Senator FAULKNER —My question is directed to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Can the minister confirm the information he provided at estimates that final decisions on federation cultural and heritage projects were taken at a meeting between him and Senator Hill on or about 27 August last year, that no departmental officials were present, that there was no departmental note taker and that staffers made, as he put it to Fran Kelly this morning, `sufficient record to provide reasons for the decisions'? What form did the `sufficient record' take? Is it maintained in the minister's office or the department? Is it available for examination by the Auditor-General?

Senator ALSTON (Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —I thought we had gone over this ground many times before as well.

Senator Faulkner —We haven't.

Senator ALSTON —Haven't we. Then let us go back to the beginning and explain how the process worked. It was not up to the department to make final decisions. The department was there to provide ratings. They put numbers alongside projects and the joint task force, comprised of officials from both my department and from Senator Hill's department, provided that advice. We also had advice from the National Council for the Centenary of Federation. From that point on, there was no involvement required or expected of the department or indeed of anyone else from the outside who might have wanted to offer advice, gratuitous or otherwise. It follows that it would have been quite superfluous for officials of the department to have been present when we were making decisions.

We did in fact provide written reasons for our decisions, which are contained in the material which was the subject of Senator Faulkner's FOI request. I find it rather surprising that he bothered to go to the trouble of submitting an application under the FOI Act, presumably because—

Senator Faulkner —On a point of order, Madam President: the minister is not attempting to answer the question I asked. I asked what form the so-called `sufficient record' took; I asked whether it was maintained in the minister's office or the department; and I asked whether it was available for examination by the Auditor-General. I did not ask for Senator Alston's comments on the other extraneous matters, inaccurate as they might be. It is an important question that goes to accountability and transparency and I ask you to direct the minister to answer it.

Senator Vanstone —On the point of order, Madam President: I do not know how many times Senator Faulkner has taken this type of point of order when the minister answering the question has had only a minute out of four minutes to answer. It is an abuse of process to consistently interrupt ministers with a point of order when we know what you are going to say. You cannot direct the minister as to how to answer the question. To say that he has not answered it when he has had only one quarter of the time available to him is clearly an abuse of process and should not be allowed to continue.

The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. The minister is dealing with the issue that has been raised and has time to continue to do so.

Senator ALSTON —Thank you, Madam President. It is also significant that in that long recital of what Senator Faulkner thinks should be responded to he omitted to mention the fact that he had asked me whether departmental officials were present. Of course, I was in the process of explaining that there was no need for them to be present.

The reality is that Senator Faulkner has been caught short. He is excruciatingly embarrassed by the fact that it is now plain to all the world that the Labor Party regards this as a bit of an in-house joke. This is no longer a serious policy issue and if you did not need the 16 tipping shonks competition forms to know that, you only have to look at the approach taken under FOI.

Senator Faulkner asked what record was kept—presumably the reasons for the decision—and, once again, I was in the process of explaining that there was a record. That is the very thing that Senator Faulkner sought to obtain under freedom of information. But, of course, he has a very short concentration span. Having been knocked back, he did not bother appealing. In other words, he did not pursue his legal rights. He was not interested in due process. He decided, presumably, that this was just something that ought to be kicked around in the public arena—it was a political issue, not a legal issue—and that is how it was going to be played. That is how it has been played out ever since. Apart from getting someone on the Sydney Morning Herald to give this a bit of a kick along every so often, it was exposed long ago as having no legs. I am waiting for Senator Faulkner to invite me to table the document because I did read from it very carefully. I would be more than happy to accommodate him if he sought that. That very document says it all. This is not a serious policy issue; this is a tipping contest; this is a game to be played by those who have no policy ideas.

Senator FAULKNER —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, in relation to the meeting between yourself and Minister Hill on 27 August last year, how was the record kept of decisions taken at the meeting? How was the record kept? What form did that record of decisions take? Is it maintained in the minister's office or in the department? Is it available for examination by the Auditor-General?

Senator ALSTON (Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —I note that Senator Faulkner forgot to ask me to table the document. I will overlook that lapse of memory. He did claim the other day that he was interested in due process. That is really what this whole issue is about: were records kept; were they provided; are they accessible to the Auditor-General; are they available under FOI, subject to the exemptions provided in the legislation? Beyond that, of course Senator Faulkner is entitled to have a go—if he wants to try and get a bit more minutiae, if he wants to put it on the table and have a bit more of a run.

Senator Cook —Why don't you answer the question?

Senator ALSTON —If you do not think it is relevant, I will not bother.