Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister, and it goes to further embarrassment on his part. Can the Prime Minister explain why his Ministers Hill and Alston chose to ignore nine of the 17 projects which were rated by their two departments as very high—that is, with a score of 19 to 24 out of a maximum of 24 points—and 70 of the 114 projects which were rated above the proposed 15-point cut-off in order to favour 16 projects which were rated below the 15-point cut-off?

Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) —The answer to the Leader of the Opposition is that there is no embarrassment for the government on this issue. The only person who is talking embarrassment is the Leader of the Opposition. The projects were approved by me on advice. The projects were recommended to me by the two ministers after taking the advice of the departments and also quite properly, as they had indicated, taking the advice of the National Council for the Centenary of Federation, which is chaired by Mr Dick Smith.

Mr McMullan —How many of them did it recommend?

Mr HOWARD —The deputy chairman of the council is a former eminent member of the New South Wales moderate left, Mr Rodney Cavalier, who was an education minister in the New South Wales government.

Mr McMullan interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Fraser!

Mr McMullan —He is lying.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Fraser is warned.

Mr HOWARD —The executive director of that council is a very well-respected former Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Tony Eggleton, and the council has on it representatives nominated not only by the Commonwealth but by the various state governments. Unless one takes the view that when you become a minister you cease to have any capacity to apply your own judgment and you must always accept rote-like everything that is put in front of you—I do not accept that view and no self-respecting government ever will: when the Labor Party was in government, it did not take that view—unless you take the view that you can never ever have a judgment of your own which is separate and different from the judgment that may be put forward, you would have followed the attitude taken by the two ministers.

I repeat: the Auditor-General has a capacity to investigate. The Auditor-General is the keeper of the ring as far as the rules are concerned. I have indicated that, if it is the desire of the Auditor-General to investigate these projects, investigate them he will. If he decides to do that, speaking for myself and on all the information available to me, I have no concern about that whatever. If that is his judgment, that will occur and we will just see what he produces.