Mr CREAN —My question is again directed to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of his industry minister's statement that Bligh Ventures is a venture capital company and that today on radio he has confirmed his portfolio responsibility in the venture capital area. I further remind the Prime Minister of the minister's budget decision to trial alternative equity market proposals not only including a third board and opening up greater scope for Bligh's investments but also ensuring that existing investors—and this is the point in the notion—such as Bligh are protected. Doesn't this, Prime Minister, constitute a specific interest in the direct shareholding of the minister and therefore a clear breach of your newly defined code?

Mr HOWARD —The member for Hotham has made a number of assertions about what the minister has said. Given some of the carelessness that has been used in language by the Labor Party in the past few days, I have no intention of accepting on this occasion, as I have on other occasions, that it is a gospel recitation of what the minister has said. Therefore, I will simply note that part of the opposition's question and have a look at what the minister has said and, if I have anything further to add, I will.

I say again that I do not believe—and it remains the position not only of me but of the government—that the minister has been in breach of the guidelines. Can I remind those who sit opposite of the statement that was made, and this really goes to the nub of what this is increasingly all about—maybe not in your eyes, maybe not in the eyes of people around this building, but increasingly in the eyes of the Australian community. To the extent that they are following this, they are starting to say, `What on earth are they going on about? If they don't think people have done anything wrong, why don't they get back to issues that affect our daily lives?'

Keep going! You may have thought you had one or two dots on the board earlier in the week but what you have now done is to demonstrate to the Australian community that, if you were out of touch on 2 March, you are even more out of touch now. Increasing numbers of the Australian community, including a lot of your own supporters, are starting to say, `What is wrong with owning shares?' They are starting to say, `Why can't the wives of people in politics have assets and businesses of their own?'

Mr Crean —What is wrong with your standards?

Mr HOWARD —You may squeal now that, in a technical sense, that is not your argument, but that is what is filtering through to the community out there. They are not impressed with this exercise. They are saying: if there is something wrong, make the allegation; if there is an impropriety, assert the impropriety; if there is a breach of the law, assert the breach of the law; if there is a wrongdoing, allege the wrongdoing. But on no occasion have you been able to do that.

Of course, the crowning denial of all of this—and I think the Australian community will increasingly understand this—is that you have spent four days of parliamentary time this week, you have spent all of your energies in opposition this week, chasing something which, according to the words of your own leader, does not involve any impropriety. If ever there could be an example of an irrelevant opposition, if ever there could be an example of an opposition who is utterly out of touch with the Australian community, it is you lot.

I suggest that you go back to your electorates and that you talk to some of your dwindling band of supporters, and most of them will tell you that you are increasingly wasting your time in pursuing this. They are wanting to know: if there is nothing wrong with what anybody has done, why do you keep rabbiting on about it?