Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a contribution on the important issue of regional development and economic development and make some observations about the policy and the discussion of decentralisation.

Before I do that, I want to make an observation about this: there are twice as many jobless families in regional Australia as there are in Malcolm Turnbull's electorate. The average income gap between somebody who is working in regional Australia and somebody who is working in the inner-city electorate that the Prime Minister represents is $27,000 a year. If you're deriving your income from investments, the average gap between somebody who resides in the Prime Minister's inner-city electorate of Wentworth and somebody who represents regional Australia is about 3½ times. It's 3½ times the investment income if you're living in regional Australia versus in Malcolm Turnbull's electorate.

Now, it's not socialism to point out these stark gaps. It's not socialism to acknowledge that we have a problem with inequality within Australia. It's not socialism, but it is Australian. It is Australian to make these observations. It is Australian to say that the further you get from a capital city, the more you see an increase in inequality, drops in income, fewer opportunities for our children and poorer health outcomes.

Decentralisation and regional development are not ends in themselves. They are nothing more than empty slogans unless we address these issues. The purpose of this inquiry and the purpose of the issues paper is to find answers to some of the problems that I've identified. We've heard a lot of talk about decentralisation over the last few months. I've been a little bit cynical and I've made some comments, perhaps unkind, Deputy Speaker, to the government that you're a part of. I've made the observation that a lot of it is more pub talk than reality. We keenly await the outcomes of the Minister for Regional Development's cabinet process where she has asked that each of the agency heads identify those agencies, parts of agencies or functions which can be transferred to regional Australia. We keenly await the outcome of that analysis.

Labor has a proud history when it comes to decentralisation. It was during the Whitlam government, after all, in November 1973 that the Growth Centres (Financial Assistance) Act 1973 was passed through the House and the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973 was passed by the Australian parliament. That initiated probably some of the most successful rounds of decentralisation in this country. What we have been critical of is the piecemeal, ad hoc approach that the Turnbull government is taking to this issue. We can identify one textbook example of how you don't go about it.

I'd like to talk about the APVMA. It was announced during the election campaign that it would move to Armidale. The cost of this move is about $130,000 per employee, about $26 million to the taxpayer. I'm very certain indeed that there would be many people in Armidale who could say, 'If we were given the choice of what to do with that $26 million, we could think of a lot better ways to spend that money.' We understand that the agency is still in disarray because of these haphazard decisions that have been made, which don't appear to be a part of a broader program but are more about a knee-jerk reaction in the midst of an election campaign, more focused on a press release than a policy.

I've insisted that when the committee turns its mind to these decentralisation issues, and particularly decentralisation initiatives of the Commonwealth government, we look at the ons and offs. If a bank came to us as representatives of our electorates and said that it had just established a new call centre in a regional centre and was going to employ 100 people, and that it deserved a pat on the back for doing a great thing for regional Australia, but at the very same time was willy-nilly closing down branches employing over 300 people throughout the rest of regional Australia, we'd be entitled to say to that bank, 'Well, thanks for the call centre, but look at the jobs and the work that you are closing down in other regional areas and the services which have been withdrawn.' If we are going to be critical of the finance industry and the banking sector in particular for giving a little bit with one hand and taking a hell of a lot with the other then we should apply the very same principle to the Commonwealth government, which is willy-nilly attempting to pat itself on the back for the transfer of a small agency, or a part of it, to the Deputy Prime Minister's own electorate while at the same time it has presided over massive job cuts in the Australian Public Service and in regional Australia.

I use the Department of Human Services as an example. I'm very pleased to see the member for Canberra in the chamber at the moment. She is somebody who is keenly focused on this issue. Over 18,000 jobs have been stripped from the Department of Human Services. You could not find a more decentralised agency in the Australian Public Service than the Department of Human Services, because this is the agency that provides services through Medicare, through the Child Support Agency and through Centrelink. We know that hundreds and hundreds of those jobs have been pulled out of regional areas.

I'm very pleased to see the member for Herbert here as well, because she would know and she's advocated very strenuously on this issue. The Australian Taxation Office cut over 200 jobs from the Townsville office. The member for Herbert will jump up and correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an area suffering with unemployment in excess of 10 per cent. And what is the Commonwealth government's response to this? It rips 200 jobs out of the town.

So I simply make this point: in the work of this committee, if decentralisation of Commonwealth government functions is to be such a central focus, we have to look at the ons and offs. If they are transferring functions out of Canberra, that makes sense—where it makes sense and if it makes sense. They can't be running around the regional towns or anywhere else while, at the very same time, ripping jobs out of those agencies, ripping permanent jobs out of the towns and replacing them with labour hire employees or part-time or casual employees at half the head count. So these are the issues that we must focus on.

I'm also very pleased that the member for Dobell is in the House at the moment as well. Being a member from a regional electorate, she knows how important fast, reliable broadband is to business, economic growth and households in those regions. I had the benefit of accompanying her around her electorate a few weeks ago, where we heard stories of businesses who are losing thousands of dollars because of the unreliability of the National Broadband Network. There are constant service dropouts. And it's not just businesses. We visited the Central Coast Steiner school, which is immediately adjacent to a graveyard. The graveyard has access to the National Broadband Network but the school doesn't. That will be very handy for those businesspeople in the afterlife, but it is no good for the people who are trying to get an education! This is the sort of madness we have to focus our attention on as we turn our minds to the sorts of things that are going to make a difference to economic growth and a real program for the decentralisation of opportunity and wealth in this country. These are the things that we have to focus on. As I said in my opening, if we're going to do anything about inequality in this country, we have to firstly acknowledge that it is a problem. It's not socialism to say we have a problem and have to do something about it; it's Australian.

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's great to stand in the parliament and talk about the inquiry that is currently underway in relation to decentralisation, and it's great to see members of the committee here today contributing to the debate on this motion. The contribution that we've just heard from Labor is quite typical. It's one of those situations where they have a lot to say but not much is actually said. To find a decent decentralisation policy from Labor the member had to go back to Gough Whitlam, back to the mid-seventies. That says a lot.

Regardless of whether you agree with our decentralisation policies and our actions, it can at least be said that they're happening today and at a pace that's never been seen in the federal parliament before. A commitment and a conviction from the Leader of the National Party, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, is making this policy a reality. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Indi, who is here. She had a role to play in the formation of the committee. I will read from the terms of reference so that we fully understand where we're heading. They talk about 'a best-practice approach to regional development considering Australian and international examples', and 'the benefits of economic growth and opportunity being shared right across Australia'. This point goes to the very heart of National Party philosophy: why should the wealth that comes from hundreds of jobs within the government sector be cordoned off for the capital cities of Melbourne, Sydney and, potentially, Canberra? To us in the National Party, it would seem fair to share that wealth around Australia. Another of the terms of reference talks about 'growing and diversifying of the regional economic and employment base'.

These terms of reference will give us an opportunity to also identify the characteristics of the various entities across both the private and the public sector that would be best suited to decentralisation without impacting on their ability to perform their functions. The motion we are debating here today talks about the issues paper, so we have a great opportunity to talk a bit about this body of work that has been put together by the committee to help us with our inquiry.

In relation to the best-practice approach to regional development, the issues paper talks about a key finding of the Regional Australia Institute, which was:

Government has diminishing control over the factors that shape Australia's regions. Such factors include the global economy, technological change, the environment and population.

But it goes on to say:

… they continue to have a role in providing the right political and policy settings for fostering regional growth.

I think it puts us into a position where, yes, we do not have total control; however, we have this ability to set the policies and get the right political framework.

It also goes on to say:

The report highlights that successful adaptive and development strategies for Australia's regions need to be:

This can best be done by a place based approach.

The 'place-based' approach is important because it recognises that regions are different, that one-size-fits-all approaches are often inappropriate, and that local communities must be central to development efforts.

It's also an opportunity to talk about some of the examples of successful regional development, which are also listed. The state revenue office has moved out of Melbourne into Ballarat. The Rural Bank has been located for the last 15 or 20 years in Bendigo, TAC has moved to Geelong, and the NDIS, as a government entity, is going to be set up in the regional city of Geelong.

There are some other state-level examples of decentralisation where the government has as a whole picked up its various government departments and moved them out to the regions. The New South Wales department of agriculture moved to Orange in 1992. The New South Wales Labor government moved at least seven agencies from Sydney to regional centres between 2000 and 2005. As I said earlier, the TAC has moved to Geelong, and WorkSafe has also previously moved from Melbourne to Geelong. The New South Wales Office of Local Government has moved to Nowra, the New South Wales department of mineral resources has moved from Sydney to Maitland and the Western Australian Department of Water has moved from Perth to Mandurah.

Some of the Commonwealth entities that have been moved include RIRDC, which moved an office out to Wagga, and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, which has established an office in Adelaide. Pesticides has moved to Armidale, the head office of the NDIS has moved to Geelong, as I mentioned earlier, and the CSIRO will establish an agricultural research facility near Berowra in New South Wales.

With all of those actions actually happening, that's the space within which decentralisation fits. It is often easy to confuse decentralisation with regional development, but what we are about in this instance is growing the state by decentralisation. We also understand work that has been done by the department of planning and regional development in Victoria has revealed that, when you put 50,000 new people into either Melbourne or Sydney, that's going to come at a cost to government of around $4 billion for infrastructure and improvements. Those same 50,000 people, when relocated to live in a regional city, would cost in the vicinity of $1 billion. It's a saving of $3 billion, and these costs need to be acknowledged.

Our job as a government is to provide the environment for the private sector across the whole spectrum, from small family businesses, farms, agribusinesses and manufacturers right through to larger corporate enterprises that can thrive and flourish. Any effort at regional development must be focused on regional communities where there is demonstrated evidence that the local economy provides the basis for a sustained demand for workers. This is something about which the National Party are very proud that we're in a position to drive this investment throughout regional Australia. The Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, has said

The Nationals believe in decentralisation which is spreading job opportunities across Australia.

We know there are significant savings in moving to regional areas …

Careful and targeted infrastructure development is needed. One of these great infrastructure needs centres around connectivity. We need to be well connected to our regions and our regions need to be well connected to the capital cities both by road and by rail. We need to be connected by internet and wi-fi coverage. We need to be well and truly connected by mobile phone towers. We are very proud of our effort. In this term of government, over 760 towers either have been built or are currently being built, giving coverage to 32,000 homes. It's impossible for this regional development or decentralisation to take place unless we actually have a properly connected regional Australia. We are proud of what we're doing in relation to roads and of our Inland Rail project, which is in the vicinity of $10 billion, to make sure that we have the opportunity to get our goods to the correct port.

It is a fantastic opportunity to work with Dr John McVeigh on this committee. We will, in fact, make sure this committee gets out to regional Australia to look at some of the examples where regional development has worked well. What are some of the formulas that sit in behind successful decentralisation and being able to move private sector businesses out to the regions to take advantage of what the regions have to offer? Hopefully, we will be able to put recommendations that will lead to further decentralisation.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If a good decentralisation plan includes a well planned and executed proposal, with the benefits outweighing the cost, then the Turnbull government has clearly failed. The number of times this Turnbull government needs to be told that its decentralisation policy is an absolute mess shows its breathtaking arrogance. As we heard from the member for Whitlam, this is being done in a piecemeal way without strategic vision, without a holistic plan, without any agenda. The only agenda is basically for those opposite to secure their seats. That is the only agenda we have operating here.

The Deputy Prime Minister, when asked last year about ignoring the cost-benefit analysis of a classic case of what not to do when it comes to decentralisation—the proposed move of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to Armidale—said, 'If you're going to premise it on the cost-benefit analysis, we wouldn't do it.' Okay. So if the cost-benefit analysis is not there for moving 250 Canberrans, APVMA staff who are experts in their field and who have been working in this area for decades, and making their families go through that huge and wrenching change of moving to a new city, then why are we actually doing this?

I will just run through what the cost-benefit analysis showed about the APVMA. The cost-benefit analysis itself cost $272,000 and it showed that the relocation will cost at least $23 million, excluding, as it does, any potential cost to industry arising from the risks to the agricultural sector, the chemical industry or Australia's trading reputation. The cash cost to the government could be significantly higher than the estimated economic cost of $23.19 million with relocation, construction, facilities and incentives. Already this figure has risen up to $25.6 million, as we heard in Senate estimates, and it will continue to climb.

So we've got a decision that's been made to potentially relocate the APVMA up from Canberra to Armidale on a cost-benefit analysis that essentially has shown that it is all cost and no benefit, not just to those families who are being relocated but to the agricultural industry, because, since the Deputy Prime Minister made this outrageous decision to relocate APVMA, the approvals have plummeted. So it is not only affecting those families and the Canberra economy, it is affecting the agriculture industry. And this is from a Deputy Prime Minister who is also the minister for agriculture. It's breathtaking in its incompetence.

A range of reviews have been done into the pork barrel that is the relocation of the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale. In 2016, there was a warning to the Deputy Prime Minister that his proposed move would have severe consequences, yet his reckless and selfish decision to relocate the APVMA is damaging the industry he purports to represent. As I said, the figures on approvals have plummeted. Earlier this year, the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee handed down its report into the order that gave the power to relocate the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale. A key recommendation in that report was that the order be revoked. The committee confirmed that the APVMA's proposed move was a blatant and shameless pork barrel. The report said:

The lack of clarity regarding the decision-making process and the absence of a transparent selection process leads the committee to conclude that there is only one obvious driver for the decision, and that is political self-interest.

What is driving this huge wrench for these families, this fall in approval processes in the agriculture industry and the loss of 20 per cent of the expertise in the regulation of agricultural pesticides and veterinary medicines that took decades and decades of time to build up is political self-interest. Political self-interest is the one reason for making this relocation. It is the one reason for making this change.

The government has a plan for more decentralisation. I am really concerned about how it is going to go about it. If the APVMA relocation is anything to go by, the decentralisation plan is going to be a complete dog's breakfast. It has no clear agenda, no clear mission and no clear vision and it is without a well-executed plan for what it is trying to realise. What, apart from political self-interest, is the government trying to achieve with this? Political self-interest is the driver, as it was with the APVMA relocation.

To add insult to injury, the Deputy Prime Minister not only moved people from Canberra to Armidale to go and work, he didn't offer them office accommodation. They were working from McDonald's because there was nowhere for them to work. Once again I underscore the fact that if you're going to have a plan for decentralisation make sure it is well executed. Make sure that you have office space for the staff you are relocating so that they don't have to link into the wi-fi at the McCafe. It is basic stuff, people: make sure it is not driven by political self-interest.

Ms Ryan interjecting—

Yes, it is breathtaking. I encourage Canberrans and those who have an interest in decentralisation to make submissions to this decentralisation inquiry to remind the Turnbull government why Canberra was established and remind the Turnbull government that 60 per cent of government staff are not located here in Canberra but are located right around the country. So the notion that all public servants are based in Canberra is a complete and utter nonsense. It is a complete furphy, a complete lie, that is being peddled by the Turnbull government. Canberra: please make submissions to this inquiry. Please remind the government that Canberra was actually set up to be the nation's capital.

Canberra draws a thread through this nation, and this House is the centre—the knot where that thread joins. Canberra was created to bring our nation together. It is, in a way, the epitome of Canberra. Canberra was nurtured and loved by the founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies. The founder of the modern Liberal Party invested significant sums in building up Canberra so Australians could be proud of their nation's capital. What do those opposite do? They just tear it all down. They are unpicking Sir Robert Menzies's legacy. They are unpicking it! It begins with APVMA. Where is it going to end? This place will be completely denuded if they have their way with their crazy decentralisation plans driven by political self-interest.

I encourage Canberrans to make submissions to this inquiry. It is vitally important to the preservation of our nation. It is vitally important to the protection of Sir Robert Menzies's vision that we actually have the Canberra view in this space. Sir Robert Menzies's daughter, Heather Henderson, has been highly critical of these nutty, ill-thought-out decentralisation plans. The government should be ashamed. They should be ashamed that they are basically unpicking Sir Robert Menzies's vision. He would be turning in his grave.

When I make a submission to the inquiry I will be asking the committee to show—like we haven't had for the APVMA—that any decentralisation has to have a demonstrated net benefit to our nation and does not come at the expense of Canberra, our community, our economy or effective and efficient governance.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Spoken like a true member for Canberra! Let me say to the member for Canberra: it's not all about Canberra. There are other people in this nation—I represent quite a sizable slice of them—that actually don't see Canberra as the answer to everything. Every now and then they actually even tell me it might be the cause of half of our problems. In effect, it is not all about Canberra, and this is not an attack on Canberra, as the member well knows. It is not an attack on Canberra; it is making sure that we've got efficient use of our resources in Australia and trying to look after all Australians by trying to make sure that all of our communities thrive.

I often say that Australian agriculture is still the most important industry for rural and regional Australia. It is without a doubt. Each year Australian farmers continue to grow more food and more fibre in a more environmentally friendly fashion and with better quality. All of those things. It's good for the farmer, it's good for the state and it's good for the nation. But they do it with fewer people. Every year we do it with fewer people. Along with the member for Indi, I sat on a committee in the last parliament where we looked at technological changes and advances in agriculture. Very exciting things are happening. Agriculture is an exciting and good place to be in Australia at the at the moment. But we do know that all of these advances almost always mean we don't need the same size of workforce as we needed last week, last year, 10 years ago or 50 years ago. That's why the community I come from is now around 60 per cent of the size it was in 1980. We've gone from around 1,850 residents to just over a thousand. It isn't that we produce less and it isn't that we're not important to Australia. Our farmers are more efficient than ever. We grow more, but we grow it with fewer people.

The reason for this inquiry is to try and find out in what way we can revitalise regional Australia. We need to explore every opportunity, and if that means shifting parts of or whole government departments to rural and regional areas, I say bring it on! Bring it on, because we really do need to find the answer. We need stewards for inland Australia. We don't want towns that are gutted out, where the doors are swinging in the wind. We want vibrant communities. We need to invest some energy and intellect into finding a way forward for these communities. I'm quite pleased with this issues paper. I think the main thing with an issues paper is that it provides enough scope for the committee to actually draw together the people in Australia who we need to consult in order to come up with the best possible answers.

Firstly, we're looking for examples of best practice around Australia. That's an obvious thing to do, but one thing you can be sure of when we're looking for best practice is that there is no silver bullet. There's not one best practice that's going to fit all of Australia. These will be things that are almost idiosyncratic to particular communities. From my collective experience of living in rural and regional Australia, those new industries, those new employers and the expansions that do happen are normally driven by local enthusiasm and expertise. That is normally the thing that really kicks these things along. If we're talking about the tourism industry, for instance, it is local tourism operators—people that have skin in the game and really want to promote their product—who make it happen. In many ways, perhaps the best practice is seeing what we can do to assist them. We don't want to reinvent the wheel; we want to use the expertise and skills that we have in place already. That's what we will do while we're looking at best practice.

I'll tell you a story about my home community. I think this is quite interesting; it's about how we need to be challenged by ideas sometimes. Kimba is a dryland farming community. We're on the northern edge of wheat belt on the Eyre Peninsula. My family's been farming there for close on 90 years, as have many other families in the district. We largely grow wheat, barley and peas for bulk export, so we're not in that differentiated market and we're a long way from the livestock industries that could consume our grain. Freight's the killer, so it goes out to sea and to another nation. We've always looked at the possibility of growing export hay as an opportunity, but it's too far away from us, because freight kills us on export hay and the cost of freight is the particular issue.

We had a family move into the community, and they had a lot of expertise in hay. They started producing hay. They bought first-class hay-making equipment and drop-deck semitrailers, and they knew how to produce hay for the export market. They then managed to engineer a $25 premium per tonne for that particular line of hay, because it was grown in a drier, tougher environment. That was moving very well, and then along came the newest range of hay balers: superhigh-density hay balers. With that advent, the family were able to fully load their semitrailers, for the first time. Once again, that is what made the freight competitive. So they decided to offer this service to the rest of the community. Now my friend Peter is offering agronomic services to the rest of the community and contracting hay. They built a 10,000-tonne hay shed, and last year I think they took nearly 20,000 tonne. They supply agronomic service, markets and expertise and they supply the equipment. They have produced a new industry in a community where none existed before. That's best practice. That's entrepreneurialism and it's local community leading. That's what I hope to find in this inquiry—more examples like that.

The devolution of government services into rural areas—obviously that's one of the things we've been looking at—was one of the things that the member for Canberra was speaking about, and she was scathing about the Deputy Prime Minister and the movement of the APVMA to Armidale. But, in fact, why not? That is the question we need to ask ourselves about every government department: not why but why not? Why cannot this service be delivered in another place just as well and possibly even better? In fact, in a lot of rural Australia, the overheads are much lower. Certainly the real estate is at a lower price. I think that's the way we should address that particular issue: why not? Let's find that out.

The final area that this issues paper outlines that we should be looking at is corporate decentralisation. Now, of course, this is where we try to convince those that invest somewhere else already that there is an equal or better opportunity in the country. Gee, there is on so many fronts. There must be things that we can produce in the country at lower cost, simply because we are facing lower overheads. There are the issues we are facing at the moment around electricity and energy. All those costs are Australia-wide. Certainly there's a hotspot in South Australia, but we've heard plenty about that before. But there is no difference between the city and the country.

We have skilled workforces and we have towns where real estate is relatively cheap. If you think a home in Sydney at $1.4 million is too much, why not investigate a home in Parkes for $350,000? It is probably the same type of home. It is probably cheaper than that. And I can repeat those kinds of figures in my own community, comparing Adelaide, for instance, to Wudinna or wherever it might be. There are certainly really good opportunities, and there are great living opportunities for Australians. We often say that, if we can only get people into the country in the first place, they will realise what a great life we lead. Those that do come there often stay much, much longer than they had first intended.

Living in rural and regional Australia is a great privilege, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan—one that I know you know about, having come from that mighty metropolis of Port Augusta in my electorate. It is something of which I'm immensely proud. In fact, I can even say—and I have spoken about this before, but I love the opportunity of regional and rural Australia being productive—that the electorate of Grey produced five sitting members of the last parliament, the 44th Parliament. I had a photo of us all out the front, including you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It shows that there is no great disadvantage in living in the country. I think the opposite. There is an advantage. So we need to promote that, tell people it is a great place to live and find out what it is we need to do to grow more jobs, and that comes back to this inquiry. That's what I'm looking forward to getting my teeth into.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grey—and a wonderful electorate you represent!

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to acknowledge the work of the member for Grey and support the comments that he's made about how important this particular inquiry is. I also acknowledge the work of our chair, the member for Groom, Dr McVeigh, and the deputy chair, the member for Paterson, Ms Swanson. I would also like to put on record the support of the Prime Minister for this particular inquiry and acknowledge his support for it.

As a committee we have a really important task: to look at a best-practice approach to regional development and to look at the decentralisation of Commonwealth agencies and the action that the Commonwealth can take to encourage greater corporate decentralisation. Before I get underway with my speech, I would just like to acknowledge to the Deputy Speaker my constituents in the Speaker's gallery, particularly Phil and Sam—thank you for coming—and also Claudia and Merran, whom I'm going to refer to in my speech. I'm really glad to have my constituents here, so thank you for coming.

In my speech today, I want to talk a little bit about the terms of reference of the inquiry. I want to talk about one particular case study in the issues paper, which we're addressing. I want to particularly stress that there are only 10 more days for submissions to come in, so it's a call to action to the people in my community and all around Australia—I welcome the member for Durack—to get your skates on, because we need your input. If you want to appear before the inquiry as we travel around Australia, you have to put a submission in. I just need to say 'submission' is a fancy word for a letter, and the letter has to have three things in it: it has to describe what your issue is, it has to be addressed to the right people—so you have to get those details right—and, importantly, it has to have a recommendation telling us what you think needs to be done.

If I could begin with a bit of the problem, why do we need this? For too long, I believe, regional Australia has been governed by policy silos that are disjointed and not connected. We've already been hearing today in this place about this 'one size fits everybody'. I know it's really hard for people in the city to actually understand that the country is different and that we're not all homogeneous and not all the same. If we're going to do good policy implementation, we have to recognise regional and social differences, and that's been hard for government to do. There is this whole problem we've faced of trying to say to a government that has to look after two-thirds of the land mass of Australia, 'You have to pay attention to the people who live there, because they understand.' We call this place based planning. I know it's really hard for the people in the cities to understand, but we in the country get it and we know how to do it and we know what's good for our community. So you've got to engage with people, and particularly local knowledge.

The member for Grey talked about connectivity and connectedness. It's not only about physical connectivity—mobile phone coverage, the NBN and public transport that works; it's about how you bring people together at the micro level in a community, at a local government level, at a regional level, at a state level and then at a Commonwealth level. That is quite an art because you've got to break out of your silos, which are often issues based, and come together around a region. That's been a challenge and I don't think we've done it really well in the past, and I'm optimistic that with this inquiry we'll do it better.

As my colleagues in the House know, regional Australia contributes one-third of our national output and it's home to something like 8.8 million Australians. It provides major jobs for people. It's a formidable contributor to the national economy. What I'm hoping with this inquiry is not only that we take what we know works but that we actually do the planning, position ourselves and ask: where does regional Australia exist in the future? It's a really important inquiry and we need to do it well.

I mentioned putting a submission in. To the people in my electorate and regional Australia, we're basically looking for three things: what's working, what could work better and what role can the Commonwealth play to bring it together? The terms of reference are in the issues paper. We talk about best practice. How do you grow the population base? How can you share opportunity? How can we develop the capacity of regional Australia? What's the role for leadership? What's the role for education? How do we grow and diversify our economic base? How do we have vibrant, cohesive and engaged regional communities? It's not just about infrastructure. It's not just about decentralising departments. We're looking at vibrant, cohesive and engaged communities. How do we get people to know that they've got a real stake in the future?

The other area of the terms of reference that I'd like to speak about, given my background in business and my absolute love for small business in regional Australia, is section c, which talks about the role that the Commonwealth has in supporting corporate decentralisation. I want to pick up on a couple of the terms because I'm really going to be advocating hard in my community to get submissions on this but also in the committee. What do we have to do to encourage early-stage equity or debt finance to support start-ups and establish businesses in the region? We need to examine access to capital for regional businesses, including agribusiness, manufacturing and technology, and we need to consider the adequacy of businesses' access to early-stage accelerators or incubators, including access to business mentors, business networks and capital. So it's not just about decentralisation of government departments; it's how we grow the capacity. How do we retain skilled labour and how do we leverage strong transport and communication connectivity? It's a great issues paper and I'd like to acknowledge the work of the secretariat in putting it together—good job, team.

I'd like to spend some time talking about best-case practice in the context of a really personal experience of mine. I grew up in the area of Albury-Wodonga, which, as we've been talking about today, was a focus during the Whitlam years. Albury-Wodonga is a regional capital, but it supports an area of 180,000 people, so it's a really important part of the Australian regional sector. Albury-Wodonga is one of the largest, fastest-growing regional inland communities. It's got about 8,000 local businesses and the gross regional product is valued at about $5.9 billion—at a local level, it is really significant. The major income streams in Albury-Wodonga are rental, hiring and real estate services, at 14.4 per cent; public administration and safety is at 13.4 per cent; and I'm really proud to say that 13.1 per cent is manufacturing—and manufacturing is growing, unlike in other areas of regional Australia, where it is falling off. In Albury-Wodonga we've got a really strong manufacturing base and it does a terrific job.

One of the reasons why Albury-Wodonga is going so well is the Whitlam era, but it wasn't only Whitlam. That was really good, but we had bipartisan support. So, when Mr Whitlam's period of government ended, we had Malcolm Fraser come in. He picked it up and he absolutely supported what we were doing in regional development. We need that. If we're going to have long-term sustainable development, we've got to have bipartisan support. We can't have both sides of parliament bickering. So it's really important that in this committee we come up with a bipartisan report, because we've got to then go to government and say, 'Here's the collective agreement and the best knowledge.'

There are a few things that I just want to point out about Albury-Wodonga that absolutely work—welcome, Deputy Chair; it's good to have you here. We've got TAFEs. We've got universities. So we grow our own workforce, which is really important. We've got really good health services. We have fantastic local businesses, and I've referred to manufacturing. We're surrounded by really careful planning around our environment, so we've got superbly treed and landscaped hillscapes. We've got parks. We've got bikeways that loop around our creek areas. It's because the community was designed, and it was really well created, by people who cared. So we know how to do it. Forty years ago, we began doing it really well.

So the task for you guys, and particularly for my constituents here today, is to say: in the next 40 years, what do you want in Albury-Wodonga, and how can you contribute to this inquiry? I want to particularly call out to the young people of north-east Victoria: get your thinking caps on and make a submission through the NESAY competition that's going on. Put your ideas together, because we can do this for the future, but we really need your young creative minds and your creativity if we're going to do it well. I really want my community to get hold of this issues paper and to pay attention to it. You've only got 10 days. I'm keen for you to present to the committee, but you need to put in a submission if you're going to have your opportunity in song or dance or art or video or music and some wonderful ways of talking about how we want the future to be.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the House take note of the report. I call the member for—

An honourable member: Maranoa.

I call the member for Maranoa—unforgettable!

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It's great that you get to acknowledge the great electorate of Maranoa, one that takes up 10 per cent of the Australian land mass, one that is proudly rural and regional. When you talk about the great investment that this government is making in rural and regional Australia, you are talking about the electorate of Maranoa, one of the big five electorates in land size and in output to this economy. It's great that you're able to finally acknowledge the great electorate of Maranoa and its people. I'm very grateful for that, Mr Deputy Speaker!

But I am proud to be part of a federal government that is acknowledging that rural and regional Australia is the economic engine room of this nation. The reality is that the government, for the first time, are taking real steps to decentralise our government but also then taking the first steps to encourage business to follow us as the leaders in moving out into rural and regional Australia. It is a good move to take those services that we, as a government, are meant to deliver to the people of people of rural and regional Australia. What a crazy idea to put it out where the people that you're meant to be serving are! What a crazy idea that would be! The Labor Party seem to think that that's a bizarre concept—that you would finally put resources and services that are there to service the people of rural and regional Australia in rural and regional Australia. That's what governments are here to do.

And I'm proud to say that Minister Nash has also taken to this in such a fervent way in making sure that she's now held all cabinet ministers to account in asking them to review their departments, to look at them in an intrinsic way for how they could better be decentralised, to put them and their services out into rural and regional Australia in a pragmatic and sensible way. We've also seen it from the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, with the APVMA, moving it to Armidale.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a sensational move that Barnaby Joyce has undertaken—again, delivering services where they should be delivered. What a crazy idea! We hear those opposite interjecting because they don't understand what government is here to do. It's here to deliver services—and a crazy idea to put them where those services should be delivered! But those opposite, because they have no concept of rural and regional Australia, have no understanding. The latte-sipping left of the Labor Party sit over there with all the sanctimony of the Labor Party, but they don't care about rural and regional Australia. They don't understand and they don't care.

The reality is that we understand rural and regional Australia because we come from rural and regional Australia, quite proudly. I've been able to have a career. I've been able to start a business. I've been able to travel the world. But, more importantly, I've been able to raise a family in rural and regional Australia because the opportunities are there, because our government has put the environment and the infrastructure around people in rural and regional Australia to let them prosper, and that's what this report will be able to finally define. We are going to go to a part where we will be able to give real definition, to be able to come back in and let those in the Labor Party really understand what rural and regional Australia does and the importance of decentralisation. We will be able to quantify it once and for all so that the latte-sipping Left of the Labor Party can no longer scoff at those in rural and regional Australia, because we are the economic engine room of this nation.

In my electorate alone, just to give you an example, we contribute more to the GDP per capita than Townsville, Toowoomba or the Gold Coast, and in fact it doesn't take into account the three coal-fired power stations that produce more than 50 per cent of Queensland's total energy. Nor does it take into account the hundreds of millions of dollars that are taken out of the Surat Basin and put through Curtis Island—all of which, I might add while we've got those opposite sitting here, was the failure of the former federal Labor government in terms of setting up the Surat Basin, not looking at a domestic supply and now driving up electricity prices that are impacting rural and regional Australia. All of this was an admission by the former Labor government that they failed along with the state government.

And then we talk about Adani and the developments happening there. It's great to see that we've got conjecture about Adani. I would have thought those from Townsville would be out there prosecuting a case for Adani and bringing jobs to rural and regional Australia, yet all we get is interjection about the investment in rural and regional Australia and the incentives that we put in place to bring development to those parts of the world. But we've also done it around environment and free trade agreements. The free trade agreements that we've created for people in rural and regional Australia are putting real wealth into the pockets of people in my electorate right now. We are seeing that from the agreements with Japan, South Korea and China. Real dollars are being put in. That's what an environment allowing people to go and create wealth looks like. The story of Maranoa is 'just add rain', and it's because of the free trade agreements that we are seeing real wealth put in there. We are driving those small towns.

But we're also doing that through the infrastructure we've put in connecting us to the world and the global economy, because those free trade agreements mean that we need the tools of the 21st century. That is the $220 million that this government has proudly put into a mobile phone blackspot program. Never before have we had a regional development and regional telecommunications minister in cabinet. That's how important we see the development of rural and regional Australia to be. Never before has a government put money into the advancement and expansion of a mobile phone network, because we need the tools of the 21st century to be able to take advantage of the free trade agreements that we put in place. Proudly, we'll be able to deliver the NBN to my electorate long before many in metropolitan areas—and rightly so, because those are the tools of the 21st century that we need. We are delivering it now in towns like Roma, Chinchilla, Goondiwindi and Longreach—proudly delivering to those people in rural and regional Australia. We are delivering real outcomes—connecting them.

Furth to connectivity—not only in a telecommunications sense but in a physical sense with the roads and the inland railway—we are proudly investing $1.6 billion in the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing or, as I like to call it, the Toowoomba bypass, because the real beneficiaries of the second range crossing will be the people of Maranoa because our product will get around the world even quicker. Plus, more than $500 million has been put into the Warrego Highway, which connects us to the global economy even quicker. We are the real beneficiaries of that investment—coupled with inland rail. Only in this last budget did we announce a further $8.4 billion to ensure that Inland Rail—a corridor of commerce from Melbourne to Brisbane—is created. This is transformational for the people of rural and regional Australia. This is thinking about the future of all those communities along that corridor. But it's also benefitting those in the eastern seaboard, because we're going to take traffic off the Pacific Highway. This is real visionary stuff that shows that this government takes rural and regional Australia for what it is worth. It is the real economic engine room of this nation.

But let me give you another, more granular example: the Building Better Regions Fund. Only in the last couple of months was Minister Nash able to announce my electorate of Maranoa would get just under $5 million for a cold-storage facility in Warwick. I live in Warwick. It has a population of somewhere in between 12,000 and 14,000 people. With this $5 million investment we will create 143 new jobs, 136 indirect jobs and 80 jobs during construction. More than 200 new families will come to Warwick. That's a significant increase in the population of that community. That is real economic development. That is showing confidence in rural and regional Australia. That is showing that we understand that they are the engine room of this nation, and that we are the ones that create the wealth. This report will show that, when we finally get through and allow the people of rural and regional Australia to put their voices forward and say what is needed to continue to develop as a community and as an economy, with strong regions we will have a strong nation, because we are the engine room of this nation, and this government has made that investment.

I'm proud to say that this government understands that, through the environment and infrastructure we are putting around those in rural and regional Australia, we are the ones showing the confidence in rural and regional Australia. Now is the time to define that and to clearly articulate that we can come back and show the benefits of what we have done as a government. That will then prosecute the case for further investment in rural and regional Australia. When governments lead the way, we are seeing that private enterprise will follow. That is what we need to ensure we do as a government: lead the way in the investment in rural and regional Australia.

I'm proud to be part of a government that has started this inquiry. I'm proud to be part of a government that is already delivering. But how do we define it even better, to make it better for the lives of people in rural and regional Australia—I've proudly lived all of my life in rural and regional Australia—for each and every one and for generations to come?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate as the shadow minister for regional development, and to be able to outline what four years of neglect and failure mean in our regions when it comes, particularly, to energy, to the National Broadband Network, to infrastructure investment and to water policy. Energy is what I will begin with.

When it comes to energy, there's a bit of a debate as to whether there should be a new coal-fired power station in Northern Queensland, or whether, indeed, renewable energy is the future. Last fortnight, I visited Hughenden, Kidston and the Kennedy Project in north-west Queensland with the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter. There we looked at the reality of what is happening on the ground, not because of the coalition government, but in spite of the federal government. There we looked at exciting projects which are taking place.

The Kidston Solar Project is about 280 kilometres north-west of Townsville. It sits on the side of the abandoned gold mine, which ceased production around the turn of the century. The developer, Genex, came up with the quite ingenious idea of redeveloping the site as a solar and pumped hydro facility, taking advantage of the existing mine infrastructure. The company is installing 537,000 photovoltaic cells mounted on a tracking system that will follow the sun across the sky. Once fully commissioned early next year, this facility will generate enough electricity to power more than 26,000 homes, with its second stage set to add more capacity, making it the largest solar farm in Australia.

As part of stage 2, the company will utilise the old mine's tailings dam to create a 250-megawatt pumped storage hydro project. Some of the power produced by the sun by day will be used to pump water up to the dam, and at night the water will be used to drive turbines. This integration of solar and pumped storage will provide stability to the grid and a pathway to the 24/7 supply of renewable energy.

I also visited what will soon become the site of the Kennedy Energy Park located outside of Hughenden. This project will combine solar, wind and battery storage to create renewable energy on a scale comparable to Queensland's large coal-fired power plants like Tarong and Stanwell—enough electricity to power up to a million homes. Both projects have been strongly backed by the Palaszczuk Queensland Labor government, but they might have withered on the vine without the mitigation of risk through the support of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, both of which were set up by the former federal Labor government and which are agencies that the current government tried to abolish when it came to office.

The current government is also continuing to resist Professor Finkel's recommendation of a clean energy target to provide the certainty for investment that's required. Regional Australia will particularly benefit from certainty in investment and job creation. On the ground, the ideological conflict between the Abbott forces and the Turnbull forces in this coalition government are completely irrelevant to the people of Hughenden, to the people who are creating jobs and to the people who are developing north-west Queensland.

Moving to other opportunities for decentralisation when it comes to infrastructure, we hear a lot of rhetoric from this government about infrastructure investment. What we don't actually see is dollars. When it comes to the Bruce Highway and the Pacific Highway, the major routes up the east coast of Australia, we haven't seen new investment from the coalition government. What we've seen is the government relying upon the investment that was put in place by the former Labor government. Projects which the member for Maranoa mentioned, such as the Warrego Highway, were already in the budget. We haven't seen any additional investment there. The Parliamentary Budget Office has advised that over the coming decade infrastructure investment as a proportion of GDP will fall from 0.4 per cent to 0.2 per cent—a halving of investment. Over the forward estimates, from an estimate of over $9 billion that was supposed to be spent last year, investment declines to $4.2 billion in 2021—it falls off a cliff—and it is regional Australia that will suffer as a result. There will be not only fewer short-term jobs and less activity in the construction sector but also, in the long-run, much less economic activity.

There is one powerhouse project that the government could support to support regional economic development and decentralisation, and that is high-speed rail from Brisbane to Melbourne through Sydney and Canberra. High-speed rail would provide an economic stimulus to towns along the route such as Lismore, Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Taree, Newcastle, the Central Coast, the Southern Highlands, down through to this great inland city, the bush capital of Canberra, then through Wagga Wagga, Albury and Shepparton. Yet this government has withdrawn the funds that were there to establish a high-speed rail authority when it came to office.

The next issue that the government could address is the National Broadband Network. The National Broadband Network is vital for creating the same business and economic opportunities for people, whether they live in the CBD of our capital cities or whether they live in a regional centre. In terms of the competitive advantage that the NBN would bring to regional Australia where it has been turned on properly in places with fibre to the home and with fibre to the business, it has certainly done that. It would enable a business in Coffs Harbour to compete on the same basis for international contracts and international business opportunities as one based in George Street in Sydney. Yet this government has this so-called hybrid model, which is essentially that if you can afford to have fibre connected to your home, you can pay for it. But for everyone else it is a matter of privilege. And sometimes it is just a matter of accident. Depending upon where in a regional town you live, you might have fibre on one side of the street and copper—second-rate delivery—on the other side of the street. That will impact the economic value of those homes. It is quite extraordinary that the National Broadband Network has had to concede that its development of fibre technology is such that it can be rolled out more cheaply than the millions of metres of copper wire that have been purchased by the current government—it is quite extraordinary that that would happen—in 2017.

Lastly, when it comes to the proper management of our water resources, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin, we have seen a failure by this government to manage those issues properly. We have referrals to various corruption agencies as a result of that, but it is a complete failure of government leadership. Whether it is high-speed rail, water management, energy, the National Broadband Network, rail or road infrastructure, this government is failing regional Australia and that is why it is suffering a decline of support in regional Australia. The huge gap between the rhetoric and the reality of this government means it stands condemned.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the issues paper presented to the House by my friend Dr McVeigh on behalf of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, of which I am a proud member. The resources and hard work of our regional towns and cities are fundamental to the nation's economy. I think my electorate of Durack epitomises that statement given it is the home of iron ore and has significant gas projects, significant agricultural projects and much more. The select committee has been asked to inquire into and report on best-practice approaches to regional development, the decentralisation of Commonwealth entities and processes by which corporate decentralisation can be supported as well.

People wanting to contribute to this inquiry have only 10 days left in which to lodge their submissions. Please tell us what is good about regional development, what is bad and what is happening in your area that we need to know about. We would also like to hear from those areas that think they have a good case to be home to a decentralised government department. The purpose of this issues paper is twofold: it aims to provide more information about matters outlined in the terms of reference of the inquiry and to provide a summary of recent research and inquiries into decentralisation. From this, the committee can better focus its attention on areas not covered by previous research.

Decentralisation of both the public and private sector is something I am particularly passionate about as I can see that the relocation of a government department could provide enormous benefit to a regional centre as well as enhancing the lives of those being relocated. With the recent election of a Labor state government in Western Australia, we have seen the Royalties for Regions program canned to pay for their city-centric spending promises. Let us hope that their federal counterparts have a higher regard for regional Western Australia—but, given their comments during the matter of public importance today, I doubt that is the case. Ministers are being tasked to report on the suitability of departments or functions under their jurisdiction for decentralisation. We expect substantial business cases from them by December 2017, and I look forward to assessing these as part of the committee. Obviously, not all rural and regional areas are suitable to host a relocated government department. The destination should appeal to public servants and their families in order to retain those employees. The appropriate infrastructure must be in place to receive both the personnel and the equipment. That includes office space, housing, transport and day-to-day services. Labour availability should also be taken into account.

It would be remiss of me not to mention Geraldton, in my electorate, as being a suitable place for a decentralised government department to park itself in. It has close proximity to Perth. It has a fabulous beach lifestyle, which suits families. And it is also a regional centre that services an area of approximately 300,000 square kilometres. It also has plenty of office space and a variety of other industries. It is a perfect case that should be considered. I'm quite sure the committee will take its place. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issues paper.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.