Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Women (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Marielle Smith today relating to the Community Sport Infrastructure Grants Program.

I'd like to take up where Senator Marielle Smith finished off her questions, because what this government has done is an absolute scandal.

Can I talk about the South Adelaide AFL club in the seat of Kingston. It happened to have the misfortune to be in a safe Labor seat. They've got an amazing local member by the name of Amanda Rishworth, and she's turned what was a marginal seat into a safe seat. So, what was the reward for this football club? In the last couple of years, this club has won two women's premierships. They've got 45 female players with three clubs. They're the most successful AFL women's team in the South Australian football league. They applied for a grant to upgrade the facilities for their female players. They've actually got more premierships than they've got female toilets. They've got one female toilet and two premierships. They put in their application and they were the perfect example of what the Prime Minister claims—and we've just heard it from the Minister for Women—that this government was on about: increasing female participation.

This application was rejected but, in a neighbouring seat, which was a marginal seat previously held by Minister Christopher Pyne, they have a rugby team. I have to say that rugby is not a big game in South Australia, but that club got a $500,000 grant for women's change rooms. There is nothing wrong with that, except that that club has no women members. They had fallen out with their women members a couple of years earlier and they had no women members. I might also point out they haven't actually built these change rooms.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Adelaide Juventus?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja refers to Adelaide Juventus. If this government is serious about restoring some credibility—this afternoon we're going to hear about a sports integrity bill from this government. Senator Seselja and his colleagues are going to try to improve integrity for sports men and women in Australia. What about showing a bit of integrity yourself? Out of those 400 clubs which Sport Australia said ought to be getting the grants—and we've heard this from Senator Smith this afternoon—12 of them were going to help improve the facilities for women sports players in this country. What about this government showing some integrity—the sort of integrity that they're requiring sports men and women to adopt? Why don't they show a little bit of integrity themselves and say to those 400 clubs that Sport Australia recommended get a grant, 'Yes, we're going to give you the money that we should've given you before the last election'?

If this government had any integrity, that's exactly what they would be doing. But no.

When this proposition came up in the lower house, moved by our leader, Anthony Albanese, what did the government do? They shut the debate down. Well, it's too late to do that. There's going to be an inquiry, and we're going to get to the bottom, whether the government likes it or not, of this absolute sports rort. The minister treated public money—$100 million of public money—as if it were her own personal chequebook. This was an industrial-scale pork-barrelling exercise designed to get the government re-elected. It was nothing else. The fact is that Minister Cormann kept adding and adding and adding to the amount of money and, every time they did it, all of the recommendations from Sport Australia were rejected and they were replaced.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They didn't give enough to Labor seats!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, let's have a look at it. We're going to have a look at those Labor seats. (Time expired)

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, colleagues, what we've heard today from the Labor Party is a lot of exaggeration, a lot of conjecture and a lot of long bows being drawn but not a lot of evidence and certainly no case based on any evidence. We haven't heard that, because the words that the Labor Party have been using aren't actually from the Auditor-General's report about this project. The words that they have been using are the ones you'd expect from an opposition with a particular interest in attacking a government. So they're throwing around words like 'rort' and 'corrupt'. The Leader of the Opposition had to withdraw at one stage. They went a bit too far. They're desperate to make these points. But the principle here is that we should assess this program on its merits and on the facts, and none of those conclusions that the Labor Party are trying to rely on are actually in this report.

What I'd like to do, in the time I have, is refer back to this report and what it actually says. This report from the Auditor-General is into a sport funding program—not unusual. Auditor-General reports are there for a reason: to look at all of these types of programs. It has made four recommendations. Three of those four recommendations are made to Sport Australia, an independent body in the Commonwealth government, and my understanding is that they've all been accepted by Sport Australia. One of the recommendations was made to the Australian government. I won't read it all out, but in effect that recommendation asks that, when the government advises and makes decisions on reporting requirements, we do so in a way that extends rules on Commonwealth entities to a minister as the decision-maker. The government has accepted that recommendation, and we will implement that accordingly.

It's also important to look at other things that this report says that, of course, the Labor Party would not refer to. The Auditor-General's report says:

Ineligible applications were identified and no applications assessed as ineligible were awarded grant funding.

So all of the funding under this scheme was provided to projects that were eligible for funding. Another quote, from page 33:

Each application assessed as eligible was assessed against the three published merit criteria.

At this point, I will just draw a contrast to an older Auditor-General report, on the third and fourth funding rounds of the Regional Development Australia fund, which was administered, at the time the funding was made, by former minister Catherine King. In that report, the Auditor-General concluded that 56 per cent of applications in these two rounds that were awarded funding had been assessed by the department to not satisfactorily meet one of the criteria. So in that report you had a Labor minister making more than half of the funding decisions on projects which did not meet criteria, whereas in this program every project funded met the criteria.

The issue that the Labor Party is trying to latch onto here, to leap all the way from saying the minister has made decisions and run a process to saying this is somehow a rort, is just the simple fact that the minister has made her own decisions. But I believe that the Australian public expect that we here as elected representatives, and the ministers that are chosen from those elected representatives, are actually put here to make decisions.

We take advice from bodies like Sport Australia and from government departments. They provide worthy advice. They are hardworking officials. But they are not elected representatives and their advice is not there to be rubber stamped, because, if it were, what would we all be here for? Why are we here, then? 'We're not needed! Let's get rid of us! Let's get rid of elections! Let's get rid of all of the crap that the Australian people have to put up with during elections and let's just let the Public Service take charge!'—that is, at its heart, the argument from the Labor Party, that we should do away with the Westminster system and just allow unelected public officials to make decisions.

All that's happened is that the minister has made decisions, using her judgement against criteria that were established under guidelines, about projects which have delivered enormous benefits to sporting clubs all around the country. I don't have time to go through it, but we have already heard in this chamber today how the Labor members of parliament were welcoming those funding recommendations. They were supportive and happy that the minister had taken up their efforts and lobbied for projects. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, said that he was thankful that Minister McKenzie had lobbied for a project in his seat. But now, apparently—eight or nine months later—it was a great sin for Minister McKenzie to be lobbying for that project, because it suits Mr Albanese's political purposes to make that claim.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian community has been truly shocked by the brazenness of the sports rorts saga, and I'd like to make a few brief comments today about the role of the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in his approach to handling his involvement in this. The answers given today by members of the government really show the unapologetic arrogance of this crew, of the government of the day. The role of the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is unique in our system. That department is the head of the Australian Public Service. It's responsible for setting the tone and driving the work of our entire apparatus of government. We've been very fortunate in this country to have a number of very serious, accomplished secretaries of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This has been of benefit not only to the Australian people but also to our prime ministers, who have had unvarnished, expert advice on every aspect of public policy independent of politics.

When Mr Gaetjens was first appointed as Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, we in Labor were willing to give him an opportunity to prove that he was willing to uphold this principle of independence and to put proper process ahead of political influence from some in this place. Along with many in the Public Service, we had our doubts. Since the election of the Howard government in the 1990s, Mr Gaetjens has spent very little time as a Commonwealth public servant. The majority of his time has been spent as a Liberal staffer, including three years as Mr Morrison's chief of staff. We were concerned when Mr Gaetjens said publicly that he and Mr Morrison were in a 'mind meld'. Mr Gaetjens said at the time:

I can tell the rest of the public service what's in the Prime Minister's mind.

This was not a good early sign of his approach to the job, but, as I said, we gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Then came the sports rorts scandal. A few weeks ago the Auditor-General released what can only be described as a scathing report, claiming:

Funding decisions for each of the three rounds were not informed by clear advice and were not consistent with the program guidelines.

Instead the report found decisions to award funding were focused on electorates the coalition was targeting at the 2019 election. This approach hurt some of the most deserving sports clubs. One club missed out despite being rated 98 out of 100 on merit by Sport Australia. Instead of sacking the minister then and there, what did the Prime Minister do? He asked Mr Gaetjens to provide another report into whether there had been a breach of ministerial standards. This second and unnecessary report was an opportunity for Mr Gaetjens to uphold his office independently and to produce a report consistent with evidence provided by the independent Auditor-General. But, instead, the secretary dished up a report that gave the Prime Minister exactly what he was after: political cover for himself while also providing a basis to sack the minister. According to the Prime Minister, Mr Gaetjens 'did not find evidence that this process was unduly influenced by reference to marginal or targeted electorates'. How can our nation's most senior public servant have a completely opposite view to the independent Auditor-General?

There are only two possible conclusions from this series of events. The first is that the Prime Minister has misled the Australian people about the advice given by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, in which case Mr Gaetjens should correct the record. The second possibility is that Mr Gaetjens tried to protect the Prime Minister from political scrutiny by delivering advice engineered for political expediency. On this second possibility, given Mr Gaetjens's stated mind-reading abilities, Mr Morrison didn't even need to tell Mr Gaetjens that he wanted an inquiry that was a complete whitewash.

He didn't need to tell Mr Gaetjens to make his inquiry a political fix, because Mr Gaetjens has told us that he knows what's in the Prime Minister's mind.

So where do we go to from here? The only way for the Prime Minister to reassure us of Mr Gaetjens's suitability for his current role is to release the Gaetjens report immediately. Otherwise, this question will follow Mr Gaetjens throughout his tenure. Is he the head of the Australian Public Service or is he Mr Morrison's chief servant? Is Mr Gaetjens responsible for ensuring the Australian government gets the advice it needs to make decisions in the interests of the Australian people? Or is he Mr Morrison's head butler, serving up cooked-up political fixes when the bell rings? Mr Morrison's credibility, Mr Gaetjens's credibility and the credibility of the Australian Public Service hangs on the answer.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just start by responding to that grubby attack on our most senior public servant from Senator Gallagher. That was a grubby, disgusting attack on our most senior public servant we just heard. Let's be clear about what's going on here from the Australian Labor Party and opposition in this place. On the one hand, they're coming in and saying, 'Ministers should do as they're told by public servants.' On the other hand, they're coming in here and launching a grubby, disgusting attack on a senior and distinguished Australian public servant.

This in fact has got nothing to do with what we're talking about today. It's got to do with the fact that the Labor Party, before the election, were absolutely certain that they were going to be coming into government. We all saw the pictures posing and saying, 'We're ready to go,' before their taxation policy was fundamentally rejected by the Australian people. Mr Bowen, who of course contributed to the loss at the 2019 election, hinted strongly that he was going to sack Mr Gaetjens as Treasury secretary if he came in. So don't give us this absolute rubbish. That was a grubby attack. That was beneath you, Senator Gallagher. That was absolutely beneath you. Mr Gaetjens was on your hit list and you didn't get to take him out. You didn't get to take him out because the Australian people rejected your agenda. I think that was a grubby and disgraceful attack.

Turning to the actual questions that were asked, I don't recall a grubby attack in the questions on Mr Gaetjens. But let's go to the attack that the Labor Party launched. We heard from member after member of the Labor Party in statements on their Facebook pages and in their press releases a welcoming of the investments in their communities. Many of them were in what I would regard, and what most of us would regard, as relatively safe Labor seats. We heard Senator Farrell out there decrying certain investments in South Australia. He seemed to be complaining. The seat of Adelaide, a Labor held seat by a pretty considerable margin—I think, over eight per cent—received $1.5 million in grants. We saw here in Canberra some wonderful investments, some absolutely critical investments under this program. We saw in the seat of Bean, for the Arawang Netball Association, the Molonglo Juggernauts, the Southern Canberra Gymnastics Club, the Southlands Tennis Club and the Woden Valley Gymnastics Club, some really critical investments in infrastructure, which frankly the ACT government, if they were doing a better job, would have invested in by now. But we've had to come in through superior economic management and invest in these critical community facilities.

Let's go through the list. They talked about seats. In the seat of Canberra, we saw $882,000 and some amazing investments in Brumbies rugby, female change room facilities, dragon boats at Lotus Bay and upgrades to the Canberra Netball Association facilities and the Reid Tennis Club. These were some really significant investments.

Then we have Grayndler—that marginal seat which is held by Mr Albanese by, I think, about 15.9 per cent against the Greens and so obviously would have been a clear target seat for the coalition at the last election!

We saw, of course, the investment of $500,000 for upgraded lighting, access and amenities at Dawn Fraser Baths, and we had the Leader of the Opposition going out there and thanking Minister McKenzie for her work in helping to secure this—thanking Minister McKenzie. And we've had member after member of the Labor Party, even while they were referring these issues, going out there and almost trying to claim credit for these investments from the coalition government. These investments are critical, and Senator Canavan has debunked the arguments that have been put forward by the Labor Party.

I want to finish, once again, on this grubby attack from Senator Gallagher on Mr Gaetjens. Don't attack Mr Gaetjens because he was on your hit list and you wanted to get rid of him. There are plenty of senior public servants who have served as staffers in Labor Party offices. We respect their role. You should respect the role of the head of the Australian Public Service and not get into that grubby bashing. (Time expired)

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

It seems to me that the argument the government were trying to make during question time today and in the contributions after question time is that we should thank them for rorting this program—that we should be grateful that they used a colour-coded spreadsheet to rort what should have been a merit based program. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, because maybe they don't understand how this program was meant to work. This program was meant to be the granting of applications by an independent agency based on merit. The ANAO report found that merit wasn't taken into account and the program guidelines were not followed. So you can cherrypick what paragraphs you want from that report, but the findings of the report are very clear: merit was not taken into account and the program guidelines were not followed.

Why is that important? It's important because mums, dads and volunteers of sporting clubs spent their time putting grant applications together. They spent hours and hours putting grant applications together and put them in thinking that they were going to be judged on merit, but they weren't. They thought that the program was merit based, but really the government had a colour-coded spreadsheet. Why did the ANAO report come back with that finding? Sport Australia provided recommendations based on merit and grant criteria, but, instead of following the recommendations, the government created a spreadsheet and colour-coded that spreadsheet based on political parties and electorates. That is how they decided who deserved a grant: whether or not it would help them win a seat.

This political interference was so blatant that Sport Australia actually had to warn the minister that her interference was compromising its independence. The government were so blatant that they handed out novelty cheques and had candidates making funding announcements. They didn't even tell the local MPs that the funding announcement was going to be made, and they even made sure that they had a spreadsheet with the electorates that they were targeting colour-coded so they could make sure that merit was not going to be taken into account when these grants were given out. But the government have not and will not apologise to the clubs who missed out on this funding, and we know why that is—it's because this went right to the very top.

Now, some of them are trying to backtrack a little and distance themselves. We noticed that Minister Payne wouldn't come clean about her involvement in this scandal, but we've also got the new Nationals deputy leader, the member for Maranoa, admitting that this was a partisan process, and their local members are also backtracking as well. The member for Leichhardt boasted about working to secure a grant for a club in his electorate, but then later backtracked and said that he played absolutely no role in obtaining the grant. They want to distance themselves. If anything, they want to put all the blame on the former Deputy Leader of the Nationals. They want her to hang for this, but everything else is fine. But they can't and won't apologise because leaked emails show that the Prime Minister was looking over the colour-coded spreadsheet and making decisions, leading to an adjustment of funding.

That's what that email said: that the funding needed to be adjusted. They were part of the decision-making.

Finally, I just want to clear up the issue around the women's change rooms. The Prime Minister has said that the reason that he was involved in this program was that he wanted to ensure that girls didn't have to change out the back of the shed. But we know that 12 grants for female change rooms were rejected by this politicised process. One of those applications came from the Innisfail Brothers Leagues Club, where women have been forced to change in tents after this government rejected their application for funding for women's change rooms. And do you know why it was rejected? Because it wasn't in a target seat. It wasn't going to win this government an election, so it was ignored. Hundreds of clubs around Australia, run by volunteers, thought that if they had a go, they would get a go. How wrong they were! This government dudded them. They made sure that clubs weren't going to get the funding unless there was a pay-off for the government. Labor will not be thanking the government for this process, because that's not how they should be doing business. 'The report says what it says'—what a terrible excuse. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.