David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Is the minister aware of any recent reports relating to the payment of taxpayer funded Commonwealth grants to registered organisations?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet again, yes, I am. Colleagues will be interested to know that between 2007 and 2013 the previous Labor government gave colleagues $27 million in grants to unions and union peak bodies in the employment portfolio alone—but get this—to support the unions in carrying out their core business. As I say, nice deal, if you can get one from Labor. The bulk of this money was provided by guess who? The now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, when he was the Minister for Employment.

During this time, Mr Shorten authorised an $11 million grant to his friends at the ACTU—$11 million. It was supposedly for a 10-year contract to run from 2012 to 2022. But get this: it came from the former Labor government's Productivity Education and Training Fund, also known as the PET Fund or, as it was coined, 'Mr Shorten's PET Fund'. From Mr Shorten's PET Fund, he took $11 million and handed it over to the ACTU. This funding was meant to be used for the ACTU to train union officials and educate them about the workplace relations system. I would have thought that was core business and that the unions should have been doing that in any event, but Mr Shorten thought they needed $11 million extra of taxpayers' money.

It gets better. Mr Shorten gave them an up-front payment of $11 million, when the whole thing was meant to go for 10 years. He advanced them $11 million up front when it was meant to go for 10 years. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister outline the tender process that took place to award this grant and any safeguards that the former minister put in place to ensure that this money was spent appropriately?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very disappointed to inform the Senate that, unfortunately, colleagues, I can't. I can't outline the tender process for this particular grant, nor, Senator Bushby, in response to your question, can I outline the safeguards which were put in place to ensure value for taxpayers' money, because they do not exist. I can inform you that the grant was also given to the ACTU so they could 'inform and educate their membership about productivity and identify initiatives that promote productivity growth'.

Given that the union movement does everything it can to fight against productivity growth in this country, one might say that this is a key outcome which they have not met. Colleagues, it gets worse, because there was no provision in this contract for any future coalition government to take back or recoup the money on behalf of taxpayers, if it was not spent in accordance with the grant. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister advise how Australian taxpayers have benefited as a result of these grants?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is going to be a quick answer, because there was no benefit that I can see to the Australian taxpayer. Given it was an $11 million grant to the ACTU, I can see that there was a direct benefit to the ACTU. But what's worse is that there was potentially a benefit to Mr Shorten. Just a year after giving this money over to the unions, he was seeking their support to become the leader of the Australian Labor Party and, on top of that, the ACTU did support him. What the ACTU is now doing with this money remains a mystery, because the bulk of the money remains unspent for the purposes it was intended. Yet again, what does this show? Mr Shorten, if he was ever given the keys to this place, could never be trusted to appropriately spend taxpayers' money.