Government Sector Finance Amendment (Grants) Bill 2023

Hansard ID: HANSARD-1323879322-130922

Hansard session: Fifty-Eighth Parliament, First Session (58-1)

Government Sector Finance Amendment (Grants) Bill 2023

Second Reading Speech

Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer HillMinister for Transport) (10:18:32):

— I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Accountability, transparency and integrity need to be at the heart of government. That is why New South Wales Labor made an election commitment to bring integrity back into the grants system, and I am pleased to be able to bring that about today by introducing the Government Sector Finance Amendment (Grants) Bill 2023. The former Liberal Government's track record on administering grants was simply appalling. Despite mounting evidence—indeed, damning evidence—that the administration of grants in New South Wales was broken, the former Government persistently refused to legislate to restore faith in the grants system. I do, however, recognise the steps it took but it refused to take the step that Labor will now take to legislate those protections. We are fixing the system now.

Every year in New South Wales the Government typically spends around $4 billion on grants. When done correctly, grants can be a highly effective mechanism for providing government support to people across New South Wales, including individuals, organisations and local communities. As all members know, grants programs provide significant benefit to people right across this State. That makes it even more critical that a strong framework for regulating grants is in place, ensuring they are administered fairly and achieve value for money. It is essential that taxpayer money—public money—spent on grants is money spent wisely. Grants are not a plaything of a political party, and they are not the gift of the government of the day. It is essential that they are directed towards enriching the lives of people across New South Wales. The bill before the House is directed at this very cause. The integrity and transparency enhancements will be mandatory; they will be entrenched in the law.

Grants Administration Guide

Under the Government Sector Finance Amendment (Grants) Bill 2023, amongst other integrity measures, a Minister must not approve a grant unless satisfied that its expenditure is efficient, effective, economical and ethical and that it would be value for money for the people of New South Wales. The bill will build on the existing framework for regulating government grants to help ensure that we deliver effective, efficient and ethical grants for the people of New South Wales. The framework was forged from much scrutiny in the previous Parliament, and it is bolstered by the bill today. The , issued in September 2022, contains overarching principles that apply to all government grants and imposes specific requirements that must be complied with when administering grants. The guide is issued under a Premier's memorandum, making it legally enforceable and binding on Ministers and officials. Compliance with the mandatory requirements of the guide is necessary by law under the Government Sector Finance Act 2018.

The bill will not replace the framework for the regulation of government grants in New South Wales. That framework and its definitions will continue. However, the bill will make amendments that bolster the existing framework, strengthening the integrity of government grants. On behalf of the Government, I place on record the appreciation we have for the careful work of the Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford, and her team. They have done outstanding work in this area, in particular the work they did by examining the administration of the Bushfire Local Economic Recovery program, which led to the report that was released in February this year. The Auditor‑General's report found that the fast‑tracking stream of the Bushfire Local Economic Recovery Program was not effectively administered. It stated:

The administration process lacked integrity ... and the assessment process for projects lacked transparency and consistency.

Further, it found that the then Deputy Premier's office set a threshold that resulted in the exclusion of all shortlisted projects located in Labor Party electorates. No-one could deny that the issues of transparency and integrity in public officials were key parts of the recent New South Wales election and, indeed, last year's Federal election. They are matters of genuine concern to the public. The former Premier infamously took a very relaxed attitude to the historic levels of pork-barrelling her Government engaged in, saying it was just something everyone expected. The people said otherwise at those State and Federal elections.

The public did not expect that bushfire recovery grants would be calibrated in the Deputy Premier's office—one of the highest offices in our State—to exclude electorates not held by the government of the day. The public did not expect that a skydiving park would receive $11 million in those grants while an entire local government area of the Blue Mountains—half of which was burnt by those devastating bushfires—would receive nothing. Other areas in the Central Coast, and Tenterfield in the Lismore electorate, also received nothing, despite the fact that the Central Coast local government area suffered more than $163 million in economic impact. The public does not expect that to occur and was rightly horrified by it. That is partly why those issues were so prominent in the two most recent elections. During a disaster the Government should be asking people how it can help, not who they voted for.

I could not introduce the bill without referring to the long debates that were had in the last term of Parliament on the Stronger Communities Fund, 96 per cent of which went to Coalition electorates. When the Parliament chased the approvals paperwork it was told not only that the paperwork was not there in the first place but also that it had been destroyed. It was the good work of the committees of the Parliament that discovered the documents were shredded and that the electronic backups were deleted. That is the only reason why that approvals paperwork was not available. That is the history that we move away from today as this bill comes before the Parliament.

It is a serious matter for all members, whatever side of politics we are on, when the administration of funds erodes people's faith in government. That loss of faith has a flow-on effect across society that is bad for all of us. It weakens community ties and increases the susceptibility to fringe views. I call on all members of the House to back this improvement and back the changes that were made by the former Government and are being strengthened by this Government. One thing we can do to turn the tide on that cynicism is to support the provisions of the bill.

I turn to the specifics of the bill. The bill will make two amendments to the Government Sector Finance Act. The first amendment, new section 10.3A (2), will require that a Minister must not approve a grant unless satisfied that the expenditure would be an efficient, effective, economic and ethical use of money, and that it achieves value for money. That will import into the Government Sector Finance Act a modified version of section 71 of the Commonwealth Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, applying specifically to grants expenditure. That provision aligns with the key principles in the guide relating to accountability, transparency and value for money.

Grants Administration Guide

In relation to grants expenditure specifically, the amendment will also implement recommendation No. 2 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption report on its investigation into pork-barrelling in New South Wales, known as Operation Jersey. In that report ICAC recommended that the amendment of the Government Sector Finance Act include a provision that reflects section 71 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act and also that consideration be given to whether the expenditure represents value for money. The second amendment to the Government Sector Finance Act, new section 10.3A (3), will require the decision‑maker for a grant, in approving or declining a grant, to have regard to the key principles for administering grants set out in the .

The guide specifies the seven principles to be applied in administering grants as robust planning and design, collaboration and partnership, proportionality, an outcomes orientation, achieving value with relevant money, governance and accountability and probity and transparency. Those principles reflect the government sector's core values and provide a strong foundation for grants administration. In making this amendment, the bill will reinforce the centrality of those concepts and ensure that they guide key grant decisions. The procedural aspects of grants administration, which are more susceptible to change, will remain in the guide. They should remain in the guide so that they are flexible and able to change as we learn more about what is required. That will retain the flexibility of the current settings relating to process and procedure.

Grants Administration Guide

The bill will also transfer the existing duty to comply with the —currently in schedule 1 to the Government Sector Finance Act—to new section 10.3A (1) and make other consequential amendments to the Government Sector Finance Act. In addition to amending the Government Sector Finance Act, the bill will also amend both the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 and the Government Information (Public Access) Regulation 2018 to make certain grants information "open access information". The object of the Government Information (Public Access) Act is stated in section 3 of that Act as being to "open government information to the public" through various mechanisms. One of those mechanisms is by specifying that "open access information", under section 6 of the Act, must be made "publicly available unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information".

Grants Administration Guide

Part 3 of the Act lists the government information that is "open access information" for the purposes of section 6, including, under section 18 (g), "such other government information as may be prescribed by the regulations as open access information". The bill will amend the Government Information (Public Access) Regulation to include certain grants information as open access information. The grants information that is specified in the bill as open access information includes the information that must be published in accordance with the requirements of the . It mirrors those provisions but lifts them up into legislation.

The bill will also amend the Government Information (Public Access) Act and the Government Information (Public Access) Regulation to require publication of this information on the New South Wales Government grants and funding finder website, which is specified in the guide. Of course, one of the key things we can do is make this information more public and bring more sunlight to the process. Those amendments will work to reinforce the importance of transparency in grants administration and are consistent with the existing publication requirements under the guide. I note the bill provides that the amendments will commence on 1 July 2023. That will allow sufficient lead time for agencies to adapt their existing grants administration practices as necessary to bring them into line with the new requirements. They are significant changes and agencies need time to adjust their processes. It is an important culture change across the public service.

The amendments in the bill will deliver on the Government's commitment to strengthen the regulation of grants administered in our State. But we are not done there. The bill is part of a suite of reforms to improve transparency and integrity in government. We committed that if we formed government we would ensure that all major natural disaster relief packages would be automatically referred to the Auditor-General. All grants would be forwarded for review within three months and fast-track grants would also be subject to performance reviews. That was a key recommendation of the ICAC. It is informed by the previous bad behaviour in relation to some of those grant programs, which I referred to earlier. It is informed by the good analysis previously done by the Auditor‑General. We made that commitment and we will carry it out. The former Premier issued Premier's memorandums on integrity matters but the community expects the recommendations to be made law. We do that today. We look forward to further improving the regulatory framework to ensure that the expenditure of grants in New South Wales is money spent well and fairly. I commend the bill to the House.

Second Reading Debate

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) (10:34:16):Grants Administration Guide

The Opposition does not oppose the Government Sector Finance Amendment (Grants) Bill 2023. Clause 31 of schedule 1 to the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 was inserted into that Act by the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Act 2022, which commenced on 1 July 2022. That provision requires those making decisions on grants, including Ministers, to comply with all mandatory requirements contained in the . The current guide was issued on 19 September last year by the previous Coalition Government.

Ms Lynda Voltz:

Far too late.

Mr MARK COURE:

The member for Auburn will have her chance to speak. It was one of the many measures undertaken by former Premier Perrottet to strengthen and safeguard integrity in public administration.

Ms Kate Washington:

After a decade of pork-barrelling.

Ms Anna Watson:

You don't know what integrity is.

Mr MARK COURE:

Order!

Ms Kate Washington:

You are not in the chair.

Mr MARK COURE:

Mr Assistant Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li):

I was momentarily distracted. The Chamber seems to have quietened down.

Mr MARK COURE:

Section 1.3 of the guide states:

mustmust not

The Guide provides best practice guidance and includes some mandatory requirements. Where a requirement is mandatory, this is indicated by the use of the word '' or the words '' in relation to that requirement.

Section 3 of the guide summarises the mandatory requirements for Ministers, including that they:

… must administer the grant in accordance with the grant guidelines

… must not approve or decline a grant without first receiving written advice from officials on the merits of the proposed grant or group of grants.

… must record the decision in writing, including the reasons for the decision (and any departure from the recommendation of officials), having regard to the grant guidelines and the key principle of achieving value for money.

Those requirements apply to one-off or ad hoc grants as well as to competitive grants. The bill, as well as transferring the existing provisions in clause 31 of schedule 1 to the Act to new section 10.3A, adds two additional provisions, which are outlined in new section 10.3A (2) and (3). I will deal with new section 10.3A (3) first. It states:

When approving or declining a grant to which the Grants Administration Guide applies, a person must have regard to the key principles of grants administration specified in the Guide.

It does not appear to introduce any additional legal obligation on grant decision‑making whatsoever, as it is already a mandatory requirement in the guide that "the key principles … set out in the guide must be met for all grants". New section 10.3A (2) provides:

A Minister must not approve a grant to which the Grants Administration Guide applies unless satisfied that the grant—

(a)is an efficient, effective, economical and ethical use of money, and

(b)achieves value for money.

Grants Administration Guide

The phrase used in paragraph (a) of that provision is lifted from section 71 of the Commonwealth's Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and is essentially a more verbose way of expressing what is put more succinctly in paragraph (b) as "value for money". This provision does not seem to impose any new obligation on Ministers as long as it is understood in the light of the concurrent obligation to comply with all the mandatory requirements of the . It is worth noting that the guide has an extensive section 5.5 on "Achieving value for money". It makes significant observations about the range of matters that ought to be considered under that key principle of grant decision-making, stating:

This should include consideration of all benefits and costs – economic, social, cultural and environmental – both monetary and non‑monetary. The new provision directing Ministers' attention to achieving "value for money" must be understood from that broad perspective. In discussing how to achieve value for money, the guide outlines a range of approaches, depending on the total cost of a grant program or of an individual grant. For those over a certain value set in the relevant Treasury policies and guidelines—currently $10 million or higher—a business case, including a cost‑benefit analysis, is required. In discussing a cost-benefit analysis, the guide states:

A CBA offers the most comprehensive means of assessing value for money; it incorporates the complete range of expected benefits and costs across the grant life cycle. It can consider economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits and costs, as well as their distribution across the community. Benefits and costs that cannot be quantified can be accounted for qualitatively.

…

The benefit‑cost ratio (BCR) and the net present value (NPV) are key metrics produced in a CBA. A BCR greater than one and a positive NPV indicate that quantified benefits outweigh the quantified costs. These metrics are not the sole means of demonstrating value for money but, where CBAs are required, decision-makers should be provided with these metrics in the formal advice from the assessment team. Decision-makers should also consider non-monetary benefits and costs, distributional analysis (i.e. how costs and benefits are distributed across different groups or parts of the community), and the appropriateness of the proposed grant activity in meeting government objectives.

Those very relevant observations stress the need for grant decision-makers—especially Ministers, who act on behalf of the Government elected by the people of New South Wales—to bring their minds to bear on all relevant aspects of grant programs and grant applications. Value for money is not reducible to a mathematical formula but requires real judgement, after careful consideration of all the key principles of grant administration and the good of the whole community. It would be helpful for members to know whether the Government has received any advice regarding this specification:

A Minister must not approve a grant to which the Grants Administration Guide applies unless satisfied that the grant … achieves value for money …

Grants Administration Guide

Without further definition or qualification, that legal obligation can be read as a standalone obligation, detaching the possible meaning of "achieves value for money" from the richer context in which it is discussed in the guide. If so, that could potentially give rise to legal challenges by unsuccessful grant applicants who claim a jurisdictional error by a Minister who failed to select them for a competitive grant, despite a more favourable BCR for their proposal than for a successful applicant who was selected based on other relevant factors set out in the .

Grants Administration Guide

The amendments proposed in schedule 3 to the bill merely duplicate existing requirements about open access to grants information in the mandatory by also inserting those requirements into the Government Information (Public Access) Regulation 2018. That does not raise any concerns. The Opposition is happy to build on its track record of supporting integrity measures in grants administration by supporting the bill.

Ms ANNA WATSON (Shellharbour) (10:42:19):

I speak in favour of the Government Sector Finance Amendment (Grants) Bill 2023, another piece of legislation that the people of New South Wales need because of the rorts and waste inflicted on them by the previous Liberal-Nationals Government. We are delivering on our election commitments, and the bill will deliver a much fairer grants system for all of New South Wales. As members opposite know, I am extremely passionate about my community members and their right to a fair go when it comes to government grant spending.

After spending 12 years in opposition, I know full well the damage that can be caused by a government that is hell-bent on spending grant money based solely on political purposes. Over the past 12 years we have watched the Liberal Party and The Nationals rort every single dollar that they could to prop up their marginal electorates. The limited funds available to the Government cannot be treated as a personal piggy bank so that members in Liberal or Nationals electorates can pretend that they are somehow masters of negotiation when it comes to securing grants for their communities. The people of Shellharbour know that that is not the case and that pork-barrelling is just a rort. They are sick of watching Liberal and Nationals MPs swan around the State saying how hard they have worked to secure funds for their electorates, and taking photos and putting them up on Facebook. It is just an absolute load of rubbish, and everybody on this side of the House knows it. The projects were funded because their electorate, nothing more. Funding had nothing to do with hard work by the MP, and enough is enough.

The people of Shellharbour have had enough of being treated as second-class citizens, with grant funding continually funnelled into other electorates based on nothing more than who the local member is. Previous pork‑barrelling of grant funds means that there has not been nearly enough funding to assist councils in the Shellharbour electorate to keep up with the growing demand for infrastructure, particularly in our community sporting facilities. I called out the previous Government in this House for pork-barrelling on numerous occasions, time and again. It is important that, now that we are in government, we also condemn that unfair and unethical practice and legislate to ban it. That is why we have introduced the bill.

It is indeed a sad day when we must legislate to require that a Minister not approve a grant unless satisfied that the expenditure would be "an efficient, effective, economical and ethical use of money" and that it "achieves value for money". But here we are, and I am happy that I am part of a government that will fix up the mess. I am also excited about the proposed changes to make certain grants information open access, so that it must be made publicly available unless there is an overriding public interest against its disclosure. That change will shine a light on key elements of the grants process, ensuring that everybody gets a fair go.

Fighting for my community when it comes to grant funding has not always gone down well with those opposite. Just last year, after calling out the previous Government on the disparity between grant funding in other electorates versus Shellharbour, one former Liberal Minister—now an Independent—was obviously offended that I called out the former Government's addiction to pork-barrelling. The truth hurts, does it not? He was so offended that he wrote a media release that included numerous disparaging statements about me personally, including stating that I had a bratty face and comparing me to his pet dog. He is an absolute disgrace and never apologised; he is a shameless MP. Such lame personal attacks by those opposite will never stop me from fighting for my electorate when it comes to grant funding. Because my community has many projects that deserve to be funded, I am confident that the bill will indeed benefit the people of Shellharbour going forward. I fully support the passage of the bill, which will make a real difference to the people of Shellharbour and to our entire State.

Ms KOBI SHETTY (Balmain) (10:46:58):

As The Greens spokesperson on integrity, anti-corruption and democracy, I contribute to debate on the Government Sector Finance Amendment (Grants) Bill 2023. I am pleased to continue that important work, noting the tireless advocacy in this place of my predecessor as member for Balmain, Jamie Parker. The bill is intended to address the Government's election commitment to return integrity to the grants system following evidence of widespread pork-barrelling by the previous Government across a range of grant programs, including the Stronger Communities Fund and the Bushfire Local Economic Recovery Fund.

Bringing integrity to the administration of grants and allowing the community to have confidence in the allocation of public money is core work for The Greens. Concerns with the administration of grants were initially investigated and explored in the Public Accountability Committee's inquiry into the integrity, efficiency and value for money of New South Wales Government grant programs, chaired at the time by The Greens' David Shoebridge. I am pleased to see the bill brought forward in response to a key recommendation made by the ICAC in its investigation into pork-barrelling, Operation Jersey, and I am also pleased to see that it draws on the work of the New South Wales Auditor-General in her review of the bushfire recovery grants.

The Greens welcome legislation that improves transparency but also recognise that it needs to go further. The Greens have long called for integrity, efficiency and value for money in those grant programs. The people of New South Wales deserve a scheme that treats public funds with due care and that strives to ensure that public money is applied to do the greatest public good. We would like to see the guidelines improved and note that we need mandatory independent scrutiny of all grant program allocations. While we welcome the amendment, we encourage the Government to be more aspirational in its approach to this work in the coming days, to make sure that our grants are administered fairly and openly.

Ms LIESL TESCH (Gosford) (10:49:01):

I contribute to debate on the Government Sector Finance Amendment (Grants) Bill 2023. I also acknowledge my work experience student, Tristan, who is present in the public gallery, and welcome him to the New South Wales Parliament. He is all the way from the Central Coast.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li):

Welcome to Tristan.

Ms LIESL TESCH:

I will begin by reflecting on the Bushfire Local Economic Recovery [BLER] grants process. Mr Assistant Speaker, you were not a member of Parliament when we had the devastating bushfires across the east coast of New South Wales. They hit the Gosford electorate just before Christmas time in 2019. The Bushfire Local Economic Recovery grants came out in 2020. The Gosford electorate had $63 million of damage. In the first round of grants, the Gosford electorate received zero money. I welcome the new member for Oxley, who is not presently in the Chamber, but make the point his electorate received $11 million for a skydiving pond without his electorate having suffered anywhere near the same amount of damage as did the Gosford electorate. Zero was allocated for an electorate with $63 million worth of damage and, for much less damage, in Oxley a skydiving pond was delivered for a local business. This made me so cross. It disappointed the people of the Central Coast to such a large extent that, when I questioned former Premier Berejiklian, I was thrown out of Parliament.

I knew that something was terribly wrong and this was not an ethical process. It is shameful that we have to bring legislation to Parliament to make parliamentarians—people who represent the community—act ethically and fairly with taxpayers' money. For too long, the grants process has lacked transparency and accountability. As the Auditor-General's report on the fast-tracked stream of the Bushfire Local Economic Recovery program concluded, the administration process lacked integrity. That report was published just before the election whereas so long ago I knew that in the depths of my heart. So many Labor members knew for so long that the grants process had not been okay. The BLER was not an isolated incident. Where was the transparency for the Stronger Communities fund, the Regional Cultural Fund and the sports rorts? We saw that lack of transparency at State and Federal level by Liberal governments. It is shameful that we have to legislate to try to fix it. That we must legislate to ensure that our leaders distribute funds appropriately and effectively to our communities and to guarantee that the negligent mismanagement of public funds will not occur in the future is an absolute disgrace.

New South Wales is currently deficient in its statutory framework. I welcome the opportunity to bring trust, accountability, transparency and, most importantly, integrity back into our grants system. The Government Sector Finance Amendment (Grants) Bill 2023 will do that by importing a modified version of section 71 of the Public Performance, Governance and Accountability Act 2013. Our Commonwealth counterparts must not approve expenditure unless it would be an efficient, effective, economical and ethical use of funds. This concept is introduced in proposed clause 10.3A (2) in schedule 1 to the bill, which stipulates that a Minister must not approve expenditure unless it would be an efficient, effective, economic and ethical use of money and that that expenditure represents value for money for the taxpayers of New South Wales.

Grants Administration Guide

This provision not only is a reflection of section 71 but also is direct implementation of recommendation No. 2 of the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption on its investigation into pork-barrelling in New South Wales. Imagine that that even had to occur! Proposed clause 10.3A (3) reinforces the significance and centrality of the key principles for administering grants as set out in the . For example, governance and accountability, as well as probity and transparency, are all concepts that are at the heart of ensuring the grants system is both transparent and working in the best interests of our communities. The mandatory duty to adhere to the seven obligations is clear and re-establishes trust in our grants.

The seven key principles to be applied in administering grants are robust planning and design, collaboration and partnership, proportionality, an outcomes orientation, achieving value with relevant money, governance and accountability, and probity and transparency—principles that I am sure our public sector has as part of its core values. I have spoken to many people who have not been comfortable that the process that has been highlighted by the public sector has been completely overridden by Ministers when distributing taxpayers' money. I thank officers of the public sector for their very important work of overseeing the grants processes. This legislation will ensure that they are not being overridden by Ministers engaging in inequitable pork-barrelling in marginal seats across New South Wales in the future.

Grants Administration Guide

Transparency is at the heart of the amendments to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 as well as the Government Information (Public Access) Regulation. Certain grants information will be open‑access information that is made publicly available unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosures. This information would include information that must be published in accordance with the , therefore elevating a single guide provision to a statutory rule. That is really important for all the community organisations across New South Wales that spend countless hours on applying for grants and have their heart set on receiving New South Wales Government funding in support of their communities.

I know that there are so many organisations involved. Our local councils spent hours and hours to prepare an application for the first round of the BLER, and what did they get—nothing! I thank those organisations and I want those organisations to know that there will be valid protection from what had happened in the background. These amendments are the start of strengthening the administration of grants in New South Wales. I am proud to be part of a New South Wales Labor government that will continue to look for ways to improve regulatory frameworks to ensure New South Wales taxpayers' money is spent equitably and fairly for the benefit of people across the State. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms LYNDA VOLTZ (Auburn) (10:55:42):

I support the Government Sector Finance Amendment (Grants) Bill 2023, which provides for transparency, ethics and efficiency around the administration of the grants process. It would be nice if this legislation was not necessary, but 12 years of a Coalition government made it clear to everybody that there was no transparency, no equity and certainly no efficiency in the manner in which grants were considered under the previous Government. The member for Oatley gave an interesting speech. Perhaps he should send it to the former member for Penrith.

Mr Matt Cross:

Send it to Ros Kelly.

Ms LYNDA VOLTZ:

That is pretty good, coming from a member on the Coalition side of the Chamber, who may want to have a look at the Penrith Panthers $12 million that the former Coalition Government gave to them for a community sports facility and ask himself: Where is that community sports facility for which they were given $12 million by the former member for Penrith? The former member for Penrith's own department said to him, "We don't think we should be giving this grant, unless the Federal Government department actually approves this grant."

Somehow in the correspondence to get Federal Government approval there was a letter from his partner, Senator Marise Payne, to the then Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack. Apparently that was the Federal Government's approval to obtain a grant for a community sports facility that has never, ever appeared. How was that a good use of money? The $12 million that came out of the Office of Sport and went to the Penrith Panthers was used to build a convention centre and a car park. It would be good if that was just one isolated incident but, unfortunately for members on the Coalition side of the Chamber, this is how every single sporting grant was decided under the previous Coalition Government.

It was interesting to hear the pleas from the member for Oatley that in the dying days of the former Government they came up with some guidelines about transparency and the Government Information (Public Access) Act [GIPAA]. He should go back and look at the huge number of GIPAA requests directed to the former Government; he will see that not once did anyone get information. For some reason, no information ever came forth from the Coalition side of the Chamber. It was so bad that the upper House had to use Standing Order 52 just to ascertain what the former Government was up to.

It was pretty disturbing when we found out what the former Government was up to. For example, one application was for the Blacktown City Council for an Olympic bike path—the member for Blacktown will remember that—that under the guidelines got a score of 22 but it did not go through to the second round. Another application was from the Concord Golf Club in the electorate of Drummoyne that received a score of 12 under the guidelines. Somehow, the application that received a score of 12 from the Office of Sport went through to the second round but the Olympic facility, which was given a score of 22 by the department, never went through to the second round.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li):

Order! Members will come to order. It is difficult to hear the member for Auburn.

Ms LYNDA VOLTZ:

The reality is that guidelines had to be introduced, and this Government has committed to putting guidelines into legislation. That is absolutely necessary in order for the public to have confidence in the grants process. There is absolutely no way sports groups will continue to apply for grants when they see their applications disappearing into the never-never.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li):

It being 11.00 a.m., pursuant to standing and sessional orders, debate is interrupted for question time. I set down resumption of the debate as an order of the day for a later hour.