Senator CHRIS EVANS (9:56 AM) —It is clear that I am wasting my breath, but I do want to make a couple of points. When Senator Lees uses the royal `we', she reflects again her agreement with the minister. You have not appointed anybody to a foundation. You may have a cosy little deal with the minister and you may have shared a nice bottle of red wine in doing the deal. This is the parliament of Australia. We are dealing with the legislation, and what we have to reflect is the view of the parliament. What you want to do is to say that we all accept that you have done this deal and that is enough. I do not have a problem with you doing a deal with the government, but you cannot come in and say that, instead of us having legislation, we have this deal, we have this piece of paper between the former Leader of the Democrats and, hopefully, the former minister. Quite frankly, I do not find that reassuring at all.

You keep referring to the Senate inquiry. As you know, Senator Lees, you and I, I think, are the only two—along with the chair—who sat through it all. I think it is fair to say that I took a full participatory role in that. At the end of that process, I was concerned that your deal was not adequate, that it was not providing enough protections for the expenditure of Commonwealth taxpayers' funds—$115 million— saying, `It's okay, leave it to them. We've got a deal; we've got an understanding.' I am afraid that that is not good enough for me. I have a difference of opinion with you about that. I think we ought to put some protections in place. You said it was dangerous to put these things in. We have gone from `not necessary' to `dangerous'. I do not know what it will be by the third amendment.

Senator CHRIS EVANS —You used the word `dangerous'—I am happy to refer you to the Hansard—thatit is dangerous for us to put assurances and guarantees in the legislation, that it is better that we rely on the agreement that you reached with the minister in writing outside of the parliament. Quite frankly, I do not share your views. What happened to the old Democrats of public accountability—keep the bastards honest and make sure it is all brought before the parliament? When it does not suit you, it is abandoned. Quite frankly, your record of deals with the minister for health is appalling. Most of them have not been honoured. You come in here and you wave letters around at every debate: `I've done a deal with the minister.' Quite frankly, they are not worth the paper that they are printed on and they are very rarely honoured. What I am saying to you, Senator Lees—and I made the point at the start—is that I do not doubt your motives and I do not doubt your interest in this issue, but what you have suggested in this parliament is not good enough. It is not good enough for the expenditure of Commonwealth money, and we want to make sure that we have the protections.

Your example is to say that the National Indigenous Substance Misuse Council are already covered because `we have the chair on the foundation'. But you do not have a foundation, because it has not been established yet. You have a group of people about whom you and the minister had a chat and drew up a list. They are perfectly good people; there is no question about their qualifications. But what happens if that gentleman resigns? Does the next chair of the National Indigenous Substance Misuse Council come onto the foundation? No, he does not. Why? Because there are no regulations; there is no governance of who the members are, how they are reappointed or what their terms are, et cetera. Again, it is all a matter of some secret deal. It is not in the legislation. It is not good enough. If you want me to be reassured, and if you want the parliament to be reassured, let us cover those issues and let us make sure we have got the accountability measures.

But they are not there and, quite frankly, Senator Lees, I am not reassured. You may say, `Tough; I don't care.' That is your political judgment and that is fine. But I make the point to you: you have spent your political career arguing about public accountability and saying that that is one of the Democrats' key issues. Senator Murray comes in and lectures us day after day; let us see you put it into practice. Don't talk the talk; walk the walk. Support proper accountability measures in this legislation, not secret deals that, quite frankly, you are incapable of enforcing. You do not have the ability to enforce them, and we have seen that time and time again. You get done over when the minister finds that what he signed off on is all too hard. Let us put it in the legislation.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—Are you referring to me when you say `you'?

Senator CHRIS EVANS —If you like, Mr Chairman. I always speak through the chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I took no part in that, Senator Evans.

Senator CHRIS EVANS —I know you were taking a keen interest in the debate, as always.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I always listen to your speeches, Senator Evans. Perhaps you might care to address your remarks to the chair rather than to senators.

Senator CHRIS EVANS —I accept your admonishment, Mr Chairman. I was, through you, trying to address some remarks to Senator Lees. We have been in the centre of the discussion, but I accept your correction. The point I am trying to make is: this is a chance for the parliament to make sure we get it right and it is important that we do so. We are talking about $115 million of public money. We ought to make sure that the proper protections are in place. We all agree with the objectives of the foundation. As I say, we have been prepared to concede that the sort of people you are looking for to get involved are perfectly reputable. There is no argument about the public good that this foundation can do and that good people are being encouraged to be part of it, but we do think that the parliament has the right to insist on the proper protections, and I am disappointed that the Democrats are not supporting those measures.