Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

the Hon. Larry Anthony—overturned departmental recommendations on 120 separate occasions. That in itself is not such a problem, but the Auditor-General found that the only statistically significant and independent influence on the minister’s decision to increase the number of VSEG 2004 round 1 grants provided to an electorate was whether that electorate was held by the National Party. That was the only significant and independent factor so found by the Auditor-General.

I would be less concerned if the pool was expanded and some organisations received grants for which they were ineligible or not recommended for. The really concerning thing about this is that some organisations missed out to make way for the organisations ticked off by the minister which did not meet the funding program’s criteria. Thirty-eight separate organisations—good voluntary organisations—missed out. We do not know where those organisations are from, but I hazard a guess that they were represented by members on this side of the House. Eighty-two extra organisations received funding and 38 that were not eligible or were not recommended missed out.

The Auditor-General found that there were significant factors, including regional variations and support from MPs, that affected the success or otherwise of funding applications. The relevant minister at this point, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, released a press statement on 24 May pointing this out and said:

The report basically points to VSEG funding results being slightly better—

I question that—

in Coalition electorates due to demographic variations between seats and because Coalition members are working harder for their electorates than ALP members are.

He also said:

More applications for VSEG were received from Government electorates partly because Government MPs were more active than Opposition MPs in encouraging organisations to apply.

An interested observer outside the House might look at that and think, ‘Well, fair enough.’ But what the minister did not point out in his press release and which the Auditor-General did point out, on page 28 of his report, is that only coalition MPs were told that the funding was coming up. Only coalition MPs received a letter from him saying, ‘You had better encourage your community groups to participate; you had better encourage your community groups to apply.’ Nobody on this side of the House received a letter. It makes it a bit hard to encourage groups to apply when you do not know—you have not been told; you have not been spoonfed the information, like members on the other side of the House have—that the funding is coming up.

As somebody in this House—somebody who is quite prominent—once said:

There is no more important role that this House has than to hold ministers to account for their conduct as ministers of the Crown and in their administration of the affairs of the Australian people.

He went on to say, in reference to a particular minister:

The minister took an ineligible application considered it eligible and gave it money.

That is what the member for Higgins, the current Treasurer, said about the then member for Canberra and the then minister for sport, and he argued that she should resign. It just goes to show how much ministerial accountability and ministerial standards have slipped over the last 11 years when this government think they can get away with it. This government think that they can take eligible grants from hardworking volunteer and community groups that have the audacity to vote Labor, that have the audacity to be represented by members on this side of the House, and give the money to their mates to hand out to other community groups. No doubt some of those community groups are very worthy, but it is—(Time expired)

See this speech in context