Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What we've learnt today is that, whilst Minister Colbeck wasn't responsible for administering sports rorts, he was an accomplice in the cover-up. The minister has had 12 months to be honest with the Australian people and this parliament, to come in and explain what has gone on, to provide answers to those volunteers, those mums and dads—all those people who gave up so much of their time, in good faith, to apply, following the guidelines that were put forward by Sport Australia. They put in the volunteer hours—and we've heard from so many clubs this year about how many hours they dedicated to putting in a submission—and then they were dudded by this government, and all for political reasons. Yet those in the government don't have the good grace to come in and be upfront with those people who volunteered their time, tell them what's gone on and admit that this was all about their re-election. That was what their focus was on the whole time. So it is absolutely outrageous that, on this program, their political decision-making was paramount. They are treating this Senate with contempt by not providing the legal advice today—and I will come to that in more detail shortly.

They absolutely need to level with the Australian people. They need to fund those clubs that this government dudded—those clubs that received a high score and were judged as deserving by Sport Australia but were dudded. We know who they are. The government should do the right thing and fund those clubs. We've had a budget since this, and the government still failed to do it in the budget. But it's not too late. So many of those clubs that came and gave evidence to us are still desperate to have these upgrades. The work they have done in putting forward their submissions needs to be rewarded. We heard from so many worthy groups, councils and Indigenous councils who want to encourage young people to get involved in sport and to give Indigenous people an opportunity, in a place like Woorabinda, to play at a football ground with club rooms and appropriate facilities. We know that there's been much growth in women's sport, in particular, and that women's sport has been neglected. We've heard the stories about the women who have to change in their car or out the back of the club rooms, which is clearly not appropriate. And it is this government that's responsible for those things.

We've seen a pattern of behaviour—not answering questions on this and not providing legal advice—as they try to cover up what really went on. They won't answer questions such as: 'What was the involvement of the Prime Minister and his office?' We know that there were 136 emails between the minister's office and the Prime Minister's office about this program. We know that they won't even release the spreadsheets to us. So the committee has not seen the spreadsheets that the ministers made their decisions on. We haven't seen any of those. They won't release them to us. We haven't seen the Gaetjens report. We haven't seen the talking points about extending this program that were prepared for Minister McKenzie's meeting with the Prime Minister and his office.

As Senator Farrell said in his speech, as it got closer to the election, the political decision-making got worse. In round 1, it was 40 per cent ignored. In round 2, it was 70 per cent ignored. By round 3, as the election was imminent, it was 73 per cent ignored. The closer the election got, the more political the decision-making got. We also have no idea who authorised the five additional projects that were granted funding after caretaker kicked in. Caretaker applied, they still gave out five more grants, and we're none the wiser about who was responsible for that. That is just outrageous.

But let's get to the substance of today's legal advice. It was against the request of the Senate, on the authority of the then Minister McKenzie—to authorise grants as part of sports rorts is just another example in a long saga of the LNP government's lack of transparency and accountability. The letter from Sport Australia today claims that, due to legal proceedings commencing on 23 July this year, they are concerned that the Australian Sports Commission's interests may be adversely affected if the legal professional privilege applicable to the advice is prejudiced by the requirement to table this advice summary. The ASC's claim, however, doesn't explain why the minister made a PII claim on 16 July, before any legal proceedings had been commenced. There was a failure of the minister to come in here and address that issue specifically. This is even though the Beechworth Lawn Tennis Club, who asked for a $500,000 grant—and they were a high-scoring club, with 78/100; that's well above the threshold identified by the Audit Office of being eligible—requested that Sport Australia review their decision on 4 March this year. Sport Australia were still prepared to provide a confidential briefing of legal advice to the committee in May. Sport Australia again makes the claim that, on the basis of legal professional privilege, they should not be required to table the legal advice.

However, legal professional privilege has not been accepted in the Senate's grounds for refusing to provide information or documents. The Senate has rejected government claims that there is a longstanding practice of not disclosing legal advice. Legal advice to the federal government is often disclosed by the government itself. As in the letter and the PII claim itself, the disclosure of the information may materially affect the Commonwealth's position in pending legal proceedings. The committee was not satisfied with that—and that the correspondent explains the specific harm to the public interest that would result. Again, there has been no explanation as to the risk of providing a confidential briefing to the committee in camera, as the committee said we were happy to accept. Further, it needs to be stated that we consider this information vital evidence for the inquiry as it goes to the very legal foundations of the program and whether then Minister McKenzie even had the legal authority to be authorising these grants.

The legal experts the committee has heard from have all been unable to find the suggested legal authority the then Minister McKenzie claims to have had to make these grants. I went through some of these issues with the legal authorities. We heard from Professor Lindell. We heard from Professor Twomey. These are experts in constitutional law. They could not identify the legal authority that the minister had to be the decision-maker in this process. It's not enough that it was in the guidelines. That is irrelevant. They had to identify the legal authority, and they were unable to do it. This is why we have pursued this. Sport Australia were originally happy to give us the summary in camera, which we had agreed to. But then it was Minister Colbeck who claimed the PII, which is why we've brought it to the Senate and why the Senate voted for that in the debate on the interim report on Tuesday night. So we will continue to pursue it, but we will continue to pursue a whole range of issues, and that's why the sports rorts inquiry will be going on into next year. We had an aim to finish it this year, but the fact that the government won't cooperate makes it all the more necessary to continue to pursue it.

So what are the 136 emails between the minister's office and the Prime Minister's office discussing this scheme? What is the content of those? Give us access to the spreadsheets so that we can see which clubs missed out and what scores they received, and so that we can actually talk to them and let them tell their story. Some of the compelling evidence we have seen this year, the most compelling evidence we have seen this year, has come from those volunteers, those mums and dads that I talked about, who put in the work and were dudded by this government. They deserve the opportunity to be heard. They also deserve the opportunity to ask this government to do the right thing and fund those clubs that received the highest scores.

We will continue to pursue the legal authority, because it puts the very basis of this program in doubt and the government haven't been able to provide assurances. The Gaetjens report, which is another document the government haven't released, actually goes to the heart of why Minister McKenzie lost her job. What was in those talking points that were prepared for then Minister McKenzie for her meeting with the Prime Minister as they discussed future rounds of this program? What led to the political decision-making that we saw? And who approved those five projects after caretaker had been started? This is a fundamental element of democracy, but this government have not provided any answers for that at all, and there are five projects out there that were given grants with no authority.

Question agreed to.