Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have discovered that one of the disappointing things about debates in this place is that it is a kind of hit-and-run situation. People stand and make their contributions and then depart. It is a shame to me that less than 30 seconds into my contribution all the speakers from the other side and my own side who have preceded me in this debate have fled the chamber so that we cannot have a conversation. I think that, particularly in a chamber of this size, to be able to have a conversation about matters like this is far better than doing set-piece speeches—’I’ll present my case, you present yours and we’ll beg to differ.’ Given that the member for Calare is gone, I shall revert to the format that I had previously decided to follow and talk about the matters that he raised a little later on.

First of all, I say right from the outset that I reject absolutely the suggestion that was made by the deputy chair of the committee and first speaker on this debate today, the member for Hinkler, that the government members were working to an agenda in relation to this inquiry. That is entirely false and needs to be rejected absolutely out of hand. This is an interim report; it is not a final report. I am interested that the member saw fit to introduce a dissenting report and to make some alternative comments in the body of the interim report given that this interim report came about because, in its response to the global financial crisis, the government had made a fairly clear indication that it was considering funding local governments—and we saw that come about at the event involving the mayors that took place at Parliament House last week.

This report was developed in a reasonably interesting environment. For example, there has been plenty of talk about the area consultative committees, ACCs, and the new body, Regional Development Australia, or RDA. In the context of us considering this report, we were not aware—and we are still not aware—of exactly what form RDA, the successor to ACCs, would take. We do not know that all ACCs are guaranteed to become RDA organisations.

We do know, though, that throughout this process—and the member for Calare mentioned attending two public hearings conducted by ACCs in and near his area—they were engaged in a process parallel to it to try and determine, through the minister’s office, what RDA would do. While we were engaged in the quite clear process of looking at a program that had been absolutely slammed by the Audit Office in order to develop a program of integrity for introduction next year, there was this additional process going on on the side. Then, through our process, the ACCs turned up in force to argue their case for retention and to be left in charge of the dollars. ACCs were established as organisations that looked after employment programs, and they were very, very successful. They got an additional role in relation to the Regional Partnerships program, they got a sniff of the dollars and that is what they then considered would be their justification for existence.

This report would not have been possible without broad cooperation from members of the committee—including Mr Neville, who ultimately introduced the dissenting report. I would like to particularly mention the chair of the committee, Catherine King, and the committee staff, who worked very hard to bring us to this position—in particular, Michael Crawford, the inquiry secretary, and the research officers, Susan Cardell and Dr Brian Lloyd. All the staff of the committee office are very vital to those of us who work in the committees and they ought to be acknowledged for the work that they do on every occasion that we stand on our feet.

The report was based on a series of roundtable meetings and site visits. Not all of the members of the committee were able to attend all of the hearings. I was able to attend hearings in Toowoomba, Cairns, Darwin, Bundaberg and Canberra. There were also roundtable meetings in Perth, Launceston, Ballarat, Shepparton, Dubbo and Nowra. We heard a range of views. The member for Hinkler mentioned earlier a view that he picked up at Toowoomba. I was listening to the same people and heard perhaps with different ears, but in that hearing I heard a plea from the local government people that were in attendance that they needed to not have their program priorities taken over by ACCs, who develop projects with community groups and then come to the council for the matching partnership funding. Some of us live in small areas or have lived in small towns. I should say to the member for Parkes that I listened as he mentioned Walgett at length because Walgett is one of the towns that I have lived in in my life. I listened to what he had to say, and I think pretty much everything that he had to say in regard to that town was accurate. We are knowledgeable on this side of the chamber about a number of things that you assume that we are not knowledgeable about.

See this speech in context