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

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that:

(a) Commonwealth grants are vitally important to the positive and meaningful work carried out by community organisations, local governments, businesses and not-for-profits, particularly in regional and rural areas;

(b) the current system of Commonwealth grants administration means grants can be awarded based on the discretion of ministers and against official departmental advice, without merit and without meeting the aim of promoting proper use and management of public resources; and

(c) the current system means grants awarded by ministerial discretion escape parliamentary and public scrutiny;

(2) notes that Commonwealth grants programs administered by the former and current governments have been misused for political purposes, including the Building Better Regions Fund, the Commuter Car Parks Project, the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program, the Mobile Black Spot Program, and the Community Batteries for Household Solar Program; and

(3) calls on the Government to introduce legislation to reform grants administration to ensure public money is not misused, and that this legislation must include:

(a) clear requirements for published Commonwealth grant guidelines and selection criteria;

(b) robust and public reporting requirements about how grants programs are administered, including grants that are awarded contrary to departmental advice; and

(c) a framework for a parliamentary joint committee on grants administration to improve grant administration oversight.

Today I draw attention to a core role of government: spending taxpayer money. I'm talking about everything from small community grant programs of a few thousand dollars to investment funds worth billions. This money can help small volunteer groups like food shares, footy clubs and first-aid trainers. It can help them to upgrade their facilities and equipment, or it could go to larger, much-needed projects like building new homes for low-income families. But, too often, where the money goes is decided not on where the need is most but on where the votes are most valuable. I'm talking about sports rorts, car park rorts and hospital rorts; I'm talking about pork barrelling.

Under the previous government's commuter car park program, 75 per cent of the projects announced were in coalition seats—with no competitive process. In its assessment of the program, the Audit Office found the approach to identifying and selecting projects was 'not designed to be open or transparent'. Projects were not selected on merit. This means the Audit Office found it's not about the evidence; it's about the polling. It's about marginal seats and about who has access to a minister. Under the community sport infrastructure program—otherwise known as sports rorts—decisions were not made based on the recommendations from the department, where projects were rated against assessment criteria. Instead, it was the infamous colour coded spreadsheet that showed which electorate each project was in and the margin by which it was held.

Now, while these examples are some of the most egregious, we know that making funding decisions based on marginal seats is not a practice confined to the coalition. The first round of the Mobile Black Spot Program delivered under this government was only open by invitation—and only to electorates that had been promised new towers during last year's election campaign. Again, three-quarters of the towers were in Labor seats, and in New South Wales that's 100 per cent. This matter is already under investigation by the Audit Office, after a referral from the shadow minister for communications—a referral which I support.

As taxpayers, is it too much to hope that our taxes are spent in the public interest and based on evidence, on a cost-benefit analysis or on where the need is greatest? No. But, too often, funding goes where the need for votes is greatest. It's not fair, it's not right. It's terrible governance, and voters agree with me. A poll released only last month by the Australia Institute found that 81 per cent of those surveyed considered it corrupt conduct to allocate public money to projects in marginal seats in order to win votes. I want to do something about it. In June, the Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Audit report into the administration of government grants made six recommendations for reform—but they did not go anywhere near far enough. The recommendations do not guarantee that this behaviour change will change.

Today, I'm calling on the government to introduce legislation to ensure public money is not misused and is not wasted. This legislation must set out clear requirements to publish Commonwealth grant guidelines. It sounds so obvious, but even this bare minimum is not already legislated. Any reform must include legislated, robust, mandatory and timely public reporting requirements about grants programs. If a minister makes a decision to give money against departmental advice, they should have to stand up in this place and tell us why. We need parliamentary oversight locked in with legislation. These decisions shouldn't be allowed to fly under the radar. We shouldn't have to wait for an audit report or a media investigation to uncover pork-barrelling.

Now this is not about removing ministerial discretion; it's about legislated transparency and accountability when that discretion is used, and new laws must provide a framework for parliamentary oversight of grants by setting up a joint committee on grants administration. This is my message to the government: get on and make this law. I'd love to work with you on it, but, if you don't choose to do that, I'll get on and do it anyway. I've done it before and succeeded when I fought hard alongside people from across the political spectrum—alongside people like the member for Bass—to establish a robust national anticorruption commission and bring it to life. This is important, this is urgent and the Australian public demand this of us because, before we know it, we will be back in election season—prime-time pork season. How politicians spend taxpayer money must be reformed if we are to restore trust in politics.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Indi for bringing this motion before the chamber. The member has been an advocate for integrity in our political system since she first entered the parliament, and I was very pleased to work with the member on the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. We can, as a parliament, be proud that the NACC now exists.

I, too, acknowledge the good that can flow from the application of Commonwealth grants for our community and sporting groups, businesses, local governments and not-for-profits. In Hasluck, as I stand here speaking on this, there are a number of very worthy groups waiting patiently to hear whether they've been successful in their applications for the community volunteer grants. Grants should be allocated both fairly and transparently. It is certainly correct that this did not apply to all the grant allocations under the previous coalition government.

Over a year ago now, the National Audit Office reported on the coalition's Building Better Regions Fund and found evidence of significant rorting. It was a $1.15 billion fund, and Australians who simply had the wrong postcode had a much smaller chance of succeeding in an application. Liberal and National held seats were unfairly favoured. Then there was the commuter car park program, which was the subject of a scathing assessment by the National Audit Office, which found that the infrastructure department had selected exactly none of the 47 sites and described the coalition's process as a non-competitive, non-application based process that was not demonstrably merit based. Not only were many of the car parks not needed but some of them were going to be built on land already earmarked for other purposes. In the now electorate of my friend the member for Macnamara, the land was already allocated for public housing, which demonstrates not only the coalition's poor planning and pork-barrelling but also their lack of commitment to public housing, which was further demonstrated by their failure to vote for the Housing Australia Future Fund. The voting public should be reminded of this chicanery by the coalition on a regular basis. It wasn't $660 million from the sky; it was hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars being sprayed up against the wall of a car park.

Likewise, the coalition's community sport infrastructure grants were simply an attempt to bolster the chances of the Liberals and Nationals hanging on to marginal seats. The member for Cook's webpage still encourages people to apply for this grant today. In June this year, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit found that the coalition's grant processes across a number of schemes involved unjustifiably partisan outcomes, with ministers' decisions simply not recorded, inadequate or unavailable. Until we have seen a wholesale turnover of coalition members, we shall keep reminding voters that the member for Cook, the member for Dickson, Senator McKenzie and others were responsible for this serial travesty.

It is unfortunate that the member for Indi refers to the Albanese government's community battery program alongside these other programs in this motion. In addition to the fact that it's an excellent pledge made from opposition and in addition to the fact that the initial distribution of the 50 batteries appears to be very even, the member for Indi knows that all prospective applicants for the hundreds of community batteries still to be rolled out will be dealt with at arm's length by ARENA, which is, as far as I can tell, exactly what the member for Indi wants. So too is the government's Growing Regions Program, the guidelines for which were announced in May this year, evidence of the government's commitment to fairness and transparency. The guidelines include the introduction of a multiparty parliamentary panel—the panel will recommend only projects that meet regional priorities—and an external probity adviser, who will provide advice to the multiparty parliamentary panel.

Back home in Hasluck, I've created a local grants committee of people independent of me and my party to make recommendations for community grants. A few of the grant recipients have included: the Perth Observatory Volunteer Group, who run out of the Perth Observatory in Bickley and have received funding for first-aid training and a defibrillator; the Parkerville Playgroup, who have received funding for their play equipment, shade sails, benches and a range of equipment to help them maintain their gorgeous building and excellent services, and I look forward to seeing them on Friday; and Trillion Trees in Hazelmere, who have received funding for misting fans to support their volunteers taking care of their nursery of plants in Perth's hot summer weather. Trillion Trees plants native trees all over Hasluck and Perth.

Integrity is basic to the work we do here. I thank the member for Indi for raising this important matter, and I commend the work done by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, chaired by my friend the member for Bruce. I'm aware that the government is considering the recommendations of that committee's report and I look forward to being part of the parliament to see it implemented in due course.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the federal member for Bass, I've seen several grant programs support a number of critical projects. As the member for Indi acknowledged, Commonwealth grants are vitally important to the positive and meaningful work carried out by community organisations, local governments, businesses and not-for-profits, particularly in regional and rural areas. However, our communities, who are vying for necessary funding, must have faith in the procedures and nobody wants to see any grant program misused. Whether an application is successful or not, there needs to be a level of trust in how the decision was made and the transparency of process should be at the centre of grant funding going forward.

The issue of ministerial discretion is a great place to start. No matter the government of the day, it's difficult to build a level of trust with the public, particularly if a minister has the ability to override a decision made by the Public Service without needing to explain to the public why this decision was made. I note the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit recently tabled its findings after an inquiry into grants programs. The eight recommendations handed down by the committee include: clarifying the definition of an election commitment for the purpose of delivering grants; that competitive merit based processes be adopted by default and that decision-makers be forced to document reasons why any are not; and that the Australian National Audit Office audits the manner in which the finance minister is told of grant approvals which don't match agency recommendations. These recommendations should be supported, and I fully support all of those recommendations.

Additionally, though, the member for Indi's call to introduce legislation to reform grants administration to ensure public money is not misused also has merit and should have the support of elected representatives that walk these halls. Asking for clear requirements for published Commonwealth grant guidelines and selection criteria; robust and public reporting requirements about how grant programs are administered, including grants that are awarded contrary to departmental advice; and a framework for a parliamentary joint committee on grants administration to improve grants oversight are all reasonable measures and shouldn't be feared by any elected representative.

In 2018, a joint study from Griffith University and Transparency International Australia found that 85 per cent of Australians think at least some federal politicians are corrupt, while 56 per cent had personally witnessed or suspected public officials of making decisions that favoured a business or individual who gave them political donations or support. It's interesting to note that the number was higher amongst those who had worked in government, 61 per cent, and even higher among those who had worked in federal government, 67 per cent.

These reforms and proposed legislation are a solid building block towards restoring trust and integrity in how grants are administered and shouldn't leave MPs or senators concerned. A more transparent process is a win-win situation for our electorates and their representatives. A clear and defined process would also avoid unnecessary delays in commitments made, which often lead to increased infrastructure costs or the loss of a project altogether. In my seat of Bass, $500,000 in funding for the local tennis centre was awarded through the community sports infrastructure grants program prior to me becoming a candidate at the 2019 election. This grant was to update incredibly out-of-date facilities, many of which were utilised for the Launceston Tennis International tournament, which, for some years, saw up-and-coming tennis champions having to use shipping containers to get changed. While the review of the program was necessary, and while the grant was found to be above board, the lengthy delay led to a cost blowout within the project. To date, that project has been unable to proceed, and, sadly, our region has now lost this prestigious tournament to the North West.

Additionally, in March 2022, I was proud to announce two projects of substantial merit—the safe harbour project on Flinders Island and the redevelopment of the Exeter recreation hub—as part of the March budget. These two projects were of much significance for the local communities, but, with the change of government, the federal government placed the projects under review. Whilst I don't have any issue with the review process, the length of time the review took placed an unnecessary burden on the project proponents. It took a little under 18 months for both projects to finally get the tick-off and for funds to proceed, again causing budget blowouts.

I understand the need to ensure these projects are awarded through due process. If considerable reform was undertaken in how grants are administered, that would avoid this issue, and I'm all for that. As somebody who has actively advocated for action to be taken to rebuild the trust the Australian public have in their elected officials, I believe this reform is another necessary step towards achieving this goal.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Indi for this motion. I do know that issues of integrity are important to her and are something that she has been working on throughout her time here. I know they're important to her community, as they are to my community, and I know how pleased we both are that this country now has the National Anti-Corruption Commission in operation, delivered as one of the highest priorities when our government came into office.

Of course, our government's commitment to integrity extends beyond the National Anti-Corruption Commission. There is an important place for grants in our communities, providing funding opportunities that help make a difference on a large or small scale. Every year billions of dollars in federal grants are provided across the country, and we've all seen the benefits that these grants can bring. They are broad ranging, including research; the delivery of health, community and legal services; infrastructure funding; and building capacity in our communities.

In determining and delivering these grants, our government wants to strengthen the integrity, accountability and transparency of that process, because that matters as well as outcomes. It is important to highlight how this is a different approach to that taken by the former government. Under the Morrison government, we saw sports rorts, the Building Better Regions Fund, the Urban Congestion Fund and the Safer Communities Fund. These are just a few examples of the former government's lack of process in how they used taxpayer funds.

Sports rorts is one that particularly frustrated my community. In one memorable case, a club in my community of Jagajaga, the Greensborough Hockey Club, missed out on a grant through this program, even though their application had been deemed deserving of support. It wasn't the quality of their application that wasn't getting there it wasn't the assessment that they were deserving of support—it was clearly rejected for other reasons. At the time, the club said to me that they would've understood if they had missed out for other worthy funding applications, but it was a shock for them to be overlooked for other applications that weren't deemed highly suitable or highly regarded.

Then, of course, we had the Building Better Regions Fund. A report conducted by the ANAO found that, in over five rounds of funding, the former government didn't get better at administering these grants; in fact, it got worse. Towards the end of that time, the approach of the Liberals and the Nationals resulted in more than 65 per cent of the grants that were funded not being in line with departmental recommendations, without justification.

As Minister Catherine King, herself a regional MP, has said:

…if the target is that you want to help, lift up regional Australia, lift up every region … this did not do that. It lifted up some regions at the expense of others.

The Safer Communities Fund, a program administered by the now Leader of the Opposition, aimed to address crime and antisocial behaviour by funding crime prevention activities. What the Audit Office found, though, was that, in situations where there was full and part-funding of projects, the full recommended funding was more likely to be awarded to applications in coalition seats, while partial funding was more likely to be awarded for applications in Labor seats.

The community can see the patterns in this type of behaviour. These programs and this behaviour shake the trust that people should have in the way that this institution runs and in the way that grants are applied. That is important. It should be important to all of us in here that people have trust in our politics and they have trust in work of government. So I am pleased to say that our government is taking a different approach, and that's why the Minister for Finance has asked her department to develop options that enhance the integrity, the accountability and the transparency of the Commonwealth grant rules and guidelines, to update these rules and guidelines that underpin the policy framework that federal government grants operate under. In doing that work the issues being considered are wide-ranging, but they do reflect the government's commitment to integrity in these matters because integrity is at the heart of how we should be approaching these problems.

I want to highlight the work of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which earlier this year held an inquiry into grants administration. The tabling of their report includes the line:

… the previous government pursued industrial scale rorting for blatantly partisan purposes.

The chair of that committee, the member for Bruce, made a really important point with regard to ministers accepting or rejecting departmental advice:

Ministers are not 'gods' and are subject to the law and the rules and must record properly and fully documented reasons.

Ministers are accountable to the public for their decisions and they should have a transparent process around that so it is clear how they go about making those decisions.

Our government will not follow the previous example set by those opposite. We do want integrity around government grants, and I thank the member for the motion.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.