Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, the tabletop dancers project, as it was referred to. Other worthwhile projects were simply ignored or not considered in any proper way.

There was the Tumbi Creek fiasco, where money was advanced for a project to dredge a creek. There were serious questions about whether it was an appropriate project, given the wider consideration of problems in that region. When the money was no longer needed because the rain actually flushed out the creek and the dredging was not required, attempts were made to divert these funds to some other projects. There is no doubt in my mind that there was political interference by people associated with it—indeed, members of the coalition parties. That evidence was overwhelming. There was evidence that staff of ministers had engaged in an exchange of secret emails to divert those funds to other works.

When we tried to have that matter brought before the Privileges Committee—and, from my recollection, the President concluded that it should have been given precedence in going to the Privileges Committee—the government used its numbers to stop that. That is the only occasion that longstanding members on that committee can recall where a matter was not referred to the Privileges Committee when there was a clear, prima facie case of political interference.

This government just says: ‘Oh well, there are only six projects that the committee looked at. They were atypical.’ Then they say, ‘In the case of Tumbi Creek and A2 Dairy Marketers, no Australian government funds were spent by the conclusion of the inquiry.’ That is not the point. The reason that the funds were not ultimately spent was that the facts were out in the open and, in the end, the government became embarrassed and pulled the funds. The facts are that this committee looked at the processes involved in considering the applications that had been lodged and whether they had been approved or rejected by the department and, ultimately, by the minister.

There was evidence of other projects where, after the area consultative committee had considered the merits of a proposal, the department determined that in their considered view the projects should not receive funding. Yet those projects did receive funding. It seemed to be a situation where the government, or somebody, had decided: ‘Maybe it should proceed. It is in a marginal electorate, and there is an election coming up.’ That is all on the record.

The other point I want to draw attention to in the time I have available—and I think we could speak for a lot longer about this extensive inquiry—are the steps that were taken by the department to, in my view, sandbag the operation of the committee and prevent the committee from carrying out its properly constituted task of conducting this inquiry into this substantial government funded program. We sought information from the area consultative committees—documentation and other forms of information—about projects that they had considered. After the committee had written seeking that information, the department wrote to the area consultative committees and told them that they did not have to comply with our request. They gave them advice that privacy considerations meant that they really had not only no obligation to comply with the Senate committee’s request but also probably a duty not to comply. When it was pointed out that that was really a severe interference with the committee’s processes and was also incorrect legal advice, the department then said, ‘It’s up to you to decide if you want to comply.’ In the end, of course, we received the information but it took us a lot of effort. In fact, in the end we had to subpoena some of that information in a couple of cases. This committee was hamstrung by the failure of departmental officials who were maybe acting on instructions not to cooperate—I believe that, but testing it is another issue. I think this is a totally inadequate response. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.