheme

Royalties forRegions




The OSS costs vary between $28,633 (Kimberley) and $51,547 (South West). Theaverage costs of the OSS implemented in 5 of the RDCs as below is $42,152.


The following graph illustrates that there is a large variance of Full Time Equivalent(FTE) employee in the RDCs with Peel FTE at 11 employees and South West FTE at 24employees as at June 2009. The average FTE number per RDC is 14 employees.

The graph also illustrates that there are some flexible staff arrangements and contractorsutilised in the RDCs as well with an overall variance of 12 between paid head count andpaid FTE.

Source: Western Australian Public Sector Workforce Report (June 2009)

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Kimberley Gascoyne Pilbara Great Southern South West

OSS costs (2009)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Headcount vs FTE (June 2009)

Paid head count

Paid FTE



There is a currently a variance of $1,025,703 between Great Southern ($1,012,297) andPilbara ($2,038,000) in employee benefits expenses per RDC for the 2008/2009 financialyear. The average employee benefits expense per RDC is $1,336,840 for the samefinancial year.


The Compound Annual Growth Rate calculation from an Employee Benefits Expenseperspective indicates that one RDC has cut back on its employee benefits expensewhere others have increased cost over the past five years. The growth rates varybetween 2% decrease (Peel) and 10% increase (Pilbara) in costs.


$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Employee benefits expenses (2009)

-2%

0% 1%

2% 2%

4%

6% 6%

10%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Employee benefits expense compound annual growth rate 03/04to 08/09

Peel


Mid West

Great Southern

Wheatbelt

South West

Kimberley

Gascoyne

Pilbara



There is a currently a variance of $48,838 between Mid West ($87,029) and Pilbara($135,867) in Total Employee Expenses per FTE for the 2008/2009 financial year. Theaverage total employee benefits expense per FTE per RDC is $96,666 for the samefinancial year.


The involvement in these committees stem from the CEO’s regional presence and trustbuilt over years of local involvement in regional development and stakeholder strategies.


$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

Total employee expense per FTE (2009)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

CEO committees involvement



6.4 Funding

There is currently a variance of $10 million between the lowest appropriation ($1.46million Gascoyne) and the highest appropriation ($11.5 million South West) in the RDCswith the South West generating the largest amount in other revenue of $2.6 million.


The Compound Annual Growth Rate calculation from an Employee Benefits Expenseperspective indicates that one RDC has cut back on their employee benefits expensewhere others have increased costs over the past five years. The growth rates varybetween 2% decrease (Peel) and 10% increase (Pilbara) in costs.


$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

Revenue and income from state government (2009)

Royalties ForRegions

Grants ReceivedFrom Government

ServiceAppropriations

Other Revenue

-30%-29%

-24%

-18%

0%

2%4%

9%11%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Service appropriations compound annual growth Rate 03/04to 08/09

Pilbara

Great Southern

Gascoyne


Wheatbelt

Peel

Mid West

Kimberley

South West



The graph below illustrates the allocation of rounds one and two of the RGS funding.Goldfields Esperance ($5,039,463) allocated the least amount of contestable funding forboth rounds with Gascoyne allocating the greatest amount ($7,781,167).


The graphs below illustrate the Regional Grant Scheme (RGS) allocations measuredagainst the actual funding provided to the RDCs. These figures take into account theadministration fee of 2.5% of the total funding, limited to $125,000.

The graph below illustrates the allocation of round one RGS funding. Pilbara($3,334,551) allocated the least amount of contestable funding for round one withKimberley allocating the greatest amount ($4,098,125). The average amount allocatedfor the RDCs for the first round of RGS funding is $3,589,807 from total funds of$4,400,000 available.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

Regional grants scheme allocations

Regional grantsscheme (09/10)





The graph below illustrates the allocation of round two RGS funding. GoldfieldsEsperance ($1,544,299) allocated the least amount of contestable funding for round twowith Gascoyne allocating the greatest amount ($3,912,781). The average amountallocated for the RDCs for the second round of RGS funding is $3,317,399 from totalfunds of $3,500,000 available. Kimberley, Peel, Great Southern, Mid West, Pilbara andGascoyne Development Commissions paid in excess of funds available for the year byincluding additional funding not allocated as part of the first round of applications.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

$5,000,000


FundingAvailable

Total




The amount of additional effort required to administer the Royalties for Regions fundingis illustrated through the graph below. This clearly shows that the additional funding issignificant in the context of total yearly revenue ranging from 23% (South West) to 68%(Wheatbelt) of total revenue for 2008/2009 financial year. The average funding as apercentage of total revenue is 52%.


The graphs below illustrate the amount of RGS funding allocated to projects versus thetotal amount of the funding obtained for the specific projects as well as percentage of the

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000


FundingAvailable

Total

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Royalities for regions funding as % of total revenue (08/09)



same. Pilbara (13% of RGS funds towards total project funds) achieved the highestamount of leverage for funding allocated to projects as opposed to Mid West (28% ofRGS funds towards total project funds) that obtained the least leverage.



Not all the RDCs obtained strategic funding from Royalties for Regions perspective.Kimberley, Gascoyne, Pilbara South West, Peel and Great Southern obtained strategic

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

RGS and total project funding (09/10)

Total ProjectFunding (09/10)


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

RGS as % of total project amount (09/10)



project funding. This funding ranged from $42,000 (Kimberley) to $2,724,000 (SouthWest) for round one and two of the RGS.


6.5 Projects

The graph below illustrates that if the RDCs would have the authority to approve projectfunding up to $100,000, more than 60% of the projects for the first and second rounds ofthe RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date. It also illustrates that morethan 60% of all grants approved are less than $100,000 but require the same amount ofrigour as amounts up to $500,000.


$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

RGS strategic funding

Strategic Projects RDCFunding (09/10)

Total Strategic ProjectsFunding (09/10)

Strategic Projects RDCFunding (08/09)

Total Strategic ProjectsFunding (08/09)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%







The graph below illustrates the number of projects each of the RDCs administers as partof the RGS funding. Gascoyne (15) has the least amount of projects and South West(38) the greatest amount of projects for round two of the RGS funding.


The graph below identifies the number of projects with a total RGS contribution value ofless than $50,000 for the second round in 09/10. There is an average of 10 projects perRDC with South West having 25 of their 38 projects less than $50,000 mark.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Number of RGS projects (09/10)




Due to the variance in the amount of projects administered in each RDC and amount offunding allocated to these projects, there is a large variance between the lowest averagefunding allocation per project of $73,538 (Goldfield Esperance) and the highest of$260,852 (Gascoyne) for round two of the RGS.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RGS projects <$50,000 (09/10)

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

Average RGS funding per project (09/10)



6.6 Staff competency survey

The CEO’s of the nine different RDCs were contacted and requested to providebackgrounds on their management employees, as well as project officers to create ahigh level picture of the composition of the teams. Each team member was requested tocomplete a questionnaire which comprised of 5 questions:

1 How long has the Staff member been with the Commission?

2 How long has the staff member lived in the region?

3 Please provide a few sentences on the career background of the staff member

4 Formal qualifications – memberships of professional bodies (If applicable)

5 Are there any additional skills or qualifications that would help you in your role?

The questions were designed to be brief and easy to answer for the employee andcapture not just the academic qualifications of each of the respondents, but also the localknowledge and environment which represents an integral part of the work which isconducted by the councils.

The final question was included to get an indication of any skills gaps, or areas of futurefocus to improve efficiency in the region.

The responses varied in both numbers and content, with some organisations providingup to 8 surveys, and others with as few as 4. See below for a more focused analysis ofthe responses below.

Interestingly, a fairly common theme from the answers to question 5 (when provided)seems to be more of an investment in migration to grow and develop the area. Onerespondent noted that understanding Mandarin or Indonesian would be of advantage,reaffirming sentiments from the Peel community that further skills in migration law wouldassist, signalling there either there is an influx of non-English speaking residents ormigration of this type is viewed as a possible solution to the skills shortage.

This commonality may warrant some further investigation into broadening the currentstaff base to include employees that already hold these skills or investing in developingthem in current employees for all of the communities, not just the South West.

Please note that the work performed does not represent a staff competency andqualification audit but is purely a staff competency survey and the information as shownin the tables below was obtained from the RDCs.

6.6.1 Gascoyne development commission

Table 6.6:1 – Gascoyne Staff Competency

Number of Respondents 6

Average Time inCommunity

12.83 Years

Average time involvedwith RDC

3.52 Years

Qualifications 5 respondents hold Bachelors degrees, with a CPA and



various other post graduate qualifications in public sectormanagement, company secretaries and public administration

Highly qualified and experienced team.

6.6.2 Goldfields esperance development commission

Table 6.6:2 – Goldfields Esperance Staff Competency



28.6 Years

Average time involved withRDC

6 Years

Qualifications 1 degree

All project managers have held similar roles either in government or in otherdevelopment commissions and have extensive experience in the field. Other experienceranges from small scale commerce to education and Aboriginal affairs in regionalcentres, however only the Manager of Planning and Infrastructure holds a universitydegree (Bachelor of Arts – Soc. Sci). The CEO has listed no formal qualifications,however experience in the private sector of senior management in the private sector of17 years.

The Goldfields looks to be a large structure with managers for different regions as wellas specific managers for project areas. This larger structure would usually demand ahigher degree of qualifications, however the average time spent within the commission(6 years) indicates that the experience of the senior management may be appropriate.This would however warrant particular attention to ensure that there is the appropriatemix of project specialisation, business knowledge and accounting/finance skills toaccompany the local knowledge and experience that is evident.

6.6.3 Great southern development commission

Table 6.6:3 – Great Southern Staff Competency


Average Timein Community

18.5 Years


10.75 Years

Qualifications 4 (Including 3 Masters)

Highly qualified academically and high average amount of time spent in the communityto generate synergies from local knowledge. High degree of cultural perspective withspecialists in Aboriginal heritage.



The mix of community, heritage, academic and business generates an effective picture,however as there were only 4 respondents, the project managers qualifications andcredentials have not been provided for inspection. It could be an issue if there wasinadequate lower management structure to support the adequate top structure.

6.6.4 Kimberley development commission

Table 6.6:4 – Kimberley Staff Competency



19 Years


7.5 Years (17.5 for the CEO and the Deputy Director)

Qualifications 6 Degrees. There is also indigenous representation whichadds value to development and planning.

The CEO is a widely involved in the community and is a fellow of the Australian RuralLeadership foundation and both the CEO and the Deputy Director hold qualificationsfrom the Australian institute of Company Directors. Other project managers and officershold varying degrees ranging from a focus in Energy, sustainable development andeconomics. There appears to be a broad range of skills coupled with the extensive localknowledge and familiarity in the region make a strong team on paper.

6.6.5 Mid west development commission

Table 6.6:5 – Mid West Staff Competency



23.25 Years


6.2 Years

Qualifications 4 Degrees and 4 Diplomas

The highest response rate of all (8), the average time spent in the region is also thehighest of all the regions (average of almost 24 years) with the CEO and Assistantdirector having 15 and 10 years service with the commission respectively.

All 8 respondents have either a degree or diploma and have experience from adiverse background.

The high degree of local knowledge coupled with the academic qualifications of theexecutive and senior management, on paper indicate a high level of effectivegovernance and efficiency. Giving a good indication that they are competent in handlingthe money allocated to their regions.



6.6.6 Peel development commission

Table 6.6:6 – Peel Staff Competency



3 Years


4 Years

Qualifications 2 Degrees

It appears that employees have limited tertiary qualifications at the commission. TheCEO Seems to have extensive experience in academic roles and in businessmanagement both here and the USA however has listed only certificates as formaleducation received. The Manager of Corporate services also has little formalqualifications, however has had extensive corporate manager experience in government.Finance and Administration manager also has limited experience, just 3 years in a smallbusiness, however has a Tafe certificate in business Admin.

6.6.7 Pilbara development commission

Table 6.6:7 – Pilbara Staff Competency



2.5 Years


2.5 Years

Qualifications 2 degrees

Assistant Director has an extensive finance and accounting background, reinforced withmembership of the national institute of accountants. The CEO is highly experienced ineducation, with more than 20 years in the teaching profession, however lacks formalknowledge and experience in financial aspects. Other than the Assistant director, thereappears to be limited business qualifications with an emphasis on community and socialinfrastructure taking precedence. However, it should be noted that there were only 4respondents.

6.6.8 South west development commission

Table 6.6:8 – South West Staff Competency



11.6 Years




20.75 Years

Qualifications 3 Degrees including one MBA

The accounts officer is also a member of the national institute of accountants and holdsan accounting degree.

There is adequate academic qualifications displayed by the 4 respondents and the highaverage time spent in the community and with the commission suggests an intricateknowledge and understanding of the commercial and social environment of the region.

There has been no information provided on the project managers or project staff thatwork under them so an analysis of their skills is unable to be performed.

6.6.9 Wheatbelt development commission

Table 6.6:9 – Wheatbelt Staff Competency



16.6 Years


6.7 Years

Qualifications 5 degrees (and 1 membership of the national institute ofchartered accountants)

Experience of the executive team and senior project managers is extensive withexperience in public and private development and infrastructure. All respondents havehigh levels of academic credentials coupled with diverse backgrounds; farming, smallscale commerce and commerce.

Project managers also have extensive experience and university qualifications.

The Review CommitteeReview of Regional Development Commissions PricewaterhouseCoopers | 137

The following section provides some detailed analysis of the Financial Indicators, Projects, Staffing andPerformance Indicators for each of the nine RDCs as per their Annual Reports as well as data providedby the RDCs and obtained from the Department of Regional Development and Lands.

7.1 Gascoyne development commission

GDCs Cost of Service and Appropriations decrease with Employee Expenses increasingover the past five years as well as showing a deficit in two of the five years. GDC did wellfrom a performance indicator perspective with only exceeding target cost per servicehour twice and the stakeholder satisfaction survey’s painting a favourable picture.

7.1.1 Financial

The GDC Income graph below illustrates that the significant portion of funding receivedby GDC consists of Service Appropriations and in the 08/09 financial year, the additionof the Royalties for Regions funding. The Royalties for Regions funding represents 66%of the total income for the 08/09 financial year.

Source: PwC Analysis (Gascoyne Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009)

GDC Expenditure/Cost of Services that are significant to GDC is Employee BenefitsCosts, Supplies and Services and Grants and Subsidies. The $4.8 million Supplies andServices expense in the 04/05 financial year include payments made for the constructionphase of the Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural Centre.

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GDC income Gain from sale of asset

Bad debt recoup

Royalties for Regions

Resources free of charge

Liabilites assumed by theTreasurerService appropriation

Other Revenues

Other Grants and Subsidies

Grants recevied from thegovernmentCommonwealth Grants andcontributionsUser charges and fees

Detailed responses and benchmarking



External funding sources and networking partners are continually sought to enhanceproject scope and effectiveness. The attraction of additional funding (or the withdrawal ofanticipated funding) can result in wide variations in revenue and expenditure overfinancial years. Also, delays in Infrastructure Project expenditure can occur over whichthe Commission has no direct control. This is evident from the deficit shown in the 04/05financial year where additional funding was received in prior years and expensed in the04/05 financial year. A deficit was also noted in the 07/08 financial year.


$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GDC expenditure

Audit fees

Resources free of charge

Other expenses

Loss on disposal of assets

Capital user charge

Supplies and Services

Accommodation

Grants and Subsidies

Employee Benefit Expense

Depreciation

-$6,000,000

-$4,000,000

-$2,000,000

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GDC revenue vs surplus/deficit

Revenue

Surplus/Deficit



Restricted cash on hand at the end of each financial year increased significantly in08/09. This was due to Royalties for Regions funding allocated to successful projectapplicants but not yet paid to the project administrators as at 30 June 2009.


GDC Service Appropriation CAGR shows a decrease by a compound rate of 24% from03/04 to 08/09 financial years. Service appropriations decreased from $3.6 million in the03/04 financial year to $1.5 million in the 08/09 financial year. The $3.6 millionappropriation for 03/04 includes an amount of $1.6 million. If this amount is taken intoaccount when calculating CAGR the decrease shows to be at a compound rate of 8%.


GDC Cost of Service CAGR chart shows that the Cost of Services CAGR decreased byan annual rate of 36%. This is however not a true reflection as the construction phaseexpenditure of the Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural Centre was included in the 04/05

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GDC restricted cash

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GDC service appropriation

CAGR -24%



Cost of Services amount. If this amount is taken into account when calculating CAGRthe decrease shows to be at a compound rate of 21%.


7.1.2 Projects

The graphs below illustrate that if the GDC has the authority to approve project fundingup to $100,000, more than 48% of the projects for the first and 33% for the second roundof the RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date. It also illustrates thatmore than 40% of all grants approved are less than $100,000 but require the sameamount of rigour as amounts up to $500,000.


$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GDC cost of services

CAGR -36%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

GDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2009/2010 RGS funding


2009/2010 %of Projectsabove amountrange




7.1.3 Staffing

GDC FTEs were fairly constant over the past 5 financial years with a decrease of 3 FTEsfrom 15 in 2005 to 12 in 2009.


The average salary per employee in GDC increased from $61,386 in the 04/05 financialyear to $91,824 in the 08/09 financial year.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

GDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2008/2009 RGS funding



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GDC FTE




The graph below illustrates that the amount of revenue in GDC increased in terms ofFTE numbers which illustrate that more funding was received to be managed by thesame amount of FTEs. This is an even greater burden due to the fact that the fundingrequires significant additional administration around project applications, monitoringand reporting.


The GDCs employee expenses increased by a compound annual rate of 6% per yearover the last five financial years. This increase is from $784,223 in the 03/04 financialyear to $1,101,889 in the 08/09 financial year.

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GDC average salary per employee

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GDC FTE revenue ratio




7.1.4 Performance indicators

The GDC measures performance in their financial statements as a Cost per service hourindicator. Targets are set during budgeting and reported against calculated actual costs.Actual costs were well below the target for the 2006, 2007 and 2008 financial years byaround $51 per service hour. Actual costs were higher than target costs by $14 per hourfor the 2009 financial year.


$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GDC employee expenses

CAGR 6%

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GDC cost per service hour

Cost per ProjectHour Target

Cost per ProjectHour Actual



In terms of GDCs stakeholder satisfaction survey indicators, actual survey outcomeswere well above targets set for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 financial years. These targetswere set at 85% where the actual average for the relevant years was 94%.


75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GDC stakeholder satisfaction survey

StakeholderSatisfactionSurvey Target

StakeholderSatisfactionSurvey Actual



7.2 Goldfields esperance development commission

GEDCs Cost of Service and Appropriations decrease in the past five financial years withEmployee Expenses at the same level it was five years ago. GEDC showed smallsurpluses for all five of the past five years with a large surplus in 2008/2009. GEDCdid well from a performance indicator perspective with only exceeding target costper service hour twice and the stakeholder satisfaction survey’s painting afavourable picture.

7.2.1 Financial

The GEDC Income graph below illustrates that the significant portion of funding receivedby GEDC consists of Service Appropriations and in the 08/09 financial year, the additionof the Royalties for Regions funding. The Royalties for Regions funding represents 66%of the total income for the 08/09 financial year.

Source: PwC Analysis (Goldfields Esperance Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009)

GEDC Expenditure/Cost of Services that are significant to GEDC is Employee BenefitsCosts, Supplies and Services and Grants and Subsidies. The $2.1 million Grants andSubsidies expense in the 04/05 financial year relate to payments made as a result ofelection promises February 2005.

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GEDC income

Royalties for Regions Fund

Resources received free ofcharge

Grants received fromGovernment

Service appropriation

Other Revenue

Commonwealth grants andcontributions

User charges and fees




GEDC consistently illustrated that they are able to operate within budget with no deficitsin the previous six financial years.



0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GEDC expenditure

Other Expenses

Capital User Charge

Loss on disposal of noncurrent assets


Accommodation expenses

Depreciation andamortisation expense


Employee benefits expense

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

Revenue vs surplus/deficit

Revenue

Surplus/Deficit




GEDC Service Appropriation CAGR shows a decrease by a compound rate of 18% from03/04 to 08/09 financial years. Service appropriations for the 04/05 financial year was$3.9 million and included an amount of $2.1 million that relate funding received as perelection promises February 2005. If this amount is taken into account when calculatingCAGR the decrease shows to be at a compound rate of 1%.


0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GEDC restricted cash

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GEDC service appropriations

CAGR -18%



GEDC Cost of Service CAGR chart shows that the Cost of Services CAGR decreasedby an annual rate of 11%. This is however not a true reflection as an amount of $2.1million Grants and Subsidies expense was paid in the 04/05 financial year as a result ofelection promises February 2005. If this amount is taken into account when calculatingCAGR the decrease shows to be at a compound rate of 1%.


7.2.2 Projects

The graphs below illustrate that if the GEDC has the authority to approve project fundingup to $100,000, more than 43% of the projects for the first and 81% for the second roundof the RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date. It also illustrates thatmore than 62% of all grants approved are less than $100,000 but require the sameamount of rigour as amounts up to $500,000.


$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

$5,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GEDC cost of services

CAGR -11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

GEDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2009/2010 RGSfunding






Staffing

GEDC FTEs were fairly constant over the past 5 financial years with a decrease of 2FTEs from 15 in 2005 to 13 in 2009.


The average salary per employee in GEDC increased from $73,578 in the 04/05financial year to $81,696 in the 08/09 financial year.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

GEDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2008/2009 RGSfunding



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GEDC FTE




The graph below illustrates that the amount of revenue in GEDC increased in terms ofFTE numbers which illustrate that more funding was received to be managed by thesame amount of FTEs. This is an even greater burden due to the fact that the fundingrequires significant additional administration around project applications, monitoring andreporting.


The GEDCs employee expenses increased by a compound annual rate of 0% per yearover the last five financial years.

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GEDC average salary per employee

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GEDC FTE revenue ratio





The GEDC measures performance in their financial statements as a Cost per servicehour indicator. Targets are set during budgeting and reported against calculated actualcost. Actual costs were well below the target for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 financial yearsby around $19 per service hour for Service 1 and $22 per service hour for Service 2.Actual costs were higher than target costs by $36 per hour for Service 1 and $5 perservice hour for Service 2 in the 2006 financial year.


$850,000

$900,000

$950,000

$1,000,000

$1,050,000

$1,100,000

$1,150,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GEDC employee expenses

CAGR 0%

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GEDC costs per service hour

Service 1 - perservice hour Target

Service 1 - perservice hour Actual

Service 2 - perservice hour Target

Service 2 - perservice hour Actual



In terms of GEDCs stakeholder satisfaction survey indicators, actual survey results wereat an average of 72% over the past five financial years. This was based on the averageof results with an agree rating for the Economic Contribution to the Region as well asSocial Contribution to the Region.


66%

67%

68%

69%

70%

71%

72%

73%

74%

75%

76%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GEDC stakeholder satisfaction survey



7.3 Great southern development commission

GSDCs Cost of Service and Appropriations decrease in the past five financial years withEmployee Expenses increasing over the past five years ago. GSDC showed deficits forthree of the past five years with a large surplus in 2008/2009. GSDC did well from aperformance indicator perspective with only exceeding target cost per project once andthe stakeholder satisfaction survey’s painting a favourable picture.

7.3.1 Financial

The GSDC Income graph below illustrate illustrates that the significant portion of fundingreceived by GEDC consists of Service Appropriations and in the 08/09 financial year, theaddition of the Royalties for Regions funding. The Royalties for Regions fundingrepresents 58% of the total income for the 08/09 financial year.

Source: PwC Analysis (Great Southern Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009)

GSDC Expenditure/Cost of Services that are significant to GEDC is Employee BenefitsCosts, Supplies and Services and Accommodation costs. The increase in the 2005/2006expenditure was mainly as a result of $668,421 for the Vancouver Waterways andcapital transfer write-off $720,620 for the Albany Boat Harbour project which wastransferred to Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The Increase in the 2006/2007expenditure was mainly as a result of an amount of $450,000 was paid to the City ofAlbany for the Albany Leisure and Aquatic Centre, $75,000 for the Lake Weerlara projectand $75,000 for the Nathan Drew Memorial Trust

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GSDC income

Royalties for Regions Fund

Resources received free ofchargeIncome received from stateagenciesLiability assumed bytreasurerService appropriation

Gain on disposal of noncurrent assetsOther Revenue

Interest Revenue

Grant and Contributions

User charges and fees




The graph below illustrates that GSDC had a deficit of $10,660 in the 2003/2004financial year, deficit of $10,659 in the 2004/2005 financial year, $108,320 in the2005/2006 financial year and deficit of $1,570,444 in the 2006/2007 financial year.


Restricted cash on hand at the end of each financial year increased significantly in08/09. This was due to Royalties for Regions funding allocated to successful projectapplicants but not yet paid to the project administrators as at 30 June 2009. The

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GSDC expenditureLoss on disposal of non-current assetsExpensed capital from PY

Other Expenses

Capital user charge

Supplies and Services incadmin expAccommodation


Employee

Depreciation

-$4,000,000

-$2,000,000

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GSDC revenue vs surplus/deficit

Revenue

Surplus/Deficit



2004/2005 financial year restricted cash balance represents cash held to be used only inaccordance with grant conditions.


GSDC Service Appropriation CAGR shows a decrease by a compound rate of 29% from03/04 to 08/09 financial years.


$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GSDC restricted cash

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GSDC service appropriations

CAGR -29%



GSDC Cost of Service CAGR chart shows that the Cost of Services CAGR decreasedby an annual rate of 10%. The increase in the 2005/2006 expenditure was mainly as aresult of $668,421 for the Vancouver Waterways and capital transfer write-off $720,620for the Albany Boat Harbour project which was transferred to Department of Planningand Infrastructure. The Increase in the 2006/2007 expenditure was mainly as a result ofan amount of $450,000 was paid to the City of Albany for the Albany Leisure and AquaticCentre, $75,000 for the Lake Weerlara project and $75,000 for the Nathan DrewMemorial Trust. If these amounts are taken into account when calculating CAGR thedecrease shows to be at a compound rate of 6%.


7.3.2 Projects

The graphs below illustrate that if the GSDC has the authority to approve project fundingup to $100,000, more than 57% of the projects for the first and 74% for the second roundof the RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date. It also illustrates thatmore than 66% of all grants approved are less than $100,000 but require the sameamount of rigour as amounts up to $500,000.


$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GSDC cost of services

CAGR -10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

GSDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2009/2010 RGSfunding






7.3.3 Staffing

GSDC FTEs were fairly constant over the past 5 financial years with a decrease of 2FTEs from 16 in 2005 to 14 in 2009.


The average salary per employee in GSDC increased from $63,140 in the 04/05financial year to $72,306 in the 08/09 financial year.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

GSDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2008/2009 RGSfunding



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GSDC FTE




The graph below illustrates that the amount of revenue in GSDC increased in terms ofFTE numbers which illustrate that more funding was received to be managed by thesame amount of FTEs. This is an even greater burden due to the fact that the fundingrequires significant additional administration around project applications, monitoringand reporting.


The GSDCs employee expenses increased by a compound annual rate of 2% per yearover the last five financial years. This increase is from $895,416 in the 03/04 financialyear to $1,012,297 in the 08/09 financial year.

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GSDC average salary per employee

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GSDC FTE revenue ratio





The GSDC measures performance in their financial statements as a Cost per Projectindicator. Targets are set during budgeting and reported against calculated actual costs.Actual costs were well below the target for the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 financialyears by around $45,144 per project. Actual costs were higher than target costs by$3,867 per project for the 2005 financial year.


In terms of GSDCs stakeholder satisfaction survey indicators, actual survey results wereabove targets set from 2005 to 2009. These targets were set at an average of 77%where the actual average for the relevant years was 85%.

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

GSDC employee expenses

CAGR 2%

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

$200,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GSDC cost per project

Cost perproject Target

Cost perproject Actual




0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GSDC stakeholder satisfaction survey





7.4 Kimberley development commission

KDCs Cost of Service and Appropriations as well as Employee Expenses increasingover the past five financial years. KDC showed small deficit for one of the past five yearswith a large surplus in 2008/2009. KDC did well from a performance indicatorperspective with only exceeding target cost per project hour twice and the stakeholdersatisfaction survey’s painting a favourable picture.

7.4.1 Financial

The KDC Income graph below illustrates that the significant portion of funding receivedby KDC consists of Service Appropriations and in the 08/09 financial year, the addition ofthe Royalties for Regions funding. The Royalties for Regions funding is represents 46%of the total income for the 08/09 financial year.

Source: PwC Analysis (Kimberley Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009)

KDC Expenditure/Cost of Services that are significant to KDC is Employee BenefitsCosts, Supplies and Services and Grants and Subsidies. The $1.1 million Grants andSubsidies expense in the 05/06 financial year was due to additional grants and subsidiesto Kimberley Development Commission to fund additional activities during the financialyear.

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

KDC income

Royalties forRegions

Resources receivedfree of charge

Serviceappropriation

Other Revenues

Grants andSubsidies




The graph below illustrates that KDC had a deficit of $159,899 in the 2004/2005 financialyear and a surplus of $7 million in the 2008/2009 financial year.



$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

KDC expenditure

Board remunerationand allowancesCapital user charge


Accommodation

Administration


Employee

Depreciation

-$2,000,000

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

KDC Revenue vs. surplus/deficit

Revenue

Surplus/Deficit




KDC Service Appropriation CAGR shows an increase by a compound rate of 9% from03/04 to 08/09 financial years. Service appropriations increased from $1.5 million in the03/04 financial year to $4.1 million in the 08/09 financial year. The large variances in the07/08 and 08/09 financial year are due to the allocation of additional funding to the OrdEnhancement Scheme.


$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

KDC restricted cash

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

$5,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

KDC service appropriations

CAGR 9%



KDC Cost of Service CAGR chart shows that the Cost of Services CAGR increased byan annual rate of 5%.


7.4.2 Projects

The graphs below illustrate that if the KDC has the authority to approve project fundingup to $100,000, more than 74% of the projects for the first and 56% for the second roundof the RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date. It also illustrates thatmore than 65% of all grants approved are less than $100,000 but require the sameamount of rigour as amounts up to $500,000.


$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

KDC cost of services

CAGR 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%KDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2009/2010 RGS funding






7.4.3 Staffing

KDC FTEs were fairly constant over the past 5 financial years with FTEs at 12 in 2005and 2009.


The average salary per employee in KDC increased from $85,860 in the 04/05 financialyear to $117,776 in the 08/09 financial year.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%KDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2008/2009 RGS funding



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

KDC FTE

Positions Vacant

Part-time Contract

Part-time Permanent

Full-time Contract

Full-time Permanent




The graph below illustrates that the amount of revenue in KDC increased in terms ofFTE numbers which illustrate that more funding was received to be managed by thesame amount of FTEs. This is an even greater burden due to the fact that the fundingrequires significant additional administration around project applications, monitoringand reporting.


The KDCs employee expenses increased by a compound annual rate of 5% per yearover the last five financial years which is consistent with the increase of 5% in Cost ofServices. This increase is from $1,030,315 in the 03/04 financial year to $1,413,307 inthe 08/09 financial year.

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

KDC average salary per employee

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

KDC FTE revenue ratio





The KDC measures performance in their financial statements as a Cost per project hourindicator. Targets are set during budgeting and reported against calculated actualresults. Actual costs were well below the target for the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009financial years by around $205 for Service 1 and $207 for Service 2. Actual costs werehigher than target costs by $81 for Service 1 and $93 for Service 2 for the 2005 financialyear.


In terms of KDCs stakeholder satisfaction survey indicators, actual survey results wereabove targets set for the 2005 and 2008 financial years. These targets were set at 90%where the average for all years was 92%.

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

KDC employee expenses

CAGR 5%

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

KDC cost per project hour

Service 1 Target

Service 1 Actual

Service 2 Target

Service 2 Actual




84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

KDC stakeholder satisfaction survey





7.5 Mid west development commission

MWDCs Cost of Service and Appropriations as well as Employee Expenses increasingover the past five financial years. MWDC showed a deficit in one of the past five yearswith a large surplus in 2008/2009. MWDC did well from a performance indicatorperspective with only exceeding the cost per client visit and cost per project once andthe stakeholder satisfaction survey’s painting a favourable picture.

7.5.1 Financial

The MWDC Income graph below illustrates that the significant portion of fundingreceived by MWDC consists of Service Appropriations and in the 08/09 financial year,the addition of the Royalties for Regions funding. The Royalties for Regions funding isrepresents 47% of the total income for the 08/09 financial year.

Source: PwC Analysis (Mid West Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009)

MWDC Expenditure/Cost of Services that are significant to MWDC is Employee BenefitsCosts, Supplies and Services and Grants and Subsidies. The $4.1 million Grants andSubsidies expense in the 08/09 financial year relate to the following payments:

$371,700 for Geraldton Boat Lifters Limited's heavy boat lifting facility, which thebudget assumed was provided in 2007/08

$229,000 for Department of Planning and Infrastructure's upgrade to the KalbarriJetty, which the budget assumed was provided in 2007/08

an additional $211,640 to the City of Geraldton-Greenough for its ForeshoreRedevelopment and CBD Revitalisation project from the project's carryoverfunding from 2007/08.

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

MWDC income

Gains on disposals

Liabilities assumed by theTreasurer

State Government grantsand subsidies


Resources received freeof charge


Other Revenue

Commonwealth grantsand contributions




The graph below illustrates that MWDC had a deficit of $1.3 million in the 2007/2008financial year and a surplus of $3.6 million in the 2008/2009 financial year.



$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

MWDC expenditure

Other expenses

Loss on disposal of noncurrent assets

Grants and subsidies

Accommodation

Depreciation andamortisation


Employee benefitsexpense

-$2,000,000

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

MWDC revenue vs surplus/deficit

Revenue

Surplus/Deficit




MWDC Service Appropriation CAGR shows an increase by a compound rate of 4% from03/04 to 08/09 financial years. Service appropriations increased from $1.9 million in the03/04 financial year to $4.3 million in the 08/09 financial year. The $6.1 millionappropriation for 05/06 includes the following amounts:

$2.6 million for the Geraldton Foreshore Redevelopment project (2004/05 $1.4million)

$1.5 million for establishment of the Geraldton Marine Services Precinct

$0.5 million for expansion of the Queen Elizabeth II Centre.


$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

MWDC restricted cash

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

MWDC service appropriation

CAGR 4%



MWDC Cost of Service CAGR chart shows that the Cost of Services CAGR increasedby an annual rate of 9%. The variance in the 2007/2008 financial year relate to:

$4.1 million provided for the City of Geraldton-Greenough's ForeshoreRedevelopment and CBD Revitalisation project (2006/07 $1.9 million). Thisproject's funding requirements varies from one year to the next depending on themilestones achieved and the Commission's contribution level

$1.1 million paid to Geraldton Boat Lifters Limited for infrastructure required for theestablishment of its heavy boat lifting facility (2006/07 nil). A further $0.4 million isexpected to be provided in 2008/09

$225,000 paid to the City of Geraldton-Greenough (CGG) for extensions to theQueen Elizabeth II centre (2006/07 nil). A further $225,000 is expected to beprovided to CGG in 2008/09.


7.5.2 Projects

The graphs below illustrate that if the MWDC has the authority to approve projectfunding up to $100,000, more than 64% of the projects for the first and 54% for thesecond round of the RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date. It alsoillustrates that more than 59% of all grants approved are less than $100,000 but requirethe same amount of rigour as amounts up to $500,000.

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

MWDC cost of service

CAGR 9%





7.5.3 Staffing

MWDC FTEs increased over the past 5 financial years by 3 FTEs from 13 in 2005 to 16in 2009.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MWDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2009/2010 RGSfunding



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MWDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2008/2009 RGSfunding






The average salary per employee in MWDC is the same in 2009 as it was in 2005. Thedecrease between the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 financial years was as a result of thetwo additional FTEs in the 2007/2008 financial year.


The graph below illustrates that the amount of revenue in MWDC increased in terms ofFTE numbers which illustrate that more funding was received to be managed by thesame amount of FTEs. This is an even greater burden due to the fact that the funding

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

MWDC FTE

$66,000

$68,000

$70,000

$72,000

$74,000

$76,000

$78,000

$80,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

MWDC average salary per employee



requires significant additional administration around project applications, monitoring andreporting. The increased Revenue Ratio in 2006 was due to the administration ofadditional funding as highlighted in the MWDC Service Appropriation graph.


The MWDCs employee expenses increased by a compound annual rate of 1% per yearover the last five financial years. This increase is from $1,078 in the 03/04 financial yearto $1,131,379 in the 08/09 financial year.

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

MWDC FTE revenue ratio





The MWDC measures performance in their financial statements as a Cost per enquiryand client visit for Service 1 and Cost per project for Service 2 indicators. Targets are setduring budgeting and reported against calculated actual costs. Actual costs were wellbelow the target for all financial years for Service 1 except for Cost per client visit in 2007which was $29 above target rate.

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

MWDC employee expenses

CAGR 1%




Targets are set during budgeting and reported against calculated actual costs. Actualcosts were well below the target for all financial years except for Service 2 in the 2006financial year which was $8,404 above target rate.


$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

MWDC average cost per service typeService 1: Informationand advice

Cost per enquiryTarget

Cost per enquiryActual

Cost per client visitTarget

Cost per client visitActual

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

MWDC average cost per project

Service 2: InvestmentFacilitation Target

Service 2: InvestmentFacilitation Actual

Service 3: Infrastructureand Services in the MidWest Target

Service 3: Infrastructureand Services in the MidWest Actual



In terms of MWDCs stakeholder satisfaction survey indicators, actual survey resultswere well above targets set for all financial years. These targets were set at an averageof 36% where the average for the relevant years was 40%.


30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

MWDC stakeholder satisfaction survey

StakeholderSatisfaction SurveyTarget

StakeholderSatisfaction SurveyActual



7.6 Peel development commission

PDCs Cost of Service and Appropriations increase in the past five financial years withEmployee Expenses decreasing. PDC showed deficits for three of the past five yearswith a large surplus in 2008/2009. PDC did well from a performance indicatorperspective with only exceeding cost per service once but the stakeholder satisfactionsurvey’s not favourable over the past five financial years.

7.6.1 Financial

The PDC Income graph below illustrates that the significant portion of funding receivedby PDC consists of Service Appropriations and in the 08/09 financial year, the addition ofthe Royalties for Regions funding. The Royalties for Regions funding is represents 41%of the total income for the 08/09 financial year.

Source: PwC Analysis (Peel Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009)

PDC Expenditure/Cost of Services that are significant to PDC is Employee BenefitsCosts, Supplies and Services and Grants and Subsidies. The increase in Grants andSubsidies for the 06/07, 07/08 and 08/09 financial years relate to additional funding forprojects received and expensed.

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC income


Grants fromGovernment Agencies

Liabilities assumed bythe Treasurer

User Charges andFees


Other Revenues

Grants andContributions




The graph below illustrates that PDC had a deficits in the 2004/2005, 2005/2006 and2006/2007 financial years. The deficit for the 2006/2007 financial year was $940,860with a surplus of $6 million in the 2008/2009 financial year.


PDC disclosed an amount in restricted cash on hand for the first time in the 08/09financial year end. This was due to Royalties for Regions funding allocated to successfulproject applicants but not yet paid to the project administrators as at 30 June 2009.

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC expensesOther Expenses

Supplies andServices

Accommodation

Capital User Cost

Grants andSubsidies

Employee

Depreciation

-$2,000,000

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC revenue vs surplus/deficit

Revenue

Surplus/Deficit




PDC Service Appropriation CAGR shows an increase by a compound rate of 2% from03/04 to 08/09 financial years. Service appropriations increased from $2.8 million in the03/04 financial year to $4.7 million in the 08/09 financial year. The $4.9 millionappropriation for 07/08 includes for a one off significant project.


PDC Cost of Service CAGR chart shows that the Cost of Services CAGR increased byan annual rate of 9%. This increase in the 07/08 financial year was due to expenditurefor an one off significant project.

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC restricted cash

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC service appropriation

CAGR 2%




7.6.2 Projects

The graphs below illustrate that if the PDC has the authority to approve project fundingup to $100,000, more than 69% of the projects for the first and 50% for the second roundof the RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date. It also illustrates thatmore than 60% of all grants approved are less than $100,000 but require the sameamount of rigour as amounts up to $500,000.


$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC cost of service

CAGR 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2009/2010 RGS funding

2009/2010Cumulative%

2009/2010 %of Projectsaboveamountrange




7.6.3 Staffing

PDC FTEs decrease over the past 5 financial years from 20 FTEs in 2005 to 13 in 2009.This was due to a decrease in the number of full-time contract workers from 2005 to2006 form 9 FTEs to 1 FTE.


The average salary per employee in PDC increased from $63,928 in the 04/05 financialyear to $81,222 in the 08/09 financial year.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


2008/2009Cumulative%

2008/2009 %of Projectsaboveamountrange

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

PDC FTE

On Secondment

Part-time Measuredon a FTE basis

Full-time Contract

Full-time Permanent




The graph below illustrates that the amount of revenue in PDC increased in terms ofFTE numbers which illustrate that more funding was received to be managed by thesame amount of FTEs. This is an even greater burden due to the fact that the fundingrequires significant additional administration around project applications, monitoringand reporting.


The PDCs employee expenses decreased by a compound annual rate of 2% per yearover the last five financial years. This increase is from $1,278,567 in the 04/05 financialyear to $1,055,881 in the 08/09 financial year.

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC average salary per employee

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

PDC FTE revenue ratio





The PDC measures performance in their financial statements as a Cost per service hourindicator. Targets are set during budgeting and reported against calculated actual costs.Actual costs were well below the target for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 financial years byaround $130 per service hour for Information and Promotion and $43 for Facilitation.


$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC employee expense

CAGR -2%

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC cost per service

Information &Promotion Target

Information &Promotion Actual

Facililatation Target

Facililatation Actual



In terms of PDCs stakeholder satisfaction survey indicators, actual survey resultswere below targets set for all the financial years. These targets were set at an averageof 85% over the five financial years where the average actual results reflected a 80%survey result.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC stakeholder satisfaction survey





7.7 Pilbara development commission

PDCs Cost of Service and Appropriations decrease in the past five financial years withEmployee Expenses increasing. PDC showed a deficit for two of the past five years witha large surplus in 2008/2009. PDC performance indicator showed that actual costsregularly exceeded their target costs and the stakeholder satisfaction survey isdecreasing at a rapid rate even though still showing a favourable figure.

7.7.1 Financial

The PDC Income graph below illustrates that the significant portion of funding receivedby PDC consists of Service Appropriations and in the 08/09 financial year, the addition ofthe Royalties for Regions funding. The Royalties for Regions funding is represents 56%of the total income for the 08/09 financial year.

Source: PwC Analysis (Pilbara Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009)

PDC Expenditure/Cost of Services that are significant to PDC is Employee BenefitsCosts, Supplies and Services and Grants and Subsidies. The 2007/2008 Grants andSubsidies variance is due to the final instalment of grant funding for the Port HedlandEnhancement Scheme received in 2007/2008 in lieu of 2006/2007.

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC income

Gain on disposal

Royalties for RegionsFund

Liabilities assumed by theTreasurer


Grants received fromGovernment


Sale of goods andservices

State grants

Other Revenue




The graph below illustrates that PDC had a deficits in the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008financial years. The deficit for the 2006/2007 financial year was $4.7 million with asurplus of $2.6 million in the 2008/2009 financial year.


Restricted cash on hand at the end of each financial year increased in 08/09. This wasdue to Royalties for Regions funding allocated to successful project applicants but notyet paid to the project administrators as at 30 June 2009.

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC expenditure

Other Expenses

Capital User Charge


Accommodationexpenses

Depreciation andamortisation expense


Employee benefitsexpense

-$6,000,000

-$4,000,000

-$2,000,000

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC revenue vs surplus/deficit

Revenue

Surplus/Deficit




PDC Service Appropriation CAGR shows a decrease by a compound rate of 24% from03/04 to 08/09 financial years. The appropriation amounts for the 04/05 and 05/06financial years include amounts allocated for the Pilbara fund, North West Sea TurtleInterpretive Centre and a Dust Suppression program.


PDC Cost of Service CAGR chart shows that the Cost of Services CAGR decreased byan annual rate of 5%. The decrease in costs in the 08/09 financial year was due to adecrease in Grants and Subsidies as a result of programs ceased at the end of 07/08.

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC restricted cash

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC service appropriation

CAGR -30%




7.7.2 Projects

The graphs below illustrate that if the PDC has the authority to approve project fundingup to $100,000, more than 79% of the projects for the first and 65% for the second roundof the RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date. It also illustrates thatmore than 72% of all grants approved are less than $100,000 but require the sameamount of rigour as amounts up to $500,000.


$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC cost of service

CAGR -5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%







7.7.3 Staffing

PDC FTEs were fairly constant over the past 5 financial years with an increase of 1 FTEfrom 11 in 2005 to 12 in 2009.


The average salary per employee in PDC increased from $119,664 in the 04/05 financialyear to $169,833 in the 08/09 financial year.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

PDC FTE




The graph below illustrates that the amount of revenue in PDC decreased in terms ofFTE numbers which illustrate that less funding was received to be managed by the sameamount of FTEs. This is as a result of additional funding received in the 2005 and 2006financial years as illustrated in the service appropriation graph.


The PDCs employee expenses increased by a compound annual rate of 10% per yearover the last five financial years. This increase is from $1,195,629 in the 03/04 financialyear to $2,038,000 in the 08/09 financial year.

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC average salary per employee

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

PDC FTE revenue ratio





The PDC measures performance in their financial statements as a Cost per serviceindicator for the three Services. Targets are set during budgeting and reported againstcalculated actual costs. Actual costs were regularly exceeding the target coststhroughout the last five financial years.


In terms of PDCs stakeholder satisfaction survey indicators, actual survey results werewell above targets set for the all the financial years but at a decreasing rate. Thesetargets were set at an average rate of 80% where the average actual rate achieved was85%. The actual rate achieved decreased from 90% in 2005 to 80% in 2009.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PDC employee benefits expense

CAGR 10%

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

PDC cost per service

Service 1 Target

Service 1 Actual

Service 2 Target

Service 2 Actual

Service 3 Target

Service 3 Actual




74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

PDC stakeholder satisfaction survey





7.8 South west development commission

SWDCs Cost of Service decreased with Appropriations and Employee Expensesincreasing over the past five financial years. SWDC showed deficits for three of the pastfive years with a large surplus in 2008/2009. SWDC did well from a performanceindicator perspective with not exceeding target cost per project hour but the stakeholdersatisfaction survey is not favourable with actual results well below targets on numerousoccasions throughout the past five financial years.

7.8.1 Financial

The SWDC Income graph below illustrates that the significant portion of funding receivedby SWDC consists of Service Appropriations and in the 08/09 financial year, the additionof the Royalties for Regions funding. The Royalties for Regions funding is represents23% of the total income for the 08/09 financial year.

Source: PwC Analysis (South West Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009)

SWDC Expenditure/Cost of Services that are significant to SWDC is Employee BenefitsCosts, Supplies and Services and Grants and Subsidies. The higher Supplies andServices as well as Grants and Subsidies expenses in the 2006/2007 financial yearrelate to $2,000,000 was made to LandCorp towards the Picton Sewerage Project andother larger projects including the Bunbury Coastal Enhancement Project. Theexpenditure is covered through additional funding received.

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

SWDC income Royalties for Regions

Grants fromGovernment AgenciesInterest Revenue

Resources received freeof chargeLiabilities assumed bythe TreasurerSales

User Charges and Fees


Other Revenues

Grants andContributions




The graph below illustrates that SWDC had a deficits in the 2003/2004, 2005/2006,2006/2007 and 2007/2008 financial years. The deficit for the 2003/2004 financial yearwas $5.6 million with a surplus of $10.8 million in the 2008/2009 financial year.



$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

SWDC expenditure

Loss of Disposal onnon-current assetsCost of Sales

Other Expenses

Finance Costs


Accommodation

Borrowing CostExpenseGrants and Subsidies

Employee

Depreciation

-$10,000,000

-$5,000,000

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

SWDC revenue vs surplus/deficit

Revenue

Surplus/Deficit




SWDC Service Appropriation CAGR shows an increase by a compound rate of 11%from 03/04 to 08/09 financial years. Service appropriations increased from $3.7 million inthe 03/04 financial year to $11.5 million in the 08/09 financial year.


SWDC Cost of Service CAGR chart shows that the Cost of Services CAGR decreasedby an annual rate of 13%. This is however not a true reflection as the increase in costswas due to additional expenditure on large projects as mentioned in the SWDCexpenditure graph.

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

SWDC restricted cash

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

SWDC service appropriation

CAGR 11%




7.8.2 Projects

The graphs below illustrate that if the SWDC has the authority to approve project fundingup to $100,000, more than 86% of the projects for the first and 79% for the second roundof the RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date. It also illustrates thatmore than 83% of all grants approved are less than $100,000 but require the sameamount of rigour as amounts up to $500,000.


$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

SWDC cost of service

CAGR -13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SWDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2009/2010 RGSfunding






7.8.3 Staffing

SWDC FTEs were fairly constant over the past 5 financial years 23 FTEs in 2005 as wellas 2009.


The average salary per employee in SWDC increased from $73,424 in the 04/05financial year to $86,911 in the 08/09 financial year.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SWDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2008/2009 RGSfunding



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

SWDC FTE

On Secondment

Part-time Measuredon a FTE basis

Full-time Contract

Full-time Permanent




The graph below illustrates that the amount of revenue in SWDC increased in terms ofFTE numbers which illustrate that more funding was received to be managed by thesame amount of FTEs. This is an even greater burden due to the fact that the fundingrequires significant additional administration around project applications, monitoringand reporting.


The SWDCs employee expenses increased by a compound annual rate of 4% per yearover the last five financial years. This increase is from $1,566,505 in the 03/04 financialyear to $1,998,969 in the 08/09 financial year.

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

SWDC average salary per employee

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

SWDC FTE revenue ratio





The SWDC measures performance in their financial statements as a Cost per projecthour indicator. Targets are set during budgeting and reported against calculated actualcosts. Actual costs were above the target for the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 financialyears by around $11 per project hour.


In terms of SWDCs stakeholder satisfaction survey indicators, actual survey results wereabove targets set for the 2008 and 2009 for Client Average as well as Key Clients.These targets were set at 76% where the average for the relevant years was 55%.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

SWDC employee expense

CAGR 4%

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

SWDC cost per project hour

Target

Actual




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2006 2007 2008 2009

SWDC stakeholder satisfaction survey

Target

Client Average

LocalGovernment

Key Clients



7.9 Wheatbelt development commission

WDCs Appropriations was constant with Cost of Service and Employee Expensesincreasing over the past five financial years. WDC showed small surpluses for four of thepast five years with a large surplus in 2008/2009. WDC did well from a performanceindicator perspective with only exceeding target cost per service twice over the past fivefinancial years.

7.9.1 Financial

The WDC Income graph below illustrates that the significant portion of funding receivedby WDC consists of Service Appropriations and in the 08/09 financial year, the additionof the Royalties for Regions funding. The Royalties for Regions funding is represents68% of the total income for the 08/09 financial year.

Source: PwC Analysis (Wheatbelt Annual Reports 2004/2005 to 2008/2009)

WDC Expenditure/Cost of Services that are significant to WDC is Employee BenefitsCosts, Supplies and Services and Grants and Subsidies.

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

WDC income

Gain of Disposal on non-current assets


Grants from GovernmentAgencies



Other Revenues

Grants and Contributions




The graph below illustrates that WDC did not have any deficits in the past five financialyears. The surplus in 2004/2005 was $95,733 with surplus of $4.1 million in 2008/2009financial year.



$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

WDC expenditure

Loss on Disposal on non-current assetsOther Expenses

Adminstration expense


Accommodation

Capital User Cost


Employee

Depreciation

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

WDC revenue vs. surplus/deficit

Revenue

Surplus/Deficit




WDC Service Appropriation CAGR shows that the appropriation allocation was constantover the past five financial years. Appropriation for the 2003/2004 financial year was$1.4 million and $1.6 million in the 2008/2009 financial year.


WDC Cost of Service CAGR chart shows that the Cost of Services CAGR increased byan annual rate of 5%. Service costs for the 2003/2004 financial year was $1.9 millionand $2.5 million in the 2008/2009 financial year.

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

WDC restricted cash

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

WDC service appropriation

CAGR 0%




7.9.2 Projects

The graphs below illustrate that if the WDC has the authority to approve project fundingup to $100,000, more than 50% of the projects for the first and 58% for the second roundof the RGS funding could have been started at an earlier date. It also illustrates thatmore than 54% of all grants approved are less than $100,000 but require the sameamount of rigour as amounts up to $500,000.


$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

WDC cost of service

CAGR 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

WDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2009/2010 RGS funding






7.9.3 Staffing

WDC FTEs were fairly constant over the past 5 financial years with 15 FTEs in 2005 and2009.


The average salary per employee in WDC increased from $72,000 in the 04/05 financialyear to $81,187 in the 08/09 financial year.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

WDC Distribution of amounts approved for 2008/2009 RGS funding



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

WDC FTE




The graph below illustrates that the amount of revenue in WDC increased in terms ofFTE numbers which illustrate that more funding was received to be managed by thesame amount of FTEs. This is an even greater burden due to the fact that the fundingrequires significant additional administration around project applications, monitoring andreporting. The increase in FTE Revenue ration for the 2006, 2007 and 2008 financialyears was due to FTEs decreasing to 14, 13 and 10 in the relevant financial years. Thecomprisable increase was from $136,821 in 2004/2005 to $161,018 in the 2008/2009financial year.


$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

Average salary

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

WRDC FTE revenue ratio



The WDCs employee expenses increased by a compound annual rate of 2% per yearover the last five financial years. This increase is from $1,083,684 in the 03/04 financialyear to $1,217,800 in the 08/09 financial year.



The WDC measures performance in their financial statements as a Cost per service hourindicator. Targets are set during budgeting and reported against calculated actual costs.Actual costs were above the target for the 2007 and 2009 financial years by around $7per service hour.

$900,000

$950,000

$1,000,000

$1,050,000

$1,100,000

$1,150,000

$1,200,000

$1,250,000

03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

WDC employee expense

CAGR 2%




$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

WDC cost per service

Information &Promotion Target

Information &Promotion Actual

Facililatation Target

Facililatation Actual

© 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. "PricewaterhouseCoopers" refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers, a partnership formed in Australia or, as the contextrequires, the PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other member firms of the network, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.

5.ReportoftheReviewoftheRegional Development Commissions Act 1993(June2004)

6.Regional Development CommissionsAct 1993

As at 05 Nov 2010 Version 02-d0-00 Extract from www.slp.wa.gov.au, see that website for further information

Western Australia

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993

As at 05 Nov 2010 Version 02-d0-00 page i Extract from www.slp.wa.gov.au, see that website for further information

Western Australia


CONTENTS

Part 1 — Preliminary 1. Short title 2 2. Commencement 2 3. Interpretation 2

Part 2 — Establishment of regional development commissions

4. Gascoyne Development Commission established 4 5. Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission

established 4 6. Great Southern Development Commission

established 4 7. Kimberley Development Commission established 4 8. Mid West Development Commission established 5 9. Peel Development Commission established 5 10. Pilbara Development Commission established 5 11. South West Development Commission established 5 12. Wheatbelt Development Commission established 6 13. Amendment of Schedule 1 6

Part 3 — Operation of commissions

Division 1 — Constitution and proceedings of commissions

14. Status of a commission 7


Contents

page ii Version 02-d0-00 As at 05 Nov 2010 Extract from www.slp.wa.gov.au, see that website for further information

15. Board of management of a commission 7 16. Method of appointment of appointed members 7 17. Constitution and proceedings of a board 8 18. Delegation by board 8 19. Remuneration and allowances of appointed

members and members of committees 8 20. Protection of board members and members of

committees 9 21. Disclosure of pecuniary interests 9 22. Execution of documents by a commission 10

Division 2 — Functions and powers of a commission

23. Objects and functions of a commission 11 24. Powers of a commission 12 25. Minister may give directions 13 26. Minister to have access to information 14

Division 3 — Director and other staff of a commission

27. Appointment and functions of Director and other staff 14

28. Engagement of consultants 15 29. Use of staff and facilities of departments, agencies

and instrumentalities 16 30. Secrecy 16

Division 4 — Financial provisions 31. Funds of a commission 17 32. Application of Financial Management Act 2006

and the Auditor General Act 2006 17

Part 4 — Regional Development Council

33. Regional Development Council established 19 34. Membership of Council 19 35. Functions of the Council 19 36. Council procedures 20 37. Protection of Council members 20


Contents

As at 05 Nov 2010 Version 02-d0-00 page iii Extract from www.slp.wa.gov.au, see that website for further information

Part 5 — Vesting of land of former authorities

38. Definition 21 39. Vesting of land 21 40. Powers in relation to land 21 41. Registration of documents 22

Part 6 — General 42. Regulations 23 43. Transitional provisions 23 45. Review of Act 23

Schedule 1

Regions defined by reference to districts

Schedule 2

Part 1 — Constitution and proceedings of a board

1. Term of office of appointed member 26 2. Vacation of office by appointed member 26 3. Temporary members 27 4. Meetings of a board 27 5. Resolution may be passed without meeting 28 6. Leave of absence 28 7. Board to determine own procedures 28

Part 2 — Regional Development Advisory Committees and other committees

Division 1 — Regional Development Advisory Committees

8. Establishment 28 9. Functions 29 10. Committee procedures and time for reporting 29

Division 2 — Other committees 11. Establishment of other committees 30


Contents

page iv Version 02-d0-00 As at 05 Nov 2010 Extract from www.slp.wa.gov.au, see that website for further information

Schedule 3

Transitional provisions 1. Succession by new bodies 31 2. Assets, liabilities, etc. 32 3. Moneys in Account 32 4. References to repealed legislation 33 5. References to existing body 33 6. Annual report by existing bodies 33

Notes Compilation table 34 Provisions that have not come into operation 35

As at 05 Nov 2010 Version 02-d0-00 page 1 Extract from www.slp.wa.gov.au, see that website for further information

Western Australia


An Act to establish regional development commissions to coordinate and promote the economic development of regions of Western Australia, to provide for the establishment of regional development advisory committees, to establish a Regional Development Council, to continue existing regional development bodies as commissions under this Act, to repeal certain Acts and for related purposes.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 1 Preliminary

s. 1

page 2 Version 02-d0-00 As at 05 Nov 2010 Extract from www.slp.wa.gov.au, see that website for further information

Part 1 — Preliminary

1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 1.

2. Commencement

This Act comes into operation on such day as is, or days as are respectively, fixed by proclamation 1.

3. Interpretation

(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears —

appointed member means a member of a board appointed under section 15(1)(b);

board means a board of management referred to in section 15(1);

board member means the Director or an appointed member;

commission means a body established by a provision of Part 2;

committee means a Regional Development Advisory Committee or other committee appointed under Part 2 of Schedule 2;

Council means the Council established by section 33;

Director means the person holding or acting in the office of the Director of a commission referred to in section 27;

region means a region described in Schedule 1;

repealed Act means an Act repealed by section 5(3), 6(3), 8(3), 10(3) or 11(3).

(2) In this Act, subject to subsection (3) —

Minister means the Minister to whom the administration of this Act is for the time being committed by the Governor.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Preliminary Part 1

s. 3


(3) In Parts 3 and 5 and Schedule 2 —

Minister, in relation to a commission, means the Minister to whom the administration of that commission is for the time being committed by the Governor.

[Section 3 amended by No. 14 of 1996 s. 4; No. 18 of 2001 s. 4; No. 28 of 2006 s. 370.]

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 2 Establishment of regional development commissions

s. 4


Part 2 — Establishment of regional development commissions

4. Gascoyne Development Commission established

(1) There is established by this section a body called the Gascoyne Development Commission.

(2) The Gascoyne Development Commission is to perform its functions in respect of the region described in Part A of Schedule 1.

5. Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission established

(1) There is established by this section a body called the Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission.

(2) The Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission is to perform its functions in respect of the region described in Part B of Schedule 1.

(3) The Goldfields-Esperance Development Authority Act 1990 is repealed.

6. Great Southern Development Commission established

(1) There is established by this section a body called the Great Southern Development Commission.

(2) The Great Southern Development Commission is to perform its functions in respect of the region described in Part C of Schedule 1.

(3) The Great Southern Development Authority Act 1987 is repealed.

7. Kimberley Development Commission established

(1) There is established by this section a body called the Kimberley Development Commission.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Establishment of regional development commissions Part 2

s. 8


(2) The Kimberley Development Commission is to perform its functions in respect of the region described in Part D of Schedule 1.

8. Mid West Development Commission established

(1) There is established by this section a body called the Mid West Development Commission.

(2) The Mid West Development Commission is to perform its functions in respect of the region described in Part E of Schedule 1.

(3) The Geraldton Mid-West Development Authority Act 1988 is repealed.

9. Peel Development Commission established

(1) There is established by this section a body called the Peel Development Commission.

(2) The Peel Development Commission is to perform its functions in respect of the region described in Part F of Schedule 1.

10. Pilbara Development Commission established

(1) There is established by this section a body called the Pilbara Development Commission.

(2) The Pilbara Development Commission is to perform its functions in respect of the region described in Part G of Schedule 1.

(3) The Pilbara Development Commission Act 1992 is repealed.

11. South West Development Commission established

(1) There is established by this section a body called the South West Development Commission.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 2 Establishment of regional development commissions

s. 12


(2) The South West Development Commission is to perform its functions in respect of the region described in Part H of Schedule 1.

(3) The South West Development Authority Act 1984 is repealed.

12. Wheatbelt Development Commission established

(1) There is established by this section a body called the Wheatbelt Development Commission.

(2) The Wheatbelt Development Commission is to perform its functions in respect of the region described in Part I of Schedule 1.

13. Amendment of Schedule 1

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor may make regulations amending Schedule 1 for the purposes of changing the boundaries of any region.

(2) Regulations may only be made under subsection (1) if each of the commissions affected by proposed regulations have recommended that the regulations be made.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Operation of commissions Part 3

Constitution and proceedings of commissions Division 1

s. 14


Part 3 — Operation of commissions

Division 1 — Constitution and proceedings of commissions

14. Status of a commission

(1) A commission is a body corporate with perpetual succession.

(2) Proceedings may be taken by or against a commission in that commission’s corporate name.

(3) A commission is an agent of the Crown.

15. Board of management of a commission

(1) Subject to section 16, a commission is to have a board of management comprising —

(a) the Director, by virtue of his or her office; and

(b) a prescribed number of other members, not exceeding 9, who are to be appointed by the Minister in the prescribed manner.

(2) A board is the governing body of a commission with authority, in the name of that commission, to perform the functions of that commission.

(3) The Minister is to appoint a member of a board to be chairperson and another member to be deputy chairperson.

(4) The Minister is to cause notice of each appointment under this section to be published in the Gazette.

16. Method of appointment of appointed members

Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (b) of section 15(1) are to be consistent with the following, unless particular circumstances require otherwise —

(a) one third of the members referred to in that paragraph are to be persons who are resident in the region and nominated in accordance with the regulations;

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 3 Operation of commissions Division 1 Constitution and proceedings of commissions

s. 17


(b) one third of those members are to be members of the council of a local government in the region and are to be nominated by local governments in the region in accordance with the regulations; and

(c) one third of those members are to be appointed at the Minister’s discretion.

[Section 16 amended by No. 14 of 1996 s. 4; No. 16 of 1997 s. 4.]

17. Constitution and proceedings of a board

Schedule 2 has effect with respect to the constitution and proceedings of a board.

18. Delegation by board

(1) A board may, by resolution, delegate to an appointed member, the Director or another officer referred to in section 27(1) or a committee, either generally or otherwise as provided by the instrument of delegation, the performance of all or any of its functions, except this power of delegation.

(2) A function delegated under this section may be performed by the delegate in accordance with the instrument of delegation and, when so performed, is, for the purposes of this Act, to be taken to have been performed by the delegating board.

19. Remuneration and allowances of appointed members and members of committees

(1) Subject to subsection (2), an appointed member or a member of a committee, other than a person who is an officer of the Public Service, is to be paid such remuneration and travelling and other allowances as the Minister from time to time, after consultation with the Minister for Public Sector Management 2, determines in respect of that member.


Constitution and proceedings of commissions Division 1

s. 20


(2) A member of a committee established under clause 11 of Schedule 2 —

(a) is not to be paid remuneration, unless the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Public Sector Management 2, determines that payment is to be made in respect of that member; but

(b) is entitled to be paid out-of-pocket expenses for travel and accommodation in connection with the discharge of his or her duties.

20. Protection of board members and members of committees

(1) A board member or a member of a committee is not personally liable for any act done or omitted to be done in good faith by a commission, a board, a committee or by that person acting as a board member or as a member of a committee.

(2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to the Statutory Corporations (Liability of Directors) Act 1996 so far as it applies to the Mid West Development Commission or the South West Development Commission.

[Section 20 amended by No. 41 of 1996 s. 3.]

21. Disclosure of pecuniary interests

(1) A board member or a member of a committee who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered by that board or that committee must, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to his or her knowledge, disclose the nature of his or her interest at a meeting of the board or the committee, as the case requires.

(2) A disclosure under subsection (1) is to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the board or the committee concerned and, unless the board or that committee otherwise determines, the board member or member of the committee must not —

(a) be present during any deliberation; or

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 3 Operation of commissions Division 1 Constitution and proceedings of commissions

s. 22


(b) take part in any decision,

of the board or that committee with respect to the matter to which the disclosure relates.

(3) For the purpose of the making of a determination by a board or a committee under subsection (2) in relation to a member of the board or committee who has made a disclosure under subsection (1), that member must not —

(a) be present during any deliberation of the board or committee for the purpose of making the determination; or

(b) take part in the making of the determination by the board or committee.

(4) A board member or member of a committee who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of this section commits an offence.

Penalty: $5 000.

22. Execution of documents by a commission

(1) A document is duly executed by a commission, if —

(a) the common seal of that commission is affixed to the document in accordance with subsections (2) and (3); or

(b) the document is signed on behalf of that commission by a board member or members or an officer or officers of that commission in accordance with an authorisation given under subsection (4).

(2) The common seal of a commission must not be affixed to any document except by resolution of the board of that commission.

(3) The common seal of a commission is to be affixed to a document in the presence of the chairperson and one other board member and each of them is to sign the document to attest that the common seal was so affixed.


Functions and powers of a commission Division 2

s. 23


(4) A board may, in writing under its common seal, authorise a member or members of that board, or an officer or officers of the relevant commission to sign documents on behalf of that commission, either generally or subject to such conditions or restrictions as may be specified by the board in the authorisation.

(5) A document purporting to be executed in accordance with this section is presumed to be duly executed until the contrary is shown.

(6) When a document is produced bearing a seal purporting to be the common seal of a commission, it is to be presumed that the seal is the common seal of that commission until the contrary is shown.

Division 2 — Functions and powers of a commission

23. Objects and functions of a commission

(1) The objects of a commission are to —

(a) maximize job creation and improve career opportunities in the region;

(b) develop and broaden the economic base of the region;

(c) identify infrastructure services to promote economic and social development within the region;

(d) provide information and advice to promote business development within the region;

(e) seek to ensure that the general standard of government services and access to those services in the region is comparable to that which applies in the metropolitan area; and

(f) generally take steps to encourage, promote, facilitate and monitor the economic development in the region.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 3 Operation of commissions Division 2 Functions and powers of a commission

s. 24


(2) For the purposes of achieving those objects a commission is to —

(a) promote the region;

(b) facilitate coordination between relevant statutory bodies and State government agencies;

(c) cooperate with representatives of industry and commerce, employer and employee organizations, education and training institutions and other sections of the community within the region;

(d) identify the opportunities for investment in the region and encourage that investment;

(e) identify the infrastructure needs of the region, and encourage the provision of that infrastructure in the region; and

(f) cooperate with —

(i) departments of the Public Service of the State and the Commonwealth, and other agencies, instrumentalities and statutory bodies of the State and the Commonwealth; and

(ii) local governments,

in order to promote equitable delivery of services within the region.


24. Powers of a commission

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a commission has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions.

(1a) Without limiting subsection (1), a commission may, for or in connection with the performance of its functions, provide financial support in the form of a grant.


Functions and powers of a commission Division 2

s. 25


(2) Subsection (1) does not empower a commission —

(a) subject to Part 5, to enter into any business undertaking either directly or indirectly;

(b) to acquire land or any estate or interest in land other than a tenancy to provide office premises for the commission; or

(c) to borrow money or obtain financial accommodation.

(3) In performing its functions, a commission may act in conjunction with —

(a) any person; or

(b) any department of the Public Service, or other agency or instrumentality, of the State or the Commonwealth.

(4) The requirement of disclosure in section 28(2) applies to a person referred to in subsection (3).

[Section 24 amended by No. 5 of 2003 s. 4(1).]

25. Minister may give directions

(1) The Minister may give directions in writing to a commission with respect to the performance of its functions, either generally or in relation to a particular matter, and the commission is to give effect to any such direction.

(2) The text of any direction given under subsection (1) is to be included in the annual report submitted by the accountable authority of the relevant commission under Part 5 of the Financial Management Act 2006.

(3) Subsection (1) has effect subject to the Statutory Corporations (Liability of Directors) Act 1996 so far as it applies to the Mid West Development Commission or the South West Development Commission.


Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 3 Operation of commissions Division 3 Director and other staff of a commission

s. 26


26. Minister to have access to information

(1) The Minister is entitled —

(a) to have information in the possession of a commission; and

(b) where the information is in or on a document, to have, and make and retain copies of, that document.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Minister may —

(a) request a commission to furnish information to the Minister;

(b) request a commission to give the Minister access to information;

(c) for the purposes of paragraph (b) make use of the staff and facilities of a commission to obtain the information and furnish it to the Minister.

(3) A commission is to comply with a request under subsection (2) and make its staff and facilities available to the Minister for the purposes of subsection (2)(c).

(4) In this section —

document includes any tape, disc or other device or medium on which information is recorded or stored mechanically, photographically, or electronically or otherwise;

information means information specified, or of a description specified, by the Minister that relates to the functions of a commission.

Division 3 — Director and other staff of a commission

27. Appointment and functions of Director and other staff

(1) There are to be appointed under and subject to Part 3 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 a Director of each commission and such other officers as may be necessary to enable that commission to perform its functions.


Director and other staff of a commission Division 3

s. 28


(2) The function of a Director is to administer the day to day operations of a commission.

(3) Despite anything in this section, to the extent that there is, in the case of a person who is appointed under subsection (1) to be the Director or an officer of a commission and who is a member of the Senior Executive Service within the meaning of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 3, any inconsistency between this Act and that Act, that Act prevails.

[Section 27 amended by No. 32 of 1994 s. 3(2).]

28. Engagement of consultants

(1) A commission may, with the prior approval of the Minister, engage under contracts for services such consultants and persons to provide professional, technical or other assistance as it considers necessary to enable that commission to perform its functions.

(2) A person engaged under subsection (1) must disclose to the chairperson of the board any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter to which his or her services relate, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to his or her knowledge.

Penalty: $5 000.

(3) The chairperson of the board must cause that disclosure to be recorded in the minutes of the next meeting of the board.

(4) If the chairperson of a board fails to comply with subsection (3), he or she —

(a) is liable to the commission for any damage or loss suffered by the commission as a result of that failure; and

(b) commits an offence and is liable to a fine of $5 000.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 3 Operation of commissions Division 3 Director and other staff of a commission

s. 29


29. Use of staff and facilities of departments, agencies and instrumentalities

(1) A commission may by arrangement make use, either part-time or full-time, of —

(a) the services of staff employed in the Public Service or in a State agency or instrumentality or otherwise in the service of the Crown in right of the State; or

(b) any facilities of a department of the Public Service or of a State agency or instrumentality.

(2) An arrangement under subsection (1) is to be made between the commission and the Minister concerned, and on such terms and conditions as they agree with the Minister for Public Sector Management 2.

30. Secrecy

(1) A person to whom this section applies must not, either directly or indirectly, except in the performance of a function under or in connection with this or any other Act —

(a) make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information concerning the affairs of another person acquired by him or her by reason of his or her office or employment under or for the purposes of this Act; or

(b) produce to any person any document relating to the affairs of another person furnished for the purposes of this Act.

Penalty: $10 000.

(2) This section applies to every person who is or has been —

(a) a board member or a member of a committee;

(b) an officer or employee; or

(c) a person referred to in section 28 or 29.


Financial provisions Division 4

s. 31


Division 4 — Financial provisions

31. Funds of a commission

(1) The funds available for the purpose of enabling a commission to perform its functions consist of —

(a) moneys from time to time appropriated by Parliament; and

(b) any other moneys lawfully received by, made available to, or payable to the commission.

(2) An agency special purpose account called the (name of region) Development Commission Account is established for each commission under section 16 of the Financial Management Act 2006 to which the funds for each commission referred to in subsection (1) are to be credited.

(3) The funds standing to the credit of a commission in an Account are to be applied in payment of —

(a) interest on and repayments of moneys advanced to the commission;

(b) the remuneration and travelling and other allowances payable to the appointed members or members of committees of the commission under section 19; and

(c) any other expenditure lawfully incurred by the commission in the performance of its functions.


32. Application of Financial Management Act 2006 and the Auditor General Act 2006

(1) The provisions of the Financial Management Act 2006 and the Auditor General Act 2006 regulating the financial administration, audit and reporting of statutory authorities apply to and in respect of each commission and its operations.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 3 Operation of commissions Division 4 Financial provisions

s. 32


(2) The provisions mentioned in subsection (1) apply in respect of a commission and its operations as if the term Minister used in those provisions had the meaning given by section 3(3) of this Act.


Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Regional Development Council Part 4

s. 33


Part 4 — Regional Development Council

33. Regional Development Council established

There is established by this section a council called the Regional Development Council.

34. Membership of Council

(1) The Council is to consist of —

(a) the chairperson of each commission; and

(b) 3 persons appointed by the Minister.

(2) The Minister is to appoint a member of the Council to be the chairperson.

(3) Two of the persons appointed by the Minister under subsection (1)(b) are to have experience and expertise in local government and are to be selected from nominations provided by the Western Australian Local Government Association constituted under section 9.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.


35. Functions of the Council

(1) The function of the Council is to be the advisory body to the Minister on all regional development issues and for that purpose —

(a) to promote development in all regions;

(b) to develop policy proposals on development issues affecting one or more of the regions;

(c) to facilitate liaison between commissions and relevant government agencies and the coordination of their respective functions;

(d) to promote liaison between local, State and Commonwealth government bodies with respect to

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 4 Regional Development Council

s. 36


regional issues, and the coordination of their respective policies on those issues; and

(e) to report to the Minister on matters referred to it by the Minister.

(2) The Council is to report to the Minister on a matter referred to it by the Minister within such period as the Minister directs.

36. Council procedures

(1) The Council is to meet at least twice each year.

(2) If the chairperson of a commission is unable to attend a Council meeting, an appointed member of the board, nominated by that chairperson, may attend in his or her place as a member of the Council.

(3) Subject to the directions of the Minister, the Council may determine its own procedures.

37. Protection of Council members

A Council member is not personally liable for any act done or omitted to be done in good faith by the Council or by that person acting as a Council member.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Vesting of land of former authorities Part 5

s. 38


Part 5 — Vesting of land of former authorities

38. Definition

In this Part —

land includes any estate or interest in land.

39. Vesting of land

(1) On the repeal of the Geraldton Mid-West Development Authority Act 1988 by section 8(3) all land that immediately before that repeal was vested in the Geraldton Mid-West Development Authority passes to and becomes vested in the Mid West Development Commission.

(2) On the repeal of the South West Development Authority Act 1984 by section 11(3) all land that immediately before that repeal was vested in the South West Development Authority passes to and becomes vested in the South West Development Commission.

40. Powers in relation to land

(1) A commission referred to in section 39 may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the purpose of dealing with the land referred to in that section and may in particular —

(a) manage and dispose of the land;

(b) subdivide, amalgamate, improve, develop and alter the land; and

(c) enter into any contract or arrangement with a person, including a public authority or a local government, for the doing of anything that the commission is authorised to do under this section.

(2) Without limiting section 25, a commission may enter into a transaction, contract or arrangement under subsection (1) only with the approval of the Minister and subject to any conditions attached to that approval.


Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Part 5 Vesting of land of former authorities

s. 41


41. Registration of documents

(1) The Registrar of Titles, the Registrar of Deeds, and any other person authorised by a written law to record and give effect to the registration of documents relating to transactions affecting any estate or interest in land, are to take note of section 39 and are empowered to record and register in the appropriate manner such of those documents as are necessary to give effect to that section.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a statement in an instrument executed by a commission that any estate or interest in land has become vested in the commission under section 39 is evidence of that fact.


Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 General Part 6

s. 42


Part 6 — General

42. Regulations

The Governor may make regulations prescribing all matters that are required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed, or are necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for giving effect to the purposes of this Act.

43. Transitional provisions

Schedule 3 has effect for the transition to this Act from the provisions of the repealed Acts.

[44. Omitted under the Reprints Act 1984 s. 7(4)(e).]

45. Review of Act

(1) The Minister is to appoint a panel to carry out a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act as soon as is practicable after the expiry of 5 years from the commencement of this section, and in the course of that review the panel is to consider and have regard to —

(a) the effectiveness of the operations of each commission; and

(b) such matters, other than those referred to in paragraph (a), as appear to the panel to be relevant to the operation and effectiveness of this Act.

(2) The panel appointed under subsection (1) is to report to the Minister, who is to prepare a report based on the review made under that subsection and, as soon as is practicable after that preparation, cause that report to be laid before each House of Parliament.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Schedule 1 Regions defined by reference to districts


Schedule 1

Regions defined by reference to districts [Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

9, 10, 11, 12 and 13]

Part A — Gascoyne region

The local government districts of Carnarvon, Exmouth, Shark Bay and Upper Gascoyne.

Part B — Goldfields-Esperance region

The local government districts of Coolgardie, Dundas, Esperance, Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Laverton, Leonora, Menzies, Ngaanyatjarraku and Ravensthorpe.

Part C — Great Southern region

The local government districts of Albany (Town), Albany (Shire), Broomehill, Cranbrook, Denmark, Gnowangerup, Jerramungup, Katanning, Kent, Kojonup, Plantagenet, Tambellup and Woodanilling.

Part D — Kimberley region

The local government districts of Broome, Derby-West Kimberley, Halls Creek and Wyndham-East Kimberley.

Part E — Mid West region

The local government districts of Carnamah, Chapman Valley, Coorow, Cue, Geraldton, Greenough, Irwin, Meekatharra, Mingenew, Morawa, Mt. Magnet, Mullewa, Murchison, Northampton, Perenjori, Sandstone, Three Springs, Wiluna and Yalgoo.

Part F — Peel region

The local government districts of Boddington, Mandurah, Murray, Serpentine-Jarrahdale and Waroona.

Part G — Pilbara region

The local government districts of Ashburton, East Pilbara, Port Hedland and Roebourne.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Regions defined by reference to districts Schedule 1


Part H — South West region

The local government districts of Augusta-Margaret River, Boyup Brook, Bridgetown-Greenbushes, Bunbury, Busselton, Capel, Collie, Dardanup, Donnybrook-Balingup, Harvey, Manjimup and Nannup.

Part I — Wheatbelt region

The local government districts of Beverley, Brookton, Bruce Rock, Chittering, Corrigin, Cuballing, Cunderdin, Dandaragan, Dalwallinu, Dowerin, Dumbleyung, Gingin, Goomalling, Kellerberrin, Kondinin, Koorda, Kulin, Lake Grace, Merredin, Moora, Mt. Marshall, Mukinbudin, Narembeen, Narrogin (Town), Narrogin (Shire), Northam (Town), Northam (Shire), Nungarin, Pingelly, Quairading, Tammin, Toodyay, Trayning, Victoria Plains, Wagin, Wandering, West Arthur, Westonia, Wickepin, Williams, Wongan-Ballidu, Wyalkatchem, Yilgarn and York.

[Schedule 1 inserted by No. 14 of 1996 s. 4.]

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Schedule 2 Regions defined by reference to districts Part 1 Constitution and proceedings of a board cl. 1


Schedule 2 [Sections 3, 17 and 19]

Part 1 — Constitution and proceedings of a board

1. Term of office of appointed member

(1) An appointed member holds office for such term, being not more than 3 years, as is specified in the member’s instrument of appointment, but he or she is eligible —

(a) for further reappointment, if the reappointment is consecutive to a previous appointment and will not result in the member holding office continually for a time which exceeds 6 years; or

(b) to be reappointed from time to time, if the term of the reappointment is not consecutive to a previous appointment.

(2) An appointed member, unless the member sooner dies or resigns or is removed from office, continues in office until a successor comes into office, despite the fact that the term for which the member was appointed may have expired.

[Clause 1 amended by No. 16 of 1997 s. 6(1).]

2. Vacation of office by appointed member

(1) An appointed member may resign from office by notice in writing delivered to the Minister.

(2) An appointed member may be removed from office at any time by the Minister —

(a) for mental or physical incapacity, incompetence, neglect of duty or misconduct that impairs the performance of his or her functions as a member and is proved to the satisfaction of the Minister;

(b) if the member is an insolvent under administration, as that term is defined in the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth;

(c) if the member is absent without leave of the board from 3 consecutive meetings of the board of which the member has had notice; or

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Regions defined by reference to districts Schedule 2 Constitution and proceedings of a board Part 1

cl. 3


(d) for any other act or omission that, in the opinion of the Minister, may cause prejudice or injury to the board.

(3) The contravention of, or failure to comply with, section 21, 28(3) or 30 constitutes misconduct for the purposes of subclause (2).

(4) The Minister is to terminate the appointment of a member who was nominated under section 16(b) if that person has ceased to be a member of the council of a local government and has not resigned from office.

[Clause 2 amended by No. 16 of 1997 s. 6(2); No. 10 of 2001 s. 220.]

3. Temporary members

(1) If an appointed member is unable to act by reason of sickness, absence or other cause, the Minister may appoint another person to act temporarily in the member’s place, and while so acting according to the tenor of his or her appointment the other person has all the functions of a board member.

(2) An act or omission of a person acting in place of another under this clause may not be questioned on the ground that the occasion for his or her appointment or acting had not arisen or had ceased.

(3) The appointment of a person as a temporary member may be terminated at any time by the Minister.

4. Meetings of a board

(1) The first meeting of a board is to be convened by the chairperson and, subject to subclause (2), subsequent meetings are to be held at such times and places as the board determines.

(2) A special meeting of a board may at any time be convened by the chairperson.

(3) At a meeting of a board —

(a) the chairperson;

(b) in the absence of the chairperson, the deputy chairperson; or

(c) in the absence of the chairperson and the deputy chairperson, a person elected by the board members present at the meeting from among their number,

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Schedule 2 Regions defined by reference to districts Part 2 Regional Development Advisory Committees and other

committees cl. 5


is to preside.

(4) At any meeting of a board —

(a) each board member present is entitled to a deliberative vote;

(b) subject to paragraph (c), if the votes cast on a question are equally divided, the question remains unresolved until a subsequent meeting of the board; and

(c) if the votes cast on a question at a meeting of the board were equally divided and the votes cast on the question at a subsequent meeting of the board are again equally divided, the question is taken to have been resolved in the negative.

(5) A board is to cause accurate minutes to be kept of the proceedings at its meetings.

5. Resolution may be passed without meeting

A resolution in writing signed or assented to by letter or facsimile by each board member is as valid and effectual as if it had been passed at a meeting of that board.

6. Leave of absence

A board may grant leave of absence to a board member on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.

7. Board to determine own procedures

Subject to this Act, a board may determine its own procedures.

Part 2 — Regional Development Advisory Committees and other committees

Division 1 — Regional Development Advisory Committees

8. Establishment

(1) The Minister may from time to time establish —

(a) a Regional Development Advisory Committee (a Committee) for a commission; or

(b) 2 or more such Committees for specified parts of the commission’s region,

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Regions defined by reference to districts Schedule 2

Regional Development Advisory Committees and other committees

Part 2

cl. 9


if the board of that commission so recommends.

(2) The Minister is to consult with the regional community in such manner as he or she thinks appropriate in determining the structure of a Committee.

(3) For the purpose of appointing a Committee, the board is to —

(a) cause advertisements to be placed in newspapers circulating in the region, calling for the submission of the names of persons who are able and willing to be candidates for appointment as members; and

(b) invite organizations, or individuals, to submit the names of persons who are able and willing to be candidates for appointment as members.

(4) No more than 2 board members may be members of a single Committee.

(5) The Minister is to appoint a member of a Committee to be the chairperson of that Committee.

(6) The Minister may alter or reconstitute a Committee and, if a board so recommends, may discharge a Committee.

9. Functions

The functions of a Committee are, in relation to the region or part of the region as the case requires, to —

(a) advise the board on the performance of its functions; and

(b) ensure that the board is fully informed of, and has regular access to a broad cross-section of community views on, matters of economic and social development.

10. Committee procedures and time for reporting

(1) Subject to the directions of the board, a Committee may determine its own procedures.

(2) A Committee is to report to the board on a matter referred to it by the board within such period as the board directs.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Schedule 2 Regions defined by reference to districts Part 2 Regional Development Advisory Committees and other

committees cl. 11


Division 2 — Other committees

11. Establishment of other committees

(1) A board may from time to time establish a committee for the purpose of considering a particular matter specified by the board and prescribe the membership, constitution and procedures of the committee.

(2) At least one member of the board must be a member of the committee.

(3) A board may discharge, alter, or reconstitute any such committee.

(4) Subject to this clause, a committee may determine its own procedures.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Transitional provisions Schedule 3

cl. 1


Schedule 3 [section 43]

Transitional provisions

1. Succession by new bodies

(1) On the repeal of the Goldfields-Esperance Development Authority Act 1990 by section 5(3) of this Act —

(a) the Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission (the new body) is the successor to the Goldfields-Esperance Development Authority (the existing body); and

(b) the person who, immediately before the repeal of that Act, held the position of Director of the existing body under section 15(1) of that Act, other than in an acting capacity, is to be taken to have been appointed as Director of the new body under section 27(1) of this Act.

(2) On the repeal of the Great Southern Development Authority Act 1987 by section 6(3) of this Act, the Great Southern Development Commission (the new body) is the successor to the Great Southern Development Authority (the existing body).

(3) On the repeal of the Geraldton Mid-West Development Authority Act 1988 by section 8(3) of this Act —

(a) the Mid West Development Commission (the new body) is the successor to the Geraldton Mid-West Development Authority (the existing body); and

(b) the person who, immediately before the repeal of that Act, held the position of Director of the existing body under section 14(1) of that Act, other than in an acting capacity, is to be taken to have been appointed as Director of the new body under section 27(1) of this Act.

(4) On the repeal of the Pilbara Development Commission Act 1992 by section 10(3) of this Act, the Pilbara Development Commission (the new body) is the successor to the Pilbara Development Commission (the existing body) as established by that Act.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Schedule 3 Transitional provisions cl. 2


(5) On the repeal of the South West Development Authority Act 1984 by section 11(3) of this Act —

(a) the South West Development Commission (the new body) is the successor to the South West Development Authority (the existing body); and

(b) the person who, immediately before the repeal of that Act, held the position of Executive Director of the existing body under section 17(1) of that Act, other than in an acting capacity, is to be taken to have been appointed as Director of the new body under section 27(1) of this Act.

2. Assets, liabilities, etc.

Without limiting section 39, on the repeal of a repealed Act —

(a) all property and every right or interest in property that immediately before that repeal was vested in an existing body passes to and becomes vested in the new body;

(b) all rights, liabilities and obligations of an existing body that were in existence immediately before that repeal devolve on the new body;

(c) all contracts, agreements and undertakings made by and with an existing body and having effect immediately before that repeal have effect as contracts, agreements and undertakings made by and with the new body, and may be enforced by or against the new body accordingly; and

(d) any legal or other proceedings or any remedies that might, but for this clause, have been commenced or continued or available by or against or to the existing body may be commenced or continued, or are available, by or against or to the new body, as the case may be.

3. Moneys in Account

On the repeal of a repealed Act, moneys standing to the credit of an Account established under that repealed Act are moneys standing to the credit of the corresponding Account established by section 31(2) of this Act.

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 Transitional provisions Schedule 3

cl. 4


4. References to repealed legislation

A reference in a document executed before the repeal of a repealed Act to that Act or a provision of that Act is to be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as if that reference had been amended to a reference to this Act or to the corresponding provision of this Act, as the case may be.

5. References to existing body

A reference in a document executed before the repeal of a repealed Act to an existing body is to be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as if that reference had been amended to a reference to the corresponding new body.

6. Annual report by existing bodies

(1) On the repeal of a repealed Act, the accountable authority, within the meaning in the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1985, of an existing body is to report in respect of the existing body, as required by section 66 of that Act, for the period from the preceding 1 July to the time of the repeal, and Division 14 of Part II of that Act applies as if that period were a full financial year.

(2) An existing body and its accountable authority as constituted under a repealed Act continues in existence for the purpose of subclause (1) and for that purpose only.

(3) A new body is to arrange for the provision of such clerical and other assistance to an existing body as is reasonably required for the purpose of subclause (1).

[Schedule 4 omitted under the Reprints Act 1984 s. 7(4)(e).]



Notes 1 This is a compilation of the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 and

includes the amendments made by the other written laws referred to in the following table 1a. The table also contains information about any reprint.

Compilation table

Short title Number and year

Assent Commencement


53 of 1993 22 Dec 1993 8 Apr 1994 (see s. 2 and Gazette 8 Apr 1994 p. 1462)

Acts Amendment (Public Sector Management) Act 1994 s. 3(2)

32 of 1994 29 Jun 1994 1 Oct 1994 (see s. 2 and Gazette 30 Sep 1994 p. 4948)

Local Government (Consequential Amendments) Act 1996 s. 4

14 of 1996 28 Jun 1996 1 Jul 1996 (see s. 2)

Statutory Corporations (Liability of Directors) Act 1996 s. 3

41 of 1996 10 Oct 1996 1 Dec 1996 (see s. 2 and Gazette 12 Nov 1996 p. 6301)

Regional Development Commissions Amendment Act 1997

16 of 1997 8 Jul 1997 2 Aug 1997 (see s. 2 and Gazette 1 Aug 1997 p. 4391)

Acts Amendment (Land Administration) Act 1997 Pt. 51

31 of 1997 3 Oct 1997 30 Mar 1998 (see s. 2 and Gazette 27 Mar 1998 p. 1765)

Reprint of the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 as at 26 Nov 1999 (includes amendments listed above)

Corporations (Consequential Amendments) Act 2001 s. 220

10 of 2001 28 Jun 2001 15 Jul 2001 (see s. 2 and Gazette 29 Jun 2001 p. 3257 and Cwlth Gazette 13 Jul 2001 No. S285)

Regional Development Commissions Amendment Act 2001

18 of 2001 18 Sep 2001 18 Sep 2001 (see s. 2)

Regional Development Commissions Amendment Act 2003 4

5 of 2003 24 Mar 2003 24 Mar 2003 (see s. 2)

Local Government Amendment Act 2004 s. 13

49 of 2004 12 Nov 2004 1 Apr 2005 (see s. 2 and Gazette 31 Mar 2005 p. 1029)




Assent Commencement

Machinery of Government (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2006 Pt. 12 Div. 5

28 of 2006 26 Jun 2006 1 Jul 2006 (see s. 2 and Gazette 27 Jun 2006 p. 2347)

Reprint 2: The Regional Development Commissions Act 1993 as at 15 Sep 2006 (includes amendments listed above)

Financial Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2006 s. 17

77 of 2006 21 Dec 2006 1 Feb 2007 (see s. 2(1) and Gazette 19 Jan 2007 p. 137)

1a On the date as at which this compilation was prepared, provisions referred to in the following table had not come into operation and were therefore not included in this compilation. For the text of the provisions see the endnotes referred to in the table.

Provisions that have not come into operation


Assent Commencement

Public Sector Reform Act 2010 s. 89 5

39 of 2010 1 Oct 2010 1 Dec 2010 (see s. 2(b) and Gazette 5 Nov 2010 p. 5563)

2 Under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 s. 112(2), a reference in a written law to the Public Service Commissioner is, unless the contrary intention appears or it is otherwise provided under the Acts Amendment (Public Sector Management) Act 1994, to be construed as if it had been amended to be a reference to the Minister for Public Sector Management (as defined in the Interpretation Act 1984). This reference was amended under the Reprints Act 1984 s. 7(5)(a).

3 Under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 s. 112(1) a reference to the Public Service Act 1978 is to be read as a reference to the Public Sector Management Act 1994. The reference was changed under the Reprints Act 1984 s. 7(3)(gb).

4 The Regional Development Commissions Amendment Act 2003 s. 4(2) reads as follows:

“ (2) The provision by a commission, within the meaning of the

Regional Development Commissions Act 1993, of financial support in the form of a grant before the commencement of this Act is as valid, and is to be regarded as always having been as



valid, as it would have been if this Act had commenced before the financial support was provided.

”. 5 On the date as at which this compilation was prepared, the Public Sector Reform

Act 2010 s. 89 had not come into operation. It reads as follows:

89. Various references to “Minister for Public Sector Management” amended

(1) This section amends the Acts listed in the Table.

(2) In the provisions listed in the Table delete “Minister for Public Sector Management” and insert:

Public Sector Commissioner

Table


s. 19(1) and (2)(a), 29(2)

ReviewofRegionalDevelopmentCommissions

POBox1143WESTPERTHWA6872

Telephone: (08)92171699Freecall: 1800620511(countryonly)

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.rdl.wa.gov.au

structuring regional development for the future€¦ · the second question: how are regional...

Documents