Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 20:18 to 33:15
Discussion on the Priority Community Infrastructure Program and MELCIP guidelines, budget paper naming conventions, and the assessment of election commitments.
Topics: Infrastructure, Grants administration, Government spending
Speakers: Senator Bridget McKenzie, Speaker 4, Ms Jessica Hall, Lisa Rauter, Speaker 12, Speaker 7
>> I want to go to the priority community infrastructure program, please. Thank you. So, the department's submission to this committee's inquiry into the ML CIP says that projects funded in the 25-26 budget and announced in PFO under priority community infrastructure program round two were made part of the major and local community infrastructure program following the 2025 election. Prior to the 2025 election, did the department develop updated and specific guidelines for the PCIP round two for which the projects were approved by government prior to caretaker and hence announced in PIFO?
>> So, the measure in PIFO that is titled Priority Community Infrastructure Program round two was inaccurately named and is actually referring to the projects for that were included from PIFO into MLCIP. >> It was unhelpfully named, Senator.
>> Really unhelpfully named. We thought we'd gone down a rabbit hole for There's a whole Okay, so just run me through the amount of money announced in PIFO incorrectly. Sorry, so incorrectly, did you seek to update the budget papers or
>> I'd have to take that on notice.
>> Did the Treasurer stand up and say we page X, it's not PCIP round two, it's actually MLCIP? >> We'll take that on notice, Senator. >> Who advised um the Department of Treasury on naming PCIP round two? Who in the department Miss Hall, and this might be a question for you. When um Treasury papers are being prepared, who signs off on the final doc heading over to Treasury for printing?
>> So, again, um I Both Mr Elton and myself weren't there at that particular time.
>> Okay, maybe you should see if I might know.
>> Usually, um in regards to those papers, those youth papers usually go between finance and treasury um and um our line area and our CFO area. So, we'll just have to take it on notice in regards to who it might have been.
>> Okay, so I just want to understand the process then. Um and secretary maybe if Ms. Hall and Ms. Rowden weren't around at the time, you might be able to assist the committee. Um when we send information to finance, finance probably, but finance treasury with respect to budgets that um or PFO or MYEFO, who signs off on the final numbers? [snorts] Or is it each line manager in the department signs off on their piece or do do you have to sign off on the last piece? How does it head to the centrals?
>> It's usually each line area.
>> Okay, so who was heading up this line area at the time PFO was being
>> Um I believe David Mackay was the
>> David Mackay.
>> second deputy secretary at the time.
>> He was the actual sec dep sec or acting? >> And Senator, we will take it on notice to clarify but it might have been because the program had not um they hadn't come up with its name yet. >> Yeah. >> Um so, they could they assumed a continuation of the previous one, but because in the 2022 election commitments we split ones that were less than five into the investing in our communities program and ones that were greater than five into pro priority community infrastructure program, whereas the 2025 election they combined both, it might have been that the just the name wasn't determined yet.
>> So, we will take it on notice in regards to the price.
>> But, these were decisions of government To be announced in PIFO, they were taken. >> Yes, yes, the funding >> So, my understanding of the program under discussion, the uh major and local community infrastructure program, was that that didn't exist until after the election. That's been everyone's evidence from last week to this week, that that program didn't exist. Not that it was misnamed in PIFO, that it didn't exist until after. >> That's right. >> Right? So, we're talking PIFO, which is crime.
>> So, the name wasn't known, so that's why we just need to check in regards to
>> So, it was like a halfway house, was it? It was the interim
>> So, so, did a program go through cabinet and have decisions taken, but not yet announced in it, and to be but has the priority community infrastructure program round two next to it. I'm now being informed that was incorrectly named. Is that the evidence?
>> My recollection is that the government going into the election would have made provision in the budget for a community infrastructure program similar to the one that it had run in 2022, which resulted in IRCP, those two programs. So, the generic item was included in the budget papers, a name had to be thought of, so it was provisionally given the name, which in the previous program had been um labeled with, which was PC. And subsequent to the election, in order to clarify things and avoid the kind of conversation we're having now, it was re-badged as major local community infrastructure projects.
So, this is what the pre-election, pre-election economic and fiscal outlook 2025 says, and I'm quoting, "The measure commits 125 million dollars over two years from 2025-26 for the priority community infrastructure program round two to support community infrastructure projects across Australia. It includes 25 million dollars for Baker Street Aquatic Center, 16 million dollars for the Bega pool, which we just discussed uh for Eden-Monaro for Minister McBain. 10 million dollars for Canning Vale Sports Complex, uh 10 million dollars for Zuccoli Community Hub, 5 million for Saltwater Reserve, Point Cook Community Hub, 4.8 million dollars for the shared pathway missing links, and I could go on and on and on The delivery of these grants will be subjected to an assessment of value for money and compliance with the applicable requirements. This measure was included as a decision taken but not yet announced in the 2025 budget.
>> Yeah. So, I think as the secretary explained, it's been renamed.
>> And so, has anybody, if it's been has anybody sought to correct the budget papers?
>> Well, I think the point is is that it was probably the right name at the time of the budget papers.
>> It's It's not a mistake in the budget
papers. >> in the budget papers.
>> rebranding of the program subsequently.
>> Right.
>> Yeah.
>> And the rebranding is probably sensible because if we rebranded in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation, which I can tell is quite frustrating for you.
>> Well, there's a whole lot of So, it's not a mistake that it was named Priority Community Infrastructure Program. And that there was $125 million over 2 years.
>> No, treat it as a working
>> range of projects.
>> Call it a working title.
>> So, guidelines Guidelines weren't developed for round two of PCI
>> They would have been subject to the guidelines that >> were released for the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program.
>> Yeah. Guidelines produced post-election.
>> So, the guidelines for the major projects infrastructure >> Oh, gosh.
>> Call it MELCIP.
>> Have an easier acronym, MELCIP. >> What?
>> MELCIP.
>> MELCIP. It sounds like I'm in Europe.
>> Take it Take it a while to get used to
it. >> MELCIP. Um okay, right. The MELCIP guidelines were post-election The Priority Community Infrastructure re-badged in PIFO. Were decisions already taken? >> Under what guidelines then, if it's not MELCIP, because that's post-election, under what guidelines were these projects, which now sit in MELCIP,
>> I think that was a budgetary provision to cover off what were effectively election commitments which had been given before the campaign had taken place.
So, they get the >> did you do of these projects [clears throat] then? >> The same assessment that we did for the
rest of them MELCIP program against the same criteria in those in those guidelines. So, they were added to the list of of projects and assessed the same as all of the other projects in that
>> So why were these guidelines never published on the department's website?
>> They are published on the department's website.
>> When the decisions were taken but not yet announced.
>> Not then.
Not sorry, not for these projects. So
though the guidelines apply to those projects but the guidelines weren't
>> So those are what you've got there is a budgetary provision related to a series of announcements that the that the government made in the run up to the election. It made a budgetary provision. It gave it a working title of PCIP 2. Um but it was never allocated in any substantive way um in terms of funding agreements or anything else because they were merely election commitments and more election commitments were made during the actual campaign. That was then all gathered up post election and then put on all fours with the process that Ms. Ratra and um Ms. McDonald have described this afternoon.
>> So was this program outlined in P-5? Signed off by the minister um under that title prior to being submitted to the 2025 budget.
>> I'm not sure of the process to approve those projects.
>> But they're in P-5.
>> P-5 is a funding provision for projects which had not been subject to the um uh guidelines at that stage. So it's an earmarking of funding for projects which were subsequently decided >> No, no, I get a bucket. >> It's a bucket.
>> it like honestly but this isn't a bucket. This has got things in the bucket listed.
>> Yeah, they're a pre-election commitments.
>> Pre-election commitments and what assessment have the got There's no guidelines for these pre-election these decisions because these weren't election commitments. These were decisions of government.
>> Taken pre-election in the run up to the
>> They were decisions of government.
>> think the election pre-election.
These weren't made in caretaker, these were decisions of government. And I want to understand when the decision for these projects listed in PIFO was taken. And by whom?
>> Okay, well we'll need to take that on notice. Um partly because those decisions were taken in a budget process at the time and we may not even have had visibility as to how those projects were
>> That was not an answer I was expecting,