Mr LATHAM (2:57 PM) —I refer the Prime Minister to his statement in the House yesterday when he said that his department had advised him, `Endispute was not involved in the area of Senator Coonan's responsibilities.' Prime Minister, does this advice cover Senator Coonan's endorsement in October of the recommendations of the Ipp report on tort law reform, particularly recommendation 57, to make mediation proceedings compulsory for every public liability insurance case in Australia? Prime Minister, given that the minister's policy would increase dispute resolution and mediation work for companies like Endispute, isn't this a clear breach of your ministerial guidelines requiring ministers to have regard to the interests of their immediate families when ensuring that no conflict, or apparent conflict, arises between interests and ministerial duties?

Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) —The answer is no, there is no conflict. The sequence of events was that when Senator Coonan became a minister she got out of the company and therefore the question of whether there was a collision of portfolio responsibility and the activities of the company simply did not arise. Let me again, for the benefit of the honourable member for Werriwa, read the relevant section of the code. Against the background of reading the relevant section of that code, let me remind the House that Senator Coonan's portfolio responsibilities include the prudential supervision of insurance. It is in that context that the comments to which you refer were made. The code states:

which is obviously the case here—

Even if we accept for the purposes of this answer—which I do not, but I will for the purposes of illustrating my point—that there was a clear covering of the area of portfolio responsibility, the minister plainly complied with the injunction in the guidelines—

Ms Macklin —She gave it to her family.

The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

Mr HOWARD —by divesting herself of the interest. This goes to the interjections which have been the subject of questions before. It goes on to say:

She transferred to her adult son, who is not a dependent family member. That is as plain as the proverbial nose on one's face. That is what happened. In those circumstances, even if you accept—which I do not—

Mr Crean —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It is fine for the Prime Minister to refer to that dimension of the code of conduct but the question asked specifically about this part of the code of conduct.

The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to a question and his answer is entirely relevant to the question.

Mr Crean —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. He is not referring to that part of the code of conduct that the question referred to.

The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is entirely in order.

Mr Adams —That is not correct.

The SPEAKER —The member for Lyons is an occasional occupier of the chair who ought to be as familiar with the standing orders as I am and he knows that there is no way they have been breached.

Mr HOWARD —I can only repeat that the interest was transferred to the adult son—

Mr Gavan O'Connor —This is family tax benefit three.

Mr HOWARD —I do not think the opposition is interested in the answer.

Mr Latham —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table that part of the ministerial conduct code that reads that ministers need to have regard to the interest of members of their immediate families when ensuring that no conflict or apparent conflict between interests and duties arises.

The SPEAKER —The member for Werriwa has indicated what he wants to table.

Leave granted.