Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. What was the role of the Prime Minister's office in the awarding of funding under the community sport infrastructure program?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has directly addressed that precise question on a number of occasions. The role of the Prime Minister's office is the same role as that of the Prime Minister's office since time immemorial, and that is that they pass on representations to relevant ministers in relation to grants programs. That is the role that his office played and that prime ministerial offices before this have played. The Prime Minister said at the National Press Club just last week:

What prime ministers have always done is supported their colleagues and when matters are raised with them. And that has been done since time immemorial with prime ministers to relay those positions on to the relevant ministers in those programs.

The Prime Minister's office provided information based on the representations made to them, including information about other funding options or programs relevant to project proposals received.

The decision-maker in relation to this was Senator McKenzie, and she did a great job. The sports grants program is a great program. It's very popular. It's very successful. And you know what? The Labor Party should be very grateful to Senator McKenzie, because the original recommendations received from Sport Australia, the independent Sport Australia decisions, would have seen only 26 per cent of the approved projects going to Labor electorates. Senator McKenzie lifted that to 35 per cent, through her discretion—from 26 per cent to 35 per cent. You should have been grateful. And some Labor MPs were quite grateful, in fact, as I am reading here:

Sport Australia is managed by The Minister for Sport, Bridget McKenzie, whom I thank for campaigning for further investment in this precious asset.

That is from one Anthony Albanese, thanking her for half a million dollars more to save Dawn Fraser pool. Here was the Leader of the Opposition thanking her.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Back then, of course—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann! Order! There was a lot of noise. I was calling the minister to order. Senator Wong, a supplementary question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An email from Senator McKenzie's office to Sport Australia on 7 December 2018 states:

We have just been advised by the PM's office that there have been some projects on the list funded under another grants program. So we have been asked to make a slight adjustment.

What was the 'slight adjustment'?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I would say to Senator Wong is that what she's just read out is 100 per cent consistent with my previous answer. I'm not aware of the specific circumstance at hand because I didn't have visibility of the specific decision-making. But what I would say to you is that, at any one point in time, there are a number of grants programs that are operating across government, and from time to time there is the opportunity for overlap. What I would also point out from an Auditor-General's report, which I will just talk about, is this: 'In one instance, ministers explicitly decided to waive the project eligibility criteria for an application they wished—'

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on direct relevance: if he wants to read from the Auditor-General's report, how about he reads from the one we're asking questions about? But, more importantly, I asked a specific question about what the 'slight adjustment' was. The minister has dismissed that. If he doesn't know, I ask that he take it on notice.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Wong, I do accept the first point you raised. Another Auditor-General's report is not directly relevant to this particular question. On the second point you raised, I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question. You've made the point. The minister was being directly relevant, other than that brief observation. I call the minister to continue.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just going to the hypocrisy of this line of questioning. That is why I was about to point to a previous Auditor-General's report, on the portfolio of the now Leader of the Opposition, a damning report—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Direct relevance.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister to return to the question—and, before he started talking about the alternative report, he was being directly relevant—albeit he has only two seconds to continue his answer.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I already answered the question asked.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, a final supplementary question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When asked at the National Press Club whether there was anything wrong in using public funds for private political interests, Mr Morrison responded:

… that's not why I did it.

'That's not why I did it.' What exactly did the Prime Minister do?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been very, very clear all the way through, and we completely reject this proposition that somehow the decision-making in relation to this grants program was driven by the sort of private political considerations that you are asserting. We reject that. We reject that.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Accept the Auditor-General's report!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We accept the four recommendations, which—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, on my left!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You clearly didn't listen to the Prime Minister's speech at the Press Club last week. We've accepted all four recommendations and are acting on them. But we are elected to make decisions. Whether you like it or not, we are the elected government of Australia, and right now it is this government that makes decisions on the allocation of grants and the like, and that is what happened here. It was done appropriately—and, indeed, Labor electorates did way better than they would have under the independent decision-making of Sport Australia.