Senator LUNDY (2:44 PM) —My question is to Senator Brandis, the Minister for the Arts and Sport. Can the minister indicate when his department first became aware of the government’s commitment to fund both a new sports centre in Lithgow and floodlights at the Bathurst Rugby Union Club? Can the minister confirm that these requests went through a proper assessment process? If so, which department made that assessment, and against what guidelines were those assessments carried out? Given that the Audit Office recently found that the government had breached the Financial Management and Accountability Act in failing to properly approve the funding for grants made during the 2004 election, can the minister guarantee that these grants had been properly approved under that act? Can the minister also nominate the specific grants program under which the funding has been provided?

Senator BRANDIS (Minister for the Arts and Sport) —Mr President, may I add my congratulations to you. This is an auspicious day for you and it is also an auspicious day for me because, at long last, I get a question from the opposition about my portfolio. There have only been 29 question times since I have been in the portfolio. I have only been in the portfolio since the beginning of the year, yet today is the first occasion on which the opposition has shown enough interest in the arts and sport portfolio even to ask a question. But I am not alone, because I checked the record, and it is nearly a year since my predecessor, Senator Kemp—

Senator Chris Evans —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. The minister has had a year to actually learn the brief and, while he does a good line in pomposity, I ask you to bring him to the question, which is a serious question about accountability in government.

The PRESIDENT —Order! The minister still has over three minutes to develop his answer, and I invite him to.

Senator BRANDIS —Thank you, Mr President. I thought I should draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that, when it comes to interest in either the arts or the sport portfolio, the opposition has been asleep for a year. One of the things a government can do when it does not have to pay $8 billion a year of interest on a $96 billion public debt is spend money on community infrastructure. That is something that the Howard government has done.

Senator Carr interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Carr, you are being disorderly.

Senator BRANDIS —Mr President, can I inform Senator Lundy that in the last budget the Australian government announced a series of one-off grants totalling $905,000 to improve three community sporting facilities in central western New South Wales. The Lithgow City Council received $700,000 to construct an integrated sports and aquatic centre, the Bathurst Regional Council received $200,000 to install lighting on two rugby fields and the Springwood District Athletics Club received a small grant to redevelop the Tom Hunter Park at Faulconbridge.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator BRANDIS —As my distinguished colleague Senator Abetz pointed out, all of them were decisions supported by the Australian Labor Party when they voted for the budget. An integrated sports and aquatic centre in Lithgow will provide year-round sporting and aquatic facilities as well as social, health and sporting benefits for the entire community. The construction of the lighting towers will allow the Bathurst Rugby Union Club to host night games and will further Bathurst’s development as a sporting hub in the central west. It is important that on occasions, on a case-by-case basis, the Australian government makes contributions to the development of major sporting infrastructure. We have done so in capital cities with funding for facilities such as the Sydney Cricket Ground, the Adelaide Oval and, as the Prime Minister announced recently, a new Australian National Rugby Academy for Ballymore Park in Brisbane. It is the view of the government that, just as people who live in capital cities are entitled to investment in sporting infrastructure from the Australian government—

Senator Chris Evans —I rise on a point of order, Mr President, which goes to relevance. The senator asked a very specific question about whether proper process had been followed, whether applications had been made and whether any assessment had been made against applications in accordance with the Audit Act. The minister has made no attempt to answer the question and I ask you to bring him to order and for him to have a crack at the question.

The PRESIDENT —I cannot instruct the minister on how he should answer a question. He is in order.

Senator BRANDIS —Thank you, Mr President. As I was saying at the time Senator Evans took his point of order, it is the view of the Australian government that people in regional Australia, just as people in capital city Australia, are entitled to be supported on a case-by-case basis by the Australian government in funding sporting and other community infrastructure. That is what we have done in relation to the Lithgow City Council’s request and the Bathurst Regional Council’s request, as we have done in capital cities as well. The honourable senator asked about process. The process through which the funding was provided was in the 2007-08 budget. (Time expired)

Senator LUNDY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I reiterate my original question: were applications received for these grants and did they comply with the Audit Office and the appropriate FMA Act? Didn’t the Audit Office recently highlight that the government had rorted the Volunteer Small Equipment Grants program by redirecting grants to National Party seats in the lead-up to the previous election and isn’t the government up to its old tricks? Can you advise other sporting clubs how to apply for grants under this government measure?

Senator BRANDIS (Minister for the Arts and Sport) —I do not have time in one minute to answer all four of those questions, so let me just address myself in the first instance to the third question, ‘Didn’t the Audit Office find that the government had been rorting the Volunteer Small Equipment Grants scheme?’ The answer to that question is no. If I may direct you, Senator Lundy, to the Audit Office report Distribution of funding for community grant programmes—and I am indebted to Senator Scullion for drawing this to my attention—in paragraph 51, on page 28, the report concludes that one of the reasons that there were more applications for Volunteer Small Equipment Grants received from government electorates was that government members were more active than opposition members in encouraging organisations to apply for the grants.