Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

I am a regional MP. Sometimes people seem to forget that. I live in regional Victoria. I have been a regional MP and represented a regional seat for 22 years; I understand the reasons pretty deeply. I've been a regional development minister previously in a past government and have travelled extensively throughout the country. So I understand; I understand the issues. But we won't be supporting this amendment, not because I don't think it's important that we have commissioners or regional voices on the advisory panel—it's very important that that occurs—but because when you have a very clear mandate to increase transparency around the appointments process, you have to have a merits based appointments process. By starting to build particular parts into that then creates a problem in terms of the merits based process.

In accordance with the bill, the commissioners are to be selected through a merits based process. It's publicly advertised so that qualified regional people who fit the skills required to be a commissioner are absolutely welcome, and should be encouraged, to apply. When advertised, I'm very happy to let the shadow minister know. If he thinks there are suitably qualified regional people that he's aware of, he should encourage them to apply. In addition to having the appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills and expertise, the minister's appointment decision has to take into account representation from states and territories and local government areas. That is part of what I will do when I look at this.

I say to the member: the very problem you have been writing to me about—and I've been pretty tardy in replying to you, and I apologise for that—is exactly the problem that I am dealing with. Because projects were announced without co-funding partners and they were reliant on the state, I have millions of dollars, in some cases, billions, sitting in the infrastructure investment pipeline that I simply cannot deliver. I have to make a decision. Do I basically say that we cannot deliver this project? I will work with states to try and do that, particularly along corridors like Princes Highway, which is a nationally significant road. I get that. It is incredibly important for the freight of our country. We saw that when we had those terrible fires through there. I visited your community, and having that road cut off for such a long time had a significant impact, not just on your community but on the whole country, in the way freight moved. So I am acutely aware of that. But the very problem you have highlighted is the problem that I've got. If I can't deliver a project, do I just leave that money sitting inactive in the pipeline forever? I can continue to say that I've promised this money. Or do I actually get on with delivering projects where I can employ people to improve infrastructure? That's what we're trying to focus on in terms of the review. And you did a lot of it, and that's the problem that we're facing. Again, I'll say that we won't be supporting this amendment.

See this speech in context