Mr PROSSER (Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs)(3.38 p.m.) —There is absolutely no conflict of interest.

Opposition members —Oh!

Mr PROSSER —I would like to have the same opportunity that the opposition had—to be heard in silence—so that the facts of this matter can be put on the record.

More importantly, there was a fair bit of play made on the registration of members' interests so I thought I would look at how others in this place have filled out the interests register. I thought the first thing I should do is look at what the member for Cunningham, one Stephen Paul Martin, has done. When you get to real estate, he has got some in Wollongong, New South Wales, and in Isaacs, ACT—that is a pretty swishy sort of area.

Mr Martin —I am over here; you are the minister.

Mr SPEAKER —Order! The member for Cunningham has had a fair chance.

Mr PROSSER —I notice the member for Cunningham is pretty vocal. I would have thought that, as the shadow minister for small business, he would now start to understand some of the issues that confront small business. One issue that does confront small business and one of the issues they are most concerned about is unfair dismissal. I noted in reading an article entitled `MP in unfair sacking row' in the Herald-Sun of Wednesday, 19 April this year that it said:

The former Labor speaker of the House of Representatives, Stephen Martin, unfairly sacked a pregnant staff member, the court has found.

The opposition have made some play of the registration of members' interests. We go to Martin Ferguson and find that he has got a lot in Melbourne, Victoria. What is it? You do not say. Is it a shopping centre? Is it commercial? It has just got `investment'. What sort of investment? You are trying to say how to fill these in. I have complied completely.

I look at Laurie Brereton—and this is the one you like. What about Laurie? He puts down for his spouse's interest `None known to me'. Then in the next bit his spouse has a half share. The next one says for his spouse `None known to me'. So the opposition have a double standard. In government they did not know or did not choose to know. They put down statements like `None known to me'.

On the very point of the company which is the subject of this matter, the properties that the opposition seem so keen on—the Homemaker Centre, Minninup Forum Centre and Leschenault Quay—are all owned by Prosser Automotive Engineers Pty Ltd. On the registration of members' interest it says: `Prosser Automotive Engineers Pty Ltd'. What do they do? What are the activities of the company? They are engine re-manufacturers and property investors. So there is no question. Prosser Managements, another company, is a property investor. Regional Property Investment is also a property investor.

Mr Crean —Where does it say that?

Mr PROSSER —On the registration of members' interests, if you had bothered to check.

Mr Leo McLeay —What does it say under business activities?

Mr PROSSER —Well, it says `Activities of the company'. You are trying to run a line here.

Mr Crean —Where is the shopping centre?

Mr PROSSER —The Homemaker Centre is not a shopping centre; it is a commercial development. There are only two conventional shopping centres. The important point is that I do own land in my own right. I own three residential properties in Bunbury, a residential property in Canberra and some other commercial properties. I have listed extra land in my own name as `Bunbury—various lots'. Look at what the opposition do. They just put the area down. I have complied with the method required to be used. There has never been a question about what I own, what I am involved in or the companies in which I have an interest in my home town.

The opposition are trying to run this campaign to cover up for their own lack of policy in the small business area, to cover for the fact that they do not have a policy and to cover for the fact that the previous shadow minister for small business on the question of the unfair dismissal provisions said that he would reserve his decision about what they would do about it. The new incoming shadow minister said, as I recall, that he would go and talk to small business. I would love to know the small businesses that he spoke to before he turned around and said that they are happy with the unfair dismissal provisions. Shadow minister, I have to tell you that they are not happy.

The opposition mentioned a point in regard to the article in the Australian. If you had bothered to check that article in the Australian and checked the Hansard, you would have found the article was very different. If you looked at the quote that the Australian had claimed that I had told parliament and if you looked at the Hansard, you would have seen that I told parliament nothing of the sort. If you are trying to run on a lousy argument such as that, you are not going to go too far at all.

In regard to tenancies, they do not understand that sure those companies have tenancies. Of course, they have tenancies. It is of no matter to those companies whether the tenant operates as Billy Bloggs Pizza, Pizza Hut, Chicken Treat or whatever. The companies concerned have tenancies involved whether they are in their own right, in an individual partnership, or in a corporate or company structure. What they do and how they trade is of no consequence in this particular matter whatsoever.

In that matter, though, it was appropriate that I discussed with my colleague, the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore) the fact that it would be better if, on the question of tenancy matters, the response to the House of Representatives—

Mr Crean —When we caught you out.

Mr PROSSER —I discussed with the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism the fact that to ensure there was no perception of a conflict of interest he should handle—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr PROSSER —The PM did not intervene in this matter. I discussed it with Minister Moore, and he was quite happy to do so. On the matter of franchising, I have to tell the opposition that it was this government that set up the House of Representatives inquiry into franchising. We did so in May last year. Unlike the previous government, we did not put fences around it. We did not say, `You can't come and tell us that.' We did not turn around and say, `Oh, gee, don't tell us what we don't want to hear. Don't embarrass us.' Remember that the previous Labor government had a lot of shots at doing something about franchising. It is pretty Johnny-come-lately.

You had 13 years to do something and you did nothing. You whacked up a bill, got it out as an exposure draft, waved the exposure draft around and said, `We're going to look at it. We're going to legislate.' But they did not, did they? They did not bother to go ahead with the bill. They did not legislate. They dropped it. They did not go ahead with it because they recognised it probably was not going to work—it was going to cause more problems than it would fix. What did they do next? They went to a voluntary code. They set up the Franchising Code Council. What is the line that you are trying to run? That we cut off the funds. You gave the council $375,000 in your last year of office. In our first year we gave them $648,000 and committed another $152,000 for the next year—$800,000 over two years. That is one hell of a cut: $375,000 to $800,000.

It is a question of analysing the fair trading report properly and the government making an informed response to that particular inquiry. We will do so. We will look at those issues in regard to small business so that when we come to respond to that report it will be an informed response that does not disadvantage any part of small business or, of course, those operating in franchising.

We did set up the inquiry and allow people to put their concerns on the record. I have consistently said that, in that particular area, people have the opportunity to do so—and they have done so. The opposition, the Labor Party, is jumping to conclusions. The government has not responded to the report. Another report that I recall—the Beddall report, I think it was—was two years in the making. How long did it take you to respond? It took you 11 months to respond. Our report came down in 12 months, and we will respond in three months.

There is no conflict of interest. My House of Representatives disclosure shows the companies. The opposition are mistaken: they do not realise that all three properties that they have mentioned are owned by the companies listed on the register. The companies are listed on the register. The company's role is as a property investor. The opposition has been running the line that the shopping centres somehow fit various lots. That is not so. That is not true. I have been very open and honest. There is no question in regard to the properties that I own in Bunbury. I do not bother to hide them behind fictitious names. It is well known what business interests I have. It was dead easy, even for this grubby mob, to go and find out about these business interests in Bunbury. This is the tactic of the federal Labor Party. The state Labor Party has been on at this for years and made outrageous statements in state parliament. That is the way state Labor operated. Once you were in opposition you picked up the same tactic.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Hotham! I have already cautioned you.

Mr PROSSER —In regard to the guide to ministerial conduct and responsibility, again, I have complied with this guide. Sure, I am very lucky that I have got a brother—who is very close to me and who is involved in my businesses. If it were not for my brother I would never have had the opportunity to enter parliament. No-one could have taken over and run the day-to-day operations of the businesses in which I am involved without that family link and without that family support. The day-to-day running operations of the businesses in which I have an interest are controlled by my brother who is the other shareholder and the other director in the company.

In regard to the management of the companies, there has always been a company manager. Of course, the daily decision making is controlled by my brother. On that basis, there is absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter. This is yet another smokescreen of the Labor Party. It is a cover for the very poor policy position they have in regard to the small business area.  We have brought down the House of Representatives inquiry. We will respond in that area. I have disclosed my interests. In fact, I have complied with the ministerial code.

I know that it must irk the Labor Party one hell of a lot that any small businessman can work their backside off, survive and prosper, build a business and make money. I do not make any apology for that because I succeeded in spite of everything that the unions and the Labor Party threw against me. I survived in spite of—as any small business person would remember—the prime rate interest rates under this lot. Interest rates in December 1989 hit 20.5 per cent. Many small businesses were paying 24 and 25 per cent. I survived it. I guess you are lousy because, as a business man, I survived. I built up a small business. I have never thought to hide those businesses. They are very public in Bunbury.

I might add that when the journalists that the shadow minister spoke of were running around the shopping centres, it got to the point where cameras went into the hairdresser's in one of the developments in which I have an interest. My 10-year-old son was having a haircut, and there were the cameras—driven by this lot.

Mr Martin —When?

Mr PROSSER —Last week. And what is the comment of the member for Batman? That we are peddling drugs in the shopping centre. That kind of comment is a disgrace. You are disgraceful in what you are trying to run here. There is no conflict of interest. I have absolutely complied.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Before I call the next speaker, I would like to say to both sides of the House that the censure of a minister is a very serious motion indeed. The level of sound and interjection coming from both sides of the chamber is not in accordance with the standing orders. I ask all of you to behave appropriately.