Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:00:18 to 1:09:56
The committee examines the inclusion of election commitments in the budget and the provision of $125 million for community infrastructure. Senators question the transparency of project selection and the role of candidates in making funding announcements.
Topics: Grants administration, Government spending, Infrastructure
Speakers: Senator The Hon Katy Gallagher, Speaker 3, Senator Karen Grogan, Unknown Speaker
>> Welcome back everybody. Um we will continue on with finance and we will go to Senator McKenzie.
direct this line of questioning to Minister?
>> I've had a look at this over the break.
>> I'm sure you have.
Uh, and
>> who did you have a look at it with?
>> Well, just my team and um and then had a look at what the transcript from yesterday. M what I think a couple of things I mean there's a couple of issues that have come up but one of them is why they were reported in PIO and list >> listed in PIO essentially that was to deal and I note it's a similar occurrence that had happened in 2223 in the pre-election budget final budget outcome pre-election fiscal outlook there. Um my adv we had made a provision a responsible budget provision to fund election commitments >> that was declared in PIO. >> For projects
>> is that the $125 million
>> for projects. Um sorry let me just check. the list was at V. Where's V on here? >> Yeah, but where is it accounted for?
>> Uh
>> in the table.
>> I have
>> V community structure program, right? Um well, it was whatever was listed in Sorry, I didn't add it up. whatever was listed in me where 125
>> I haven't checked finances numbers
>> yeah the measure 125 over two years from 2526 so a provision was made >> the projects were declared were the projects that had been announced by ALP candidates >> prior to caretaker so they had been announced as part of the election campaign and the view that treasury took Treasury and Finance took because they had been announced even though they were by candidates in the campaign they had to be declared and so they were declared in that way. when I looked uh back and it it seems it's the same or a similar approach was taken for the community development grants which were disclosed in the 22 PIO and the list was provided there in the order of 116. So I I presume you got the same
advice. Well, I think the difference, Minister, >> between the two is the CDG guidelines wouldn't have been undeveloped at the point of it being included in PIO. My question goes to there were no CDG guidelines. This is not a it's a not a it's not a it it stays open and the guidelines are clear. So I think we can take that on notice. Someone can tell me are either in my own office or your own. Um the guidelines for CDG are apparent. The concern with these projects being listed I completely understand if they were um announced by candidates and you needed to account for them in PIO prior to caretaker. I I understand. But when I read this in PIO, it it suggests that they were decisions uh taken under the priority community infrastructure program round two uh which in the normal course of events of a government would have a set of guidelines available and and published um for these projects to be assessed against. No, >> my question goes to the end of part V really where the delivery of these grants will be subject to an assessment of value for money and compliance with the applicable requirements for the Commonwealth grants and rules and principles 20 24. So for me it raised a question that the subject to assessment piece uh is actually an admission that these projects went through a budget process without going through an appropriate guideline process >> and I wanted clarification about that.
They didn't uh so we made a sensible in the budget for um [snorts] commitments that would be made during the election campaign. So that that was the decision of government.
So, but no, but you didn't because the 125 million over two years is what a quarter of the end bucket of election commitment money which totaled over half a billion dollars in the >> subsequently named MILSP.
>> Two decisions there. We made a provision in the budget. The projects were identified by ALP candidates. Once we were reelected, guidelines were established and applications were made against that closed grant program as had been conducted under priority community infrastructure program round one uh in the 22 post the 22 election. Now, at at some point, the decision was taken to to for these projects and the ones that were announced post caretaker and through the campaign to put them together in when was that decision? >> I don't know. That's not a decision. That's not something we can answer. that would have been under infrastructures decision to run that grants project for these that had been named in PIFO and the ones that had been announced as part of the election campaign and guidelines would have been implemented and it's very normal cuz I well I don't we've made some changes to my role of signing off different grant guidelines but it is very normal for decisions to be taken in budget And then as the implementing arm implements those decisions that grant guidelines are developed as part of that.
>> Why were Labour candidates with no elected roles in your government announcing decisions that were taken as a government?
>> Well, I think it was well the decision by the government was to make a provision to fund commitments that we knew would be made. But this isn't the total amount. Treasury had a view and had a view that those were announc the measure the projects that were announced prior to caretaker needed to be declared. >> So they have been declared there
>> and they're raising questions about what process they went through. who so when you said ALP candidates announced them
sorry announced them how did your
government >> assess the worthiness of these projects
that are listed in your
>> deal with did they they weren't assessed by the infrastructure department >> they weren't assessed by you
>> well they are >> they weren't assessed >> guidelines process through the applications process just like the 16 the 1.7 billion that you announced for community infrastructure would have gone through the same process.
>> Tell me the process you went through because this isn't the same process. The closed non-competitive grant round of milip isn't like other programs run by
other governments, yours or ours. So my question is we have been advised to implement election committed.
>> Okay, so we're not going to get very far unless you listen to the answers and then repose your questions. So we might just try and take it in turns as best we can so everyone can hear what everyone's saying.
>> So the process that's followed is the one that's outlined. The delivery of these grants will be subject to an assessment of value for money and compliance with applicable requirements of the grant rules and principles as is what happened. And in every election commitment we made that was stated at the bottom of any announcement we made. >> So on on winning government. No. Well, let me finish because you've been interrupting me. on winning the We went about and Minister King in particular and her department went about implementing the election commitments we had made in accordance with the advice that we had and in accordance with the grant guidelines and rules and principles which allow for the delivery of election commitments >> in accordance with those rules. So value for money assessments ability to deliver uh due diligence is done through that process.