Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 2:34:23 to 2:42:12
Discussion regarding the decision-making process for projects in ministers' electorates and the management of conflicts of interest within the Expenditure Review Committee (ERC).
Topics: Integrity, Infrastructure, Government spending
Speakers: Hon Bridget McKenzie, Hon Anthony Chisholm, Mr. Jim Betts, Jessica Hall, Unknown Speaker
>> do you know if any parliamentary or ministerial colleagues were involved in the process to assess, select, and approve election commitments?
>> Uh uh I certainly know that the coordination of the proposals was put forward by uh the uh candidates or duty senators and that it was national office that were responsible for coordinating the process. Um as you'd expect uh the way these things are done uh in terms of how it's been done in government uh Minister [clears throat] King has been the one uh respon has been the decision maker uh on projects uh except in relation to her
>> who who made the decisions for the projects in Minister King's own electorate.
>> Um I'd have to come back to you on notice. I won't assume that it was Minister McBain. I'll come back to you.
>> Mr. Betts, you'll know who signed off on the brief.
>> I'm just checking on the submission that we provided to the committee on the 6th of October, which sets out the arrangements for dealing with uh
>> No, no, I know the process for dealing with conflict of interest. Minister McBain and Minister King have been very clear that they were not the decision makers for projects uh in their own electorates. My question is who was >> who signed off on Minister King's and who signed off on Minister McBain?
>> Okay, it says another cabinet minister.
name of that cabinet minister, please.
>> We will find that for you.
>> Um Minister, just going back to um so you don't know of any parliamentary or ministerial colleagues that were involved in that head office process?
>> Uh no, I'd have to come back to you uh in terms of that.
>> Do you know if the prime minister's office had any role in project assessment, selection, and approval?
uh not in terms of uh how the projects
>> assessment and approval.
>> Uh not in terms of how the projects were put together. You'd be better off putting the questions to the national
>> Again, Minister, they're not here. And
>> I know which
>> I don't know how you know useful it would be for anyone to have head officers called in but you are here and you are responsible for spending Commonwealth money and it is our job to make sure there is an appropriate process uh for that spending. So you are unable to confirm whether the prime minister's office had any role in assessment, selection or approval of these projects.
uh unable to confirm the process that was gone through other than the national office are the ones ultimately uh responsible for the coordinating of election promises.
>> Um do you know if the prime minister's interest in the golf club was declared through that internal party process?
>> Uh I'm unaware. Sorry, Senator McKenzie.
>> So was it a panel process? Was it federal and state um campaign directors of the Labour Party?
>> Uh again, you you'd have to put that to the national office. What I know is that um the minister uh King was responsible uh in government upon uh reelection for uh approving the projects and that the department has gone through a rigorous assessment uh of those projects to ensure that they meet value for money.
To your knowledge, did Minister King or her office have any sign off over the process uh that was undertaken prior to the election campaign?
>> Uh not to my knowledge. Sorry.
>> Okay. Because Minister King did uh make clear yesterday on Sunday agenda that it was a Labor HQ process. I repeat my question. Were you are you aware of any ministerial or parliamentary colleagues who are also part of that labor HQ process of selection, assessment and identification of uh projects?
>> Um they'd be better off putting to those
>> My question
>> understand, but they they are the ones that were responsible for coordinating the process
>> as Senator Cadell has asked. I'd be better off asking that then I'm asking you do you know do you know >> do you know minister if any of your ministerial or parliamentary colleagues were involved in the internal process of selecting assessing and approving those election commitments. Uh what I
know, Senator McKenzie, is that uh the all parties go through processes this side of an election in terms of how they put those together.
>> Minister, you're very careful with your words. You clearly do know. You just don't want to say.
>> Uh what I know is that parties go through those internal processes as I assume the Liberal and National Party do and that it is the national officers that are responsible uh for putting forward election commitments.
Um I just wanted to ask the department some questions. Um have you been requested to provide advice to either the department of prime minister and cabinet uh on representations from specific members of parliament advocating for funding for projects in
>> In regards to milip in particular. >> Yes. Uh not that I'm aware of, Senator, but I'm conscious that the relevant um uh officers will be here this afternoon under regional.
>> Well, I would I've got a series of questions. Well, were was the department requested to provide advice to Minister King uh on representation from Dr. Helen Haines with respect to infrastructure projects in her electorate?
>> Not that I'm aware of.
>> No. Okay. I'll leave that for another day.
>> Minister Burke is the delegate where um a project is in Minister King's
>> and was Minister Burke also the delegate for Minister McBain's projects.
>> Minister King is the delegate Minister Burke Minister McBain's electorate.
>> Right. Um just on uh declaring conflicts of interest uh Minister King also sits on ERC when the submission is there a process through the expenditure review committee where conflicts of interest are declared and were they appropriately declared uh in the ERC that considered uh the over half a billion dollars for this particular program approved
>> uh the administration of cabinet committees is a matter for the department of prime minister and cabinet. Um my my understanding is that there is a rigorous process in place for identifying conflicts and I see that managed in a very proactive way in ERC where ministers are asked to step out of the room if there's any suggestion that a conflict may have arisen. Obviously at the point where this went forward to ERC, it would have been for the purposes of approving guidelines which were then subject to the departmental process which is described in our submission rather than ERC considering individual processes as described.
>> Okay. Thank you secretary that is clear. Um I just want got some questions on energy sovereignty, fuel security and resilience in corporate.