Mr STEPHEN SMITH —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, hasn't Senator Parer breached your code of conduct yet again by divesting to his family, a course prohibited by your code? I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls being asked by Derryn Hinch on 2GB on 14 October 1996:

What if I put shares into a family trust that I have no say in, just my wife and my children have access to . . .

And his answer:

Well, the guidelines don't allow you to do that if you have owned the shares at the time the guidelines operate.

Prime Minister, haven't you not only torn up the code but misled the public?

Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) —I will come to that but, before I do, I would like to, if I may, deal with a question that the member asked me yesterday. He asked me a question about Senator Parer and Kiskin. He asked me to tell the House whether Senate Parer told me that his $2 million holding in QCMM also involved 100 per cent ownership of a subsidiary called Kiskin.

The situation is that there is a holding in Kiskin by the Parer family trust and that represents about two to 2½ per cent of Kiskin. As Senator Parer, I understand, told the Senate yesterday, the acquisition of the shares in Pan Aust. took place without any knowledge at all by Senator Parer. That was perfectly obvious because Senator Parer was not in fact involved in any way in the operation of QCMM when the acquisition took place.

As the Leader of the Opposition will be aware, and as others in the opposition will be aware, the draft proposal regarding blind trusts that was circulated to the opposition and to the Leader of the Australian Democrats at the time quite correctly made the observation that references in guidelines to families ought to imply and ought to state that those references are meant to include spouses and children who are dependent upon the person who makes the transfer.

Let me say to the honourable member for Perth that the whole purpose of the prohibition is to prevent a situation where somebody transfers nominal ownership of something to a body or a group of people over whom he has control. That is self-evidently the case with dependent children. When you have made a transfer to adult children, which is the situation in relation to Senator Parer, that clearly does not apply.

Mr Tanner —Has he disinherited them?

Mr Kelvin Thomson —He is a non-custodial parent.

Mr SPEAKER —Honourable members of the opposition will remain silent. The honourable member for Wills!

Mr HOWARD —Could I further say to the honourable member for Perth—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Wills! When you are ready the Prime Minister can resume his answer. The Prime Minister has the call, but he will resume his place at the box when the House remains silent.

Mr Adams —Get up and answer!

Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Lyons! If you want to leave the House, you may.

Mr HOWARD —That debate can, in any event, be put to one side. The reality is that, for the circumstances that I explained on the first occasion when this matter was raised, Senator Parer has not been involved in any conflict of interest. The reality is that Senator Parer has not used his ministerial position to advantage his interests or the interests of his children. Senator Parer has not been guilty of any dishonesty. Senator Parer has not been involved in any conflict of interest. You have had now 2½ weeks to find a conflict of interest. You have totally failed and in the process you have deliberately misled the Australian parliament.