Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Finance. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Morrison government is responding to recommendations from the Auditor-General in relation to future grants programs and how the present and previous Auditor-General's reports into grants programs have demonstrated the need for improvements to be applied to the Commonwealth grants guidelines?

Mr Husic interjecting—

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

If the member for Chifley wants to make a point of order, he can make it. He's not going to just sit there and bark at me.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 100(b) a question that has been asked and fully answered cannot be asked twice.

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

You better read the standing order so that you understand it. It's probably the most straightforward standing order. It needs to be identical.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moore for his question. As the member for Moore knows, we on this side of the House have taken the Auditor-General's report into the Community Sport Infrastructure program very seriously. We're implementing the recommendations from that report, including the extension of the Commonwealth grant rules and guidelines to situations that involve corporate Commonwealth entities like Sport Australia, and the decision-maker is a minister.

As this House would be aware, particularly those opposite, it's not the only report of the Auditor-General that has made important observations. There was a report, Auditor-General report No. 9 of 2014-15, into the design and conduct of the third and fourth funding rounds of the Regional Development Australia Fund, a fund which was $1.4 billion and saw, under rounds 3 and 4, more than $200 million awarded. This report found, on page 132:

A feature of the Minister's decision making was the lack of strong alignment between the funding decisions taken and the panel’s recommendations

And:

… the records of the reasons for funding decisions taken contrary to panel advice generally provided little insight as to their basis and made no reference to the published selection criteria.

The House may be interested to know who the beneficiary of this process was. Well, the Auditor-General says, on page 19:

Guess who the minister responsible for this program was. The member for Ballarat. Now it's the invisible member for Ballarat!

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

The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for McEwen, on a point of order?

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Deakin has made an unparliamentary remark and I'd ask him to withdraw it.

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

I ask the member for Deakin whether he made an unparliamentary remark. Can the member for Deakin come to the dispatch box so that Hansard can record his answer. In these circumstances, I can only ask the member for Deakin whether he made an unparliamentary remark.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't make an unparliamentary remark.

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

Okay. The Treasurer.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who was the member for Ballarat's senior minister? The member for Grayndler. Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor!