My question is for the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher. Minister, in February this year, I asked questions on notice in relation to the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. The answers confirmed 229 invitations were issued for a $560 million fund. What was not disclosed was how a project came to be the subject of an election commitment. An analysis from the Centre for Public Integrity shows that 73 per cent of the $560 million went to notionally Labor held seats, predominantly to marginal Labor seats. Minister, is this pork-barrelling?

No. it's delivering election commitments. The way you deliver election commitments—people over that side, I think you made election commitments yourselves, but obviously you're not in government, so you're not able to deliver them. When parties make commitments through an election process—you have to deliver them.

The election commitment is clear. It is made before the election. The value of that election commitment is made clear. It is contained in our costings. And, on winning the support of the electorate, when we come into government, there are grant rules around how to administer those election commitments and deliver them. Those grant rules were followed.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. Minister, I'm glad you mentioned the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, because they provide that competitive, merit based processes should be used unless specifically agreed otherwise and that, where they are not, the rationale should be documented. Clearly, there was no merits based process here. It certainly wasn't competitive. Will you table the rationale for the departure from the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles?

Order! Senator Cash, I'm waiting to call the minister. Minister Gallagher.

As you would know from reading the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, there is also a closed, non-competitive round. It is allowed to be—the grant principles and rules follow that, and Minister King followed that. Now, I hear those opposite groaning and moaning about this, but what happened—and I heard Senator McKenzie railing as well, about this, this morning. The difference between sports rorts, Senator McKenzie, which was an open, merits based process—

Minister Gallagher, please—

Order on my right! Senator McKenzie?

I would ask you to get the minister to withdraw that comment.

Thank you—

She also misrepresented me. For once, I was quiet.

Senator McKenzie, do not go into a further statement. Minister Gallagher, I will ask you to withdraw.

Okay, I withdraw. I think, if you go back and have a look at the election commitments we made, Senator Pocock, we were clear in the media statements that were made around them that these would be delivered through a closed, non-competitive process. We were clear on that at the point that those commitments were made. We were very clear about that. All of the decisions have been taken in accordance with the grants rules and principles.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. Minister, if election commitments overwhelmingly go to marginal seats, what is the difference between election commitments and pork-barrelling?

Well, I don't agree with that. We made election commitments in seats we hold, in seats we wanted to win and in seats that we were never going to hold. That is not the case, Senator Pocock, so I would challenge you. If you think you can demonstrate that our commitments were targeted on marginal seats, you do that. They were across the board in seats we don't hold and in seats we would never hold. Unfortunately for those that seek to smear on this program, we have followed every single rule to the letter, and we have been very clear. I consulted with people about this beforehand. You can sit and smile, but the reality is—you can smear if you choose—we have followed the rules and we have been very clear about it.