Mr COSTELLO (Treasurer)(3.48 p.m.) —I would be very surprised if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) did not stay around for his own censure. I would be very surprised if the Leader of the Opposition would walk out of the House during a censure motion that he has moved. I would be very surprised if he did not want to hear the answer to what must rate as one of the most weak, insipid censure motions on an Acting Prime Minister that this parliament has ever seen.

Once upon a time censures used to mean something. You moved a censure when you had something. You did not move a censure when you could not think of anything else to do. What is more, you did not move a censure on a leader when you could not even make a case out against a minister. Once upon a time a censure was reserved for gravity in this place. We have seen a cheapjack opposition which has not come up with a position on any political issue since the election—

Mr Melham interjecting—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Order! The member for Banks is not in court and will be quiet.

Mr COSTELLO —and with one of the most junior ministers it has sitting at the table, who is out of kilter with his leader on practically every issue, especially Aboriginal issues. Why is the Leader of the Opposition not there? Why are you there? You have not moved the censure motion. You are not responsible for small business. You are not responsible for the leadership. Why is the opposition spokesman for Aboriginal affairs sitting at the table during a censure?

Mr Melham interjecting—

Mr COSTELLO —He is interjecting on every point that is being made. This is the seriousness with which the opposition treats this censure: there is no leader and no deputy leader in the House. Who do we have? We have the spokesman for Aboriginal affairs on a motion which seeks to censure the Acting Prime Minister.

What is the essence of the charge? The essence of the charge is this: the Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Prosser), somebody who has candidly put on the record his business interests, made a telephone call to Mr Nick Greiner and asked for a contact for his brother. Let us go to the conclusion: it amounts to a reason to censure the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer). Let us strip it of all of the puffery, let us strip it of all of the false logic, and let us state the Australian Labor Party proposition: the minister for small business rang up Mr Nick Greiner and said, `Who does my brother talk to in Target?'—and that warrants a censure of the Acting Prime Minister.

To state the proposition is to be embarrassed by it. Where do the charges arise? The charges are said to arise in relation to the code of ministerial conduct. We have heard precious little about the code of ministerial conduct in the course of this debate, haven't we? We have heard precious little about how the charges are framed and how they are proved.

The code of ministerial conduct says that you should not have a conflict or an apparent conflict of interest. What influence did this minister have over the decision of Coles Myer in relation to the Eaton lot? What influence did he have over the business planning of Coles Myer? If you had any doubt about it, what was the outcome? Where is the Target store on the Eaton lot? Let us look at the influence that the minister had.

Let us go out to Eaton. Where is the Target store at Eaton? There is silence from the other side. The proof is in the fact that he has not now, and never has had, any commercial relationship with Coles Myer. Have you proven it? Can you point to a site? Can you point to a contract? Can you point to a sale? He has not now, and never has had, any commercial arrangement with Coles Myer. Where is the apparent conflict of interest?

When you get people who are trying to make political points without any factual basis whatsoever, they can throw these concepts around but they have got to be able to explain them. You have got to be able to say what influence he had, how that affected Coles Myer and how that conflict was used not for the public purpose but for his personal gain.

Where is the personal gain? The first thing you should start off by saying is, `Here is the personal gain, here is how it arose and here is where the minister had a conflict between personal gain and his public office.' But there is no personal gain. You cannot start with the first factual proposition in relation to that.

So what do you get? A bevy of allegations raised under parliamentary privilege—by people who do not know any better—on the theory that, if you can create enough smoke, people are going to say, `There must be something going on, because why would they waste parliament's time and why would they waste all that effort if there was nothing to it?' The truth is painful. They waste all that time because they want to take attention off themselves.

The Australian Labor Party had a meeting today, after they had said that they would oppose work for the dole—it was on the record and taken to the people of Australia: `We, the Australian Labor Party are against work for the dole.' Last night, the leader of the Australian Labor Party withdrew all the objections to work for the dole, and they supported it. What did the backbench say to him at today's parliamentary meeting? They said, `Where were we on this? How come you got us out there opposing work for the dole when we ended up supporting it?' Do you know what I think the Leader of the Opposition said? He said, `Don't worry about that. We'll have a censure on Tim Fischer.' They said to him in the party meeting, `How come you took us out there on a limb? We were going to go to the barricades opposing work for the dole, and we ended up voting for it,' and he said, `Don't worry, we've got a censure for Tim Fischer.' This is working on the theory that, if you can take attention off that, you will at least neutralise the situation.

The censure motion goes on to say that the Acting Prime Minister should be censured for failing to dismiss the Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs because he used the status of his position to try to `secure a Target store as a key tenant for his Eaton shopping centre'. That is the allegation, but where is the evidence? There were two parties to the conversation. One was the minister himself who said, `I rang Nick Greiner in order to get a contact.' The other is Mr Nick Greiner who said, `He rang me in order to get a contact.' Where is the discussion about securing the Target store?

I will tell you who has been misleading the House here: the shadow minister for small business and consumer affairs. He started misleading the House yesterday. He asked this question:

Is the minister aware that Mr Greiner was reported in the Age on 20 June as saying that the minister had discussed getting a Target store into one of his shopping centres?

That was the allegation put to the Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs. Nobody had the Age in the chamber to check if the Age actually said—as was alleged by the shadow minister in his question—that the minister had discussed getting a Target store into one of his shopping centres. Is that what the Age said on 20 June? That was the allegation you put to him. And now you condemn him for not answering it.

What the Age actually said, when we got it, was, `Mr Greiner, a non-executive director, later said Mr Prosser had asked him if he knew of a contact at Target stores.' Exactly what the minister had said; exactly what Mr Greiner said in writing. You bowl up these false allegations in questions, and then you say, `He didn't answer them!' Have you ever heard of the question, `Have you stopped beating your wife yet'? One of you will get up tomorrow and say, `Have you stopped beating your wife yet?', and we will say, `We are not going to answer that', and you will say, `Oh, you're misleading the parliament!'

You get up here and say that the Age has alleged that Prosser has been on the phone trying to get a Target store into his shopping centre. He does not have the Age, he does not know what has been reported. When you go to the Age, it says that Mr Prosser had asked him if he knew of a contact at Target stores, a Coles Myer subsidiary. That is exactly what the minister himself said.

Mr Martin —He could have said no. Why didn't he answer—three times?

Mr COSTELLO —Because you put a false allegation. Why would you answer? That disposes of that. We know who has been misleading the parliament—oh, yes, we know!

The next allegation made refers to the Acting Prime Minister's `failure to dismiss, or seek the approval of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to dismiss, the minister as a result of the minister's admission that he is involved in the running of his businesses'. That is the charge, but where does the ministerial code of conduct talk about being involved in the running of the business? We pull it out. What does it actually say? It says:

Ministers . . . must not engage in any professional practice or—

listen—

in the daily work of any business.

Again, the charge is false. In the charge you misrepresent what the code of conduct says. The code of conduct is quite clear: not to be involved `in the daily work of any business'.

Why do you think the words `daily work' are there? Obviously what it is saying is that you are not to be engaged on a daily basis in work. If someone happens to be a farmer and goes home to the farm, are you going to say they should be sacked if they open the paddock door? If they push the sheep into the shearing shed, are they out on their ear? `Whatever you do, Mr Farmer, do not walk onto the porch, because you will be involved in a business.'

It is the same with somebody in small business. Are you going to say, `You cannot ring your manager'? It is the same thing. Are you going to say that they cannot make a phone call back or ask somebody, at the end of the month, what the figures were like? It would be very different if they were engaged in it on a daily basis, and the code of conduct is quite clear. You want to read out that phrase, `daily work.'   What have you got to show that he was engaged in daily work? The Labor Party's charge is that this is a minister who is engaged in daily work. Why? Because in four months he made a telephone call.

I have got to tell you it gives you an insight as to what they think work is, doesn't it? They would think that this was an onerous small business opportunity. Where they come from, a union organiser who makes a phone call every four months is overworked. If you find a small business proprietor who makes a phone call over four or five months, he is engaged in daily work. Well, what a horrific thing that is. I have got to tell you that small business do not consider one phone call in four months an onerous engagement in a business activity.

It is perfectly plain from the code of conduct itself that the code of conduct envisages people staying as directors in private companies. It says this:

Ministers are required to resign directorships in public companies. They may retain directorships in private companies—

You may retain a directorship in a private company—

Mr Melham —What appointment are you going to give him when he goes?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Banks, for the last time.

Mr COSTELLO —The code continues:

Only if such company operates, for example—

they give you some examples—

a family farm, business or portfolio of investments . . .

What is this? Business. You are perfectly entitled to retain a directorship in a private company which operates a business. Then it goes on to say, if you want the next part:

. . . and if retention of the directorship is not likely to conflict with the Minister's public duty.

And then it gives an example:

A Minister should question the retention of a directorship in a company in which shareholdings extend beyond the Minister's own family.

Here the shareholdings do not extend beyond the minister's own family, so the example does not even require him to question it. You are supposed to question it if the shareholdings go beyond the private family. His do not.

You can see what happened at the tactics meeting this morning. They walked in and they said, `How do we keep this going? We had a bad day yesterday.' The only person who has actually come in and given any disclosure at all is the minister himself, who, in order to make sure that everything was plain and on the record, came into the parliament last night. You have sat around and said, `We have got nowhere against the minister; let us try and get somewhere against the Acting Prime Minister.' And, when you get nowhere against the Acting Prime Minister, you say, `Have you seen the brother's letter? Have you spoken to Nick Greiner? Have you seen your wife this morning? Have you brushed your hair? Did you clean your teeth?'

Do you know what it is called? It is called a fishing expedition. You go fishing when you have nothing; and you have nothing. You have nothing against the minister, ipso facto you can have nothing against the Acting Prime Minister. There is no conflict of interest. There is no misleading except from the opposition itself, which has engaged in a scummy little campaign as a distraction against the minister, where it is getting nowhere. This censure motion will be treated with the absolute contempt that it deserves.

   Question put:

   That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.