Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has received a letter from the honorable leader of the National Party proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s poor administration of programs in Regional Australia.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

For six months we have been listening to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government criticising the Regional Partnerships program. He has been calling hundreds of community groups with loyal hardworking volunteers ‘rorters’. He has suggested that the projects being put forward by these hundreds of groups are not worth while, that they are not worthy of funding. He has said that this program was delivering no benefits to rural and regional Australia and to areas in our country in particular need. When asked today what he had actually been doing in his own six months in the office, he said he has been reading the Auditor-General’s report. Even if he has read all 1,200 pages, that is six pages a day. We certainly need an education revolution if we have a minister of the Crown who can manage reading only six pages a day. However, if he is only going to read the critical pages of the Regional Partnerships program report, not those praising the program and what it has actually achieved over the years, that probably reduces his reading effort to about six paragraphs a day.

The reality is the minister has never studied that report, just as he admitted on Koch’s program on Channel 7 that he had not read the files of the projects that he had failed to fund. He admitted that he had not even read the files of the 116 projects approved by the previous government which he was refusing to fund. That is an extraordinary statement from the minister. In six months of constant criticism of the applicants for these projects, six months of tearing away at the social infrastructure of communities, he admits he had not even read the files. It took an embarrassing performance from him on the Sunrise program for him to start to realise that perhaps he had better look more seriously at these projects. Then in a late night telephone call to David Koch an embarrassed minister said:

... he didn’t realise how many community groups were affected, he said their understanding is that the whole partnerships program was a bit of a rort but there are some really good community projects in there so he is going to fast track the examination of all the applications and do it quickly ...

So, after six months of saying they were all rorts, suddenly he realised there are some good community projects amongst this and he was going to fast-track the consideration of these projects. It is interesting because shortly after the government was elected he said he was going to fast-track the consideration of these projects. Then that promise was repeated in the Senate estimates in February. They were going to fast-track the consideration of these projects.

Six months later the minister had not even read the files, yet he had the audacity to claim that all these projects were rorts. It was not just the minister’s own comments that damn him in this regard. He asked his parliamentary secretary, the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia, who I note is now trying to brief him at the table. Maybe he did read some of the files, because he wrote to scores of applicants for the Regional Partnerships program and said:

We are aware that some projects are becoming time critical but we need time to consider projects in conjunction with a number of Government priorities.

So the parliamentary secretary knew that it was urgent to deal with these issues, but nothing was done until budget night. Then on budget night the projects were axed—100 per cent of them. The government said that they would not be funded—none of them was to be funded. It took an avalanche of complaints to Channel 7 and to members of parliament, including I have no doubt from some members who sit behind the minister, to draw his attention to the fact that there were actually some really good projects. There were some childcare centres. There were some respite centres. There were important things that needed to be done and maybe they should be funded. So, in an extraordinary and miraculous turnaround, the minister announced that all 116 would be offered funding.

It is interesting to note that amongst the 116 that he offered funding was the turtle interpretive centre in Bundaberg, the very project that the minister was criticising today at length. He actually offered it funding. He also said that they had originally asked for a smaller amount of money but that the previous government gave them twice as much as they had asked for. What he did not admit, probably because he has not read the file, was that the council actually asked for more money. They actually wrote a letter requesting an additional amount of money because the cost of the project had grown. The letter also reported that the Labor state government in Queensland had decided to give an additional amount to this project and asked the Commonwealth to provide extra assistance. So it was okay for the state Labor government to provide increased funding for the Bundaberg turtle interpretive centre, but when the coalition government provided additional money somehow or other that was a rort. This is a classic example of this minister having failed to even read the files.

Today we have the truth of the story coming to the front pages of the paper: ‘PM rolls out his own pork barrel’. During the election campaign the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear, and he repeated these words on several successive occasions, that if he were elected to government he would implement a three-step process for the approval of funds for regional projects. He said that applications would have to have support from the local council or local consultative committee or the state government; secondly, they would have to fall within the definition of local economic or community infrastructure; and, thirdly, they would have to pass federal departmental analysis. He said:

That is a three-step process for us if we win the next election—that’s how it would be applied in government under us.

He repeated the statements the next day. But what in fact was happening? Already, by that time, Labor had promised dozens, scores, perhaps even a hundred projects that they were going to fund under their new Better Regions Program. None of these projects were going to be subject to any kind of scrutiny. There was not going to be any kind of examination of their merits. Different rules were to apply to them than were expected by the minister to apply to Regional Partnerships. The Prime Minister laid down three clear conditions which he asserted time and time again would have to be met before any projects could be funded. But in reality Labor was preparing its own rorts list—a giant rorts list of 105 projects—and today we hear that all but one are in Labor electorates or in electorates Labor was trying to win. In fact, the one that was excluded from that list was actually in the electorate of the honourable member for Fisher. Labor was actually backing an Independent candidate to knock him off in that particular electorate. So I would argue that all of these projects were in Labor electorates or in electorates that Labor sought to win. What were the merits of these projects?

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

We won them.

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

The minister has interjected that the merit was that Labor won the seats. That was the only merit. He has admitted that this was a pork-barrelling exercise, that it was a rort designed solely to help Labor to win these seats. Let us look at some of the projects. Why was the Cairns multisports stadium to get $1.5 million when the Coffs Harbour sports centre got nothing? That was one of the ones to be left off the list. Why was the Port Sorell Surf Lifesaving Club to get money but the Bunbury rescue craft to be defunded? Why was the King Island recreation and food trail project to be funded but not the Cooroy Lower Mill Site project? Why was the Mackay aquatic centre to be funded but not the Derby Memorial Pool? Why was Territory AFL to get $2½ million but the Rugby Union School of Excellence to be defunded? What were the criteria that the government went through in choosing these particular projects? How many of these projects had gone through the scrutiny required by the Prime Minister? How many of them had been through the three-step process and, in particular, how many of them had actually been through and passed the federal departmental analysis? The reality is: not one of them. Some of them had been through the federal departmental process and actually been rejected.

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

Identify one.

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

The Dysart community hall. The minister asked me to identify one. They applied, they were knocked back and then Labor decided to fund it. Surprise, surprise! It is in a Labor electorate. What about the fishing grants in Gippsland? It was very interesting to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry going to Gippsland to announce $11 million worth of projects, none of which is going through the Prime Minister’s alleged examination process. None of them has been through the three steps. Some of those projects, incidentally, did go through a departmental analysis, and they were rejected. They were not approved. But, instead, Labor are going to go ahead and fund those particular projects. Those projects that Labor are about to fund are probably worth while and are probably meritorious, but so were the 116 they rejected and which have now come back. Many of the Labor projects will do worthwhile things in their local communities, but are they more worthy than the other projects that they had rejected? Or have they been chosen for one reason and one reason only—they were in Labor electorates? They were in electorates Labor wanted to win and they were so desperate that they were prepared to create their own regional program just to fund these schemes.

This is another extraordinary thing about what the Labor Party did with their 105 pork-barrelling projects. They created a special program called Better Regions, and the only projects to be funded under the Better Regions program are the 105 that Labor announced before the election. The program did not exist before the election; it will not exist in the future. No-one else can apply for a project under Better Regions; only the Labor rorters could apply for funding under this particular program. This is a special program designed to be immune from the standards of governance that the Labor Party said were important for the Regional Partnerships program. These projects have not been through the three-stage examination. The minister has now written to some suggesting that they will have to go through some kind of an application process, but that is contrary to what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister has said, ‘All of these projects will be funded.’ Senator Conroy repeated it in Senate estimates a couple of days ago. All these projects will be funded, irrespective of whether they meet the criteria, whether they are the most meritorious or whether there are other projects that would have ranked higher if they had been subjected to any kind of proper analysis.

This is a rort—it is pork-barrelling on a grand scale. It is an exclusive slush fund for Labor Party marginal electorates. It is a scandal, and it is a scandal particul-arly because the person who has been orchestrating it, conducting the orchestra, is the one who has been critical of previous programs. If he had a degree of honesty in his body he would certainly have been crying out against this Labor rort scheme and he would be refusing to have anything to do with it. But instead he is actually the king of the rorts scandal, including the famous Fort Street rort—$14½ million for soundproofing a school in his own electorate. The minister only funded one school: a school in his own electorate—not the schools in Kurnell or other places around Sydney where there are noise and issues associated with aircraft movements. There is no funding for schools in Adelaide or for schools in country communities or in cities where trucks have to go up hills and are probably noisier than at the Fort Street school. One school has been chosen for this particular program, and it is in the electorate of the minister, who claims he is bringing honesty to regional programs and yet has put $14 million into his own electorate.

His justification for this was that it was promised in four or five election campaigns. Ironically, the Fraser Island world heritage centre was promised in four elections, and yet Labor calls that a rort. So, if in another electorate something is promised in three or four elections and the Labor Party and the state governments are not prepared to put in their contribution and the project is axed, then that is a rort. But, if it is a state school, where the state is supposed to provide the facilities and the funding, in the minister’s electorate, that is a legitimate use of government money. The reality is that the minister is the king of the rorters. The language that he has used to describe small community groups that have not enjoyed the largesse that is being handed out in the minister’s own electorate is a disgrace.

The reality is that Labor have been all froth and bubble and no substance. They are loud in their criticism, but they have invented their own Better Regions program. The only better regions are Labor regions, and Labor is providing huge funding for selected electorates just for electoral purposes. That is what rorting is about, and this minister should be ashamed of himself. (Time expired)

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

What an extraordinary performance! The Nationals have an absolute hide talking about process and accountability. This is the same opposition whose Regional Partnerships program was criticised by the National Audit Office in a three-volume, 1,200-page report. This is what it said:

… the manner in which the program had been administered … had fallen short of an acceptable standard of public administration …

We have seen demonstration enough here in this chamber today of what the National Party is about. The shadow minister opposite, the leader of the National Party, sought towards the end of his speech to speak about funding for a Fraser Island centre. He said it was promised in election after election after election by the National Party and the coalition. But it was never funded, even though it was an election promise made by them. They promised it in three elections. We never promised it, but once we win government we are still supposed to fulfil a promise that they did not deliver after three elections. Absolutely extraordinary.

The shadow minister went on to agree that the Better Regions commitments were good commitments. That is what he said—that Labor’s election commitments were good commitments. He then went on to say, correctly, that there will be a process. He said that himself. We on this side of the House have absol-utely no problem with the fact that we made promises before the election that we regard not as core and non-core but rather as commitments. That having been said, we do not write blank cheques. We want to make sure that there is proper financial scrutiny. We are not going to fund cheese factories that have closed down. We are not going to fund railways that have burnt down. We are not going to fund ethanol plants that do not exist. That is why we are putting in place proper processes.

In a 51-minute spending spree before the 2004 election caretaker period, former parliamentary secretary De-Anne Kelly approved 16 regional projects worth $3.3 million. That was criticised, but the Audit Office report did not stop them. In one week leading up to the 2007 caretaker period, 32 projects were approved, 28 in coalition electorates. They gave $48 million in grants to private companies. And yet we have the extraordinary situation where those opposite have the hide to talk about process. On top of the rail line that burnt down, the cheese factory that closed down and the ethanol plant that does not exist, there is the grape seed oil factory that went bust at Coonawarra and the pet food factory—appropriately named Tailwaggers—that never opened, in the electorate of former National Party leader John Anderson.

In recent times, they have also said that this is all about funding for regional communities. This is what the leader of the National Party said on radio when he was talking to people in Broken Hill: ‘This program was specifically designed to provide things in small communities, where there are limited finance-raising capabilities, which otherwise could not be afforded. The big cities have got the resources that can often provide, on a commercial basis, projects which are simply unviable in regional areas.’

He said that, but what did he do when he was the minister? The previous government provided $43 million to capital cities under Regional Partnerships. Grants went to that great icon of regional Australia Bondi Beach—$1.5 billion to the North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club and $422,500 to the Marine Discovery Centre at Bondi Beach—as part of the 2004 election campaign commitments. $907,000 went to the electorate of Wentworth under the Regional Assistance Program, the forerunner to Regional Partnerships; $2 million went to Campbell Parade, Bondi, under the AusLink Strategic Regional Program. It is absolutely extraordinary.

The response of the leader of the Nationals to this, on 14 May on ABC radio in Broken Hill, was, ‘I do not think there are any examples of each being rorted.’ That is an unbelievable position. The Audit Office had a very different view. It found that a ‘feature of the program’s administration was the frequency with which practices departed from the published program guidelines and documented internal procedures’. The member for New England called these Clayton’s guidelines—the guidelines you have when you don’t have any guidelines—and he was correct. The definition of what was regional was based not on where the project was located but rather the margin of the electorate. That was the way they dealt with it. I raised today in parliament the mess about the Bundaberg turtle interpretive centre—treating taxpayers funds like a magic pudding. I note that there was no personal explanation from the member for Hinkler or from anyone else in this chamber about that.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

If you want the emails to be tabled, we can go through that process. In terms of the processes, we know that they were simply unacceptable. We took the responsible decision of closing Regional Partnerships down. It is clear, from our discussions with communities, that many were led to believe that funding had been finalised with the previous government. Lake Ellen playground in Bundaberg was one of those: $215,000 was approved to buy playground equipment—including equipment for children with disabilities. Now, without a contract, Lake Ellen was given a sign saying the project was funded by the Australian government. We think it is pretty reasonable that they considered—seeing there was a sign there saying that it was funded by the Australian government—that they had funding secured. That is why we have stepped in to provide a common-sense approach—one that has been opposed by those opposite. This process, of allowing projects which were near completion to proceed, has been opposed by those opposite. The overwhelming majority of them are in coalition held seats. But that has not stopped them opposing 55 of the projects.

Today I had a question from the member for McEwen. In her question the member for McEwen suggested, as she did on Thursday, 15 May 2008: ‘Last year, I secured $564,000 to help construct a carer respite house for families in our Macedon Ranges region from the Regional Partnerships program. We celebrated with the project applicant, Golden City Support Services, as well as local volunteers, who have all worked long and hard for this worthy project.’

I understand from the advice that I have had from the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services that this is indeed a worthy project. When he spoke to the member for McEwen and said, ‘This is a health and disability issue. Why was it going through Regional Partnerships?’ the member for McEwen said, ‘We could not get funding from anywhere else.’ This was a minister in the government.

This is the fact of the matter: on 24 October a letter was sent to Ian McLean, the CEO of Golden City Support Services, from Simon Ash, principal adviser of Regional Partnerships, and it said: ‘The application that you submitted for Macedon Ranges Respite Service seeking funding under Regional Partnerships is currently under assessment. As you are aware, the Prime Minister announced that a federal election will be held on 24 November 2007. As a result of the announcement, the parliament was dissolved on 17 October 2007, and the government has assumed a caretaker role. In line with these conventions, no decisions on funding requests under the Regional Partner-ships program will be made until a new government is formed.’ I table the letter.

That is an outrage. It is an outrage to mislead this community organisation and to say, as a local member, that funding has been secured when you know that that is not the case—when you are a minister in the government. How mean-spirited and callous. And that is what this mob did. Someone in my electorate who I have a great deal of respect for said to me, ‘We got funded. What is happening with our project?’ And I said, ‘I cannot talk to you about it. I am the minister. That is not appropriate. Talk to the department. The department will give me advice. The departmental officer will contact you.’ After budget night, I spoke to this person. They were given an assurance of over half a million dollars from the chief of staff to the former minister for roads.

They went out on that basis and took action with a local community group. This is someone who deals with homeless people and kids in education. It is just an outrageous way to treat people—treating money like it was a National Party plaything and treating people so appallingly. The member for McEwen should apologise before this House for misleading the parliament in her question.

We make no apologies for shutting this rorted program down. We also make no apologies for making sure that in doing so we will look after community groups, who are victims of the maladministration and the misleading by those opposite. We make no apologies for delivering our election commitments, through proper processes. That is why we are making sure that the Better Regions guidelines are consistent with the National Audit Office guidelines. We have sought legal advice to make sure that no-one will be in the situation of getting money in an inappropriate fashion. We do not believe in writing blank cheques.

That is why we have established a Regional and Local Community Infrastructure program. We have given a reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, which is chaired by the member for Ballarat and has the member for Hinkler—someone I have respect for—as its deputy chair. We have seconded the member for New England, an independent man of integrity, to make sure that we get the guidelines and processes right for the program, which will commence in 2009.

We believe, very clearly, that regional Australia was the real victim of the previous government because, by rorting the program, they undermined the integrity of funding in regional Australia. That is why you have such extraordinary hypocrisy. The leader of the National Party raised the matter of an article today in the Australian which said that out of the 34 grants:

Only one went to a safe Liberal seat. The other 33 went to marginal seats being targeted by Labor ...

So there are 34 grants which they are saying are a problem. Thirty-three of them are in Liberal and National Party held seats, but somehow that is us pork-barrelling. Somehow that is inappropriate during an election campaign. It is absolutely extraordinary, because they say one thing in here and they say another thing in their electorates.

It is just like the Tree of Knowledge, the other issue that has been raised by those opposite. Let me tell you, I visited it with Vaughan Johnson, the National Party state member, with the National Party local mayor, and with the member for Flynn. They all support that project, as the member for Maranoa did on radio just this week. So they cannot even hold the line from their own dwindling group of nine members in the House of Representatives. They say they care about regional development. Well, there is a shadow minister for regional development and I say to those listening that, if anyone can ring my office in the next five mintues and name him, they will win a prize—I will send them something. It is absolutely extraordinary. I will send them the three volumes of the Audit Office’s report.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I condemn this government and this minister for their abandonment of rural and regional Australia. Today we have learnt that rural and regional Australia has become a sort of plaything of the Labor Party and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. In recent months Labor and the minister for infrastructure have lectured this House hour upon hour, week in and week out about their view that something was wrong with the Regional Partnerships program, that they thought that the previous government had pork-barrelled, that the projects put forward across Australia in the interests of regional people were somehow no good.

After weeks and months of lecturing, hysterical comments and laughter we have learnt today that there was a problem with this minister’s ongoing complaints and that the much hyped Better Regions program has an ever greater problem. It is a problem which is now apparent to all Australians in rural and regional Australia. We now know that this minister is refusing to release a full list of the 105 projects promised by the Labor Party, which had no scrutiny prior to the last election. We now know why he will not release them. It is because Labor and this minister are pork-barrelling on a scale that could never have been imagined by any previous government. We learnt today that 90 per cent of the $150 million in regional grants announced by Labor during the last election campaign will go to Labor held or Labor targeted marginal electorates. All but five of these seats, we learnt from the Australian today, went on to be won by the Labor Party. This is the minister who has come in here every day in a show of mock outrage about the so-called previous level of funding of 72 per cent that was identified in the Australian National Audit Office report into the Regional Partnerships program. His outrage was so strong and so over-the-top it was clear that this minister had to be hiding something. Today we know what this government has been hiding.

The minister talks about process. In light of the revelations that Labor and the minister for infrastructure and regional development have a pork-barrelling plan, which they have labelled Better Regions, how do those promises stack up so far with party representation in Australia? I say to anyone listening to the broadcast of these proceedings that if Labor represents 90 per cent of rural areas in this country, or even if it were 50 per cent or 40 per cent, then maybe this massive pork-barrelling exercise promised at the last election could be justified—the Better Regions program could be justified. But the AEC records show that, under the Regional Partnerships program in the last parliament, 90 per cent of rural seats in parliament were held by non-Labor members. The ANAO found that 72.5 per cent of funding was directed at coalition held seats in a parliament where 90 per cent of rural seats were held by the coalition.

Today we know that the level of funding to Labor electorates under the Better Regions program is 90 per cent. And what is the proportion of Labor held rural seats in the new parliament? Just 31 per cent, 13 seats. So 90 per cent of funding under the Better Regions program was for 31 per cent of the seats. How can this flow of money be justified? How can this minister show his face at the dispatch box today after these embarrassing and damaging revelations? The minister for infrastructure and regional development remarked in this House:

We are ... consulting widely ... to ensure that the mismanagement of previous programs does not occur. We want to get this right.

Well, I bet they do! I bet the minister does want to ‘get this right’. One way to get this right would be to stop directing funds into Labor held and Labor targeted electorates and recognise that 69 per cent of the members of this parliament in rural areas are non-Labor members. We are supposed to believe that so-called ‘new guidelines’ are going to help this process. The minister for infrastructure and regional develop-ment told us today that new guidelines are being drafted. I bet they are being drafted. I bet they are being drafted in a hurry and the government are going to try to justify the unprecedented levels of pork-barrelling and maladministration of government programs.

We are supposed to believe that this minister does not believe in blank cheques, as he told the Australian today, that somehow not all of the promised funding would meet these ‘new’ guidelines. But there is one small problem with that claim: someone forgot to tell the deputy Labor leader in the Senate, Senator Conroy, about this new process. Senator Conroy dutifully held the line in Senate estimates that all Better Regions promises would be met. He even revealed that this instruction to fund these grants had come from the Prime Minister himself. Senator Conroy was quoted as saying in estimates: ‘As the Prime Minister has said, we will be keeping all our election commitments.’ There you have it, Mr Deputy Speaker: all of those election commitments will be funded, according to the Prime Minister via Senator Conroy—all of the 90 per cent in Labor held or targeted electorates.

This minister came into the House and told us on 15 May that he was concerned about the independence of the process, that we should never repeat the so-called ‘mistakes of the past’. The hypocrisy is breathtaking: in one breath to criticise and feign outrage and in the other breath to go ahead and do the very thing you have been complaining about worse that anyone has ever attempted before. The maladministration of this minister’s portfolio is absolutely breathtaking. Minister Albanese lamented further in this House on 15 May 2008:

In our view, the Regional Partnerships program was run so badly that it was beyond repair.

Further, he told the House that he had referred the matter to the House of Representatives committee to inquire into. The program was apparently so bad that Minister Albanese has been forced, under pressure from the coalition, to reinstate 86 of the 116 previously approved Regional Partnerships projects. He knows the worth of these projects. His backdown on this matter shows that he understands that the Regional Partnerships program did have merit and did provide real benefits to communities across Australia. These local communities have been treated with contempt by this government. Regional communities are not political footballs for this government to play with. These are real projects that affect real people’s lives, and this government’s toying with those communities is absolutely breathtaking.

Before the election Labor said it would be keeping the Regional Partnerships program. Then in the budget Labor said the entire program was to go and none of the 116 would get any money whatsoever. So imagine you are one of these communities or had one of these programs lined up under the previous government and on budget night you were listening to the budget appropriations speech and saw that your program was to go. But then, under pressure from the shadow minister and the coalition, Minister Albanese changed his mind. How did he change his mind? We now know that Minister Albanese rang a television show host to tell him that he had had a change of heart. That is the new standard of administration of policy in this government: policy that is made for television. Will it look good on television or will it not look good on television? All those communities across Australia that should be watching this should understand that, if you want to achieve a result from this government, plan to have it go on TV and you will get a response in policy priority.

The minister for infrastructure and regional development has taken the lessons from the budget where he has pork-barrelled for his own electorate. My electorate of Mitchell missed out on funding for a new metro line in one of the fastest growing, infrastructure deprived areas of Sydney. It lost the funding to a major new metro line for the inner city of Sydney which duplicates existing heavy rail services. So I have a question. Where would you think this new metro line, this major piece of infrastructure that will run from Parramatta to the city, will be? Whose electorate will get that new metro line which duplicates an existing heavy rail line service in the inner city of Sydney? I am here to tell this House it is in the electorate of the member for Grayndler, the minister for infrastructure and regional development. This minister is carving up the pork, he is putting it in the barrel and he is rolling it down the new metro line from Parramatta, past Fort Street High School, all the way to the city, at the expense of rural and regional Australia. The minister ought to come in here and apologise to those members of the National Party that he has pilloried for the last six months. He ought to have some shame and back down on his outrageous accusations of pork-barrelling by the previous government in light of the serious and credible information released today.

This minister is fond of quoting his favourite audit report and calling its author the ‘Nationals’ Audit Office. I am here today to say to this House that it is no longer the Australian ‘Nationals’ Audit Office, as the minister is fond of saying. Let the ANAO conduct an audit into this new pork-barrelling and let it now be renamed the Australian Albanese Audit Office.

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

The debate is about the alleged poor administration of the regional programs in Australia. It is worth noting that in 1996 following the election of the Howard government the whole of the Department of Regional Development was abolished. They just got rid of it—they did not want it, did not need it, just got rid of it.

It is also worth remembering that the programs that are being described by those opposite have been described variously as ‘wonderful community projects’—and there are many that are. They have been described as ‘rorts’ on our side—and many are. On radio not so long ago the leader of the National Party made the comment in Broken Hill that ‘this program was actually for small communities’. We have had speakers opposite describe these projects as not being ‘political footballs’. If this is about funding for small communities, I have a letter here from a company which thought they would be recipients of a substantial grant. The company wrote complaining that in fact they had not received the grant because we had said that they were not approved by the former government, that they did not get a contract. They said, ‘Your decision to deny us the grant will deny this company the large profits’—that they would have made—‘given the price of oil and fuel.’ It is not about small community projects. It is actually about rorts. It is actually about public administration. I am surprised that the opposition would raise the issue of the management of programs in regional Australia. To put it mildly, their record on regional programs is atrocious.

I have remarked before that the very first documentation that we got when the class of 2007 arrived in this place were the volumes of the ANAO report. There were three volumes on our desks for us to consider. The three volumes go into great detail about the maladministration of the Regional Partnerships program. The Australian National Audit Office, the independent watchdog overseeing the administration of taxpayers’ money, could not have been more scathing in its assessment of the running of Regional Partnerships. The ANAO’s damning report on Regional Partnerships is sobering advice on how not to administer a grants program, not just a regional grants program but a grants program.

In particular it showed how inconsistently those opposite had applied the program’s guidelines. They manipulated the program to an extent purely to meet short-term political needs and it would be almost impossible to establish what criteria a project was required to meet in order to obtain Commonwealth support. The definition of a regional project was whatever project was in a marginal seat which the then government sought to hold. Whether it was in a regional area or not was irrelevant, as the member for Wentworth is well aware. There are hundreds of needy communities each with very worthwhile projects that missed out because those opposite were only focused on their own electoral margins.

In reading the ANAO report it is apparent that ministers overruled departmental advice, project assessment and management advice and gave grants for no apparent reason other than the money would be spent in a coalition held seat. When I say ‘no apparent reason’ what I mean is there is no documentation on the file, no reference to why a particular piece of advice was thought to have been inappropriate. There is no documentation.

Of the 43 projects that were approved despite the department not recommending them, 38 were in coalition held seats. Of the 43 that were approved despite the department saying, ‘No, do not do this; this is not an appropriate use of public money,’ 38 of them were in coalition held seats. More than a third of the program’s money was pumped into just 10 rural coalition seats, including Gwydir, the seat of John Anderson, the minister formerly responsible for the Regional Partnerships program. Another $4.6 million was earmarked for 22 projects in the member for Lyne’s electorate, another former minister responsible for this program.

The previous government dragged its feet on the contracting of hundreds of grants, leaving many worthy projects hanging in uncertainty unnecessarily. More than 30 projects took between a year and 2½ years to contract. Let me explain what that means. It means that they were projects that received approval from the former government, and approval actually meant a media event, a photograph, a story in the local paper, frequently a deputy prime minister, most often another minister, but always a coalition candidate sometimes handing over what could reasonably have been thought to be a cheque to the recipient organisation that, not unreasonably, then believed a contract was in place. It was not unreasonable for them to believe that a deal had been made, a contract was in place, an obligation was there on the part of the Commonwealth to fund the project.

What did these organisations do? Most often they went out and started work. I have spoken to excellent community organisations, outstanding groupings of people who believed they had a contract. They believed that there was a deal between them and the Commonwealth. Sometimes the projects are sponsored by church groups. On some occasions the most significant event at the start of the project was to have the most significant person from the church, sometimes even a bishop, bless the laying of the cornerstone or the laying of the concrete slab, believing there was a contract in place with the former government.

When we talk about the grotesque abuse of public confidence, when we talk about rorts, there can be nothing more despicable than leading local church groups to believe there was a contract in place, an honourable process, and that the contract would be honoured. These groups—and members opposite know exactly who these groups are—went out, spent their own money that they had raised through lamington sales, through raffles and all kinds of other fundraising drives, through knitting, through running races, sporting and community events to raise money, and they did that believing they had a partnership. They had no such partnership. They were taken for granted. The grotesque rort is that it is left not to the former government; the grotesque part of the game was of course that it would be left to the new government to explain that there was no funding decision.

Let me tell you, when you turn up to these organisations—as those opposite do not—and explain exactly what went wrong this is what happens: they understand that they have been taken for a ride by those opposite. They understand that integrity in this process is on the side of those who speak to the actual fact pattern, who describe what happened, when and where, and who do not turn up wanting a mere media event, a photograph in the local paper, and expect to be delivered, for a bag of promises, a bag of votes. That is the equation that we were looking at here, not a bag of money. The poor community organisations believed it was a bag of money for a bag of votes; no, it was simply a bag of empty promises for which those opposite expected the votes of local communities. There can be nothing more grotesque, there can be nothing that goes more to the fundamental distrust of community organisations to those opposite, than that these arrangements fell through.

It is true that when we inherited this program we were shocked. We could not believe that organisations had been led like that. There were organisations in my own electorate where I had thought that the media event of the handing over of the cheque actually meant a contract was in place. I thought that. I genuinely thought that. I was taken in, and I am a politician. I am a person who has been a member of a political party for 32 years. I am a person who has been a national organiser and national official of the Labor Party. I was sucked in by what I thought was a public ceremony of some integrity. It was no such thing. It was a rort and is seen for what it was. (Time expired)

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

No, that’s a disgrace. Another one of these grubby deals!

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

Disgraceful!

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the leader of the National Party will both desist.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, I have had some interest in this particular issue, as you would be well aware from your time in government. The Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia made some interesting comments a moment ago. One of the things that I thought was very pertinent is that on coming to government in 1996 the coalition was of the view that the Commonwealth had no responsibility in terms of regional development. The then member for Gwydir, John Anderson, made it very plain—he was part of the razor gang at that particular time—that regional development was all about the states and had nothing to do with the Commonwealth. So this notion that, as governments come and go, regional development is always part of the process is not always in fact the case.

What we are talking about here is process; what we are talking about is administration of programs. There is absolutely no doubt that those who look at the Australian National Audit Office report into the Regional Partnerships program will see that there have been breaches not only of the guidelines of the Regional Partnerships program but of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. Those breaches are going to be very important in my view to a parliamentary inquiry into the administration of those programs—not only important as to what they identify in terms of the past history of some of these programs but also very important to how the guidelines are constructed for the future of these programs.

The government has been very scathing—and rightly so—of the administration of the Regional Partnerships program. But the opposition does have a point in my view in relation to this Better Regions program, some of which has been uncovered in today’s Australian. There are certain similarities between the government’s use of the Better Regions program and the previous government’s use of the so-called strategic opportunities notional allocation—SONA—guidelines that the leader of the National Party would be well aware of. They were the guidelines to bypass any guidelines so that you can fund programs without any procedures at all. The underlying difficulty that I have with what the current government is doing—particularly if they want to maintain some degree of higher ground on this issue—is that the funding of election promises should go through some process in terms of the administration of that money. Otherwise, the current government runs the risk, as the previous government did, of being in breach of the Financial Management and Accountability Act. The government itself has to be careful here if we are going to go to a stage where due process and protocols are put in place and where public funds are administered in an appropriate fashion for the future. We have got to make sure that even if it is in terms of an election promise to a community group—and there are very many worthy community groups out there, and we are all well aware of that—there has to be a process to determine how that money is allocated that is outside the political process.

There is no doubt that the Audit Office, when it looked at the administration of the previous government’s Regional Partnerships arrangements, found that there were gross breaches of its own guidelines. There were allocations of funds to private businesses to upgrade their equipment when their competitor was within 10 kilometres. The guidelines said that funding would not flow if there was not competitive neutrality. That was breached time and time again. There was money allocated, as we have heard today, to communities and private individuals in cases where they did not even ask for it—the application forms were not filled out. We have to learn from those mistakes, from those absolute abuses of power, and make sure that in putting in place guidelines they are fair to all concerned and are not being rorted by one government or another. Otherwise, this whole exercise will have been for nothing. (Time expired)

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I proudly represent rural and regional Australia and feel I have a significant contribution to make on this motion. The leader of the National Party has a real hide in putting forward this matter of public importance, given the way that the former government treated rural and regional Australia over a 12-year period. I note that the leader of the National Party could not even find somebody from rural and regional Australia to support him in this matter of public importance.

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

Mr Gray interjecting

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He could not find time to be here—good point. The member for Cowper is here. I think he is on duty, but there is nobody left here from the National Party to listen to this matter of public importance that they have put forward. It is a shame. I see the member for Kennedy here representing rural and regional Australia. We just heard from the member for New England. The reality is that the National Party and the coalition have lost their way when it comes to rural and regional Australia. There is no doubt about that.

The real reason why the Labor Party is now representing rural and regional Australia is that it has put forward plans to tackle the major challenges. If we are looking at rural and regional Australia and the administration they look for, we see they want a government that is going to tackle the major infrastructure bottlenecks, whether they are in roads, rail or ports or whether they are local sporting facilities. That is what they are looking for from government. They are looking for a government that is going to tackle the skills crisis that is impacting on rural and regional Australia. That is what they are looking for from the Rudd government and that is what we are delivering. We are delivering an administration that is putting forward plans for the future to tackle bottlenecks and to tackle the skills crisis, and we have established funds within the recent budget to deal with those programs not only now but well into the future. That is what we are about—delivering not only for the cities in Australia but also for rural and regional Australia.

Today’s matter of public importance was put forward about the Regional Partnerships program and the National Party’s concern about the attacks on it. They come not only from the Labor Party but also from Independents such as the member for New England, whom we have heard from today, and many other people out in the community. The area consultative committee in my area was sick and tired of recommending projects under the Regional Partnerships program. The organisation, established to have an understanding of the local community, recommended projects that were not funded by the National Party minister at the time because they did not fit within the party’s pork-barrelling approach to the Regional Partnerships program.

I saw the member for Dawson here earlier, and it is great to have him as a member of this parliament. He, of course, replaced former parliamentary secretary De-Anne Kelly, the former member for Dawson, who had an absolutely appalling record. We have heard a number of times about the lead-up to the 2004 election. The appalling record of that parliamentary secretary—

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She was a disgrace.

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She was. There is no doubt that the way that she dealt with those programs and supported projects that had not gone through proper processes was a disgrace. That is part of the reason that we have members like the member for Dawson, me as the member for Leichhardt and the member for Flynn here in this chamber today representing rural and regional Australia. We have members of the Labor Party all across this country.

If we look at what is left of the National Party, we see that they have nine out of 63 seats from rural and regional Australia. That is all they represent. Do members know how many the Labor Party represents? It represents 29 out of 63 seats—almost 50 per cent. So I do not really like being lectured by the member for Mitchell, who is from Sydney, about representation of rural and regional Australia when he is not even from rural and regional Australia—and the leader of the National Party could not even find somebody to actually follow him up. We have the member for Grey and the member for Forrest sitting next to him who did not even make contributions, and they represent rural and regional Australia. What rural and regional Australia want is a government that is going to deliver on its election commitments.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.