Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, I present the committee’s interim report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Funding regional and local community infrastructure: proposals for the new Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, together with the minutes of proceedings and the evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

I am pleased to table our interim report, Funding regional and local community infrastructure. This was a difficult inquiry to undertake. In making recommendations about how, to what and by whom federal funding for local and community infrastructure is to be allocated, there are invariably vested interests and strong views held. The overwhelming picture that emerged from the evidence given through submissions and public hearings was that there was little consensus as to how the program should work, beyond recognition that Commonwealth government support should be maintained. Indeed, it has not been possible for the full committee to reach a consensus on all issues.

Local government evidence invariably said, with a few variations, that they would like the money to be given directly to them. ACCs on the whole said that a component should be given to ACCs directly to decide upon and that they should play a greater role in assisting applicants, and they also called for a greater role in assessment. State government submissions on the whole wanted a greater role in assessments and better alignment between state regional funding programs. For-profit organisations were keen that funding still be accessible by them, and community organisations were keen that funding still be accessible by them and that they not be crowded out by local government projects.

In communities around Australia the committee heard a wide range of views, and I would like to acknowledge the overwhelming level of community participation in this inquiry and thank the many organisations, governments and individuals that participated through submissions and community consultations. I also want to acknowledge the work of the ACCs, who played a very important and constructive role under the Regional Partnerships Program and provided their expertise to this inquiry.

The report signals a new approach to funding infrastructure across regional and local communities. Last week the Commonwealth announced the provision of $300 million to build local community infrastructure in all of Australia’s 565 local council areas. The government has signalled that this is the first component of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, and it reflects the need to stimulate the economy quickly. The government has also signalled that the next phase of the program will be rolled out in the next financial year, and consideration will be given to the full recommendations of this committee.

Regions across Australia deserve to have access to infrastructure funding on a fair and transparent basis, but that is not what happened under the previous Regional Partnerships Program. Despite the success of many of the Regional Partnerships projects, both a committee of the Senate and the Australian National Audit Office found serious faults in the previous government’s administration of that program. Unfortunately, this in turn tainted some project outcomes, led to questions about the transparency of the decision-making process and in some instances saw substantial amounts of funding go to projects that never actually eventuated, while some recommended projects were not funded at all. With infrastructure being so vital to a community’s wellbeing and sustainability it is important that the government gets this new program right, yet throughout Australia communities are struggling to provide the kind of infrastructure which enhances the liveability of their area and helps grow local economies.

This interim report contains some 24 recommendations which outline options for government to consider as it develops the objectives and structure of its Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. The interim report recommends that the new program cover all regions of Australia, employ a partnership approach and predominantly fund hard infrastructure and that local governments be the auspice agencies for projects that require a local government contribution. It recommends that not-for-profit organisations be able to apply for funding but that they should work with local governments to seek their support and ensure that projects fit within regional and local planning. It recommends that for-profit organisations be ineligible to apply but suggests the government look at establishing a similar fund for for-profit organisations, under the innovation and industry portfolio.

The report recommends three funding streams with different levels and closed rounds of applications. The committee is of the view that this new program should continue to utilise ministerial discretion for final decision on all applications. However, it is recommended that the government consider employing state based assessment panels with delegates from the three tiers of government and others to provide greater transparency in decision making and more comprehensive recommendations on applications to the minister and to encourage harmonisation in regional funding between all levels of government.

It was always the committee’s intention to conduct this inquiry quickly, and we hope this interim report has assisted government in its decision making. Further reflection on the committee’s terms of reference and the government’s implementation of its new program will be addressed in the final report. I want to particularly acknowledge the hard work of Dr Brian Lloyd, Susan Cardell and Michael Crawford in assisting in the conduct of this inquiry in, again, very short time frames. They have done a very good job. Commonwealth government funding of regional and local community infrastructure continues to be an important measure in the provision of long-term support for our regions. The government’s Regional Local and Community Infrastructure Program must and should contribute to this process.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with some regret that I dissent from my government colleagues in several parts of this report and have lodged a dissenting list of comments. It is the first time in my career in this parliament that I have dissented from a committee report. I feel that this report needed a wider scope. Members were not given the opportunity to consider the commercial development as a driver of ‘genuine regional economic development’. After all, we are talking about the department of regional development and you cannot isolate genuine regional development from this department without making the whole process farcical. To some extent last week’s $300 million spending package announced to councils at the conference of mayors in Canberra pre-empts some of the understandings of this report. Nevertheless, I believe that the recommendations of this report take away from local communities the power to determine unique and individual solutions to their own set of economic and social circumstances.

The overwhelming body of evidence from all the committee’s hearings was not critical of the work carried out by the ACCs themselves nor, for that matter, of the program itself, but more particularly of the department and its very slow processes. I personally favour a three-pronged pre-assessment process for applications under the new process, all involving greater understanding of projects: enlargement of the ACC/RDA role and strategically placing regional offices and a program of skilled field officers. And, although I was initially lukewarm to the idea of assessment panels, I would support this model on the proviso that some changes are made. I believe each RDA regional office should host an assessment panel. This would provide a more direct and tangible link with the communities they are meant to serve, and that might mean two or three ACC or RDA divisions under that regional office.

I would also like to see assessment panels broader in membership than currently recommended. I would like to see them operate more independently from departmental influence than currently recommended and I would certainly advocate less red tape. That was the criticism at nearly every hearing I attended and, along with the chair who has just spoken—and I do stress that there is no bitterness or rancour in my dissent—I think that the evidence I saw at those hearings is not supported by the majority report.

In terms of the funding itself, I feel that there needs to be a clear recognition of the particular economic and social needs of individual regions and not a ‘one size fits all’. While we cannot craft a program that will suit every single situation, there needs to be a degree of flexibility that recognises unique circumstances ranging from long-term drought to entrenched unemployment and population drift. To this end I would recommend: three-monthly rounds of grants to $50,000; six-monthly rounds for applications seeking between $50,000 and $500,000; a rolling round of $50,000 to $2.5 million for deprived regions or declared areas within regions—and on that basis there would be a lesser measure of assessment; a rolling round of $500,000 to $7.5 million for major projects; and emergency grants in exceptional circumstances of $500,000 on ministerial direction and with a three-month application completion proviso.

This has not been the easiest inquiry I have ever participated in. I assumed the chair’s role for some time while the member for Ballarat took maternity leave. The committee travelled widely, as she has said in her report, and I acknowledge the hard work of the committee secretary, Michael Crawford, Sophia Nicolle, Peter Keele, Jazmine Rakic and Claire Young. They all did a marvellous job. They did it professionally and my disagreeing with their report does not mean that I do not acknowledge their work or the work of my colleagues. On this occasion I just felt that we were missing the point. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Ballarat wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Does the honourable member for Ballarat wish to move a motion to refer the matter to the Main Committee?