Mr McADAM - 2003-02-19
In September 2002, advertisements were placed in a range of Territory newspapers calling for applications by community organisations for funding grants from the Community Benefit Fund. Minister, can you advise the House as to the outcome of those applications?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for his question, because it is an opportunity to tell a good story regarding what the Community Benefit Fund has been able to do for community organisations out there, enabling this government to directly support those community organisations that contribute so much to the great Territory lifestyle that we all enjoy.
The Community Benefit Fund is now delivering much needed funds to grassroots community organisations in a clear and transparent manner. The history of the Community Benefit Fund, prior to the election of this government, and as outlined by the Auditor-General in his report to the House last year, is a pretty sordid little tale. It showed a history of direct ministerial interference and, I tell you, it was not from the member responsible for it, because he shoved it across to his mate - he gave it to his big brother, the former Treasurer, the member for Katherine.
Mr Baldwin: And did you receive any benefit? Yes, you did. Do not knock it. You were one of the biggest beneficiaries.
Mr STIRLING: It would have been too hard for the member for Daly to make these decisions. We know he used to take copious files into the Cabinet room to get his colleagues to make the decisions for him because he could not make decisions on community grants: ‘Here Mike, do this’. But then, I digress. Of course, as I said, that was after some years of freezing …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You did admonish the House about using first names, and the speaker is continuing to do it.
Madam SPEAKER: I did, and the Treasurer does know.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Of course, they froze the fund for some years under the guise of a review, which we never ever saw or heard anything about. Then we saw, prior to the election, an obscene haste to shovel out a little over $1.6m, as the Auditor-General pointed out, without any due process, without any proper acquittal process or accounting requirements.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Treasurer is making allegations and making comments that the Auditor-General did not make. He either makes those allegations by substantive motion, or he withdraws.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order because the comments were made not to a member of the House.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General’s report shows …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I must object. The Treasurer is making direct allegations against individual members - the minister responsible and the Treasurer - and also allegations against the government in general as to how those grants were handled, none of which were substantiated in any fashion by the Auditor-General’s report. We have had that debate and it is quite wrong for the Treasurer to be allowed to make those comments again in this House. He must withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: What I am saying, Leader of the Opposition, is that he made derogatory comments to the Auditor-General, he will have to wear those. He was not making derogatory comments to you or any other member in this House.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Last night, when I was speaking about Mr Bartholomew, I was called to withdraw and I asked if you could use that consistently, which is the case we have before us now, where I was asked to withdraw because I had allegedly defamed Mr Bartholomew. I would have thought that the minister who called that point of order would have had another opportunity to defend that. All I am asking is, if you go to Hansard, page 59 of last night, you will see that we have the same circumstance now.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I do not think I ruled on that point of order. I take each point of order as they arise and give my opinion and ruling.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not sure what I was being asked to withdraw there.
The Auditor-General’s report itself was the direct impetus for this government bringing in clear and transparent guidelines and passing legislation to appoint a new committee to consider applications to the fund from community organisations. I did that in December last year, and the committee met on several occasions and carefully considered the merits of each funding application from the community organisations.
In total, 225 applications were received; total funding almost $934 000. There are two funding rounds scheduled each year for these community grants, and accordingly, for this, the first funding round for 2002-03, the committee sought to allocate around $300 000. In the end, the committee recommended 106 grants, totalling $309 640.
In assessing the applications, the committee considered the eligibility of each application and organisation within the guidelines, and with some limited exceptions, recommended only one grant per organisation where multiple applications had come from the same organisation. It considered the per capita allocation of funds by region and has given some advantage towards regional and remote regions. It has given preference to those applications with lower rounds, and it has considered the amount requested. In many cases, they recommended a reduced amount while seeking to ensure the project would not be jeopardised by the reduced funding.
The committee adopted a consistent approach toward requests for equipment purchases. It recommended the same amount, either $2500 and $3000 respectively, where a higher amount was requested, taking into account funding received by applicants from the previous CBF program and not recommended applications where acquittals remained outstanding from that previous program.
On that basis, I am pleased to advise that I have accepted the committee’s recommendation in all cases, and the following total amounts were allocated on a regional basis for the first round: Alice Springs 19 out of 33, $59 644 allocated; Darwin 58 out of 143, $155 246 allocated; outer Darwin, six out of 13, $23 931 allocated; East Arnhem six out of eight, $24 468; Katherine, eight out of 17, $25 456; Tennant Creek region, nine out of 11, $20 892.
A range of administrative enhancements to the application package and the process are also being considered. Some of those will involve minor policy adjustment, which will require further work by the agency. An example is the difficulty faced in some remote communities due to the exclusion of government and semi-government organisations such as councils being ineligible to apply, and the apparent lack of any other organisation in those communities to apply for that funding. There is a question of equity here …
Mr Baldwin: That is right, what are you going to do about that? There has been a letter written to you on that.
Mr STIRLING: If you have written to me, I am very pleased to accept that representation …
Mr Baldwin: What do you mean, if I have written to you.
Mr STIRLING: … because it is something we are going to …
Mr Baldwin: You should know. I have not written to you, but a council has.
Mr STIRLING: I was going to say it would be a first to get a letter from the member for Daly. I do not know if I have ever had one.
We give an undertaking, because there is a question of equity there, and we want to get that straight before the next round of grants. I acknowledge the exceptional efforts of the committee and the CBF secretariat for filtering the applications and managing that round.
I acknowledge the commitment of the community representatives - these people really put in a couple of solid days in the end, with about three meetings altogether – Austin Chin, Charlie King, Denise Southwood, David Mitchell and Clive Scollay. They have done a great job, and the Community Benefit Fund is now an example of an open and transparent government at work, and one which everyone on this side of the House is proud to be associated with.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for his question, because it is an opportunity to tell a good story regarding what the Community Benefit Fund has been able to do for community organisations out there, enabling this government to directly support those community organisations that contribute so much to the great Territory lifestyle that we all enjoy.
The Community Benefit Fund is now delivering much needed funds to grassroots community organisations in a clear and transparent manner. The history of the Community Benefit Fund, prior to the election of this government, and as outlined by the Auditor-General in his report to the House last year, is a pretty sordid little tale. It showed a history of direct ministerial interference and, I tell you, it was not from the member responsible for it, because he shoved it across to his mate - he gave it to his big brother, the former Treasurer, the member for Katherine.
Mr Baldwin: And did you receive any benefit? Yes, you did. Do not knock it. You were one of the biggest beneficiaries.
Mr STIRLING: It would have been too hard for the member for Daly to make these decisions. We know he used to take copious files into the Cabinet room to get his colleagues to make the decisions for him because he could not make decisions on community grants: ‘Here Mike, do this’. But then, I digress. Of course, as I said, that was after some years of freezing …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You did admonish the House about using first names, and the speaker is continuing to do it.
Madam SPEAKER: I did, and the Treasurer does know.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Of course, they froze the fund for some years under the guise of a review, which we never ever saw or heard anything about. Then we saw, prior to the election, an obscene haste to shovel out a little over $1.6m, as the Auditor-General pointed out, without any due process, without any proper acquittal process or accounting requirements.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Treasurer is making allegations and making comments that the Auditor-General did not make. He either makes those allegations by substantive motion, or he withdraws.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order because the comments were made not to a member of the House.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General’s report shows …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I must object. The Treasurer is making direct allegations against individual members - the minister responsible and the Treasurer - and also allegations against the government in general as to how those grants were handled, none of which were substantiated in any fashion by the Auditor-General’s report. We have had that debate and it is quite wrong for the Treasurer to be allowed to make those comments again in this House. He must withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: What I am saying, Leader of the Opposition, is that he made derogatory comments to the Auditor-General, he will have to wear those. He was not making derogatory comments to you or any other member in this House.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Last night, when I was speaking about Mr Bartholomew, I was called to withdraw and I asked if you could use that consistently, which is the case we have before us now, where I was asked to withdraw because I had allegedly defamed Mr Bartholomew. I would have thought that the minister who called that point of order would have had another opportunity to defend that. All I am asking is, if you go to Hansard, page 59 of last night, you will see that we have the same circumstance now.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I do not think I ruled on that point of order. I take each point of order as they arise and give my opinion and ruling.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not sure what I was being asked to withdraw there.
The Auditor-General’s report itself was the direct impetus for this government bringing in clear and transparent guidelines and passing legislation to appoint a new committee to consider applications to the fund from community organisations. I did that in December last year, and the committee met on several occasions and carefully considered the merits of each funding application from the community organisations.
In total, 225 applications were received; total funding almost $934 000. There are two funding rounds scheduled each year for these community grants, and accordingly, for this, the first funding round for 2002-03, the committee sought to allocate around $300 000. In the end, the committee recommended 106 grants, totalling $309 640.
In assessing the applications, the committee considered the eligibility of each application and organisation within the guidelines, and with some limited exceptions, recommended only one grant per organisation where multiple applications had come from the same organisation. It considered the per capita allocation of funds by region and has given some advantage towards regional and remote regions. It has given preference to those applications with lower rounds, and it has considered the amount requested. In many cases, they recommended a reduced amount while seeking to ensure the project would not be jeopardised by the reduced funding.
The committee adopted a consistent approach toward requests for equipment purchases. It recommended the same amount, either $2500 and $3000 respectively, where a higher amount was requested, taking into account funding received by applicants from the previous CBF program and not recommended applications where acquittals remained outstanding from that previous program.
On that basis, I am pleased to advise that I have accepted the committee’s recommendation in all cases, and the following total amounts were allocated on a regional basis for the first round: Alice Springs 19 out of 33, $59 644 allocated; Darwin 58 out of 143, $155 246 allocated; outer Darwin, six out of 13, $23 931 allocated; East Arnhem six out of eight, $24 468; Katherine, eight out of 17, $25 456; Tennant Creek region, nine out of 11, $20 892.
A range of administrative enhancements to the application package and the process are also being considered. Some of those will involve minor policy adjustment, which will require further work by the agency. An example is the difficulty faced in some remote communities due to the exclusion of government and semi-government organisations such as councils being ineligible to apply, and the apparent lack of any other organisation in those communities to apply for that funding. There is a question of equity here …
Mr Baldwin: That is right, what are you going to do about that? There has been a letter written to you on that.
Mr STIRLING: If you have written to me, I am very pleased to accept that representation …
Mr Baldwin: What do you mean, if I have written to you.
Mr STIRLING: … because it is something we are going to …
Mr Baldwin: You should know. I have not written to you, but a council has.
Mr STIRLING: I was going to say it would be a first to get a letter from the member for Daly. I do not know if I have ever had one.
We give an undertaking, because there is a question of equity there, and we want to get that straight before the next round of grants. I acknowledge the exceptional efforts of the committee and the CBF secretariat for filtering the applications and managing that round.
I acknowledge the commitment of the community representatives - these people really put in a couple of solid days in the end, with about three meetings altogether – Austin Chin, Charlie King, Denise Southwood, David Mitchell and Clive Scollay. They have done a great job, and the Community Benefit Fund is now an example of an open and transparent government at work, and one which everyone on this side of the House is proud to be associated with.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016