Mr WINDSOR (4:44 PM) —I am pleased to be able to speak on this matter of public importance today. I have absolutely no doubt that this is a guilt trip that the National Party has embarked on. I know that there are many, including the former minister, who do regret their activities in relation to this program. This is an attempt to reinvent history. I think what we are also seeing today is the real reason that the former Deputy Prime Minister resigned his position from cabinet. It is an attempt to reinvent history.

There has been an abuse of process in relation to the Regional Partnerships program. That is unfortunate, because when it was first promulgated it was a good program. But there has been an abuse of process in relation to the area consultative committees, the way in which the SONA program was put into place and the way in which various ministers and parliamentary secretaries interfered—the way in which they prodded at the department and some departmental people interfered.

If people really want to get to the truth of these issues—and there are a number of issues here—they should sit down and read the inquiry documents and about the way in which the department turned turtle when it was told that the evidence would be under oath. The Leader of the House came in here just a moment ago. The Leader of the House knows more than he has let on today. He should let the House know a little bit about his trips to Hamilton Island and a few other things that have occurred in relation to some of the main players in this particular issue.

Ms Gambaro —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is making allegations. There are other forms of debate in the House where you can make those allegations. I call him back to order. You cannot make an allegation against a member.

Ms Gillard —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: during the contribution by the leader of government business nothing came from his mouth except allegations against the member for New England. He was ruled in order by the Deputy Speaker. It must therefore be in order for the member for New England to respond. If your tactics backfire, that is too bad.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! I will now be listening very carefully to the member for New England. I know that he is aware of his responsibilities.

Mr WINDSOR —There have been breaches of process here. There has been a politicisation of the process of Regional Partnerships. There is absolutely no doubt about that. As I said, if people really want to get to the truth of this they should have a look at the work that was done by the Senate inquiry. To get to one of the prime witnesses that the Leader of the House referred to on a number of occasions, businessman Greg Maguire, I would like to report on what Mr Maguire had to say in his own evidence. I do give Mr Maguire some credit. He did tell me and Stephen Hall that he would lie to save the Deputy Prime Minister. He was honest enough to say that. But in his evidence, talking about Mr Windsor, the member for New England, on the meeting of 19 May, which did occur, he said:

This is a couple of days after he had met with the Deputy Prime Minister and spent many hours with him and Senator Sandy Macdonald. John Anderson, the member for Gwydir, admitted in this place, after he had first refused to admit, that he did discuss my political career with Greg Maguire and that of the National Party candidate. Mr Maguire said:

I did speak to John Anderson, in this very place—in fact, I sat where the member for Kennedy is sitting now, as the member for Gwydir came past me one day. I said, ‘John, I believe you’d like to speak to me; sit down.’ And he said, ‘You would mean my conversation with Greg Maguire?’ I did not mention Greg Maguire, but the member for Gwydir did.

Those are some of the excerpts from Greg Maguire’s evidence, this businessman that the Leader of the House and the National Party have attached their faith to. He has admitted that a meeting took place where he did approach me. The only thing that he has not said is that Senator Sandy Macdonald and Mr Anderson asked him to make the approach. As the member for Kennedy said a moment ago, when it is one person’s word against another it is going to be very difficult for the Australian Federal Police, who were investigating a breach of the Electoral Act, and the Senate inquiry, to make a determination. In fact, the Senate is bound not to find a verdict if there is not incontrovertible evidence. And there cannot be incontrovertible evidence if the witnesses—in this case, the member for Gwydir and Senator Macdonald—fail to appear. The fact that they failed to appear, in my mind, and in the electorate’s mind, suggests that they were afraid of the truth. I think that has been reinforced today.

I have absolutely no doubt that the people in the New England electorate who know the history of Mr Maguire, who know the history of this matter, believe that I am telling the truth. The fact is that Mr Anderson and Senator Macdonald, other than in a private capacity—I know they have reported privately to people, who have reported back to me—have been afraid to come out and make a statement. To bring the poor old member for Cowper out today, and then the Leader of the House, to defend this issue says to me that there is great concern within the National Party about the way in which this was politicised, the way the process was abused. The Senate inquiry has reinforced some of those issues in terms of the behaviour of Senator Sandy Macdonald in relation to some of these issues.

Why did I name the names? That has been asked on a number of occasions. The Prime Minister asked me to. And on the first available occasion that came along in this place, I did. I responded to the Prime Minister, who said, ‘If Mr Windsor has names, he should name them.’ And I did. That has been the part of the process that has annoyed these people tremendously.

The witness Mr Maguire appeared before the Senate inquiry under oath. The Senate inquiry has recommended that the Australian Electoral Commission carry out a further inquiry into the breaches that he made under oath when being interviewed by the Senate committee. Mr Maguire made certain allegations that he had undertaken various things—he had made donations, he had done this and done that. He said to the Senate inquiry that he would provide evidence to substantiate those matters. He has not done so. He has been referred to the Australian Electoral Commission for further investigation.

Mr Maguire is a man who has a lot of history. If people took the time to look at various records and analyse the phone records, and a whole range of other records that are available on the players in this particular game, they would see that this man has very little credibility. He has misrepresented himself under oath. He told a Senate inquiry under oath—a very serious matter—that he would deliver certain evidence and he failed to do that. I think the Senate committee wrote to him on four occasions asking that he provide that evidence.

This is the individual that the Leader of the House and the National Party have put their faith in. Their own people—the member for Gwydir and National Party Senator Sandy Macdonald—have not bothered to appear because they knew about the clause in relation to Senate inquiries that says that if there is no incontrovertible evidence to suggest that they should take something forward then they cannot. That is a different matter from what the inquiry believes happened. In fact, if the Leader of the House and the members of the National Party read some of the transcript of the inquiry, particularly some of the speeches, they will see that that is quite a different matter. Senator Macdonald and Mr Anderson failed to appear before that inquiry because they knew they did not have to.

That says to me that those two people were very concerned that, if they appeared before any inquiry, under interrogation they would have to misrepresent themselves to bear out the evidence that was given by Mr Maguire. But the government has come in here today—and the member for Kennedy has pointed it out quite well—and attached great faith to this witness. (Time expired)