Can I just ask Department of Finance if I can go back to that point? I’m going to phrase my question a particular way. Did did the Department of Finance Recommend to the Department of Infrastructure prior to 1 September 2026 that the project guidelines be updated to clarify that funding for approved projects would only be provided to local, state, or territory government bodies. Did you provide that recommendation to the Department of Infrastructure prior to one September, 2025,
Senator? We can we can take that on notice. I think, as I’ve said previously, we did provide feedback on a on a draft.
So sorry, sorry to interrupt. Are you taking it on notice because you do not know the answer? I
don’t know the answer to that question, Senator.
You don’t. Does anyone else at the table know the answer to that fundamental question, which is, and I would be extraordinarily surprised. I say that respectfully. I’d be very surprised if no one at the table is aware of the answer to that quite simple question. Given, presumably, you made some preparation for this hearing as to whether or not the Department of Finance recommended that the Department of Infrastructure amend the project guidelines such that funding for approved projects would only be provided to local, state, or territory government bodies prior to 1 September 2025. Does any witness at the table know the answer to that question?
No, Senator. No, that’s not the detail that we have in our packs today.
Do you recognize it’s a pretty fundamental point,
Secretary?
Sorry, Senator Scarr. This other speaker can say that again. Sorry.
Do you recognize that I’m somewhat bemused by that because that’s a pretty fundamental issue in terms of the project guidelines and the interaction between Department of Finance and Department of Infrastructure in a situation where the guidelines were publicly released. Your minister approved release of the guidelines through Grant Connect on 26 September, but on the proviso that a fundamental addendum be released at the same time, which it was on 2 October. Can you understand why I find it hard to fathom how you’re not in a position to answer that question today, and you’re saying you’re not in a position to answer that question because you don’t have the knowledge. Is that correct?
That’s correct, Senator Scarr.
Okay. Can I ask you about the use of this phrase, which I’ve never seen before? Value of relevant money. Now, I’ve never come across that phrase before, and I don’t think I’ve been lived a sheltered life necessarily. Some may beg to differ, but I’ve never come across that phrase of value, of relevant, or value for relevant money, as opposed to value for money. Can you explain what the difference
is? So, Senator, the use of the term relevant comes from the PGPA Act, which talks about relevant money being money that is appropriated to an entity, and so it is a highly technical use of the term. Effectively, it means it encompasses that concept that I’ve referred to in terms of the proper use and management of public funding.
Okay, doesn’t it become a bit circular if you’re trying to, and Professor M Toomey touches upon this, you’re trying to work out whether or not there’s value for money, but one of the criteria is whether or not the expenditure assists to meet a government objective, and the government objective is to pay that money for a project. It all becomes a bit circular and nonsensical, doesn’t it? From a from a just on a general perspective, because there’s no competing. There’s nothing else. Competing for the money. So, how do you work out if something’s value for money?
So, Senator, infrastructure will be able to talk to you about how they assessed value with relevant money in this context. In general terms, I think grants are a vehicle through which government achieves a range of of outcomes, and so the context in which the program is is established and the objectives that it is established to achieve are highly relevant to whether or not a particular project will present value with relevant money.
Okay, can I ask the Attorney General’s Department? Were you involved? Sorry, and I know I’ve grabbed your attention now. Were you involved in terms of providing any advice with respect to this issue, which led to the drafting and release of Addendum Number One, which altered the structure of the program such that the project sponsors had to be local, state, or territory government bodies to bring it within the purview of Section 96.
