Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is great to see the government can actually fill the speaking list this sitting week, as during the last sitting week the government struggled to get a full list of speakers. This is the party that claims to represent regional Australia, yet up in the Federation Chamber it could not fill the speaking list on a similar motion talking about the Stronger Regions Fund. I note that this is not the only motion this week about stronger regions. This week they seem to want to talk about it, yet two weeks ago they could not fill their own speaking list. This really speaks to the chaos and the confusion of this government. Perhaps it is because the government is confused by the constant name changes to this program? Perhaps government members did not realise that it is the same pot of money. They keep changing the name to re-badge it and they say that it is new funding for regional Australia, but it simply is not.

The government like to congratulate themselves and say that this is a great new idea of theirs, but it is not. The original form of this fund actually started under the former Labor government—RDAF, the Regional Development Australia Fund—when we used to have transparency, when we used to really consult regional communities. In my part of the world, we used to consult through RDV—Regional Development Victoria—and then through the local RDA committee, which was the next step. This involved local, state and federal stakeholders in the regions so that they could put forward the best projects for their regions. The government has scrapped the experts in the community being involved in the decision-making, and has instead put it up to the department to say, 'You come up with the list.'

One of the concerns that has been raised in my area about this current round is: how do you measure the projects against each other? You can apply for a minimum of $20,000 up to a maximum of $10 million. How do you rank projects against each other with such a broad and large funding gap? How does the small community project that may only want $20,000 to upgrade their hall compete against the City of Greater Bendigo, which might be going for $10 million for a major infrastructure upgrade? How do you compare roads with community halls? The government have not been clear to the community about how projects will be ranked.

I am very fortunate to have very proactive councils in my part of the world. The City of Greater Bendigo has been successful in every round so far, in both RDAF and the Stronger Regions Fund. Through these programs we have secured funding for the Ulumbarra Theatre, funding for the Hanging Rock precinct in the Macedon Ranges, funding for the Bendigo Airport upgrade, funding for the Bendigo Aquatic Centre, funding for the Bendigo tennis centre redevelopment and we hope funding for the RSL redevelopment project—although this is not yet confirmed. While all of these projects had strong support in the community, they have had to engage with a government that has constantly backflipped on decisions. The Bendigo tennis centre was first funded under RDAF, but after the change of government former Minister Warren Truss scrapped the funding and said it was not a priority and that they would not be funding it. The community rallied and worked really hard with Tennis Australia and, finally, this year the government realised the mistake and have agreed to fund their fair share of the Bendigo tennis centre. It is great news, and work is underway. We are hoping that they keep their promise and fund their fair share of the Bendigo RSL revitalisation project.

Groups do get worried when they engage with this government because of the constant name changing of grants, the constant backflipping that the government do. Groups have said to me: 'It's not until we get the cheque from this government that we know we're actually going to get what's been committed.' We want to see the pipeline of funding continue. It does help create and secure construction jobs in our part of the world, and it does help create and build the needed infrastructure in our regions. However, smaller regional councils do struggle to compete against the bigger councils, and I do not believe that this government has done enough in the current process to ensure that those smaller regional councils have the resources to compete. We do want to see good infrastructure in the regions, but the government needs to stop playing politics. It needs to not change names of programs and it needs to commit from the beginning rather than commit, then cut, then re-commit. That uncertainty is just unfair.

See this speech in context