Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the and , Senator McKenzie. I refer to Senator McKenzie's statements this week defending her oversight of discretionary grants programs. The minister has previously told the Senate, in relation to the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program:

The Prime Minister did not have a role in authorising projects during the three rounds … and the final decision-maker was me.

Can the minister explain how, on the eve of the last federal election, her approved project list was changed at the request of the Prime Minister's office without her knowledge?

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

I call Senator McKenzie, without reading out multiple titles.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you need a PhD to read it as well! Thank you, Senator Chisholm, for your question. I submitted a 6,000-word statement to the Senate inquiry into these matters. Indeed, I appeared, in the once-in-120-year event of the Senate calling one of its own members to appear at a committee to provide answers to your questions, which I did happily because I respect the work of the Senate and the integral role it plays in our democracy.

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

Order, Senator McKenzie. I have 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

I have risen after 32 seconds, and if the minister proceeds to answer the question then obviously my point of order will be withdrawn. I didn't want her to sit down before I made this point of order. I am going to ask you, if the minister uses that excuse to avoid any answer in question time, to take advice from the Clerk and to come back. It is not in order, nor is it consistent with the standing orders, for a minister simply to say, 'I wrote a big statement,' and thereby avoid any further questions.

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

I will take further advice on this. I am always happy to do so and to come back to senators individually or collectively. The question is in order because it refers the minister to a previous statement. That is within the standing order. However, a minister, in my view, can refer to a previous statement in answering that without necessarily detailing what is in that statement. If I have any change to that advice, I will report it to the senators involved individually, or to the chamber if it is of grave interest.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr President. I have never avoided answering those questions in those public forums ad nauseam, so I actually have nothing further to add to my public commentary, including answering that specific question during the Senate inquiry that Senator Chisholm chaired—he had over an hour to ask me any question he liked on that day—in addition to the 6,000-word public statement. So I am very comfortable with the management of that program. I am very comfortable with the exercise of ministerial discretion that saw more projects delivered to Labor seats than if I had not exercised my ministerial discretion. More clubs right around the country were able to avail themselves of a highly popular program that was oversubscribed by a factor of 13. Those programs were helping local clubs to increase physical activity right around the country in a whole raft of sports. I have publicly dealt with this through a whole raft of mechanisms that this chamber avails itself of to provide accountability and transparency to the public on the spending of public moneys. I stand by those public comments, and I have nothing further to add.

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

Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has also told the Senate:

The Prime Minister's office was not responsible for altering the attachment to the round 3 brief, because the brief was submitted to Sport Australia, albeit not in a timely manner, from my office …

How can the Senate reconcile the minister's claim that Prime Minister had no role in sports rorts when his office was adding and deleting projects without her knowledge?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, these questions have been asked and answered. I refer you to both the statement and the Hansard on both these accounts.

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

Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the minister yesterday listed a number of grants programs that, in her new roles, she is now the decision-maker for, will she ensure that the Prime Minister's office does not repeat the previous practice of altering the minister's grant decisions?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a raft of grant programs under my authority and discretion, as is appropriate as a minister for the Crown. I will actually undertake my role as a minister for the Crown, as a senator, with personal integrity and intent and ensure that I fulfil my duties in accordance with both the ministerial standards and the way I have conducted myself throughout my career.

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

The question didn't go to this minister's appropriateness, on which we all have very different views; it went to whether or not she was going to ensure the Prime Minister's office did not repeat their previous practice of altering her grant decisions.

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

You've restated the question. The minister has been talking for 21 seconds. If the minister is limiting her comments—as I believe she is—to her administration of the programs, I can't go to the point of actually directing her how to answer a question. She is being directly relevant. There is an opportunity after question time, I repeat, for debate of questions and answers.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, I take full responsibility for all decisions made as a minister then, and I'll continue to do so.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.