CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS

Mr HILL (Bruce—Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs and Assistant Minister for International Education) (16:09): Dandenong in my electorate is a jobs-rich area, but it structurally has a higher unemployment rate than the metropolitan average. This was why I was so delighted to launch the Dandenong employment hub along with the assistant minister for employment—$1.5 million over three years.

It's a place where anyone in the community can go to get help and advice. It's based at the Dandenong Council, but it's a partnership between all three levels of government. There is no wrong door.

You don't have to be on Centrelink. You can be newly arrived, you can have been here for decades, you can be a mum trying to come back into the workforce or you can be the partner of a skilled migrant—you can go and get help and advice. It's about matching supply and demand, so employers are part of the hub.

I encourage anyone who is looking for work to visit the hub. This was an election commitment that I made during the election, along with the member for Isaacs. It's an interesting thing, living in a democracy, isn't it?

Candidates say, 'If I'm elected, we'll do A, B and C.' Then, if you win the election, you're supposed to deliver on the promise. I'm proud to be part of a government that is delivering on the promises we made at the election right across the country. I didn't think that was a controversial thing.

But we now have the opposition and other parts of the parliament pretending it's rorting. They're saying it's corruption, that it's misusing grant programs. Well, I've got a different view.

Despite the stupid media stories, which might get them a headline and deal with the sanctimonious schtick that some around here want to run, I'd just remind the parliament that the Auditor-General said—and I chaired the audit committee for years, and I thought this was bipartisan—that there are two ways to deliver grants. First, there are competitive programs, put out to everyone who is eligible.

They were the ones the coalition rorted—coloured spreadsheets—and ministers had to resign. We have been four years in government, and every competitive grant program under our government has been administered with integrity. The other way, of course, is closed grant programs—invitation only—urgent, ad hoc, where executive government decides to do something.

Or, properly, that's how you implement election commitments. That's what the guidelines say. That's what the law says.

That's what the Auditor-General says. Everyone has to apply. They have a value-for-money assessment, done independently by the Public Service, and advice is put to ministers.

If it's not value for money, ministers don't fund it. But don't believe me. Those proposing to do away with election commitments—I quote Senator Canavan: 'This is nuts, what you're proposing.

You're effectively advocating now for laws to restrict candidates in what they can say and promise on getting elected. At the same time, you're saying you want to defend democracy. You're not proposing democracy.

You're proposing technocracy. You're proposing that technocrats in Canberra get all the power to decide what happens in this country.' And I agree. When you're out there talking to people in the community, they expect you to deliver the promises you made.

My community doesn't get all the billions of dollars of regional grant programs. We have poor groups that are not very good at writing grant applications, and now they actually got something. (Time expired)