Senator WATSON (3:28 PM) —We are taking note of answers to questions that were raised in the Senate this afternoon. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that many of the questions and the matters that arose during question time actually challenged the authority of the chair. I think it is unfortunate when the position of the chair is not respected. That is a matter that all sides of this parliament should acknowledge.

There were great inconsistencies between the presentation that we have just heard from Senator Carr and the earlier contribution by his leader, Senator Faulkner. They were completely divergent approaches to the same issue. In fact, Senator Carr, if you read the transcript of what Senator Faulkner said, you will see that he did not actually take issue with the question of the announcement during the election campaign; whereas, you did and you put a lot of store on that. Where is the consistency in your approach to answering this question and the approach of Senator Faulkner, who took a completely different tack? He was concerned about certain aspects of the process, but he actually said that the announcement during the election campaign was not the issue. On the other hand, Senator Carr, you attempted to make it the issue, and I think you erred in that respect.

If I may follow the issue raised by Senator Eggleston, some projects were of course announced in the campaign. That was not in breach of the caretaker conventions which state that significant decisions should not be made—with the emphasis on `made'—during a campaign. The point that I wish to emphasise is that the decisions were actually made before the caretaker period came into effect and were merely announced during the caretaker period. There is the big inconsistency, I submit, between what your leader articulated to the Senate and what you took offence to, Senator Carr. I think on this occasion, on this particular issue, I must defer to the side of your esteemed leader.

The Labor Party has attempted to make an issue of this by claiming that decisions were taken in response to vulnerable seats and vulnerable areas, et cetera. Senator Mackay and other Tasmanian senators are in the chamber at present. I would just like to mention that Tasmania has actually benefited from six of these particular projects. The Launceston Railway Workshop Museum was a concept that was originally started by, I think, Lance Barnard many years ago. It would certainly have been a retrograde step had we not built on that development at the Inveresk railway yards. True, we built on that. The foundation was good, and I think it is going to be a centre of great cultural and heritage significance well into the future. If we had not spent money—a modest sum—in that area, I think you would have attacked us for not looking after proper heritage issues.

Another project in your home town, Senator Mackay, is the historic Female Factory in Hobart. This $0.975 million project certainly was not in a Liberal held seat at the time and nor is it now—again completely refuting all of your arguments. Then we move to the electorate of Lyons in respect of which Dick Adams was the incumbent at the time. An amount of $0.7 million was spent in the central midlands. Then there is the Devonport cultural heritage project. As we know, parts of Devonport are in Lyons and parts of it are in Braddon. Again, I do not know that you could say that there was any particular advantage in that area.

The Clarendon Homestead project is in Dick Adams's electorate of Lyons—hardly a bias towards the Liberal Party. So this is a whole lot of bunkum that you are going on with, particularly in the state of Tasmania where we also have the school of fine furniture. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for the debate has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.