What is Albanese hiding?
Last year I successfully got the Senate to pass two motions for the production of documents.
The first asked for the Albanese government to provide the business case to justify Federal taxpayers spending $100 million on a road maintained by the NSW State Government that just happened to lead to Albanese’s new beach house.
The reply from Albanese was that the business case was done by the NSW government and that they didn’t have it. The second motion passed by the Senate then requested all correspondence between NSW and the Federal Government regarding the road including the business case prepared by the NSW Government.
Albanese again refused to hand over the documents in defiance of Senate orders. If you thought the deal looked shady to begin with, it looks downright putrid now. It shows the contempt Albanese treats the Australian public that he could drop $100 million of taxpayers money to impress his girlfriend (it would take more than that for him to impress me 😖) and he doesn’t even try and pretend he is covering up his corruption.
It’s just another example of just how immoral our politicians have become.
- Committee on 24/02/2025
- Item: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee – 24/02/2025 – Estimates – INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS PORTFOLIO – Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts
Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Minister, I have some questions regarding requests for the production of a document from the Senate that were passed last year. The first is that the Senate requested the production of the business case for Avoca Road. An amount of $100 million was spent on that road. That was refused. It was said that New South Wales had done the business case and that the minister didn’t have the business case at their disposal. We then got another order for the production of documents passed by the Senate. It asked for all information and correspondence between the New South Wales government and the federal government with regard to Avoca Road. It was dismissed on the grounds that it would have a detrimental impact on relations between the federal government and the New South Wales government. Why does the Labor Albanese government feel that it shouldn’t disclose documents regarding the spending of $100 million of taxpayers’ money when the Senate has twice asked for these documents and the business case for this expenditure?
Senator Chisholm: Thanks, Senator Rennick. I’m not aware of those specific instances, Senator Rennick. I haven’t been briefed of them in preparation for this. Obviously, the minister and department make decisions about those sorts of things on a regular basis. I know that there have been other instances of a similar nature where the minister has not released documents because of the potential impact on federal-state relations. I don’t think it’s a unique circumstance.
Senator RENNICK: Why would this have an impact on federal-state relations? This is just normal, ordinary business. If the business case is legitimate, what is there to hide? Why is the Albanese government afraid of disclosing documents regarding the expenditure of taxpayers’ money on a road? This isn’t some secret expenditure for something that may not be in the taxpayers’ interests. If you think it’s in the taxpayers’ interests, wouldn’t you want to disclose it and just be totally transparent?
Senator Chisholm: I don’t think there’s any issue as such, Senator Rennick. I think it’s just common practice that the negotiations between the federal and state when it comes to projects like these aren’t disclosed.
Senator RENNICK: Why is it common practice? I would have thought how money was spent, especially the business case, should be disclosed to Australian taxpayers. They have a right to know how their money is being spent and the justification for why it was spent in that area. It may be valid. I’m not saying it’s not. If you are not going to disclose it, people will start wondering if there is suspicious behaviour.
Senator Chisholm: Well, I don’t necessarily believe that to be the case, Senator Rennick. All I can do is reinforce that these sorts of arrangements between the federal and state government aren’t disclosed.
Senator RENNICK: Surely the parliament has more power than the executive. If the parliament, through the Senate, has asked for this documentation, what right does the executive have? We have three arms of power. You understand the separation of powers. This isn’t just me asking this in estimates. This is the Senate asking for this on behalf of parliamentarians. The majority of the Senate, from every party apart from the Labor Party, has voted on this. That is how we got the majority. Why is it that the Albanese Labor government executive is dismissing the concerns of the parliament? It is our role as parliamentarians to hold the executive to account, is it not?
Senator Chisholm: Yes. My understanding is that you would have the opportunity to pursue that through the Senate. All I can do is reinforce the decision that the government made in terms of maintaining a good relationship with the states. In these sorts of matters, those documents aren’t disclosed as a general rule.
Senator RENNICK: That is my point. The Senate has told you to disclose it.
Senator Chisholm: My understanding is that you can still pursue that through the Senate if that’s what you wish.
Senator RENNICK: Through what means?
Senator Chisholm: Well, that’s up to you.
Senator RENNICK: Okay. Thanks, Chair.
