Well well well.
If this isn’t dodgy I don’t know what is!
Looks like Albo has been sticking his hands in the cookie jar.
In estimates I found out that what was an initial commitment of $30 million to fund a road on the central coast has been upgraded to $100 million with no actual reason as to why?
It turns out this road is the road that leads to Albanese new beach house.
Furthermore the NSW Government or the local council didn’t feel the need to contribute an extra cents.
Was Albanese using taxpayer dollars to impress his new girlfriend?
We know he likes to call his mate Joyce for flight upgrades, so he clearly doesn’t mind milking the system.
Not only does this look dodgy, it’s also hypocritical.
Albanese jumped up and down when the prior government paid $30 million for a vital piece of land in regards to Western Sydney Airport, yet he is more than happy to splurge more than 3 times that for a road that isn’t even the responsibility of the Federal government.
I smell a rat here.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
04/11/2024
Estimates
INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS PORTFOLIO
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts
Senator RENNICK: My question concerns the Avoca Drive upgrade. I notice that the federal government is putting in $100 million to a $130 million upgrade. What is the process for federal government funding of infrastructure? My understanding of it was that federal highways have an 80-20 funding split. What goes beyond federal highways? What rules and guidelines do you use to fund roads that aren’t a part of the federal highway? My understanding of it was that it is at best fifty-fifty. I am curious to know why the federal government would be putting in the bulk of money for a $130 million upgrade that isn’t part of a federal highway?
M s Hall : It is around 80-20 or fifty-fifty. That was a previous government policy. This government’s policy—it was actually the same under the previous government—is always to negotiate with the jurisdictions on the funding splits. That is part of the normal negotiations with those jurisdictions and has been since the Infrastructure Investment Program existed. Some projects may be at 80-20. Some projects may be at 75-25. Some projects may be at fifty-fifty.
Senator RENNICK: This was more like 75-25 federal funding. What were the guidelines? Why did you decide to fund this?
Senator Chisholm: This was an election commitment made in the lead-up to the 2022 election.
Senator RENNICK: That’s good to know. Thanks, Senator Chisholm. Why this road? I know plenty of roads in outback Queensland could do with upgrades as well. Why did this road get priority funding and such a disproportionate amount of funding from the federal government rather than the New South Wales government? What was the criteria? Is there a standard criteria that determines how this money is given out?
Senator Chisholm: Because it was an election commitment, Senator Rennick, and all oppositions obviously go around the country providing election commitments. Normally the parties work through that in their normal process, as I’m sure they did with this one.
Senator RENNICK: So there was no favouritism or anything like that, because this road was near the Central Coast?
Senator Chisholm: It was an election commitment made prior to the last election.
Senator RENNICK: I realise that. I am trying to work out the criteria and who made the decision. Did the Prime Minister have any input to this?
Senator Chisholm: It was an election commitment, so it was made by the opposition in the lead-up to the election. We would have done it with whoever was our candidate or sitting MP in that area. I don’t actually know who that is.
Senator RENNICK: It is Gordon Reid. That is so you know who the candidate was. At the time, the opposition leader in the last election was the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. Did he have any direct involvement in making this decision?
Senator Chisholm: I don’t know the answer to that. I know the process we went through in terms of broadly putting our policies together before the last election. We consulted with local MPs or candidates about what their priorities were. Obviously, we go through it in a responsible way to ensure that we deliver projects that will make a significant difference for local communities. I’m sure Gordon Reid would have been influential in that decision given that he is a good local MP.
Senator RENNICK: Was the commitment prior to the election for $100 million out of $130 million, or was that decided after in government?
Senator Chisholm: I don’t have the election commitments in front of me in terms of what we exactly promised. I know that the upgrade to this road was what we promised. I presume we had a dollar value associated with it before the election.
M r Potticary : The commitment for the incoming government was $30 million, and an additional $70 million was committed in January 2023.
Senator RENNICK: Who made the decision to commit an extra $70 million when you were in government? The election promise was $30 million. That then got lifted to $100 million in government. How was that decision evaluated?
M r Potticary : It was a decision of government, Senator.
Senator RENNICK: Is it possible to get correspondence between the minister’s office and the department as to how that decision was calculated or made? You went and decided to add another $70 million over and above an election commitment. Don’t you think that deserves some explanation?
M s Hall : Senator, what we find from both sides of politics is that often when they make an election commitment, they make an election commitment for a certain type of upgrade. Often the dollar figure doesn’t align with the upgrade that they would like to deliver. We need to make sure that we have enough funding to deliver the upgrade they’ve actually asked for. It would have been in conversations with the New South Wales government to say something along the lines of, ‘To deliver that project, that isn’t enough money. We need an extra amount.’ It would have been through negotiations with the jurisdiction, which is what we do with all of the jurisdictions, to make sure that we’ve got enough money to deliver what was actually expected.
Senator RENNICK: My experience of election commitments is normally that they are broken and the money gets downgraded, not upgraded. If more money was put in by the federal government, why didn’t the state government put in more money as well? My concern is that this isn’t an electorate. This is a road that now leads to the Prime Minister’s new house.
Senator Chisholm: You should be careful not to smear people.
Senator RENNICK: With all due respect—
Senator Chisholm: This was a decision made years ago.
Senator RENNICK: It was in 2023. It was an extra $70 million under your government.
Senator Chisholm: It was an election commitment.
Senator RENNICK: This outshines any upgrades, which don’t cost anywhere as much in millions. You’ve just suddenly decided out of the blue to give another $70 million to a road that leads to the Prime Minister’s new house.
Senator Chisholm: That’s ridiculous, Senator.
Senator RENNICK: I think this deserves greater scrutiny. I think it deserves an explanation.
Senator Chisholm: It was delivering on an election commitment we made prior to the 2022 election. The department had talked through the process—that often happens—post an election in terms of assessing that. We were very determined to deliver on our election promises, which is what we have been doing around the country.
Senator RENNICK: Can I get all the paperwork prepared to make this decision, please?
M s Hall : We’ll take it on notice.
Senator RENNICK: And the justification for increasing the number of federal taxpayer dollars spent from $30 million to $100 million?
M s Hall : We’ll take that on notice, Senator Rennick.
Senator RENNICK: Thank you.
