Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you for that clarification—it is much clearer. I want to go back to the 126 ILUAs and get an understanding of the answer that you gave. During the Senate inquiry hearing, we were told very clearly that the 126 was a bit of a rubbery number and you could not tell us what the agreements were because there was not a clear understanding of which agreements had the majority sign-on and which actually had all the named applicants on them. Am I to understand from the answer you just gave that we are now clear about that? Why weren't you and the department able to tell us during the Senate inquiry what the list of 126 was when we asked? We definitely were not told during the Senate inquiry.