Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 41:08 to 44:46
Senator Scarr highlights that over 90% of infrastructure corruption allegations originate in Victoria, prompting questions about the department's heightened focus on the state.
Topics: Infrastructure, Integrity, Government spending
Speakers: Senator Paul Scarr, Mr. Jim Betts, Senator Glenn Sterle, Hon Bridget McKenzie, Unknown Speaker
>> Mr. Betts, I I understand what you're saying, but I'm looking at these figures, including the new allegations. 25 are in Victoria, one in New South Wales, one in South Australia, none in my home state of Queensland >> or or your home state of West Australia or uh none in Tasmania. NT. >> So over 90% of these allegations are coming from Victoria even since the last hearing we had when I made a comment about the proportion >> of allegations that are coming from Victoria. So an objective analysis of these figures and new allegations they keep coming through says something stinks in Victoria in terms of the big build projects. there is something seriously wrong. So I think it is reasonable and I'll put a question to you. I think it is reasonable that Senator McKenzie raises the issue about what actions is the department taking is the minister taking in response to the objective analysis which I thank you for which shows that over 90% of the allegations of wrongdoing are coming from Victoria. >> So how are you responding to that? I
agree with you. It's entirely legitimate for Senator McKenzie to raise those issues. We've talked about the steps that we've put in place um through strengthening federal funding agreements with all jurisdictions including Victoria. But the matters are clearly serious in Victoria which is why the government there has established a Royal Commission to look into these things.
>> Kicking and screaming.
>> Whatever characterization you want to make, that's your call. um our our point or my point is if the proposition is that um no money should flow into Victoria by way of co-investment in infrastructure projects that's a position you can take but there would be
that proposition the proposition the
>> on projects where the allegations exist absolutely
>> so if an allegation is made commonwealth investment is suspended
>> if a state jurisdiction refers something to their own corruption commission or the AFP etc. Are you seriously your proposition that we should continue to fund it?
>> Just before you answer, sorry Senator McKenzie, before you answer, Mr. bets. If I may assist, and I'm I'm listening intently, but last week I had the privilege of visiting a a site in Melbourne, uh a construction company by the name of Westcon who have initiated a magnificent safety investment in their transport fleet and they've got 300 employees and I've never met these people before. They're involved on parts of the big build and I I met with all them people and I just have concerns when you say stop the funding cuz why should a company with 300 people doing the right thing be affected by I just want to add that for your thoughts Senator McKenzie if it assists. >> Mr. Betts, you were about to answer a question.
>> You've um made my point there. Um if the government or the opposition were to take a view that payments should be suspended that would be an entirely legitimate position to take but there would be downstream consequences including potentially for very innocent parties who are caught up merely on the basis of an allegation. The approach that we've adopted is to ensure that those allegations are investigated by the appropriate authority whether that's the police or the fair work uh fairwork combatsmen and that is wired into our federal funding agreements.