Page 4321 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 27 November 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
as we have seen all too often. The Gungahlin pool has had more launches than Halvorsen; motor sports have had more promises than an alcoholic’s wife.
The UC sports common is a project that I have every confidence is one worthy of support. It is a great pity that the former Labor government used the infrastucture fund so blatantly for pork-barrelling purposes—its own bag of funds, able to be raided when the occasion called for a bit of berley to prop up some sick federal seats.
As a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald said earlier this year:
It is a sad indictment on a government that returned to power in 2007 promising to rebuild the nation and lift productivity using infrastructure as the centrepiece …
As the 2013 federal election looms and pressure mounts on the Labor Party to preserve as many seats as it can, backflips on infrastructure policy are becoming more blatant—and desperate.
And so it came to pass that when then Prime Minister Julia Gillard had her week-long visit to Rooty Hill, she invited western Sydney councils to reapply for millions of dollars in regional development grants despite some having been previously rejected. And quite unsurprisingly, all 19 projects that were submitted were moved to the next stage of the approval process, compared with a maximum of three from other regional areas. So much for the promise made by Julia Gillard in 2007 that in future this fund would have science behind its approval processes, that only projects with demonstrated merit would be approved.
Dr Bourke would have us accept that anything that was promised or encouraged by way of increasing Labor chances in otherwise shaky seats should now be honoured, irrespective of whether they had economic merit or not. That goes against the regional development Australia fund’s own criteria. The application process set out clearly the commonwealth government’s priorities. It said: “Projects must support at least one of the following national priorities: skilling Australia; lifting productivity; maximising the opportunity of broadband; sustaining our environment; social inclusion; and water and energy efficiency.” Perhaps social inclusion is code for protecting Labor seats.
And let us not forget the funding arrangements for this big bucket of money. In the program introduction it states:
The RDAF is an umbrella program which comprises $450 million from the Priority Regional Infrastructure Program and $573 million from the Regional Infrastructure Fund, which is subject to the passage of the Mineral Resource Rent Tax.
So, typically of Labor, they were going around the country promising money for projects they had no real intention of delivering and with no way of paying for them if they did. Is that what Dr Bourke meant when he said that the UC sports common federal grant was budget funded?
As I have said, the UC sports common will be a wonderful addition to the university campus; it will be a great resource for the further development of sports science in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video