Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this very important motion put forward by the member for Gippsland about the Stronger Communities Program. I think it's fair to say, certainly in my electorate, that there was no grant round more anticipated and more appreciated by my community than the Stronger Communities Program. Even though it was small and even though it was only $150,000 every year to every electorate, the good that that did in my community was profound. And I've got to say I think it's the most mean-spirited decision of government to cease this program.

In the last round, round 8, 20 projects were funded in Mayo. We had 65 applications, worth more than $800,000. The projects that were successful were things such as a storage shed for the Hills Archers. The Cudlee Creek Tennis Club—and many people in this community would remember that the region of Cudlee Creek was the epicentre of the fires in my community in that summer of 2019-20—received funding for solar panel installation to help with their resilience. The Gumeracha Community Association purchased a community trailer. The Hope Forest Residents Association upgraded their community hall. The Torrens Valley Community Kindergym got just a little bit of funds to help with some mats for the kids. Down at the Cape Jervis rec and sport club, there was funding for kitchen and hall facility upgrades. There was funding for the Hahndorf Town Band, for trailer upgrades; the Strath Neighbourhood Centre, for IT facilities; and Encounter Centre, for the construction of a storage shed. The Lobethal Archives and Historical Museum received $5,000 to assist with their museum and chapel restoration and repairs.

I think what's incredibly frustrating is that we have seen projects year on year in my community—over the time that I've been the member, we've had six rounds—and we've had over 400 expressions of interest, so no-one can deny that this is a program that is wanted desperately in our community. We've funded 114 different projects—small projects. And the great challenge is that this program was more valued in regional Australia because our councils don't own our ovals and don't own our sporting clubs; they don't manage them and they don't fund them. So we fundraise constantly just to cover insurance, which has gone up exponentially over those years. And so to take away this small grant program that allowed organisations in my community that are run by volunteers and managed entirely by our community—and for us to not have a small bucket of money that could be equitably distributed to fund necessary upgrades and equipment—is just appalling, really. I just can't understand the short-sightedness of the government in doing this.

We don't have big councils with deep pockets that fund all of this. We don't just call some project manager and say: 'Come and fix this. This is not working.' We fundraise and fundraise, we cover the costs ourselves and we are self-reliant. And so not to have the funds, not to be able to upgrade small things—the Milang and District Community Association received $5,000 to install a split-system air conditioner in their youth space. These are little things. We're barely covering the cost of fundraising for our insurance and just maintaining our halls and our parks. To not be able to have this round of money really hurts regions. It really hurts regional Australia.

Despite it going to every electorate, it was desperately needed in my community, and just those small little things made the world of difference. It could have helped down at the Aldinga Bay Surf Life Saving Club, helping them get some surfboards for young people who can't afford them, to be able to have that kind of program happening. It could have helped the Hahndorf Academy Foundation fit out their community arts and culture space. It could have helped out at Wistow with their community hall—and let's not forget, our community halls are also, in most cases, the place of last resort, the refuge for our communities, especially for our communities at risk of bushfires.

And so, I would urge the minister: Minister, do the right thing, and fund this. In fact, do it better. Fund it more than $150,000 per electorate, because over the years that $150,000 can't buy what it used to buy. Truely, I am appalled. It is the most mean-spirited decision that I have seen from this government in 18 months. Thank you.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did want to speak to this motion and just put a few facts on the table about what has actually happened to the Stronger Communities Program. It has existed now for eight rounds, and the eighth round was funded by our government in the October budget. The previous government, the Liberal-Nationals, announced there would be a round 8, but did not announce that there would be a round 9, a round 10 or beyond. The round 8 was not funded. Whilst it was in their budget, they did not implement their budget prior to calling the election. Upon coming to government, the Albanese Labor government funded round 8 in the October 2022 budget, and it is currently rolling out throughout our electorates right now. Those opposite didn't deliver the funding for round 8, and certainly didn't deliver or recommend or suggest or even talk about rounds beyond this round. The program wasn't ended by this government, it was ended by the previous government.

For the information of those who have spoken in this debate, funding has been allocated and $150,000 is available. Each electorate gets $150,000 and has to decide on how to spend that for up to 20 local projects. Our electorates work hard; most of us have independent committees that make recommendations after an expressions-of-interest process. Funding of between $2,500 to $20,000 is available for not-for-profit community organisations and local government to fund small capital works projects that deliver benefits to communities.

Over the years, I have seen that this investment has made a difference in areas of my electorate. Only on the weekend I was talking about one of the early projects, the funding of our local First Nations talking tram that tells our First Nations people's story as people jump on the tram and travel through our community. The project has helped sporting clubs buy equipment to help maintain their ovals. Even though a lot of our infrastructure in Greater Bendigo, Mount Alexander and the Macedon Ranges is owned by local government, these grants have allowed clubs to partner with local government to help deliver upgrades and needs. Other successful groups include our toy libraries and our community houses. This project has significantly helped a lot of community houses in our area, but as I have said from the beginning, we are always oversubscribed. I do believe that it is time to look at how we can better partner with community.

What I will say about this fund, when it comes to the regions, is that I don't believe that it does support our regions in the way it should. It isn't equitable. You cannot compare the needs of a regional electorate to the needs of a city based electorate. Some of our electorates are incredibly small, they're less than 20 kilometres wide, and yet they get the same amount of money allocated to them as a regional electorate. In every one of my regional towns, I have sporting fields, I have RSLs, I have community houses. I cannot stretch that $150,000 fairly. I also know that some of our metro members actually ring up the local council and say: 'What projects are you funding? Can I tap into that?' These electorates are so small they're able to do it in a way, if they're in town, where they have a lot more resources. It isn't fairly distributed between the need and the want that we have in our electorates, so $150,000 in a regional electorate doesn't go far enough.

It also, in a regional electorate, doesn't get to the real projects that really need a lot of attention. We have sporting grounds, where we are trying to desperately upgrade our change rooms and our equipment. But $20,000 doesn't get you an upgraded change room; $20,000 doesn't get you the lighting that you need to be able to use that change room. It may get you a new sink, it may get you a new bit of playing equipment, but it doesn't deal with the real infrastructure needs that a lot of our regions are crying out to be fixed.

I do believe it is time to rethink how we do community investment and infrastructure in our regions, and it is wrong for those opposite to say that we have cut the program. It was their government that didn't fund it beyond round 8 or even talk about beyond round 8. They threw it out there as an opportunity to pork barrel in an election so that MPs could make local commitments. That is not good enough. If we're genuine about funding projects in the regions and in our outer metro areas, then we need a fund which is accountable, which is a competitive tender and which genuinely delivers what regions need. To all those groups that have done well in my electorate, congratulations, but I believe we can do better when it comes to community infrastructure.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Bendigo—as much as I like her—has made a valiant effort to defend an appalling decision by this government. It doesn't matter how much the member for Bendigo tries to sugar-coat the decision by the government to not continue funding the Stronger Communities Programme. It is an appalling decision, and it's our communities that pay the price. As the member for Bendigo quite rightly pointed out, every electorate in this country was treated equally under the Stronger Communities Programme. The fact that she could get up here and have the gall to say that it was pork-barrelling in the lead-up to an election and to complain that the coalition government hadn't funded it in perpetuity just shows how little regard they have for our communities. It is a disgraceful decision, and our communities will pay the price. Our communities will pay the price through the loss of funding for small organisations right across our communities that benefited from these small capital grants.

I was proud of the coalition government when we introduced this program in the 2015-16 budget because we all know how much work our community organisations do each and every day to make our communities better places to live in. Many of them survive on the smell of an oily rag. Giving them the ability to get a little bit of money to help with a new piece of equipment et cetera to make their jobs easier and provide better services is what this fund was designed to do. In addition, the beauty of this program was that the application process and the expression of interest process was straightforward. Because many of these community organisations are run by volunteers, they don't have the skills, the time or the ability to write detailed funding applications. So the expression of interest process was straightforward and easy for them to complete and document. Then, as I'm sure was the case for many colleagues in this chamber, we had a community board that would go through those expressions of interest and make decisions on what was approved and funded.

As I look through the projects funded across my electorate since this became available, I see that funds went to a local motocross club for a new first-aid and parents room and to community centres to purchase new washing machines and dryers to provide laundry facilities for those in our community who are struggling. It's been an invaluable resource for the community, particularly now with the cost-of-living crisis, and it is a resource for those who are struggling with homelessness. There were also funds for the mini farm project that I went to see last week at Loganlea State High School. The charity converts underutilised spaces into urban farms to grow food for those in need. With support from many great sponsors across our community, they are delivering record amounts of food to our charities to provide free of charge to those in need. Those people are getting fresh vegetables from our urban farm. There were funds for our local school of arts to refurbish their facilities at Cedar Creek hall to improve access for the community; the Logan Make and Do Association, for purchasing some new lathes to build toys for those in the community, for Christmas presents et cetera; the Ormeau Progress Association, for renovations to their facilities; the Rotary Club of Beenleigh, for a maternity garden at Logan Hospital; the Phoenix Ensemble, for upgrading electrical systems in their theatre; and a range of other initiatives right around my community of Forde.

Without these small community-focused funding initiatives provided through the Stronger Communities Program, many of these grassroots organisations would go without. We've seen on the ground how successful and how important it is. I call on this Labor government, with now a $22 billion budget surplus, to show some heart and reinstate the stronger communities fund to provide support to our community organisations who do so much good work each and every day to make our communities a better place in which to live.

Tracey Roberts (Pearce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the motion moved by the member for Gippsland. In doing so I'm trying not to choke on the hypocrisy of this motion, as it appears the member is trying to claim that future years of the Stronger Communities Program have not been funded, when his own government failed to fund the round announced in March 2022. This is a program that has been traditionally funded year on year, and it is ridiculous for the coalition government to claim they did not do the same.

Before I move on, let's not forget the fallout from the Building Better Regions Fund program. The Australian National Audit Office found that the former government not only actively ignored Commonwealth grants guidelines but tried to get around them, and they did so at the expense of regional seats—not only Labor seats but also regional seats held by Liberal and Independent members. It looked like coalition ministers made decisions on projects based on an adventure of their own making, and, as a result, projects on the merit list were ignored and 65 per cent of the projects in the infrastructure stream, which made up almost all the billion dollars, were not the ones assessed by the department as having the most merit. The Liberals and Nationals announced round 8 of stronger communities in the March budget but failed to pass their budget before calling an election, meaning the program was another unfunded promise. As usual, big on announcements—but no delivery.

Let us put some facts on the table. The Albanese Labor government delivered the funding for round 8 of the program in the October budget of 2022 and rolled the program out across 2023. The program allocated $22.7 million to support community organisations and councils to deliver much-needed local projects. Funding of between $2½ thousand and $20,000 was available for not-for-profit community organisations and local governments to fund small capital projects that deliver social benefits and boost local community participation, including small-scale infrastructure upgrades, fit outs and equipment purchases. Each federal electorate received a capped amount of $150,000 to fund up to 20 local projects.

The Albanese Labor government has committed $200 million over two years, commencing in 2024-25, to establish the new Thriving Suburbs Program to deliver investment in locally driven urban and suburban infrastructure and community projects. The program will help address priority community infrastructure by providing access to funding for capital works and for community and economic infrastructure that enhances liveability and prosperity in urban and suburban communities. The program will be open and competitive, with grants awarded on a merit basis.

The Australian government's $400 million Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program is now open for applications. The rPPP seeks to support investment in regional, rural and remote Australia based on the principles of unifying regional places, growing economies and serving communities. The government has also committed $150 million over three years, commencing in 2024-25, for the Urban Precincts and Partnerships Program that will support investment in urban Australia based on the same principles. And let us not forget that the government secured $500 million for the Housing Support Program to help local communities with the urgent task of housing delivery. The regions have not been overlooked, with the Albanese government's new $600 million Growing Regions Program, which opened for expressions of interest in July. This provides grants of between $500,000 and $15 million to local government entities and not-for-profit organisations for capital works projects that deliver community and economic infrastructure projects right across regional and rural Australia.

So, overall, when it comes to grants, what is in and what is out? In—great programs, like the Growing Regions Program, with proper guidelines and processes. What is out? Ignoring guidelines and proper processes in favour of pork-barrelling the scheme for their own electoral advantage, as undertaken by the Liberals and Nationals previously. It is nonsense to suggest that the Albanese government has failed to provide funding for important local government community projects. In fact, just the opposite is true. We are committed to supporting our local councils and communities and to delivering grant programs that are fair and transparent.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am concerned that this government has yet to confirm an extension of the Stronger Communities Program, under which community organisations and local governments can apply for grants to fund small capital projects. As the member for Gippsland's motion states:

(b) community groups, already struggling with the increased cost of living, will have no other option than to fundraise for projects that otherwise could have been funded under the programme—

As the motion points out, it's arguable that, amid high inflation, community organisations now have greater need than ever. These grants must be confirmed.

When I was elected, I promised to judge all initiatives on their merit, on the evidence and on the data—no deals.

This followed rorting under the previous government, which infuriated my community and others. There should be grants to worthy community organisations. However, those that do go ahead should be based on need and equity, selected by a fair and proper process. In Goldstein, I have no part in the process of allocating community grants. The community evaluation committee that I have set up includes representatives from the two local councils and a Goldstein constituent with professional grant-making experience, plus one staff member from my office, who is a retired auditor. This group decides on much-needed grant applications from small community organisations.

These grants are much appreciated by the groups that received them to assist in their work for and within our community. Take, for example, Bayside Community Information and Support Service, which received a Stronger Communities grant of over $11,000 in the last round to purchase vital equipment to enable the provision of more emergency relief, information, referral, advocacy and support for vulnerable, at-risk, homeless and low-income individuals and families in our community. Goldstein may be one of the wealthiest electorates in the country, but it has its pockets of poverty. I know of women sleeping in cars in council and shopping centre car parks and of women separated from their long-time partners, unable to pay the rates or maintain, heat or cool their homes.

Nearly a dozen other community and sporting groups received funds for such improvements as a shade cloth and a barbecue for a neighbourhood community house and a battery storage system to support existing solar panels. A local lifesaving club received funding for a trailer to store and carry nipper boards to the beach. These grants enhance community amenity and participation. However, the last round of the program in my electorate was four and a half times oversubscribed. One community sporting club missed out on portable soccer goalposts; another on improved drainage for its oval. New energy-efficient floodlights were rejected for another applicant, as were solar panels for a scout hall and sports uniforms for junior players. Money does not grow on trees, but, especially since the social disruption of COVID, community activities are even more important and to be encouraged.

On a related matter, I'm thankful to the government for acting speedily to activate the Securing Faith-Based Places program, Labor's replacement for the last government's Safer Communities program. Several Jewish institutions in Goldstein will be able to enhance security as a result, which is much-needed right now. However, Safer Communities has an important element missing from the new program. For example, the Rotary Club of Brighton, in my electorate, after discussion with local police, was able to fund uniforms and registration fees for at-risk teenagers and young adults from families facing financial hardship to take part in team sports. So far, Brighton rotary has encouraged and assisted 85 kids into doing a number of sports, including AFL, soccer, basketball, netball and hockey, under the Team Sport 4 All program. Unfortunately, Brighton rotary have told me that their grant will run out at the end of the financial year, and, under this government, there is no longer any obvious avenue for such a grant. The question is: what plans does the government have—and, if so, when will they tell us—or are they simply going to let it wither on the vine?

Earlier this year, the local government minister announced the Growing Regions Program, a replacement for the Thriving Regions Fund. There was supposed to be a replacement, too, for the Thriving Communities Fund, a similar program for local government and not-for-profits in metropolitan Australia. The Growing Regions Program is about to open its second round of expressions of interest, but its suburban sister has not appeared, and there has been not a peep about this from the government. Where is it and, without it, how do we expect our communities to thrive?

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gippsland has brought this motion in relation to a grant program. That's a pretty gutsy thing for the member to do, given the atrocious record of the coalition on grants programs over the last few years before we came to office. The member has chosen what he must think is the coalition's least-rorted grants program—that's a matter of perspective and something we have to judge relative to others.

We know that the Building Better Regions Fund was heavily rorted. The Auditor-General found that almost two-thirds of the money in that scheme, run by a series of Nationals ministers, went to projects that did not have the most merit. And what did the member for New England say? He said he didn't care if people called it pork-barrelling. Well, we do care, and the Australian people care and voted accordingly, and we are fixing the system now.

The commuter car park program was heavily rorted by the coalition. According to the National Audit Office, a list of the top 20 marginal electorates guided the distribution of $389 million from the pork-and-ride fund, with 77 per cent in coalition electorates rather than in areas of true congestion needs.

A government member: Congestion only happens in Liberal electorates!

Apparently! And who could forget the Community Support and Infrastructure Grant program, rorted to the extent that eventually the coalition minister had to resign in disgrace. Was there spillage into other areas of government from the mishandling and rorting of those grants programs I have mentioned? Of course there was. It was the whole culture of the Liberal and National government that was at fault.

On a positive, look at the new, transparent and fair grants that are now available to communities under this government. The Thriving Suburbs Grant, $200 million commencing from next year, is an investment in locally driven urban and suburban infrastructure and community projects. The Urban Precincts and Partnerships Program has $150 million commencing from next year, investing in urban infrastructure, connecting people and communities and services and opportunities that improve liveability and inclusion.

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

How many of those are in Liberal or National Party electorates?

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, we'll find out from next year when the grant commences. There will be a far better process because we believe in integrity and transparency. That's how we'll deliver. The Housing Support Program is another $500 million competitive funding program for local and state governments that will kickstart housing supply. The Growing Regions Program has $600 million over three years that will provide grants of between $500,000 and $15 million to local government entities and not-for-profit organisations for capital works programs that deliver economic and community infrastructure projects across regional and rural Australia. Round 2 opens later this year, and the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program, now at $400 million, will be open for applications to deliver regional precincts that are tailored to local needs.

The Growing Regions Program and the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program won't apply to Hasluck because we are not regional, but they will apply to the seat of Gippsland. These are initiatives that the Albanese government backs in because it supports regional Australia. Instead of writing this motion, the member for Gippsland could have written to his constituents to tell them about the Growing Regions Program, to which not-for-profit community organisations and local governments in Gippsland can apply to fund small-capital projects that deliver social benefits and boost local community participation, including small-scale infrastructure upgrades, fit outs and equipment purchases. He can tell them that each federal electorate has a capped amount of $150,000 to fund up to 20 local projects. He can also assure them that, under an Albanese Labor government, the processes for application will be fair and transparent.

There are volunteer grants offered across all electorates to assist eligible not-for-profit community organisations supporting the efforts of their volunteers. Past successful groups in Hasluck, like the Mundaring Toy Library, CLAN—Community Link and Network—Midland, and the Ellenbrook Cultural Foundation have been able to extend and strengthen their connections and the work that they do in their local communities with the help of those volunteer grants. When our local groups applied for them, they had to fill out full applications. They had to follow the rules. They had to do everything by the book. They have every right to expect that their applications will be assessed and treated with the same level of honesty, transparency and proper process. Under this government, that's exactly what will happen. I thank the member Gippsland for bringing this courageous motion and allowing me to outline some of the government's initiatives which will assist people in both Gippsland and Hasluck as well as across the nation.

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

Let me say from the outset how surprised, shocked and disappointed I was that the government decided to cancel the Stronger Communities Programme. In my experience, and I've been here quite a while, I've never seen a program that managed to have such a multiplier effect. These were small grants going into active, community based clubs and organisations that had the ability to galvanise their members and generate so much more off the back of those particular programs. In Grey, we've had eight rounds, like everyone else, and that adds up to $1.2 million going back into Grey. I have to say, given some of the projects funded under the last government that have gone back into an electorate like Grey, $22 million a year is a drop in the bucket to the federal budget. Yet, as I drive around and talk to the community groups and as they ring my office looking for the next round of grants, I am constantly amazed by the amount of work that has been done on the back of what is a relatively minor grant and by its ability to enable these community organisations to access funds to bring their dreams alive.

In Grey it's been for things as diverse as breathing equipment for CFS units, gymnastics clubs, swimming clubs and business groups. Some of the communities that have benefited most have been the smallest and most remote—those with the most disadvantage. In my electorate, I've always elected to do this by an exhaustive committee process. I've had five members that sit on a panel, and we meet, at least virtually, to go through what is often an ask list four or five times greater than the amount of grants available. These people come from a wide footprint, and they're well informed community members across the electorate. We've all found it a really good process to focus our minds on what's going on in our local communities and where the needs are.

This has come at a time when the government has also cancelled, or perhaps relabelled, the Building Better Regions Fund, which put more than $60 million in the electorate of Grey and has been very, very useful to get some bigger projects over the finishing line. I am aware that we have the Growing Regions Program, but, of course, one of the unfortunate things about this new one is that it has a $1 million minimum price tag. If you're living where the majority of people live in my electorate, you'll be eligible for up to 50 per cent of the funding. Those who live in the outer regional areas will only require 25 per cent. For a smaller community organisation to be expected to find half a million dollars—it's virtually thrown directly at councils, certainly in the electorate of Grey, as the only organisations likely to be able to access those funds in the future. It will just make everything so much harder.

Despite the promises from the government before the election, we've also seen issues with the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. They said, 'We will put more money into it.' That is technically true. They funded a half round that is for roads only and then axed the program. I'd have to say that that is one of the most disappointing things for local councils that are struggling to hold road networks together. How hard do you push people in a high inflation environment for council rates and all those things? It's just a sign that the government is walking away from rural and regional programs. We just heard the previous speaker waxing lyrical about their urban schemes. I interjected to ask how many of those are in National Party electorates or Liberal Party electorates, as she'd just spent the last three or four minutes bagging those particular parties and the previous grants rounds. It seems quite obvious that the dial has turned now and they're making sure that the rivers of gold from government flow in another direction, and that's to their electorates. And I think, considering their rhetoric on this area, that's pretty reprehensible.

I think my community made good selections. There's an absolute delight that this program brings to people in local communities, and you'd be aware of it yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker. Organisations that have tried so hard to get good projects off the ground for their communities say to us, 'Well, you cannot believe how that $5000, $10,000 or $12,251'—because we often pare them down a little bit to see what we can get out of that community. But it's sorely missed, and they are asking, 'Where are we going to go now?'

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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