Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Better late than never: 14 months after this very important committee report was presented to the Senate, we see this document presented. Having had the opportunity to look at the document, I now know why—because this is a feeble response to a very important committee report which was presented to the Senate. In the last sitting week of 2006, we see this document presented.

Let me remind the Senate that this report shows that the government had taken advantage of its stewardship of the public purse to fund projects willy-nilly around the country, with more regard to its electoral prospects than to the interests of the taxpayer, fairness or proper process. As a result, quite a number of recommendations—some of which have actually been accepted by the government—were proposed by this committee. Let me remind the Senate that I said when the report was presented that it was a report which would shock the nation, and indeed it did. At that time, I named some projects where the spending total of $5 million was to do such things as fund a steam train that would not go, a creek that dredged itself, a milk company that folded before the ink on the funding announcement was dry, an ethanol company worth $1 that still has yet to produce a drop of fuel and a hotel funded to run ‘Wacky Wednesdays’ and stunt bikini babes while other communities on the Atherton tableland cry out for potable drinking water. What a travesty!

And, 14 months later, what particular matters was the government keen not to agree to in this report? Surprise, surprise, from the point of view of the majority report of the committee: the government has declined to agree with those recommendations which allowed better scrutiny of the government’s ad-min-istration of this program, ‘regional rorts’. That is what the public came to know this program as. ‘Regional rorts’ were editorialised around the country as shocking misbehaviour by this government in the exercise of its administrative responsibilities—spend-ing from the public purse basically for the purpose of funding the government’s election campaign rather than really funding the interests of regional Australia.

We see that, where the committee recommended that area consultative committee recommendations be disclosed to funding applicants, the government disagreed. Where the committee recommended that the government conduct a review of the role of area consultative committees to ensure their contribution to regional development is maximised, the government disagreed. Where the committee recommended that biannual statements be tabled in the Senate by the minister representing Minister for Transport and Regional Services, listing the Regional Partnership Program grants approved in the preceding six-month period, the Department of Transport and Regional Services’ and the area consultative committees’ recommendations, the government disagreed. Where the committee recommended that, where funding decisions were inconsistent with the department and/or area consultative committee recommendations, a statement for the reason for the decision be tabled, the government disagreed. Where the committee recommended that, to avoid the suggestion that this program was being used simply as a means of courting electoral approval as we got close to an election, the government effectively extend the caretaker provision of this program, the government disagreed.

In relation to the Regional Partnerships and Sustainable Regions programs, better known around the country as ‘regional rorts’, we have seen that this government is keen to maintain the ability to use this program for the purpose of funding its electoral campaigns, in effect, putting money into regions where it either thinks it needs to build up its support to retain a seat or is seeking to campaign to take a seat—potentially, probably from one of the Independents in this parliament, as they attempted to with the seat of New England at the last election.

The public has had enough of issues such as the abuse of process that was involved in the Tumbi Creek grant. Two grants were announced by the Prime Minister. But we found out that, before there was approval of the process, storms had led to a partial dredging of the creek—in other words, the ordinary course of running water from the storm had done part of the job that the Commonwealth was going to pay for. We saw a steam train in Queensland that ceased to operate even though over $1 million had been paid towards the project. We saw, on the Atherton tablelands, a hotel being given funds to improve its competitive position in relation to others in that town—but, in the same community, we found a town that had drinking water that was barely drinkable and water pressure that did not allow the community to fight fire. What a travesty! What an outrageous performance by this government—and no contrition at all in relation to this program.

What the government are keen to do is maintain their ability to pump money out during the lead-up to an election campaign and make promises during an election campaign without the constraint of actually having to show that the projects have the support of the organisations that the government has set up to, in part, vet these projects—the area consultative committees. They are not prepared to show the public that this body that they have set up that is supposed to have the expertise to deal with these matters, that is supposed to have the interests of the region at heart and that is impartial to government supports the project. They are not even prepared to say that. They are not even prepared to say that where there is a disagreement between the government and this body—this body that the government are setting up; they have total control over who is on this body—the government will make a statement of reasons or actually publish that fact.

They are not prepared to allow the applicants who think that perhaps they are not being properly dealt with by the area consultative committee to know whether the area consultative committee actually approved their application in the process of consideration by government. What the government are clearly indicating here is that they intend to go through the same process again. They intend to follow the discredited process of using this program in the way that has become known—as a series of regional rorts to deliver electoral advantage to the government.

I think the Australian community has had enough of this. I think the Australian community expects that, as taxpayers, when they pay money this government will account for the way they use it and account properly. I think the Australian community is sick and tired of governments using their money simply as a means of currying electoral favour. When the government makes these announcements they had better be prepared for a backlash. It may seem that there are opportunities for electoral advantage, but the reality is that a lot of people in the community are going to be asking questions about how this is being funded, who is paying for it, what the process has been and why other projects which are in the pipeline did not get funded when the ones that the government selected did get funded.

This will become a poisoned chalice for the government. When it comes to the consideration of these projects, the opposition will be pointing out to the Australian people that this government wants to shield from the public the way that they handle this process, just as they shielded from the committee originally the determinations by the department and details of the particular projects, where even the department’s advice was overturned by ministers so that the minister could deliver the political advantage that they thought they had.

I was going to seek leave to continue my remarks, but Senator Forshaw is going to seek the call, and perhaps there will be someone else. This is a very shabby response to the committee’s report. It is eight months late, inadequate and one to which we will return and make sure the public is aware of. (Time expired)