Senator CONROY (3:26 PM) —We are here today debating the answers given in question time. Today we have seen one of the most pitiful displays by one of the most lazy ministers that this chamber has ever seen. He is an absolute dilettante. This is a bloke that is a serial offender.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Please do not reflect upon other members of this place.

Senator CONROY —Certainly. This minister is a serial offender. We well remember the time he signed off on a cabinet submission without having read it and put it into cabinet. It appears he has done it again. Senator Faulkner has already referred to the departmental minute to both Senators Hill and Alston, which reads as follows:

Purpose:

To provide you with a list of highly rated cultural/heritage and heritage projects from which to select for funding under the FCHP.

It goes on to say:

As per the departmental assessment guidelines agreed by you on 9 July 1998, the department's assessment process is now complete.

It goes on to say:

Using the agreed assessment procedure, all projects on this list scored 15 and above and also meet the specific heritage and cultural criteria outlined in the program guidelines.

The ministers are trying to pretend that the Labor Party has made up the criteria—that the Labor Party has claimed that some projects were below the line and some were above the line. It needs to be absolutely understood by anybody listening or watching today that the recommendations on the front page of the minute of 7 July 1998 state:

Recommendation:

That you consult with Minister Hill—

this is the one to Senator Alston—

as co-coordinator of the FCHP to:

. endorse the attached Departmental Guidelines for the administration of the FCHP program and the proposed timeline;

Endorse Yes/No

`Yes' is circled for both Senators Hill and Alston. They signed it off. There is a departmental procedure. What are some of the points contained? These are the points that Senator Alston continues to pretend do not exist. He has stood here and, in my view, misled the chamber consistently this week; he has absolutely misled the chamber.

Point two:

The Prime Minister's letter of 18 May 1998 highlighted the need for the Department to consult the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the finalisation of the guidelines and arrangements for the FCHP. The ANAO would not comment on the final kits as this would compromise its audit role. However, the Office did advise the Federation Task Group (FTG), set up to administer the FCHP, to seek Ministerial guidance on the proposed departmental guidelines . . .

So they said, `Go and ask the ministers.' This is what they came back with:

. . . the FTG has carefully considered the ANAO's `Better Practice Guide for the Administration of Grants' and drafted a set of Departmental Guidelines for your endorsement. The ANAO's key concern is that the `design of the grant program should ensure that decisions in relation to the approval or refusal of applications for grants are transparent and well-documented'. A copy of the proposed Departmental Guidelines is at Attachment A. We seek your endorsement . . .

Do not believe for a minute that these ministers are in a position where they can stand up and say, `There are no guidelines; the department just gave us advice willy-nilly.' There is a set of guidelines, signed off and endorsed by Senators Hill and Alston. What do the guidelines say? At point No. 10:

A Panel of three FTG officers using the method described in this document will assess all applications. The Panel will conduct a formal assessment but may consult other experts for advice. The source and nature of advice will be fully documented.

Point 12:

The assessment process will not change over time.

Point 13:

The panel will assess all proposals and rate them in four categories: very high, high, medium, low.

Then there is another tier of accountability and transparency—the reference group. Then they come to a flow chart within the guidelines. Senator Hill, we ask the government: where in this flow chart is the meeting where you kicked the departmental officers out? Did you and your advisers hold the meeting here? Did you hold it at Menzies House? Did Lynton have to come here to tell you which ones were the marginal seats? Where is the accountability? Where are the minutes? We want to know. This is a disgraceful cover-up. You are lazy and incompetent, Senator—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Conroy, would you please address the chair, and not reflect upon any members in this chamber.

Senator CONROY —Madam Deputy President, I withdraw any reflection that was adverse. (Time expired)