ST DIMITRIOS CHURCH

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:43): I seek leave to make a brief explanation prior to asking the Leader of the Government a question about pork barrel payments made out of political slush funds.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On 26 June last year the Greek Orthodox Church in Mr Rann's electorate wrote a letter to Mr Rann asking for a grant towards a building and carpark project costing $430,000. I note that the copy of the letter sent is dated 26 June but, interestingly, has no stamp from the Premier's office which would normally indicate the date on which it was received. On the same day, 26 June, Mr Rann approved the grant and sent a memo to the acting treasurer, the Hon. Mr Holloway. On the very same day, 26 June 2006, the acting treasurer, Mr Holloway, approved the transfer of additional appropriation of $430,000. The note signed by the acting treasurer on the same day, 26 June, has the acting treasurer approving additional appropriation of $430,500 from the government's appropriation fund to be paid to the St Dimitrios Greek Orthodox Parish at Salisbury. He noted that a new line in the administered items of the Department of Treasury and Finance may need to be established, not surprisingly, and approved the additional payment of $430,500 in 2005-06 from administered items for the Department of Treasury and Finance.

The actual grant was paid to the church out of the Premier's special appeal, minor grants and community grants fund, which according to a senior manager in the Premier's Department usually pays grants of only up to about $3,000. I note also in the morning newspaper that the Parish Reverend Christos Tsoraklidis told The Advertiser 'he had not discussed the plan with Mr  Rann and the funding was approved solely on a three-page submission outlining the project'. I assume that was the three-page letter received on 26 June 2006. As I have said to the media, we make no criticism of the church involved. If it can get the money, good luck to it. Our concerns are with the Premier and his processes.

A number of commentators have said to me that they are concerned about and critical of the Premier's actions in relation to this matter, which they describe as pork-barrelling from the Premier's own political slush fund for a church within his own electorate. My question is directed to the Leader of the Government, who had the critical role of approving this grant on the same day he received it. My questions are:

1. How did the acting treasurer satisfy himself in less than a few hours, possibly minutes, that it was appropriate and in the public interest for him to make a special grant of $430,500 to the Premier so that he could pass on a payment to the church within the Premier's own electorate?

2. What advice did he take to satisfy himself as acting treasurer that it was appropriate and in the public interest that he should make that particular grant?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:46): I assume that the Hon. Rob Lucas is acting in concert with Mr Hamilton-Smith, Leader of the Opposition, in attacking this particular grant. I do not know what it is with members of the Liberal Party opposite, why they so dislike it. Is it the Greek community or is it this particular institution they are attacking? That is all it can be. It is quite disgraceful. What gross hypocrisy from the Liberal Party. This grant was made last year—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will answer it in full detail. In fact, I will go through a lot of detail about the processes used by the Liberal Party of Australia. We know that the Hon. Rob Lucas lives in the eastern suburbs in Mr Christopher Pyne's electorate. It was $430,000 to a community that is doing work. It was a grant which came from a program that was established when Mr Lucas himself was treasurer. It was established by a Liberal leader, his former colleague. That is how the grant scheme was established. It was established to make grants—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Here we go again. The honourable member does not like it but he will have to cop it. His hypocrisy and dishonesty will be exposed in great detail, so members should just sit and wait. He was there as treasurer when this fund was established. The honourable member used the word 'pork-barrelling'. If a government was going to pork-barrel, why would it do it in 2006 just after an election? I contrast that with what is happening now with the federal Liberal government—his colleagues. He lives in the eastern suburbs. Mr Christopher Pyne recently gave $1 million—not $430,000—to 400 junior soccer players at Campbelltown. Some $100 million was spent on the Regional Partnership Program, at least $40 million of which was allocated during the previous federal election campaign. That is pork-barrelling. How dare Rob Lucas talk about it. He can certainly speak with expertise on pork-barrelling, because he comes from a party that is totally engrossed with it. In this morning's paper—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Gee, they do not like it. In an article in The Australian, under the headline 'Pork-barrel', it states, 'Turnbull floods his electorate with grants'. What is rotten about this is that this is an example of Liberal Party standards. This is the calibre and standard set by the person who asked the question. This is the sort of person he is. He has been here for 25 years and in 25 years he has soaked up this Liberal culture. The article states, 'Turnbull floods his electorate with grants'. We are in a federal election campaign and the government is in caretaker mode, yet a federal minister is giving 13 grants out of a total $174 million to his own electorate.

I contrast that with what happened last year when the Premier used a fund—which was established by the honourable member's former leader when the honourable member was treasurer—to give $430,000 to a deserving body. If the body is not deserving, let us hear the person opposite, Martin Hamilton-Smith and others have the guts to come out and attack the body. If they do not think they are worthy of getting this money, let them have the guts to say it. Instead, they just carry on, making these accusations.

As was said on the radio this morning, the Hon. Rob Lucas talked about this issue. Of course, we all know the cosy relationship he has with the Greg Kelton of The Advertiser. Whatever he does in his committee, Greg Kelton publishes it. We also know there is Bevan and Abraham in the morning. What was said this morning by the Hon. Rob Lucas—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: What I do not like is dishonesty, Liberal hypocrites and the sort of sleazy accusation that is made by the Hon. Rob Lucas. After 25 years in this parliament that is all he can come up with; the only questions he ever asks are all about making accusations. He and his leader, Mr Hamilton-Smith, whom presumably he is in bed with over this issue, do not have the guts to come out and attack the organisation that gets the money. Notice how no-one has ever said it is not deserving. Notice how these people never face the question: is this grant deserving or not?

I tell you what: you can ask that question about some of the grants currently going around under the federal Liberal government, even though it is supposed to be in caretaker mode. You can certainly ask that question about that, but you will not hear an answer. Let one of these Liberals stand up and say that this was not a deserving cause; that this St Dimitrios cultural learning centre is not deserving of the money. They will not; you will not hear that, and I think that says a lot.

In relation to the question about myself, as the Hon. Rob Lucas said himself, the acting treasurer approved the transfer of almost $500,000 across to the Premier's department to pay for it. It was a transfer from a contingency, which I did on the recommendation of Treasury.