Chapter 5 - Response to majority report conclusions
5.1
While the
majority report does make some worthwhile recommendations and findings, it
appears that most of the conclusions of the inquiry were made even before the
matter was referred to the Committee. The conclusions do not appear to be based
on facts, but rather overused and ill-defined concepts such as 'politicisation'
and 'lack of transparency'.
5.2
The government
members agree with the majority report's
finding that the processes and procedures of the RP and SR programs are sound.
Views diverge, however, on a number of issues.
SONA
Procedures
5.3
The majority
report presents exaggerated concerns and problems with the SONA procedures. In
fact, the very case studies cited to mount a critique of these procedures, namely
the grants to Primary Energy Pty Ltd and the SiMERR National Centre, are
excellent examples of the necessity of such procedures to ensure that projects
deserving of public funding do not miss out.
5.4
The University of
New England's National Centre for Science, Information and
Communications Technology, and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional
Australia, for example, has strong partnership elements that meet the outcomes
of the RPP. However, this valuable project could not be considered under the normal
guidelines because of its multi-region nature.
5.5
The Committee
received no evidence of the injudicious or partisan use of the SONA procedures,
nor any evidence to suggest they were ever applied inappropriately. Indeed, the
fact that it is the department and not the minister that decides a project
should be considered under these procedures places an extra check in the
process.
5.6
Due to the lack
of evidence to support the pre-determined conclusion that the SONA procedures
should go, the ALP members resorted to general comments such as claims that the
guidelines are an 'accountability black hole'. If this allegation were
true, it would raise the question of why more projects were not funded under
the SONA procedures. The very fact of the SONA procedures' limited use refutes
this allegation.
5.7
However,
Government Senators support exploring avenues to improve the program and would
not oppose a review of the SONA procedures, so long as any such review was in
line with the principles of accountability and transparency.
Consultation
with ACCs
5.8
Government
Senators do not support the recommended requirement for all applications to be
developed through ACCs. More than adequate procedures exist to obtain ACCs'
advice on all relevant applications, and the government does not wish to place
an additional and unnecessary burden on the resources of these hardworking
local advisory groups at the expense of their other tasks.
5.9
The majority
report found no real fault with the existing procedures and no ill-effects
apparent in the isolated cases where projects were expedited. A discretionary
program, by its very nature, requires flexibility as well as a capacity to give
urgent attention to those projects that require it. Implementing such a measure
would overburden the ACC network for no apparent gain.
5.10
Government
Senators consider that where possible the relevant ACC should be consulted
about project applications from their areas. However, at all times the fact
that an application meets the program criteria is the most important consideration.
Reporting
to Parliament
5.11
Government
Senators consider that there is merit in the majority report's suggestion that
information about RPP projects be tabled in the Parliament or published in
another forum. However, we consider that the level of detail and frequency of
the recommended reporting is unnecessary and onerous. Government Senators
consider that an annual statement listing both the projects approved and the
amount of funding approved is appropriate.
Distribution
of grants
5.12
As discussed in
the background to this report, the politically neutral administration of the RP
program is demonstrated by the evidence of the same approval rate between
applications from coalition and other electorates. The program has strong
performance requirements for ACCs that relate to promoting the program and
seeking applications, but ultimately, it is not the government's
responsibility to ensure that numbers of applications emerging from ALP
electorates are the same as those originating from other electorates. The
evidence is telling in that the ALP holds few seats in regional areas, which
are where most of the applications under the RPP program come from.
ACC
resources
5.13
As discussed in
Chapter 2, ACCs and SRACs are an integral part of the RP and SR programs. The work
of these committed, mostly voluntary, bodies is a key element to the
outstanding success of these programs in delivering outcomes for local
communities. As noted in Chapter 2, Government Senators consider that the
valuable work of the ACCs and SRACs needs encouragement and support. We
therefore support the majority report's recommendations regarding a review of
ACC resources and training, and the introduction of three-year operational
funding contracts for ACCs.
Planning
approvals
5.14
The majority
report recommends that projects be ineligible for RPP or SRP funding until they
have obtained relevant approvals or licences. This recommendation is simply absurd
and unworkable. The costs of obtaining necessary licences and approvals can be
prohibitive and many proponents require in-principle funding approval before
they can afford to obtain necessary planning approvals. It is therefore
ridiculous to suggest that in all cases these approvals must be obtained before
proponents can even apply for a grant.
Ministerial
discretion
5.15
Ministerial
discretion is an important element of the RP and SR programs and remains
entirely appropriate so long as due processes are followed. The Government
Senators note that the approval process has correct procedures in place to
ensure that ministers do not make funding decisions on grants for projects
located in their own electorates. While these procedures have been adhered to,
Government Senators consider reforms may be required to ensure that there is no
misunderstanding or public misconception of the procedures in place.
Review
of grants-based programs
5.16
Government
Senators are astounded by the majority report's conclusion that the efficacy of
a grants-based approach to regional development requires review. The Committee
has just spent ten months reviewing
these programs. It has travelled the length and breadth of the country and
taken evidence from 99 witnesses. It has seen and heard first hand the
outstanding benefits delivered by these programs. In not one case has the
Committee received any evidence that RP and SR programs do not have community
support. To the contrary, the Committee has hard evidence of the hundreds of
projects delivering real regional development outcomes with the support of
communities, local, state and federal government.
5.17
The Committee has
reviewed the evaluations of the programs and the KPIs. It has the evidence that
for every dollar of federal funding invested in these programs, at least
another three dollars is invested by project partners. It has the evidence that
for every $50,000 of RPP funding an average of three jobs is generated. These results are outstanding. They are a
credit to all those involved with the programs and the projects they support.
5.18
Even by their own
yardstick, the majority committee could find only six projects that required
detailed examination. It is totally inconsistent with the evidence to suggest
that a grants based approach to regional development requires further review.
This recommendation is devoid of any evidentiary reasoning. It is a bald
reflection of the predetermined, political agenda adopted by the majority
committee throughout this inquiry.
Relationship
to other programs
5.19
The Government
Senators consider that matching funding is entirely appropriate for projects
where State or Local governments have responsibility. As long as due processes
are followed, which they are, overlap and duplication should not occur.
5.20
Government
Senators consider that the majority report's recommendation regarding
competition with other funding programs is based on spurious argument and made
only for political purposes. The whole point of a partnerships grant model is
that funding programs can complement one another. The Committee received
numerous examples where this was being achieved. The majority report's
recommendation confirms the ALP's approach to this inquiry – undermining the
program without providing sensible or constructive recommendations.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page