Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity to propose and speak to this private members’ motion on area consultative committees as it arose out of meetings with constituents during my regular visiting rounds out in the electorate. I would like to take the opportunity to thank members who are contributing to this debate in the chamber this evening and particularly to thank the member for O’Connor—my neighbouring electorate—for seconding this motion. Concerns about the future of regional development in Australia were raised in more than one locality in the vast geographical spread of Pearce. It is one thing for a new Labor government to push its own ideological views in determining funding and policies for regional Australia, but the failure of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia to ensure a smooth transition and to neglect to keep those who run the area consultative committees informed is poor form indeed.

In March 2008, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government announced that the ACC network would undergo a name change and take a broader role. It was instructed to undertake extensive community consultation. The ACCs complied in a ‘methodical, extensive and professional manner’. While each ACC presented its own findings to the department and government, a joint West Australian response was also compiled and distributed. Stakeholders and community members participated in these consultations. At a meeting in January 2009, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government indicated that Regional Development Australia in Western Australia would remain independent with similar funding to that currently received over a three-year period, which is about $300,000. The ACCs would continue to seek third-party projects and government would encourage cross-membership on boards with a closer alignment between the RDAs and the development commissions through a memorandum of understanding. By 8 April, that ACC staff received an email saying:

… that the network would be absorbed into the state Regional Development Commissions.

And:

The new arrangements are to come into effect on 1 July 2009.

And:

As a result it is not likely that the department will be extending the funding period … which ceases on 30 June 2009.

The email stated:

The Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia wished to meet with the chairmen.

Up until 22 April, there was no communication, it is my understanding from talking to people involved, directly with the minister or the parliamentary secretary and all nine West Australian chairs then got together and signed a letter to the minister requesting advice and guidance. The letter also sought a meeting, with the chairmen offering to fly to Canberra at a time that suited the minister. On 1 May, the parliamentary secretary met with the Kimberley ACC, I understand, and told them that ‘the ACCs were gone’. As one person wrote to me:

Given that the chairs, deputy chairs are ministerial appointments and along with the board carry out this work on a voluntary basis giving freely of their time, expertise and guidance in the region, I find it extraordinary that the minister is so dismissive of them.

I endorse these sentiments and condemn the shabby manner in which those involved in the regional development program have been treated.

This debate provides an opportunity in the short time available to me to personally thank all of those, paid and unpaid, who so competently carried out the work to improve regional development and generate jobs. I want to put it on the record in this House that I appreciate the contribution they have made to regional Australia. It is both rude and unbecoming for ministers of the Crown to treat people with such contempt. We have witnessed shows of shock-horror in this place when businesses have sacked people by email, and we should be able to expect higher standards from the government of the day. Everyone I have worked with in Pearce has approached their work in a highly professional manner, using their skills and areas of expertise to better local communities, and we are grateful for that contribution.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Pearce for bringing this discussion on the area consultative committees to the attention of the House, but I am curious as to why she seems to think the committees have been abolished. I was involved in the meetings to set these committees up and in the parliament when they were first operating, and I was part of getting them to work in their roles of social and economic development in their communities.

When they first started, they also had attached to their role the regional development organisations, which penetrated into the smaller regions. The ACC was an overarching body to help facilitate those bodies in relation to the allocation of funds. Since then, the whole concept has changed considerably. During the Howard years, many became very partisan; others tried to soldier on and do their work fairly, and many did that very well—I remember the coalition ignoring some of them altogether as it came up to the election and many of the funds being allocated without even touching the ACCs.

I think there had to be a review. There had to be some changes to try and put some accountability back into these organisations. Fortunately, I have worked all the way through with the ACC in Tasmania and it has proved to be a very successful organisation. Many good projects have been started through their assistance. I believe that there will be one RDA committee operating there, and I am not anticipating any great changes in that operation. I have worked with the current chair, Dr Cory, and others, and have been very impressed with their interest and assistance in the new projects. Dr Tim Cory, Chairman of the ACC Tasmania, in a letter to the minister on 11 February 2009 said:

We have been extremely buoyed by the support and openness that we have received from the key agencies as we plan our transition forward.

Regional Development Australia is an Australian government initiative that aims to bring together all levels of government to enhance the growth and development of regional Australia—pretty good ideals. I understand also from the minister that the intention is to work more closely with the state bodies so that new ideas do not get hampered by having to go through two lots of legislation to get up and running. This will certainly take a bit of time, as memorandums of understanding have to be put into place and restructuring needs to occur to facilitate this.

The network will ensure that input is provided to the Australian, state and local governments—which was the original intention—on regional development issues and priorities, promoting regions to secure sustainable long-term jobs, promoting investment and regional prosperity, and raising awareness of programs and services available in regional communities. The network will also play a key role in ensuring that advice about key issues in the regions is provided to all levels of government. That was the original purpose of the structure, which got lost over recent years. I think the fact that we are still working in the same way, and in some areas, like in Tasmania, still working through the original body, though changed in considerable ways, proves that in some areas it has worked pretty well.

I thank the member for Pearce for bringing forward this motion. I am sure that she will be very pleased with a new, invigorated body to help her vast electorate of Pearce attract funding for those who need assistance and bring some of the priorities areas together.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The area consultative committees, as the member for Lyons just mentioned, commenced as a Hawke government Labor initiative. At that time, they were committees of an advisory nature and were very much focused on welfare issues. There was nothing really wrong with that, except that nobody took any notice of them. While they had a small budget and could make some small grants in the thousands of dollars, they were not really going to go very far.

When I, as the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, was charged with the amalgamation of a series of assistance schemes grants, it became patently obvious to me that what was lacking in the community was a hands-on, close, defined body that could advise people on the processes that they needed to undertake and that could also provide them with all of the relevant information close to hand. At the time I referred to them as shopfronts, and I got the approval of cabinet for them to be restructured in that way. Amongst all the successes that I can remember of the Howard government, the operation of area consultative committees in that particular format was extremely successful.

The role of the ACCs included making recommendations for projects. It is an interesting point that, when the then opposition chose to criticise some of the grants that were made, they invariably accused our government, which of course always reserved the right to make grants directly, of not consulting the area consultative committees. The government did not have to, but at no time in that recommendation process did the local people, the ACC people, give the government bad advice. It was only part of a stage in the process. The ACCs recommended projects, which then went through an assessment process that was sometimes at the state office level but always at the Canberra level. That was done in a variety of areas—the most notable being Regional Partnerships. The Labor opposition at that time wanted to attack Regional Partnerships. They reckoned it was some sort of special scheme for Liberal electorates but, in fact, most of the Labor electorates that were in the regions did extremely well out of it when members chose to actually tell their constituents about the opportunities that were available. Some did not tell their constituents.

The current proposal is to say to the ACC people: ‘You didn’t do your job. We don’t want you. We don’t want an involvement of the Commonwealth at this level.’ The government, as is its right, has come up with a variety of other schemes, but it is asking sometimes existing and sometimes non-existing state development commissions—which we know of in Western Australia—to take over the job. The state development commissions throughout the country, and particularly in Western Australia, typically had about 20 staff and grants of matchsticks. They never had any money to give out and they were a huge bureaucracy. The ACCs were tight. I think their wages bill was limited to $300,000 a year. They were there seeing that the money went through the system and out into the community.

Under the terms of good administration of government, why would you sack those people? Why would you do that and hand over either to commissions that had to be created or that had a pretty poor record of letting the money get to real people. They spent it all themselves and I do not know if that will change. It has been my view over the many years that I have been in this place that when you give state governments money often it just seems to disappear, and that is the problem. I will take this opportunity to thank the member for Pearce for inviting me to second this motion. The reality is that I thank all those people for their good work, and I am terribly unhappy that they were sacked for their good work and hung out to dry when they were the good workers and the things they recommended and the help they gave were very important to individual people.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Pearce for the motion a lot of which I disagree with fundamentally, other than point 3 where the work of the ACCs is recognised. I want to touch a little bit on the history of the ACCs and on my understanding of them. As someone who has been engaged in regional development for a long period of time, both at the local level and as a consultant, I did a lot of work across the country in regional development.

One of the issues that I think happened under the previous government is that the area consultative committees were regional development bodies. They were established to do economic development, to do social development, and they had a great role to play in skills and training and in providing a good understanding of what the economic development needs were for a region. They were also important alongside the regional economic development organisations, which were abolished and gradually phased out. I think there is one still existing nationally, but they had a really important role to play in regional development.

What happened under the previous government was that they became grants processing bodies. They ceased to be regional development and economic development bodies. What our regions desperately need is not a grants body because regional partnerships grants in themselves are not regional development. What happened under the previous government is we ceased to have a regional development program that not just enabled funding a good project, which is important, but actually worked together with business, with labour organisations, with not-for-profit organisations and with local government to say, ‘What is it that our region desperately needs government to do to grow our economy? What does our region desperately need government to do to make sure that the social and cultural wellbeing of our region is being looked after?’ That is what happened under the previous government.

I think the difference we are having in this particular debate is very much about the experiences that regional MPs in the Labor Party had under the previous government, which is very, very different to the experiences that regional MPs in the National and Liberal parties had under the previous government. They may like to say that the Howard government was fair but that was not what happened in our regions. You have many regional MPs on the Labor Party side who are saying to you, ‘Regional partnerships did not treat all regions equally.’ It was a funding program that was unfortunately largely discredited because of the actions of the previous government. There were good projects but they were largely discredited because of the way they were dealt with.

What we are trying to do now is actually put in place what we should have had for years—a regional development program that includes funding for regions—whether it be for roads, rail, ports or local schools—to go through local government for community infrastructure. We want to bring back proper regional development so that in our regions we have a body that works with local government, that works with state government and that works with federal government to say: ‘This is what the economic development needs of our region are and this is what you as the Commonwealth government, state government or local government can do to actually assist to grow our region.’

That is what we are trying to do with Regional Development Australia. I absolutely contend that the previous bodies, the ACCs, were done a great disservice by becoming grants funding bodies, and the regions were done a great disservice. They did a fantastic job but it was a very, very narrow view of what regional development was about and there was so much more they could have done. I think many of the chairs and CEOs were itching to do that work but they unfortunately were bound by becoming a grants funding body for regional partnerships.

In the short amount of time I have left, I want to acknowledge the work of the ACC in my region. It has been wound up. I attended the final day on Friday. While Peter, Lauren and Rachel are very distressed about what has happened to them personally, I also know that they are very keen to see what the new model is going to be like. They are very keen to participate and are absolutely desperate to participate in regional development in my community. I want to put on record my thanks to them and my thanks to the boards, the many members of which I have worked with over the short time I have been a member of parliament. I want to say: thank you for your work but regional development still lives under this government.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As other speakers have said, this idea of area consultative committees had its genesis in the Hawke and Keating government. But when the Howard government came to power their role was expanded dramatically to take in not only social development but also some forms of medium size commercial development and larger community-type projects. It worked extraordinarily well in my electorate. I pushed the concept and I have pushed it hard. The member for Pearce put it quite well when she said that it was like a window into a district, and that it was. It was not so much a shop window but a two-sided window: it allowed government through this body to look into a community and see its needs; it allowed the community to look back through that window at government and to see how to handle those needs and how to fund those needs.

There were 54 area consultative committees. They were not-for-profit incorporated bodies and, as other speakers have said, they generally had a cap on their funding of about $300,000. The government had a measure of control in so much as it could appoint the chairs and deputy chairs of the committees, but that was never done to any excess, as I understand it. All I can say is that I had two ACCs in my area—the Central Queensland ACC and the Wide Bay Burnett ACC. They were exceptional, very successful bodies and their chairs, respectively Kym Mobbs and the then mayor of the Isis shire, Bill Trevor, were quite exceptional leaders. They were rich in human resources with people like doctors, engineers, lawyers, TAFE principals and executives, farmers and local government representatives on them—a rich resource of talent to advise the government.

I concentrated very heavily and unapologetically on commercial projects. Sure, I had some great social projects including the one that probably saw the new government turn around its decision not to fund the overhang of the community projects, the Lake Ellen project, where the television stations went to see this magnificent playground that had a big component of crippled children facilities to it. I think the minister saw that and said, ‘How can you deny projects like this.’ I congratulate the minister and the parliamentary secretary for their generosity of spirit. In addition, I got the Hinkler Hall of Aviation, which is a very important historic and community project in my electorate. I was working on a community centre for Hervey Bay at the time of the change of government.

But where I found the greatest help was in building up small industries. I did not have any dodgy ones in my electorate. Sure, not all succeeded. One or two failed. That is the nature of things when you are doing these sorts of projects. But what we had were projects that took local resources and products and turned them into other products and along the way created lots of jobs. I cite for example AusChilli, which is an outstanding project, and another one was Prime Fibre where I had the agriculture minister visit with me recently and I think he was very impressed with that project. Those things happened because there was a commercial aspect to them as well. I said to the owner of Prime Fibre as I was walking around with the minister, ‘Why was it so important, if this is such a big project, to have that bit of government money?’ He said that was the cement that sealed the banks into the project. The fact that the government would lead with this was incentive enough for the banks to want to come on board. That was a very important role.

In the remaining moments I would urge the government not just to merge these interstate organisations. We do not really have a system of integrated regional development in Australia, more is the pity. I think we could do a lot better by having these RDAs as freestanding bodies much on the ACC lines rather than organisations that I might say in time might end up being a cost-shift from the states to the Commonwealth. I urge the government to have a really good look at that.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan, I congratulate you on bringing this motion to the parliament. I am not necessarily going to agree with everything you have in it, but I think it is important that we focus on regional development, and most of the members who are speaking on this debate come from regional Australia.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you make the point that the area consultative committees were established by the Hawke Labor government as regional advisory bodies to the federal government. Part of the problem that I have with the area consultative committees is that they moved from being those bodies that provided advice and had expertise in the area of regional development to bodies that really became bodies that assessed grants. I have to say that I would like to thank both the Hunter and the Central Coast area consultative boards. I worked very well with them, but there was some limit in the membership of those boards. I found that both of the boards failed to have representation from Shortland electorate, which to me was a problem. But I always found that they were responsive when I approached them about an issue.

There were some problems with those area consultative committees. They did not always have the power that they needed, their recommendations were not always followed by the government. On the Central Coast we had the issue of Tumbi Creek, where the area consultative committee made one recommendation and the previous government chose not to follow that recommendation. That shows that there was a problem in the operation of those area consultative committees and one that needed to be addressed.

The Rudd government is committed to building closer ties and developing partnerships between all levels of government, and I think that has been very apparent in a number of the decisions that have been made, and also working with local communities to make sure that local priorities are developed in a really inclusive way, so it is not some sectional interest pushing their own barrow. That is what we are hoping will happen and I am sure will happen with the new Regional Development Australia and the new committees that will be set up. I think it will improve cooperation across all levels of government by building better and by better aligning our resources to drive regional economic growth and investment. I am most hopeful that the electorate that I represent will actually have a greater input than under the previous board.

Regional Development Australia will bring together the three levels of government and give the regional community a direct line of communication with all levels of government in producing a new approach to cooperative regional development which builds on the successes of the area consultative committees. I want to emphasise that there were some really positive successes that the area consultative committees had, but unfortunately, as with everything, everything has a time and everything has its day. I think it is important to move on to new bodies that better reflect the needs and priorities of the current government.

This government is determined to work together with all arms of government to move away from what we had in the past. We constantly saw the previous federal government blaming the states when anything went wrong. Equally, the states could blame the federal government when things went wrong. Local government was just left out in the cold and was very much a poor cousin, yet local government is the arm of government that is actually closest to the people, closest to the community, and should be more responsive to community needs. I see the new organisations bringing all arms of government together, reflecting the needs of the community and stopping that blame game—stopping sectors blaming each other for the problems that exist and by doing that allowing the community to move forward. We will then have a better idea of what is best for the regions. (Time expired)

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the member for Pearce, the member for O’Connor and the member for Hinkler. I think the member for Pearce should be congratulated for bringing this comprehensive resolution before the chamber today. I think the thing that has been missed by government speakers is the strong sense of umbrage all of those volunteers now feel as a result of the way they have been treated. Who gets sacked these days by email? It has just been shabbily done. That has left a sour taste in the mouth of all those voluntary people who have been making a contribution because they believe in the communities—driving into the night after meetings to discuss important issues. The process has now left I think a hole in the consultative process. After all, these organisations were called area consultative committees.

In my part of the world there were four. The Mallee is a fairly significant geographical area. It is one-third of Victoria. Some of them I shared with other members—the Greater Green Triangle ACC in western Victoria; the Sunraysia Area Consultative Committee in the north-west; the Central Victoria ACC, which I think I shared in part with the member for Ballarat, who has made a contribution today; and the Central Murray ACC.

One of the great strengths of these organisations was that two of them crossed state boundaries. If you live down there across state boundaries, there are all sorts of anomalies that just frustrate a whole range of things, including regional development and economic development. There are different registrations. For goodness sake, in New South Wales and Victoria even the fire hydrants have different threads per inch. Two of those area consultative committees were working very strongly in making representations to government, particularly the federal government, to do something about this.

Their role was beyond what government members have outlined today. I think we have missed a golden opportunity here for the Commonwealth to have a role in what is essentially a state area of jurisdiction. I think we have taken a step back to colonial days. I corresponded with the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia on this matter of border anomalies. He had the decency to share that maybe he had acted hastily and as being prepared, once he has the different states settled down, to introduce a memorandum of understanding to tackle this issue of border anomalies. It is a vexing question.

I just go back to the sense of umbrage that these people feel, as voluntary people on a voluntary board giving their wholehearted advice. I know that the member for Lyons made reference to partisanship. I made no obligation at all. There were people from all shades of politics on those four ACCs that I represented. I think that brought a richness. It was not a partisan thing at all. I think government members here today in this debate have overspun their response, particularly the member for Ballarat. Without actually admitting it, I think the government understands now that it may have made a mistake in handing over completely the responsibility of this issue. It will exclude the federal government in exercising its influence, especially—and I make the point again—on border anomalies. I think it is a lost opportunity.

To the chairs, the working committees and all of the staff of those four ACCs that have been a very useful input of information to me over the years, thank you for your contribution. It has been very much appreciated by me and it has been very much an important part of me making proper representations on their behalf. I hope the government will take note of the sentiments expressed by the member for Pearce and do something about the shabby way in which 150 people across Australia now do not know what their employment opportunities are going to be after 30 June, which is a little over four weeks away. I want to applaud those ACCs; they have conducted a very important role. It is just a pity that this government has overlooked that role. There are those who say that some of these ACCs have not performed very well; I want them to point to any one of my four and any one of the projects that they approved for economic development and say which one of those did not meet the criteria they established. (Time expired)

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Back in March 2008, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, announced the creation of Regional Development Australia, consistent with the Rudd government’s pre-election commitments. In order to create a new regional development network, it was proposed to build on and replace existing area consultative committees by aligning them with state and territory regional planning bodies. The consolidation, I believe, provides the government with a unique opportunity to implement a more strategic and responsive approach to regional development. And in no way will the role of the federal government be diminished in this process—unlike the suggestions made by the previous speaker. In fact, the new RDAs will assist both levels of government, state and federal, by taking on a broad role to provide advice about regional issues, to provide strategic input into national and state programs, to provide information to regional communities and local government on national and state government initiatives, and to help coordinate regional planning and regional development initiatives.

We hope the new organisations will be based on cooperative arrangements that will see genuine engagement with regional communities with a brief that goes beyond the function of purely a body recommending grants. The changes as I see them build on the valuable work undertaken by ACCs across the country. I cannot comment on what is happening in Victoria and the West but I can tell you a little about what is happening in New South Wales. It is proposed that 14 RDAs will be established in New South Wales, bringing together the functions of both the former ACCs and our regional development boards. Interim chairs and deputy chairs have been appointed and are managing the transition for the new organisations to commence work on 1 July 2009. Consequent to the appointment of the chairs and the deputy chairs, there has been an open nomination process and I am sure that many of the former members of the ACCs who nominated in this process may well end up being on these new boards.

I accept that transitions are never easy but from what I can see assistance is being provided in New South Wales in relation to staffing matters and to issues to do with transfer of assets, contractual responsibilities and cancellation of previous incorporations. In that regard I too want to say to the staff of the Illawarra ACC and the members of the board that they have done a great job in the past but we believe it is time to move on. It is my understanding also that existing funding for the current boards—Commonwealth and New South Wales—will transfer to the new RDAs with combined funding expected to be around $450,000 a year from both levels of government for each of the committees in New South Wales. So when fully operational this new network will be the mechanism for delivering the Rudd government’s agenda for regional development across Australia. In no way is the government’s decision to create this new network a downgrading of the importance of regional development nor is there any suggestion of a downgrading of finance or resources that will be allocated.

The member for Pearce’s motion, while welcomed in that it provides the opportunity to have a debate about these issues, seems to miss some of the historical facts and rationale for these changes, which in my view would in fact value-add to the very important work done previously by a range of ACCs. It is really all about improving engagement at the three levels of government and working in partnership with the private sector, the community sector and the not-for-profits to benefit regional communities. Very importantly, the new RDA network will have the critical task of driving business investment and job growth in regions like mine. I cite one example of a very positive outcome recently conducted under the auspices of the ACC: when in a forum of all major stakeholders, we were able to develop a regional response for significant infrastructure investment that went to Infrastructure Australia. We should expect more of these proactive and strategic projects once the RDAs become fully operational.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government would have us believe that the change in area consultative committees to Regional Development Australia is for a noble purpose—that it is designed to bring consultation to its highest zenith and pull together partners from local, federal, state and other bodies to work together to achieve suitable and sustainable outcomes. That is what the ACCs were specifically designed for, and they achieve their function well. The area consultative committees were first put in place by a Labor government to bring together partnerships for wide consultation across communities and key stakeholders. Their role was to ensure that projects that were of great benefit to communities were started by communities, were ensured engagement by communities and had partnerships across all levels of government and industry. Indeed, 54 area consultative committees Australia wide—not-for-profit incorporated bodies under various state incorporation acts—were put together to achieve this very point and operate with a range of funding considerations to achieve outcomes for communities. I look at my electorate of Fadden, where Gold Coast-Beaudesert shared one area consultative committee. It was incredibly successful in its ability to pull together stakeholders and partners to achieve great outcomes.

Considering the success of the ACCs, I cannot help but be cynical that the government’s attempt to simply change it to Regional Development Australia, to RDAs, is no more than a name change with a very strong Labor bent to it. There is a great action where I come from—indeed, Minister Albanese should learn it: if it ain’t broke, don’t try and fix it. The ACCs, in that great colloquial language, ain’t broke. So, Minister, may I politely recommend that you take your grubby little fingers away from what works so successfully across the nation, back away from where you took yourself and reconsider your decision to axe the organisation, the staff and everything that went with it. Indeed, the minister should note the failure to facilitate a seamless transition of staff to these new state based bodies, despite assurances from the minister himself, which I find most vexing with the outcome and, indeed, what has transpired. There is a failure to value and indeed recognise the great voluntary effort of those great people in the community who pulled together the partnerships that made ACCs work. I look at some of the great projects in my area, including the Oxenford and Coomera Community Youth Centre, where land was donated by the city council, where the state government came up with a range of funds and the federal government matched those funds and where the federal government would only play in an environment where true partnerships existed. That was one of the great beauties of the ACCs, the various partnership programs and the funding sources they used.

So may I encourage the minister to have a good hard look in the mirror at exactly where he is taking the program and where it needs to go. The policy for RDAs is a retrograde step. It is moving away from what has worked so incredibly well across the whole vast range of communities across the nation. It is disingenuous of the minister to the way he has treated chairmen and executive officers of the ACCs. It is disingenuous in the way that he left them hanging out on a limb for 12 months. It is disingenuous how the Regional Partnership program, one of the major funding sources the ACCs used, was axed and nothing put in its place, how so many projects were told, ‘You’re not getting funding,’ even projects that were approved. The ultimate height of insult was when David Koch on Sunrise said, ‘This is outrageous, 140 projects approved, including disabled playgrounds,’ and dragged the minister on. The minister was embarrassed on Channel 7 television and had a backward step and allowed a hundred projects through. Clearly Channel 7 TV can make the minister move but parliament at times cannot. The minister needs to have a good hard look at what he is doing. (Time expired)

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the motion as introduced by the honourable member for Pearce. The wrapping-up of the area consultative committees and the implementation of the Regional Development Australia initiative will bring real policy and funding rigour to rural and regional communities at a critical time given the current global financial crisis. The Regional Development Australia initiative will readdress the area consultative committee shortcomings and usher in greater cooperation between state and federal governments. In my home state of Victoria, an in-principle agreement on Regional Development Australia with the state government is close to being finalised. A memorandum of understanding between the Australian government and the Victorian government is currently being developed. The current duality of state and federal government departments in providing regional funding creates unwarranted red tape to the distribution of that funding, which at the moment is needed more so than ever in keeping Australians in jobs. This cooperation will instil a greater confidence between rural communities and the funding body which in the past has been tarnished as a policy that supplied funds for local improvements designed to buy votes during election years. Through this program we seek to replicate in Victoria the positive moves that South Australia has made in transitioning to the new framework.

The former Liberal Premier in South Australia, Rob Kerin, says that the Regional Development Australia network will remove the handicap which regional areas have faced for many years. This initiative will usher in new cooperative arrangements for the distribution of funding to rural and regional projects. This, of course, is critical in my own electorate and in my state, and throughout the country, for securing jobs. In the current climate of the global financial crisis, it is absolutely imperative that the processes by which funding is appropriated by regional communities to build better community infrastructure and to support community organisations is secure, fair and evenly distributed and adequate to provide jobs on the ground now.

Members of the opposition can wax lyrical about the days of the past, but that is not going to provide regional communities with what they need now. By trying to appeal to our nostalgia, the honourable member for Pearce is correct in informing this committee that area consultative committees were first formed by the Hawke Labor government as regional advisory bodies to the federal parliament. But that is where the similarity between the Hawke Labor government’s incarnation and the previous government’s manipulated area consultative committees ends. The previous government was not committed to the regions. The previous government organised the structure and the funding of area consultative committees to be politically expedient during election campaigns. Rather than adequately resourcing the area consultative committees, the previous government was pork-barrelling the money, banking it and then splashing it out during election campaigns. For the financial year of 2004-05 my electorate of Corangamite received one grant under the previous scheme. This grant was valued at $62,750. In the years leading up to the 2007 election, my electorate received six grants to the total of $1,463,000.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.