QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH (Victoria) (15:07): When the Albanese government was elected in 2022 we came in with a very clear promise that we were here to restore faith in politics and in the political establishment. This was after a decade of coalition rule that saw sports rorts, colour-coded spreadsheets, commuter car parks—I remember those well—and of course robodebt bearing down on the Australian people.

We saw a weakening of public institutions, we saw attacks on public servants and we saw the coalition perfect the model of taxpayer money being used for their pet projects and slush funds. Now we have a coalition that is running interference for big tech by opposing the digital duty of care bill as well as running interference for big tobacco. So they are taking this to a whole other level, and they are standing there and pointing the bone at us, claiming that what were genuine and legitimate election commitments that both parties—indeed, the crossbench candidates—have all engaged in are somehow pork-barrelling.

I emphatically reject this suggestion. When I ran for the lower house in the seat of Higgins—which those of you on the other side will remember was held by the Liberal Party for 75 years—I had a whole range of election commitments. Now, I went in not actually believing I would win that seat.

That seat had never been held by the Labor Party—ever. And I found that one of the key asks from that community was to fix their swimming pool. The Carnegie Memorial Swimming Pool was leaking, it was overgrown with weeds and it had been drained.

But the community had a real affection for this piece of infrastructure. It had been there since the postwar period. I asked them what they needed.

They said they needed in the order of $10 million to $15 million to fix the pool. So I made the commitment, after consultation with the party, that I would do that if I won the seat. My point is that these election commitments are made at elections by candidates, and they are contingent on winning the seat.

It is not a given that you're going to win the seat, and I certainly didn't expect to win the seat, but, when I did win the seat, I upheld that promise to that community, and that $15 million was given. It underwent rigorous processes. It was managed by the department at arm's length from me and at arm's length from the minister.

The money was delivered to the local council, who then chipped in an additional something like $50 million or $60 million, and they built this pool. It was delivered on time. It was actually delivered under budget by that council, who managed it well.

The community benefited—not just the community of Higgins but the surrounding neighbours as well. My point is that election commitments are made in election periods, and they are contingent on actually winning the seat. When the Labor Party wins a swathe of seats, of course more money goes to those seats, which are now Labor seats.

When the script is flipped and the Liberal Party or the coalition—if they get their act together—actually win some seats, then more money flows there. The important thing here is that it's not the election commitments per se that we make. It's the fact that, after the candidate is actually successful, the process is well managed by the department at arm's length from the minister.

That's exactly what happened with this fund, the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. I reject any suggestion that this is pork-barrelling at all. (Time expired)