Mr GRAY (Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) (10:32 AM) —We announced in the budget and prior to it that area consultative committees will transform into Regional Development Australia. Taking place in this building over the last day and over the next 24 hours is a conference of our department, under the auspices of DITR, which is directed to understanding and participating in a regional dialogue, with a set of discussions and papers being presented, on how better to go about the business of regional development in Australia.

It is fair to say that over the course of the last 30 years we have seen regional development as a national government priority move from the initial steps by the Whitlam government under DURD through the labour market programs of the former Hawke and Keating governments and then through the area consultative committee programs and Regional Partnerships of the former government. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. As we move forward in building Regional Development Australia, we hope to build on the strengths and the knowledge that have been gathered in public administration, in academia and in practical experience not just in Australia but around the world. We have asked the area consultative committees to work hard on the next transformation into RDA. We have promised the area consultative committees ongoing funding to 31 December, on their current levels of funding, to carry out that work. In the forward estimates of the budget there is nearly $60 million for the ongoing work of RDA, funding which mirrors, replicates and is identical to the funding pool available from the former government for organisations then known as area consultative committees.

Also on budget night we announced changes to the Regional Partnerships program. We announced that we would close the Regional Partnerships program and also the Sustainable Regions Program, which fitted within that. We also announced at that time that we would be pressing forward in the next budget cycle with our local community infrastructure program, a program that will replace Regional Partnerships but will have two substantial differences. The first one is that it will be transparent. The processes for axing it will be clear to all concerned and unlike the Regional Partnerships program it will be compliant with the requirements of the Australian National Audit Office. So it will have transparency and it will have compliance on a level that we have not seen in these programs before.

Most importantly, what we discovered following budget night was something that we had not contemplated. We had not contemplated that in the months prior to the federal election the process of Regional Partnerships announcements by the former government often took the form of a photo opportunity with the minister, a candidate and a piece of paper being handed over sometimes calling itself a cheque. Many community organisations believed that that media event, that stunt, did bring with it actual funding. However, there was a snag. A letter was in the mail advising people that such an announcement, such a media stunt, did not constitute a contract and the contract would be in the mail. Here is the bad news: the contracts were not in the mail; indeed, the contracts had not been signed. In fact, on many occasions the contracts were never going to be signed. Why? Because it was all a stunt.

As a consequence of those measures, we discovered in the week following the budget that there were a range of Regional Partnerships projects which had already commenced work—pouring concrete, building, engaging local contractors—and we had to make a decision based on principle to allow projects to be funded and go on. In the process of doing that we announced 86 projects which were in the not-for-profit category and were to be delivered by local councils. We announced that they would have an opportunity until 31 July to apply to have their contracts concluded and therefore have a chance of having their projects go forward. I table a list of those 86 projects which have an opportunity to apply for contracts to be put in place, provided that work is done by 31 July.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—I call the—

Mr Farmer interjecting—

Mr Haase interjecting—

Mr Albanese —I can respond to some of the questions. Do you want answers or just questions?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the member for Calare.

Mr Albanese —Don’t they want answers?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am simply adhering to—

Mr Albanese —Questions were raised by two of their speakers. There were a lot of questions. I have not had an opportunity to answer them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I appreciate that. I am in the hands of the members.

Mr Albanese —Do you want answers? I am happy if the member for Kalgoorlie and the member for Macarthur do not want answers to their questions.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —If members are seeking the call I will apply the normal conventions and give those people the call. The whips have between them, as I understand it, come to some arrangement about the time intended to be allocated for various portfolio areas. That is in your hands, not mine. If people determine to use that time in a manner that prevents others from speaking or questions being answered that is not something the chair has the capacity to determine. I will apply the normal conventions and if a member is seeking the call I will provide the call accordingly, and if that results in questions not being answered that is in the hands of the members of the parliament.

Mr Hayes —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like to make the point that members opposite have pursued the minister this morning with a series of questions. They were not prefaced as being rhetorical questions and I presume they want the minister to answer them. If they want to declare that the questions are rhetorical then we can sit back and relax on this side.

Mr Haase —Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the questions were not rhetorical. I am very happy for them to be addressed in writing by the minister. They will be in Hansard and I would very much like this process to move on. I would like my colleague to have the floor.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I intend to proceed with the debate but I do remind members that the normal process would involve questions and answers. If the way members wish to conduct the debate uses the time in other ways, that is a matter for the members, not for the standing orders or the chair.