News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Crean, Joyce conflict on what "regional" is 

Crean, Joyce conflict on what "regional" is

30 Sep, 2010 10:28 AM
REGIONAL Development Minister Simon Crean conceded yesterday there could be some argument about which parts of Australia should benefit from the $9.9 billion promised to regional areas over the next decade.

But he said the government planned to implement a new approach to regionalism, encouraging local communities across the whole continent, including capital cities, to come up with strategies for their future, The Australian Financial Review reports.

Mr Crean told the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday that the funding promised as part of a deal with independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, would be earmarked for "non-urban" areas where roughly a third of the population lived.

He said this would not include Newcastle, north of Sydney, which would be deemed urban but it was unclear at this stage whether it would include the Gold Coast. "Of course, there'll be some definitional argument about that," he said.

Coalition regional development spokesman Barnaby Joyce attacked the government over its inclusion of the Gold Coast in a list of local government areas that could benefit from a $200 million regional housing program announced during the election campaign. "If we don't watch out, I think Rushcutters Bay [in Sydney] will be included in regional Australia," he said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
If they did not vote Labor, forget about them!
Posted by tigerdicky, 30/09/2010 12:46:02 PM
Ah,I think you'll find they already have, tinydicky.
Posted by Chris, 30/09/2010 7:36:56 PM
The Labour Party deems cities with a population of more than 30,000 as regional!! Well hello, what are towns of less than 30,000 population? Fair Dinkum Rural as opposed to city-centric rural? Typical Labour Party spin to continue knocking the genuine rural areas of Australia and funding the regions that they mostly have a chance of winning seats in an election. Nothing to do with the numerous areas of need in (real) rural Australia. Just keep driving the people to the cities and leave the inland empty so their green mates will be happy that it can revert to "pristine". So much for a new style of government that will govern for everyone. Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott had better get of their backsides and do something to make this new "warm and fuzzy" government carry out their commitments to (real) rural Australia or a big failure is approaching.
Posted by Get Real, 1/10/2010 9:48:42 AM
In the same press conference Simon Says that Geelong was also regional? Simon Says as well that there was no distinction between agricultural protection and marketing structures, all export industry have a marketing structure, it’s just that the Labor laissez faire bimbos think that for export agriculture industry’s to have marketing structures is protection, which is just weird, or dumb or both.
Posted by What the, 1/10/2010 11:57:11 AM
What the, Simon Says would say that thatmarketing structures were protection. He has to be comfortable in his own mind about voting away the single desk. Of course he would not hesitate in justifying wage fixation and anything that protects worker's rights.
Posted by Spray Fallow, 1/10/2010 5:28:02 PM
What, only a lousy $billion a year? GDP per capita is $60,000 a year and half of that is wages and salaries. The current statutory super contribution is 9% of salaries or $2,700 per person. So the 5 million folks of regional Australia have to sit back and watch as $13.5 billion each year is diverted from their local regional economy to the urban economy. Once there, more than 40% of it will go overseas and the remainder will be invested in large urban based businesses, government bonds or urban infrastructure with very little of it ever making its way back to the regions it came from. Some of it might make its way back to the same region 45 years after the employee starts work but most will end up on the coast. And there is no doubt that this is producing the severe reverse multiplier effect (3.5 times) that is driving regional economic decline and disinvestment. And while Crean ponces about the bush handing out small change, Gillard plans to increase the statsuper contribution to 12%, increasing this economic drain on the regions by a factor of 33%. See http://regionalstates.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/how-keating-trashed-regional-economies/
Posted by Ian Mott, 3/10/2010 11:41:41 AM
Spray fallow - might I gently remind you it was Howard and Anderson who first touted the abolition of the single desk at the request of Uncle Sam. I know you all hate anything dressed up as extreme left wing but be assured, the single desk was agrarian socialism at its best but no one wanted to let the world know. It is now in its place.
Posted by gough whitlam, 3/10/2010 7:34:39 PM
So tell us all, Gough, what is the difference between a single desk and a single union? If both are a form of socialism then why is it only the rural form that has been eliminated? Just another hideous example of metrocentric hypocrisy, and entirely befitting your incompetent namesake..
Posted by Ian Mott, 4/10/2010 10:41:40 AM
How much wheat do you grow,gough whitlam?
Posted by Chris, 4/10/2010 7:54:29 PM
Where do you get your per capita GDP figure from, Motty? The ABS website provides a figure of $52,000 for 2008 (and $42,000 for 1998). Presumably this is the most recent official figure available. I know the mineral commodities are a significant earner, but even they are not capable of explaining the 15.4% leap in two years required to make your figures accurate (if you are talking about today). Another case of the bigger the lie, the more confidently you need to claim it? And what is the significance of your "and half of that is wages and salaries" statement? In spite of your vast education, experience and knowledge, are you still one of the ignorant people who believe the value of services is somehow inferior or non-existent? Only the very ignorant believe that something only has value if you can touch it or eat it or see it or plough with it. This is a very prevalent attitude in RARA land (or should that be GAGA land?), and goes a long way towards explaining your political and social inferiority complexes, and your voodoo economic philosophies.
Posted by Bushie Bill, 7/10/2010 11:47:19 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Simon Crean.
Simon Crean.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
27 September, 2010
29 September, 2010
POLL
Q: Do you agree with the Productivity Commission's recommendation to cut government R&D spending and set up a new broad-focus RDC?

Yes
(22.1%)

No
(77.9%)

Total Votes: 208
Poll Date: 26 September, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...