INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT, REGIONLA DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
November 27, 2008
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (11.57 am) — I rise to speak on the Funding regional and local community infrastructure interim report and the dissenting comments by the member for Hinkler. I do take up the commentary from the member for Longman, who I thought made a very constructive contribution to the debate, though he could not resist in the last 30 seconds giving the Nats a spray on the way through.
I think there are many positive aspects to the report, just as there are many positive aspects to the previous Regional Partnerships program. I do fear that, in its desperate attempts to trash the legacy of previous government, the new government has shown a willingness to perhaps throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the Regional Partnerships program. I am not suggesting for a second that members of the committee are that way inclined, but there are some opposite who have shown perhaps a willingness during the heat of an election campaign to go a little bit too far.
As the member for Parkes indicated, now that we are 12 months into the new government, I hope that cooler heads will prevail and there will be a real emphasis on ensuring that regional development projects and initiatives with the support of local communities do get undertaken in the future.
I will take up the comments from the member for Hinkler, who submitted his report with a great deal of respect and reluctance. The member for Hinkler has an enormous amount of experience in regional development. While I am a newcomer to this place, I am a strong believer, as is the member for Hinkler, in the committee system and working together to achieve better outcomes for all Australians. I know he was reluctant to submit his dissenting report, but he did so in good faith and I believe he made some very pertinent points.
The member for Parkes also referred to the Regional Partnerships program, basically appealing for people to understand and let the facts speak for themselves. There was an overwhelming amount of good that came out of the Regional Partnerships program. In my electorate of Gippsland, without running through every project that was supported, I think there was some enormous good done in my community with projects like Lifeline Gippsland with its $1.9 million centre. It received $550,000 of federal government funding. For those who do not understand the work of Lifeline, it provides an absolutely critical service in Gippsland, providing counselling, information and referrals for those contemplating suicide and that type of thing.
That particular project was very well supported in my electorate, as was the Churchill and district community hub, which received $880,000 for redevelopment of the town centre of Churchill—one of the most perhaps disadvantaged communities in my region with very high unemployment rates and in need of a major commercial centre redevelopment. That and other projects were funded through Regional Partnerships.
One of my particular favourites, for which we saw funding from the state Labor government as well as the Regional Partnerships program, was the paddle-steamer Curlip, which will be launched this weekend. Volunteers have built a replica of a paddle-steamer, and it will be plying the Snowy River this weekend for the first time. It is an enormous achievement by the people of Orbost, a community that has been knocked around by some, particularly, state government decisions in relation to resource allocation in the timber industry. This Regional Partnerships funding—and it was supported by state government funding—has been incredibly important to the people of Orbost and the wider East Gippsland region in terms of promoting the tourism industry.
There was a Gippsland Immigration Wall of Recognition, which received $40,000 funding, in the town of Morwell. It recognised the enormous contribution that migrants have made to the community of the Latrobe Valley over the past 120 years, and it is a fabulous project. I note that the chair of the committee is the member for Ballarat. I notice that Sovereign Hill in Ballarat, an outstanding regional tourism attraction, received $500,000 for its Chinese village. It just reflects that the Regional Partnerships program did fund a very diverse range of projects. It had flexibility and it was innovative, and that was one of the strengths of the program.
I note that the Funding regional and local community infrastructure report raises some of the issues that have been raised by other members in relation to the administration of Regional Partnerships, and I am happy to concede that there were some negative findings in the audit and that some aspects of the administration of the program have been criticised. But I completely reject the commentary from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, who has gone as far as claiming in this place that former ministers were corrupt.
I think the minister is developing an unsavoury reputation for this type of grubby politicking. Yesterday he defamed the character of the former mayor of Port Macquarie and claimed that he had been sacked for corruption. He has made similar allegations about ministers involved with the Regional Partnerships program.
I think that it is an outrageous slur from a minister who cannot help playing the man, and I really think he needs to take a cold shower, settle down a bit and realise that there are members on both sides of the House who actually want to get on with the job—in particular with Regional Partnerships or regional development initiatives. There are people who want to get on with the job and start delivering for their communities, and the minister himself would be well advised to do that. It took him 12 months to finally announce some funding for regional development last week.
That was well received, I accept, throughout regional areas, but it did take 12 months. The minister should spend more time on those positive and practical applications of his skills rather than playing the man and making false allegations of corruption without any substantiation whatsoever. It reflects poorly on him and on his side of politics.
The member for Hinkler made a dissenting report. I read the dissenting report and the interim report, and I think there is a lot of good in both of them, but there are two aspects of the reports that I want to concentrate on. They deal with the recommendations regarding the grant sizes and the approval processes and also the recommendations on the exclusion of for-profit entities from this program. I would like to start with recommendation 6, and I quote from the report:
The Committee recommends that the new Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program exclude applications from for-profit entities.
I note the contribution from the member for Longman in this regard, but I am afraid that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. At a time of rising unemployment, when job opportunities, particularly in regional areas, are going to become tighter and tighter, I believe that seed funding can really make a difference to these commercial entities, and I think it is a mistake by the committee in this case to recommend that the funding not be provided to for-profit entities.
It is not just my opinion; it is also one that is shared by the member for Hinkler, who I believe has demonstrated, with his vast experience in regional development before entering this place, his breadth of knowledge. It is also the opinion of the former Victorian Minister for State and Regional Development, now Premier of Victoria, the Hon. John Brumby. I would like to quote from a media release from the Premier when he was Minister for State and Regional Development, from 30 October 2006:
A $300,000 Bracks Government grant will trigger a $21 million expansion of Patties Foods Bairnsdale plant creating 100 new full-time jobs …
The minister, who has never been one to hide his light under a bushel, went on to say:
This expansion by Patties Foods is a major investment for East Gippsland that will allow the company to export into other new markets, especially in the lucrative US market, for its range of savoury pies, pasties, and sausage rolls.
He went on to say:
… the Regional Investment Initiative was a key part of the Victorian Government’s agenda to drive prosperity and growth across provincial Victoria …
I have not always agreed with the honourable Premier of Victoria, but in this case I feel I must. Patties Foods is one of the great companies in regional Victoria and in East Gippsland. I will just say for the record that the former chairman of the company, Richard Rijs, has been a great contributor to regional development through his involvement with a group called Champions of the Bush, which is a successful lobby organisation, based primarily in Victoria, where regional companies have invested their own money—about $10,000 each per year—to support regional development and to encourage state and federal governments to invest in regional communities. Richard Rijs, as the former chairman of the board and ongoing member of Champions of the Bush, has been a great champion of regional communities.
Some of the commentary from the member for Longman was that it is difficult for governments to pick winners, and I accept that. There have been some mistakes made in the past and I am sure there will be some more in the future. As the member for Hinkler says in his comments, to exclude ‘commercial development is a denial of the stated role of the department itself, Regional Development Australia’.
The focus on community and social infrastructure is not something that I oppose at all, but I believe that the committee is being unnecessarily restrictive in this recommendation by excluding commercial operators from applying in the future. Providing a helping hand to existing or new operators to establish ventures in regional areas is a valuable use of taxpayers’ resources if used appropriately.
I accept the need for checks and balances, which is a point that has been well made by members opposite. The government has had no hesitation in putting up about $6 million to bail out the car industry, and I believe it is serious about regional development. It will provide a funding stream for commercial developments to access in the future. I appreciate that the committee’s report in recommendation 7 supports the establishment of a regional industry grants scheme under another department, but I believe that scheme rightfully belongs with the new Regional Development Australia. In any case, I am not convinced that the government is committed to providing funding in relation to recommendation 7. I believe this program would lose its local input and focus if the commercial aspect was taken out of the grants scheme, and I support for-profit enterprises being able to apply for funding.
I also take up the committee’s recommendation 13, regarding the sliding scale of complexity for forms and information requirements. I think it would be an excellent move to streamline the application process. If it is at all possible to go further in the future, I would urge the committee to consider some type of smaller community grants scheme—a quick grants scheme, for want of a better phrase—for the not-for-profit sector.
We have a problem in our smaller regional towns in that, if you apply for a small amount of funding, it almost becomes too onerous to bother. If communities raise dollar-for-dollar funding for projects up to $20,000, they demonstrate that they are committed to the project. I would strongly advocate a low-paperwork scheme of some description. The type of work carried out with that type of program would be upgrading community halls in small country towns, upgrading or establishing playgrounds—which have a regional tourism focus in themselves—and improving sporting facilities.
I accept that you will need to maintain the accountability factors that go with it, but I think we need to actually start trusting some of our local communities a lot more. If the local community groups and the not-for-profit groups have the capacity to raise $5,000 or $10,000 themselves for a worthwhile community program, I think we can develop a quick grant type of scheme to assist them to undertake that type of work.
I make one point, though, in relation to improving sporting facilities, and this links into other discussions about excessive use of alcohol and responsible service of alcohol. We have a major problem in country communities in that the only avenue available to some of our country sporting clubs to raise funds is selling alcohol. We can preach to them as much as we like about the responsible service of alcohol and encouraging young people to pursue healthy lifestyles but, unless we are prepared to put some money in to help these footy, netball and cricket clubs, the way they make their money will be over the bar. We are going to need to support them in the future and I think this grants program is one opportunity to do that and to really support these small local communities.
Regarding the approvals process, I believe that we need to make sure we have a focus on developing local solutions to local problems. I take up the views of the member for Hinkler again on support for local development boards, views which were echoed by the member for Parkes and also the member for Lindsay in his commentary about the success of the Roads to Recovery program. One of the great successes of that program was the local buy-in—that we have trusted local people to understand their local area, to develop their own practical solutions using their common sense and to set their own priorities in their communities. The Roads to Recovery model is a very good model for us, particularly when looking at smaller infrastructure projects.
I believe there are opportunities to involve local government more in that regard, and I encourage the minister to involve local government directly in the $300 million program announced last week. My only criticism of that program is that it needs to go two, three or four years further into the future to give these councils some surety that funding is on the way. The backlog of projects is always going to be there—you can invest as much as you like in regional infrastructure but there is always another project waiting around the corner.
The minister made a good decision in relation to that $300 million project. It was well received in my community, and the only hesitation we have is that we would like to see some surety of investment going forward.
Just in terms of local input and ensuring that local communities are engaged in the process, once you get your local communities involved in setting the priorities and achieving the funding you will find that the local communities will actually leverage off the available funding and turn 10 bucks into 100 bucks very quickly. They are very good in small country communities: one bloke will have a truck and the other bloke will know someone with a bobcat whose cousin is a painter whose mate will put the whole playground up for a slab of VB.
That is the type of leveraging you will get out of country communities. They will put in a lot of in kind community work for you and use their resources for the benefit of their community once you have engaged them and ensured they have some control over how the funding is allocated.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge that the Regional Partnerships program did an enormous amount of good for country areas. I would also like to put on the record the support for the area consultative committee, particularly in Gippsland, where the staff and the board members have unfortunately been caught up in this whole debate. I join the member for Hinkler in raising some serious reservations about the report and urge the government to abandon the politics completely and just get on with the job at hand. In saying that, I am not seeking at all to reflect negatively on any of the individual committee members. I believe they have been put in a difficult situation where the heat of an election campaign has flowed into a report, and now we really want to get on with the job of doing some good for regional areas.
I commend the committee at many levels for the work they have done with their interim report. As I said at the outset, there are many positive recommendations in the report. As an interim report there is always room for improvement. I urge the members to have the courage to possibly take risks in their final report and support the potential growth in regional communities.
I also join with the member for Parkes in calling on members on all sides to ignore some of the rantings and ravings we have seen by the minister in relation to this and focus on the important job at hand. I believe the committee will focus on the important job at hand and that they will ignore the minister, because he is actually going through the process of discrediting himself with some of the ranting and raving he has been going on with in parliament of late. I wish the committee well with their deliberations and look forward to supporting them in their efforts to invest in the future of regional communities.
(Time expired)