Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021, a bill introduced by Senator Gallagher. I rise first to dispel the myth that saw the genesis of this bill, that there is some kind of lack of reporting or lack of transparency around grants and the grants decision-making process. I'm sure that we will hear, as we've already heard this morning, myriad examples from those opposite of what they deem to be scandalous conduct, but the fact is that, if there was no transparency around grants reporting, they would have no idea that there had been any occurrence of them. The very examples raised here are evidence of the significant level of transparency that this government undertakes and is very happy to undertake. We on this side of the Senate firmly believe that Australian taxpayers deserve to know where their money is being spent and on what. We have no problem with transparency. If those opposite were truly in favour of transparency and accountability, then they would subject their mates in the union movement to a much higher standard in those areas, but we certainly don't see much example of that happening there.

There are already four levels of reporting relating to grants. Senator Gallagher's bill simply adds a fifth with significant overlap and duplication. This bill adds new terminology. Further bureaucracy and regulation may not be of any consequence for the Labor Party—we know this—but it's my preference and it's the preference of this government that we do not add any significant duplication and overlap.

Avoiding this, where possible, always has to be the aim, and it's the aim of this government. It's also the preference of grant applicants, who want a streamlined and simplified process. In my previous career and work I was involved in submitting grant applications, and it's an extraordinary process that you have to go through. That's necessary; it's understood. But we don't need to add to the red tape or the burden that's required. I know that many organisations simply end up grant writing to grant write, because there's so much required in being awarded grants. We don't need to add any further complication to it. Of course we need accountability and transparency, and there are good reasons for that. It's because it's taxpayers' money, and taxpayers expect there to be transparency and proper oversight.

The most wide-ranging and obvious of these accountability measures that the government has put in place is the GrantConnect website. This was put in place in 2017, when the government mandated a requirement to report all grants on the GrantConnect website. This is a fantastic website. It provides whole-of-government consolidated data on grant opportunities and grants that have been awarded. The GrantConnect website captures information on grant recipients, their location and the value of grant decisions. In this way, it acts as a very open and accountable record. The website also includes grant guidelines for each grant program, allowing people to look up who the decision-maker is for the grant program and therefore identify which grants are decided by which minister. This increases the accessibility of the general public to the decision-makers in the process.

The website not only shows grants awarded previously but also grant rounds currently open and upcoming grant grounds. This enables community organisations to plan and get their ideas together for future grant applications. I know that a number of community organisations find this website very useful, and I've been fortunate enough to visit a number of organisations who have received grants. People can not only search by key terms but can also export large datasets to find programs or decisions of interest. The GrantConnect website can notify registered users of grant opportunities as they arise. You can put in key search terms and you'll get notified as these opportunities come up.

Further to the GrantConnect website, reportable grants are also required variously to be reported to the finance minister under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rules and the Commonwealth Grants Rule and Guidelines. They are also required to be reported to parliament under the Senate orders of continuing effect. Senator Gallagher's bill would add a fifth level of required reporting, a wholly unnecessary level in my opinion.

Further to this, the other furphy which continues to be propagated here is that if a minister disagrees with or overrules advice by the departmental staff then there must be some kind of conspiracy going on. The Labor Party are so caught up with the temerity of a minister apparently defying their department that Senator Gallagher has drafted a bill to deal with it—that is, this bill. I must have missed the memo stating that ministers are no longer in charge of their departments and that the departments are now in charge of their ministers. I must have missed that memo, but the Labor Party seem to have got that and that's why they've written this bill. Indeed, I believe that Labor would prefer this. On this side, we're very happy about, and we welcome, ministers exercising their right to overrule advice that they don't agree with. Ministers have a far greater opportunity than officials do to consult extensively with communities, NGOs, industries and other stakeholders. They travel extensively around the country and hear frequently from constituents, including from those referred by parliamentary colleagues. Ministers are uniquely positioned as grant decision-makers because they have a very broad understanding of community needs. This is what ministers are appointed to do: to consult, to deliberate and to decide.

Of course, the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines state that where ministers are deciding grant outcomes they must consider official advice. But ministers are not rubber stampers, and they are, of course, obliged to use their own judgement—at least, that's what we believe on this side of the chamber. If those opposite want to pretend that they're ready to form some kind of alternative government, they should realise that the role of a minister is to lead, not to be led. It is inevitable, on occasion, that a minister may take a different view from those of officials. Ministers are elected. At the end of the day, they have the capacity to make these decisions—and so they should—but ministers are always required, in the first instance, to receive and consider official advice. This is in the guidelines, it's very clear, and it's what must always be followed and is followed by this government.

Let's look at the recent grant round of the Building Better Regions Fund. I've seen firsthand how this has benefited communities: the new taxiway at the Kununurra airport, for example, where I've landed on numerous occasions, or the newly announced Tom Price Skate Park. I was in Tom Price last year, and it's a fantastic town. Many people are choosing to raise their families there. My young son loves a skate park and kids up in Tom Price should have a skate park just as much as those in the suburbs of Perth. This is a town that desperately needs more facilities for young people.

This is a fantastic grants program. It's providing funding to a wide range of organisations, strengthening and diversifying regional economies and helping to provide facilities to remote communities. Of course, predictably, after the results of the latest round of the Building Better Regions Fund were announced, we saw headlines from those opposite, claiming that 90 per cent of building better regions funding went to coalition seats. The forced outrage was palpable. Ms Catherine King MP labelled it a scandal: the supposed shadow minister for infrastructure, transport and regional development labelled it a scandal. Let's look at this. Let's look past the spin. Perhaps that funding breakdown could be explained by the fact that Labor barely holds a seat outside the inner city. This is, after all, the Building Better Regions Fund, not the 'Cappuccino Strip Improvement Project'—the CSIP. Is it any great surprise that, as Labor have deserted the regions, regional voters have deserted them?

At this point, I will add that it's a great shame that the Labor Party is losing Mr Fitzgibbon, the member for Hunter. Mr Fitzgibbon has been a true voice of the Labor Party for regional jobs and regional development—probably the last one they have left. But he's going. It's little wonder then that after the last election the vast majority of regional seats were held by Liberal or National party members. So, of course, if you're running a regional grants program, 90 per cent of those grants will go into those seats. It's because the Liberal and National parties hold those seats.

Neither I nor the government shy away from transparency in awarding and reporting grants. In fact, our current regime actually contains a more rigorous reporting standard than that suggested by Senator Gallagher's bill in relation to the grants that a minister awards in their own electorate. The current grants standard requires that when such a grant is awarded it is to be reported to the finance minister as soon as practicable. Senator Gallagher's bill pushes that requirement out to 30 days, but, after that 30-day period, the finance minister would be required to table the report in the parliament within five sitting days of receiving it. This is bizarrely inconsistent, I have to say.

This bill is commendable in its intention, I'll grant them that. Transparency is not something that should be shied away from, but the bill fails to take into account all the other transparency arrangements currently in place. This bill seems to be drafted as if they were the first movers in this space, but that's simply not true. It duplicates, it creates inconsistency, it requires reporting of incorrect information and it requires some information to be reported later than it is today, so it doesn't do anything to add to the level of transparency that the Australian taxpayers would expect of a government. This bill just complicates it. Why is this the case? Because it's just a stunt. It's just another one of these stunts to claim a headline and to create a bit of noise and attention to detract from the fact that they really have no other plan, other than to create smear and divert from the fact that they really are not in a place to be the alternative government.

The bill duplicates, it creates inconsistency and it requires reporting of incorrect information. This is not necessary. While apparently attempting to increase transparency, Senator Gallagher's bill actually lessens it to some extent in some areas, either by design or by oversight. This is not good enough. This bill is not well considered; it's seriously flawed. Further, it highlights the Australian Labor Party's nervousness around ministerial decisions and their preference for government by unelected officials, with those officials being solely the ones making decisions. Is that what we can expect, should the Labor Party form government after the next election? Are they just going to be led by their departments, and ministers won't be the ones actually making the decisions? It's the ministers who are ultimately accountable to the Australian people. They're the ones who have been elected. They're the ones who will be fronting up in their communities, facing the media and dealing with scrutiny in this chamber and the other chamber. It's their work that will be scrutinised, not the work of the officials. We have excellent officials. Australia is well supported by wonderful members of the Public Service who are of a high calibre and work to a high standard—arguably, they're some of the best in the world. But, at the end of the day, they're not elected; they're appointed. They've been given an important job to do, but it's the members of the House of Representatives and of this house who become ministers who are ultimately responsible.

This is just an example of why the Australian people have trusted, and will continue to trust, the Morrison government to lead Australia. We're prepared to make decisions, we're prepared to stand up, and we're prepared to take those decisions to the Australian people and be accountable for them, because we're an adult government. That's how the Australian people know that they can continue to trust us. We look forward to prosecuting that case over the next six months or so as we lead into the next election.