[Peetwo]

RRAT Committee clash at Senate Estimates: 28/10/22

Via the APH website:

CHAIR: I just want to clarify something, because I'm listening intently. Mr Hallinan, can you give us an example of a community car park upgrade? Is it a car park at a shopping centre, is it a car park at a train station or is it a mixture of everything? What is it?

Mr Hallinan : That was the Commuter Car Park Program under the Urban Congestion Fund. Those car parks were attached to train stations and within easy access of the train station, so the locations were anywhere from directly embedded in the train station through to about 500 metres away.

CHAIR: I heard you say that some were cancelled because there wasn't land available. Did I hear that right?

Mr Hallinan : That's correct.

CHAIR: I have to ask the question: how the hell does someone throw a bucket of money at a community upgrade when there's no land? How does that happen? Was there a dartboard in the former minister's office or something?

Mr Hallinan : I wouldn't speculate. They were a series of projects identified as election commitments in 2019, and there was an audit into that program.

CHAIR: I'll make it easy for you. I'm still gobsmacked that we can have a government announce a heck of a lot of money going to a car park where there's no land to improve it. You don't have to do it now, but can you supply the committee with examples of those? Is it a one off, or are there a few of them?

Mr Hallinan : We can take on notice any projects in that group, where there wasn't land available and it couldn't be made available.

CHAIR: I'm only saying it because that's what you said.

Mr Hallinan : There will probably be a couple, but not many.

CHAIR: It will still be very interesting to know.

Senator Chisholm: It goes to the difficulty of what we inherited, where, quite often in the lead-up to the 2019 election, the previous government made a lot of political promises, and then they had no delivery partners—

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

CHAIR: Order! Order! I'll tell you what, Senator McKenzie, I picked that up because I'm listening intently to the evidence given by the official. I don't have a written piece in front of me to ask that question and I find the evidence of sheer incompetence and stupidity absolutely gobsmacking. I'm sure that you may have some differences of opinion, but the idea that we can throw buckets of money at projects where there is no— Okay, you'll come back to us with that. Minister, carry on, you will be heard.

Senator Chisholm: We were very clear that, as part of the budget process, we wanted to identify the waste and rorts. This is an area where there was substantial focus. The fact that promises were made that couldn't be delivered, didn't have delivery partners and didn't have land and that the costings as such to be delivered would have blown out show you that we did the responsible thing. Part of that motivation is also just trying to rebuild the trust that people have in politics. So it sounds like a lofty ambition, but you have to start and that means delivering on what you promise, and that is what we have done in this budget.

CHAIR: Senator Canavan?

Senator CANAVAN: Does the government have land available for the national high-speed rail project that you've committed $500 million to? Do you have the land available?

Senator Chisholm: I'm happy for the department to add to this as well, but obviously—

Senator CANAVAN: Obviously you don't know the answer.

Senator Chisholm: Obviously that was a promise that we made in opposition and intend to deliver on in government.

Senator CANAVAN: Minister, it sounds like you do not have the land. Can we just establish that? Does the government own the land for the high-speed rail project?

CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Canavan. That is something very close to Senator McDonald and me. We have a nation-building project called the Inland Rail project, too, so if we're going to start I don't think—

Senator CANAVAN: Senator Sterle, is that a point of order, or are you just trying to interrupt my line of questioning here?

CHAIR: Let's get some consistency. We're specifically—

Senator CANAVAN: That's what I am asking for, Senator Sterle.

CHAIR: You want to talk about the Inland Rail?

Senator CANAVAN: You gave me the call, Senator Sterle. As chair, you should be a little more balanced here.

CHAIR: And I have just come in, Senator Canavan, and said, 'We'll have some balance,' and I find that question—

Senator CANAVAN: That's not exactly how this works.

CHAIR: The officials can take that on notice and come back to you later.

Senator CANAVAN: Point of order! Chair, you've been here long enough to know it is not your right or in any way in your power to take questions on notice. That is a power for the minister, so point of order; it is not on you to take questions on notice.

CHAIR: You know what, Senator Canavan? I'll let the official answer that, but I'm jumping in first, because I know what's going to come.

Senator CANAVAN: Can I just restate the question: does the government own the land for the high-speed rail project that it has committed to?

Senator Chisholm: I don't think you can compare a commitment to set up an agency to do cleaning work to a promise on a car park in suburban Melbourne.

Senator CAN AVAN: Hang on; hang on. I'm struggling.

Senator Chisholm: I think they are substantially different things that we're talking about there.

CHAIR: Order!

Senator CANAVAN: I'll just ask again. It's a yes-or-no question here. Does the government own the land for its high-speed rail commitment?

Senator Chisholm: As I've said, what we've done is that we had a commitment to set up an agency to do the planning work, which is—

Senator CANAVAN: I'll just keep asking it—

CHAIR: No, you won't.

Senator CANAVAN: Does the government own the land for the high-speed rail commitment?

Senator Chisholm: I've answered the question.

Senator CANAVAN: No, you have not. Does the government own the land for the high-speed rail commitment?

Senator Chisholm: We've set up an agency to do the planning work, which is what our commitment was.

Senator CANAVAN: Can you take it on notice?

Senator Chisholm: Well, I've provided an answer.

Senator CANAVAN: You have not! It's a yes-or-no answer, Senator Chisholm. Have you got the land?

Senator Chisholm: Well, it's not. We've set up an agency to do the planning work, which is what our commitment was.

Senator CANAVAN: So, you do not have the land?

CHAIR: Alright. It's not going to go—

Senator CANAVAN: Hang on, Senator Sterle.

CHAIR: I'm going to rule on it here.

Senator Canavan interjecting—

CHAIR: Order! Senator Canavan, the minister has answered.

Senator CANAVAN: You made an allegation before that it was somehow irresponsible for a government to allocate funds to a project where it did not own the land, vis-a-vis the commuter car parks. We have a situation here where exactly the same situation exists with your commitment to the high-speed rail.

CHAIR: It is nothing of the like.

Senator CANAVAN: How is that any different?

CHAIR: Order!

Senator CANAVAN: By your own words, you were already starting off on an irresponsible path, because you didn't own the land.

CHAIR: I'm going to stop this right now. I tell you what I will do, I'll shut the mics down.

Senator CANAVAN: Senator Sterle—

CHAIR: No, I am ruling—

Senator CANAVAN: I think we need a private meeting, Senator Sterle, because you are interfering with my questions.

CHAIR: I am happy to have a private meeting.

Senator CANAVAN: You're playing defence for the government. This is an absolute farce on your first day of budget estimates. You're meant to be chair, Senator Sterle.

CHAIR: Don't you tell me what I'm 'meant' to be. The minister—

Senator CANAVAN: Can we have a private meeting?

CHAIR: I'm happy to have a private meeting, but we're not having a private meeting until I say I'm ready to have the private meeting, which will be very soon. The minister has answered the question, and you can continue with a rant and a rave and you can look at the cameras and do whatever you need to do, Senator Canavan. As far as we're concerned, the minister has answered the question, and you can ask it six, seven or 400 times more. It ain't going to make any difference. And I'm very happy to have a private meeting. But I tell you what we will do—

Senator CANAVAN: Yeah, let's have a private meeting.

CHAIR: Excuse me—we'll have the private meeting, but we have to contact members of the committee to be here.

Senator McKENZIE: Our members are here.

CHAIR: I don't care. All members of the committee will be called, and we will take the time that it needs to get them from other rooms.

Senator CANAVAN: Can I request that we continue questioning while we make that request, and then we can have the private meeting when they're here?

CHAIR: No. I've just called them.

Senator CANAVAN: You are now trying to delay the scrutiny of your own government, because you don't have the answers.

CHAIR: Excuse me—

Senator CANAVAN: We're an hour in, and Senator Chisholm can't answer basic questions about the government's policy.

CHAIR: Senator Canavan, I'm making it very easy. You have requested—and I'm always so collegiate to help out my colleagues on this committee—a private meeting, and we shall now suspend for a private meeting.

Hmm...democracy at work, not hard to work out why the RRAT Committee put the GA Inquiry on the lapsed inquiries scrapheap - 

I wonder how much that indulgence cost the taxpayer??   

By the bye, apparently they did KISS and make up:

Proceedings suspended from 09:58 to 10:14

CHAIR: We're all back in love again, I'm happy to report! Thank you for your indulgence. During the break, there was a request from Senator Allman-Payne to ask some questions so she can get off to another committee, and Senator Canavan has agreed to that...

MTF...P2