25 electorates who haven’t received a brass razoo from this program who would love to have had the opportunity to engage in this what you refer to as onerous process but they’ve been denied that opportunity. If you were mayor of one of those councils covering an Australian population of over 8 million people who were denied any opportunity to participate in this process. What would you be saying to decision makers?
My view is that there are many places in Australia where local governments and councils are rightly advocating for the needs of their community. That’s what I have done as the mayor of the Inner West in regards to saving Marrickville Golf Course, and I completely understand that every mayor and local councilor, and in fact MP and senator, would rightly advocate publicly for the needs of their local community.
Well, that’s you talked about advocating, and they do advocate. They advocate to me every day, and I’m sure they advocate to all the senators involved in in this committee hearing. But again, I put my question: How do you consider it to be fair in a good and meritorious process where 8 million Australians and the local councils representing those 8 million Australians have been denied the opportunity to participate and are getting no project when your council is getting three.
I’m sorry, I think it is valid. Please continue to address the question.
Yep.
As you’re aware, Senator, there’s a vast array of of funding programs that exist at the Commonwealth level, which state and local governments are eligible to apply for through a competitive process. Northeast
ones.
Sorry, please let the witness answer. Yep. In addition to that, governments also make election commitments, as you’re aware, and as the previous government did. And as long as that’s done transparently and clearly for the public to see, I don’t have any objection to that. What has occurred subsequent to that is an additional layer of the process in which, rather than simply proceeding with the projects, the government has required that there be an application submitted, a project sponsor identified, so that there is proper governance, acquittal, and project management. And I don’t consider that to be a bad process.
So, Mayor, this is how Professor Ann Toomey. You you know of Professor Ann Toomey, the constitutional law expert.
I do. This is
how she describes the process, which you describe as good and meritorious. I quote: “The system is a farce, with the paperwork drafted to justify decisions already made, without any consideration of merit, need, value for money, or the public interest. Moreover, the CGRPs were deliberately constructed in this way to provide a public perception of integrity and propriety, while facilitating political patronage in the grander favors with public money contrary to the public interest. End quote. How do you respond to that?
I have read Ms. Toomey’s comments, and I strongly disagree with them. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with governments transparently announcing election commitments, and I think governments should carry through on the election commitments that they make. The additional element of this process, in which a project sponsor was required to be identified and an application need to be submitted, that will result in these projects that the government had committed to as election commitments being carried out more professionally and thoroughly, and there being better value for money.
So, last question, Chair. You don’t think there’s, to use your phrase, anything wrong with this being a non-competitive closed process where other councils around Australia were denied the opportunity to actually lodge applications, and you don’t think there’s anything wrong with the fact that 45 federal electorates representing over 8 million Australians didn’t receive a brass razoo under this program?
I don’t agree with your description of the program.
Okay.
How accurate was this transcription?
Response to Criticism of Process02:56
00:0004:171x
