Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

McKENZIE (—) (): As the shadow minister for infrastructure, transport and regional development and the leader of the National Party in this chamber, it gives me great pleasure to stand and contribute to this debate today. The only place that the newly elected Labor government is looking for budget savings, the only areas in the budget that they have flagged themselves—whether it was the finance minister in this chamber, the Treasurer in the other chamber or the minister who is tasked with the responsibility to develop regional Australia—are all, every program and every project, having the red line run over them.

I'm very proud to have been part of a government that backed the ambition of regional Australia, that backed our industry, that didn't think that for the nine million of us who don't live in capital cities you don't get to go to a great school or that you don't get access to quality health care. That is actually the reality out in the regions, and that's why for the Labor Party—and Senator Brown was starting on the rhetoric there today—the programs are wasteful; spending money in the regions is wasteful; spending money in the regions is politically motivated, for the National Party. Well, come out to Dubbo, come out to Orbost, come out to Mildura, come out to Whyalla, come out to Geraldton, come out to Cloncurry—

thank you, Senator McDonald—and have a conversation with these communities, who, as citizens who work hard and pay their taxes, ask why they can't get a doctor, why their kids shouldn't have access to high-quality education, why their roads are crumbling and why their economies aren't diversifying. That is what these programs and projects have been focused on for over 10 years. We are very, very proud to have been able to secure, in the March budget, an additional $21 billion of new money for rural and regional Australia, because, as our nation embarks on a trajectory to net zero by 2050, guess what? It's not going to be a win for all. Some communities are going to be more significantly impacted than others. The Labor Party signed us up to a more ambitious target. You won the election; tickety-boo. Where is the commensurate commitment to fund rural and regional communities' ability to seize the opportunities that you tell us are coming and also to overcome the challenges that are coming their way?

I completely reject any notion that funding a cancer centre in Dubbo is a waste. That's what you're telling us. I completely reject the notion that funding La Trobe University's joint venture with Goulburn Valley Health in my own home state, in Shepparton, is a waste. The only way you're going to get doctors out into country towns and regional centres is by actually training country kids in country communities, because do you know what? They want to practise in the country. We know it works, because that's what the research over a long period of time has told us. So, instead of trying to force people who don't want to be in the country out, we have focused on building facilities and partnering with local healthcare providers to train people locally. The very programs that the Labor Party wants to slash, the very projects that Jim Chalmers right now is running his red pen through, are the very projects that will underpin not just the economic future of rural and regional Australia but also our social infrastructure—the things that should be about equity in a country as rich as Australia.

In a country as wealthy as ours, where you live should not make a difference to your educational attainment, your health outcomes or your median income level. But the sad fact is that these things do matter. The real reason the Labor Party is framing this budget up on the notion that investing in rural and regional Australia means waste or that somehow it's politically motivated is so that they can, in the upcoming budget, slash funding to our hospitals, our schools and our sporting fields. The facilities that you all take for granted in your capital cities are facilities that we desperately need. The reason the National Party fights so hard within successful coalition governments is that it is about need. All of these programs that you want to cut, whether it's the Building Better Regions Fund, the Roads to Recovery Program or the Bridges Renewal Program, are so oversubscribed. It's not because rural and regional Australia thinks it deserves more than it's fair share but because there is such a need out there.

There is a reason why you didn't win the seat of Braddon, Senator Brown. It's because Braddon knows the best way for them to secure a better future for their families over coming decades is to vote for Gavin Pearce, the Liberal member for Braddon. No National Party there. The reason why people in Gippsland vote for Darren Chester, why people in Calare vote for Andrew Gee, why people in Gladstone vote for Col Boyce, why they vote for the Liberal Party in Western Australian seats, why they vote for Rowan Ramsey and Tony Pasin in regional South Australia, is that they know the first thing you do when you come to power is you look to cut funding to nearly nine million Australians because it's an easy hit and you will never lose a vote from it.

You come in here and you champion that you are the party for all Australians, that you are the party for working Australians. You are not. If you were, you would absolutely back not slashing one dollar from the regions; you'd back their ambition and plans to grow. Their children deserve a prosperous and sustainable future just as much as your kids do. So we will not stop being offended by your ambition to cut the programs and projects that we have fought so hard to have handed down in the budget.

I want to also address some of Senator Brown's contributions around the politicisation of funding to rural and regional Australia. When we look back on ANAO reports, there is one that stands out to me. It is one centred on the last time the Labor party was in government. There was a senior infrastructure minister called Anthony Albanese, and his junior minister for regional development was Minister Catherine King—there are some familiar names there. That was a scathing report. The figures Senator Brown quoted go nothing to what this team did. They redefined what a region was—it's not a country town of 20,000 people, it's not Wangaratta or Benalla or Cairns; it's Perth. Senator Ciccone, your party defines Perth as a regional centre, and therefore gives funding under regional development programs to Perth. But what I think was more scathing was that this minister ignored 80 per cent of the recommended projects from the department of infrastructure. So to be lectured on politicisation of funding by the Labor party, honestly, thank goodness—