Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (15:10): I do thank the shadow minister for his question, and I make the point that there is no question that the minister of the day had authority to make decisions in relation to commuter car parks. There is no question of that—and, indeed, the Auditor-General's report makes that very clear. Under the National Land Transport Act, the minister of the day had authority, and the minister of the day exercised that authority consistent with the provisions of the National Land Transport Act. I also make the point that money was committed on the basis of advice from the department to the minister of the day, and indeed that is made very clear in the Auditor-General's report. I also make the point that we saw from the other side of the House commitments under the park-and-ride fund to commuter car parks at Gosford, Woy Woy and Campbelltown, and at St Marys, Riverwood, Panania and Hurstville—all of them from Labor. Apparently there's some problem with committing funding— The SPEAKER: The minister will just resume his seat. The member for Scullin is seeking the call on a point of order. Mr Giles: A point of order on relevance: the question was quite narrow, about the list of projects and who was responsible for it. The SPEAKER: I'd just say to the member: that's what I was alluding to with the first part of his question that had some politically charged language. If he'd just asked that, he'd have a point, but the question, at its heart, contains an accusation, and that enables the minister to respond to that accusation. I'm not going to be too precious about the question, for reasons that a couple of people with long memories here will know, but we won't go into that. The minister has the call. Mr FLETCHER: Here's my answer to the ambitious but previously obscure shadow minister, who is desperately trying, without conspicuous success, to capitalise on what he thought was going to be his moment in the sun. He asks: 'Who made the decision?' I'll tell you who made the decision: the minister of the day made the decision. And the minister of the day had authority. This is the key point. The Auditor-General's report does not contest that the minister of the day had authority. Let me read to you from page 38 of the Auditor-General's report: Under the Infrastructure Investment Program arrangements, the Australian Government may commit funding to an investment project at any time for any phase based on information it deems appropriate. The Auditor-General's report does not say, because it could not say, that the minister did not have authority. He did have authority. The Auditor-General's report does not say, because it could not say, that the minister did not act on the advice of his department. In fact, what the Auditor-General's report says, quite precisely, is: for each of these 33 projects, the minister recorded that he had accepted the department's recommendations. There have been no instances where the minister approved funding for a commuter car park that had been recommended for rejection by the department. There is no question. The minister had authority, consistent with the provisions of the National Land Transport Act.