DOCUMENTS

Senator SCARR (Queensland) (10:39): For her time in this place, Senator McKenzie will be known, more than anything, as a fearless advocate for rural and regional Australia and for people in rural and regional Australia to get their fair share, given all the disadvantages they face. That's what she'll be known for. I also admired, during my first term in this place, that Senator McKenzie took a very honourable course when she fell afoul of a very technical breach and did the right thing.

I think ministers on the other side could heed that example. I want to explain to people what we're talking about here because people watching this debate might not be aware of what we're talking about. When the government refers to 'closed non-competitive grant programs'—that's the phrase they use—what they're talking about is a grant that is open but that has only one possible applicant; there's only one person who can actually receive the grant money— Senator SCARR: A predetermined outcome, exactly.

It's closed and it's non-competitive, so it's already predetermined who's going to get the money. It's an absolute farce. The issue we have—and the issue all Australians should have—is that a disproportionate number of these grants go to Labor electorates.

The money goes to Labor electorates overwhelmingly, and that is unfair to the Australians in those electorates that miss out. That is the fundamental issue. The fact is, out of 150 federal electorates in this country, 45 got nothing through this program—not a dollar.

Yet there were Labor-held electorates—Braddon got 10 grants, worth $19.2 million. Shortland got 10 grants. Eden-Monaro got eight grants, worth $26.5 million.

Senator SCARR: Exactly, Senator McKenzie. That seat's held by the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, who is responsible for the section of the department administering the program. Hunter got seven grants, worth $4.7 million.

You've got all those Labor seats receiving these grants under this community infrastructure program, but you've got 45 seats—nearly a third of Australia—missing out. That's not fair. Those electorates and the people living in those electorates deserve a fair go.

That's why the opposition and the crossbench—it's not just the Liberal-National coalition; it's the crossbench as well—are saying this is unfair to the millions of Australians living in those 45 federal electorates who missed out under this unfair scheme. And it's not just us saying it. I want to quote the Centre for Public Integrity.

This is an outstanding non-government organisation made up of people who are deeply concerned about integrity and transparency in government processes. This is what they say: Whatever view is taken of the political controversy surrounding the distribution of funding, the Centre's concern is a systemic one. More than half a billion dollars of public money was allocated through a closed, non-competitive process, without a publicly explained basis for why that process was used or how projects were selected.

We will continue to ask the questions that matter: why was a closed process chosen; how were projects selected for invitation; and are the rules governing Commonwealth grants strong enough to ensure public money is allocated transparently … That's the Centre for Public Integrity calling this out. It's not just the opposition. I come back to those millions of Australians in those 45 electorates who missed out when there were Labor seats that received 10 grants or eight grants under this program.

It is unfair. That money, hundreds of millions of dollars, should be shared equitably across the whole of Australia for the most compelling projects and to meet the most compelling need. There should be fair and equitable distribution around Australia so every federal electorate and every Australian gets access, gets their fair share, so we don't have debates like this in the future.