Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

The Funding regional and local community infrastructure report is outstanding. It comes about as a consequence of a number of issues. It comes about because of the need to refocus and realign public policy in the area of regional development. It comes about because of the unfortunate negative consequences of the three-volume, 1,200-page audit report from the Australian National Audit Office which was released in November 2007. The report, which the member for Gippsland would do well to read, was constructed for the former government. It was a report constructed by the Australian National Audit Office at the time of the former government; it was a report to the former government. It was simply outstanding that the former government was prepared to consider the operation of this program via the Australian National Audit Office and, furthermore, to accept the recommendations of the ANAO.

Over the course of the past 12 months, regional development discussions in this parliament have tended to be inspired by members opposite in the context of defending the almost indefensible decisions that were made by ministers of the former government to support political regional development—to support projects that were frequently for private enterprise, that frequently had not passed competitive neutrality tests and that frequently were questioned in the broader community, and they mostly lost taxpayer money. It is unfortunate that it has proven so difficult for members of the former government to put the past behind them. I wish they would—I encourage them to do that—and look to the future through this outstanding report. The outstanding report comes about because the members of the committee who produced the report are simply outstanding members of parliament. Catherine King, as the chair of this committee, brought to focus her significant experience in Ballarat, in the broader community and in watching and participating in the regional development debate over the course of the last decade. A very good friend of mine, Paul Neville, brought to focus both his participation in the former government and his concern to see regional development in his own community. There was also a valid debate around the role of private enterprise and for-profit organisations in the receipt of funding for regional development. Jodie Campbell, Darren Cheeseman, Jason Clare, Joanna Gash, Brett Raguse, Don Randall, Andrew Robb, Jon Sullivan and Tony Windsor are all members of parliament with significant interests in this debate and are all members of parliament whose desire was only to get the best possible result.

The interim report is in my view the best possible result. If we look through the recommendations of the interim report, we see recommendations that have integrity, recommendations that will strengthen how regional development and the local community infrastructure program can work into the future. Recommendation 1 reads:

The Committee recommends that the government establish well defined and clear objectives for the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program that sit within an articulated Commonwealth Government regional development policy.

That is absolutely valid, absolutely necessary, and stands in contrast to the way in which former governments have operated in this area. In that, I do not simply refer to the government led by former Prime Minister Howard; the previous Labor government also stands condemned for the way in which it approached many of these regional development issues. Recommendation 2 reads:

The Committee recommends that the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program retain the option of establishing sub-programs to direct funding to strategic priority areas or applicant groups.

That is something that is worthy of consideration, something that the government will take seriously. Recommendation 3 reads:

The Committee recommends that the new Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program:

• cover all regions of Australia—

it will—

• employ a partnership model …

It will. The partnership model structured under Regional Partnerships at its best is simply outstanding. There were many projects that were funded under Regional Partnerships that were simply outstanding. We should not be blinded by the three-volume, 1,200-page report that found significant shortfalls in the administration of the program, found significant political interference in the expenditure of taxpayer money and found significant unexplainable decisions. These include decisions to fund, for instance, an ethanol plant that did not exist and a community railway facility which had not made an application and which subsequently burnt down. There are legitimate questions, but some outstanding projects on the part of outstanding community groups, producing outstanding results, came out of the many hundreds of millions of dollars that were expended through this program by the former government.

The committee also recommended that ‘local government be the auspice agency for applications in a region with a requirement that local government contribute’ to the projects. It is the view of the government that local government has a valid, important and organic role to play in allocations, in decision making and in prioritising in local communities. In the past we found that some projects had been supported by area consultative committees but were not supported by local government. On some occasions hundreds of thousands of dollars—or millions of dollars—went to fund pieces of infrastructure, and local government then had the ongoing maintenance costs, salary costs or staffing costs of projects which were not on local government priority lists. Why is that important? It is important because local government is actually transparent. It is important because local government is answerable to local communities. It is important because local government is accountable. Area consultative committees were not always accountable to local communities.

Recommendation 5 reads:

The Committee recommends that the Government consider:

• establishing a quarantined sub-program of funding to which community organisations, with local government support, only can apply; or
• where feasible, requiring that a set percentage of applications put forward by a local government area be from community organisations.

We will look at that. I am not quite sure how that will work, but I look forward to exploring how we can make recommendation 5 work. Recommendation 6 has been commented on significantly by members opposite. Recommendation 6 reads:

The Committee recommends that the new Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program exclude applications from for-profit entities.

We will accept that recommendation. That recommendation is there because we wish, through this program, to support initiatives that are for the benefit of the broad community through community organisations and not through for-profit organisations. I am absolutely delighted that in recommendation 6 the committee recommends that the government consider regional industry grants as a separate stream under another department—it has suggested the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—when looking at how for-profit granting should take place.

I know the member for Hinkler has spoken many times in this place about an outstanding commercial enterprise in his area, Auschilli. I am very aware of Auschilli. I am aware of it because I have read and understood the application. Frankly, when I look at Auschilli or when I look at an avocado producer’s request for funding for a shed in the south-west of Western Australia, I see some outstanding requests for funding by for-profit organisations which would have a significant regional impact. There is no doubt about that. But there is equally no doubt that the process of assessing Regional Partnerships applications, considering competitive neutrality, considering the transparent expenditure of taxpayers’ money, was not appropriate through the Regional Partnerships model. That was the conclusion of the Australian National Audit Office; that is the conclusion of the government.

As we move closer to 2009 and to the possibility, though we hope not, that economic circumstances will become significantly tighter in 2009, that we will see increased unemployment and that there will probably be damage to regional communities, though we hope not, as a consequence of the global financial crisis, it may well be necessary through Regional Development Australia to deliver labour market programs. It may well be necessary through Regional Development Australia to deliver programs which support communities during this difficult time. It is my hope that Regional Development Australia in its new incarnation will be equal to that task. However, it will not be the function of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program to fund programs that are for-profit organisations.

Recommendation 8 says that the committee recommends that the government consider more formally charging RDAs with a role of assisting applicants to develop their expressions of interest into an application. That is an outstanding recommendation; the government will have pleasure adopting that as part of the role and function of RDA. The recommendation 8 further argues that the department:

… could undertake this role utilising either a regional field officer in each region or an officer allocated a specific region from either the national office or a regional office … .

I am enthusiastic to make the connection here between Regional Development Australia and the local communities that it represents as organic as possible. I think it is essential that RDA be able to assess its community in a way that allows it to support applicants to literally help develop expressions of interest and to form communities of interest around particular ideas for government funding. I think recommendation 8 is particularly strong.

Recommendation 9 reads:

Should the Government wish to pursue the option of having regionally based field officers … collaborating with local council and community groups to identify opportunities, priorities and partnerships—

and there are a range of recommendations in that which I will have to take on notice and in the fullness of time consider how recommendation 9 may be implemented. Recommendation 10 refers to regionally based field officers again. I place that in the category with recommendation 9.

Recommendation 11 reads:

The Committee recommends that the Government consider developing a centralised assessment process for the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program.

I think this is essential. I am pleased to see the former minister has entered the chamber. I know the difficulties which the former minister had in assessing and watching decisions being made in this area. I hasten to make the comment that there are many very good decisions that were made to support community organisations. The ones that were less good have been adequately highlighted by the three-volume 1,200-page report of the ANAO, which was commissioned in the time of the former government and which reported to the former government.

Members in this chamber have seen, over the course of the last week, the government announce its $300 million program at the local government conference here in Canberra. It is important that, as members look at how that $300 million has been earmarked for expenditure, there are clearly transparent indicators in how that money is being spent. Every local government area received a $100,000 allocation. Growth councils, which are an identified group of councils, received a growth component. The balance of the allocation was made on the basis of the states’ financial grants granting processes. This is transparent, clear and of outstanding value to local government. The general reaction to this kind of transparent process has strengthened the government’s resolve not only to ensure the involvement of local government in the new program as it goes forward but also to ensure complete transparency in the way in which these grants are both announced and considered by the government.

We announced, in the course of the last election campaign, the now government’s Better Regions Program. This was constructed by the former shadow minister for trade and regional development and member for Hotham, Simon Crean, in a way that ensured that the then opposition could match in local communities, in some way, the significant regional development efforts of the then government. This program and these projects are in the process of being rolled out as every single proponent and project recipient is confirmed in their project. As every project is confirmed for funding, we will put the project on the departmental website. Every dollar spent through the project will be transparently declared publicly on the departmental website. The first project, which was the painting of the Ben Chifley engine, is already publicly available and on the website.

See this speech in context