QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS

Senator SCARR (Queensland) (15:11): The issue is, when you look at the facts and you look at the statistics, the vast majority of these community projects that are approved through these limited tender processes, where there can only be one tenderer and there can only be one person getting the money, who's been given the benefit of a Labor Party election commitment—203 out of 229 community projects went to Labor held seats.

That's 88.64 per cent of these projects in Labor held seats. I recognise Labor Party did well at the last election, but they won 62.6 per cent of the seats. They won 62.6 per cent of the seats, but they get more than 88 per cent of the projects.

This isn't about us. It's about the Australian people, and it's about the Australian people, through the length and breadth of this country, getting their fair share of this funding, which is critical. For every example of a swimming pool in Higgins, I can give you examples all over Australia.

This is the point. There should be a competitive process so that communities across the whole of Australia can participate equally in that competitive process, and then, on an objective basis, a decision is made as to where the funding should go. It should be open, it should be transparent, it should be objective, and it should be a matter of integrity.

That is what the coalition is calling for. In relation to that issue of integrity, I want to quote from the Centre for Public Integrity Chair, former justice Anthony Whealy, who was an absolute warrior for integrity and transparency in government in Australia: I think there's a heavy onus on the government now to justify the process it has used. This isn't Senator Scarr.

This is former justice Anthony Whealy: 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. That's the phrase the former justice has used—'misuse of public money at a serious level'. That is the concern we're talking about here.

It's the fact that 203 out of 229 of these community projects have been delivered to Labor seats. What about the rest of Australia? Where's their fair share of the funding?

We want equality across this country and equality with respect to access to this funding. I'll say this with respect to transparency in the Prime Minister's disclosure. I don't think it was appropriate, with due respect to the Prime Minister, for him to attack the ABC.

The ABC were doing their job. They were asking the questions which they should be asking. And good on them for doing that.

The Prime Minister should lead the way in terms of disclosure of actual conflicts or perceived conflicts of interest. So I don't think it's right to minimise the fact that there appears to be an issue with respect to the disclosure of the membership of this golf club. I do hope the Leader of the Government in the Senate does come back and provide some further information—and I thank her for taking it on notice—with respect to what steps the Prime Minister has taken to clarify this matter and then to correct the record as soon as possible.

That's the example we expect from Australia's Prime Minister.