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

It is a pleasure to speak on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Funding regional local community infrastructure. In saying that, I want to add a qualification with regard to the preamble to the terms of reference from the minister, which says:

... make recommendations on ways to invest funding in genuine regional economic development and community infrastructure with the aim of enhancing the sustainability and liveability of Australia’s regions

Liveability is certainly enhanced by community and social infrastructure. I would never resile from that nor do I suggest that it should be downplayed in any program. What I am suggesting is that, if you genuinely want sustainability in regions, they will not just be sustained by social and community infrastructure; they have to be sustained by economic infrastructure. In many regions that means more industry. Under the old ACC program, the Regional Partnerships program, which has been very roundly criticised by some people—and I understand that—what is not said is that the vast majority of those projects were very good. Yes, there are always failures, and I know the member for New England, who is here today, has been quite critical of some of those projects. Nevertheless, in the wider picture, the vast majority of those projects, both social and commercial, were very good.

I did not lodge a dissenting report through any bitterness or with any malice towards my Labor colleagues; in fact, I have a great deal of affection and respect for them. Let us say that on this report we agree to disagree on the emphases. There are two emphases that I think we disagree on. The first one is that community and social infrastructure should be the total focus of the new RDAs to the exclusion of commercial projects. The second one is the excessive involvement of the three tiers of government and the bureaucracy in the running of the program.

I spent 20 years in regional development. It is a very exciting and challenging field. In fact, I probably came to politics through regional development. I think we all come here for two reasons. We come here because we want to make things better and we want to contribute. Obviously, we will come at this through different ways. Having seen regional development in this country in practice, I can tell you that under governments of both political colours at both state and federal levels it has been a dismal failure. If anyone really wants to understand regional development, there are various places around the world where you can go to see it, but I think the starting might be the Shannon Development corporation in Ireland. For a ministry that carries the title of ‘regional development’ not to engage in some form of private or commercial activity, to my way of thinking, is an abrogation of the role of the ministry and the department. Again, that is said with no malice; it is just a statement of fact.

In spending those 20 years in regional development, it became obvious that regional development is not one for short-term initiatives. You might get a lucky industry at a first hit, but by and large it is a culture that needs to be in a community and it needs to extend over at least five, if not 10 or 15, years. In Ireland the two major parties have an agreement that when Shannon puts in its plan for 10 years they both agree to it so that the Shannon Development corporation—and, I imagine, other agencies like that in Ireland—can go about its work in the certain knowledge that there is going to be continuity. For regional development to become a culture and to start to make inroads into a regional community, you really need to have that longevity.

This might surprise you. I think one of the things that Gough Whitlam got very right was the idea of having larger regional cities in Australia, and although some people will criticise the Albury-Wodonga experiment and say that it may become over-bureaucratised—and there is probably some truth in that too—I did a paper on this when I first went into regional development and I thought Whitlam had it pretty right. We need to have outside the capital cities of Australia large, inland provincial cities that are hubs for those areas. For example, I would like to see a large provincial city on the Darling Downs, west of Brisbane—not Toowoomba or Warwick but another large provincial city, perhaps around Clifton or in that area, of 150,000 to 200,000 people. Otherwise Brisbane is going to go exactly the same way as Sydney and Melbourne: it is just going to sprawl and sprawl and sprawl. I think Whitlam was saying to move some of the things out and develop them in those areas.

Of course, you can do that by government intervention from above or you can do it from below. The best regional development is bottom up, but almost all regional development in Australia over the last 50 years has been top down. What happens in that circumstance is that, as governments change and ministers change and emphases change, the programs fall over and the new minister or the new government wants to stamp their character on what the new program will be. The minister might get promoted or the ministry might be changed in name six or 12 months later in a reshuffle and that all falls over again. That has been going on endlessly. I am thinking of the Queensland Department of Industry and Development. It became the Department of Industry and Commercial Development, then I think it went back to being the Department of Industry and Development, and then it became the Department Of Business, Industry and Regional Development and then it became something else and then it became the Department of State Development and now it has another name. Each minister who comes to the department—and I am not querying the sincerity of those ministers—does not put in place a program with longevity at its centre.

If you drive regional development from the bottom up, you need to involve the community. It needs to be driven by the businesses and the organisations of regional areas. These regions cannot be so big such that the focus is too amorphous or general; they need to be focused on the wider region. I think the ABS have got it pretty right. In most areas, the ABS regions are about right. I think there are 10 in Queensland and 10 in New South Wales. You all know the ABS regions. Some of them could perhaps be divided into two, but by and large they are right. They generally present a provincial city or a couple of provincial cities and the hinterland and, for those on the coast, the coastal towns of that region. That is the community of interest. That is where the business is done. That is where the accountants, the banks, the planners, the various industries, suppliers to industry and the transport companies hub. They are, if you like, the building blocks of regional development.

You then need something to drive it; you need a board. The board should not be too heavily influenced by either local government or government. If it is going to be just an extension of the local council, that is meaningless; you may as well do it in council. I think about half the people need to come from business itself; you have to headhunt a few leaders in these things. And then you have the chamber of commerce, the agricultural industries and certainly representatives of city and country local government and perhaps, if there is government money involved—and there should be—a representative from state or federal government. But the driving power needs to be the community itself. It is that sense of relevance, community and ownership which makes these things work.

If you have top-down local government, the second the government gets an embarrassing situation or turns off the funding the whole darn thing falls over. It just stops overnight. There is nothing to drive it. Once the government money is pulled out, finito! If you want to see an example of that, there is the VEDC in Victoria. It was probably one of the best regional development programs. There was a bit of scandal in it. Again, instead of going in and fixing the scandal, they chopped off the whole program and went back to zero. I think to maintain the continuity of regional development you need to have those building blocks in place and government should fund the base running costs of those things. At present they spend up to about $300,000 on ACCs and RDAs. But I think federal government should put about $150,000 or $200,000 into each of those development boards or bureaus or whatever you like to call them—and perhaps the state government should put in $100,000—and then let the communities get on and do it.

The next thing you need to do is a survey of your industries and your supply chain and the image that the broader Australian business and industry community has of your area. We go off and name things and we look at our navels thinking, ‘What a marvellous name!’ Everyone in town says, ‘Isn’t that a good name!’ What is important is what people in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, who are making the decisions, think of your area. If it is Bundaberg, Bathurst, Dubbo, Armidale or Tamworth, or wherever it might be, what does that conjure up? You have a survey and find what people think of your area—how they perceive it—because, if you are going to go out and market a region, perception is everything. You have to know what you need to correct in the minds of the decision makers and what they are looking for in your region. Honourable members, that seldom if ever happens. Governments devise a program and say, ‘We’ll call it Regional Partnerships or RDA or something else. We’re going to put all this money into it and it’s going to be marvellous.’ Then it gets bogged down, as this last program did, in bureaucracy.

It was interesting to see what Bill Trevor, the former mayor of the Isis shire, said about it. He was somewhat critical of the bureaucracy around the program. He pointed out that the department just did not seem to have a handle on how things should happen. For example, he said there was a:

• Misunderstanding about the complex place-based issues facing communities;

That is, there was no research into what is needed. There were:

• Unrealistic expectations of the capacity of community organisations to prepare complex grant applications;
• Unrealistic expectations about the capacity of community organisations to raise funds for local projects;
• Unrealistic expectations about the duration of funding required for projects to become sustainable; and
• A lack of understanding about the damaging impact on community organisations and private sector applicants of delays in decision-making.

What we need to do—and I could speak on this for an hour if I had to—is start with the building blocks, and then all the other things, the subregions, the liaison officers and the grant corridors for those things, would become relatively easy. My criticism of the report is not so much where it is going but the way it is attempting it. I call on my colleagues and the minister to give the sort of thing I am talking about today serious thought.

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

I rise to speak on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government report titled Funding regional and local community infrastructure: principles for the development of a regional and local community infrastructure funding program. From the outset I would like to put my thanks to the committee secretariat on the record. The nature of this inquiry and the nature of the work undertaken by this particular committee make the logistics of organisation challenging, and I am certainly very appreciative of the support provided by the staff of the secretariat. I would also like to put on record my thanks to the member for Hinkler who, through a period of this inquiry, acted as committee chair whilst the member for Ballarat was taking some time off with the birth of her first son, Ryan King. I very much appreciate that and I know other committee members do as well. I also acknowledge the contribution made through the course of the inquiry by the member for Hinkler. He certainly has vast experience in regional development. Whilst he has dissented from parts of the report, I know that we enjoyed his support for quite a substantial amount of the report.

Like the member for Hinkler, I was motivated to seek public office by a number of issues and areas. Regional development, of course, was one of those areas that I had a pre-existing passion for. That extended back to my time in local government, where I certainly had some responsibilities, within the council that I served, in regional development and assisting in growing the economy and growing the liveability of a region.

I think it is fair to say that the effort that we have put in through the course of the inquiry has led to some very substantial recommendations in this report. It is pleasing to see that government has, in a very short period of time, moved on quite a number of the aspects of the recommendations and the work within this report. I am tremendously pleased and grateful that that has happened.

A government member’s perspective of why we thought there was a need to undertake this inquiry is that it arose from the previous program, the Regional Partnerships program. This government, then in opposition, was tremendously critical of the approach that the previous government took with respect to Regional Partnerships. We were particularly concerned about a number of recommendations that came out of the National Audit Office that were critical of the previous program. From my perspective, I know that I was very keen to ensure that, in the course of this inquiry and the report that we developed as a consequence, we picked up the issues that were dealt with there and the criticisms and concerns that we heard through the evidence in the inquiry’s work around the country.

As you might well appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the nature of the work that the committee undertook, we needed to engage with all of the states and territories across Australia. We also needed to engage with local governments and regional development boards across Australia. I think it is fair to say that, depending on where we went and who we talked to, criticisms and concerns varied throughout the inquiry. But it is also fair to say that there were a number of very practical concerns that were raised with us, and I will deal with some of those shortly.

The committee’s report specifically looked at a couple of things. We provided advice on the future funding of regional programs in order to assist in genuine and accountable community infrastructure projects. The evidence that was gathered through the course of this inquiry but also evidence and knowledge gained by committee members, particularly those who had presided on this committee in previous parliaments, was taken into consideration by a number of us.

Clearly, local government has a very substantial role to play in providing infrastructure projects that lead to communities becoming more liveable and more sustainable, leading to healthier and more vibrant communities. We also know, through previous reports, that in many parts of this country local government practitioners are concerned about a growing infrastructure gap.

We also examined ways to minimise administrative costs and duplication for taxpayers. One of the clearest observations that I made through the course of this inquiry was at a practical level. When a community group made an application for funding, under the previous program in particular, they often needed to make an application to local government, to state government and to the Commonwealth government. That led to many community groups and organisations being utterly daunted by the volume of paperwork and correspondence that needed to be entered into to access funding across those three levels of government. It became clear to me that, in many cases, there were competing priorities, making it difficult for communities to access regional development funding to address some of the significant challenges that they might have.

The third term of reference was:

Examine the former government’s practices and grants outlined in the Australian National Audit Office report on Regional Partnerships with the aim of providing advice on future funding of regional programs;

We spent considerable time on this term of reference and considerable evidence was received in relation to it. The fourth term of reference was:

Examine the former government’s practices and grants in the Regional Partnerships Program after the audit period of 2003-2006 with the aim of providing advice on future funding of regional programs.

I know that the member for New England was particularly concerned with that.

After undertaking the inquiry, the committee came up with five broad recommendations, which I hope provide clear guidelines to the government on how where we might go forward in this area. Recommendation 1 was:

The Committee recommends that the Government replace the Regional Partnerships Programme with a new program designed to provide ongoing funding support for regional and local community infrastructure.

I might take a moment to speak on that point. It was absolutely clear through the work that we undertook that both the government and the opposition were firmly committed to the view that the Commonwealth government ought to play a role in assisting regional and local communities to grow. That became obvious throughout the course of our inquiry. The second recommendation was:

The Committee recommends that the Government examine RLCIP applications received from local government and quantify the amount of funding which is being allocated to non-profit organisations.

We spent considerable time discussing this. I think it is fair to say that there is more work for the government to do in this area. Not-for-profit organisations in many instances provide the glue that holds our communities together. Without the support, guidance and assistance that those organisations provide in our communities, things become that little bit harder.

One of the previous occupations that I held before coming to this place was working for an organisation called Vision Australia Foundation, which provided services to the blind and vision-impaired. Whilst that organisation was of quite a significant size, of quite a significant nature, and, as a charitable organisation, had been around for a long time, I know that there are many others that have not been around for anywhere near that length of time and do not have their own internal resources that they have built up. I think accessing programs like this is critical in enabling those types of organisations to grow.

The third recommendation was:

The Committee recommends that the Government, in establishing a new regional infrastructure funding program, consider the need for clarity and simplicity when structuring guidelines that address an applicant’s eligibility and the manner in which it will assessed and funds awarded.

It was clearer under the previous program that guidelines and structures were not necessarily always followed to the letter that they should have been. In fact, it became quite clear that the majority of funds seemed to go—from my observations—into a limited number of National Party and Liberal Party marginal seats. I think that is a chapter in our history that we should not revisit in the future. We need to ensure that there are proper guidelines in place that enable a fair and equitable distribution of funding to all communities, with a discrete bucket of money being made available for applicants to chase on a more competitive basis.

I note, with some pleasure, that the federal government moved down that path with its various stimulus packages. We provided substantial funding to all local governments so that they could make their communities much more liveable and sustainable into the future. I think that is very important. We also made funding available under a set of arrangements to ensure that small councils got more of a cut of the pie than larger ones. (Time expired)

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak today on the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government’s report Funding regional and local community infrastructure: principles for the development of a regional and local community. I believe that supporting the programs that build and help communities is one of the most fundamental roles of the parliament and of local representatives. It has achieved real results for the community.

Having only become a member of this committee in early November, I was not part of the full inquiry process and of the hearings. However, having seen the results of Regional Partnerships projects delivered not only to my electorate of Canning but to the whole of Australia, I obviously have an interest in this report. The government’s dismantling of the area consultative committees and Regional Partnerships will be seen as nothing more than a sham if subsequent programs fail to deliver to local communities. I agree with Deputy Chair Paul Neville’s dissenting comments that the government’s proposed RDAs—regional development authorities—appear to take the process and the role of infrastructure development away from local communities and put much more of a heavy process on governments at all levels. It is bureaucratic nonsense. This is clear in the recommendation to have a departmental delegate as the chair of these RDAs.

The Leader of the Nationals has suggested that the recommendations made in the report are likely to lead to a less efficient program that will favour large population centres and do little to stimulate local community growth.

I agree with the comments of the member for Hinkler, Mr Neville, about an enlargement of the ACC role of strategically placed regional offices with skilled field officers. I think it is vital that these officers know the regions that they are in very well. Any intention to simplify the application and assessment process has been lost. The Area Consultative Committees became the backbone of local development and infrastructure.

In Canning, the entire community was lucky to have what would have been one of the most motivated and successful ACCs in the country. Why were they so successful? Because they knew the local area. They knew the needs of the local community and made a commitment to delivering the best results for the people of the Peel region. The Peel ACC covered an area of some 6,027 square kilometres and incorporates the local government areas of Rockingham and Kwinana, which are in the member for Brand’s electorate, and, in my electorate, the localities of Serpentine Jarrahdale, Mandurah, Murray, Waroona and now Boddington.

The Peel ACC region remains the fastest growing in Western Australia and also one of the fastest growing in Australia. That made the work of the ACC vital to delivering infrastructure to cater for this growth. I will be sad to see John Lambrect and Noela Durnin leave at the end of this month and I want to pay special thanks to former executive officer Pat Gallagher. Pat was highly successful in delivering outcomes for the region because he was in touch with local people and local programs and he was very hands-on. He had the trust of those in the region to identify programs to help provide much sought infrastructure to add to their local programs.

This Rudd government would have us believe that the Regional Partnerships program was all bad, but this program was highly successful and delivered real results. I will outline some successful Regional Partnerships projects that were delivered by the ACC and which will benefit the Canning local community for many years to come. One example is the magnificent war memorial in Mandurah, which was supported by the ACC to the tune of $275,000. There have been many fantastic Anzac services and other services held there.

In another project, the Waroona Town Square redevelopment, which was partnered with Alcoa, the sponsorship of the ACC was $286,000. A multi-use sporting facility at Peelwood Reserve in Mandurah was sponsored to the tune of $588,000 and is now being used by all the local soccer clubs, cricket clubs and schools. It is a multipurpose facility that is used all year and was sorely needed because the City of Mandurah could not afford it on its own, but the city did partner with the state government’s sporting programs.

The Boddington Medical Centre was sponsored to the tune of $33,000 and the Peel Tourist Railway was sponsored for $969,000. This was a fantastic project that has brought a concentration of commercial development to Pinjarra and, again, was partnered by Alcoa.

Support for the Fairbridge Village redevelopment was $2 million. This was one of the most unique villages in Australia. Those present would know that this is the last of the Kingsley Fairbridge Villages from around the world and it was in decay. It was actually going to be bulldozed about 10 years ago until successive governments supported it. I have to congratulate the member for Brand because he is currently working with the Fairbridge executives to continue the support of this magnificent village, which delivers fantastic outcomes for young people at risk—Indigenous young people in training. This, and restoring the village back to its original use, is what this $2 million went towards. So it is a great program.

None of the people that received these monies ever said it should go back, because it is doing fantastic things on the ground. They all had partners. For example, because Alcoa is the largest employer in the area and abuts Fairbridge Village, they help put money into this program, along with the Freemasons of Western Australia. The Freemasons are one of the biggest patrons of Fairbridge and many of the Fairbridgeans that came out there are obviously members of the Masonic Lodge and continue their association with the village.

During 2006-07 financial year 12 Regional Partnership applications were submitted from the Peel region, including the above-mentioned Pinjarra pool, the Meadow Springs open space facility, the Port Bouvard Surf Sports and Life Saving Club and the paediatric ward. Six projects were approved with the total amount of funding being $3,365,000. This funding was to contribute towards $20 million of capital development in the region. So the $3 million was going to actually enhance the region by bringing in other partners to make a total development of $20 million. It was a great outcome.

Then we had the unfortunate situation where Labor decided to axe those projects that had not been approved in writing by the previous minister prior to the election. The Pinjarra Indoor Heated Aquatic Facility, the Meadow Springs open space facility, the Port Bouvard Surf Sports and Life Saving Club, the paediatric ward of the Peel Health Campus and the c-pod digital studios in the City of Gosnells, which is now the in area of the member for Hasluck—just to mention the details of a few. I am pleased to say that after rearguard actions, a lot of lobbying and some sensible behaviour with the support of the member for Brand, the Port Bouvard Surf Sports and Life Saving Club is now back on track.

I visited this site last week to observe that the construction is well under way. Credit for this must go largely in part to the City of Mandurah and the Club President Ric Roberts, who recently received a Member of the Order of Australia for his work in surf lifesaving; but this in particular was one of his last and best projects. The club room’s proposal included a viewing platform for lifesavers, a first aid room, a training room, a kiosk, change rooms and storage—not to mention a base for the club’s 200-plus members. This will vastly assist the members to help save lives. Already there has been a death in this area because of the unmanned beach. Tragically, that happened before we could put this facility in place. Now that the construction has started, not only will the beach be patrolled but later in the summer they will have this facility to operate from.

Finally, I would like to say that the Shire of Murray is in Canberra today. I know that they are seeking the funding for the Pinjarra pool project of $1.1 million which was committed to the expansion of the existing Murray District Community Recreation Centre to include an indoor heated, eight lane, 25 metre pool, spa and leisure pool. As I said, this was axed and now the project is at a standstill because it is waiting for funding despite the fact that the funding had been committed from all other sources. Those other sources included, again, Alcoa helping provide the generation of power through their cogen facility, the shire and the state government. Now that the federal government has pulled the funding, it is at a standstill.

It would be a great community facility that is sorely needed for the recreation, welfare and health of this local community. But I suspect that it is has been knocked on the head because it was a commitment from the former government. It is tragic for the local community and I will do my best to try and help these people see this project come to fruition. With all the money sloshing around at the moment in the stimulus packages, sadly this magnificent project is being stymied because of what I see as spiteful and vindictive politics from the member for Grayndler. I hope that this is one of the projects that this program—and the government—proposes to revisit and look at to see that it will be funded in the future.

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government today to discuss the second report on funding regional and local community infrastructure, which was released earlier this month. I very much enjoyed the work of this committee. I think we were very well led by Catherine King, and having the member for Hinkler, Paul Neville, with his 16 years of service to this committee and its predecessors, on the committee gives a wealth of historical context to the work that we are currently doing.

I would just like to respond to a couple of things that the member for Canning had to say during his contribution just finished. He opened up talking about the area consultative committees and Regional Development Australia. This is not the time or the place for that debate. In fact, during the committee hearings and processes, we understood that this was not the time and or place for that debate, and yet, time after time, ACC witnesses appeared before us, seemingly more interested in saving their own necks than in coming up with a program of grant funding to help develop their communities. The transitioning from ACC to RDA is in progress. It is a government decision, not something that has been brought about by this committee or, quite frankly, something that this committee can influence in a major way at all. What I understand the government is doing is trying to harmonise across Australia all of the different regional development priorities—whether they be at state government or local authority level, or even developed by development associations—so that they are combining but not competing.

The member for Canning spoke about the late unlamented Regional Partnerships program. Nobody ever said—as he claimed—that it was all bad. In fact, a lot of good work happened in the Regional Partnerships program. But it was open to abuse and it was abused quite widely. I suggest to anybody listening to this debate or reading it later in Hansard that they should go to the transcript of the committee hearings in Cairns on 25 July last year and read the words of the member for Kennedy, the Hon. Bob Katter, who probably represents as big a chunk of regional Australia as any member in this place. He was most disgusted by the way the Regional Partnerships program had been developed. In fact, the only way he could see out of the problem was to divide the money allocated each year by 150 and allow that amount to be spent in each of the 150 electorates. Obviously, we have not followed that advice, but he was most vociferous in his understanding that the program was rorted outrageously.

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

It was a disgrace!

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection from the honourable member for New England whom, I know, also represents regional parts of Australia—and I am sure he is going to mention some of the problems that occurred in his area in his contribution to come.

Local governments are struggling to provide both essential and aspirational infrastructure for their communities. This is evidenced by the massive oversubscription to the second stage of the government’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, known as the RLCIP. In November last year, $250 million was shared among all of Australia’s local councils, and a second $50 million was set aside for competitive submitters. Some $1.3 billion worth of submissions were received—submissions for projects which, were they to proceed, would enrich community life in our country enormously. That is, $1.3 billion worth of submissions for $50 million on offer. I am pleased to say that the local government which includes my electorate of Longman, the Moreton Bay Regional Council, was successful in that competitive process and received $3.8 million towards the construction of a state equestrian centre at Caboolture, which will be a joint project between that council, the federal government and the state government. In February, the government had to defer the $500 million to the RLCIP as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan stimulus package—an acknowledgement of the unmet need for community infrastructure and of the capacity of local government to move quickly on projects, thereby ensuring that the economy received the necessary boosts in a timely manner.

The federal government at all three levels of government has the necessary power and capacity to raise revenue. I understand—and these figures may not be accurate—that revenue raisings by local governments amount to three per cent of government revenue in Australia. State governments amount to another 19 per cent, meaning that the federal government raises around about 78 per cent of government revenue raised in Australia. As I say, whilst I cannot vouch for the absolute for the absolute accuracy of those figures, simply taking them as an indicator illustrates the magnitude of the problem. When it comes to day-to-day services and the facilities needed to provide those services, the local and state governments carry the burden of responsibility and are dependent in large part on the flow of funds from the federal government. Members of the committee recognise the absolute necessity of an ongoing infrastructure grant program to assist local government in particular but also to assist community groups to provide infrastructure sufficient for the needs of their community.

This final report and the interim report tabled last November have focused on principles which we believe will ensure that the ongoing program is fair and transparent. Together they seek to establish a framework on which a program with the objectives of assisting local communities in this way can be a truly AAA program—available, accessible and accountable. The report sets out clear guidelines about who should be eligible to access the scheme and what they are able to use it for. It seeks to have an application process that is both simple and adequately supported, so that assistance is available when it is needed. It places great emphasis on the need for diligent acquittal, appropriate to the size of the grant, to provide assurances of a fully accountable program.

Throughout the inquiry process, I developed a view that local councils’ priorities were routinely hijacked by requests from community groups seeking to access the former Regional Partnerships program for a matching contribution from council. The program recommended by this report seeks to eliminate that potentiality, but it does present a risk that community groups could be frozen out by any council. Recommendation 2 of the final report, which relates to the quantification of funding allocated to non-profit organisations, sends a message to councils that they need to be considerate of the needs of that sector, who have had their capacity to raise funds severely curtailed in recent years.

I want to address in part the dissenting comments from the deputy chair—and, by dint of his 16 years service on this committee and its predecessors, as I said, its elder statesman—the member for Hinkler, Paul Neville. Mr Neville laments the fact that the committee recommendations exclude the profit sector—that is, businesses—from accessing this program. I have said frequently throughout the process, as Mr Neville will attest, that in order to have regional development you have to have social development and economic development. Yet, as loudly as he bemoans the exclusion of the profit sector from this program, I will applaud it louder. The first report acknowledged the need for programs to assist economic development in the regions and indicated a view that it would be better managed by another portfolio. That is a view that I hold very strongly. There is no reasonable justification for social infrastructure having to compete with business proposals for funding in any community. The quarantining of the social and the economic, each drawing from a pool of funds allocated by the government according to government priorities from time to time, is by far a more transparent process and, dare I say it, much less open to the types of abuse we saw with the former government’s Regional Partnerships Program.

During the inquiry process the committee visited the electorate of the member for Hinkler. There we saw evidence of many successful businesses who had received grants, gifts of money, from the former government under the RPP. These businesses had developed new products and had provided employment in the community. One firm in particular received about a million dollars of government assistance to relocate to Bundaberg from Nambour. It is claimed that, without the gift of a million dollars from the government, their bankers would not have provided the finance to allow them to make the move. Yet this firm paid farmers in the Bundaberg region over $2 million in their first year for the cane trash on the paddocks after the cane harvest. It seems to me that that was a pretty solid business, that it probably had a pretty solid business plan and that it was not a business that the banks ought to have been reluctant to finance. I believe a culture was developing within banks to send regional business loan applicants to the federal government for some ‘free money’ before agreeing to assist them with bank finance. This, of course, greatly reduced the bank’s risks, but at a cost to the taxpayer. I know that I am not alone in finding that kind of behaviour unconscionable.

During the course of the public hearings in Bundaberg, witnesses who had received funding from the RPP agreed with me that businesses helped by governments should in some, if not all, instances have repayment responsibilities—for example, when an assisted business is sold or reaches sustainable profitability. Certainly the creation of jobs in regional areas is a legitimate consideration for government. However, money allocated for this purpose in successive budgets would be much more useful accumulating as it is repaid, so that each year more and more businesses can be assisted, rather than ultimately lining the pockets of clever and successful business people.

I have great pleasure in commending this report to the parliament. In closing, like all members, I want to acknowledge the good work of the members of the secretariat, in particular those who were heavily involved with this report—inquiry secretary Michael Crawford, and researchers Susan Cardell and Dr Brian Lloyd—who have served our committee with great distinction and served this parliament well in the report that they have helped us produce.

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

I second the words of the previous speaker in endorsing the work of the committee secretariat in relation to this particular issue. I was seconded to this committee for this particular inquiry. I think a few members have alluded to my interest in this particular issue and the way it should be done into the future. I congratulate the government, in that there was recognition of the Audit Office report on the previous government. There was no doubt that there were absolute and shocking abuses of process in terms of the way funding was allocated to various organisations. I might spend some time on that in a minute.

I think the main focus of this report was to put in place something that would work for the future. This document is not perfect, and what the government is doing so far is not perfect; but it is better than what was in place before. Time will judge its capacity to deliver. One of the important things that it has delivered so far is a degree of fairness to the process that was not there before. It was that unfairness in the previous Regional Partnerships arrangements that shone through when we had an application process that was open to all and a determination process that was not open to all. The Audit Office noted in a quite scathing report that there were many cases where there was abuse of process or the process was not even entered into. Almost by definition, that is unfair to those community groups and local government groups et cetera that applied thinking they would be assessed fairly against other organisations and bodies. I think what the government has done since is an improvement on that, in that the process of assessment is fairer. That is not suggesting that it cannot be politicised like the other program was. I would hope that it is not. I think the Financial Management and Accountability Act amendments are being looked at by the minister for Finance, but I think they have to be improved more than what is being done there.

One of the problems with the previous arrangements was that, if the minister—and you cannot take away discretion from the minister—or the government of the day determined that a particular program should get funding and did not adhere to the guidelines, quite obviously that is a breach of the Financial Management and Accountability Act. There were instances where people did not even fill out application forms and were still issued with funds. What happens when a minister does that? Virtually nothing. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, has looked at that issue and has in fact made some changes; there will be a process but there are no penalties.

I find it quite interesting that last week we were debating—and we will waste time on this again this afternoon—who has done favours for whom on the back of this utility that is driving around Brisbane somewhere. The Audit Office report into the Regional Partnerships arrangements was essentially on that very issue: who was doing favours for whom inside a process that had various processes within it which, in a lot of cases, were being ignored. That is why this particular report was put together—to find a way forward which was better. In my view, what is better about this report is that it does involve local government. I am pleased to see here today a practitioner of local government, the Mayor of Gunnedah. He is one of the youngest mayors in Australia and, I might say, a very good one. I might add that he is not in my electorate, so I say that without displaying any favours towards him—but I do welcome him to this building.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He could be soon, though!

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

He could soon be in my electorate. When I was a state member, I did represent Gunnedah and I would be very privileged to be able to do that again if there were a redistribution. I take the support of the member for Gippsland and I might ask him to be a signatory to a boundary change recommendation. It would be interesting if the National Party and the Independents supported each other on this particular issue.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I fear I am being verballed!

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

I wish the member for Gippsland well. He does not have any boundary changes—but he has effectively diverted me from what I was saying.

There are positives in this particular arrangement; it does involve local government. One of the great problems with the previous program was that it was open to abuse in a whole range of areas. It could be abused at the area consultative committee stage. I am not suggesting that of any of the staff. The staff of the New England North West Area Consultative Committee are very good, and the board members are, in the main, very good, but the position of the chair became greatly politicised in recent years. I think it was back in the early 2000s that the Chairman of the New South Wales National Party was made the chairman of the area consultative committee, so you can imagine what sorts of processes started to unfold. He was replaced some years later by the current National Party member for Barwon in the state parliament, so you can imagine what sorts of shenanigans were going on regarding funding streams et cetera. There were some quite blatant abuses of those funding areas, which the New England North West Area Consultative Committee embraced, and some of those are still under investigation. There was a development, value-adding, of an orange farm in the citrus industry. I think about $280 million was accessed through Regional Partnerships. A photograph was taken of a cheque being presented by the former Deputy Prime Minister. Nothing has happened; the money has gone but nothing has occurred. I am told that there are still some investigations into the probity of that particular process. There was a guideline within the Regional Partnerships process where what were called ‘competitive neutrality issues’ were breached. That has been clarified by this recommendation. By competitive neutrality I mean where favouring one business gives another business competitive advantage.

I disagree with the member for Hinkler and I agree with the previous member who spoke. I argued on the committee that the commercial organisations should not be funded through these discretionary funding arrangements. They should not be funded. They were funded. As with the citrus business that never occurred as one of those commercial activities, nothing ever happened. It was open to abuse at that particular stage and, within the electorate of New England, for instance, the breaches of the competitive neutrality guidelines did occur on a number of occasions.

There are two zeolite mines within 15 kilometres of each other; in fact, they can see each other’s dust on a still day. One was granted Regional Partnerships funding—they are private businesses—of something like $300,000 to upgrade its plant and equipment, not to do some marketing exercise with the Chinese or the Russians or someone else externally but to upgrade its equipment. Obviously, because they are in the same business—they are both mining zeolite—that would have a competitive effect on the non-funded business. Both these businesses are run by very decent people; I know them both very well. But that is an unfair advantage that was bestowed by government. I see Malcolm Turnbull and others in the parliament berating the Prime Minister and the Treasurer over some sort of unfair advantage that some fellow in Queensland was getting with his motorcars. We have not seen any proof of that yet, but for some of these people in the parliament to be getting on their hind legs and suggesting that granting someone an unfair advantage is a crime, when these crimes were committed under the former Regional Partnerships arrangements, I think is quite interesting to watch.

There have been, as I have said, other areas where I believe the previous program did not work and was blatantly politicised. Let us look at the example of the much reported Australian Equine and Livestock Events Centre in Tamworth that I was involved with and have been for over a decade. I was the state member when we received funding from the state government at that time. I was involved with keeping the various national equine groups together on a committee. I was brushed aside, in a sense, because of my political persuasion—being an Independent—and then other people were installed in that position. The applications for funding that went on at that particular time were brushed aside, as independent people came in and assessed the project—which was valued at about $13 million at the time—as being non-viable. So the Commonwealth was unable to fund. That particular project now, instead of costing $13 million, costs about $35 million and is judged as being terribly viable, and that amount of money was requested from the Commonwealth parliament. So I think that is a demonstration of the lengths that some people went to in order to create circumstances not to fund and then to create an opportunity to fund the same projects.

Another improvement noted in the document that we are debating today is that the acquittal processes are much clearer. They were quite blurred in some areas and abused in others. I think there is less opportunity for the politicisation process to occur. I would recommend to the government and to the minister: do not go down that path. In fact, great credit comes to government when it does not politicise the funding and try and take political advantage of it.

A classic example of that—I am sure the mayor of Gunnedah, Adam Marshall, would agree—was the previous government’s Roads to Recovery program. This was a very fair program, where everybody got their fair share and people appreciated it. They still appreciate it out there now, and they appreciate what the current government is doing. But as soon as a government try to abuse the process, they abuse the people, and the people are more likely to abuse them at the polls. So it is a counterproductive exercise.

The National Party took hold of what was originally a very good program with quite good intent—it was actually initiated by Simon Crean many years ago—and abused that intent over time and politicised it. As a consequence, they have not gained seats but have lost them. They have lost credibility and respect in the electorate, even from those who received money from that program. There were deals done in coffee shops. There were deals retrospectively. There were deals done all over the place. People do not respect those who do deals of that nature, particularly when they are using taxpayers’ funds.

I think the involvement of local government is a positive because local government is elected and at least there is some stream of accountability in that process. Under the previous arrangements, local governments could apply and, if they were of the right political flavour, they might have a chance and, if they were not, they did not. There were a whole range of ways in which you could dodge and weave around them, but they were not considered as the elected body with a legitimate priority in terms of which of their major projects should be looked at.

I agree with the changes proposed in the report. As I said earlier, I think there needs to be a firming up of penalties on ministers that abuse the Financial Management and Accountability Act. There need to be real penalties, not of the kind where a minister will have a black mark against their name or their conduct will be noted by the Audit Office. I make this plea to the Audit Office: look at this program as it unfolds over time and see whether there are any abuses of it and make sure that, where we can, we strengthen the FMA Act so that, if a minister starts to interfere in a fair process and politicises it, as happened under the previous government, they are penalised with the loss of their job.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise today to speak on the report by the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government into funding regional and local community infrastructure. I certainly acknowledge the comments made by the member for New England and the member for Longman and also their intense understanding of what this report is challenging us all to consider. But I should say that, from my perspective, we have moved forward from where this report details methods by which governments should engage communities in providing them infrastructure. The report is very good. I applaud the secretariat. They did a lot of work in providing not only the information and the logistics for the hearings but also a quality report from this inquiry.

The notions of probity and integrity in terms of how a system like this should operate are very important. My own personal experiences have brought this home to me, especially when I was campaigning for the seat of Forde prior to the election. We all know the program that existed prior to the election—the Regional Partnerships program. Some communities appeared to do very well out of the commitments made by the then government. I have spoken many times in this House about how an area like mine, the seat of Forde in south-east Queensland, has been underresourced in terms of community infrastructure. The reality then was that we were a black hole when it came to be being on anyone’s map in terms of the infrastructure that we required as a community.

In the lead-up to the election campaign, letters from the then minister, who is now retired from this parliament, had committed the then government under the RPP to three major community projects in the Forde electorate. When the election was over and there was a little bit of backtrack over the detail, it was found that there were no contracts and no commitments made. This indicated to me that this was very much an election campaign against my attempts to be the local member. We understand that these things do happen, and I think this report goes a long way to understanding the direction that we now need to take. The community of Forde has essentially been passed by on many occasions, but it was eventually promised some fairly crucial pieces of social infrastructure only to find out later found that there was no veracity to those claims or commitments. So, as the member, I have had had to go back to the community and say that these commitments were made but were unfunded and uncontracted.

Of course, good things do come: the fact that this report was commissioned and the inquiry took place and built along the way an understanding by our current government, the Rudd government, of the need look at how we might provide community infrastructure; and, of course, the large commitment has been made, the $800 million that is going into community infrastructure via a process of engaging local government. I certainly reflect on the words of the member for Hinkler and his concern about the private sector or organisations for profit could not actually benefit from this funding and, of course, there is a fundamental problem with that approach. Of course, you are suggesting that the only way that community infrastructure can be rolled out is by the private sector and, of course, the one good thing about this report, one good thing about the approaches we have taken as a government now is that this is about a partnership.

It always has been about a partnership and while it is clear that the private sector has a role to play, the private sector is very much that, give them the incentive, give them motivation, give them some direction in terms of how they can be involved in investment in the community and they can make their business decisions based on that. In one of the recommendations, of course, we talk about local government and local government involvement, of course, to have local government who, as the member for New England said, are elected representatives, they are people who have an understanding essentially of their community needs and, of course, the priorities for the community.

As I mentioned, those three projects that were promised by the previous government in my electorate had very little input from the local authority and, of course, when you looked at the liabilities that were being placed on a local authority through those commitments, it is not just the building of infrastructure but, as we all know it is the recurrent costs that may go into provision of any infrastructure. To have a process that has the integrity that I believe has been outlined in our report and the way forward, to look at some of the application of how we as a government are providing that infrastructure on the ground right now.

As I said, the 24 recommendations very much put in place the approach and some suggestions about how government can certainly provide a process that is watertight, so that we have those accusations and, of course, it is a perception of wrongdoing that is more damaging than the actual, the fact that there can be allegations. There are accusations made about a process that is not complete and so this report outlining through those 24 recommendations a way forward I think is very, very important.

As I said, to look at what we have done as a government to certainly to take the intent of the report even at this stage, the rollout of infrastructure and certainly the ability for local government in my community to now put their hand up and ask for some very, very important pieces of infrastructure, and I would like to actually detail a little bit of that investment. Given that, prior to certainly this government and our approach and the suggestions and recommendations made by this report, the approach forward seems to be working very well for many communities.

We have had and currently have, of course, the Australian Council of Local Government, which formed last November, again in Canberra this week in conference talking about their move forward and their ability to engage the federal government, or the federal government certainly to engage them and all levels of government. So federal, state and local government working together to provide essential community projects. Can I say, in the seat of Forde, and you have heard me almost complain in this House about how we have been overlooked, I am very pleased to say that now we have some leverage on the ground, we have got good projects, getting support certainly from the federal government, at the local government level and also being supported at the state government level.

I can name a couple of large projects in South-East Queensland in which I have been involved and those are some just outside of my electorate. You are aware of the AFL Stadium on the Gold Coast, a large investment, but by three levels of government, having those three levels of government working together to provide that outcome. On Tambourine Mountain, a very beautiful part of my electorate and an area that, can I say, they boast as a very conservative community traditionally, they boast that they now have their first Labor member, and it is interesting that they can see that Labor governments, we have a philosophy, we have an understanding of what we need to provide to communities, and we have been able to provide their community with a number of very, very important but very fundamental resources, sporting facilities. On the Tambourine Mountain, obviously I always consider mountains like islands, you have got limited resources, and so for a community like Tambourine Mountain, which has something like nearly 9,000 residents, they had no sporting facilities of note, a park somewhere, another little bit of equipment somewhere else.

With cooperation from the local government—the Scenic Rim Regional Council, once known as the Beaudesert Council—and with the state government and the federal government’s commitment of $3.6 million to that community, they will be able to build very, very important, very fundamental basic sporting facilities. This means that children and families on that mountain now no longer will have to travel for an hour or an hour and a half for sporting events down on the Gold Coast or further north towards Brisbane. They will have their own facilities, and it is through this partnership that we have been able to create this, in a very, very short time. This was a project that has been on the drawing board for nearly eight years. The community have lobbied, have spoken to state members, to their council, to the federal government. They were essentially ignored by the federal government, though, to the point that their concern about those other projects that were promised under the RPP left them somewhat dissatisfied. They believed that not only did they not get a look-in but these other projects certainly did not warrant the support that they got or the political involvement that was providing those particular projects.

While we have received a commitment of $3.6 million to the community for those sporting facilities, there is also a restoration of a very important iconic piece of community infrastructure: the Zamia Theatre, which has a long history. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a bit of a thespian; I tramped the boards for a couple of years in my early life. So theatre and that kind of cultural expression is very, very important for a community. The Zamia Theatre company, on a promise from the federal government—what was a bogus promise—undertook with their own money to strip the facility of its lining, its roofing and make major changes to its foundation. Of course, it could not proceed—no money. The federal government commitment at the time was not forthcoming, yet here was an iconic community facility that was certainly being challenged by weather conditions and was very much in a poor state.

Through the Community Infrastructure Program, and with the Scenic Rim Regional Council, we as a government were able to commit $179,000 to that particular project. This will now bring that community facility back to use and also protect the heritage that is very much a strong part of the mountain community.

Other proposed infrastructure includes projects like a skate bowl and park in Tamborine Village. If you know the region, you have Tamborine Mountain and Tamborine proper is actually a village at the bottom of the slopes of the mountain. For that community, we are providing some very simple infrastructure that they would not have otherwise been able to use or have installed.

In talking about this report, I mention that it is about partnerships and the three levels of government working together. The fourth column to this is the private sector. I know the member for Hinkler’s concerns, and I would like to allay his concerns. As the member for Longman mentioned, there are opportunities that the private sector can tap into. If the community is getting a basic piece of infrastructure and there is an economic outcome that can be generated further by private investment, that is essentially the stimulus that that community needs.

Let me give you an example of a little bit of infrastructure that has been provided very recently in the electorate of Forde. You have heard me in the House and this particular chamber talk about the ‘great south-west’ and the development of a strategy to open up the electorate of Forde as a major transport corridor. We talk about Australia’s freight effort and of giving alternatives to the region, in terms of how we might move freight and other forms of transport through a region. Some of the simple infrastructure that we will be providing to the region essentially allows the private sector to come on board. The private sector will tell you that all they want is certainty about what infrastructure will be provided. And that provision of infrastructure by government agencies—in this case, the federal government—means that they can invest with some certainty. So, while I understand the member for Hinkler’s concerns, I would like to allay his fears and say that the private sector will be supported, as it has been by our general rollout of infrastructure around the country. Communities generally cannot afford the total provision of infrastructure, but the stimulus that local, state and federal government working together can provide—

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

Together with the great federal representative in these parts!

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Throsby has visited there. In fact, I forgot to mention that I won Tamborine Mountain through the help of the member for Throsby, who visited in her shadow parliamentary secretary role and did a wonderful job. In fact, we had a huge turnout.

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

It is a wonderful achievement.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She does understand the community very well and knows how we have been able to achieve those outcomes for our community.

Again, the private sector can certainly benefit. The projects that I have been outlining and the strategies that I have brought forward to our region will include multibillion dollars worth of investment in the area of Bromelton on the standard gauge railway line. Essentially, small pieces of infrastructure in other parts of the country—when you talk about transport corridors—can bring about those sorts of outcomes: the major investments, the multibillion dollar investments that will bring to my region and the area of Bromelton some 8,000 jobs in the next 10 years.

This occurs not necessarily through governments providing money to the private sector; this provides other community infrastructure that then allows the private sector to have some certainty that governments will be supporting the rollout of further infrastructure by the private sector. Can I say in closing that in the seat of Forde we have been able to move forward with a commitment from government in terms of community infrastructure. The recommendations in the report put forward a solution in terms of how we may be able to look at regional development. I know the deputy chair, the member for Hinkler, who is passionate about regional development, gave a lot of information, and we value his understanding of the history through his involvement in regional development. Can I say that the report, therefore, brings to us recommendations that will certainly support the government’s infrastructure rollout.

Debate (on motion by Ms George) adjourned.

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

I thank the member. Before I conclude the Main Committee, I would like to welcome the representatives from Bundaberg Rum who have been brought in by the member for Hinkler. I trust they have an interesting time during their visit to parliament and I thank them for coming to check out the Main Committee. We do not get too many visitors, so we thank them.