Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Forrest for drawing attention to what is a very important issue. I agree with her assessment that the Commonwealth plays a vital role in funding community infrastructure in Western Australian regions. However, with respect to the substance of the motion, I simply cannot agree that it is appropriate in any way, shape or form to ascribe any success to the government for the role they have played in the rollout of the National Stronger Regions Fund, for reasons I will articulate shortly.

Firstly, let us put to one side the fact that in Western Australia all but one of the grants over the three rounds of the NSRF have gone to Liberal electorates and let us dig a bit further down into that. In Western Australia, in May 2015, round 1, five grants were awarded; in December 2015, round 2, 13 grants were awarded; and in October 2016, round 3, 15 grants were awarded. That adds up to 33 grants in Western Australia in relation to funding regional community infrastructure, and only one of those grants went to a Labor-held federal seat in the state of Western Australia. The only grant to a Labor-held electorate was just shy of $5 million in round 2 to the City of Rockingham in Brand for the Rockingham Beach foreshore masterplan—and not for want of applications. In round 3, there were applications from the City of Gosnells, Armadale, my fine friend, the member for Burt's electorate as well as an application from the City of Fremantle.

Let's put aside the fact that, in each successive round, the proportion of funding sent to WA projects has only slightly increased, presumably, in a flimsy attempt by the federal party to prop up Colin Barnett's failing state government, falling apart as we speak. Round 1: WA's proportion of the total funding allocated was about 4.9 per cent of total federal funds. Round 2: WA's proportion of that funding was about 12.5 per cent. Round 3: only slightly better—Western Australia's proportion then rising, somewhat coincidentally I do not think, to 15.3 per cent.

As if that wasn't enough, the fact is that many projects funded under the National Stronger Regions Fund, so to speak, are simply not regional, which begs the question: what is the point of trying to pay lip-service to the regions who dearly need the infrastructure support, if that is not where the money is going?

Let's look at this great bastion of regional Western Australia—and that is South Perth. South Perth is perhaps, as the crow flies, three kilometres away from the heart of the central business district: $2.5 million—the second-biggest grant in Western Australia in round 3 going to the City of South Perth to revitalise the Mends Street Jetty precinct. Don't get me wrong: I am quite happy to disclose, as a former long-term resident of South Perth, that I grew up there and it holds a place very close to my heart; my late father had a business just a stone's throw from the Mends Street Jetty. However, if it is that we are ascribing regional funding to a place such as South Perth, we just wonder what is the entire point of badging this process. However, it goes further than that: it really goes to the heart of the blatant lip-service paid by this government to supposedly propping up the regions. It is just not the case with these funding grants.

Another example of NSRF round 1: $6 million to the City of Belmont to upgrade traffic and infrastructure around the Belmont Business Park. This is in the same inner-city federal electorate as the Mends Street Jetty. What special powers indeed does the member for Swan have in convincing his ministerial colleagues that he is actually in a regional electorate?

The real question is whether the Liberal Party here is misusing these funds, valuable taxpayer funds, in a desperate attempt to save the member for Swan or if they are desperately trying to sandbag Glenys Godfrey's seat, which she only holds by a matter of one per cent in the seat of Belmont ahead of the 11 March.

Simply put, the National Stronger Regions Fund does not do what it says it does on the label. It is not regional or, if it is, the expansion of the definition is now so wide as to render the term completely meaningless, especially for those in the regions. It is not national. Funding is not granted equitably between states and between regions within the states. It is simply doled out, from what I can tell, according to the Liberal Party's priorities for pork-barrelling. Thirdly, it does not make our regional and outer suburban areas stronger.

We welcome Commonwealth funding. What we do not welcome is a hunger games type arrangement where we have district versus district. The regions are not getting the attention they deserve.

See this speech in context