Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion because the fear of God has been put into a section of the Australian community least able to defend its economic future—and that is regional Australia. I do not for a moment resile from, or apologise for, the coalition’s record in government and its response to the needs of regional Australia. I would like to pick up on a couple of things that my good friend Senator Hutchins said. He made the point that more assistance was given to coalition seats. The reason for that, of course, was that before this election—and even now after this election—far more regional seats were held by coalition members. I have seen the statistics and, like Senator Boswell, I wish I had brought the information in with me. I saw the record in our last period of government where very clearly, statistically, Labor seats benefited from these grants in just the same way as our seats did.

We invested record amounts in local roads, in rail networks, in schools and in measures to address skills shortages and to sustain the natural resources of the country. The strong economic and financial management by our government enabled us to invest in these important areas. It was not until we had balanced the books that we were able to spend the money that was needed to rebalance the economic prosperity and opportunities between country and city.

I remind the Senate, because sometimes these things are forgotten and we are certainly not in a position to write history anymore because we are no longer in government, that we inherited a $96 billion debt from Mr Keating and Mr Hawke, we created two million jobs in our period in government, we cut unemployment to the lowest levels in 30 years, we kept interest rates low, we kept inflation low and we increased real wages.

The contributions to the debate today have often included some personal anecdotes. I can remember talking to John Sharp, who was our first Minister for Transport and Regional Development. He said that when he came to government he looked in the cupboard for the regional services budget and he found that he had about $200,000 to spend—less money than was spent on the pelmet of grass over the top of Parliament House at the same time.

We resolved to change that. When we balanced the books, we were able to direct that money where it needed to be directed for the benefit of all Australians. But, while the strong economic conditions in the broad opened up greater opportunities for regional Australia, more needed to be done because we realised, coming as we did from regional Australia, that Australia’s economic prosperity was not spread uniformly across the country. Above all, one of the most severe droughts in our history had caused enormous pain to families and communities right across our nation. While we were in government, we devised policies that recognised that the one-third of Australians living outside the major cities could get a fair go and should not miss out on the economic benefits stemming from Australia’s more general economic prosperity.

You will recall, Madam Acting Deputy President, that on election night the Prime Minister said that the new government would be a government for all Australians. They were very appropriate and noble words. My hope is that we can take the Prime Minister’s words for all their good intentions, but the political facts of life are that all governments are captives of their political representation. Unfortunately, still very few members of the new government come from regional Australia. Two-thirds of the members from regional Australia in the House of Representatives still come from the Liberal and National parties, and that is why the majority of assistance went to and hopefully will still go to coalition seats in the future.

But the reality of politics is that you are what you are, and a new government with new priorities and new ministers in finance, in Treasury, in primary industry, in transport, in health and in regional development may likely have little understanding of regional Australia, as we have heard—why policies and programs were developed, the pain of the last couple of decades in connection to the economic prospects of regional Australia and, of course, the pain of the drought which seems to have lasted most of the last decade.

Governments cannot invent the economic future, but they can get the macroeconomic and microeconomic issues right, which we systematically did. From the earliest days, once we had balanced the books of Australia Inc. we targeted regional Australia with programs that were able to lift standards of living; provide social capital, which is so very important; and build on natural advantage. You cannot create economic prosperity in a vacuum. You can only build on natural advantage, and across this vast nation there are very many opportunities to build on natural advantage. If you look at what has happened over the last 10 years, that has certainly been done. We also targeted regional Australia with programs to make for stronger communities, to give them that lift up—that little bit of money, that large amount of money, that infrastructure, that commitment that has enabled communities to go forward and create new opportunities and new jobs.

I want to mention some of these programs. Probably the most important was the Regional Partnerships program, which you have heard a lot about today. The Regional Partnerships program really is a testament to John Anderson. Substantially it was he who developed the regional partnerships concept, which allows for the funding of projects that stimulate growth in the regions, improve access to services, support planning and help communities adjust to changed circumstances—in other words, structural reform which is always going on in the community.

Some $270 million were spent on the Regional Partnerships program, but amounts mean very little until you look at where the money went. I give relevance to the program by looking at the New England north-west region, where over $13 million were spent since 2003. We have had a lot of criticism of these projects, but in fairness I think people listening will appreciate that this money was given to very good projects in the main. If the money had not come from the Regional Partnerships program, where would the money have come from to provide for that community infrastructure?

For instance, the Tamworth Meals on Wheels kitchen, a vital community infrastructure program, received $770,000. The Challenge Equine Laundry Service in Tamworth received $210,000. Challenge is a disability service provider. The Bellata Gold durum milling plant received over half a million dollars. This plant provides enormous export opportunities to high-value exports of grain. There are some little projects, like the restumping of the Mingoola Community Hall. Senator Joyce knows where Mingoola is. It was a little project, just over $7,000, in a little community that would never have been able to raise that sort of money. Mingoola is in the electorate of New England, which, quite frankly, the National Party would have loved to have won but with every realisation that the sitting Independent was likely to be successful—it was hardly a political decision.

There was a technology CTC in Warialda supported with $6,000. In Tenterfield a multipurpose centre received $55,000. A bigger project was the Moree Plains Gallery art precinct—we are very keen on the arts in the National Party—with a grant of $269,000. These projects went far wider than simple community investments. A regional GP access centre in Tamworth—the Peel Health Care Centre—was supported with $215,000 to provide a home for GP practice in Tamworth. Tamworth is a large regional city with a very large hospital and public and private health infrastructure. It needs GPs. We addressed that through the Regional Partnerships program. I congratulate all those people who were involved in the regional GP access centre in Tamworth. There was the National Equine and Livestock Centre in Tamworth, for which over $6 million was provided. This is a project that has not just national—