Answers to Questions

Opened the debate

Cash argued that the Prime Minister had provided misleading answers regarding his connection to the Marrickville Golf Club. Cash cited video evidence showing the Prime Minister stating he had used the club for decades and announcing a $350,000 election commitment, which contradicted his earlier claims of having no involvement. Cash questioned why other golf clubs were not invited to apply for similar funding and noted the Prime Minister had not declared his honorary membership with the club, unlike his membership with the Royal Sydney Golf Club.

Government response

Stewart argued that the opposition was conflating open competitive grant rounds with closed rounds used to fulfill specific election commitments. Stewart listed various open programs receiving significant funding, such as the Growing Regions Program and the Active Transport Fund, to demonstrate broad support for infrastructure. Stewart stated that the closed program for the Marrickville grant was administered in accordance with Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, a process previously agreed upon by the coalition. Stewart noted that the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit had found election commitments to be a legitimate basis for funding when properly administered.

Opposition response

McKenzie focused on the Prime Minister's failure to declare his honorary membership with the Marrickville Golf Club in his register of interests. McKenzie argued that the Prime Minister awarded over $6 million to the club for facilities upgrades, despite other clubs being excluded from the closed program. McKenzie stated that the issue was not about corruption but about upholding the ministerial code of conduct and maintaining high ethical standards. McKenzie emphasized that the Prime Minister, as the upholder of the code, should lead by example in declaring interests that could be seen to influence decision-making.