Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, the minister who administered the car park rorts said that he wasn't aware of the list of top 20 marginals the Audit Office found was used to allocate car park funding to seats targeted by the Liberal Party. If the minister is correct, can the Prime Minister tell the House who put the list together and who used it to allocate rorted funding? Was it the Prime Minister's office?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before I call the minister, I'm not going to rule the question out of order, because there have been a number of questions on other topics like this. When you're using a turn of phrase it can really leave it open for the question not to be answered. So what I'd prefer for future questions is that, if you're talking about a program that has been the subject of an audit report, you just state what the program is. The member for Grey, on a point of order?

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, a point of order, Mr Speaker: I make the point that, in that question, he didn't actually address it to a minister at all—he didn't name the minister—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he did. His first line was—

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He addressed it to the minister for car park rorts.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he didn't. No, no. His first line was: 'My question is to the Prime Minister,' and the Prime Minister has redirected it to the minister, and the minister has the call.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank the shadow minister for his question, and I make the point that there is no question that the minister of the day had authority to make decisions in relation to commuter car parks. There is no question of that—and, indeed, the Auditor-General's report makes that very clear. Under the National Land Transport Act, the minister of the day had authority, and the minister of the day exercised that authority consistent with the provisions of the National Land Transport Act. I also make the point that money was committed on the basis of advice from the department to the minister of the day, and indeed that is made very clear in the Auditor-General's report. I also make the point that we saw from the other side of the House commitments under the park-and-ride fund to commuter car parks at Gosford, Woy Woy and Campbelltown, and at St Marys, Riverwood, Panania and Hurstville—all of them from Labor. Apparently there's some problem with committing funding—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will just resume his seat. The member for Scullin is seeking the call on a point of order.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on relevance: the question was quite narrow, about the list of projects and who was responsible for it.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd just say to the member: that's what I was alluding to with the first part of his question that had some politically charged language. If he'd just asked that, he'd have a point, but the question, at its heart, contains an accusation, and that enables the minister to respond to that accusation. I'm not going to be too precious about the question, for reasons that a couple of people with long memories here will know, but we won't go into that. The minister has the call.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here's my answer to the ambitious but previously obscure shadow minister, who is desperately trying, without conspicuous success, to capitalise on what he thought was going to be his moment in the sun. He asks: 'Who made the decision?' I'll tell you who made the decision: the minister of the day made the decision. And the minister of the day had authority. This is the key point. The Auditor-General's report does not contest that the minister of the day had authority. Let me read to you from page 38 of the Auditor-General's report:

Under the Infrastructure Investment Program arrangements, the Australian Government may commit funding to an investment project at any time for any phase based on information it deems appropriate.

The Auditor-General's report does not say, because it could not say, that the minister did not have authority. He did have authority. The Auditor-General's report does not say, because it could not say, that the minister did not act on the advice of his department. In fact, what the Auditor-General's report says, quite precisely, is: for each of these 33 projects, the minister recorded that he had accepted the department's recommendations. There have been no instances where the minister approved funding for a commuter car park that had been recommended for rejection by the department. There is no question. The minister had authority, consistent with the provisions of the National Land Transport Act.