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

I was not mentioning names, actually. Anyway, the process had not been completed and there was no money available to give them under this program once the decisions that had to be made were made. But, yes, I believe it is worthy of support, but not through a group of people in a department inappropriate for business. If we get the business portfolios looking at regional business, at least we are getting them out of the city and understanding the differences and how people should be supported.

We talked at Bundaberg about the form of government money to businesses. This money was all grant money, and it was: ‘Thank you very much. Here’s a nice cheque in the bank. Do what you like with it.’ One fellow, not from Bundaberg but from another place I visited, sold his business not long after he got it going. Okay, the money that the government gave provided ongoing jobs for people in that business, but a nice little wedge of it went into his pocket, and he was not at all embarrassed about that. In Bundaberg we discussed this with a number of people who had received commercial business grants through this program. They are not necessarily greedy and indeed saw that there was a reasonable case that, if somebody sold their business having received funding through this grant program, they ought to be required to pay money back to the government. They saw that low-interest or no-interest loans which, at a certain trigger point, could be repaid to the people of Australia would be just as valuable to them. They did not think that the government necessarily owed them a living. They want to work for their money—that is why they are in business. People in business want to work for money, and this program in some instances was really giving them an opportunity to be lazy.

I have only got a short time left, so I will not talk about the issues around local government being the primary auspicing body. I think they have been well canvassed. Members opposite, many more of whom have local government experience than members on this side, would understand the reason that that needs to be so. I am very happy with that particular recommendation. I went out and made quite a deal of ground in that regard.

One of the problems with the funding rounds, as mentioned by the Member for Calare, was the time it took for people to get decisions—for example, sending another letter out because next week they might get a better application than the one that is sitting in front of them and not be able to deal with that one because they have given the money to a lesser project. If you have got funding rounds, you can set timetables. In Toowoomba, we heard from the Queensland department of sport that when the round closes, the department has 14 days to have the information on the minister’s desk and the minister has to sign off in 10 days after that. If you are an applicant, you should know when you are going to be told and when you are going to get the money. We heard horror stories of people waiting for three years.

I just want to mention the remarks of the member for Parkes about the member for New England being on this committee. This is just another example of the National Party sticking the boot into an Independent who they cannot beat in the polls. The member for New England sought to be on this committee for this inquiry, and he does have expertise in this area. This is a government that will embrace and work with the Independent MPs. If you want to have a look at what the Independents think of you guys, read the member for Kennedy’s evidence at the hearings in Cairns. He gave you a proper bucket.

See this speech in context