For projects in the region where my office is located, in the Greater Ipswich region, which is one of the fastest-growing areas of Australia, and which I don’t believe has received its fair share of funding from an infrastructure perspective, given the population growth and the and the the challenges facing many of the people living in outer urban areas, which would probably be similar in other capital cities. So I’m I’m going to make that statement up front to put everything I say in context. And as long as I’m a senator, I’ll continue to advocate for projects which benefit the people who I represent. So, and the the point I’m making with that is, all of us as elected representatives, we’re out there. Those of us work hard in the community. We’re seeing the contribution that are made by local community groups, we see the the importance of of infrastructure of this type or other types. The difference it makes the community. We’re on the ground, so we’re not. And and this is not to denigrate our our public service, but we’re actually on the ground in our community. We see the day-to-day struggles of sporting clubs, other clubs which help keep the community together, bring people together. Do you accept that there is an important role in relation to local representatives and senators advocating for their communities, fighting so that their communities get a fair share.
Yes, I do absolutely. I completely agree that local politicians are very well connected into the community. It’s their job, and they have to be. And they will be more connected into the community than any public servants who are making assessments of merit in relation to projects. So I completely agree with that. I think that members of parliament should be able to advocate for their area, and they should be able to, you know, make submissions on behalf of their electorate when explaining why, you know, this particular project is needed here because they do have that kind of knowledge. So all of that is absolutely fine. That’s part of the process, and that’s appropriate. The concern I have is where you have projects where it’s just the local politician who gets to nominate, who gets to apply for the money, and to exclude everybody else. You should have a process in which you know it’s open, so that other people can apply too, and in that assessment process, it can be seen that oh look, there are other projects that need these this money, and you know they are more meritorious or they have the greater need, etc. The other point to make is that in relation to these kinds of projects, you know if you have a system that’s open, and you have criteria that people have to comply with and are judged against, and you have that process, and it’s done by public servants and all the rest of it, and then it comes to the decision maker. If the decision maker is, for example, a minister or politicians, and sometimes they are, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate for an override to occur if the relevant minister has particular knowledge which shows why a decision that was made was inappropriate. So, on occasion, I have seen explanations, written explanations by ministers as to why a decision that was made should be overridden, and the explanation is compelling. So there, I mean, I know Senator McKenzie is on this committee, and in fact, I saw one example where she gave a very compelling reason as to why some spending-I think it was on some telecommunications thing-needed to be done slightly differently, and and if politicians do that and can explain it and justify it, I think that’s absolutely fine. Where the problem lies is where politicians do come in and override, but they’re actually doing so solely for party political purposes. And then when you see their paperwork saying why do they override, they’ll say something like, “Oh, this is a good project, and they give no reasons whatsoever, and there’s no basis for it. So we’re dealing with two different things here, and so it is appropriate for politicians to advocate for their community. They do have an exceptional amount of inside knowledge as to what is needed, and that needs to be respected. But it’s not always the reason why these kinds of decisions are made. And if you have an open process with proper criteria and merit applying, etc. you’re more likely to get better outcomes.
Well, do you do you also accept? And I. Appreciate that response, and especially the fact that there are occasions when, say, a minister who’s the decision maker, provided they’re not conflicted, could come to the view that they override a bureaucratic decision and state in a transparent way the reasons for that. And I think I agree for that. And I’ve certainly lobbied a minister successfully in the past in relation to doing just that, which he did, and that project’s been extraordinarily successful, and has received funding from now this government as well as the previous government. Do you acknowledge the, and I think it’s a fact that an election provides an opportunity for people in the community to to raise projects which they want to see.
