Mr FAHEY (Minister for Finance)(4.22 p.m.) —I am pleased to have this opportunity today to support the amendment moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—an amendment which gets right to the heart of this issue. Right at the heart of this issue are accusations by members opposite on a scattergun approach—put it out there, smear and hope that something might stick. And yet they will go away from this parliament—as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) did yesterday—and make statements in public to indicate that there is no impropriety in terms of any of the ministers that have been the subject of the censure motions in this parliament this week.

With the series of questions which the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) continues to throw up in respect of each particular member and in respect of this whole issue, they are simply hoping to distract from their pitiful performance over the 13 years of their administration and the fact that a new government has come in, it has brought a new broom, and that new broom is about putting the finances of this country in order.

Time after time the member for Hotham fires the accusations out, but he blows it immediately. He sits down and laughs. Laugh again, Simon, because that's all you are good at doing. You don't take seriously what you are doing. You have made no serious accusations against any member on this side of the House or given any indication of impropriety at any time. It is in those circumstances that the amendment moved by the Prime Minister is entirely appropriate.

The Leader of the Opposition comes in here and brings his troops with him, some of whom, of course, do not want to be troops but want to lead him into this chamber—a few in particular. He brings in these accusations and pursues groundless allegations against ministers, when he indicated publicly that there is no suggestion of any impropriety in respect of any of them.

There is a very telling contrast between the conduct of ministers on this side of the House in the short term that the government has been in place since March and the conduct of ministers who for 13 years proceeded under a code of conduct that was not worth the paper that it was written on in the manner in which it was adhered to. It is very clear that, when there was a potential conflict in respect of the former Assistant Treasurer, when it was clear that he had made a decision on the advice of Treasury and other government officials, but the fact was that that particular decision had absolutely nothing to do with the shares that he held in the ANZ Bank, he offered his resignation. There is a million miles between the integrity of that man and some of the performances that we have seen in this place by former Labor ministers, who were simply dragged kicking and screaming to a point when the embarrassment was so great that they could no longer be tolerated within the party and they were told to get out on the basis that it was just too late. `We cannot have this process,' said the former Prime Minister, `debilitating the party any longer. You'll have to take a walk.' And then it happened. It happened on several occasions.

The issues in terms of public accountability and conflict come down to this. Firstly, a conflict means that you have a private interest and that your ministerial responsibilities may bring you against those private interests in the decisions that you make as a minister. The member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) came in here today and made reference to a company that I held one $1 share in.

This huge monolith! After weeks of poring over the papers and getting all his mates in the New South Wales parliament to burn the midnight oil and drag it all out—Laurie, you would appreciate that one, mate—he does not even know the name of the company. My one $1 share—I have had absolutely no involvement in that company—was worthless. It was worth zilch. No involvement whatsoever. Okay, the records of the ASC have not been changed. Wow! Where is the conflict with my ministerial responsibilities? What have I done that is a breach of integrity? Where is the dishonesty in my dealings as a minister in a company that I last had an involvement in 10 years ago?

I make it perfectly clear, as I said in the House earlier—you do not want to hear because you want to simply smear by innuendo and everything else—that I signed many documents at the time of withdrawing from my partnership. Those documents related to leases; I suspect they related to cars; they related to word processors, photocopiers and maybe even a cafe bar—I do not know. That is all. The company was not worth that much. I also recall signing documents relating to the company. I cannot produce those, so I will not say here today that they were definitely signed.

Mr Martin Ferguson —When?

Mr FAHEY —Back when I got out of the practice. I have not been back through the doors since or spoken about the company since. My share is worth $1, yet this is the great conspiracy theory that you want to bring forward by this scattergun approach to the whole thing—simply leave it out there, let it hang and hope that something there might smear me and others.

What a top little effort today, Simon! You decided to go for the Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Prosser). It is easy: get the register and pick a company out, say, `He is still a director of that company. Does it involve itself in something or another?' and hope that, by saying a few words like that, there may be some impropriety. Your leader says there's none. And then you sit down and smile again. You keep smiling and, of course, that blows it. I say, `Jeez, he's serious this time. I wonder if he's really got something at this stage?' But every time he sits down and smiles. Well, he's an affable fellow. But you have to keep a straight face if you want to get some sort of credibility in this place. You have denigrated down to the depths of the ridiculous in this whole process. As the Prime Minister said, you have gone too far.

Let me just say to you that there is one thing you learnt at law school: if you are in court, don't ask one too many questions, it could destroy your case. You have asked dozens too many questions this week. You continue to try to bring forward an argument without actually making any proper accusation on the basis of, `Gee, he's under a cloud; he's under suspicion.'

Let me say one thing about integrity, and it is something that I have learnt over a number of years in politics. It is a pretty important thing to the individuals on whatever side of the House you are on. It applies to the members on the opposition benches as much as to anybody else. You cannot prescribe honesty. You can put whatever documents you like together, but you cannot make honesty stand up if individuals haven't got it in them.

I am absolutely convinced that my colleagues on this side of the House in the matters that have been raised will act with honesty and integrity at all times. They have demonstrated that in two cases in the past week when the former Assistant Treasurer and the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer voluntarily walked forward quickly and said, `There is no real conflict, there may be an appearance of conflict, there is no gain that has come out of all this, but I am going, I want to go,' and the Prime Minister, who upholds a standard for all ministers and all members on this side of the House, accepted those resignations. What a contrast with what would have happened in your case. What a contrast with what did happen in your case. It simply did not exist and you attempted to bluster your way through.

One of the interesting things about this debate today is that, after several days, the Leader of the Opposition ran out of things to say. He came in here and attempted for his 20 minutes to deal with everything in general and nothing in particular. Most of what he said was entirely irrelevant to the issue that has been the subject of debate in this chamber during this week—entirely irrelevant. He made a very paltry and weak defence of the tawdry deal that has been done in Lindsay with the AAFI.

He simply wanted to walk away from that as quickly as he could. He made an attempt to say, `I have been reading the editorials of various newspapers in Australia and in the region, and you're not terribly well liked, Mr Prime Minister, for your attitude to foreign affairs.' He did not produce anything. He did not quote from anything. He did not do any of that. So he got into foreign affairs. He got into the case of trying to defend himself in Lindsay. He then proceeded to give the Prime Minister a lecture on standards.

In all of my time in politics and in the time that I made a particular study of it even before going into politics, there is no-one in this nation in that entire time who has a higher standard of integrity and is respected more than the current Prime Minister of Australia. That is a fact. And to get a lecture from the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans) on the question on standards—

Mr Crean —But when did you resign?

Mr FAHEY —Simon, keep the smile off the face and then I might listen to you. I cannot take you seriously while you keep laughing.

Mr Martin Ferguson —You're a loser.

Mr FAHEY —The member for Batman tells me that I am a loser. I would like to know how many of the 500,000 bonus points or frequent flier points you are going to lose. How many are you going to lose? That will be an interesting test of integrity down the track, won't it? I shall watch with interest to see how many you are prepared to lose in the course of the days ahead.

The debate before this chamber clearly has been about the question of standards, on which there has been no case made out by the opposition at any point this week. The only cases that have been made out on this issue have been the voluntary resignations of the former Assistant Treasurer and the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, and that was based upon their integrity and their honesty, and I admire them for doing it.

The member for Werriwa comes forward with section 232 of the Corporations Law and implies that there is some breach there. Well, I have had a look at it. `I will not tell you where the breach is,' he says, but let us just have a look at section 232. I have it here and I will have a look at it again. That says that you must act honestly in respect of the corporation of which you are a director. Show me where I failed. Show me, with my $1 share in the company, where I failed to carry out my duties in any shape or form.

It is not about what you have done; it is about simply trying to put a question out there and letting it hang. You can spit your vitriol out in this place as much as you like, but you have not got integrity. I assure you it means much to me, and at this point I do not have the slightest concern about my honesty and my dealings in that company or anything else.

It is a sad state, in terms of the debate that is occurring in this chamber, when we see day after day a series of accusations that are simply implied and that lack substance. You must ask yourself why it is that the opposition is trying to capture the attention of the public on these accusations. There can be only one reason: anything to delay the budget that puts the affairs of this nation back in order; anything to distract the community from the fact that there is $70 billion worth of additional Commonwealth debt that has been run up by the opposition in the past five years alone; and anything to distract from the fact that the former Minister for Finance, the Leader of the Opposition, presided over the fastest growing area of government, which was debt servicing to a tune of $10 million a year—7.5 per cent of the entire budget is about debt servicing relating to the debt that has been run up by the former Labor government.

So you can fire your distractions as much as you like. You are not going to hide the fact that we have a particular strategy, and that strategy is for the good of Australia. If you are interested in the good of Australia, you would support that strategy; you would support getting our budget back into balance. You would let it go through. You would let the workplace relations reform bill go through. You would ensure that those out there that are trying to make a quid in building companies in Western Australia and companies in Sydney, unionists included, would have an opportunity to get on with the job. (Time expired)

   Question put:    That the amendment (Mr Howard's ) be agreed to.