DOCUMENTS

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (11:01): In commencing my remarks, I note that the government has dealt with this issue extensively, including through the debate that's just occurred in the Senate and through question time. The Prime Minister has dealt with these matters, and the order that this attendance relates to has been responded to.

The order refers to commitments made in the 2025 election. Of course, Australians elected us on the promise of delivering our commitments. We are delivering on those commitments with a proper process.

The government is delivering on our 2025 election commitments—commitments made publicly in the public eye by our candidates—through a one-off, closed, non-competitive grant program known as the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. The approach this government takes follows the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles. It's very different to the approach taken by the previous government and the approach taken by Senator McKenzie.

Those rules and principles were updated to take account of the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit inquiry into Commonwealth grants administration. The Commonwealth grants guidelines explicitly allow closed, non-competitive grant processes and assert that better practice non-competitive grants should name eligible applicants and provide information about how eligibility is determined.

Program guidelines for the MLCIP, the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, have been publicly available for over a year, and they make clear who can apply for funding and the eligibility and assessment criteria they must meet successfully to receive funding. The guidelines clearly state that applications which do not meet these benchmarks will not be considered value for money and will not be awarded funding.

Ministers also do not make decisions on applications in their electorate. These decisions are made by an alternative minister. The Prime Minister was not the decision-maker for the grants referenced in the order.

The subject matter of the order falls within the responsibility of the minister for infrastructure. Requests for documentation in relation to these grants would appropriately be directed to the department of infrastructure, and I note that a number of similar orders have been directed to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

This includes order 670, moved by Senator Payman. The minister has tabled in her response the decision brief related to one of the grants, which are the subject of this order. I reiterate that the subject matter of the order falls within the responsibility of the minister for infrastructure, and requests for documentation would be appropriately directed to the department of infrastructure, as Senator Payman chose to do.

I note, as did Senator McCarthy, Senator Watt and Senator Sheldon, that it is surprising that Senator McKenzie seeks to insert herself so comprehensively into this debate. We do all remember the administration of grants under her leadership. We remember what Senator McKenzie did as a minister.

As Senator McCarthy indicated, the ANAO and the Auditor-General could not have been clearer in their advice in the wake of those very significant controversies. The Auditor-General said that, when it comes to election commitments, you still need to have a grants program and you still need guidelines, assessment processes and all those things that are requirements for the bureaucracy and decision-makers to go through— Senator McALLISTER: in getting an appropriate decision made.

The expectation under the rules is that you set up a program, you set up a program objective, you set up the criteria and the guidelines for the program and then you undertake actions under those things. That's precisely what this government has done. The program that Senator McKenzie oversaw in no way met that test.

It fell far short— Senator McALLISTER: of the expectations of the ANAO, and it fell far short of the expectations of the public. This government made public election commitments. We made them transparently, and we have gone about delivering them in a transparent way.

We've done it in a way that follows the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles with public program guidelines, including eligibility and assessment criteria. Senator McKenzie and others may not like it, but this is the way that you deliver election commitments appropriately. (Time expired)