Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

The Liberal and National parties generally support the government’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Councils are obviously keen to obtain whatever money they can for local infrastructure and, as a former council chairman, I know how welcome those payments will be. However, the new program has missed some opportunities and I hope that those gaps may be filled by the government sometime in the future. The coalition spent between 1996 and 2007 $30 billion on regional and rural programs that built infrastructure, improved social and economic opportunities and created jobs. One of the many programs that emerged to deal with regional disadvantage was the Regional Partnerships program. This program has been criticised by many from the luxury of living in wealthy capital cities but it was successful in helping to grow country towns and disadvantaged communities right through the nation.

More than 1,500 projects were approved under the Regional Partnerships program during its four-year life, at a cost of about $350 million. It was a popular program and it delivered results. One of the best elements of the program was that it also levered local community investment. For every dollar provided through the Regional Partnerships program, funding of $3 to $4 was contributed by other funding partners. So local businesses in communities were able to invest in projects and it gave them a great sense of community ownership. They were locked in to making the project a success.

Not every project was as successful as was hoped and some taxpayers’ money was lost. However, if a project was so financially solid in its own right then it did not need government support; it should have been supported and funded by the normal banking sector. This program was about helping make financially achievable the projects which otherwise would not have been possible. For that reason it was able to break through and deliver community infrastructure in ways that otherwise would not have been possible.

There has been criticism that somehow or other it favoured coalition electorates. The fact is that the coalition held most of the regional seats. But the approval rate for electorates was this: of projects submitted in National Party electorates, 70 per cent were approved; 72 per cent were approved in Liberal electorates; 69 per cent were approved in electorates held by Independents; and 72 per cent were approved in electorates held by Labor. So there is no evidence that there was any kind of special political patronage. The approval rates for projects, from whatever electorate they came from, were broadly comparable.

The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government takes great pleasure in throwing scorn on projects. He is one of those who has the luxury of living in a wealthy city, and he does not have an understanding of how important some of these projects can be in small regional communities. It is important that there be a program available that helps the most disadvantaged. We have to be careful in designing a new program that, because of all its accountability requirements, it is not only accessible by well-skilled grant applicants—the professional grant receivers—but also accessible by those poor communities that actually need help in the development process of the project and that it is managed effectively in the weeks and months during which that project is being undertaken. It is very important that we do not just look to the high achievers to receive funding from a program like this. If it is going to be really useful it should include those who are underachievers—those who are at considerable disadvantage. They are the ones who need particular help.

As time is limited I will make only one more point. I do think it is disappointing that the for-profit sector is being excluded from the government’s program. If we do want to rebuild regional economies, we have to attract new industries and new projects. Some financial support to create jobs in those disadvantaged communities can do much more for them than painting the hall, even though we like that community infrastructure. It can be more important than the construction of a new tourist information centre, although that in itself can create jobs. We do need to be looking at the overall strength and depth of an economy. By providing support and seeding funding for new industries, we are actually permanently building a new economy and making those regional communities better able to support themselves. I strongly support the comments of my colleague the member for Hinkler in his dissenting report to this inquiry. I do believe that there is a role for governments to support these kinds of projects to help get communities working again so that they can permanently care for themselves in the years ahead.

Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.

See this speech in context