Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to hear the minister trumpet the benefits of the Roads to Recovery Program and, in particular, the increased funds that were won by the previous Labor government for the Roads to Recovery Program. Mr Deputy Speaker, before you arrived in the chamber we negotiated an increase through fuel levies, the revenue for which was allocated to boosting the essential funds available to councils through the Roads to Recovery Program.

However, isn't it true, Minister, that the benefits that you have claimed—being the increases in the Roads to Recovery Program—have been more than offset by the cuts to financial assistance grants? I bring to your attention the situation of councils within your own state of Victoria. The City of Greater Geelong in Victoria advises that, whilst local road funding has increased marginally, the funds that are available to them through the financial assistance grants have been reduced significantly. In fact, they are close to $1 million—$974,723—worse off over the triennium. So it is indeed good news that more money is going to the Roads to Recovery Program, thanks to Labor initiatives.

Councils as a whole would have been better off had the government not put in place the financial assistance grants freeze which is affecting councils right throughout the country and particularly in the state of Victoria. Citizens in Victoria are going through the process of voting in new councillors—they are in the process of electing new councillors as we speak. And it is important to know what the Liberal-National party attitude is towards future funding arrangements as they cast their votes for Liberal, National, Labor, Greens or Independent members of parliament. It is very important that they know what the disposition and attitude is of the Liberal and National party ministers who are responsible for this portfolio.

I am also glad that the member has made a reference to the National Stronger Regions Fund. It is true that they have funded an excellent project in the seat of Whitlam, after strong representations from their local member and the local council. Regrettably, they did not make the decision in round 2, but it does prove that even the minister is not impervious to good reason and a good idea when it is presented to him. So I congratulate them on reaching the right decision, after exhausting every other alternative proposal.

It is also true that if you look at the moneys that have been allocated, particularly in rounds 1 and 2 of the National Stronger Regions Fund, of the 111 successful projects that were funded in round 2 of the National Stronger Regions Fund, $230 million worth of funds were allocated to coalition electorates and only $16 million worth of funds were allocated to Labor electorates. So I put it to the minister that there is still an enormous disparity in the allocation of funds, that this is being used as nothing more than a pork-barrelling trough—particularly for the National Party, but for both Liberal and National parties—in electorates where they are seeking to shore up support, either in those electorates or for the ministers themselves, seeking to shore up support within the cabinet and the backbench.

In the time available to me, I also want to raise questions in relation to the Stronger Communities Program funds. But I see there are 20 seconds left on the clock so I might leave the minister to answer these questions and invite my colleague to raise some questions that are available to him in his portfolio.

See this speech in context