Senator FAULKNER —My question is directed to Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Does the minister recall that at the time he and his co-conspirator Senator Hill were only prepared to acknowledge 12—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Faulkner, there appears to be some imputation in that that I think ought not to be included in your question.

Senator FAULKNER —If there is an imputation, I withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT —I would ask you to withdraw that.

Senator FAULKNER —If there is, I withdraw it, Madam President.

The PRESIDENT —No; I ask you to withdraw it.

Senator FAULKNER —I do withdraw it. Can I ask the minister: does he recall that, at a time when he and Senator Hill were only prepared to acknowledge 12 projects which had got up on ministerial patronage rather than departmental assessment, his department provided the information that these 12 projects accounted for $11.7 million or 16.6 per cent of the $70.4 million available for the FCHP? Now that ministers have admitted that I was misled, and there were in fact 16 rather than 12 projects which they have elevated to the final 60, can the minister inform the Senate of the total value of these four additional projects?

Senator ALSTON (Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —This is just another backdoor entry exercise. What Senator Faulkner is trying to do is to identify the 16 projects. It is correct to say that, on the information provided to us, we originally advised the Senate estimates committees, separately, that there were 12 such projects. We subsequently corrected that, when it was brought to our attention that the accurate number was 16. I do not think anyone has seriously questioned the basis on which that occurred. What Senator Faulkner has been trying to do for months—in a fairly desultory fashion, I must say, until I suppose he got a bit of a kick along from someone in the gallery who was prepared to be misled by his assertions—

Senator Sherry —Name him.

Senator ALSTON —I have previously.

Senator Herron —Him or her.

Senator ALSTON —No, him. What he is trying to do is simply to identify projects that he claims are shonky. If that is the view that he holds, then he is saying that 16 out of 60 projects are shonky. If that is the case, if Senator Faulkner is able to make that state ment—and he did not say that the process was; he said that the projects were—we have here an absolutely heaven-sent opportunity for Senator Faulkner to actually step up to the plate and tell us which of those 60 he regards as conceivably in the category of being shonky. He has not been able to point to one single project to date. They are all on the public record. They are all out there. You go and talk to some of your colleagues in whose electorates they were and are, and ask them what they think of them. Ask them if they could possibly have been the beneficiaries of shonky projects. The reason that the opposition have not been prepared to nominate any of the 60 is that they simply cannot.

Senator FAULKNER —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It is the minister who is accountable to this parliament. It is the minister who should step up to the plate and name the 16 projects. I would like the minister to take on notice the question I have just asked, given that he apparently will not answer it. I would ask the minister to acknowledge that there could be no possible grounds for refusing to inform the Senate of the value of the four projects that were favoured by ministers, given that this information has previously been provided in relation to the other 12 such projects. I would ask the minister to take the question on notice, as he is unwilling or unable to provide an answer now, and to give the Senate an answer later on today.

Senator ALSTON (Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —I do not think there was much of a question in that. But Senator Faulkner certainly knows the value of the 60 projects—$70 million, all of them good value. All you have got to do—

Senator Faulkner —Madam President, on a point of order: there is a very clear question in there for Senator Alston, that is, if he does not know the value of the four extra projects, which he would not provide in answer to my original question, he should take it on notice and give it to the Senate later on today. That is the question: will he take it on notice and give that information to the Senate?

The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order.

Senator ALSTON —Senator Faulkner clearly would like as much information as he can possibly get to misuse down the track. But if you are serious, if you have the opportunity to rethink that egregious mistake you made earlier and if you now realise in the cold, hard light of day that you should actually be concerned about outcomes and the quality of projects, then go away and have a look at all 60. I will give you at least 24 hours to do it. Go away and have a good look at them.

Senator Faulkner —Name the 16.

Senator ALSTON —Talk to a few of your colleagues. See what you think of them. If you want any advice on them, we are more than happy to help you in that regard.

Senator Faulkner —Name the 16.

Senator ALSTON —Then come back and tell us which ones you think are shonky.

Senator Faulkner —You are the one that is accountable.

The PRESIDENT —Order!

Senator Faulkner —It is not his job to ask me questions. It is his job to answer.

The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Faulkner!

Senator Knowles —Madam President, I raise a point of order: under standing order 203(b), (d) and (e), Senator Faulkner should be pulled into line in one way or another. In terms of standing order 203(b) he is `guilty of disorderly conduct'; in the terms of (d), he is persistently and wilfully refusing to conform to the standing orders; and in terms of (e) he is persistently and wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair. He is now just starting to argue with you, Madam President. I urge you to take some action against Senator Faulkner for this unruly conduct that he continues to display in the Senate.

Senator Faulkner —I raise a point of order, Madam President. Question time is a forum where non-government senators ask ministers questions. It is ministers who are required to answer questions, not members of the opposition. Senator Alston has been asked a range of questions which you ought to direct him to answer. We have, specifically in relation to this point of order, a situation where Senator Alston is on the ropes; he has been protected—

The PRESIDENT —Senator Faulkner, you are debating the issue—

Senator Faulkner —I am speaking to the point of order. We have spurious points of order being taken by, firstly, Senator Vanstone and, secondly, Senator Knowles, to waste time and to try to bat out a bit of time so Senator Alston cannot be asked questions by the opposition. We are going to keep going and we are going to keep asking questions, as we are entitled to. Madam President, I think you know it, and you ought to sit Senator Knowles down for such a spurious and outrageous breach of the standing orders and waste of the Senate's time.

Senator Vanstone —Madam President, on the point of order, I just ask you to consider that Senator Faulkner's behaviour in response to a legitimate point of order raised by Senator Knowles is evidence in itself of the point of order that she raises. Consistently, after you have called him to order, he immediately repeats the interjection you have called him to order for as a way of demonstrating to you that he is not going to take any notice. Then a few minutes later you have to call him to order again. I ask you, Madam President, to go back over the record and look at the occasions when you have called him to order and seconds later he has, in deliberate defiance of your order, proceeded with his unruly behaviour. Taxpayers pay for all of this and they expect better.

Senator Cook —On the point of order, Madam President, there is no point of order and you should swiftly rule both of the senators from the other side out of order, because all they are doing is trying to take the time of question time away from the opposition. So I will be brief. But in the consideration of doing that, Madam President, you should also be mindful that Senator Alston does not answer a single straight question and has not done so today; and that if this is the level of accountability from the government it is not surprising that the opposition will be very keen to pursue the government and make sure that it answers in this parliament to the Australian people on what is clearly a cover-up.

The PRESIDENT —There has been considerable debate in these points of order. The minister must answer a question related to the subject matter of the question. He must be responsive to the question and he must respond in terms of his area of responsibility. I am not required to demand that he answer the question as the questioner wants it answered, but I am required to note these other factors. There have been considerable breaches of the standing orders this afternoon and I shall monitor carefully the behaviour of all senators.