Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Three hundred million dollars of taxpayers' money matters in terms of how the money is spent and what is going on. There are so many unanswered questions—there is too much ducking for cover; too much ducking and weaving. Who is responsible; who is telling the truth and who is not? These are questions that the Australian public need answers to but we are not getting those answers. When we think about Western Australia we remember the almost 300 communities that were set for closure. People's lives in the remote areas of that state were being questioned—where they were going to go; how they were going to live—so, when we see cuts to services in the federal budget of nearly $500 million, of course we have to ask what is happening to $300 million.

It is all very well for ministers and members opposite to say that, in the statement by the Attorney-General, all questions have been answered. In fact, they have not been. The Attorney-General's statement has shown that there are so many more critical questions that need answering. What was the understanding between WA Treasurer Dr Mike Nahan and Mr Hockey over the federal government not intervening to challenge the legislation in the High Court? What has Mr Hockey said in recent days in response to what is going on here in the parliament? What role have other government officeholders played in this? Why did the federal Minister for Social Services go to see Senator Brandis about this matter in early March? What did the former WA Treasurer put to the Attorney-General about the issue? Remember we are still talking about taxpayers' money and the extent to which the Attorney-General was involved in legal proceedings designed to recover this money. These are very valid, critical, important questions not only to the Senate and not only to the parliament of Australia but to the Australian people.

Why does the Attorney-General say that he only became involved when the former WA Treasurer, now Minister for Social Services, talked to him about it in March? This is despite the Attorney-General being represented in an earlier High Court hearing of the matter on 8 February. Was the Attorney-General somehow unaware of any of the facts in a High Court hearing where he was being represented? It is absolutely murky—totally murky. As the Senate, the house of review, we have to ask these questions. As uncomfortable as these questions may be to members opposite, to ministers in the Australian government and to ministers in the Western Australian government, they are questions that must be asked and must be answered.

Previous speakers have spoken about the Labor Party's supposed fixation on this issue. Well, clearly we know that it is important. It is not comical to not know what is going on here. It is not comical to see a former Solicitor-General have to resign from his position when he stood for particular values of accountability, transparency and giving competent legal advice that was required in this situation. These are things that do need examination. To hear members opposite speak as though we on this side of the House have an obsession and to hear them belittle the importance of questioning these matters says a lot about the members opposite; it says a lot about the disrespect that they hold for the Australian people's money and the way it should be spent—especially when there are Australians out there who need resources and who need to know they are supported in infrastructure, health, education and housing. There are so many more questions to be asked. We will certainly keep the members opposite on their toes in regard to this issue.