Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 43:46 to 1:00:19
Examination of regional infrastructure grants, including Kele Park upgrades, and the adequacy of local government funding and financial assistance grants.
Topics: Infrastructure, Grants administration, Drought and disaster support
Speakers: Senator Bridget McKenzie, Speaker 4, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, Senator Paul Scarr, Lisa Rauter, Interjection, Ms Jessica Hall, Senator Glenn Sterle, Speaker 12, Speaker 7
>> Where is where is Mr. Mackay these days?
>> He's the deputy secretary for communications, media and sport.
All right. Um
>> Where is Mr. Chisholm these days?
>> Sorry?
>> Mr. Chisholm.
>> Mr. Chisholm is on leave at the moment.
>> He's back with you though?
>> Any other MIAs while we're here?
>> Um yeah, why don't we run through the Have you got any questions, Senator Scarr? >> I'm just trying to find
>> You're sure you don't want a question?
>> No questions in this outcome.
>> Okay. We're still on outcome three. I'm just thinking we might have to contact some of the crossbenchers to see if they do the right thing and put their questions on notice, Patrick.
>> I have questions about Kele Park
>> Sorry, was I talking while you're interrupting? I'm sorry.
>> Oh, sorry. My apologies.
>> Um I'm just saying that the coalition have offered up some early um um exits for a couple and that we just need the agreement of the odd crossbencher, Patrick. If you could chase them up, if they could put their question on notice cuz we're not going to get through I don't think we'll get through the program as it stands. Right, questions outcome three, Senator Canavan.
>> Thank you. I want to go to a project under the major and local community infrastructure project. Um the Kele Park upgrades. There's $1.3 million available for that following the government commitment before the last election, yes? >> Um who was the department engaged with um to receive that grant? Is it the Brothers AFL Club?
>> It's the Rockhampton Regional Council.
>> The Rockhampton Regional Council. >> And not the Brothers AFL Club? >> My understanding is the Brothers AFL Club were the ones that actually developed up the proposal. Is there a reason you're choosing not to engage with them?
>> They did not submit the application to the department. The council did.
>> Okay. Um this is on behalf of Michelle Landry, by the way, National Party MP for the great seat of Capricornia. Um are there concerns about the club not being able to manage the project effectively? >> In Rockhampton alone, there are multiple sporting clubs delivering projects of similar values from the Queensland state government with clubs handling the project management, including the Glenmore Bulls, Bluebirds United Football Club, and the Gracemere Cubs. Why was the council selected as the recipient instead of the AFL club? >> That was just who applied for funding, Senator. >> This was an election commitment. We're getting close to 18 months out, and the only reason the club even knows that the funding is confirmed was because of the tirelessly at tireless advocacy of Michelle Landry. Why was the funding given to a council with an already large infrastructure timeline pushing out the delivery um of this project and likely pushing up the final costs. Was the capacity to deliver something that was examined?
>> Capacity to deliver is part of the requirement they criteria of the program. Yes, so that would have been considered.
>> And has this funding agreement for this project been signed?
>> No, it's still under negotiation.
>> Under negotiation. Is there concern about the price increases?
>> I don't have that detail on me. I'll have to take that on notice.
>> Have you got a costed design?
>> Again, I don't have the application with me, so I'd have to check.
>> Right, thank you. That would be great. Um now, just going back to our PCIP around two projects, um who was the decision maker for the PCIP round two projects? We'll just do that like that as named in PIFO. Who was the decision maker? Was it Minister King?
>> Uh we'd have to take that on notice because that happened it was budget process. We don't have that
>> So, it would be the expenditure review committee of cabinet would be the decision maker, would be my guess.
>> What role did the department have in identification assessment of the projects announced under PCIP round two as named? So, how were they identified?
>> Uh probably through a labor party process as per the rest of mail suit.
Um who advised the department of the projects then once that process was
>> completed? We just aware through the budget paper process and that would have
>> So, you you saw that on budget night and went okay.
>> Oh, we imagine we would have seen it before budget night but through the process of putting those documents
>> We're speculating here. We need to go back and check our facts here.
>> So, you've gone off to ARC to get some money. You haven't done the assessment of the projects. It's gone through an external process. The projects arrive. When are you aware of this list of projects?
>> Um as the secretary just said, some decisions are decisions taken but not yet announced.
>> Yes.
>> and when that's the case, it's not until afterwards and I'd have to take on notice exactly
>> Oh, there's often cases where departments know that decisions have been taken and ministers and governments decide when they're going to announce it. It's not just because it hasn't been announced doesn't mean you don't know about it.
>> Uh that's true.
>> Yes, [clears throat] it is true.
>> Uh but I suspect, not least because they ended up in the mail suit program, that those would just be early batch of projects which were given the labor
>> This is very untidy, secretary. >> Well, it's >> Was there an application process? I think this will kick the ANAO's uh decision-making process. Was there an application process for these prior to them being approved?
>> No, because we've described in great detail the process for application, [snorts] which is under the mail seat banner and occurred post election.
>> So, there's no uh open even if this is a closed non-competitive grant process round two. When did applications for PCIP round two open and close?
>> There is no such thing. It is called mail seat, and we've spent hours today explaining to you how that works.
>> Who had the opportunity to apply for under the program outlined in PIPO that we've been discussing?
>> It's the mail seat.
>> Just stop.
>> It is.
>> Okay. It's the mail seat. I know. I feel like I'm having a Kabuki conversation. >> Yes. Um but I have to ask, and you are got you will need to answer, was the opportunity to apply for funding publicly announced prior to the election, given we've got a list of projects approved for funding.
>> I suspect not.
and how would this list of applicants invited to apply prior to the PIPO?
>> If there was any kind of process of engagement with prospective applicants, it would have been managed on a political level rather than through the department.
>> Um did the department provide briefings to the minister on PCIP round two projects?
>> Um since it's the mail seat, and at no point have we been asked for any advice on any of the projects on mail seat until it was formally constituted as a program after the election, I think the answer to that would be not. But, I don't want to mislead the committee, so I actually need to go back and remind myself what happened in the 2025 budget process.
>> So, which departments were involved in the decision to merge the PCIP round two projects into MILSiP?
>> I think it was more a matter of rebranding um combined with um the accumulation of additional commitments during the election campaign, which then crystallized in MILSiP post election, comprehending what was the artist formerly known as PCIP round two and the
>> nice touch. If it wasn't so serious, I would be laughing. So, but which Was it only a decision of the infrastructure department to merge/rebadge? Or was there advice from other departments?
>> It would have been a decision of government.
minister's decision.
>> Minister. Possibly [clears throat] through ERC.
>> Yeah, and when was that decision taken? >> And yet we still forgot the finance advice.
>> We didn't forget it. We engaged with finance on the composition of the guidelines. We didn't accept all of finance's commentary at the time because some of the things they were suggesting had yet to be settled. As explained earlier, we released some preliminary guidelines and then provided an addendum to take account of supplementary information that we had, thereby giving prospective applicants the opportunity to start early on their applications whilst ensuring they had the full suite of information they required before they submitted those
>> Thank god we're having a third day. I think that's >> Tell us what >> Yeah, go for it.
>> Secretary, don't you see Do you from your perspective, from the department's perspective, is there a is there a difference between the projects that are announced by government through PIFO that Senator McKenzie has referred to and projects that are announced during the course of an election campaign during caretaker period?
>> Is there a difference between them? >> Yeah, the different main difference is timing and because they were announced This is my recollection. I'm going to need to confirm this before the cutoff for PIFO, appropriate budgetary provision had to be made. Everything in the end gets swept up and crystallized through the Milspec program. So, the only real difference is around timing relative to the caretaker period.
>> Well, there is that difference, but in my mind, tell me if you think I'm wrong and it could well be. I suspect the ANAO's going to look at it. from my perspective, if something's announced prior to the election campaign, prior to [clears throat] the caretaker period, disclosed in PIFO, my expectation would be that the infrastructure department would have been consulted uh in some way before those announcements. Am I wrong in that?
>> Not necessarily. If they're if they're prospective election commitments, they could be generated through a Labor Party process always predicated on the view that post election they will be swept up in the kind of guidelines based process consistent with the PGPA which we've been describing today.
>> Okay, well, we'll see what the ANAO
says, I guess. Yeah. >> It can't come from Labor. It has to come through a government organization.
>> It would through a budget process. Governments often make provisions in their in their budgets for future commitments which they're going to make including during election campaigns.
>> And usually it's a bucket.
>> Buckets, yeah.
>> Instead, another process has been trialed and found wanting, I would suggest. Okay, I've just got a couple of questions around the local government national report that was released on the 16th of July. these are questions on behalf of the Shadow Assistant Minister, Jamie Um the government's own report shows councils are responsible for approximately $690 billion worth of assets. What assessment has the department undertaken of council's capacity to sustainably maintain and renew those assets under the current funding arrangements?
>> Uh Senator, we'll have to take that one
Um the government's own report records council's concerns that infrastructure and other costs are increasing faster than CPI. Why has the government cut multiple, and this is a question to the minister, why has the government cut multiple other vital sources of local government funding like local roads and community infrastructure program and the building better regions fund?
>> Well, we've doubled funding uh Senator McKenzie for the roads to recovery Committing 4.4 billion nationally. And we've certainly with councils with that they've currently got access to new infrastructure funding opportunities. That includes the $2 billion fund infrastructure fund and the 10 the 10-year $500 million active transport fund and the existing $200 million per year safer local roads and infrastructure program and $750 million for future rounds of the growing regions and thriving suburbs programs.
>> But that's not the evidence of your report that councils are feeling the love when it comes to maintaining and upgrading their assets.
>> The evidence
>> I'm quoting from the government's own report.
>> Well, I'm giving to you the amount of funding that we have provided for the Roads to Recovery program.
>> So, Minister, do you believe that under the current funding arrangements that you've proudly announced there, local governments can continue to provide the full range of services and infrastructure their communities currently rely on?
>> We're very proud of our investment into local government, Senator McKenzie. In fact, it was our government that actually brought local government councils back to the Australian Parliament after a 10-year hiatus under your previous government. We've given a great deal of commitment to local councils in terms of supporting the delivering delivery of essential services and community infrastructure.
>> What program now provides council with an equivalent source of funding to replace LGRKI? Minister?
>> Sorry, I thought I'll leave that
question >> What program? Well, you've you're all over it. So, what program now provides Australian local governments with an equivalent source of funding to replace LGRKI?
>> I'll refer to the officials because we can go into greater detail for you, Senator McKenzie.
>> Thank you so much.
>> So, Senator, um in regards to LGRKI, um LGRKI is as you know just finishing off, but as the Minister said, there has has increased funding for our recovery, but there's also been increased funding for the active transport fund. There's been increased funding for SLERP as well. There has also been additional funding for or new rounds of funding coming forward for the thriving suburbs and growing regions. So, there is a ongoing funding in different programs.
>> But is that funding increase actually keeping up with the construction inflation? Cost increases?
>> So,
there's always going to be financial
assistance grants has been indexed.
>> Yes, so financial assistance grants are indexed with CPI and obviously go up with the population as well. So,
>> No worries. Local councils would love to hear that. I finished with this outcome.