QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS

Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (15:03): I move: That the Senate take note of answers to coalition questions 1 and 2. In particular, we want to relate the Prime Minister's character to the events of the grant to the Marrickville golf club, because what we've seen with the Prime Minister is that he and truth are rarely in the same room. We saw that before the 2022 election, when the Prime Minister promised 97 times to cut power bills by at least $250 yet power bills have gone up.

Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised that he would not make any changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing and yet, in the first budget after that election, such changes were made. Now we get to the issue of the grant to the Marrickville golf club. The Prime Minister, who is the local member, has approved a $6 million grant to a local golf club, a golf club that he said he was unaware that he was an honorary member of.

But this is a prime minister who previously said back in 2019 that he declared an interest because of his personal interest and a conflict of interest because of his involvement with the golf club. And now we have a prime minister who somehow manages to conjure $6 million out of thin air to give to his local golf club. This was not just $6 million.

It was $6 million of taxpayers' money, $6 million of a $½ billion gerrymandered fund that was used by the Labor Party during the last election campaign. The Centre for Public Integrity has suggested that this fund was a misuse of public money. Indeed, its chair has said: I think there's a heavy onus on the government now to justify the process it has used.

If they cannot justify that process, then I think the public in Australia would be driven to the conclusion that this is the misuse of public money at a serious level. It is a misuse of public money, at a national level. It is a serious misuse of public money when the leader of the Labor Party, the Prime Minister of this country, uses this fund as a slush fund to hand out $6 million to his local golf club.

But the Prime Minister's response was to attack the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for, rightfully, putting questions to him, as the fourth estate should—to him and to all politicians. He didn't defend his decision. He didn't justify his decision.

He attacked the ABC. So I think the Prime Minister has something to hide here. And we heard from Senator Wong in her answers at question time today that the Prime Minister was not the decision-maker.

Hang on: he's the Prime Minister! He's the Prime Minister of this country. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the Prime Minister had nothing to do with $6 million being pulled out of a slush fund and being given to his local golf club?

You're really taking the mickey here. Are you really saying that the minister made this decision off their own bat and had no reference at all from the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister clearly was involved in the decision-making.

This slush fund was there to ensure the election of a Labor Party government. The taxpayers of Australia need answers from this government as to how and why these funds were determined and why this golf club alone, of 1,600 golf clubs in the country, was the one special golf club to be chosen to receive $6 million—a hole in one. Talk about that.

(Time expired)