Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It is an honour to introduce the Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill.

The bill I am introducing todaywould offer a framework that puts an end to misusing taxpayer money for political purposes. I drafted this bill alongside the Centre for Public Integrity, and it represents the gold standard in grants administration.

Why this is needed

I am reintroducing this bill today, 10 months since I first introduced it, because as we approach the election season, it's clearer than ever: we need to clean up government spending and stamp out the practice of pork-barrelling—of using taxpayer money to buy votes.

When I introduced this bill in February, I was told by members of the government that the reforms in this bill aren't necessary.

'We've got this, you can trust us,' they said.

But I am disappointed to say there has been very little action from the government.

All they have done are make some changes to the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles—something the government proudly talks about whenever pork-barrelling is raised.

But these changes are just tinkering around the edges—they're not in legislation.

Exposing the two programs

More than this lack of action, it's the practices of the Labor party in opposition in the lead up to the 2022 election, and since then in government, that show just how necessary and overdue these reforms are.

According to Parliamentary Library research, during the 2022 election campaign the Australia Labor Party made 435 commitments to fund certain projects.

Labor candidates and members promised local councils, community organisations, health services, museums, yacht clubs, cricket clubs, netball clubs, footy clubs that, if their party got elected to government, they would fund showgrounds, sporting precincts, change rooms, car parks—you know how it goes.

We know of course what happened next—the Labor Party won enough seats in the 2022 election to form government.

But what is less known is what happened after that.

Once in government, Labor directed the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts to set up two grant programs.

These two programs are called the Investing in Our Communities Program and the Priority Community Infrastructure Program. Almost $1.35 billion was allocated to these programs in Labor's first budget in October 2022.

To be clear, I'm not saying the government can't direct the department to set up grant programs and budget to fund them. This is absolutely a power held by the executive.

But how these programs are designed and implemented absolutely warrants further scrutiny. We are talking about $1.35 billion worth of taxpayer money.

Recipients of funding under these two grant programs are spread across 104 electorates, of which 66 are electorates that the Australian Labor Party held or gained in the 2022 election.

That means 86.8 per cent of Labor-won seats received a grant, compared to 51.7 per cent of non-Labor seats receiving a grant.

This means if you live in a Labor held electorate, you are much more likely to have received funding under these programs.

In fact some seats, like Boothby in South Australia and Tangney in Western Australia, received funding for 17 and 14 projects respectively. Compare this to dozens of electorates that received zero dollars.

As I've said many times in this place, the spending of taxpayer money should be done fairly and transparently, with proper guidelines and selection criteria and awarded to recipients who objectively demonstrate merit.

So was there a merit based, competitive application process?

According to the application forms for these election commitment programs, these programs are, and I quote, 'one-off, closed, non-competitive programs'.

According to the program guidelines, to be eligible to apply you must, and again I quote, be 'invited to deliver a project identified by the Australian government'.

So we have $1.35 billion of taxpayer money in a grant program.

But there is no competitive process.

It's not open to everyone.

You must be invited to apply.

Finally, how did the department assess these applications?

Well, freedom of information requests reveal that the list of projects was developed in discussion with the minister's office and the Department of Finance, and the minister asked her department to undertake a desktop review for project merits as it was being budgeted for.

Looking at all this information together—who received a grant, the application process, and the assessment process—we must ask: does the process for determining recipients under these programs seem rigorous? Objective? Fair? Equitable? Was taxpayer money spent responsibly?

Or is this just another example of pork barrelling?

I have met with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government about my concerns. I have also referred these programs to the Australian National Audit Office—the ANAO—to investigate these programs. The ANAO is the auditor for public spending. It makes sure that, when the government spends taxpayer money, it stacks up. And I want to know if these election commitment programs stack up.

The problem with election commitments

These election commitments are what the major parties like to say are part and parcel of a campaign—everyone does it! What's the big deal?

In fact, former Premier of New South Wales Gladys Berejiklian told the New South Wales ICAC:

At the end of the day, whether we like it or not, that's democracy.

Well, I don't accept that, and neither do the Australian people.

Pork-barrelling is at its best poor administration, and at its worst it's corruption. According to the Australia Institute, more than 80 per cent of Australians view pork-barrelling as a form of corruption.

According to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, the 'allocation of public funds and resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes' constitutes pork-barrelling.

Even if you disagree that pork-barrelling is corruption, it's hard not to see it perpetuating a cynicism in the community that giving your vote is about 'getting stuff' rather than a fair go for all.

This undermines public trust in governments and in politicians who are elected to make decisions and spend taxpayer money on our behalf, in the public interest and for the common good.

It undermines public trust in our democracy.

Rebuttal—Helen is being hypocritical

When I talk about pork-barrelling I am often accused by members of the major parties of being a hypocrite. 'You advocate for projects in your community,' they say. 'You are part of this too.'

But in a fair system with good rules, guidelines and processes, like those set out in this bill, the best projects are funded not because of the loudest voices or tight electoral margins, but because they have merit and address community need.

I will never stop standing up for worthy projects in Indi, alerting my constituents about when grant programs are open, working with communities to understand the guidelines and the eligibility criteria and writing letters of support. What I want to see is that our projects receive the federal funding they deserve.

But I want to see open, fair grant programs to provide this funding, because I want to see all regional communities succeed.

Regional grant programs

What makes the practices under these two programs even more galling, even more unfair, is the contrast when looking at the only two regional infrastructure grant programs available for the rest of Australia to apply for.

These are the Growing Regions Program and the Regional Partnerships and Precincts Program, which share in $1 billion in funding, which were also included in the October 2022 budget.

Yes, that is less money for the whole rest of regional Australia than what was budgeted for the two pork-barrelled programs.

According to the Parliamentary Library, about $1.16 billion has been delivered under the Investing in Our Communities Program and Priority Community Infrastructure Program.

By contrast, in only the last month—more than two years since they were budgeted—money has started to get out the door for Growing Regions and rPPP.

So there are two sets of standards—if you got promised a project by Labor in the election, and received funding under the 'invite-only, non-competitive' grant program, the funding has arrived.

But, if you were competing along with the rest of Australia in a merit based, competitive program, for which full budgets and costings were required to apply, then you are more than likely still waiting.

Conclusion

In the last parliament we saw sports rorts, car park rorts, and the Community Development Grants Program. These are the ways in which grant programs were abused to pork-barrel seats to be re-elected.

Now we can see how pork-barrelling works for a newly elected government. What it shows is that, when it comes to the major party duopoly, no matter who is in power, the taxpayer is getting ripped off.

That is why this bill is more than overdue, and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context