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

My question is to the Minister for Sport, Senator Colbeck: The Prime Minister claims his only involvement in the rorted Community Sport Infrastructure Grants Program was to pass on 'representations made to us as every Prime Minister has always done'. But the Auditor-General last night told the Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants he had never previously seen so much interaction between a Prime Minister's office and the minister across the entire duration of a grants program. What was the Prime Minister's true involvement in this program?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. The Prime Minister's involvement in the program is as he has described it.

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 ANAO also revealed the then minister's office drafted notes for a meeting with the Prime Minister that included: 'How many additional projects in marginal and target seats could be funded?' Was the Community Sport Infrastructure Grants Program funding increased to allow the Prime Minister to make more pork-barrelling announcements?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's quite unsurprising that a minister who's looking to promote funding into their portfolio would meet with the Prime Minister proposing to do exactly that. I've done that a number of times in my portfolios, and the record of that is public to see—$1.5 billion into aged care for COVID-19. So, I think it's quite unsurprising that a minister would go to a meeting with the Prime Minister to advocate for additional funding into a program that had received significant—

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 minister is not answering the—

Senator Rennick interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Rennick. I'll hear Senator Wong's point of order.

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

I'm happy to sit down for Senator Rennick.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sorry, it's Thursday; I apologise.

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

Of a week when no-one went home, too, I note. Senator Wong.

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

The point of order is on relevance. The minister is avoiding the question by talking in the abstract. He was asked a very direct question on whether this program was increased to allow the Prime Minister to make more pork-barrelling announcements. I would ask him to return to the question.

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

Senator Cormann, on the point of order?

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

The minister is being directly relevant to the extent that he can be directly relevant as somebody who was not the minister at the time. Direct relevance has to be seen in the context of who is being asked the question. Senator Colbeck is answering the question in a directly relevant way to the extent he can, given that he was not the minister at the time and was not involved in this process at the time.

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

On the point of order, the minister was asked about a meeting. It contained somewhat loaded terminology, and I've said before that, when there are very specific questions seeking fact, being directly relevant requires a very strict interpretation. When there is more loaded and contested terminology, ministers have more discretion in responding and remaining directly relevant, including challenging the assertions. The minister is being directly relevant, in my view, and I'll call him to continue his answer.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. As I was about to say, this was a very, very popular program. In the first round, there were over 2,000 applications. Given the popularity of the program, I'm not surprised that the then minister went back to ERC and the Prime Minister— (Time expired)

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 that the Prime Minister was clearly able to devote so much time and attention to the rorting of sports grants, where was the time, attention or colour-coded spreadsheet for aged care?

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

I've long been of the view that ministers should be given the chance to respond to questions which contain assertions. I will say that is getting close to not being a supplementary question, in my view, dealing as it does with effectively a different portfolio that happens to be the minister's other one. I'm not going to rule it out of order; I'm just going to say I think it comes very close to the line. Senator Colbeck will have an opportunity to respond.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really have no choice but to completely reject the premise of the question. I was not party to the decisions with respect to sport funding made in the previous parliament. But I believe, from the understanding that I have, all of the decisions made to increase the funding for this program were appropriately made through the ERC process. Accordingly, the grant program and the program were administered from there.