Senator FAULKNER —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Can the minister shed any light on the 16 shonky federation cultural and heritage projects which he and his colleague Senator Hill selected for funding, notwithstanding departmental assessments that they did not make the grade? I ask Minister Alston: what were the 16 projects? Why were they chosen? Who recommended them? And why is the government refusing to provide any information about them?

Senator ALSTON (Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —You really know you have run out of steam when you have to recycle this little issue that Senator Faulkner has been desperately trying to get up now for months and months. How long is it since the last election? It must be coming up to 10 months, and yet here we are still trying to get it off the ground. This issue was trawled over exhaustively in the estimates process. Of course, Senator Faulkner got a letter some weeks ago. He had to wait until Mike Seccombe got back from holidays before he could find someone who would actually give it a run.

To really capitalise on this issue and make sure he really hit the spot, what did he do? Did he get out there, call a doorstop and talk to all of the major media players? No, he went on Graham Richardson's program this morning. Were they feeding one another! Mr Richardson said, `These two senators ignored independent advice, and they gave funding to what they now admit were 16 projects, even though the projects did not meet the minimum criteria.' Talk about a strict exchange of prejudices!

Richardson knows, as do you, that we were the recipients of two sets of advice from the National Council for the Centenary of Federation and a task force comprising joint officials from Senator Hill's department and mine. We made the ultimate decision about that. We took their advice, they gave us a list, we took that into account and we looked at all the projects. Of course, that does not stop you getting out there and saying, `I think they are probably dodgy projects.' I noticed you said so for the first time. I suppose you think you have to go a bit further to try to beat it up. Now, of course, he does not think; he knows. He comes into question time today and says, `These are shonky projects.' Let me just ask you: the 16 must be included amongst the 60 that we approved. Is that right? The logic of that is that, somewhere in amongst those 60 projects, all of which are on the public record, you are saying that at least 16 of them are shonky. Does that include the restoration of the Great Synagogue Tower in Sydney? Does it include the restoration of one of the most important historic ships, the Polly Woodside in Melbourne?

Senator Faulkner —Madam President, I have a point of order.

Government senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senators on my right will let me hear this point of order.

Senator Faulkner —Let the minister come clean and tell us what the 16 shonky projects are. The question is directed to him, and he ought to answer it.

The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order.

Senator ALSTON —I am delighted to answer it, because they were not shonky. It is very simple.

Senator Faulkner —What are they?

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Faulkner, stop shouting like that. Interjections of the kind that are going on are disorderly.

Senator ALSTON —They are quite simply projects that were selected by us from all those projects that were regarded as eligible. In other words, these were not ruled out because they did not meet minimum criteria. Look at that stuff that Seccombe trotted out this morning. I hope you were not responsible for the series of mistakes that he made. Talk about getting it fundamentally wrong—to say that they did not meet minimum criteria when they did, to say that we overturned an independent assessment process when we did not and to go on and say that we are in breach of the caretaker conventions when we were not. Are you responsible for this, or is Seccombe? Make up your mind. I can understand where you are coming from. You even went so far as to suggest that this was worse than the case of Ros Kelly.

Let me just remind the Senate why Ros Kelly is relevant to this whole debate. This was the case of the missing coupes. There were four that were non-existent. Senator Faulkner went to cabinet indicating that all of those were of high conservation value, when it turned out that four of them did not exist at all. What did Laurie Oakes say? He said that Senator Faulkner had made a mess of things comprehensively, had intended to make himself a hero of the environment movement, that disillusion was setting in in caucus with Senator Faulkner's performance and that, rather than wanting to be Graham Richardson, he emerges from this episode more like Ros Kelly! There you go. It says it all. We know how to make decisions properly. You clearly did not.

Senator FAULKNER —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask again for the minister to name the 16 projects. Isn't it true, Minister, that you received a departmental submission on 14 August 1998 where the departments, yours and Senator Hill's, presented to you a list of 114 projects which ranked 15 and above out of a total of 24 points? You and Senator Hill now admit that you approved 16 projects.

Senator Ian Macdonald —Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator Faulkner is again ignoring your repeated urgings to him to address the question through the Chair rather than talking directly to Senator Alston. I know it is very difficult for Senator Faulkner to understand these things, but could you remind him again of what the standing orders say?

The PRESIDENT —Senator, you have had an opportunity to ask your supplementary question. You ought not to keep interjecting while the minister answers.

Senator Alston —I thought you had finished that time. Have you got more?

Senator FAULKNER —What were the projects, and why were they chosen?

Senator ALSTON (Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —They were chosen because we judged that they were deserving on the criteria that were adopted. The fundamental mistake that you make is that you somehow think that we were obliged to accept the advice offered. We never were. Anyone who looks at this understands that. I think you even got a glimmer of an understanding of this in estimates. Your trouble is that you have slipped back. When they had the tactics meeting, poor old Mr Beazley, who was on a very big slide, said, `What on earth can we run with this week?' Senator Faulkner said, `Maybe it's about time we dredged up that Federation Fund project again.' After all, you remember that they are not too good on policy. This is the bloke who got dumped as shadow minister for social security. He is now shadow minister for politics. Lord knows what he will do if they ever get to government, because there will not be a portfolio with that responsibility. You know as well as we do that we made the decisions. We took into account the advice that was offered. It was very valuable advice, but we were not going to simply slavishly follow what the department did in terms of cut-off points. You would; we would not. (Time expired)