Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (15:50): On the same matter, the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens, in their normal coalition tactic, are seeking to pick meat off a bone that has no meat on it. The simple facts are very clear, but what is most disappointing is that the Australian Greens and the Labor Party are going through the charade of a committee having already determined the matter. Senator Rice, the deputy chair, in particular, has made extremely scathing, judgemental comments indicating she has prejudged the matter and there is no need for her to hear any more evidence, but she continues with this charade to try to score some political points. I must say, I would have expected better from Senator Farrell, but every now and then you've got to do what your party asks you to do and so I accept that Senator Farrell is doing his party's bidding on this occasion. A government senator interjecting— Senator ABETZ: But, in relation to these grants, let's be absolutely clear: the Auditor-General in no way has ever used the term that the senator has just interjected on to the record. The Auditor-General has never used that term, so why is it that the Greens and Labor would seek to import words into the Auditor-General's mouth which do not exist? The Auditor-General did not say that which Labor and Greens are now asserting. Let's be very clear: many a club were asked whether they had read the guidelines and they said they had. This is where the Greens and Labor always come unstuck. You know what it is? The facts; the detail. Sure, the hyperbole they spin like you would not be believed, but, when it comes to the detail and the facts, that is where they are found wanting. Allow me to quote for the record what the guidelines actually tell us: The Minister for Sport will provide final approval. In addition to the application and supporting material, other factors may be considered when deciding which projects to fund. Senator Ayres interjecting— Senator ABETZ: Senator Ayres foolishly interjects, because he knows—and this is another one of these facts that the Labor Party never want the public to hear—that, but for the minister's involvement, the Labor Party electorates would have received substantially less funding. So, Senator McKenzie, as minister, involving herself in the process ensured Labor seats got more funding. Talk about an ungrateful bunch! The minister involves herself to assist Labor electorates and all they can do is come in here and complain and say, 'This is a rort.' But the amazing thing is that none of the Labor people or, indeed, for that matter, mouthy Greens went around the electorate during the election campaign saying, 'Elect us and we will not fund this particular project.' They were photographed time after time, day after day, with all the various projects, all of which had been announced publicly by the minister, all on the public record, and what did they do? They lined up for the photo opportunities. After that, they're now criticising all the photo opportunities for which they themselves turned up. Talk about duplicitous! Talk about two-faced! It must be embarrassing for Senator Ayres and his colleagues to look themselves in the mirror of an evening after they've given a speech such as the one Senator Farrell has sought to deliver and Senator Rice has delivered. Let me also indicate from the Auditor-General's report something which Labor always find very difficult, and that is— A government senator: Oh, I know what this is. Senator ABETZ: Yes, it's page 9, paragraph 16. When I happened to ask about this during a committee hearing, certain people thought it was funny, given the reaction that I had. But allow me to quote it for the record so that people can make up their own minds. What did the Auditor-General's report say? It said: Ineligible applications were identified and no applications assessed as ineligible were awarded grant funding. There's an inconvenient fact. Senator Rice is now busily looking at some documents and Senator Farrell is drinking water, because they can no longer interject on these facts. These are the facts that need to come out in relation to this matter. If Sport Australia's recommendations were accepted, 30 electorates would not have received any funding whatsoever. Thirty electorates out of 150—that's about one-fifth, on my maths. Twenty per cent of the Australian people would have missed out completely in relation to this excellent scheme. The minister involved herself to ensure that the grants were equitably distributed—geographically and politically. Indeed, if the so-called scoring methodology of Sport Australia were adopted, I think about two-thirds of the funding would have gone to coalition seats. Can you imagine the outcry: 'The fix was in from the start; how outrageous that the coalition seats got all the money.' But when the minister seeks to make it more equitable, then that becomes a rort. For example, just the other day, we heard from a witness—I think it was the Belconnen Tennis Club—complaining bitterly that they had missed out, albeit that there were real issues about Tennis Australia having a conflict of interest and being provided some information beforehand about this scheme. That's addressed in the auditor's report. But the claim was made that, somehow, they missed out on funding because they were in a Labor electorate. Have a look at the funding for the ACT. There were 15 grants, if I recall correctly, into the ACT. So if the motivation was for the minister— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Abetz, please resume your seat. Senator Farrell? Senator Farrell: There is a breach of protocol by Senator Abetz. He's got his foot on the seat. That is not appropriate conduct. Could you please call him to order in that respect? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister? Senator Ruston: Senator Farrell, I was just wondering what the basis of your point of order was. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's a protocol question, but it's entirely up to Senator Abetz. It's probably on the camera, Senator Abetz. It's up to you how you stand, I think. I don't think there's a 'standing order'. Senator ABETZ: You have to ask the question: why would somebody who seeks to be the deputy leader of the Labor Party in the Senate raise such a pathetic point of order? Is this the best the Labor Party have to offer the Australian people? It seems that it is. Coming back to the Belconnen Tennis Club—you won't distract me from that one, Senator Farrell. There was the claim being made that, somehow, they may have missed out because this was deep, dark Labor territory. But then, when asked: can you explain about the other 15 grants or so made in the ACT—unable to explain. What is more, the ACT got 1.5 per cent of the funding from this grants scheme. The ACT represents 1.6 per cent of the Australian people. Talk about bang-on equitable in relation to population and distribution of funding! But no, we've got this allegation that, somehow, funding was denied to the ACT because the three seats vote Labor. The hyperbole from Labor is always pretty good, I've got to say, but it always lacks the fact and the detail. Can I indicate—and it's not, I think, any secret here—that Senator McKenzie, when she appeared before the committee some six days ago, performed exceptionally well, and that Labor, despite their pathetic and desperate attempts, were, to use a sporting analogy, unable to lay a glove on her. They missed! Do you know why? It's because there was no substance to the allegations that were being sought to be made against the former minister. She had performed exceptionally well. She had involved herself to ensure that there was an equitable and appropriate distribution. Of course, the other thing that this committee has not done is call forward those organisations who were successful—those who, but for the minister's involvement, would not have been successful. Oh, I wonder why we wouldn't have called them as witnesses! It might have destroyed the pathetic narrative of Labor and the Greens in this committee. This committee has now become quite a debacle of a show. The quicker it wraps up, the better. The determinations were made before the first witness was ever called. I'm sure that, in the minds of Labor and Greens senators on the committee, the report was already finalised. And, mark my words, despite the Auditor-General never having used derogatory terms like 'rort' et cetera, their report will be peppered with those sorts of words, denying all the facts. They won't be talking about the percentages and the effective administration by the minister to ensure equity, or the fact that more clubs got money; no, they'll be banging on about hyperbole and unfairness. They'll also ignore the fact that Sport Australia themselves said that the numerical rating of the club's project alone would not have been the sole determinant for them and that they would have taken other matters into account as well. What is also unfortunate for the Labor Party is that, even in this numerical ranking, when two individuals in Sport Australia separately, independently, analysed the same project—and this is how subjective the business is—do you know what the variation was? The variation was up to 30 points! So somebody may have marked a project at 70 per cent, while somebody else, looking at exactly the same paperwork and exactly the same project, would have marked it at 40 per cent. The chances are that, for those of us who had to do exams from time to time, we would have thought that the marking of an exam paper, or any assessment, that had a variation of some 30 per cent would not exactly have been the most robust manner in which to undertake an assessment. The reliance on the figure of 74 being a cut-off point is ridiculous. Even Sport Australia rejects that assertion. So you've got to ask the question: other than sheer rank politics, what is it that motivates Labor and the Greens? They are forcefully trying to put words into the Auditor-General's mouth, which the Auditor-General won't accept. They have sought to assert that Sport Australia would have done something different. Sport Australia has acknowledged that that is not the case. Sure, they've brought before the committee disappointed organisations that missed out. I understand that. Wouldn't it have been good if we could have funded each and every organisation? But, surprisingly, Labor and the Greens have seen no need to call before us organisations that actually did succeed in getting the funding. In the few moments left, I want to mention the lack of self-awareness by some local government organisations that came before us, who indicated that they were at a loss to understand how their project missed out. When they were simply asked, 'Do you have council officers that make recommendations to council which the elected council then takes it upon itself to reject?' the mayors and CEOs of the councils all had to agree and accept that, yes, that occurs from time to time. And then when asked, 'What's the difference at the federal level if officers make a certain recommendation and the elected official makes a determination otherwise?' they were at a loss to explain. The way our system works is very simple. We have advisers, but the elected officials are the deciders, and that's the important task here to grasp, something which I'm sure the intellectual acuity of those opposite allows them to understand but they conveniently reject so that they can keep peddling this quite nasty mantra against the former minister in a vain attempt to besmirch the government. This grants program has delivered $100 million to over 680 organisations around the country, and sport in Australia is better off for it and because of Senator McKenzie's involvement in the program. Question agreed to.