QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (16:33): 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)