I just want to explain to people what we’re talking about here, because people watching this debate might not be aware of what we’re discussing.
When the government refers to, and I quote, “closed, non-competitive grant programs”, that’s the phrase they use. What they’re talking about is a grant program that is open, but where there’s only one possible applicant. There’s only one organisation or entity that can actually receive the grant money.
A predetermined outcome.
Exactly. It’s closed and it’s non-competitive. The recipient has effectively already been determined.
The issue we have, and the issue all Australians should have, is that a disproportionate number of these grants are going to Labor electorates. The money is flowing overwhelmingly to Labor-held seats, and that is unfair to Australians in electorates that miss out.
That is the fundamental issue.
The facts are these: there are 150 federal electorates in Australia. Forty-five of those electorates received nothing, absolutely nothing, through this program. Not one grant. Not one dollar.
Meanwhile, Labor-held electorates received multiple grants. Braddon received 10 grants worth $19.2 million. Shortland received 10 grants. Eden-Monaro received eight grants worth $26.5 million.
Exactly, Senator McKenzie. And that electorate is held by the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, who is responsible for the section of the department that administers this program.
Hunter received seven grants worth $4.7 million.
So you’ve got Labor seats receiving 10 grants, eight grants and seven grants under this Community Infrastructure Program, while 45 electorates, nearly one-third of the country, received nothing.
That’s not fair.
The people living in those electorates deserve a fair go. That’s why the opposition and the crossbench, and 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 scheme.
And it’s not just us saying it.
I want to quote the Centre for Public Integrity, an outstanding non-government organisation made up of people who are deeply concerned about integrity and transparency in government processes.
This is what they said:
“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 the closed process chosen? How were projects selected? And are the rules governing Commonwealth grants strong enough to ensure public money is allocated transparently?”
That’s the Centre for Public Integrity raising these concerns, not just the opposition.
And I come back to those 45 electorates and the millions of Australians living in them who missed out, while Labor-held seats received 10 grants, eight grants and seven grants under this program.
It is unfair.
Those hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars should be distributed equitably across Australia to the projects that demonstrate the greatest need and deliver the greatest benefit. Funding should be allocated fairly and transparently so that every federal electorate, and every Australian, has the opportunity to access support.
That way, we won’t be having debates like this in the future. Every Australian community deserves a fair share and a fair go.
