Mr McMULLAN (4:14 PM) —This is no small thing that we are dealing with today. It would seem that the minister and the government regard the question of whether something is done with propriety and in accordance with proper standards as not an important issue. What we are dealing with here is an extraordinary circumstance in which we have had, for the first time, a serious finding by the Auditor-General reflecting on the performance of a minister—and the minister pretends there is no problem. He claims, as he confirmed in question time in trying to deny it, that the Auditor-General cleared him when he clearly did not; and he shifts his ground every time the issue is raised and pursued—as he did again today.

I want first to pursue a couple of the contradictions that emerged today in his contribution—although I will not have time to pursue them all—and then try to get back to the essence of this issue and away from the obfuscation. It was very interesting today that the minister said, `There were a lot of meetings, but I only attended one. I only attended the meeting on the 6th.' The problem with that being a ringing statement of his defence is that that is the very meeting at which the problem arose. That is the meeting about which the Auditor-General made the finding:

That means that at all the meetings he was not at there was not a problem, but as soon as he turned up there was. He actually read almost all of chapter 2 into Hansard today, but somehow or other he missed page 237 which said the one meeting at which the minister was present was the one which, on the balance of probabilities, led to the surge in orders.

Auditors-General do not make allegations lightly. They do not come to conclusions—particularly conclusions that are of profound significance to a senior minister—lightly. This Auditor-General, a very honourable man, is a very cautious man. I respect him, but he is very cautious. He would not say, `I have looked at the evidence, including all that evidence in the preceding paragraphs to which the minister referred in his speech. ...' But the minister did not get to the conclusion—he must have run out of time, I suppose—which said:

the one the minister attended—

That goes to this question of the ministerial code of conduct, because the minister, in defence, said, `Ministers cannot be expected to take responsibility for things about which they did not know or which they could not have reasonably had knowledge of.' But this is a finding about something that at the very least occurred at a meeting at which he was present; 75 per cent of the people who expressed a view said not only did it occur at a meeting at which he was present, he did it. The other person said, `Well, somebody did it; I am not sure who.' So it is three nil with one undecided. He said, `Well, I could not reasonably be expected to know about this. How could I take responsibility for this matter? All the evidence says it was me that did it.' That was the only meeting he attended, and it was the meeting at which the problem arose.

He continues also to put a lot of weight on the fact that the problem arose because the college misused his information. What information did they misuse? He also tries to tell us he did not give them any. What is it that they misused? Did they imagine what he might have said and then misuse it? Did they guess what he might have been going to say if only he had said it and then spent $100 million based on what he did not say? What a fluke. A small group of people do two things. One, the day after the meeting they advised the incoming president of the college that the minister did tell them this. Perhaps they made it up. Perhaps they invented it. But they did say that the next day. But just in case you think that this might be some small thing, they then invested, with their friends and colleagues, $100 million on the basis of this bit of information that the minister says they did not have. I know radiologists do pretty well in this country, but I am not aware that they regard $100 million as petty cash that you just put out on the odds that maybe something will turn up; $100 million based on matters about which the Auditor-General made the conclusion that it occurred at the meeting at which the minister was present and most probably on the basis of something which he said.

This issue can be made very complicated. There are a lot of facts, and the minister always tries to obfuscate with confusions. But at its essence it is very simple. There are a number of propositions that need to be judged. Did the minister behave in a way, or was there behaviour he should have been aware of, which contributed to the opportunity for some people to take advantage of prior knowledge of impending budget matters, impending budget decisions? The answer clearly is yes. The Auditor-General found that on the balance of probability the answer is yes. That in itself is a sacking offence. It does not matter about the code of conduct. If you read the code of conduct it is a sacking offence. But you do not need the code of conduct to know that participating in, or most likely doing something yourself, or behaving in a manner that contributes to the opportunity for some people to take advantage of prior knowledge with regard to an impending budget measure is a sacking offence.

Why do you think we do not have full release in advance of the budget legislation? If we did, people might take advantage of that prior knowledge. That is the entire reason. With all the other legislation we deal with in this place we get exposure drafts. They come in, we have a first reading and then they sit around on the Notice Paper for a while. We do not do that with the budget because people can take advantage of prior knowledge. It is a sacking offence. And, as the Leader of the Opposition said in an earlier speech, if a public servant had gained from the minister an indication of what might have been in the budget and told somebody who then took advantage of that, that public servant would go to jail. They would not just be told, `Well, maybe you ought to resign.' They (a) would be sacked and (b) would be in jail.

The Auditor-General says on the balance of probabilities the minister either did it or was there when it was done and he did nothing about it, allowed the budget measure to proceed, and was advised before the budget that there was a surge in orders and did nothing about it, allowed the budget measure to proceed. If a public servant had done it, they would go to jail. And we are supposed to say, `But it doesn't matter, because it was the minister.' It matters twice as much because it is the minister. He has taken an oath, which he has breached. That should be enough.

Let us go on to the second question: `Was the minister in all circumstances honest and open with the parliament and the public with about this matter?' That is what the ministerial standards require—not just the code of conduct; that is what any reasonable set of standards for any minister requires. What we have got is two versions of the proceedings: one contemporaneous and confirmed by two things—subsequent report by those radiologists to their president and their fiscal conduct as a consequence—and then the subsequent and proven to be flawed memory of the other people at the meeting.

That is the significance of this error endeavoured to be covered up in the disclosure we could not get from the minister today. He would not give us the departmental brief that says, `Minister, there is an error in the statutory declaration. You should correct the record.' Do you think if the minute cleared him he would not table it? Why do you think he will not table it? Because it is too good for him? Because it would build his case too well? No, I do not think that is the reason. We have got another cover-up, and that is why the most misleading thing that has been said is the statement that this is the end of the matter. This is just the beginning of the next stage. (Time expired)