We saw this calculation from the Centre for Public Integrity that said Queensland had missed out on $64 million of funding, if that is allocated on population. But is that the best measure?
Senator: Well, I think it’s one of the measures. And in our discussions yesterday with the Australian National Audit Office, they acknowledged that when they conduct an audit into a scheme like this of community infrastructure—where the Prime Minister’s golf club got $6.05 million of funding, and the other 1,399 golf clubs across Australia had no opportunity to lodge an application—one of the things the National Audit Office will look at is geographical distribution to determine whether or not the program is ethical.
As a senator for Queensland, I refer to the Centre for Public Integrity’s report, which found that Queensland was shortchanged $64 million under this $560 million scheme, and that just stinks. We’ve got golf clubs in Queensland, community infrastructure in Queensland, food banks in Queensland, and domestic violence refuge services that would be crying out for this funding and were denied the opportunity. It’s unfair. It’s unethical.
Interviewer: So, if you were to redesign how the funds are allocated, would you start from the fundamental issue of having it be open, as opposed to only invited organisations being able to apply?
Senator: Well, I think that’s best practice for a program like this—to be open. We actually heard from the representatives of two other clubs, and this was one of their main concerns: that they were denied the opportunity to even put in an application. The Australian National Audit Office has noted that in non-competitive processes like this, how does the actual assessment work?
We heard that the department applied this six-out-of-10 scoring system, but how do you retrofit this scoring system after you’ve already made the election commitments? So I think this has opened up so many issues, including the false statements made by the Prime Minister in relation to the grant being for sewerage works, when there was no application for the grant to cover sewerage works.
Interviewer: So back to this Centre for Public Integrity report that found almost three-quarters of the funding went to Labor-held divisions. What do you make of that?
Senator: There were 45 federal electorates across Australia that received nothing, and there are 8 million people living in those electorates. So there was this favouring of Labor-held seats, and in particular marginal seats, which raises other issues. But the fact is, 45 federal electorates containing 8 million people didn’t have an opportunity to bid for this pool of $560 million, and that is grossly unfair.
Interviewer: So, if it was the LNP that was in charge of allocating this funding, would you be applying the same level of scrutiny?
Senator: Oh, absolutely. And I think geographical fairness is so important. If you’ve got schemes like this, residents in my home state, in South West Queensland, who received nothing under this scheme should have had an opportunity to participate. Residents on the Gold Coast—which is equivalent to Australia’s sixth-largest capital city—they should also have an opportunity. They got nothing, not a single brass razoo out of this project. People from all over Australia should have a right to participate because, at the end of the day, it’s their funds.
Interviewer: So, who decides who to invite, and then who allocates the funding?
Senator: Well, I think the opportunity to actually participate in these sorts of schemes should be open to everyone, and then applications should be considered on their merits in an open and transparent fashion. That’s the way it should actually work.
I really do emphasise the need for the Auditor-General to undertake a deep audit in relation to this program, so we can actually find out what these projects were assessed at. Because at the moment we haven’t been given any of the assessment scores. So the concern I have is: so many of these projects just fell over the line and got their six out of 10 when there are far more deserving projects in the community.
Interviewer: Well, the Auditor-General says that they’ve already put the potential audit on his program for 2026–27. Is that enough, or do you want it to go further?
Senator: Well, we want it to actually be on their program as an audit they will undertake. Look, I think there were some really good comments made by the representatives of the ANAO during the hearing yesterday. They noted that the department refused to provide the scores for these 200 projects that have been approved, and they also noted that the department refused to provide the guidelines as to how these projects are assessed.
So at one level, you’ve got these assessment criteria that are published, but then there’s a document behind that which provides assistance to the assessors as to how to assess these projects. This should all be open and transparent to the Australian people, and I really do call upon the Auditor-General to undertake an audit of this program.
Interviewer: Do you think enough people know about this, and would they have known had it not been for this Marrickville Golf Club controversy?
Senator: Well, that’s a really good point. I think the one silver lining on this cloud is that the Marrickville Golf Club—and I should say, the representatives of that club are decent volunteers doing their best for their club, as club members all over Australia would do—but one of the benefits coming out of this should be reform in this area. I really think there needs to be reform.
