Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 8:18:51 to 8:29:40
Intense questioning regarding the massive increase in multicultural grants, the use of closed non-competitive selections for election commitments, and the distribution of funds across electorates.
Topics: Grants administration, Integrity
Speakers: Senator Pauline Hanson, Stephanie Foster, Hon Murray Watt, Clare Sharp, Senator Jana Stewart, Sneha Chatterjee
Thank you. Well, I'd like to go back to the multicultural grants. We've established that in 2223 you actually handed out five million 900,000 approximately in multicultural grants, and then in 2526, it was approximately 325 million, which is an increase of 5,400 per cent. 87 per cent of multicultural grants have been awarded through a closed non-competitive selection. Why was it that thousands that hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money was handed out without transparency or competition? Did the Department provide any advice to government about the size of this program and the fact that closed tenders present corruption and risks? If so, what did you raise in your advice to government about multicultural grants?
Senator, um, a significant proportion of the multicultural grants were election commitments and in relation. To the election commitments, the department does not provide any advice on the government's decision to make that commitment. We do administer the grant process. So we do provide advice as the government says we want to grant X million dollars to this organisation. We will run checks and make sure that the grant guidelines can be met by that organisation, that they have the financial capacity to do the work. They meet kind of base requirements, but we don't provide a separate view on whether the government's election commitment is a good idea from a policy perspective or not.
So the department has no of a say in tender tendering for this. So if just the if the government comes to you and says, we want to grant for this, we want this work done. So you just do it without any tender process of why we're handing out taxpayers' dollars.
So Senator Hanson, um Ms. Sharpa was being specific to election commitments, which are a large portion of the funding. I also want to make sure that we've got the correct figures on the record for you. Um the 5.9 million related to multicultural grants, not to election commitments, whereas the second figure for last year combines both. And so Ms. Chatterjee can update you on the figure for 2223.
Yes, Senator. The figure for 2223 was um 6.3 million. Um election commitments were administered in the following financial year.
Right. In total, under this current government, you've handed out 386 million issued for multiculturalism grants in Australia. Did the department receive any correspondence from or was the Labor Party headquarters involved in the selections for this program in any way?
For the election commitment grants, Senator? Is that what you're referring to?
For all these grants for the 386 million that has been issued. Did the government did the department receive any correspondence from or was the Labor Party headquarters involved in the selections for this program in any way?
So Senator, we've made a distinction between multicultural grants programs and election commitments. The Department has no role in advising the Department.
That was my question. Did the Department receive any correspondence? So, Senator from the Labor Party?
So, Senator, we monitor election commitments as they're made. And then after the election, Prime Minister and Cabinet typically pulls together a full list of election commitments, and they are then apportioned out to departments to deliver. As Ms. Sharp said, we go through a process of ensuring that the organizations so nominated by the government can actually deliver.
I'll go back to my question. Did you receive any correspondence from the Labor Party headquarters?
No, Senator.
That's all I'm asking. That's my question. Did you receive any correspondence from the Labor Party headquarters with regards to these grants?
No, Senator.
Minister. I'll ask you directly. Was the Labor Party headquarters involved in the selection of these grants? Like they were for the infrastructure program. I would like a yes or no answer.
Well, I don't have any knowledge of that, so I'm happy to take it on notice.
You would take it on notice. Right. Last year, 94% of the 325 million in multiculturalism grants went to Labor seats. 94%. This is a flat-out wrought. This is taxpayer money being used as a slush fund for Labor Party seats. Tony Burke's seat has received 45 million from this program alone. Please explain why this is not a wrought or pork barreling.
Again, I don't I haven't seen those figures before, Senator Hanson. I can only take you at face value. And for that reason, it's probably not wise for me to speculate about that.
And we, Senator Hanson, don't record expenditure by electorate. So we are unable to help.
All right, then I'll ask anyone here from the department if you can answer that question. You've got your advisors here. Then I'll ask the question. Is anyone here with the information? Did 45 million dollars go to Tony Burke's office? His electorate, not his office to his electorate. And I'll ask the question again. Was 94% of the multiculturalism grants go to Labor seats? Now under this, you I have every right to ask you right these questions that I suggest that if you don't have the answers, please go to anyone who's sitting outside. If you can hear this question, please bring the information to the Minister and let us know the answer to this question.
So Senator, I was trying to explain the reason we're unable to help with that question, and none of my staff will be able to, is because we don't record by electorate.
Then why can I I get the figures of 94% of it went to Labor seats?
Well, I'm not sure where those figures came from. Have you calculated that yourself?
I'm not I'm not answering your questions. I'm asking you the questions here. Well, the questions here is so you don't have any indication. You you're telling me that you hand out grants to these areas and to seats, and you can't tell me where they went.
I don't have that information with me, no.
Well, I'm asking, I'm asking the departments.
And what Ms. Foster has twice told you is that the Department doesn't break down these grants by electorate. They presumably they break them down by the name of the organization that receives the grant. And by state. It might be possible to give you some figures about abortion that have gone by state or maybe by local government area, but they don't do it on the basis of an electorate. That's what Ms. Foster has said.
Right. Well, then I'll I'll put it on notice then, if you put it on notice. Can you establish if 45 million went to Tony Burke's electorate? We know the Prime Minister's got six million dollars for his grant in his electorate for the golf club. So there you are. You know where that money went.
I can take on notice for you. Um the figure you've quoted that you say went to organisations in Minister Burke's electorate. Uh I don't think it would be a very big surprise if a reasonable number of multicultural grants went to a very multicultural electorate like Minister Burke's. That would not be a question.
So it's you've got to be of multicultural background, so it's not for Australians to apply for these grants. I happen to think it's a multicultural grant, isn't it?
I happen to think that devices. I happen to think that multicultural Australians are Australians.
So it's divisive. So why call multiculturalism? Why don't you open it up for all Australians to actually apply for these grants and not just what you want to do? You just said these grants are only open to multicultural people, not the government. Multiculturalism. That's what it is. So everyone should have the opportunity to apply for these grants. But it was only by it wasn't for everyone to apply for it.
How do you know that?
Because you've admitted it's election commitments by the Labor Party.
And you and your party right now is making election commitments in Victoria.
I'm not talking about my party. So don't put it back on me. I'm asking you the question. I'm asking you the question. It has been admitted here that it was election commitments.
Yes.
And it was it was verified by Madeline King that it was went through the Labor Party headquarters.
I think that was Catherine King and she was talking about a completely different grant programme.
Correct. So she's admitted that it did go through the Labor Party headquarters. These commitments from completely different grant programme.
So can I suggest we have one person talking at a time? I think that will be helpful for how we work together this evening. I think the Minister is trying to respond to some of the assertions that you've made and some of the questions that you've asked. So it'd be great for him to be able to respond. After the Minister has responded to this question, I am going to share the call because you are at your 10-minute block. And I'm going to give the call to Senator Shoebridge once the Minister has concluded his answer here.
I'm not sure there's more questions.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hanson. Thank you, Minister. Senator Shoebridge.