Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

We on this side of the House are committed to nation-building infrastructure and we are committed to promoting regional development. It is true that we have been very critical up to this point of the former government’s approach, which funded ethanol plants that did not exist, cheese factories that closed down and rail lines that burnt down. But this question provides me with an opportunity to really lift the lid on just how bad the Howard government’s approach to infrastructure and regional development was.

Less than a month before the election was called, the previous government approved $60,000 under Regional Partnerships for a project in the town of Lock. Lock is a small town on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. It has a population of some 290 people. It has one hotel, a supermarket, a school, a police station and a post office. The Howard government approved $60,000 for the renovation of one more building in the town of Lock. Regional Partnerships was meant to have lofty goals. When the Howard government created it, they said it was about ‘facilitating local investment’ and ‘promoting links between industry, government and communities’. In fact, Regional Partnerships was so crooked it had an S-bend in it. The $60,000 was approved by the former government to renovate a dunny—a toilet—in the town of Lock. Both sides of the House would agree that toilets are pretty essential. But, when it comes to the divisions between the Commonwealth, the state and local governments, what business is it of the Commonwealth to be building toilets in small communities in South Australia?

When it comes to the 290 residents this was a rolled-gold throne, because to produce this toilet it cost $206 for each man, woman and child who lives in Lock. I thought this was a bit odd so I asked the department what the basis for the approval was. It turns out that it was not approved by the department. The department had a look at the Regional Partnerships program guidelines and determined that the dunny in Lock did not meet the guidelines because toilets are clearly a local government responsibility when it comes to public parks. It also did not satisfy the Regional Partnerships program funding criteria so the department recommended against it.

You would think that would be the end of the matter—but no. You had the minister, the member for Lyne; Jim Lloyd, the former member for Robertson; and Gary Nairn, the former member for Eden-Monaro, sitting around the ministerial office thinking: ‘How do we promote regional development? How do we really do something for regional Australia? We’ll approve $60,000 for this dunny in Lock! And we’ll overturn the guidelines and the departmental recommendation to do this’. I thought to myself: why would they do something so outrageous? And then I had a look at the electoral map, which was the basis for all their decisions, and I found that the town of Lock is in the electorate of Grey, which had a retiring member, Barry Wakelin. They had polling coming out saying that they were very vulnerable because the sitting Liberal MP was retiring. So a month out from the election the Howard government knew that they were up a certain creek without a paddle—and they were prepared to do anything. They did not just throw the kitchen sink at this proposal; they also threw the dunny! A government that for 12 years ignored serious investment in infrastructure, nation-building and regional development was prepared to flush away taxpayers’ dollars on this proposal. The fact is that you have to make choices in budgets. You make real choices. There are finite amounts of funds. And what we saw from those opposite was a preparedness to use taxpayers’ funds as if they were their own funds. This is such a serious issue because it indicates exactly how malevolent they were with taxpayers’ funds. This government will take regional development seriously. The former government stand condemned for their short-term, politically opportunistic approach.

See this speech in context