Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Does Mr Morrison agree with Mr Fletcher when he asserts that decisions made in relation to the commuter car park program were made on the basis of departmental advice?

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

Mr President, I'm sure that the Prime Minister agrees with the statements made by Minister Fletcher. I'm not aware of the full context or direct quote that the senator's referring to, but I know that the Prime Minister has full confidence in relation to Minister Fletcher, his work and his statements. These projects that we committed to are all about providing additional support and assistance to Australians in terms of going about their daily lives. It's about making sure that infrastructure is there that people want. For example, I think it's important to look at what defines some of these projects. To quote:

Public transport isn't just about the train line or bus route itself. It's also about the surrounding infrastructure that makes it work for local residents.

That's why we are committing to upgrading public parking facilities at Mango Hill station and at transport hubs across the country.

Senator Watt interjecting—

I hear Senator Watt say that it's a marginal seat. Well, that quote was from the member for Grayndler. The member for Grayndler was actually making that quote when he was committing to provide funding for a commuter car park as part of the Labor Party's Commuter Car Park Program. So, those opposite spelt out the arguments as to why these are worthwhile projects; indeed, those opposite spelt out the fact that, under their model, the member for Grayndler and others were happy to wander around the country making commitments for these projects, So, yes, we are committed to deliver projects that are beneficial to people across Australia and our commitment is to get on with the delivery of those projects, as we have been doing, for the benefit of people across Australia.

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

Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question?

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Yes. Did the Prime Minister or his office see the top 20 marginal seats list referred to by the Auditor-General in his report—yes or no?

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

The Prime Minister's addressed those questions. I'm not aware of details around such things. I am aware of course that there are many projects that are currently underway as part of the Urban Congestion Fund.

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

Order. 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

A point of order on direct relevance. It was a very specific question. The Auditor-General has referred to a particular list. The Prime Minister has refused to answer that question. I would ask the minister to return to the question.

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

I do grant people who ask questions the opportunity to emphasise the point, but I don't think commentary about the context of the question is appropriate to go into. The minister, in my view, was answering the question. I can't instruct him how to answer it and I definitely, as I've said before, can't instruct the content of an answer to the precision of words the opposition would prefer or an asker would prefer. There are opportunities to debate the content of answers after question time. That's not a matter for points of order. Senator Birmingham.

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

Thanks, Mr President. As the government's made clear, all decisions regarding commuter car parks were identified based on the demonstrated needs within the community. That was the focus of our government: to make sure we were meeting needs within the community. I am sure that's what all do in relation to commuter car park type projects: look at needs within the community. I'm sure—

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

Order, Senator Birmingham. 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

A point of order on direct relevance. The question goes to whether the Prime Minister or his office saw the list the Auditor-General referred to.

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

Senator Wong, you've restated the question. I can't instruct a minister how to answer a question. If the minister—

Senator Wong interjecting—

I'm happy to take a submission, but I'd like to finish what I was saying before I take another submission. I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question. If the minister, as I believe he was then doing, was explaining an alternative rationale, I believe that is directly relevant. Senator Wong.

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

Mr President, on your ruling, the question did not go to the program that he's now expanding the benefits of; the question went only to whether or not a list had been seen. In my respectful submission, I would ask you to reconsider your ruling given that a discussion of the program itself is directly relevant in accordance with the standing orders, when the only question he was asked, as the man representing the Prime Minister, is whether the list was seen.

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

The question referred to a list that was referred to by an Auditor-General's report, quite right. I believe, and I'm happy to review the Hansard and if I'm wrong I will come back, as I always do, or approach people individually, if the minister is explaining a rationale that is directly relevant to that question—

An honourable senator interjecting—

I was trying to listen to the minister. I intend to hear the next 17 seconds of his answer, because he wasn't making comments or observations about alternative policies or the opposition or anything I've previously ruled against.

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

Mr President, if I could ask then, when you go away and reconsider Hansard, how it is possible that a discussion of the rationale about funding is directly relevant to a direct question as to whether or not a list has been sent. The opposition would be most grateful for that advice.

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

I am most happy to review that. Senator Birmingham, continue.

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

Thanks, Mr President. They are rather touchy about any comparisons that come up on this program, aren't they? They're very, very touchy over there about the fact that they were pursuing—

An honourable senator interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Wong.

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

Mr President, he is completely ignoring standing orders. This is a question about a list.

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

And the question about the list referred to an Auditor-General's report, which, in my view, makes an answer about the context of an alternative rationale directly relevant. But I've said I will review it—

Honourable senators interjecting—

There were interjections coming across the table. There were breaches of the standing orders going across the table as well. If there are no interjections then ministers can't be pulled up for talking about the opposition. But it is relatively common in this chamber for people to take disorderly interjections. They won't be taken if they're not made. Senator Birmingham.

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

Thanks, Mr President. The ANAO report to the Senate about the Prime Minister's letter of 10 April—it is probably worth just emphasising that from our perspective there is nothing unusual about that 10 April correspondence—(Time expired)

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

Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question?

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did the Morrison government vote against providing to the Senate the top 20 marginal seats list in spreadsheets shared between Mr Tudge's staff, the Prime Minister's office and the department?

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

Because we are not going to stand for the hypocrisy of those opposite. We are not going to indulge their political games and antics. That's why we voted in that regard in the chamber, because the hypocrisy is quite obvious. Take 2 July 2018 when Mr Shorten did a press conference near Gosford station to announce $15 million for commuter car parks. He was joined by the Labor candidate for Robertson and the Labor member for Dobell. I wonder how those projects were selected. Or 28 July when Mr Albanese was at Narangba station in Queensland with the then member for Longman, Susan Lamb, announcing $5 million. Guess what? That was the day before the Longman by-election. I wonder how that project was chosen by those opposite. Or 27 October 2018 when Mr Albanese teamed up with Labor Premier Dan Andrews to announce the Tarneit commuter car park in the lead-up to the 2018 Victorian state election.

Senator Wong interjecting—

You don't like it, do you? You don't like the comparison. You don't like—

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

Order! Senator Hanson, remotely.