Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I certainly have heard Senator Farrell's contribution and I apologise profusely to Senator Farrell. One hundred and thirty-six emails in 122 days. Is this the smoking gun those opposite think they have found? Let's see what the Auditor-General said, because you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand rely on what the Auditor-General said in some places but then in other places disregard what he said. This is what the Auditor-General's office said with respect to the representations:

… we would not agree that there was a clear causal relationship between local members of parliament saying 'These are the priority projects in my electorate', those inputs to the process and the ones being approved.

That is what the Auditor-General's office actually said. That is the actual evidence. You can't pick and choose. If the evidence doesn't suit you, it's still evidence; it's still there; it's still probative.

In another case, this is what the Auditor-General's office said:

Yes … It wasn't the case that we could see that those which came, if I could say, directly from the Prime Minister's office—

And this is the 136 emails. The supposed smoking gun Senator Farrell sees, which isn't there, which is a mirage—

were necessarily any more successful than those which came from a local member direct to the minister's office rather than through the Prime Minister's office.

Nothing to see here. What there is to see, when you look—and during question time I actually did look at the successful grants in my home state of Queensland—grants were awarded across the breadth and width of my great home state of Queensland. Mount Isa, held by the honourable Bob Katter, in the independent seat of Kennedy, got a grant. Palm Island, one of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in my home state of Queensland, was successful in getting a grant—and Ipswich, in the federal seat of Blair, and Logan, in the federal seat of Rankin, and projects in the federal seats of Moreton and in Oxley. I was in fact invited to the opening of one of these successful grant infrastructure projects in the federal seat of Oxley. I declined, because I knew I didn't want to take away from the efforts of the Labor member for Oxley, Milton Dick, who'd worked so hard to secure that project in the federal Labor seat of Oxley.

The fact of the matter is that before the then minister intervened and did what ministers should do in terms of making final decisions in accordance with the guidelines, only 26 per cent of the grants were going to Labor-held seats. After the minister had exercised her discretion and considered what was right, what was wrong and where the money would be best directed, 34 per cent went to Labor seats—an improvement of eight per cent. And I'm sure the constituents in each and every one of those seats are thankful.