QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:15): I rise as well to take note of the answers given by the minister today. I think it's really important to start with what we're actually talking about, because, so far, in the contributions from those on the other side, it has really been all about politics. The Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program is clear about what it is.
It's a one-off closed program established to deliver Labor's publicly announced 2025 election commitments. These commitments were made openly. They were announced.
Communities knew what was promised. Australians voted. And this government is delivering what it said it would deliver.
But 'closed' does not mean 'unchecked'. Projects must meet program guidelines, demonstrate value for money and meet departmental benchmarks. Local MPs and ministers do not assess projects in their own electorates.
That is how accountability works. Our approach follows the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles and the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. There's nothing unusual about a government establishing a program to deliver on its election commitments—nothing unusual at all.
In fact, governments of both persuasions have done this for years. The real question is whether the commitments are public, whether there are clear rules, whether value for money is tested and whether independent scrutiny remains in place. So, having established what this program actually is, I have listened with some amazement to the outrage from those opposite.
If the coalition really want to have a debate about the proper administration of grants, I'm very happy to have that debate. Australians remember 'sports rorts', the $100 million competitive sports grants program. Sports Australia assessed the applications against published criteria, but the office of the minister of the time, Senator McKenzie's office, ran its own parallel process, producing multiple versions of colour coded spreadsheets, tracking electorates and political parties, while projects moved on and off the 'approved' list.
The Auditor-General found there was no record explaining why some projects were added and others removed. I'm sure Senator Scarr would be very happy to go back and have a look at that report! In the final round, 73 per cent of the grants approved by the minister had not been recommended by Sports Australia.
The sports rorts were not an isolated example in the track record of those opposite when they were in government. My colleague Senator Ananda-Rajah also mentioned these in her contribution. She talked about the coalition's commuter car parks.
Senator O'Neill interjecting— Senator CAROL BROWN: I know! They announced hundreds of millions of dollars for car parks overwhelmingly in electorates where they wanted to hold a win. The Auditor-General again found the selection process was not open or transparent and was not merit based.
Not one of the original 47 sites selected for funding had been proposed by the department. Seventy-seven per cent were in coalition held electorates. And they come in here, faux outraged, for a political purpose only.
(Time expired)