Senator LINES (Western Australia) (15:24): I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Nash today. I find it quite extraordinary that Senator Macdonald cannot spend five minutes defending Senator Nash and has to resort to trying to insult Labor and pretend that there were various ills on our side. But he cannot spend five minutes defending Senator Nash because she is not defensible. This matter started last week, when a website went live and was then suddenly taken down. On Friday, Senator Nash had the opportunity to answer questions from the Fairfax Media and, guess what, she refused. If it was a mistake or if the website was somehow not quite ready, that is easily defensible. You can show someone a website that is not quite ready. Why would you not put that on the public record on Friday? You would not put it there because it is just not true. Those in the industry have said that they looked at the website and saw that it was a fine, perfectly good website. Then, when Senator Nash was finally backed into a corner about it, she said, 'Oh, but I was worried that consumers wouldn't be able to understand it.' What an insult it is to suggest that consumers who have been calling for clear food labelling for a very long time suddenly, according to the Assistant Minister for Health, would not be able to understand it. Senator Nash has now had three opportunities to put the facts on the record. Yesterday, Senator Wong asked three simple questions, one being: 'What did you and your chief of staff have to do with pulling the website down?' Senator Nash told us that she ordered it to be pulled down. Again, Senator Wong had to go back and say, 'You haven't answered the question in relation to what your senior staff member did.' So we finally get a little bit of information around that. But Senator Nash, like the rest of the government ministers, just could not help herself, she had to have a go. She had to imply that Labor's questions were somehow quite out of the ordinary and insulting and should never have been asked. We are just trying to get to the truth of who said what, and when. But she could not help herself yesterday, she had to be condescending. Then, last night at around nine o'clock, she made a statement saying, 'Oops, I made a mistake.' After trying to tell us she was above reproach and had got it all right, she comes in and suddenly admits that her chief of staff has shares in the company— Senator Bilyk: What time was it? Senator LINES: I think it was around nine o'clock, a long time after question time. Today in questioning, she further tried to defend the fact that somehow it is all above board because the shareholding does not return any money. The fact, as she has provided rather unwillingly, is that there is a link between a company who lobbies on behalf of Cadbury and her chief of staff. But we have not gotten to the bottom of this yet because we have not quite gotten to all the truth. Today, as I said, she tried to defend the fact that, somehow, because it is not a monetary matter, it does not matter. Today, she also told us that she has taken advice from the Prime Minister's Office. When we asked what that advice was about, we were suddenly told that she was not going to declare it. If the senator has nothing to hide, let us get the facts out, but so far we have had a refusal to answer questions from the media. Simple questions put yesterday by Senator Wong were refused to be answered. Further questions put by Senator Wong and Senator McLucas today have again not been answered fully. So Senator Nash is not yet off the hook, and the government cannot defend a matter where we do not have the truth. What is the truth of this matter? The fact is that her chief of staff should not be in a position that deals with the food industry and its representatives, who his wife represents. Senator Nash needs to come clean and tell us exactly what has been going on. We will not let this matter rest. You can insult us all you like, but the truth is there and we are out to uncover it. Senator Nash, you have been asked three times so far. Let us get to the truth of it. I wonder if there will be another statement tonight. Let us wait and see. (Time expired) Question agreed to.