Scott Morrison has asked his former chief of staff and longtime Liberal Party staffer Phil Gaetjens, who now heads the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to investigate the Australian National Audit Office’s report on the rorting of the Community Sports Infrastructure Grants program by Nationals minister Bridget McKenzie.
It’s not a full-blown investigation, but limited “to any actions in the application of the statement of ministerial standards”.
That is, Gaetjens won’t look at the probity of deliberately avoiding the Commonwealth’s grant rules and grant platform, or overriding the recommendations of the Sports Commission. Instead, his focus will only be on whether McKenzie breached the government’s guidelines for ministers.
If Gaetjens does his job independently and properly he’ll take heed of the fact that the statement makes clear ministers “must ensure that they act with integrity … through the lawful and disinterested exercise of the statutory and other powers available to their office [and] appropriate use of the resources available to their office for public purposes”.
They “must observe fairness in making official decisions”, “taking proper account of the merits of the matter,” and “when taking decisions in or in connection with their official capacity … must do so in terms of advancing the public interest”.
That leads to some obvious questions that Gaetjens should look to answer:
- How was McKenzie’s behaviour “lawful” when there was no legal authority for allocating $100 million?
- How did she observe “fairness” and “taking proper account of the merits of the matter” when applications with considerably less merit were given grants ahead of far more deserving ones, because they were in marginal seats?
- How did failing to award grants to more deserving applications “advance the public interest”?
- How did McKenzie “promote the observance of these standards by leadership and example in the public bodies for which they are responsible” when she demanded that the Sports Commission override its own act and hand her the power to allocate grants?
- How did McKenzie comply with the requirement to give “due consideration to the rights and interests of the persons involved, and the interests of Australia” when she in effect asked sporting and community bodies with strong claims for funding to apply for grants despite their having little chance of success because they were in safe Labor or Coalition seats?
Even a quick glance through the statement reveals a number of requirements that McKenzie could have blatantly breached.
So the referral to Gaetjens has now become a test of him, as well as the government. The stench of a rorted program spreads ever further.
Every interview I’ve heard with anyone from the Coalition about this pig trough merely blathers about ‘all were eligible’ and ‘more girls playing sport’ , etcetera.
I want someone to ask them whether they thought there was any criticism of the scheme in the auditors report, and if so what was it. And then ask them to respond to that criticism directly.
I was recently chatting with Norm, Steve, Davo and the other lads (Sandra moved to Queensland, so its lads only, sorry) about this very thing during my visit to the pub. They all agreed it’s a simple one to solve. Just ask the shelia (their word not mine) why she made up her own rules, gave it to jokers (again their word) her and her mates knew, and didn’t follow the process the wonks (you guessed it) dreamed up which seemed kinda fair? It’s not blinking (my word not theirs) rocket science is it? It’s just doing it right, like when it’s your round. Seemed fair to me, my round?
The main thing that perplexes me about this case is that it’s clear it was a team effort to set up and run. Is there any particular reason why McKenzie should take the fall for doing what was expected of her by the government, or is it just using her position as an excuse to scapegoat her?
I’m with you. It is only partly about her. She was just following orders.
Absolutely agree, Kel S. It’s clear that the entire scheme was invented for the purpose to which McKenzie put it. I haven’t heard any one saying it publicly, but the activity was theft of public money for private purposes, and the amount of thought and preparation that went into it elevates the theft to actually being a HEIST by the liberal and national parties.
As for why McKenzie? Because she was stupid enough to fall for it, maybe? In any case whether or not just her, she still deserves it.
Why McKenzie?
There was a lazy $100m within her portfolio, unspent when the opportunity arose.
Does that relieve her of guilt? No, nor her party colleagues.
“If Gaetjens does his job independently…” If the Ministerial Standards were intended to constrain Ministers, then Howard and Downer would be toasted for bugging the Timor-L’Este cabinet. There are no standards of probity for Australian Ministers. Why? Because we have allowed them to be bypassed.
She could have said no….
Why do you think she was put in charge of it?
She is expendable!
Getting Scomo`s chief of staff to look into the McKenzie rorts scandal is akin to asking Dracula to do a stocktake of the blood bank or the CEO of the NAB to investigate the NAB for criminal behavior
When did Morrison actually ask his caesar to judge this case?
There seems to be some conjecture over when that actually happened : against when Morrison said he directed?
…… Hunt “Minister for Health” so adamant in his defensive “the point here is”/”as I believe” filibuster yesterday on behalf of Mckenzie?
And didn’t Morrison’s Cook do well?