Random Analytics

Charts, Infographics & Analytics. No Spinning the Data. No Juking the Stats

Category: Regional Development

Random Analytics: RDAF Rd 5 Analytics (WIP)

The Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) allocations via Round 5 have been announced. Interestingly this was not announced at the Regional Development Australia Conference which was held over the 15-16 June weekend but almost immediately after on the last day of the Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly.

There is another series of RDAF funding via Round 5B which will allocate a further $200-million in funding available until 30 June 2018 (for which I’ll complete a separate round of analytics).

In regard to RDAF Round 5 the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport website stated:

On Wednesday 19 June 2013 the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, announced that applications for Round Five of the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) open on Friday 21 June 2013. RDAF Round Five is an allocative funding round, with each local government that was funded under the General Purpose component of the Financial Assistance Grants 2012–2013 eligible to apply for funding for infrastructure projects.

RDAF Round Five will provide $150 million to eligible local governments, according to an allocative model, for capital infrastructure projects. $105 million of the funding will be allocated to regional local governments while $45 million will be allocated to urban local governments. The funding for regional local governments will come from the Regional Development Australia Fund and funding for urban local governments will come from the Liveable Cities program. Eligible local governments are those that received the General Purpose component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants in 2012–13.

Funding will be allocated among states and territories on a per capita basis. A base grant of $30,000 will apply for all eligible local governments with the remaining funding in each state or territory to be distributed in the same proportion as the General Purpose funding component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants (as determined by each state and territory local government grants commission).

Effectively this means that all 565 Local Government Area’s within Australia will get funding which totals to $149,999,994. The LGA funding details can be found at on the DoRALGAS site.

Given the extensive detail of this it will be quite a challenge to do the analytics.

Here is a look at the funding commencing with a breakdown by State and I’ll add more graphics and detail as I populate the data.

RDAF Round 5 Funding by Data Population & Population Centre

01 - RDAFRd5_FundsbyPopCentre_130829

This chart looks at three items.

The inner ring is a split between funding to capital and non-capital cities. To be clear all the State plus the territorial capitals (Darwin, Canberra and Kingston) are included.

The secondary ring breaks down the funding by the size of the population centre that it is being deployed in. Population size is based upon Australian Bureau of Statistics Census 2011 data and then allocated to one of five categories. The categories are:

  • Town: A town or a rural region with a population under 10,000
  • Regional Centre: A small city or rural centre with a population between 10,001 and 30,000
  • City: A city or regional centre with a population between 30,001 and 100,000
  • Large City: A city with a population between 100,001 and 500,000
  • Metropolis: Any city with a significant urban area greater than 500,000.

The outer ring is split between funding that I have been able to populate (data verify to council chamber level) and work still ‘in progress’. Currently I have been able to populate 75% (112.5-million) of the funding with 52% of the councils (294 out of 565). At this time I am in the process of working through those councils that received between $200,000 and $300,000 of funding.

RDAF Round 5 Funding by State

02 - RDAFRd5_FundsbyState_130626

The second chart looks at funding by State and is fully updated.

Note: This infographic was created using Tableau Public.

Round 5 Funding by Political Party

03 - RDAFRd5_FundsbyPolParty_130829

This chart looks at funding by political and is not fully updated (see RDAF Round 5 Funding by Data Population & Population Centre).

To populate the entire chart from the outset I specifically selected a seat held by an Independent, the Greens and Katter’s Australia Party (KAP). On the conservative side (in blue) the slices are split into the Liberal Party, the Liberal National Party (QLD) and the Country Liberal Party (NT). The National Party section (in yellow) also includes funding that was allocated to O’Connor, which is held by Tony Crook of the WA National Party.

Round 5 Funding by 2 Party Preferred (2PP)

04 - RDAFRd5_Fundsby2PP_130829

The next chart looks at funding by how safe the seat is considered. The Australian Electoral Commission states that Divisions with a 2-party preferred (2PP) percentile of 60% or greater are safe, those between 56 – 60% are fairly safe and those between 50 – 56% are marginal. Where a seat is considered marginal (based on 2010 election results) I have split into Labor, Coalition and Independent.

Final Thoughts

I’ll continue to update this article as I populate the data down to LGA level.

Declaration of Interest: I have utilised only publically sourced information and all analysis and views expressed are my own and do not reflect that of any employer or organisation that I am associated with.

Note: My previous posts on Regional Development funding can be found at:

Update (3/07/2013)

  • Added Funding by Population Centre, Funding by Political Party & Funding by 2PP sections with inclusion of 20% of the funding data populated.

Update (22/07/2013)

  • Updated Funding by Population Centre, Funding by Political Party & Funding by 2PP sections with 40% of the data populated.

Update (4/08/2013)

  • Updated Funding by Population Centre, Funding by Political Party & Funding by 2PP sections with 50% of the funding data populated. Additionally added a link to RDAF Round 5B.

Update (14/08/2013)

  • Updated Funding by Population Centre, Funding by Political Party & Funding by 2PP sections with 65% of the funding data populated.

Update (29/08/2013)

  • Updated Funding by Population Centre, Funding by Political Party & Funding by 2PP sections with 75% of the funding data populated.
Advertisements

Random Analytics: RDAF Rd 4 Analytics (WIP as at 24 Jul 2013)

From mid-June 2013 announcements by the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport commenced in relation to the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) Round 4 series of grants.

An overview of RDAF Round 4 from the Department website:

The government has announced a large strategic package to support the immediate and critical needs of regional Australia. This funding is supported by the proceeds of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax. Round Four of RDAF is a key element of this package and provides $175 million in grants to strategic infrastructure projects in regional Australia, with the maximum grant being $15 million.

Funding from Round Four will be provided to the highest priorities of communities, and seek to improve liveability and the sense of community. Regional Development Australia committees will again play a key role, identifying projects to proceed to full application. These projects will be selected because they best meet the needs of the regions, address priorities in the committee’s Regional Plans, and deliver real benefits to regional Australians.

For those interested in the RDAF Round 4 grants series here are some analytics of the 41-grants that have been announced. Four projects have been officially notified since Kevin Rudd was confirmed in his second term as Prime Minister.

RDAF Round 4 Funding by Allocation & Population Centre

01 - RDAFRd4_FundsbyPopCentre_130724

This chart looks at three items.

The inner ring is a split between funding to capital and non-capital cities. To be clear all State or Territory capitals including Kingston, Norfolk Island are considered capitals.

The secondary ring breaks down the funding by the size of the population centre that it is being deployed in. Population size is based upon Australian Bureau of Statistics Census 2011 data and then allocated to one of five categories. The categories are:

  • Town: A town or a rural region with a population under 10,000
  • Regional Centre: A small city or rural centre with a population between 10,001 and 30,000
  • City: A city or regional centre with a population between 30,001 and 100,000
  • Large City: A city with a population between 100,001 and 500,000
  • Metropolis: Any city with a significant urban area greater than 500,000.

The outer ring shows the over allocation of funding. The amount of funding for Round 3 (Regional) was originally set at $50-million and Round 4 was $175-million as per the Ministers Forward. RDAF Round 3 was under allocated approximately 19.5-million in funding while RDAF Round 4 currently has an over allocation of $20.2-million (11.6%).

RDAF Round 4 Funding by State

02 - RDAFRd4_FundsbyState_130724

The next chart looks at current funding by State.

Norfolk Island, a self-governing external territory of Australia won a single project worth $13-million as part of RDAF Round 4. As at 24 July 2013 the data.gov.au website stated that:

NSW

RDA South Coast includes the external territory of Jervis Bay. In previous data releases, Lord Howe Island (part of the ABS Unincorporated NSW) was part of RDA Northern Rivers. On the 16 of August 2011, Lord Howe Island declared to be represented by Mid North Coast.

On the 28 of May 2012, there were major changes to 4 RDA boundaries with Bland moving from RDA Central West to RDA Riverina and Tumbarumba moving from RDA Southern Inland to RDA Murray.

Norfolk Island IS NOT part of any RDA.

Note: This infographic was created using Tableau Public.

Round 4 Funding by Political Party

03 - RDAFRd4_FundsbyPolParty_130724

This chart looks at funding by political party and includes funding to Norfolk Island which is an independent territory (thus politically unaffiliated).

The National Party slice includes funding that was allocated to O’Connor, which is held by Tony Crook of the WA National Party (technically a different party).

Since Kevin Rudd commenced his second term as Prime Minister five new projects have been announced with $29.05-million in total funding. All five projects have gone to ALP held seats and one of those projects, the Lake Macquarie Transport Interchange has previously received $7-million funding as part of RDAF Round 2.

Round 4 Funding by 2 Party Preferred

04 - RDAFRd4_Fundsby2PP_130724

The next chart looks at funding by how safe the seat is considered. The Australian Electoral Commission states that Divisions with a 2-party preferred (2PP) percentile of 60% or greater are safe, those between 56 – 60% are fairly safe and those between 50 – 56% are marginal. Where a seat is considered marginal (based on 2010 election results) I have split into Labor, Coalition and Independent.

Round 4 Funding by Electorate

05 - RDAFRd4_FundsbyElectorate_130716

The following chart looks at the top ten electorates or external territories that have been funded.

Although filled with The National Party logo the Division of O’Connor is technically held by the WA National. The current sitting member, Tony Crook, has stated that he wanted to be treated as an Independent during most of his term although will be resigning from federal politics at the next election.

Eden Monaro was one of five projects to have received enough funding after Kevin Rudd commenced his second term to be included in the top 10 ten electorates by funding allocation.

Round 4 Funding by Employment Sector

06 - RDAFRd4_FundsbyEmploySector_130724

The second last chart looks at funding by employment sector. I have created a similar selection to that implemented by Seek but have amended to reflect a regional development framework and focus. The employment sectors focus on the longer term operational outcome of the funding, not its infrastructure or implementation phase(s).

Currently several employment sectors have not received funding in this round including:

  • Mining, Resources & Energy;
  • ICT;
  • Education & Training;
  • Construction;
  • Call Centre & Customer Services; and
  • Banking & Financial Services.

Round 4 Funding by Regional Development Australia (RDA) Region

06 - RDAFRd4_FundsbyRDA_130716

The final chart looks at the top dozen RDA Regions by allocated funding (with additional State and Territory detail represented by relevant flag) .

Final Thoughts

I’ll continue to update this article as more projects get announced.

Declaration of Interest: I have utilised only publically sourced information and all analysis and views expressed are my own and do not reflect that of any employer or organisation that I am associated with.

Note: My previous posts on Regional Development funding can be found at:

Update (19/06/2013)

  • Updated all graphs/infographics after 9-projects were announced via the RDAF Round 4 Department page.

Update (20/06/2013)

  • No new data. Upgraded Funding by State to a Tableau Infographic and added Norfolk Island detail.

Update (24/06/2013)

  • No new data. Upgraded Funding by RDA Region by adding State or Territory flags.

Update (16/07/2013)

  • Updated all graphs/infographics after 4-projects were announced via the RDAF Round 4 Department page.

Update (24/07/2013)

  • Updated all graphs/infographics (with exception of Funding by Seat & RDA Region) after a single project was announced via the RDAF Round 4 Department page. Additionally, included a Funding by Employment Section.

Random Analytics: RDAF Rd 3 Funding Analysis (Final)

On 26 October 2012 the third-round of Regional Development Australia Funding (RDAF) grants were opened to Expressions of Interest and for those that were successful the full applications were to be submitted no-later-than 27 March 2013.

An overview as per the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport website:

Round 3 is providing $50 million for priority infrastructure in towns with a population of 30,000 people or less. Grants of between $50,000 and $500,000 are available to eligible applicants.

Local governments and not-for-profit organisations with an annual income of at least $500,000 (averaged over the most recent two years) were eligible to apply for Regional Development Australia Fund Round Three of the Regional Development Australia Fund. Other organisations were able to participate in the program as a member of a consortium led by an eligible applicant.

The Department announced the successful applicants with a comprehensive list of project financials and details on 24 May 2013.

Here is my analysis.

RDAF Round 3 Funding by State

1 - RDAFRd3FundingbyState_130528

The first infographic is funding by State.

Of the 79 RDAF Round 3 grants 18 are located in NSW, 16 in Queensland, 15 in Victoria, 12-each in South Australia and Western Australia, three in Tasmania, two in the Northern Territory and one in Australian external territory of Norfolk Island.

At 15-projects and $7,175,721 (23.2%) Victoria was the state given the most funding at an average of $478,381.4 per project. The Northern Territory had the least funding of any internal state or territory with two projects and $580,000 (1.9%). South Australia had the lowest grant average with 12-projects and $3,463,498 in funding, or $288,625 per project.

Of the $50-million on offer only $30,895,933 was distributed, a shortfall of 38.2%. Included in this amount Australian external territories (in this case Norfolk Island) also were granted one project worth $411,193 in funding.

Note: This infographic was created using Tableau Public.

RDAF Funding by Population Centre

2 - RDAFRd3FundingbyPopCentre_130528

This chart breaks down the funding by the size of the population centre that it is being deployed in. Population size is based upon Australian Bureau of Statistics Census 2011 data and then allocated to one of into five categories. The categories are:

  • Town: A town or a rural region with a population under 10,000
  • Regional Centre: A small city or rural centre with a population between 10,001 and 30,000
  • City: A city or regional centre with a population between 30,001 and 100,000
  • Large City: A city with a population between 100,001 and 500,000
  • Metropolis: Any city with a significant urban area greater than 500,000.

From the 79-projects and $30,895,933 which was allocated 75.4% went to towns under 10,000, 23% went to regional centres and only one project went to an area that I would consider a city and another was partially linked to a city, although the bulk of the funding went to surrounding towns. Details of the two issues are:

  • The Leopold Community Hub project won by the Greater Geelong City Council, an outlying suburb of Geelong which has a total population of 173,452 should not have been allowed to proceed on the basis that it is not a “located in a town with a population of 30,000 or less” as per the guideline Department criteria;
  • The Skate in the Tropics project won by the Cairns Regional Council included three small regional towns and an outer suburb of Cairns. Mossman, Babinda and Wonga Beach all qualify under the Department criteria; however Gordonvale falls into the significant urban area of Cairns with a population of 133,911.

Round 3 Funding by Political Party

3 - RDAFRd3FundingbyPolParty_130528

This chart looks at funding by political party.

The biggest winner from RDAF Round 3 was not a political party but Treasury which was able to not expend $19.1-million in revenue or 38.2% of the promised funding grants.

Of the RDAF Round 3 grants where funding was allocated 47 went to seats held by the Coalition, 26 went to Labor, there were three for the Independents (two for New England and one for Lyne), two for the Katter’s Australian Party and one to Norfolk Island which is party non-affiliated.

Of the $30,895,933 which was allocated seats held by Labor received $10.156-million (20.3%), the Coalition $18.157-million (36.3%) (split between the Liberal, Liberal National Queensland and National parties) and the minor parties and independents received $2.150-million (4.3%).

Round 3 Funding by 2PP

4 - RDAFRd3FundingbyMarginalSeat_130528

The next chart looks at funding by how safe the seat is (the Australian Electoral Commission states that Divisions with a 2-party preferred (2PP) percentile of 60% or greater are safe, those between 56 – 60% are fairly safe and those between 50 – 56% are marginal. Where a seat is considered marginal (based on 2010 election results) I have split into Labor, Coalition and Independent (to cover the seat of Denison).

From the 79 projects 41 are in seats considered safe, 12 are fairly safe and one was in a non-affiliated external territory.

25 grants are from marginal seats with a total funding allocation of $9.910-million (32.1%). The marginal seats were split 15 to Labor and ten to the Coalition. They include:

  • Blair: One project ($500,000) held by Labor;
  • Capricornia: Two projects ($734,203) held by Labor;
  • Canning: One project ($365,749) held by the Liberals;
  • Casey: One project ($300,000) held by the Liberals;
  • Corangamite: Three projects ($1,480,000) held by Labor;
  • Eden-Monaro: Two projects ($882,250) held by Labor;
  • Flynn: Two projects ($716,693) held by the Liberal National QLD Party;
  • Gilmore: One project ($400,000) held by the Liberals;
  • Herbert: One project ($450,000) currently held by LNQ;
  • La Trobe: One project ($500,000) held by Labor;
  • Leichardt: Two projects ($615,000) held by the LNQ;
  • Lingiari: Four projects ($1,099,870) held by Labor;
  • McEwan: One project ($500,000) held by Labor;
  • McMillan: One project ($490,000) held by the Liberals
  • Page: One project (425,500) held by Labor;
  • Paterson: One project ($450,000) held by the Liberals.

Round 3 Funding by Electorate

5 - RDAFRd3FundingbyElectorate_130528

The second last chart looks at funding by Electorate.

48-electorates won funding as part of the RDAF Round 3.

The most funding awarded to a Coalition held seat is O’Connor (WA), with four projects and $1,555,300 dollars in funding. Given that Tony Crook was elected to Parliament on a National Party ticket but considers himself an independent the next best Coalition seat is Durack (WA) with three projects and $1.5-million in funding.

Corangamite was the highest funded Labor seat with three projects and $1.48-million dollars in funding.

As for the Independents, New England currently has the most funding with two projects worth $500,000 apiece.

Round 3 Funding by Regional Development Australia (RDA) Region

6 - RDAFRd3FundingbyRDA_130528

The final chart looks at funding by RDA Region.

45 out of 50 RDA regions who were able to apply for funding received a project as part of RDAF Round 3. Capital cities, representing six regions were not allowed to apply for funding in this round.

The most funding awarded to a region was shared between Lodden Mallee (VIC) and Barwon South West (VIC) with three projects and $1.5-million dollars in grants, followed closely by the Grampians (VIC) with three projects and $1.48-million in grants.

Final Thoughts

The Regional Development Australia Fund Round 3 was setup to allocate much needed funds to genuinely regional centres and to respond to criticisms of previous rounds where funding had gone to cities over regional centres and dominated coastal regions over the interior.

The positives out of this round is that the funds have been equitably distributed on many of the normal indicators and where there is a higher ratio, they are within acceptable margins and should be an expectation of incumbency.

Although I hesitate to make a criticism, I feel obligated given the funding shortfall of nearly $20-million dollars which has not been widely publicized, nor adequately explained by the Department or by the relevant Ministers. That amount of funding would have supported another 40 plus projects in the bush and regions.

I’m empathetic of the Federal treasuries structural budget issues but the RDAF funding rounds were a $1-billion dollar programme designed to support one-off projects and tens of thousands of jobs in some of Australia’s most regional and economically disadvantaged areas.

It is ironic that on the same day as the RDAF Round 3 funding was publicized Ford announced that it would stop building cars in Australia. This announcement was soon followed with an immediate pledge of $39-million by the Federal & Victorian governments to support the 1200 employees of Ford, a company which has received more than $1.1-billion in tax-funded support over the past 12-years.

 

Declaration of Interest: I have utilised only publically sourced information and all analysis and views expressed are my own and do not reflect that of any employer or organisation that I am associated with.

Note: My previous post on RDAF Round 1 & 2 funding can be found at Random Analytics: RDAF Funding Analysis

 

—————————–

Updates (16/06/2013)

  • The RDAF Round 3 analysis was returned to the Random Analytics site at the commencement of RDAF Round 4 announcements.

 

Random Analytics: TIRF Funding Analysis (Round 1)

On the 15th March 2013, the (then) Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism, Martin Ferguson announced the first tranche of Tourism Industry Regional Funds (TIRF) grants. The 65 successful applicants will receive approximately $13.1 million in direct funding from the Department as part of $48.5 million worth of total funding in support of the Tourism 2020 goals. As the Department Fact Sheet states:

Grants from $50,000 – $250,000 (GST exclusive) will be offered on a matched dollar-for-dollar funding basis for projects which improve or refurbish existing products or services or offer innovative new experiences. Eligible projects must be located in regions outside the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane Tourism Regions as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

With such a dispersed amount of funding across the nation and with more in the pipeline available to the new Minister, Gary Grey potentially prior to the upcoming 14th September federal election I thought it might be useful to complete some analysis of the programme.

Applications Received

When I completed the Regional Development Australia Funds (RDAF) grants analysis last year I was able to provide a graphic on applications received against those accepted from its Department releases. From the reference number coding I can assume that more than 667 applications were receipted and Bulletpoint, a grants consultancy business quoted 763 applications were received as part of their TIRF overview. Either way a low amount of applications were ultimately accepted, somewhere between 8.5 – 9.7%.

I did approach the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism in relation to a detailed breakdown of funding in comparison to project costs (which they state was worth $141-million) I received this response:

Hello Shane

Thank you for your email, in regards to your below question the only information that we publish on the successful applicants is on our website which you have included a link for.  Unfortunately we cannot provide a cost breakdown on the value of the grant against the total value of each project.

Kind regards

TIRF Grants Program

Given that response, (two working days later) I felt a second follow-up request for applications data would be a waste of time.

Funding Allocation by State

The first infographic is a breakdown of TIRF grants by each state or territory.

With 14 projects awarded and 23.8% ($3,118,900) of the overall funding New South Wales (NSW) could be considered the outright winner.

Consider this though, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane tourism operators were not allowed to bid for grants. If you then remove the population of greater Sydney (4.3-million), the regional population of NSW is still 2.5-million, larger than the total population of Western Australia (2.2-million) and South Australia (1.6-million).

With a population of just 500,000 Tasmania was the clear winner in my view, having won seven projects and 6.9% ($901,047) of the grants allocated.

1 - TIRF_FundingByState_Rd1

From the Village to the Metropolis

Being heavily committed to Regional Workforce Planning in recent years one of issues that constantly comes up is the loose classification of the term ‘Regional’ or the mixing up of the term ‘Regional’ with ‘Region’. Most often this is done by government departments and politicians.

So, I was very pleased when I looked at the TIRF grants by the size of the closest population centre and found that slightly more than 75% ($9,928,930) of the total allocation went to regional centres, towns and villages with a population of 30,000 or less. A staggering 43.8% ($5,725,151) went to villages with a population less than 1,000.

One township, Winiam, didn’t even qualify for an ABS entry. After speaking to the Hindmarsh Shire Council Community Officer (Katherine Colbert) I found out that the village was now considered a district where approximately 50 residents still lived, enough to support a local cricket and pool team only!

2 - TIRF_FundingByPopCentre_Rd1

Why do Capital Cities get Regional Funding?

Even though regional centres attracted around 75% of the funding, cities (that is any population centre above 30,000) still received approximately a quarter of the grants. What is worse that even with the following Department exclusion “Eligible projects must be located in regions outside the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane Tourism Regions as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics” Australian capital cities still qualified for 10.9% ($1,432,011) of the funding.

In this tranche Canberra was allocated three projects with a total value of $684,698. Perth also received three grants with a total value of $747,313.

With one of the projects was located in Western Perth, not far from its CBD in one of the few booming cities in the Western world you have to ask the question.

With such obvious economies and global advantage why do Capital Cities still get Regional Funding?

Beat’s me!

3 - TIRF_FundingByCapCity_Rd1

No Evidence of Pork Barrelling

Here is a look at the allocation of grants by political party.

As you can see, the funds do not favour the incumbent Labor government but rather the bulk of the grants go to Coalition held seats (58.3%), followed by Labor (38.7%) and the Independents (3%).

It should be noted, given they won a project with a value of $200,000 that I classified the federal electorate of Dobell as Labor, even though Craig Thompson sits with the Independents currently.

4 - TIRF_FundingByPolParty_Rd1

Only a Slightly Marginal Emphasis

One of the key criticism’s I hear often is that there is always an incumbent preference toward marginal seats.

Here is a look at the funding by seats that are considered ‘Safe’ (more than 60% 2-party preferred, any party), ‘Fairly Safe’ (between 57 to 60% 2-party preferred, any party) and finally ‘Marginal’ (50 to 56%, 2-party preferred with a split between Labor and Coalition held seats).

Two points to make here.

Firstly, with only $2,560,113 (19.6%) allocated to marginal seats there is a barely 20-cents in the dollar going to this area. With more than 80% going to fairly safe and safe electorates any criticism of marginal seat emphasis is quashed.

Secondly, a 7 to 4 ratio and an additional $634,513 there is a higher amount of Labor held marginal seats allocated funding over Coalition and although this should be noted.

So only a marginal emphasis by Labor to Labor held marginal seats.

5 - TIRF_FundingByMarginalSeat_Rd1

Funding by Electorate

The next graph shows funding by each electorate.

Wakefield (ALP), Durack (LP) and Indi (LP) topped the list with four projects apiece while Fadden (LNQ) came last with just one project and a value of $50,000.

Probably worth noting but in the first two rounds of RDAF funding both Durack ($42.3-million) and Grey ($24.2-million) were the two most funded electorates and have both done well out of the first round of TIRF grants.

6 - TIRF_FundingByElectorate_Rd1

Funding by Region

Last graph is a look at the funding allocation per region as defined by Regional Development Australia.

Hume (4), Tasmania (7) and the Far North Queensland & Torres Strait (5) regions received the most projects and funding while the Gold Coast (1) received the least.

Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane were not allowed to receive funding, thus a further 20 regions missed out on this round.

7 - TIRF_FundingByRegion_Rd1

Final Thoughts

Although any funding is valuable, especially when directed at Small to Medium Enterprises my first thoughts are that the $48.5-million is not enough to help such a trade exposed sector.

Looking at the Australian Bureau of Statistics data the 2010/2011 Tourism Gross Domestic Product (TGDP) of the sector was $34,595-million and it employed around 513,000 Australians.

In comparison, the car industry receives billions in government support (i.e. the Automotive Transportation Scheme) while only directly employs approximately 60,000 Australian’s. Only last week Holden announced a further loss of 500-jobs even after it has received $1.8-billion in government support over the past decade.

So, with just $13.1-million in funding (just 0.037% of the TGDP) the answer would be that outside of those businesses which have received funding the grants will not assist the tourism sector all that much, especially when other sectors receive billions and still atrophy.

At least with this regional funding initiative most of the money went to regional area’s and for that the Department should be given credit.

Note: Thank-you to Susan Bruce (Poacher’s Pantry) who explained why the business is in NSW but the town of Hall is located in the ACT and to Katherine Colbert (Hindmarsh Shire Council) who was able to give me the background on the former town of Winiam when the ABS could not.

Update 1 (15/04/2013) I updated the Applications Received section with the Bulletpoint company’s applications figure of 763 and added a hyperlink to their TIRF details page.

Random Analytics: Wide Bay Burnett Regional Research

I’m very excited to announce two research studies for which I completed the analytics between June and December of last year on behalf of Regional Development Australia Wide Bay Burnett (RDA WBB) in my role as chair of the Workforce Planning Sub-Committee which provides supplementary advice, training, support and assistance in the areas of Workforce Planning, Workforce Development and Workforce Analytics.

JSMSFrontCover

The Workforce Development Jobs and Skills Matching Study 2013 was developed after nearly 1000 registered job seekers were surveyed in partnership with Wide Bay Burnett Job Services Australia (providers). The study utilised the data to identify key barriers and opportunities for the Region’s unemployed labour force.

WMSFrontCover

The Resource Sector Workforce Mobility Study 2013 is a look at the first 700 Resource Sector workers who undertook the IM4FIFO survey between August and December 2012. The study utilised the data to identify the key barriers and opportunities for the regions mobile workforce. Furthermore this research will establish effective long-term solutions for the Wide Bay Burnett’s existing workforce providing them with better work/life balance solutions while still addressing key industry issues of safety, fatigue management and staff turnover.

Analytics are only a small component of these projects and I have benefited from having worked very closely with two very outstanding individuals.

Grant Maclean, the RDA WBB Chairman has always had a vision for creating a step change for the Wide Bay Burnett region. His guidance and strategic vision has, in my view, made our region standout in terms of focussed outcomes. He has also been a fantastic guide as I had to carefully balance both operational and Board responsibilities for the latter half of 2012.

Although you won’t see his name on the reports, Paul Massingham, the Executive Officer of the RDA WBB has done an amazing job in the creation of these two documents and for my thinking deserves the bulk of the credit for these fantastic publications. In just six months, while managing a small but very capable team he was able to access an enormous amount of data, brief key stakeholders and build strong relationships with three levels of government, the community and industry. It was certainly a bonus for our recently appointed FIFO coordinator, Danielle Andreuzzi to have the data immediately available for the write up of the Resource Sector Workforce Mobility Study. Having worked on analytics (in one form or the other) for over a decade I must say my six months collaborating with Paul in an operational capacity were not only the most productive (I was able to produce more than 80 baseline info-graphics from which our staff can now build and scale) but one of the most enjoyable. Paul’s professionalism, subject matter knowledge, drive and pure energy allowed for quick turnarounds on my input with minimum repeats.

As stated above I think both these studies are fine pieces of Regional Workforce Planning research and if I would commend them to you.

 

 

If you need more information about either of these studies or about the IM4FIFO campaign then please contact Paul Massingham at:

Regional Development Australia Wide Bay Burnett

PO Box 1045, Hervey Bay, QLD, 4655 – Phone: 07 4125 9272 – Email: info@rdawidebayburnett.org.au – www.rdawidebayburnett.org.au

As an aside you can also view the IM4FIFO advertising campaign which was broadcast across the Wide Bay Burnett region after the Queensland Minister for Education, Training and Employment, the Hon. Mr John-Paul Langbroek launched the project officially on the 14th August 2012.

Random Analytics: RDAF Funding Analysis

On the 1st November it was announced that the third and fourth rounds of the Regional Development Australia Fund were opened.

As per the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport website the details of the next two rounds of funding are:

Round Three will provide $50 million for projects in small towns, while Round Four will provide $175 million for strategic infrastructure projects in regional Australia.

  • Round 3 will support small towns (population of less than 30,000) with $50 million in grant funding to be provided.
  • Round 4 will support strategic infrastructure projects and is modelled on the successful Rounds One and Two. $175 million in grant funding will be provided.

Given that the next $225 million of funding is now available I thought it would be useful to do some analysis on the approximately $350 million that has already been approved. I have taken great pains to present the following detail in a completely neutral way, utilising only publically sourced information but it should be noted that all analysis and views expressed are my own and do not reflect that of any employer or organisation that I am associated with.

The first graph is a representation of the Expressions of Interest (EOI) for Rounds 1 and Round 2 split between accepted (green) & rejected (maroon). Although the amount of applications for Round 1 was well documented I couldn’t find a Department released document which confirmed the Round 2 numbers, thus I had to physically count the EOI’s by Regional Development Australia region then added three applications which were rejected by the Department due to duplication. The biggest item worth noting from this graph is the sheer weight of applications which resulted in a low acceptance rate (just 6.33% for Round 1 and 9.96% for Round 2).

Figure 1: RDAF Round 1 & 2 Expressions of Interest. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport.

The next round of graphs includes breakdowns by State and Territory. It should be noted that the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) received no funding in this round.

Figure 2: RDAF Round 1 Grants by State or Territory. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport.

In Round 2 there was $199.76-million of funding grants available. Again it should be noted that the ACT did not receive any funding in this round.

Figure 3: RDAF Round 2 Grants by State or Territory. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport.

The final State graph is the total amount of funding won in Round 1 and 2 by each state.

Figure 4: RDAF Round 1 and 2 Grants by State or Territory (combined). Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport.

The next set of graphs breaks down the funding by the size of the town, city or regional centre that it is being deployed in. I broke the size of towns into five categories:

  • Town: A town or a rural region with a population under 10,000
  • Large Town: A town, small city or rural region with a population between 10,001 and 30,000
  • City: A city or regional centre with a population between 30,001 and 100,000
  • Large City: A city with a population between 100,001 and 500,000
  • Very Large City: Effectively Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth

Figure 5: RDAF Round 1 Grants by population size. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (where required data was also sourced from individual council’s websites for additional verification).

Figure 6: RDAF Round 2 Grants by population size. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (where required data was also sourced from individual council’s websites for additional verification).

Figure 7: RDAF Round 1 and 2 Grants by population size (combined). Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (where required data was also sourced from individual council’s websites for additional verification).

Because Hobart and Darwin both fall under the Very Large City definition I thought it useful to capture funding for all capital cities as compared to non-Capital cities. I’ve defined the Capital Cities limits in line with the Australian Bureau of Statistics Greater Capital City Statistical Area.

Figure 8: RDAF Round 1 by Capital City. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Figure 9: RDAF Round 2 by Capital City. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Figure 10: RDAF Round 1 and 2 by Capital City (combined). Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The next set of graphs show the break-down of funding by political party. For the conservative side I have coded the different variations of the Liberal Party as either Liberal, Liberal National Queensland and in the NT the Country Liberal Party. All three variants are blue. The Australian Labor Party is represented in maroon, the National Party is yellow (this includes funding received in the seat of O’Conner) and Independents are brown. No funding in either Round 1 or Round 2 was received by a seat held by the Australian Greens.

Figure 11: RDAF Round 1 by Political Party. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Electoral Commission and Antony Green’s Election Blog.

Figure 12: RDAF Round 2 by Political Party. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Electoral Commission and Antony Green’s Election Blog.

Figure 13: RDAF Round 1 and 2 by Political Party (combined). Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Electoral Commission and Antony Green’s Election Blog.

I then looked at how much funding went to marginal seats and I drew my definition of such a seat from the Australian Electoral Commission. In the next series of graphs I have broken the pie into three segments, that is those seats which are safe (more than 60% 2PP), those that are fairly safe (56 – 60% 2PP) and those that are marginal (50 – 56% 2PP).

Figure 14: RDAF Round 1 by 2PP margin percentile. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Electoral Commission and Antony Green’s Election Blog.

Figure 15: RDAF Round 2 by 2PP margin percentile. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Electoral Commission and Antony Green’s Election Blog.

Figure 16: RDAF Round 1 by 2 by 2PP margin percentile. Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Electoral Commission and Antony Green’s Election Blog.

The second last series of graphs that I will present will be top-12 recipients of grants by electorate.

Figure 17: RDAF Round 1 by electorate (top-12 only). Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Electoral Commission and Antony Green’s Election Blog.

Figure 18: RDAF Round 2 by electorate (top-12 only). Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Electoral Commission and Antony Green’s Election Blog.

Figure 19: RDAF Round 1 and 2 by electorate (top-12 only). Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Electoral Commission and Antony Green’s Election Blog.

Finally, the last set of graphs is the top-12 recipients by Regional Development Australia area.

Figure 20: RDAF Round 1 by RDA (top-12 only). Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport.

Figure 21: RDAF Round 2 by RDA (top-12 only). Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport.

Figure 22: RDAF Round 2 by RDA (top-12 only). Data sourced from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport.

When the next two rounds of funding get announced (from 7 June 2013) I should be in a position to update both the Round 3 & Round 4 series plus the combined 4 rounds of RDAF funding as per the current views.

Update 1 (26/11/12): On Thursday 22 (November 2012) I made an email enquiry to the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport to request a confirmed number of grant requests for RDAF Round 2. Here is the response from the Department received on Monday (26 November 2012).

Hi Shane

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF).

Applications received by the Department in Round Two have not been published. Outcomes only have been advised publically by the Minister.

In the Forward to the Round Three Guidelines, it states that Rounds One and Two of the RDAF have provided $350 million to support 81 projects with a total value of $1.2 billion.

The ANAO report on The Design and conduct of the first Application Round for the Regional Development Australia Fund, tabled in September 2012 provides more detailed statistics for Round One.

Thank you for contacting us with your query.

Kind regards