Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 7:49:59 to 8:08:38
Examination of why the Department of Infrastructure only adopted some suggestions from the Department of Finance regarding the development of grant program guidelines.
Topics: Grants administration, Government spending
Speakers: Senator Paul Scarr, Hon Bridget McKenzie, Lisa Rauter, Jacinta McDonald, Mr. Jim Betts, Hon Malarndirri McCarthy, Jessica Hall, Senator Glenn Sterle
That one was withdrawn because it was amalgamated with another project within the program.
>> And which other project was that?
>> The upgrades at Buff O Buff Point Oval,
I believe. >> Bath Point Oval. And how much was that in total? The
>> Uh, so the total for Kalen Avenue Reserve was $110,000. I joined. Just one second. So, the total value of the Buff Point Oval project is $545,000.
>> Mhm. Okay. And why was the Tom Burke reserve at Lake Manora withdrawn?
>> That's the same reason that was amalgamated with Bath Point Oval as well.
>> Oh, so they both went into Bath Point. >> Yes. the Berkeley Veil Panthers under assessment.
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> What uh material are you waiting for for Berkeley Veil Panthers project? $544,000.
>> I don't have the specific details on me. I'd have to take that on notice of what
we're waiting on. Well, what typically would why is it noted under assessment rather than under negotiation?
>> Uh, it's under assessment because the uh the project has not yet funding for the project has not yet been approved by the And typically delays in finalizing these assessments relate to uh delays in the receipt of required information to
typically because there's only a couple that are under assessment. The paraka football club room and change rooms upgrade in Salsbury for $2 million is also similarly under assessment. So
some of the things that we can be delayed in receiving are processes to confirm other funding contributions. Um it can be uh involve ongoing discussions between the local council and the club on the activities of the project and it can also be delays in the receipt of necessary supporting information such as um project costs.
>> Project costs. It's I'm not sure if you saw the evidence from um Minister Chisum earlier today about the documentation he provided um for some of his projects he advocated for. It it seems to be non-existent. I'm just wondering um what documentation did all of these projects in in going to the minister for decision um come with
>> Yes, Senator.
>> Yes. >> So had a design had costs or was the documentation simply the press release?
Do you mean as part of the application or what was provided?
>> The application the minister would have been presented a brief with all the election commitments. It's a closed invite only grant program. Uh election commitments. My question as to what that brief what basis um that list was uh created on was not designs was not costings was a the press release or the Facebook or the public announcement of that project and the amount of money
>> alongside it. So what happens before uh or during the caretaker period we are not privy to. So um we we only see once we have a list of the invited applicants that that's agreed by government and the amount of those projects and a and a description of those projects and then once that list is agreed we then invite those applicants to submit an application and that includes those the types of things that you were just talking
>> and so when Minister King signs off on the program and the list y >> it's at it's at that post election, we've collected all the announcements stage. It's not at the we've done our assessment of them all and this is how much we think they cost and this is the bits of paper we've got from everybody.
That happens on a project by project basis once we've gathered that information and assessed it for value
for money. Uh, Minister McCarthy, did you advocate put any um projects forward to the for the NT through the Labor HQ process?
>> Hello, Senator. >> I'm sure there would have been uh projects that went forward uh in terms of the um member for Lingiari and the member for Solomon.
>> But as Judy Senator, you didn't put any
forward >> certainly uh not directly. No, this would have been a process uh of the
>> Okay. Um now just returning to the hands um the prime minister made claims twice in September that the Marville Gulf Club project uh included sewage works. It is a very very serious uh issue to deliberately mislead parliament. You know that. I know that. Uh senators know that if they mislead indirectly, they need to head into the chamber and correct the record at their earliest Should the prime minister correct the record in the House of Representatives?
Senator McKenzie, the prime minister has been very clear about this whole process that he has not been involved with it. I'm not sure how much clearer you need
to be than that. So, Minister, I'm sorry you might not have been here, but I had to wait for the hand side to come up where the prime minister claimed that the $6.05 05 million grant to the Marrickville Golf Club included sewage works twice. It doesn't include sewage works at all. Um in fact the evidence to this committee over subsequent days has been that New South Wales Labor government funded the sewage works over a year ago through a separate grant process. Do you think it's incumbent on the prime minister to uphold the standing orders and the conventions of our parliament and uh correct the record?
>> Well, Senator McKenzie, it sounds like you've already gone through this line of questioning and got your response today.
>> Last week
>> uh last week. >> Can I just say to the committee uh that the handside that you're referring to, Senator McKenzie, I haven't seen that hand side. So I would suggest that if you have a question directly for the prime minister, you're more than welcome to to send that through.
>> It's all right, Minister. I've got the hand side here. It's been tabled to the committee. You can have a look at it and I will reask the question. Um >> when I get a chance, I know Senator Scarr, you have some questions you'd like to pursue.
>> I do. Can I just ask one question in relation to this seurage issue? If the election commitment was to provide sewage, a particular sewage project for the Maricville Golf Club, after the election, the New South Wales state government pays for that sewage. Y >> shouldn't there be a proportionate decrease in the amount of the project amount for the Maricville Golf Club attributable to the sewage project?
>> That would be a matter for government. Senator, all we can do is gather is invite the applicant to put in their scope. If the scope is broadly is consistent with what was announced, uh then the project is assessed and and
>> Did you raise that with um has that been raised by the department in any way? Because it seems to me if an election commitment is made to do A, B, and C for for a golf club or a bowls club, whatever it is, and then A's already been done, I would have thought the natural uh the natural response would be, oh, well, we decrease that project amount by what was attributable to a and maybe a golf club or a bowls club in my home state of Queensland could get that
money. Um, Senator, the announcement that was made on the 27th of April uh said that would secure the future of Merrickville Golf Club as a muchloved community sporting precinct with 6.05 million invested towards its upgrade. The Maricville Golf Club provides a treasured urban green space used by golfers, dog walkers, and pedestrians. Its clubhouse provides a place for locals to come together, building community while supporting affordable living.
>> That's okay. I get the I get the idea. You could drive a bus through it. I get the idea. It's a broader proposal that
includes um broader community amenities.
>> There was no cost to design.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's that's the issue. That's all you had was the press release. >> So you could drive a bus through it. That's fine. >> Um as part of the major local and community infrastructure program inquiry hearing uh last week, which Cinder still referred to and obviously enjoyed it very much. uh officials from the Department of Finance testified that the Department of Infrastructure only adopted some of the suggestions that they made to improve the draft guidelines that were circulated to them. Uh I actually asked the Department of Finance, Miss Atinson, whether or not all of the suggestions were accepted. Her response was, "I think some of them were adopted. They decided not to take others on board but the suggestions covered a range of things. I think they went to the readability of some of the material ultimately as I said it's a decision for infrastructure and their minister in this case I say so they only adopted some of your suggestions. That's right. Uh Senator Scarr that's your evidence. Why did the department only accept some of the suggestions made by the department of finance in the development of the guidelines? Um,
Senator, when we put out the first set of guidelines, uh, it was to give as much um, forward warning uh, forward information to applicants as possible.
>> Sorry. Sorry, just interrupt. When you say when you put out the first set of the guidelines, you've moved ahead to publication of the guidelines. So, I'm I'm talking about the process leading up to publication when presumably you provided a draft of the guidelines to the Department of Finance and asked them for their input. So why didn't you adopt all of the suggestions from the department of finance and which suggestions did you not adopt?
>> So the key suggestion that we didn't adopt at that time was to specify the funding mechanism in the guidelines. Um
>> so when you say funding mechanism, what do you mean by that?
>> How how we would go about contracting each of those projects
>> in terms of contractual counterparties?
>> In terms of who would be the contractual counterparties, right?
>> In terms of who would be the project sponsor >> in terms of being a state government the
>> not so much the project sponsor uh we were still working through what our options were in terms of the the best funding mechanism for that program. So the first set of guidelines did not include that finances preference was that we did include that but we were still working through that and then we updated the guidelines to include the funding mechanism as a direct funding agreement uh where if the entity was not a local government they had to provide a local government sponsor or a state government sponsor.
I mean I'm glad you can provide that specificity now. Um because it really wasn't provided to us last week. >> Uh and would and people talk spoke about readability. >> Um so this is something more fundamental than readability. So the suggestion is it your evidence that the suggestion that was made by the department of finance uh wasn't reflected in the initial draft of the guidelines that were circulated on one September but was subsequently reflected in the addendum that was released in October.
>> That's right.
that decision then to publish the guidelines on one September notwithstanding that you didn't incorporate the suggestion from the department of finance. Who made that decision and what was the basis for that
>> I'd have to take that on notice. Senator, who made I think that that the decision to to revise the guidelines the
>> No, no. Again, I'm coming back to one September. So we've talked about pre one September. So now decision was made to publish the guidelines on one September not taking into account the not reflecting the suggestion from the department of finance. Who made that decision?
>> The minister signs off on the guidelines and we prepare the guidelines for the
minister. So did you well when you prepared the guidelines for the minister did you prepare guidelines which included taking into account the department of finance suggestion or not?
>> No the guidelines we provided did not take it did not adopt that through the right funding mechanism.
>> So who made the decision not to include that in the guidelines that went to the
>> That's right because we were still working through what the right funding mechanism was. But the criteria for the proponents did not change and it was appropriate to get those guidelines out
to start preparing. >> I'll ask a question again. So who made >> Did it come to you, Mr. Betts?
>> Which decision are you talking about? >> The decision to release a draft of the guidelines where the uh precise funding mechanism was at that stage unresolved.
No, it was the decision to release the guidelines on on grant connect prior to uh the well prior to the department of finance suggestion being considered and reflected in the guidelines such that an addendum to the actual guidelines had to be issued in October. So we're not talking about draft guidelines.
>> No. Okay. But guidelines are periodically amended. Um, this is a known issue but was unresolved and we wanted to get the guidelines out as I understand it so proponents could start preparing the materials that will be necessary in anticipation of going back and making amendments once that funding issue had been settled.
>> So I'm just asking who made that >> Well, you must I mean you're all here for goodness sake. >> Could you make the decision Mr. Betts to
come to you? I I mean I imagine that the release of guidelines would not occur without the minister's approval or certainly being briefed, but we will.
>> Were you aware of the issue?
>> No, I wouldn't expect to be either this.
>> No, I'm not saying you would have been. I'm just trying to find out who made the decision. Miss Hall, were you aware of the issue?
>> Um I wasn't the deputy secretary at the time, but we will take it on notice and come back to um Senator. So um
>> and and Miss Ry, you should I mean, you're responsible for this. You should know who made the decision. Guidelines
don't get released without the minister's approval.
>> But who made the decision to originally propose that the guidelines go to the minister for approval without reflecting the department of finance recommendation?
>> Go to the minister.
>> Minister's office for approval.
>> No, the minister's office don't approve. Only the minister approves.
>> So who made the decision that the guidelines be released on one September?
>> That's a different question. You've just changed the question. you. The first question was who made the decision to put it to the minister. The second question was who made the decision to release the guidelines. Those are two different questions.
>> Well, Mr. P, if I was getting ausive answers from the officers of your department, I wouldn't have to ask the same question 20 different ways. But let me put the question let me put the question again. Who made the decision to release the guidelines on one September without incorporating the recommendation from the Department of Finance? Senator,
I think they've already said they'll
>> So, you can't tell me who made that
>> Someone put them up.
>> This is estimates.
>> The department puts the guidelines up on our website. The minister approves the content of the guidelines. The minister also approved the addendum to the guidelines.
>> There you go. That's answered your
>> No, it hasn't answered my question. Mr. Betts, who in your department made that decision? Just give me the position.
>> The decision to put the draft guidelines to the minister?
>> Well, either of them, any of them, any decision.
>> Well, you've just heard that the minister approved the release of the guidelines and the addendum to the guidelines. That was the first question you asked. And now asking a different question, which was effectively who was the public service signary on the advice that went to the minister?
>> And we said we take that one on notice. And then the third question was um who approved the release of the guidelines and that was the minister.
>> Okay. So our second question, let's focus in the second question.
>> We're taking that on notice. Well, I I
find it hard to believe we don't know who made I find it very difficult to understand why you can't tell me in this context who made that decision.
>> We do not have the brief here, Senator, and the brief can be written by and signed off by a number of people at different levels. So, we will take that on notice and come back to you
>> and Senator um Miss Hall nor I were responsible for that program at the time, which is why we need to take it on notice and check who signed off the
>> Okay. But ultimately, the minister made the decision that the grant guidelines be uploaded on grant. Correct. Correct.