Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:09:56 to 1:21:35
Discussion focuses on the Priority Community Infrastructure Program (PCIP) and the assessment process for closed non-competitive grant rounds. Officials explain how grant guidelines are established following budget decisions to ensure value for money.
Topics: Grants administration, Infrastructure, Procurement
Speakers: Senator The Hon Katy Gallagher, Speaker 3, Senator Karen Grogan, Unknown Speaker, Matt Yannopoulos
>> So this group of projects are a small proportion of the infrastructure projects that were com announced and committed to by your government um over the course of the election campaign. I understand and I'm pursuing with the department of infrastructure the process for which that larger group over 220 odd projects the process that they're now going on going through. My question, Minister, to you as uh the minister in charge of one of the centrals is what process did these projects go through to be part of the budget processes? And if some of your officials could assist, I'd welcome.
>> Well, I've answered it three times. You're refusing to listen to me. >> So, I can hear you. The government decision was to make a a sensible >> That was the government decision. You
made these decisions in a budget.
>> Well, you're not listening to my answer. We made a provision to fund election commitments that needed to be disclosed in accordance with the rules around um pre-election fiscal outlook. So, that gets done. Now advice to the government was that any announcement that had been made as part of the election campaign that had been made between that decision and PIO and caretaker had to be disclosed. That is what has happened.
disclosure. I'm asking about the process of which these projects an ALP candidate finds them says I want to fund 20 more
glasses >> that finance is responsible for okay so
>> but minister are you responsible are you
part of the team that makes what I am responsible for and what I'm appearing as the minister for finance I'm not appearing as an ALP candidate as the minister for finance We took a decision to make a provision for projects that were going to be funded against that provision. They were disclosed, the ones that were made before caretaker. Now, in the event, so in the event we didn't win the election, presumably these would not have been your election commitments. You would have not have funded them, but they've been disclosed what we had announced before caretaker. on winning the election. We then go through a process in accordance with the grant rules and principles around the due diligence around funding those projects and that is what the infrastructure department has done. It is in accordance with the grant rules and principles. It is exactly what we have been advised to do to deliver election commitments and I presume it is what you would have had to do for the $1.6 billion worth of commitments that you made in the
election campaign. So, did the Minister for Infrastructure take these projects through the budget process?
>> The Go I can't say this any more times. The government made a sensible provision to fund election commitments. That is actually a responsible thing to do. It's disclosed. We then go through a process of when we won the election of implementing those decisions against grant rules and principles and the guidelines that are established and that is exactly what has happened.
>> Senator McKenzie the chair is trying to I appreciate that the chair is trying to >> We are going around in a few circles here. I appreciate that you're not liking the answer or it's not suiting what where you're trying to go, but it is the answer the minister has given and she's given it three times now.
>> Yes. No. No. Very good. Um, big claps there. Secretary, does PIO include the Labour party's election commitment?
>> It includes the pro under V. They were commitments that have been made by ALP candidates in the election campaign.
>> That wasn't my question.
>> Well, it is. You said, are there ALP election commitments in PIO? that is disclosed in section V. They were that's exactly what they were. And I
>> which minister did Minister King take these projects these projects through the budget process secretary?
>> The budget well one we don't disclose decisions of ERC but I have been clear that the decision
clear in the budget. They're either in
or not. The decision that was made was to make a provision now which we did in the budget. I think it was in the 2526 budget. We made a provision. It was a debna. Um we knew we would be funding um election commitments. So instead of not instead of not f you know provi making a provision, we made a provision. Now in discussions in the leadup to PIO there was a view from Treasury and finance that any election commitment that had been made prior to caretaker needed to be accounted for and so it was.
>> So was the department were the centrals concerned that ALP candidates and the ALP internal process was getting ahead of um usual practice in elections? It was
about transparency and it was about the fact that we were in government, commitments had been made and the view was to be clear. uh you know these are documents that the secretary of finance >> for the bigger pool gets on the list >> if I can finish and so it's a decision taken by the secretaries of those departments at the time about the contentation about transparency and being very clear about what their view of the state of the budget is. Now because of that because there had been a number of commitments made between the budget or since that decision was taken in the budget and caretaker the decision was made to disclose those. I don't know how much
>> No, I appreciate I've said three times myself I appreciate the disclosure piece minister. I'm not talking about the disclosure and I would hope that I will repeat my question and I hope you can hear me when I ask how does for instance the $16 million beager pool get on this list. What process is it a failure of the infrastructure department
or minister for not putting it through a process? >> These are matters that are dealt with as part of normal election campaigns. I mean how did you get to your 1.6 6 billion right across the country over 200 more.
program.
>> Yeah. But it's not what it's not $125
million is not how much community infrastructure projects that you actually funded. You funded over a half a billion dollars worth of projects. So
when you talk about making a provision
quarter of the provision. Given the infrastructure department told Senate estimates it had no role in the identification of PCIP round two projects prior to the 2025 budget consideration. Which department or minister did have a role in proposing these projects under this program?
>> It wouldn't be appropriate for the department. I mean you would be in here slamming the table if the department of infrastructure dreamt up the projects they wanted Labor candidates to announce. He would be the first one. It was developed through >> uh the normal process of an election campaign. And Senator McKenzie, I don't know how your party does it. Uh but these are matters that are dealt with through the party campaign. My job as finance minister was to make a sensible provision for some of those commitments. That's what we did. the treasury u and finance secretary disclosed what had been announced um before caretaker as part of PIO then goes through the standard process that all of them have all election commitments have gone through in accordance with the comwalth grant rules and guidelines the
infrastructure department was unable to state when they became aware of the PICP round two projects did the department of finance have visibility of the $125 million worth of projects proposed for funding under the priority community infrastructure program round two prior to them being approved for funding in the 2025 budget.
>> It's not a matter for that like no they were election commitments made by the Labor party. we made a provision for which we would acquit them against or some of them against that was disclosed. Um those commitments were made publicly and I made sure that a full list was provided um to uh the relevant secretaries in all trans in in very clear transparency. These are the commitments that have been made as part of the election campaign.
>> That's post election though. No, it
secretary >> it was so they could be fully disclosed. >> That's why.
>> On what dates did the Department of Finance provide briefings to the minister on the PCIP round two projects?
Well, they wouldn't have. It wouldn't have been appropriate, Senator McKenzie,
>> given the infrastructure department believes there were no guidelines supporting the selection of the $125 million of priority community infrastructure program round two projects that were approved for funding in the 2025 budget. Is the Department of Finance aware of whether there were any guidelines?
So I've been through this. The guidelines have been were established alongside the implementation of the election commitments. That is very normal, very appropriate and in accordance with the grant rules and principles.
>> I can only reiterate what the minister said. Uh >> they were they were done after the election. The grant guidelines were done after the election.
>> No, no, we know that. But here we've got a decision of government taken and disclosed appropriately. But these projects what my the evidence seems to be is there was no guidelines for these projects to be assessed against.
>> Senator McKenzie that is not unusual. That is how it happens now. So if we take a decision for example to run a program in health um I don't know say um tobacco cessation. Let's take that. If we took an if we could took a decision on that in the budget and said we were going to give it to a particular organization um or it might be a competitive process in which case it would be an open grant then we would announce it in the budget and then grant guidelines would be established in order to implement that. >> So it is that is completely normal.