Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit into the Commonwealth grants administration contains an absolutely damning truth for those opposite, although, sadly, it's not one that the Australian people have come to be surprised by when it comes to the former Liberal government. The former Liberal government rorted billions of dollars to serve their political purposes. They threw grant rules and guidelines as well as program guidelines out the window as they sought to allocate funds to serve their own needs. The scale of the evidence presented to the committee was absolutely staggering, and it was clear that the former government was simply treating public money like it was Liberal Party money. Indeed, their sense of entitlement had clearly come to a point that it was stifling their sense of morality. In disappointingly characteristic fashion, the former Liberal government had no regard for transparency or due process, instead pursuing industrial-scale rorting to serve their craven political interests.

While the contents of the report are incredibly disappointing, they are, sadly, not surprising. The former Liberal government's record of rorting is well known right across this country, particularly for those organisations who found themselves on the wrong side of these improper grant processes. Many of these organisations are in my electorate of Hawke, many of them in communities that face structural disadvantage and socioeconomic challenges. They are those that the former Liberal government was so willing to leave behind and excluded from these public interest considerations.

The committee heard that in some grant programs local councils simply stopped applying after establishing an evidence based belief that, due to factors entirely outside the grant guidelines or principles, they would never be successful. It was so blatantly obvious that the grants were not being fairly awarded that people—the Australian people, our communities—simply lost trust in the Liberal government's interest in serving their needs.

While the evidence was as clear as it was damning, some members of the committee produced a dissenting report. However, this report doesn't actually disagree with the recommendations. It just doesn't acknowledge—it entirely fails to acknowledge—the egregious politicisation of the grant process under the former Liberal government. It is staggering that, despite the enormous volume of evidence that the public trust was breached and public funds were unfairly and immorally allocated, the Liberals still can't concede that what they did with billions of dollars of taxpayer money was simply wrong. This is particularly staggering for coalition member of the committee, who were presented with evidence of rorting across the multibillion-dollar Urban Congestion Fund, which included the infamous commuter car parks, various regional grants programs, the regional grants fund—hello, Sydney pool—and the Safer Communities Fund.

The committee acknowledges the important role that ministerial discretion can and, indeed, should play in government decision-making. There are no doubt instances where this discretion can be appropriately exercised to ensure an outcome that is in the public interest. However, it is also appropriate that these decisions are examined and that ministers aren't left to freely throw money around without scrutiny—in this case, to serve their craven political interests with zero transparency or accountability to taxpayers and the Australian people.

With this report, the committee is making six recommendations designed to strengthen processes around the awarding of public grants. These include making the merit-based, competitive process the default, as well as including in program guidelines how advocacy from stakeholders—including MPs, who importantly play the role of representation here in this place—will be considered in that broader process. The committee is also recommending that when grants are awarded against the recommendation of the relevant agency—sometimes with very good reason—the decision is clearly recorded, reported to the finance minister and published online. As I said, it's often necessary—and many times has been—but there must be transparency and accountability when this occurs. There must be an explanation for the Australian people about how and why a minister has made a decision in contrast to the advice coming up from their department.

The committee is further recommending that the criteria against which grant applications are assessed be fully transparent. As the Liberal rorting was exposed, the former Liberal government used to cite unspecified 'other factors' in a poor attempt to legitimise their politicisation of these grants processes. This recommendation would prevent this deceptive trick from being used again.

While it is incredibly disappointing that this report has not received bipartisan support from committee members, I don't think it should be a matter of partisanship that we expect the highest standards of accountability and transparency when it comes to decision-making and the dispensing of public funds. I again note that they aren't actually disagreeing with the recommendations; they're simply using it as a vehicle to make pathetic excuses for their poor governance and, frankly, for their politicised decision-making that had such detrimental impacts on communities such as mine. I hope that the recommendations receive bipartisan support and that that goes some way to rebuilding public trust in Commonwealth grants administration.

I'd particularly like to think the chair of the committee, the member for Bruce, whose leadership and hard work in delivering this report and all of the work that went behind it has been a hallmark of the Albanese government—that we would strive every day in this place to restore public trust and confidence in the institutions of government, whether that be in the public sector around our Public Service employees and the critical institution that that represents or that be in the decision-making that happens at the very highest levels of executive government. While I again note that those opposite have chosen to provide their dissenting report—weak and pathetic as that report might be—I know that there are members opposite, individuals, who do believe in strengthening the institutions of government and in upholding the moral obligations that we as individuals have when we're elected to this place.

I strongly encourage those opposite, despite the institutional pressures of their party to defend the former prime minister Morrison, his cabinet and the decisions that they made—I know that that has some very awkward consequences for the current opposition leader, and we've seen that aired in public spaces over the last number of days. But it should not be a partisan issue. The restoration of public confidence in government and of accountability and transparency around decision-making and the dispensing of public funds should not be matters of partisanship. These should be issues, values and principles that all members of this place can get behind. I strongly encourage those members who know better and believe in a better sense of government to put the partisanship aside and get on board with supporting the recommendations in this report so that we can get on with doing the work required.

See this speech in context