I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by Senator Wong to coalition questions 1 and 2.

I have to ask, based on those answers today: how many untruths can our prime minister tell? There are now more questions to answer than we had before we asked our questions today. In fact, in the case of the Prime Minister, in terms of how many untruths a prime minister can tell, Australia, sadly, is still counting because this prime minister has got an extraordinary relationship with the truth. Here it is. He says one thing. The facts turn up. Then the old quote turns up. Then the documents turn up. Then, as we've now seen, lo and behold, the video turns up, and suddenly what the Prime Minister said doesn't actually appear to be backed up by the evidence that is there for all Australians to see on video. That is exactly what has happened in relation to the Prime Minister's answers to questions that we have asked Senator Wong representing him in this place in relation to the Marrickville Golf Club.

Here's what's happened. Yesterday the Prime Minister wanted the Australian people to believe that he barely had anything to do with the place. He said, 'I don't have a card, I don't go in there, I haven't been there for years.' He went on to say: 'I did not know the executive. I don't do anything whatsoever for it.' And then, bad news—circulating widely now; go and have a look at it, Australia—the video turns up, and there you have it: the Prime Minister there, standing with a microphone in front of members of the Marrickville Golf Club, telling them, 'I've been coming here for decades and using this club.' There he is, standing there with a microphone, saying, 'I've been coming here for decades using this club.'

Australians should rightly be saying, well, hold on: just yesterday the Prime Minister said, 'I don't have a card, I don't go there, I haven't been there in years, I don't know the executive and I don't do anything whatsoever for it.' Well, the video evidence shows something very different. Again, though, in relation to 'I don't do anything whatsoever for it', did everybody see that part of the video where the Prime Minister says, 'and here is a $350,000 election commitment for the club'?

I have to say, they are now rivalling Pinocchio in terms of the length and the level of the untruths that they are now prepared to tell. That is an extraordinary definition of 'I have nothing to do with it'—

Minister, a point of order?

I think there was a moment there when Senator Cash said something that she probably knew that she shouldn't, but the two acting presiding officers were changing over—

No, I didn't. I likened it to something.

Well, it's not very—I think we've often asked people to withdraw similar things.

I can say it again: I likened it to—likened it.

I did miss it. We were just changing over. I don't know what you said, Senator Cash. You've been here long enough to know, without having to be too clever. If you believe it could be retractable—

Okay. Well, I didn't even hear it, and I'm not even going to ask anyone what you said; I don't want to know. We'll seek what it was; we'll find out. It is disappointing at this stage of a Thursday afternoon. But you've got the call, Senator Cash. Sorry Minister, I did not hear it.

And I was referring to what the Prime Minister has stood and said versus what is now there on the video evidence for all to see: 'I don't do anything whatsoever for it.' Yet we have him there, caught on camera, saying, 'Here's a $350,000 election commitment for the club.' And every other golf club in Australia should be asking a simple question: 'Why weren't we invited, like the Marrickville Golf Clube was, to apply for this grant?' The Prime Minister then got them a $6 million grant—but he 'doesn't do anything for it', does he?

The other thing—and this is where Australians need to also wonder about this Prime Minister and his relationship with the truth—is that he doesn't declare that he has an honorary membership with Marrickville. Why? 'I don't play golf.' Then why did he declare an honorary membership with Royal Sydney Golf Club? The Prime Minister has questions to answer. Yet again, there's another character—

Sorry, Senator Cash, just resume your seat.

His name is Pinocchio.

Senator Cash, resume your seat!

You for one—

Resume—crikey! At half past four on a Thursday afternoon, I don't think I'm asking too much—for order. I called you three times.

You didn't call me!

Senator Cash, I'm not going to get into a blue with you. I'm happy to have a blue with you later on, if you want to! But I don't think it's worth it, to be serious, to be really honest with you. Oh, my goodness me. Were you seeking a point of order, Senator Stewart?

I am seeking the call to respond to the questions and answers that were put during this question time.

Thank you for the sage advice over there! I really appreciate it!

Those opposites seem to be running down some rabbit holes. They are looking for something dodgy, and they're looking for something dodgy because they expect everybody else to act like they did when they were in government. They think there's something to see here, but there isn't.

In response to the questions, Senator Wong really articulated what has happened. Where I want to start is with the grants. The coalition, those opposite, are conflating two things: there are open competitive grant rounds, and there are closed grant rounds. And I want to spend a couple of seconds talking about the closed grant rounds, because I think they're really important to talk about. This government is delivering significant funding Australia-wide through a range of grant programs. Although, with some of the questions today you'd think that the closed grant round was the only grant program available for Australians to get things funded. That is not the case.

We've got over $1.7 billion for the Growing Regions Program and Thriving Suburbs Program, $550 million through the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program, $600 million through the Active Transport Fund program—

A baby having begun crying in the gallery—

I'd rather hear that noise any day.

We welcome babies in the gallery. It's completely fine.

There is $350 million every year for the Black Spot Program and the Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program. These programs are application based, competitive and open to local councils to apply for.

Alongside those, Minister King is administering the one-off closed program to deliver on our 2025 election commitments through the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, administered in accordance with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles.

Those opposite are deliberately conflating the two types of programs. I would remind those opposite, if they had been successful at the last election, they would have done the exact same thing. In fact, I quote the member for Riverina, from their own side, this week: 'You've got to fulfil your election commitments. You can't have MPs running around making commitments if they happen to win an election.' I think he was saying you've got to have an avenue in which those election commitments can be fulfilled. I think that's what he was saying there. The ANAO found the same thing: election commitments can be a legitimate basis for grant funding when administered in accordance with the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Principles.

And this grant system is being run exactly as the coalition agreed it should be run just three years ago. That is the finding of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, which had five coalition members on it. They did write a dissenting report to that report. They happened to agree with all the recommendations in the report but wrote a dissenting report because they needed to defend their former colleagues from accusations of pork barrelling.

So, they're looking around trying to find something, but we've followed the rules in this process. Election commitments have been fulfilled through this process. (Time expired)

I also stand to take note of the failure of Senator Wong during question time to answer questions put to her legitimately asking why the Prime Minister failed to follow his own ministerial code of conduct and declare interests. The reason why this is important is so that the public knows whether these interests have actually influenced decision-making. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't.

I want to pick up on something Senator Cash said, and that is the 1,599 golf clubs in this country who didn't get to put in a grant application. Bennelong's has a population of 250 and will hold the World Sand Greens Championship, largely run by volunteers. It couldn't get into the invitation-only, closed program. Yet we see the Prime Minister himself award over $6 million, $6,500,000, from the Commonwealth to the Marrickville golf club. The Prime Minister's been busy spinning this situation by declaring it was for sewerage works, but I have been reliably informed that it was for a new clubhouse, dining facilities, pedestrian and bike access upgrades, and landscaping.

What we've learnt is that the Prime Minister has held an honorary membership for the Marrickville golf club since around 2012. That membership has never been entered into his interests. We know that the Labor Party has staged events there and that Albanese's pale ale beer is available for purchase there. When these facts were put to him, the Prime Minister's defence was that he doesn't have a card—it's not a library, Prime Minister—that he hasn't been to the club for a while and that he doesn't play golf. All of these things may be true, but they're also beside the point.

The requirement to declare an interest doesn't turn on the fact of whether the member finds the benefit useful; it turns on whether the interest itself exists, whether it could be seen to influence the exercise of public office. There's no actual question of corruption here. Do I think the Prime Minister's corrupt? No, I don't. Do I think the Prime Minister orchestrated a grant for which he could be personally advantaged? Of course not. Do I think the Prime Minister used this grant to get political advantage? No, I don't. There's something far more important at stake here than allegations of low-level corruption. The Prime Minister is the upholder of the ministerial code of conduct in this building. He is or should be the leading light of probity. He should lead by example in being meticulous in his personal dealings, and he above all others should insist on the highest standards across his ministry. He is indeed the first amongst equals in our parliamentary system.

The Prime Minister promised us he would run a traditional cabinet government. Well, Prime Minister, that includes upholding the Westminster conventions of our system of government and includes upholding your own ministerial code of conduct. It's a code of conduct for which Prime Minister Albanese's foreword states:

The people of Australia are entitled to expect that, in the discharge of our duties, we will act in a manner that is consistent with the highest ethical standards.

…   …   …

Each Minister is personally responsible for ensuring they comply with, and uphold, this Code.

Why is it one rule for your ministers, PM, and a different one for you. (Time expired)

I don't think I’m even going to touch on Senator McKenzie's contribution. I think we all know her history. I am a duty senator for regional and remote areas of South Australia, alongside my colleague Senator Marielle Smith. We were reflecting, following today's question time, on the grants that we have advocated for across regional and rural South Australia. That entire area is a Liberal stronghold, and we are Labor senators, but we are the duty senators for that beautiful stretch of our country, and we take it very, very seriously. We don't look at those communities and think, 'Oh, we're not going to bother because you're not Labor voters.' That's not how we work. We do not hold back because these seats are highly unlikely to fall to Labor. No, we don't, and we are not outliers here either. Labor senators and Labor MPs work very hard to ensure that they are representing the community.

In the seats of Barker and Grey, which are where Senator Smith and I hang out, we have secured a lot of funding under the Labor government, from growing the regions, the regional and urban PPP—and congratulations to Kimba council, who secured funding under that just last week—the active transport grants, the Black Spot Program, safer local roads, BEEF for ECEC and specific health funding. All of these are areas in which we have been able to support the community to get funding. These are all application based, competitive and open, and we work hard to support them, to assist them, to help them and to ensure that those communities have access to the things that they need.

I don't think they feel they've got that.

There are no rorts, Senator McKenzie, no blind focus on marginal seats, just a genuine commitment to community. Let me go to the example that Senator Wong brought up at question time today of an approach to election commitments. We had the example of Mr Pasin.

My voice is rising just to try and shout over Senator Mckenzie. He had a look—

Proudly standing up for integrity.

And there she goes again. He looked at the Sturt Reserve, and I assume—

Senator Grogan, resume your seat please. Colleagues, you were heard in silence, and I would ask you nicely if, at this time on a Thursday afternoon, you could extend the same courtesy to the other side of the chamber. That would be greatly appreciated by the chair.

The example that Minister Wong gave was from Murray Bridge, where Mr Pasin, the local member, looked at Sturt Reserve, spoke to the local community and said, 'Yes, we'll give you a few lights and some CCTV as our election commitment.' We looked at it and said, 'Okay, what do the community want?'

Senator Smith spent a lot of time working on this with the local community and worked to co-design with the Ngarrindjeri people and with the local community and came up with an amazing project: the Pondi Dreamtime story. It is a sensory playground sitting in the middle of the Sturt Reserve, a place that was seriously damaged and affected by the floods. It will boost jobs, it will boost tourism and it is a wonderfully inclusive place for that local community to feel so proud of, to engage with, to learn about that Dreamtime story in.

These are election commitments. We very obviously call them election commitments because you only get them if you win. Everyone does it. It's not a rort if you're clear about it. The problem, Senator McKenzie, is when you are not clear. The problem, Senator McKenzie, is when you are rorting—

Through the chair—show some respect!

and you are hiding things and you are not being clear.

How about you show some respect to your colleagues and just lower it to a dull roar?

Why is she yelling at me?

Lower it to a dull roar. I don't think it's a lot to ask. Can we just hold it for eight seconds?

We don't govern like you. We just don't. We are transparent. We are open. This election commitment was transparently and publicly released. (Time expired)

I am delighted to make a contribution to this debate. I want to pick up where Senator Grogan left off, and that is that they don't govern the way we did. Well, I can tell you what. If what we talked about in question time today is anything to go by, the people of Australia should be very grateful. It takes a great degree of skill to be able to argue that black is white. It takes an even bigger degree of skill to be able to say that something didn't happen when it actually did.

As we saw today and over the last couple of days, we have a prime minister who said that he never made representations—he had no knowledge of certain things and no relationships with certain groups of people. But then, of course, emerging out of those smoke filled rooms of Parliament House were all the videos proving exactly the opposite—that there was a relationship, that there was a history of use of this particular golf club and that there was clearly a series of representations and commitments made.

We are not against parties making election commitments. We're all for that. In fact, I recall that, when the now government was in opposition, there was a huge furore around commitments made by our party at election time.

I'm taking that interjection. Apparently when one party does it, it's called a rort, but when another party does it, it's okay. Now, this is the point: it's a subjective thing. There are two standards being applied to how we govern these sorts of things in this country. We think there is one standard, and good process is one to be followed here. We don't even know what process it went through. There is this opacity—

No, we don't! They declared for one and didn't declare for the other.

Exactly. I take the interjection from Senator Cash, which of course is disorderly. It's Thursday afternoon, and we're all very happy to be going home at some point! The declarations are a problem, but the process is an issue here. It is not the grant, not the club receiving it, not the fact that local members are doing their job. That is a good thing. We all do it, and I think it's an important part of what we do here. But it's the process, the declarations, the failure to declare on the part of the Prime Minister and then, of course, the 'nothing to see here' approach by government.

Now, if you've made a mistake, own up. Fix it. That's it. Move on. But here we have this approach to dealing with this issue in which we cover up. We try to pretend that the rules mean one thing when they actually mean something else or that there wasn't actually an issue here. Well, there was, and the facts bear it out. These videos are not AI generated. They are real. The Prime Minister said these things. And so it goes to a pattern of behaviour. Whether he fell off a stage or not or whether in fact he had a foot on the floor at all times, whether he made promises before the election that power prices would come down or that changes to negative gearing and CGT would not happen and then after a point in time—an election—things changed, this is the same. And so this government have a very different standard for how they deal with matters of integrity around election programs, promises made, compared to what we did. We seek to hold this government to account—to the same standard—to ensure that taxpayers' money is used appropriately and that people making those decisions do so wisely and are open and transparent.

Everyone makes mistakes. I don't know whether the Prime Minister is actually very good at golf or not. Maybe he is. He did say he played golf—

No, he doesn't play golf.

or doesn't play golf. I'm not sure. He's good at tennis. He does tennis. I was looking for things in golfing parlance to chuck into the debate here, but, as they say, you drive for show, putt for dough! (Time expired)

Question agreed to.