I note that this issue has been dealt with extensively in question time and that the orders Senator McKenzie is referring to have been responded to. As the response to the order set out, the order refers to commitments made in the 2025 election. Australians elected us on the promise of delivering our commitments, and we are delivering with proper process. The government is delivering 2025 election commitments through a one-off, closed, non-competitive, grants program known as the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. This approach follows the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, which were updated to take account of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit inquiry into Commonwealth grants administration. The Commonwealth grants guidelines explicitly allow closed, non-competitive, grant processes and assert that better-practice non-competitive grants should name eligible applicants and provide information on how eligibility is determined.

Program guidelines for the MLCIP, which have been publicly available for over a year, make clear who can apply for funding and the eligibility and assessment criteria they must meet to successfully receive funding. The guidelines clearly state that applications which do not meet these benchmarks will not be considered value for money and will not be awarded funding. Ministers also do not make decisions on applications in their electorate. These decisions are made by an alternative minister.

I would reiterate that this attendance motion relates to orders for the production of documents that have been responded to. OPD 680 was responded to within hours of when it was due. OPD 679 was responded to within the day. Both were provided before consideration of the compliance motion.

It's astonishing, though, that Senator McKenzie has ordered a half-hour debate in relation to the administration of a grants program—Senator McKenzie, who is perhaps best known for her administration of a certain grants program under the former coalition government. We all remember sports rorts. We all remember the colour-coded spreadsheets. And we remember which minister was making the decisions at the time. In the wake of those controversies, the ANAO and the Auditor-General could not have been clearer in their advice. As the Auditor-General said in 2023, when it comes to election commitments, you still need to have a grants program; you still need guidelines, assessment processes and all those things that are requirements on the bureaucracy and on decision-makers to go through, in getting an appropriate decision made. The expectation under the rules is that you set up a program, set up a program objective, set the criteria and the guidelines for the program, and then you undertake actions under those things. This is precisely what we have done. The program Senator McKenzie oversaw did not meet that test; it was found to fall far short of the expectations of the ANAO and of the public.

We publicly made election commitments, we took them to an election and now we are fulfilling them, as the Australian public expect. We have gone about delivering them in a transparent way, in a way that follows the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, with public program guidelines, including eligibility and assessment criteria. Senator McKenzie might not like it, but this is the way you deliver election commitments appropriately.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I'd like to take note of the appalling response by Minister McCarthy on behalf of ministers King and McBain. If you listen to Minister McCarthy, you'd think there was nothing to see here. The Labor Party has a lot to hide when their first response is to deflect an attack. It's an old strategy—for those young students of political science upstairs. It's an old strategy. It's an effective strategy. But, as I would remind Minister McCarthy, it wasn't me that ordered the Senate debate this topic for half an hour; it is the Australian Senate that is so appalled with this government program and the appalling process of decision-making by the Prime Minister, by Catherine King, by Minister McBain and by others around the cabinet table that it has ordered a Senate inquiry into this program.

It is not just the Liberals the National Party and the crossbench that are appalled with the government's process when it comes to handing out grants and hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers' money to projects that went through no formal assessment and no departmental oversight before the election commitment was made. That is why we're going through the process of wanting to understand who made the decision, how it was made and how hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money was spent in government electorates. Minister McCarthy likes to make a big deal about colour-coded spreadsheets—well, at least that program had colours, plural, on it. The Labor Party has only one colour on its spreadsheet and that's red. That's why the money went to Labor seats. The money was decided by Labor ministers, and that is why the Australian Senate—crossbench and opposition together—is so concerned. I look forward to next week's Senate inquiry.

Minister McCarthy, the notice of motion that the Senate passed was to Minister King and Minister McBain about the process undertaken in their own electorate offices. What documents did they hold? What conversations had those two ministers had with the local successful 'applicants' to this grant program, where the guidelines weren't even written before the announcements were made? What conversations did Catherine King have with the Ballarat Showgrounds' new event and exhibition centre—$1.5 million; the Don Wallace Reserve upgrades, which was given $1.5 million; or Hepburn Shire's community soccer upgrades of $1.2 million. Another program in Ballarat got half a million dollars. The Senate asked the minister what meetings she had with those proponents prior to this election commitment being made, and do you know what the Senate got back when they asked this minister? 'I was not the decision-maker.' We know that, ma'am; we were actually asking what documents you had and where those documents went in the Labor Party's internal processes.

Similarly, Minister McBain got more $26 million under this program, 18 per cent of the entire money available. What did Minister McBain say when asked about what conversations and documents she had from the local winners of her programs? Do you know what she said? To the Senate, she said, 'I was not the decision maker,' but to ACT ABC radio, when Solly asked: 'OK, what was your role in it, Kristy McBain? Did you nominate projects that should be invited to apply? How does it happen?' Minister McBain said: 'Obviously, my job as a local member is to understand what's happening. I work with a range of local community groups and councils, and then I put them forward as potential projects for election commitments.' She is not an innocent bystander. These were local MPs who met with these community groups, and somehow, somewhere, passed these documents on to the decision-maker—and we are yet to understand how that process worked. So, hey, we're all up for transparency. That's why the Australian Senate has asked you to come clean. And we're sick— (Time expired)

The government, of course, opposes what Senator McKenzie is trying to achieve here today.

Australians elected us on the promise of delivering our commitments, and we're delivering with proper process. I'll come to the comparison between what the Albanese government has done, compared to certain other grant programs that we've seen administered by previous governments, shortly. But I'll just put on the record the way this government has managed this process, and let's remember that this is about—

Senator McKenzie was heard in silence, Acting Deputy President. It'd be appreciated if she could treat other senators with the same respect.

Order!

Well, she clearly can't.

Order! Senator Watt—

Are you defensive about something, Senator McKenzie? Is it sports rorts you're defensive about? Is that why you can't shut up when other people are speaking?

Minister, resume your seat.

No, just wait, Senator. Previous speakers were heard in silence, as you were heard in silence, Senator McKenzie, and as were previous speakers. If we could just lower the tone and let the speakers get through. It's only five minutes each. Now, Senator McKenzie, did you have a point of order, or have we passed that now?

A point of order on the words that the minister used: I don't think yelling 'shut up' across at other senators is parliamentary.

Senator McKenzie, I'm sorry. I did not hear that. But there was a little bit of to and fro going on; both sides were trying to talk over each other. The minister has the call. There are only four minutes left. Let's see if we can get through it without a blue.

It would be helpful if senators who were heard in silence could give the same level of respect to other senators when they're speaking.

What the Albanese government has done differently with this election commitment program—an election commitment program that governments from time immemorial have delivered—is to clearly follow the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, which were updated to take account of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit inquiry into Commonwealth grants administration. The Commonwealth grants guidelines explicitly allow closed, non-competitive, grant processes and assert that better-practice non-competitive grants should name eligible applicants and provide information on how eligibility is determined. And that's exactly what was done with this grants program. In every possible way, the Albanese government, through this grants program, has not just closely followed but followed in every way the guidelines that have been issued for grants programs and that were updated to take into account recommendations from inquiries into previous grants rounds.

Speaking of previous grants rounds, the most puzzling aspect, I think, of the opposition's attack on the government over a number of weeks and today about this grants program is that it has been led by Senator McKenzie. I remember, when this story first blew up in the media, being incredibly surprised that, of all the people in this parliament, Senator McKenzie would be the person leading the charge for the opposition over this. We know that her motivation is to desperately continue to try to clear her name from not just her involvement but her leadership role in the biggest rort committed under the former coalition government. And that is really saying something, because we know that that government had a series of rorted programs, whether it be the car park program that old mate Josh Frydenberg, wannabe opposition leader, engineered, or various regional rorts that were committed, particularly led by the National Party. But, sitting on top of them, the biggest rorted program under the former coalition government was the one led by Senator McKenzie, better known as sports rorts.

Senator Henderson, do you have a point of order?

Yes—a point of order on a reflection on Senator McKenzie by Senator Watt. I would ask him to withdraw that grubby remark.

I think there's been a lot of media attention around what the minister is talking about. I don't see a disparity, but you can challenge my ruling, if you—

To clarify—

Senator Henderson, I was halfway through, but for the purpose of trying to get through this, I will give you call for a point of order—not a debate but a point of order.

To add to the concerns that I have raised—

Your point of order, Senator?

The point of order is on a reflection of Senator McKenzie. The Senate has previously ruled that that should not—

Senator Henderson, I'm going to cut you off. I'm going to ask you to go back to your seat. The mic is turned off. I've already said—and you are welcome to challenge it—I will give the call back to the minister. He has one minute and 43 seconds left.

I don't know whether Senator Henderson heard Senator McKenzie's contribution, but, if you want to talk about reflections on people, have a look at the reflections made by your colleague in her entire contribution.

As I was saying, I am still really surprised that even today in the chamber, of all opposition senators, it's Senator McKenzie who's leading the charge on this matter. Any rational person, if they ran sports rorts, would want to pretend that that had never happened, but Senator McKenzie wants to keep bobbing up, reminding us that she was the person who led the sports rorts. She had to resign because of sports rorts, yet she has the hide to come in here and try to lecture our government about proper procedure when it comes to grants rounds, not having followed any of that procedure when she was the minister herself. I mean, the thing that Senator McKenzie is best known for in her entire contribution to parliament over her long career is sports rorts, and yet she wants to come in here, remind everyone about that, and then challenge us when we're the government that's following every single guideline—

Minister, I'll get you to resume your seat, please. Senator Henderson?

I have a point of order on a reflection on Senator McKenzie. I've just sought some advice from the Clerk. The point of order is that it is not open to Minister Watts to infer that Senator McKenzie has been guilty of any sort of rort. That is a reflection on a senator, and it must be withdrawn.

You can take all the advice—and I welcome you taking all that advice—and I'll just sit here. I sat here and heard the previous contribution and the attacks on the minister and the Prime Minister, so maybe I should be spanked for not pulling up on that earlier. I'm going to give the call back to the minister. He has 37 seconds to go. As I said, please feel free to challenge it.

Who can forget the infamous colour coded spreadsheets that were prepared by Senator McKenzie's office in the sports rorts saga to clearly differentiate the treatment that Senator McKenzie, as the minister in that government, was dealing out between Labor, Liberal, National Party and other electorates. If you want more graphic evidence of the rorting of that program that was led by Senator McKenzie, let's go back to the spreadsheets.

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson?

On a point of order, Minister Watts continues to reflect inappropriately on Senator McKenzie, in breach of the standing orders. Again, I would ask if you could seek the advice of the Clerk. This is most improper. It's been ruled against previously. I would ask that you seek the advice of the Clerk, who's just advised me that this is in breach of the standing orders.

I will give the call back to the minister. I have already stated my views on this, and I have said to you—

Don't get into a blue! I've sat through many debates in this chamber. This is a debate that's been going on for about six or seven years, I believe. There is no point of order. Minister, you have the call for 10 seconds if you want to finish.

In conclusion, the irony of Senator McKenzie, of all people, demanding that ministers come and attend, and explain processes that were complete with guidelines— (Time expired)

Order! I was just telling the minister his time has expired. I don't need the peanut gallery screaming at me—I'll withdraw that. You're really starting to push now. Let's leave it.

For her time in this place, Senator McKenzie will be known, more than anything, as a fearless advocate for rural and regional Australia and for people in rural and regional Australia to get their fair share, given all the disadvantages they face. That's what she'll be known for. I also admired, during my first term in this place, that Senator McKenzie took a very honourable course when she fell afoul of a very technical breach and did the right thing. I think ministers on the other side could heed that example.

I want to explain to people what we're talking about here because people watching this debate might not be aware of what we're talking about. When the government refers to 'closed non-competitive grant programs'—that's the phrase they use—what they're talking about is a grant that is open but that has only one possible applicant; there's only one person who can actually receive the grant money—

Predetermined outcome.

A predetermined outcome, exactly. It's closed and it's non-competitive, so it's already predetermined who's going to get the money. It's an absolute farce. The issue we have—and the issue all Australians should have—is that a disproportionate number of these grants go to Labor electorates. The money goes to Labor electorates overwhelmingly, and that is unfair to the Australians in those electorates that miss out. That is the fundamental issue. The fact is, out of 150 federal electorates in this country, 45 got nothing through this program—not a dollar. Yet there were Labor-held electorates—Braddon got 10 grants, worth $19.2 million. Shortland got 10 grants. Eden-Monaro got eight grants, worth $26.5 million.

That's right. More than the entire sports grant program.

Exactly, Senator McKenzie. That seat's held by the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, who is responsible for the section of the department administering the program. Hunter got seven grants, worth $4.7 million. You've got all those Labor seats receiving these grants under this community infrastructure program, but you've got 45 seats—nearly a third of Australia—missing out. That's not fair. Those electorates and the people living in those electorates deserve a fair go. That's why the opposition and the crossbench—it's not just the Liberal-National coalition; it's the crossbench as well—are saying this is unfair to the millions of Australians living in those 45 federal electorates who missed out under this unfair scheme.

And it's not just us saying it. I want to quote the Centre for Public Integrity. This is an outstanding non-government organisation made up of people who are deeply concerned about integrity and transparency in government processes. This is what they say:

Whatever view is taken of the political controversy surrounding the distribution of funding, the Centre's concern is a systemic one. More than half a billion dollars of public money was allocated through a closed, non-competitive process, without a publicly explained basis for why that process was used or how projects were selected. We will continue to ask the questions that matter: why was a closed process chosen; how were projects selected for invitation; and are the rules governing Commonwealth grants strong enough to ensure public money is allocated transparently …

That's the Centre for Public Integrity calling this out. It's not just the opposition. I come back to those millions of Australians in those 45 electorates who missed out when there were Labor seats that received 10 grants or eight grants under this program. It is unfair. That money, hundreds of millions of dollars, should be shared equitably across the whole of Australia for the most compelling projects and to meet the most compelling need. There should be fair and equitable distribution around Australia so every federal electorate and every Australian gets access, gets their fair share, so we don't have debates like this in the future.

Isn't this amazing? The culprits are once again trying to play the prosecutor. Instead of telling Australians how they would help them with housing, the cost of living or better wages, Senator McKenzie is more focused on talking about our election commitments that are delivering for local communities now.

Our commitments follow the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles. Our commitments follow the recommendation of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, made up of MPs and senators from across the political spectrum, including members of Senator McKenzie's own side of politics. And, most importantly, our commitments were made to deliver for local communities, not sorted on a colour coded spreadsheet for personal and political gain. Senator McKenzie might be familiar with that process, because that was exactly what was happening in her office in the lead-up to the 2019 election. Nine out of the 10 electorates that received the most funding were marginal, targeted electorates based on a colour coded spreadsheet. Seventy-three per cent of the projects Senator McKenzie approved went against the recommendations of the Australian Sports Commission, then known as Sports Australia. It gets worse. The Senate inquiry into these rorts found more than 40 per cent of the projects that received funding were considered ineligible by the Audit Office. While all this was going on, Senator McKenzie even failed to disclose her own active membership of a gun club that received almost $36,000 from the very program she oversaw. This isn't the only time that Senator McKenzie failed to disclose information. Who could forget when, in 2024, she 'forgot' to disclose the 16 flight upgrades she received over nine years while pointing fingers at everybody else?

But Senator McKenzie isn't the only one on her side of politics with a habit of failing to disclose information. It's a recurring theme among the Liberals and the Nationals. In the lead-up to the 2025 election, several Liberal and National MPs were busy making election promises to organisations with which they had personal connections, connections they failed to declare. The member for Hume, the opposition leader, Angus Taylor, promised $200,000 to upgrade amenities at the 1st Appin Scout Group, where he held an honorary membership. This wasn't declared on his register of interests. The member for Bowman, Henry Pike, promised $1.1 million to the EGW Wood Sportfield, home of the Redlands Tigers, a club that listed him as a patron. This wasn't declared on his register of interests. The member for Herbert, Phillip Thompson, promised $232,000 to the Jubilee Bowls Club, where he also was listed as a patron. This wasn't declared on his register of interests. And the member for Moncrieff, Angie Bell, promised funding to the Surfers Paradise Rugby Union Club, which listed her as a patron on its website. Once again, this wasn't declared on her register of interests at the time. Maybe she was too busy throwing stones. Perhaps Senator McKenzie should spend a little less time pointing fingers across the chamber and a little more time asking questions of her own colleagues.

Let's be clear: her side have no problem with election commitments when they're making them. Let's go back to my home state of New South Wales. This included in 2025, the member for Cook, Simon Kennedy, when $2.7 million was promised for the election. This included $1.44 million to the Gymea Bay Baths; $674,000 for the North Field at Gwawley Park; $590,000 for pickleball courts in the Sutherland shire; and, for my duty seat of Lindsay, Liberal member Melissa McIntosh made election promises totalling at least $18 million. In fact, the Liberals and Nationals made $1.6 billion worth of election promises. They had no problem making $1.6 billion worth of election promises whilst asking Australians for their votes. Their only problem is with commitments that follow the proper rules and processes and that are actually delivering for local communities. So, before Senator McKenzie appoints herself prosecutor again, she might want to check with her own colleagues first. She'll find plenty of evidence there.

I take the opportunity again in this chamber to remind the Australian people that the government is in charge of the expenditure of taxpayer funds. When the Australian people elect this government, they don't elect bureaucrats or people who work in offices in Canberra to make judgements for the community's benefit or, in some cases, against the community. The Australian people have hired this government, for better or worse, and they make the decisions on behalf of the Australian people. They decide where the money goes. And so the position of the government today in again obfuscating and covering up all the documents which belong to the people of Australia is another point in time where we see the government not willing to be honest, to act with integrity and to provide basic information. The idea that the government is hiding behind bureaucrats, which no-one elected, is actually offensive, because the position of a democracy is that you can elect or vote out a government based on the decision-makers who were elected at the last election. The position to make, to extend that, is that no-one has been elected in this country, the country is running on autopilot, and someone down in the back is making all the decisions about where all the money goes. We've got no documents and no papers, and it's a shambles. That's effectively their position. They are refusing to provide the basic information about how public funds were spent. They spend their time in response to this order smearing and undertaking a political attack to cover up the fact that they are too afraid to say who made the decision. Who made the decision to give the funding and the money? Who has administered these programs? This is basic accountability stuff.

But when we look at the evidence in terms of the government's responses to Senate orders, freedom of information requests and transparency requests, we see—this is from the Centre for Public Integrity—this is the worst government since the Keating government, as measured by their responses. This is a pattern of behaviour. This is not a particular, isolated incident where the government is refusing to come forward with the documents which were ordered by the Senate. They were ordered by the Senate so that the people can inspect how the decisions were made and how the money ended up in all these Labor electorates. We're talking in this case of half-a-billion bucks. It might sound like chicken feed to the government, when they're running endless deficits and debt. But this is a significant program of money here. It is endemic across this government, in terms of its responses to the proper legal orders of the Senate. It spends its time trying to destroy and undermine the attempts that others make, including former senator Patrick, to get to the bottom of a whole lot of things across this administration. Now they are seeking through the Attorney-General's Department to stop people actually appealing decisions made by the Australian Information Commissioner, which go to the AAT or go to the go to the courts. They're trying to put all the costs onto the punter to cover up their tracks. They are so desperate to never provide pieces of paper to the Australian people for inspection that they are now seeking to effectively put up a wall of money to ensure they don't ever get properly exposed to public glare.

In the cases of these golf courses, I think a lot of people in New South Wales will look at this Marrickville Golf Course—$6 million to Mr Albanese, who says he never went to the golf course. Of course, he's been there 100 times. Meanwhile his Labor mates in New South Wales are destroying public golf courses. They destroyed the Moore Park golf course. They completely destroyed it. But, meanwhile, they're giving six million bucks for this Marrickville Golf Course across the road. They're only a few kilometres apart. In one case they're not doing housing. They're turning it into a park.

It's more housing you don't like. You're a hypocrite.

They're not doing that. They're turning it into a park. Get your facts right. In one case they want to destroy a public golf course. They hate public golf—

Senator Bragg, just resume your seat. I would encourage that senators be heard in silence. We've had a little bit of topsy-turvy stuff going around. We've just settled it down. The last thing we need for the last 47 seconds is to blow it all up again, if we can get through that.

I would just like to know what the Labor Party's position is on public golf courses, because they have destroyed the Moore Park golf course, one of the most successful and visited public golf courses in New South Wales. But, meanwhile, they've given the Marrickville Golf Course six million bucks in a secret grant scheme that they want to cover up all the information about, pretending no-one made the judgements. Mr Albanese said he never went there and doesn't know anything about it, but there's a lot of video evidence to show that he's been there on many occasions and that, in fact, at some stages he has been—maybe he even is now—a member of that golf course. This is a government full of hypocrites, and it is a government that is prepared to cover up all pieces of paper and all decision-making. They are pretending that no-one made these decisions and that magically the money all found its way to Labor Party electorates without anyone ever doing anything.

I too join with my colleagues in saying that integrity in public office is not optional. This is taxpayers' money. This is not some pot of gold to be doled out by the Albanese government, and we demand these documents. Nearly half a billion dollars—the slush fund of this government, doled out in a way in which many, many Australians were completely ignored.

Of course, when we have a prime minister who does not care about integrity, the rot starts from the top. I have called on the Prime Minister to stand down the Minister for Communications. When it comes to ministerial responsibilities in the expenditure of money, there is an extrahigh bar. We've seen this minister; she's already been found to have breached her parliamentary travel entitlements on four separate occasions. IPEA, the independent expenses watchdog, required her to repay more than $10,000, including a 25 per cent penalty. But there are continuing questions around Minister Wells's parliamentary expenses, as more evidence emerges of a trip she took to Adelaide to attend a birthday party of a good friend. The good friend's husband happens to be the South Australian Labor minister Chris Picton. In order to justify flying back to her home on the taxpayers' dime the following day, she stayed overnight and then claimed the full cost of this trip, nearly $4,000. But there is no evidence that any evening meeting at the birthday party ever took place. The evidence mounts that this minister has rorted her taxpayer entitlements.

This is a serious matter because, prima facie, this is a breach of the ministerial standards. Where is the integrity of this prime minister? Everyone knows. There was a so-called meeting with the office of Minister Farrell on the Saturday afternoon and then there was this so-called sideline meeting at the birthday party at around 7.45 that Saturday evening. It defies credibility that the minister was doing anything other than concocting meetings—false meetings—in order to justify staying overnight and flying back the next day using taxpayer dollars on her return business class airfare.

I uncovered the minister's lack of due diligence when it comes to expenditure of taxpayers' money when we discovered that she spent around $100,000 flying herself and two staff to New York with no regard for the incredible cost of these airfares—no regard for the impact on the taxpayer. I just say that this is not the Labor Party's money; this is taxpayers' money. We are all required to follow the rules. Minister Wells could have stayed overnight and attended the birthday party after she concluded her parliamentary business by simply paying for her airfare between Adelaide and Brisbane the following day.

Senator Sheldon, on a point of order?

I'm not sure if this goes to the subject matter of infrastructure and investments as per the motion.

Senator Sheldon, I've only just entered the chair, but I will listen carefully to what Senator Henderson has to say.

I'm talking about the very important issue of integrity of government expenditure. One of the huge issues before the parliament right now is that this prime minister doesn't have the spine, doesn't have the courage, doesn't have the ticker, doesn't have the ability—

Rorter!

Senator Ayres, you will withdraw.

Withdraw what?

You know what you said. You gestured towards an individual senator. Senator Ayres, you've been asked to withdraw.

I withdraw. That is a very high bar.

Senator Ayres, you know exactly what you said. Senator McAllister, on a point of order?

It is about relevance. The Senate is debating a motion to take note of the answer provided by Minister McCarthy. The item listed as item 6 and the remarks made by Senator McCarthy are nowhere near the contribution being made by the senator at the moment.

I will bring Senator Henderson back to the matter before the Chair. Senator Henderson, you have the call.

Minister McAllister, you're very slow out of the blocks. I've been speaking for nearly five minutes. And what I'm talking about is integrity of government expenditure.

No-one's listening—

And it's clear you're not listening—I'll take the interjection.

because you're unbelievable; you're not credible.

You're not listening to the Australian people, and they expect better from this hopeless, incompetent, lying government.

Question agreed to.

In commencing my remarks, I note that the government has dealt with this issue extensively, including through the debate that's just occurred in the Senate and through question time. The Prime Minister has dealt with these matters, and the order that this attendance relates to has been responded to.

The order refers to commitments made in the 2025 election. Of course, Australians elected us on the promise of delivering our commitments. We are delivering on those commitments with a proper process. The government is delivering on our 2025 election commitments—commitments made publicly in the public eye by our candidates—through a one-off, closed, non-competitive grant program known as the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. The approach this government takes follows the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles. It's very different to the approach taken by the previous government and the approach taken by Senator McKenzie. Those rules and principles were updated to take account of the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit inquiry into Commonwealth grants administration.

The Commonwealth grants guidelines explicitly allow closed, non-competitive grant processes and assert that better practice non-competitive grants should name eligible applicants and provide information about how eligibility is determined. Program guidelines for the MLCIP, the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, have been publicly available for over a year, and they make clear who can apply for funding and the eligibility and assessment criteria they must meet successfully to receive funding. The guidelines clearly state that applications which do not meet these benchmarks will not be considered value for money and will not be awarded funding.

Ministers also do not make decisions on applications in their electorate. These decisions are made by an alternative minister. The Prime Minister was not the decision-maker for the grants referenced in the order. The subject matter of the order falls within the responsibility of the minister for infrastructure. Requests for documentation in relation to these grants would appropriately be directed to the department of infrastructure, and I note that a number of similar orders have been directed to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. This includes order 670, moved by Senator Payman. The minister has tabled in her response the decision brief related to one of the grants, which are the subject of this order. I reiterate that the subject matter of the order falls within the responsibility of the minister for infrastructure, and requests for documentation would be appropriately directed to the department of infrastructure, as Senator Payman chose to do.

I note, as did Senator McCarthy, Senator Watt and Senator Sheldon, that it is surprising that Senator McKenzie seeks to insert herself so comprehensively into this debate. We do all remember the administration of grants under her leadership. We remember what Senator McKenzie did as a minister. As Senator McCarthy indicated, the ANAO and the Auditor-General could not have been clearer in their advice in the wake of those very significant controversies. The Auditor-General said that, when it comes to election commitments, you still need to have a grants program and you still need guidelines, assessment processes and all those things that are requirements for the bureaucracy and decision-makers to go through—

It was post decision.

Order!

in getting an appropriate decision made. The expectation under the rules is that you set up a program, you set up a program objective, you set up the criteria and the guidelines for the program and then you undertake actions under those things. That's precisely what this government has done. The program that Senator McKenzie oversaw in no way met that test. It fell far short—

Public guidelines—released before decisions made.

Order!

of the expectations of the ANAO, and it fell far short of the expectations of the public.

This government made public election commitments. We made them transparently, and we have gone about delivering them in a transparent way. We've done it in a way that follows the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles with public program guidelines, including eligibility and assessment criteria. Senator McKenzie and others may not like it, but this is the way that you deliver election commitments appropriately. (Time expired)

Before I give you the call to you, Senator McKenzie, I will remind everyone—obviously, temperatures are running slightly hot in the chamber—of their obligations under standing order 193(3). I will remind everyone that Senator McAllister was largely heard in silence and I would hope that would continue. Senator McKenzie, you have the call.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

This attendance by the minister is to a notice of motion which the Senate supported that the Prime Minister's representative provide the Australian Senate with the correspondence, messages and records of conversations that the Prime Minister had as the local MP for Grayndler around and with the Marrickville Golf Club, the Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre and the St Vincent de Paul Society in his electorate. These three organisations got 10½ million bucks out of this grant program, and the Senate would like to know—not Senator Mckenzie; the Senate would like to know—what conversations the Prime Minister had as the local MP with these organisations and how that information got fed into the decision-making of the government.

He could have actually said, 'I met with the Marrickville Golf Club a few times actually'—Prime Minister, you're an absolute local down there; they've given you an honorary membership that you forgot about!—and stated when, where and how he had these conversations and how these three proponents for this grants program got their names on the list, on the golden ticket, on the spreadsheet that only had red on it, showing only Labor seats—88 per cent of this program went to Labor seats. Instead of telling the Australian Senate that he'd had some meetings, told these local groups what he wanted and fed that into Catherine King's process—that it was all above board and followed the rules—he sent the Senate a letter basically saying, 'The Prime Minister was not the decision-maker for the grants reference.' Well, of course they're not. There has been a lot of talk about why I'm pursuing this. Do you know why? Because I'm the shadow minister for Catherine King. It is my job in this place to do that. And we are doing that with a Senate inquiry going forward.

But it's not just the Australian Senate that has serious questions to ask of the Prime Minister about the Marrickville Golf Club, which he completely forgot that he walks Toto on of a morning and which stocks Albo Pale Ale in the bar. This is not an entity unknown to the Prime Minister, but he's obfuscating: 'Oh, I've never been there. I can't give the Senate details of when I met with them about their project that I gave them six million bucks for in the election.' He's chosen to hide.

Then you've got the bovver boys of the Labor Party, including Senator Watt—and now, I'm sure, Senator Ayres will follow—who come in and do what they do: rough-arm, belittle and denigrate. Oh, sorry—Senator Sheldon, another bovver boy of the union movement. The three bruisers enter the Australian Senate and run amok. You know that they got it wrong when they couldn't leave it to Senator McAllister to handle this debate.

Senator Sheldon, on a point of order?

Really, you should withdraw that language that was being used. Suggesting that people are involved in violence is inappropriate.

I'm going to take advice.

No, Senator Ayres. I was taking advice. I did not hear what was said. It has been withdrawn, and I don't think we need to repeat it, Senator Ayres. On advice, given a senator has raised the issue, I will ask you, for the benefit of the chamber, to withdraw the earlier remark and then to continue.

I withdraw. Part of being a democrat and believing in democracy is actually upholding the institutions which underpin it, and sometimes that is tough to do. It is a lived practice. My concern with the Labor Party's approach, whether it be Minister McBain, whether it be Minister Catherine King or whether it be the Prime Minister himself, is the inability to uphold their own ministerial code of conduct. I'll read directly from it. The Prime Minister signed the front of this document. It says:

… we will act in a manner that is consistent with the highest ethical standards … I expect my Ministers to demonstrate that they are complying with these high standards …

Well, when you're not complying with the high standards of the Prime Minister's code of conduct, which goes directly, in part 3, to perceived conflicts of interest, then you have a response to that. Your response is to apologise, to make amends and, in certain cases, to resign your commission. But instead the union thuggery approach is to come out swinging, belittle your opponent, bury them and hope the issue goes away. Well, the Australian people are absolutely onto you, Labor. They are absolutely onto a prime minister who, from what he untruthfully told the Australian public, you'd think had never heard of the Marrickville Golf Club. Instead he finds, 'Oh, I actually was an honorary member for years.' It's time— (Time expired)

Well, hypocrisy, thy name is Senator McKenzie. This is hot hypocrisy that is so disconnected from the real world and real people and so large and unfathomable that it takes the oxygen out of the room.

The first basket of hypocrisy here, of course, is Senator McKenzie herself. Her own record in this area was described recently by a journalist with these words: 'the stench of corruption remains'. Yet she is in here with this kind of behaviour.

Through the chair, please, Senator Ayres.

Yes. Senator McKenzie is in here, on about this, as if her history never happened.

The second basket of hypocrisy here is that I have a folder here with a list of each of the election commitments made by the Liberals and Nationals, arranged in alphabetical order. I want to start with H. It's not Henderson. It's not arranged by the name of the person who made the commitment. It's arranged by the name of the electorate. Let's go to the commitments made by the member for Hume, Mr Taylor, in this round. There was $7½ million for the Macarthur Bulls Football Club Regional Football Facility and $5.8 million for the Leppington Oval precinct. I seem to remember the word 'Leppington' from the Morrison period. There was $4.52 million for the Camden sport and recreation package, $200,000 for Wayne Gardner Oval, $200,000 for the 1st Appin Scout Group and $85,000 for Wollondilly Community Leisure Centre upgrades. Never at any point did the member for Hume feel it was necessary, when he promised $200,000 to the 1st Appin Scout Group to upgrade amenities—a group in which he holds an honorary membership. You know, 'dyb, dyb, dyb, dob, dob, dob'—poor old Mr Taylor was mounting a slur campaign when he himself was all about $18.1 million worth of election commitments.

Let's start with B for Barker. Mr Pasin had $7.5 million for Mount Gambier and district saleyards transformation projects, half a million dollars for CCTV and lighting at Sturt Reserve, $400,000 for Murray Bridge Players and Singers redevelopment—I bet we can see old Mr Pasin down there singing his heart out—$220,000 for Mount Burr netball courts, $100,000 for Tailem Bend RSL renovations, $90,000 for the Penola Bowling Club redevelopment and $65,000 for the Kapunda Soldiers Memorial Gardens rejuvenation. That is a total of $8.9 million.

For Berowra, Mr Leeser had $3.725 million for the Campbell Park clubhouse upgrade and $1.85 million for the North Epping Oval clubhouse upgrade. We haven't even got out of the box past B and we're in the tens of millions of dollars of commitments.

This is hypocrisy that is so big. This is a disconnection from the things that really matter for real Australians. We have made election commitments. We have acquitted them 100 per cent. We have delivered those election commitments whether they are in Liberal seats or Nationals seats or One Nation seats or Greens seats or crossbench seats. We have made them across the country in a responsible way, we have been held accountable for them in an election where we were elected with a majority and we have discharged those commitments lawfully. And you know what Australians can be confident about: if a Labor candidate or a Labor MP or a Labor senator or the leader of the Labor Party or a Labor minister makes an election commitment, we will deliver it. We will deliver it lawfully. And that is a lot more than can be said for that moribund, corrupt rabble over there, who during the Morrison period's maladministration left a stench of corruption that will never go away.

Let's just talk about what this actually is about. This is about the transparency and accountability of a government that refuses to comply with orders of the Senate. This is the Labor Party doing the middle finger to the Senate. This is the Labor Party saying, to use a colloquial phrase, 'Up your bum' to the Senate in relation to the Senate's requirement that documents be provided. And this is a disgrace. It is a slur on the Australian people, who voted for this chamber, as the house of review, to hold the executive to account.

It's particularly interesting that the Labor Party is so touchy about this, because we all know that the Prime Minister has a house 200 metres from this golf club. The Prime Minister has selective amnesia. He's clearly forgotten about the house he owns, because he owns so many, and he's forgotten about his membership of the golf club, a golf club that he himself ensured was given millions of dollars. He failed to declare two things. One was his membership of the golf club, a membership that he's had for a number of years, and his involvement with the golf club, which he's had for a number of years. This golf club has held fundraisers for him. It's held functions for him. But he forgot all about that because he's got selective amnesia. He also forgot to mention, when it comes to the $6 million for this golf club, the proximity of a residential holding in his name. There's a clear conflict of interest in two regards.

I'll quote from the Code of conduct for ministers. It says:

The Code of Conduct for Ministers sets out, in clear terms, the expectations the Albanese Government has of all its ministers.

But apparently this code of conduct does not apply to the Prime Minister. I read from 3.2:

Ministers are personally responsible for the management and declaration of their private interests, the identification and declaration of any current or potential conflicts of interest …

Item 3.3 says:

Ministers must declare and register their personal interests …

A $6 million grant has gone to a golf club, and the Prime Minister is the ultimate decision-maker here. He's gone around and said, 'I'm not the decision-maker,' but we've got Catherine King saying, 'I'm not the decision-maker,' and we've got the minister for regional development saying, 'I am not the decision-maker.' So who actually is the decision-maker? How does $6 million miraculously end up in the savings account of the Marrickville golf club? It's because the Prime Minister is the one who made the decision for this money—$6 million, by the way, of taxpayers' money—to go to a golf club that apparently he's never seen and didn't know anything about, even though it's 200 metres from a house that he owns in the suburb of Marrickville.

Professor Anne Twomey is quite correct. This is grey corruption, and it goes to the heart of how the Labor Party operates. They treat taxpayers' money as their own money. It's some sort of credit card. They can go all around the world. We only have to talk about Anika Wells, the 'minister for frequent flyer points', in terms of her approach to the treatment of taxpayers' money. She sees how the Prime Minister operates. He thinks it's well and good to give $6 million to his local golf club, which he's never seen and which is only 200 metres from a house that he had apparently forgotten he owned. It's a clear conflict of interest, and this government says it doesn't really matter.

This Senate, quite correctly, passed an order for the production of documents asking for certain documents. If the government don't have anything to hide, they should release the documents. If everything is rosy, good and in compliance with the law, the Labor Party should just release the documents, because they've got nothing to hide. But they clearly do have something to hide. Otherwise, why would they be objecting to the release of these documents? They know these documents are a paper trail from the Prime Minister to the golf club and in reverse in relation to the laundering of $6 million of taxpayers' money to a golf club in the Prime Minister's own electorate without taking into account due process and due accountability. It's a rip-off of the Australian taxpayers, and the Australian Labor Party should be ashamed of themselves. (Time expired)

I'll start with two words: sports rorts. The culprit at the centre of one of the biggest rorting scandals in Australia's history is trying to play prosecutor. The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering. We've gone through the list. I'll go through it again because not one of those on the opposite side went to ask any one of those shadow ministers, including the Leader of the Opposition, or one of those members of the Liberal Party about alleged conflicts of interest on the basis of the propaganda and the approach that's used by Senator McKenzie and by the other speakers on the other side. Maybe those on the other side have forgotten what happened when Senator McKenzie was the sports minister. I'll remind them yet again.

Isn't it remarkable that, instead of telling Australians how they would help them with housing and rather than turning around and talking about the cost of living and how to get better wages—we know what they want to do about wages; they actually want to decrease them—Senator McKenzie is more focused on talking about election commitments that are delivered to local communities. Our commitments followed the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles. Our commitments followed the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, made up of MPs and senators from across the political spectrum, including members of Senator McKenzie's own side of politics. Most importantly, our commitments were made to deliver for local communities, not sorted on a colour coded spreadsheet or made for personal political gain.

Senator McKenzie might be familiar with those colour coded sheets because, of course, she was at the centre of it. Nine out of the 10 electorates that received the most funding were marginal target electorates, based on a colour coded spreadsheet. Let's remind ourselves—I've said it before; I'm going to say it again—that 73 per cent of the projects Senator McKenzie approved went against the recommendations of the Australian Sports Commission, then known as Sport Australia. And it gets worse, because the Senate inquiry into these sports rorts found more than 40 per cent of the projects that received the funding were considered ineligible by the Audit Office.

While all the sports rorts were going on, she even failed to disclose her own active membership of a gun club that received almost $36,000 from the very program she oversaw. This is a gun club she was active in. She failed to tell anyone. I can see why, when I go through this list, she's only applying it selectively to anyone else. Of course you're going to say you need—Senator McKenzie quite clearly turned around in 2024 and disclosed that she forgot about 16 flight upgrades that she received over nine years while pointing the finger at everybody else. What a clown show it is to turn around and have these people on the opposite side prosecuting this particular argument!

Let's go to some of those on the opposite side. The member for Hume, opposition leader Angus Taylor, promised $200,000 to upgrade amenities at the 1st Appin Scout Group, where he held an honorary membership that wasn't declared on his register of interests. Under McKenzie's rules, obviously the opposition leader is guilty! After the comments from members of parliament—

No matter how much they interject, after comments from person after person on the basis of their rules and on their assessment, that's the way they should be actually be speaking about the opposition leader. Then it goes to the member for Bowman, Henry Pike, who promised $1.1 million to the EGW Wood Sportfield, home of the Redlands Tigers, a club that listed him as a patron. That wasn't declared on his register of interests. On the basis of what they're putting forward, that person is guilty. So you've got the member for Bowman as well as the leader. You've got the member for Herbert, Phil Thompson—$232,000 to the Jubilee Bowls Club. Under the McKenzie rules, he's guilty. Then you go back to the declaring of interests by Senator McKenzie.

Let's spend less time pointing fingers across the chamber and a little more time asking questions of her colleagues on the basis of the assessment that she's using, because, on the assessment that she's using, they are guilty. Either they're guilty or they're not. If you're going to use that assessment, you have to use that assessment appropriately. At the last election, they promised $1.6 billion; they have $1.6 billion they refuse to make themselves accountable for. That's completely how they operate over there: sports rorts, shame, hypocrisy, and constantly turning around and failing to have the standards that they apply to anyone else applying to them. (Time expired)

I have enjoyed every contribution across the chamber in this debate, but I particularly enjoyed that last contribution from Senator Sheldon, especially the last 60 seconds. Irony is clearly lost on Senator Sheldon, because he concluded his contribution, angrily pointing his finger across the chamber, by saying we should spend less time pointing fingers at each other and examine the conduct of our own parties. Not once in his five-minute contribution on this debate did Senator Sheldon in any way reflect on the conduct of his own party, of his own government or of his own prime minister. Not once did he seek to hold himself and his colleagues to the standards he and other Labor colleagues have demanded of this side of the chamber, including when we were in government.

There is no more boring accusation a politician can make to another politician than hypocrisy, but, if you're going to come in here and accuse other people of hypocrisy and accuse them of not living up to their standards, at least have the decency to reflect on your own. That is obviously something Senator Sheldon and all of his colleagues are incapable of doing. I particularly enjoyed the irony of him attacking Senator McKenzie for her alleged past failure to make a disclosure for an organisation that received a grant when the central question in this debate is the Prime Minister's failure to disclose a membership of an organisation that received a grant of public money under his watch as Prime Minister. If you're going to come in here and accuse others of doing something that your own boss is doing, at least have some plausible defence or cover before throwing that accusation at others.

The truth is that Senator Sheldon and other Labor senators who have contributed to this debate have had nothing meaningful to say in the defence of the government's conduct because there is no defence for it. This is public money which has been found by independent groups, like the Centre for Public Integrity, to have been used for a political purpose in a non-transparent process. That's what the government did. That is what the government spent years railing against when they were the opposition, when they were on this side of the chamber. They said that they would never do this, and they are in government, and they've now done it. To top it all off, they're not even allowing this chamber to do its job of scrutinising the decisions and expenditure of public money by refusing to cooperate with an order for the production of documents. That is the problem here.

If you think your conduct is above board, if you think your conduct is defensible and if you think what you have done is right, why won't you release the documents? Why won't you allow them to be scrutinised by the Senate, by the media, by the public and by independent groups? The truth is we know that they know that this would not pass any public test. This would not survive public scrutiny, and so they will do everything they can to deny the public and the taxpayers, who funded these grants and the opportunity to understand how these decisions were made, who they were made by and when they were made. We all know, with ministers and departments rushing around to assure everyone that it wasn't them that made the decision and that it was somebody else, that there's something suss going on here, that the decisions were probably made in the PMO by a staffer, instructed by the Prime Minister, to suit Labor's political interests, and that is what they are afraid will be exposed if they comply with the Senate's order to produce documents.

The truth is there is a stench of corruption around Labor nationally and none more so than in my home state of Victoria. It is very clear we have a government there that knowingly willingly handed $15 billion of taxpayers money to the CFMEU, organised crime and bikies. They did nothing after they were warned that it was happening. They allowed it to go on for two years. Let's not forget that, among those $15 billion was federal taxpayers money too that this government allowed to be handed over to organised crime, bikies and the CFMEU, despite media reports drawing attention to this and despite whistleblowers bringing forward complaints. This is a government which is willing to tolerate corruption when it suits its political interests. When their friends benefit and when they benefit, they're happy to see public money to go to improper purposes, and that will be the judgement of Victorians on 28 November, as it will one day be the judgement on this government to.

Question agreed to.