Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Throughout my life in public office I have always been concerned about the delivery of government policies. One of the best ways, especially at the national level, is to have an overarching national policy about the way we go about our business but that we put in place processes that enable appropriate devices that would allow those policies to be implemented at the local level. One of the important things is to identify a regional unit that will allow that to happen.

Members of this chamber, predominantly National Party members, have laughed when I have talked about my region and said that I belong to a region within metropolitan Melbourne that is as important as any other rural or remote region. If we look at the way in which we operate, it is important that we seek a level of service and policy delivery that is appropriate. One of the clear examples of that has been the work of the area consultative committees. I think it is unfortunate that, as I rise tonight, there is under consideration by the government a proposal to amalgamate the five Melbourne metropolitan ACCs. The real risk here is that we throw out 11 years of success from these five ACCs.

Tonight I particularly want to talk about the work of the Northern Melbourne ACC, the NACC, because that is the one that I know the best. The point is that I cannot think of any stage where the business of any of the five ACCs has been questioned. They have gone about their business in what I would describe as a definite bipartisan way. When, for instance, surrounding the last election, the opposition had concerns about money administered under the Regional Partnerships program it was not about the work within these regions. These are examples where ACCs have been successful. I think that we greatly risk throwing out all the pluses in the structure in Melbourne by replacing them with one ACC.

I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Baressi, from the region of Melbourne that you represent, and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism at the table, who has an electorate that overlaps part of my region and that has other regions in it, that you both understand the importance of these ACCs and the way that they have operated in Melbourne. It is of concern that at a ministerial level the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Truss, has bypassed consultation with opposition members and we understand that, in consultation with government members, they have indicated their great concern at this proposal.

In referring to the work of the NACC, we are not talking about projects of the ilk of Tumbi Creek or the Beaudesert railway; we are talking about projects, endeavours and works that have had a definite impact. Minister Bailey was involved in the work the NACC undertook to make sure that the Melbourne wholesale market came to the site of Epping. Mr Deputy Speaker, you understand that this was a battle between the western region and the northern region of Melbourne. Distinctly, this is an example of important regional differences. This was not a wasted effort. People who see themselves as being from the west put a case for the market’s relocation to Werribee while those that were championing the north thought it should go to Epping. This proposal will have a great impact on the whole of the northern region. It was not about its going to Epping in the City of Whittlesea; the impact was felt by all the municipalities that now make up the northern ACC—Banyule, Darebin, Hume, Moreland, Nillumbik, Whittlesea and Yarra. There are some distinctly metropolitan municipalities and three of the outer urban fringe municipalities, but they are able to and can work together through the work of the NACC.

This government have to understand that, even though they trot out figures that indicate that they believe they can save operational costs by reducing the five ACCs to one, they are completely misunderstanding the way in which these ACCs have worked within metropolitan Melbourne and the multiplier effect that they have had not only in administering projects under a federal program like Regional Partnerships but also by involving themselves with other sources of funding, the private sector and the institutional sector. As the Northern ACC indicates, it sets out to make sure that business, training institutions and schools all have a place to come together to thrash out proposals that make sure that we have local solutions to local challenges and problems. For instance, there is a flow-on from not only the relocation of the Melbourne fresh produce markets to Epping but also the way in which there are logistics centres at the point where the Hume Highway meets metropolitan Melbourne and where the railway meets metropolitan Melbourne.

Freight and logistics are very important to elements of the northern metropolitan region. Recently, a proposal was funded under Regional Partnerships through the Northern Metropolitan ACC. It is called ‘Freight train: delivering for the transport and logistics industry’. Simply put, this is a distinct local solution to a local challenge. There now exists employment opportunities for people such as disadvantaged job seekers, young people and people that need retraining. If we look at the funding of this, we will see that the Regional Partnerships funding is $267,000 but the project cofunding amounts to $773,000. These are proposals that have come up characteristically through these metropolitan ACCs that have not required 100 per cent funding but have achieved a great multiplier effect because of the networks that have been created. I really believe—and this is my grievance tonight—that we will lose this great advantage because of some bean counter who has decided that there is some element of savings that can be made on operational costs without looking at outcomes.

The minister’s letter to the ACCs talks about operation costs as against the amount of money that has been allocated under Regional Partnerships. That is a very unfair comparison, given that Regional Partnerships is so skewed towards rural and remote regions. That is a decision of government; that is okay. It is for me, as a member from a metropolitan region, to fight for more funding. It is not a reason for scrapping a system that has over 11 years put the runs on the board. It really worries me post all the controversy there was after the last election, when there has been a supposed review of ACCs and their boundaries, that the biggest outcome of that review is to amalgamate the five metropolitan Melbourne ACCs into one. If you compare it to the other capital cities where that decision has already been made, such as the single Sydney ACC, I do not think you can characterise their success as being all glory or anything that can really justify saying, ‘That is an example of the way we should go.’ I am sure the success of Western Sydney members of this chamber has had nothing to do with an amalgamated one-unit Sydney ACC. It has been other devices that have been used.

The thing to be stressed is that there is no way that these ACCs in metropolitan Melbourne can be criticised for going outside of doing their business on a partisan basis because that is not the truth. In fact, these are successful units that have made recommendations to government on merit and if this were to continue I would be quite happy. I am not satisfied that the different regions of metropolitan Melbourne would get a fair go if there was only one ACC throughout Melbourne. The fact is that an ACC represents something like 700,000 people. What chance do those 700,000 people have when there is an institution put in place that is going to look after four million people? What chance do the people of Blackburn have in getting what they deserve against other regions? I hope the government will reconsider this decision and not go forward with it. (Time expired)

See this speech in context