Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Just to bring the parliament back after the suspension, we are talking today about the failure of the Morrison government to bring documents into the Senate following orders for the production of documents that were passed by the Senate. Minister Colbeck came in here and gave some lacklustre excuse, saying that he's refusing to release the colour coded spreadsheet. Does anyone really think that Minister Colbeck is going to turn up tomorrow and table this spreadsheet? I think it's very unlikely that that is going to happen. His excuse today was as wishy-washy and full of gobbledegook as some of the pathetic answers that we've heard in question time on this topic. Last week, when he was asked whether he'd seen the colour coded spreadsheet, he said he hadn't even seen it. Now he's refusing to bring it in. I really doubt that tomorrow, by 12 o'clock, the minister is going to bring the colour coded spreadsheet into the Senate. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt and that time. I will say it has been long enough. We know that this spreadsheet has been in existence. It is of crucial importance in the sports rorts saga for the public to know what information was held on that spreadsheet, who looked at it, who edited it, what clubs were rated with a certain score and how they were colour coded.

Let's not forget that when the minister found out that this spreadsheet did exist, when the ABC posted some of the information from the spreadsheet, the minister's first port of call—his first reaction to the existence of a spreadsheet such as this—was to issue a media release, essentially asking whether agencies had leaked the spreadsheet. He didn't seek to find the spreadsheet, to table it in parliament or to provide that information to the public so that we could really get to the bottom of the sports rorts saga. What he decided to do was attack the agencies, including the independent agency Sport Australia, who had given advice to the minister that this was a dodgy program to begin with. He started a witch-hunt. What a terrible response to finding out that there was a colour coded spreadsheet that showed that grants were decided not on merit but on whether they were in a marginal electorate.

Why has the Senate requested that this colour coded spreadsheet be presented? It's a very important document. I for one want to see all of the information that's contained in the document. But it's not just words that are contained in the document; it is the colour coding that is so important. Why is that? There's a reason the document wasn't in greyscale. It was colour coded for a reason. They were using this spreadsheet to decide how to give out grants based on whether the grant was for a marginal Liberal electorate or a marginal Nationals electorate. If it was colour coded red then they had to figure out a way to not make that grant. The spreadsheet, as I said, was colour coded for a reason. It was so colourful, so eye-catching, you could probably dress as this colour coded spreadsheet for Mardi Gras. I know it's coming up in a couple of weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a colour coded spreadsheet float walk down Oxford Street, because this thing was lit up. And we need to see the information that is in this spreadsheet, not walking down Oxford Street—although I would like to see that—but tabled in the Senate. The public deserves to know how the grants were assessed in the parallel process that the minister used to decide how grants would be given out. I know they won't release it—I wouldn't be surprised if they don't release it at all. I know Minister Colbeck has said that he is coming back to the Senate tomorrow to deal with this order for the production of documents, but we know that they're not going to release the document, because it is so damning. It shows the truth of how this process was conducted, and that is why they don't want to release it.

The other reason they don't want to release the document is that it would blow out of the water this notion that the sports rorts saga and the sports rorts saga 2 were all about helping women in sport. And, quite frankly, I want to see the spreadsheet because I am sick and tired of listening to the government coming in here and saying that what they were doing was to help women in sport, that it was about getting women change rooms and making sure that more women can participate.

We know that this government is hiding behind supposed support for women's sport as a reason for political interference in this program and that it was meant to be merit based. We know that because not only have we seen sports rorts saga 2 come around—a program that you weren't even allowed to apply for that the Prime Minister called 'the female facilities and water safety stream of funding', which was $150 million, not $100 million, and Scott Morrison said that that funding would support the development of change room facilities for sporting grounds and community swimming facilities across Australia—but, when we looked at where that money actually went, less than 15 per cent of that funding went to female change rooms. At the same time, he pumped $120 million into pools not across Australia, as he promised to do, but in coalition-held electorates, including more than $100 million for marginal coalition-held electorates. So, pardon the pun, because there are a lot of pools involved, but this notion that they were out there to help women in sport doesn't hold water. It is actually insulting to women who play sport, who love sport, that senators from the other side are coming in here and using support for women in sport as a smokescreen and trying to hide behind this as a support mechanism. We know it's not true because we know that clubs that applied to have female change rooms missed out on funding. Clubs that were scored higher than other clubs should have received funding but didn't because they weren't in a targeted seat. When we go back to the colour-coded spreadsheet, we find out: 'Oh, they didn't have the right colour applied to their grant.'

It has been revealed that a specific club in regional Queensland, the Innisfail rugby league and netball club, actually had a grant knocked back by the colour-coded spreadsheet process. They submitted an application in 2018 for $295,000 to build female change rooms under the sports grants program. The application itself got a score of 76 out of 100—well within the recommendations that Sport Australia would have made to the minister. The vice president and chairman of the board of the Innisfail Brothers Leagues Club, Vince O'Brien, said he got really good feedback on the application and that it was extremely well done and rated highly—that's the feedback he got on the application to build these female change rooms in regional Queensland, in Innisfail, in a non-marginal seat. But then Mr O'Brien says: 'But then we got knocked back. Obviously, something happened that we are unaware of.' We know what happened: there was a parallel process conducted by the Minister for Sport at the time, Senator Bridget McKenzie, and other members of the government's campaign team. 'Obviously, something happened that we are unaware of.' Well, we would like to know how that happened to this club in regional Queensland and we would like to make sure that the documents that the Senate has asked for, which would provide some clarification for members of the community, like Mr O'Brien, are tabled in the Senate.

I will say this about women's sport: frankly, it is insulting to women who play sport that a government would try to hide behind them to get themselves out of this political scandal. Nobody has forgotten that this government cut funding to the ABC, which meant that coverage of both the W-League and the Women's National Basketball League ceased, ending 35 years of commitment to regular coverage of women's sports. I haven't forgotten about those cuts and the women who play sport haven't forgotten about those cuts. This week the Matildas, our national women's soccer team, the most-loved team in the country, are playing international qualifiers and we can't watch them on free-to-air TV.

To those opposite: don't come in here and decide that you're going to pin this political scandal on your supposed support for women's sport, because it doesn't hold water; it is splashing in the pools that you haven't even built in places like Corangamite. Nobody believes you. That's why you don't want to present these documents, because you know that, when they are tabled, they will make sure that people know that the reason you gave these grants out was to prop up your campaigns in marginal seats, and you'll have to go out to the women of Australia who play sport and explain to them why you used them as a scapegoat. I'm happy for you to go and have that conversation with them, because they already know your government's record on women in sport.

I want to go, finally, to the two other documents that the Senate has asked for: the Gaetjens report and the advice from the Attorney-General on legal authority. No-one can understand why the government won't release these reports, when they are seemingly so proud and so confident about what they say. They're so confident about the information in these reports yet they will not table them in parliament.

In the Prime Minister's press conference he said, in regard to the PM&C report:

While there may be differing views about the fairness of the process, the Minister used the discretion she was afforded accordingly. The Secretary concludes, 'I do not believe there is a basis for you to find that the Minister had breached standards in that respect.' He goes on to note that he did not find evidence that this process was unduly influenced by reference to marginal or targeted electorates.

That is an incredibly different statement from the Auditor-General's report, and, conveniently, one that gets the government out of a whole lot of trouble. To those opposite: if it's such an important report, if it clears the government of unduly influencing the process by reference to marginal and targeted electorates, then why won't you table it? Why won't you bring it in here? Put the saga to bed. Tell the public what they want to know. Bring the information in here.

The other piece of advice that Minister Payne won't table is the legal advice from the Attorney-General. The Prime Minister said:

There was also a matter that was raised in relation to the legality of the action and decisions taken in the authority for the Minister. And I referred that matter to the Attorney-General … Having consulted with the AGS and in the preparation of this advice, he—

the Attorney-General—

considers that the Auditor-General's assumption arising out of his apparent interpretation of section 11 of the Australian Sports Commission Act is, as he notes with respect, not correct.

Again, it is very convenient that this advice is in complete contrast to the Auditor-General's report. It's very convenient and it's great for the government. It clears them again. But we can't see it; the public can't see it. They don't want to table it because they know that if we get our hands on that document we might get more information that we need to know about this sports rorts saga. We might finally find out why clubs in Innisfail missed out—clubs in regional Queensland that need jobs and depend on this government. We are going to find out why people in Innisfail missed out on female change rooms, and we're not going to like the answer. That's why they're not going to come and table the documents—because they have no transparency and no accountability to the Australian people.