Senator COOK (3:35 PM) —This is a case in which there is a clear breach of public duty by a minister, and where his public duty has been confused with his private gain. There is no question about that. The Prime Minister set down the test. It is in his guidelines. He called them at the time, I might say, his `code'; he now calls them his `guidelines'. There is a reason for that, and I will come to it in a minute.

Today in question time I asked Senator Parer about three decisions he made as a minister which affected the benefit of the coal industry. This is a minister who, when he made those decisions, had private investments in the coal industry. His defence was that they were generic, they affected the whole of the industry. Ergo, they affected his company too. If this is a question of justice being done and justice being seen to be done, the right thing being done or the right thing being seen to be done, his decisions—the three of them—affected his private fortune. There is no way in which that is not true.

Senator Lightfoot —That is what you are sore about; it is the politics of envy.

Senator COOK —You can shout and rant. It stands there like a pikestaff before your eyes as a fact. It is a fact that that means he is in direct, flagrant contravention of the Prime Minister's own guidelines. What is the response of the Prime Minister in these circumstances? To reinterpret the guidelines. Remember when the Prime Minister told us these were codes? Now we have caught a minister, they are guidelines. They are not codes—you do not have to abide by them. Now they are just guides to action.

I want to know from this minister why he will not answer my question. Three separate times he made decisions which affected his private fortune as a minister for this industry. Why won't he answer? In the second part of my question, I asked him, `Do you deny that Jellinbah coalmine, in which you and your family have a lucrative interest, has derived any benefit from the program at all?' Cast your mind back. When this government came to office—and we had some questions about this today, laughable though they were—it embarked in its 1996-97 budget on the biggest cost-cutting spree ever. It cut every program across the board. It kept this program—the coal export facilitation program, the CEF program—that benefited this minister.

I asked this minister if his company benefited from that program. Did he answer the question? No, he did not. If the program does not work to benefit coalmining companies, why keep the program?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator COOK —That is exactly right. Why keep it when you are cutting everything else? Why, when you have got a scorched earth policy about budget cuts, do you keep this particular program if it does not benefit that particular company? That is what this minister now has to answer.

He has argued up until now there has been no conflict. `You have not caught me,' is his argument. This is the thief's argument. `I may have robbed the building, I may have the jewels in my bag, I may have got them to the fence; but I am innocent because you haven't caught me and you haven't proved that I did it.' That is the argument being put here—the thief's argument. There is now a clear case of there being three occasions on which he has made decisions on which his—

Senator Calvert —Madam Deputy President—

Senator COOK —Of course you want to shut me up.

Senator Calvert —Madam Deputy President, on a point of order: I just want to clarify whether Senator Cook is inferring that Senator Parer is a thief, because if he is he should withdraw it.

Senator Alston interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Alston! Senator Cook, you may wish to clarify to whom you were referring and, if you were referring to the minister as such, then it is out of order. If you were not, if you were making a generic comment, it is not out of order.

Senator COOK —I said that he employed the thief's defence: `I stole. I've got the goods. I sold them. But you haven't caught me and, until you catch me, I am not guilty.' That is what I said and I am happy to repeat it.

There is a question here, front and centre, for this government. We now know that the Prime Minister has double standards. He defines promises and core promises. If you do not understand the difference between a promise and a core promise, bad luck—you lose. We now know that he has a code and a guideline. If you do not understand that guidelines are not meant to be kept, then you lose. We now understand that, if you have investments in your own industry, that is not an offence. Even if it is seen to conflict, the fact that you then have to prove that it does means it is not an offence. We now know that, if your family benefits, as long as they are adults and not children, that is not an offence either, although it is very directly front and centre in conflict with the Prime Minister's own guidelines.

We have here a Prime Minister who redefines the issue as he goes along to protect his ministers. This is a weak Prime Minister. This is someone without the guts to defend the position he puts publicly. This is a Prime Minister with no leadership power or strength. If he had any, he would enforce his own standards. (Time expired)

Senator Ferguson interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Ferguson, interjections are disorderly at the best of times, and they are even more so when you are not in your seat. So I would ask for some silence, please.