Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Member for New England, Mr Windsor, be appointed to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government as a supplementary member for the Committee’s inquiry into the funding of regional programs.

Yesterday morning the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government determined to have an inquiry into regional development—an inquiry into the way the Regional Partnerships program has worked in the past and an inquiry into the future of the program. We think that it is appropriate, given the approach from the member for New England to participate in this inquiry, that another non-government member be appointed to the committee for the duration of this inquiry. The Rudd government has established a new direction for regional development. We have indicated that we will be establishing the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure program to fund local community infrastructure. We are committed to consulting widely in the development of the new program to ensure that the mismanagement of previous programs does not occur. We want to get this right. The committee will obtain advice and hold meetings around the country so that people have an opportunity to go through some of the historical records as well as advance their view on what future structures there should be to ensure that the taxpayer’s dollar is treated as the precious resource it is. The member for New England, whom we do not agree with on a range of issues, is without doubt a man of integrity. There is no doubt that he has made a substantial contribution to regional Australia both in state parliament and now in the federal parliament. We believe that he will make a positive contribution to this inquiry, which will be ably chaired by the member for Ballarat, with the member for Hinkler as deputy chair.

The government has stated that it will not be proceeding with the Regional Partnerships program on the basis that the Australian National Audit Office has indicated that the program had fallen short of an acceptable standard of administration. We have taken appropriate action to look at the way that the program was run. The real story is perhaps even worse than that which the Audit Office outlined. For instance, in the week leading up to the 2007 election being called—which is after the Audit Office inquiry had taken place—some 32 projects were approved, 28 of which were in coalition held electorates. In our view, the Regional Partnerships program was run so badly that it was beyond repair. Infrastructure development not only involves action on larger scale projects like ports and roads that we have provided for with the Building Australia Fund but also depends on smaller projects that improve the quality of life in these local communities. That is why we have asked the House of Representatives committee to inquire into the matter. I got together the Regional Development Australia network executive, along with the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia, the member for Brand, and we had a very good discussion. The network is also undertaking consultations around the country on the way to establish a regional program with integrity and one that will deliver funds based upon needs and objective criteria, not one based upon political criteria.

Recently we saw a number of media reports on further problems with the Regional Partnerships program, in which the member for New England has had a particular interest. For example, $1.1 million has been paid for a Gunnedah ethanol plant over the last four years. We know that the plant does not exist; it was never built. We now see reports where there would appear to be a conflict of interest in the way that the grant was allocated. It has been alleged that the state member for Barwon, Kevin Humphries, who recommended the grant before he was elected, later went into business with the proponent.

I have also seen reports that the proponent, Mr Matthew Kelley, has offered to return the funds to the government. My department has written to Mr Kelley because we believe that is indeed an appropriate course of action. We have told him where the cheque can be sent and we look forward to the return of taxpayer funds. We also look forward to taking whatever action is necessary, whatever action we can, to get a return of funds that have been allocated in a way which is simply inappropriate. Legal advice has been sought on these issues. These sorts of examples need to have a light shone on them so that they never occur again.

We also need to make sure with the new regional and local community infrastructure fund that we establish integrity in the system. I have every confidence that not just the member for Ballarat but also the member for Hinkler will make a very constructive contribution to future programs in regional Australia. I think the member for New England will do that as well.

In conclusion, I seek leave to table the article from the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 April 2008 titled ‘MP’s link to missing $1 million grant’ and the article from the Sun Herald of 27 April titled, ‘Kelley says he’ll refund $1.1 million plant grant’ for the benefit of members in the House.

Leave granted.

I commend the motion to the House and expect that everyone in this House who is concerned about the independent process of these grants would also support the appointment of an Independent member of this parliament to the committee looking at the structure of these grants, as well as looking at recent history and the way that these funds have been administered so that the mistakes of the past will not ever be repeated again.

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition does not oppose the government’s appointment of the member for New England as a supplementary member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government as moved by the minister. However, I move the following amendment:

That the following words be added at the end of the motion: “and that the Member for O’Connor, Mr Tuckey, also be appointed as a supplementary Member of the Committee for the inquiry and that the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders”.

There is no precedent for the government to appoint a non-government member to a House of Representatives standing committee as a supplementary member under standing order 215(d). My amendment therefore is to secure the appointment of the member for O’Connor as a supplementary member of the House committee for the duration of the proposed inquiry.

It is convention for the government to appoint government members and for the Opposition Whip to nominate to the Speaker non-government members. The member for O’Connor should be appointed to the committee as the non-government supplementary member of this committee as it is clear from the minister’s motion that the member for New England is the effective nominee of the Rudd government. Further, the member for O’Connor, as we all know, is highly qualified and has impeccable credentials to be appointed to this committee for the inquiry into Regional Partnerships. The member for O’Connor was the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government in the Howard government at the time the Regional Partnerships program was expanded to include applications from the private sector.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the opposition’s amendment to add the member for O’Connor to this committee. The government has chosen to make an additional nomination. That clearly alters the balance on the committee and it is therefore appropriate that the balance should be retained by having an additional opposition member on the committee. When the minister made his opening remarks on why this particular committee needed to be established and why it was necessary to add the member for New England, he made a number of criticisms of the previous Regional Partnerships program. He is going to have what will be about the 10th or 12th inquiry into this particular program. He is going to do it all again and again. However, that would all seem to be somewhat useless in view of the fact that, in the budget, the Labor Party abolished the scheme altogether. They abolished the program. So we are going to have an inquiry into a program that does not even exist.

One hundred and sixteen projects which had been through the full assessment process, examined by the department and recommended and announced by the government were axed in the budget. Amongst the projects that were axed was a grant of some $550,000 to the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Dubbo. The flying doctor is celebrating its 80th anniversary today. This is a very important day for the Flying Doctor Service, a service that for such a long period of time has provided a mantle of safety to people who live outside the capital cities. We should all join in celebrating with the Flying Doctor Service the tremendous contribution that it has made to safety in regional Australia over a long period of time.

I know the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, who lives in Sydney, does not have much concern for the people who do not have a doctor on call whenever they need one, cannot go to a hospital and do not have a plethora of services available whenever their child might be sick. Although, since he lives in New South Wales, the services probably would not turn up for him anyhow. The reality is that people in country areas have depended upon the Flying Doctor Service for 80 years. Labor’s birthday gift to the Flying Doctor Service is to abolish a $550,000 grant to extend the flying doctor services at Dubbo. Those services were going to be funded under the Regional Partnerships program. Labor has axed that project.

Let me ask: who decided that a dead tree at Barcaldine is more important than expanding the services of the flying doctor at Dubbo? No-one. There was no proper departmental assessment. Labor just announced it during the election campaign. They are going to fund a memorial at Barcaldine in preference to the flying doctor at Dubbo. Who decided that a footpath to a dead tree in Barcaldine is more important than a childcare centre at Yarram? Labor have abolished the funding for the childcare centre at Yarram. Who decided that a car park near a Labor owned hotel in Barcaldine is more important to fund than a surf rescue boat at Bunbury?

And who decided that replacing the sprung dance floor at Albert Hall in Canberra is more important than building a mental health unit at Tamworth? Labor made those decisions, without any scrutiny, without any public inquiries, without any Audit Office examinations. They are funding the re-springing of a dance floor in Canberra rather than helping the Flying Doctor Service. That is Labor’s priority. If you are looking at how important the dance floor at the Albert Hall is, even the Vice-President of Friends of the Albert Hall, Dr Lenore Coltheart, said, ‘The Albert Hall still has the best dance floor in Canberra, but it’s not as well sprung as it once was.’ So having the Albert Hall dance floor as well sprung as it once was is more important than looking after the flying doctor and more important than the regional performance centre in Broken Hill. All of these projects, some of which had actually been supported by Labor branches, Labor members and Labor candidates at the last election, are to go.

We are going to fund a new streetscape at Ipswich, in a marginal electorate that the Labor Party was interested in winning. But why should we fund a streetscape for Ipswich? What is wrong with the towns in my electorate? You are not funding any of those, but you have chosen one in a marginal Labor electorate. Why have you targeted that? Why have you decided to spend so much money on the dead Tree of Knowledge in Barcaldine? It is because this particular project happens to be in the marginal electorate of Flynn.

We have the hypocrisy of government members, time and time again, being critical of the Regional Partnerships program because, they said, there was more money spent in government electorates than non-government electorates. But what have they done? They have invented a scheme of their own which is not subject to any scrutiny and where there was no application process. Labor just announced it and all those projects are being funded in this week’s budget, where others are not. The ones that have been properly assessed, that have been examined by the area consultative committees and that have gone through a competitive process—all 116 of them—are getting nothing.

Instead, Labor are inventing slush funds for their own projects. And now they are going to expand this to an even grander scale, with $41 billion worth of slush funds created in this budget. The new Building Australia Fund has been allocated $20 billion for the next couple of years, but, ironically, nothing is going to be spent over the next few years. They are going to spend some time planning, and then after the planning they are going to have Infrastructure Australia decide which projects will be funded. Infrastructure Australia will no doubt be staffed well and truly by Labor Party mates. When are we going to get some announcements about how this money is going to be spent? Lo and behold, about six to nine months before the next election. So Labor has a $20 billion construction slush fund, run by Sussex Street, that is going to announce the projects that will be funded.

In the meantime, Australians are going to continue to die on roads that could be constructed now. They could be moving the bulldozers onto the F3 to Branxton Road in the Hunter Valley now. The member for Hunter, the Minister for Defence, was strongly supportive of this $870 million project before the election, but after the election he forgot all about it. ‘No, well, maybe we won’t do it after all.’ And what have the people of Newcastle got as a result of this budget? Not the $870 million that the coalition had committed to build this vital road link but $800,000 for another study of the road needs of the Hunter—$800,000! Do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this will be the 28th study into the transport needs of the Hunter? What was wrong with the other 27, many of which had been done by the state Labor governments? But we have to have a 28th. We cannot get in there with a bulldozer and actually build something. We have to have another study.

Labor also objected to our proposals to build a $2 billion bypass around Goodna, in the areas around Brisbane. I see some Brisbane members present in the chamber. They objected to that and instead said they would widen the existing road, a project which is not recommended by anybody with any sound judgement. It will disrupt traffic for years and, once it is completed, it will have to be extended. But is there money in this budget to build the project that Labor said was so important that it had to be built immediately? No, there is not. How much would you expect in Labor’s first budget to build this $1 billion to $2 billion project—maybe $200 million or $300 million? What have they put up? A miserable $5 million for planning—nothing to actually do any building. That is the story across the line. If you look at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government’s glossy brochures from this budget, you will see one or two actual construction projects, nearly all of which are underway, and then four or five commitments for planning—for design work.

Why aren’t we actually building roads? Many of them are ready to go. They have all been put on hold. Labor is putting them all in the cupboard until just before the election. Lo and behold, the government will say, ‘We have inflation under control, we have the budget balanced and so now we can go out and spend this money.’ Of course, most of the money was put there by Peter Costello and the previous government. What we have in this budget is Peter Costello’s surplus and Wayne Swan’s taxes. All this is going to go—the money that we have saved from a good economy over the years is now going to be saved up as a slush fund for the next election.

In addition, these things are not all they seem to be. We certainly need the member for O’Connor to be a part of this committee so that he can bring some rigor to these sorts of discussions and make sure that there is a fair and reasonable balance in the discussions that are going to be undertaken. I am sure that the member for O’Connor will be particularly interested in the Albert Hall dance floor. He will probably want to go and visit Barcaldine to have a look at this dead tree to see why it is important for there to be a memorial there, why there needs to be a footpath and why there needs to be a car park near the Globe Hotel, which happens to be owned by the president of the ALP branch in Barcaldine. I am sure the member for O’Connor would like to know what role the president of the ALP branch in Barcaldine played in deciding to put $2½ million into a car park right near his hotel—a hotel that he has owned and been wanting to sell for quite some time.

This is the kind of honesty that Labor is trying to tell us that they are going to bring to the Regional Partnerships program. I hope they have a nice time jigging around on the Albert Hall dance floor after their parties because this is being paid for by the people who are going to be denied a service from the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Dubbo. It is going to be paid for by the people who will not have a rescue boat in Bunbury and the children who cannot go to a childcare centre at Yarram. Those are the sorts of projects Labor did not want to fund. Those are the sorts of projects they want to have an inquiry into. Yet, what is going to happen to the $174 million in this year’s budget to pay for Labor’s election frauds and bribes?

The sorts of projects that they have created never went through any scrutiny but are now going to be funded while 116 applicants went through the proper process and often got matching funding from state governments. Many of them got letters of support from members opposite, and many of them were supported by senators and Labor Party identities. Ask the Broken Hill unions what they think about the decision that has been made in relation to the important project at Broken Hill. Some of these projects had support from Labor identities. They are all being axed so that the member for Oxley can get something for Ipswich.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the member for O’Connor is not the best friend of the Leader of the National Party, but that is what the motion is about. He has to say why there should be two extra opposition members because we know that Independent members count, in terms of committees, with the opposition in the House of Representatives. That is the process. He has to indicate why he supports rorting the system so that—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House has made his point of order. He will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the Nationals and I ask him to return to the motion before the House.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is abundantly clear that we need a man with the forensic abilities of the member for O’Connor, who has a good understanding of regional areas and regional projects, to make sure that this examination is thorough. Let us make it absolutely clear. The member for New England has been nominated by the government. He is therefore a government appointee to this committee. He is not an opposition appointee; he is a government appointee because you, the minister, have nominated him on behalf—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the National Party should know or, if not, someone on the opposition should know. I discussed this with the Manager of Opposition Business today. He did not even bother to get back to me about the opposition’s position but appointments of Independents count as opposition—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the Nationals and ask him to return to the motion before the House.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was speaking precisely on why we needed the member for O’Connor to be on this committee. The government has nominated an additional appointee. He is their appointee. He will no doubt be very friendly to their views on these sorts of issues. If you do not want the balance on this committee distorted against the spirit of the way in which parliamentary committees are established—where a voice is given to both opposition and government representatives fairly—then we need to have an additional opposition nomination to make up for the additional government nomination that is before us at the present time. Fairness, justice and equity says that the member for O’Connor should be on this committee. (Time expired)

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a debate about balance on the committee. It is a debate about the integrity of the committee. It is a debate where the government is quite prepared to allow for an additional opposition member. It is a debate where the government is allowed to put integrity first, unlike those opposite who are only prepared to sit here in defence of the disgraceful. The very first correspondence I got when I was elected to this place was three volumes of the Audit Office’s report into your Regional Partnerships program. We have had extensive debate in this place—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise in a point of order. I listened to the words of the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia, who conceded that he was happy for an opposition member to be appointed. Is he saying that he is agreeing with the amendment?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make one point—that is, not much nice was said about the member for O’Connor at all. Let me say this in front of this House: I am related to Wilson Tuckey. I can say nice things about a person to whom I am related—it has to be said it is through marriage, but I am related to Wilson.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the parliamentary secretary has declared his pecuniary interest in this matter, he should disqualify himself from the debate. He should be heard no further. He has indicated clearly he has a pecuniary interest and therefore he should not participate in the debate.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am prepared to see the good side of Wilson, unlike those in the National Party. He knows about wheat marketing, unlike the Leader of the National Party. What we are looking to do here is restore integrity to the process of government grants that support local communities. We have already described the regional infrastructure program that we wish to put in place, and for which we wish the best possible set of guidelines and protocols for its operation. We want to seek the best advice for doing that. Trial and error learning has never been a strong point of those opposite. Trial and error learning is a fundamental achievement of the human race. Trial and error learning is what it is about in getting things right. What we want to do through the regional infrastructure programs that we will put in place is have the best possible balance. The reason why those opposite oppose the appointment of the member for New England, a person who has a wonderful set of experience in two jurisdictions, is frankly that he has clearly expressed his concerns—

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, I rise on a point of order. There has been no opposition to the member for New England being appointed to the committee. I would ask that that comment be withdrawn.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are attempting to do here is get the best possible talent pool into this committee. Why we are doing that is to ensure that our program—

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been no opposition to the appointment by the government of the member for New England to this committee. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to withdraw the comment that he made that there was opposition.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the point of order. Parliamentary Secretary, if you could accommodate us.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment is opposition, but I withdraw. The substantial point is about ensuring that we have the best quality advice being given to our committee. The point which those opposite have refused to accept from day 1 is that there has been maladministration, political bias, and shocking and appalling administration underpinning the Regional Partnerships program. The Leader of the National Party has repeatedly mentioned Regional Partnership programs, which have been axed by—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary is not addressing the substance of the motion. The motion is quite clear; it is about adding an opposition member to the committee. The intent is not being discussed. I ask you to bring him back to the substance of the motion.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The substance of the motion is to ensure that the parliamentary inquiry is as good as it can be. I conclude my comments on that remark.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Somlyay’s) be agreed to.