Senator FAULKNER —My question is directed to Senator Alston, the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Minister, did the Prime Minister state on A Current Affair last night, in relation to his directorship of the Menzies Research Centre, `I wasn't paid anything, I had no private interest'? Minister, I ask you why this statement is so inconsistent with Senator Hill's statement of 4 May 1992 when he said in relation to former Senator Richardson:

It may not be a question of some financial or pecuniary conflict. This is related to registrable interests, not just pecuniary interests.

Senator Hill went on to say:

The statement and the standards that the Prime Minister said he stands by require that Ministers disclose other registrable interests so that the public can see that they are not, in dealing with legislation and Cabinet matters, putting themselves in any potential position of conflict.

Why are those two statements—Mr Howard's and Senator Hill's—so inconsistent?

Senator ALSTON (Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts) —Whatever Senator Hill may or may not have said back in 1992—and I suppose I was here listening at the time—the fact is that Senator Faulkner only really got it right at the very end of his question when he talked about conflict of interest. That is what this is all about: is there any basis for anyone believing, on reasonable grounds, that there is a conflict of interest between being involved with a party organisation and having some sort of conflict that needs to be declared if decisions are taken in respect of it? Of course, the answer is no, and Mr Howard has made it abundantly clear that he did not have any pecuniary interests.

I have already identified the fact that the Menzies Research Centre was established to undertake research into economic, social, cultural and political policies. It is not in any shape or form a commercial enterprise. It is not a profit making venture, unlike radio station 2HD, which, presumably, does very much require to make a profit or else go under and is very much subject to the licensing and other regimes that governments preside over.

There is sensitivity attached to commercial operations that simply does not attach to dog clubs or political party organisational structures and it is breathtaking hypocrisy for Senator Faulkner to try to beat up an issue such as this, to pretend that somehow the Liberal Prime Minister of Australia should disclose the fact that he is a member of the party organisational structures. He is a member on an ex-officio basis.

Senator Schacht —He is a director of a company.

Senator ALSTON —He belongs to that because of his position and no-one in Australia, apart from those opposite, would express any surprise at that at all. You would expect people administering the affairs of a research centre associated with the Liberal Party to have impeccable Liberal credentials. They do not come any more impeccable than the Prime Minister's.

All that the Prime Minister is doing is exactly what everyone else would do in the same circumstances: he is ensuring that the affairs of the Menzies Research Centre are run by people who are familiar with their activities. But it is not a commercial enterprise; it does not come within the definition or even the spirit of guidelines which are designed to ensure that, if you have a private interest in a commercial operation where it might conflict with your public responsibilities, you declare it. It is not in any shape or form analogous to shares in a public company in the normal sense of the term. This is a company that not only does not fit within the Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of `company' but is one that anyone—any fair-minded citizen or individual—would immediately understand is there for the benefit of the Liberal Party and, hopefully, the wider community to the extent that the research it conducts is of use in the public arena.

The fact is that you are not interested in getting down to the basics. I do not know what the Evatt foundation has done, but we ought to be asking for our money back because we do not seem to have seen much generated over the last four years from that particular outfit. At the end of the day, if you are not interested in policies and if you do not have any long-term solutions, you will pay the price in the not too distant future.

Senator FAULKNER —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, we note that you have cut Senator Hill loose as soon as he is on a plane on his way to Paris, but I wonder if you are aware, Minister, that in the same speech Senator Hill also said:

The Prime Minister totally disregards the standards that he set down publicly for his Minister when it is politically expedient to do so. If there is a better word than hypocrisy for that, I can't think of it immediately.

Minister, isn't it the case that, while Senator Hill's words were aimed at Prime Minister Keating, they actually and precisely apply today to Prime Minister John Howard's own failure to declare his directorship of a public company?

Senator ALSTON (Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts) —You can work yourself into a lather as much as you like. The answer is no. You asked whether the Prime Minister disregarded his own standards. The answer is no. Those standards are put in place to ensure that people do not have a conflict between their private holdings and their public responsibilities. If you want to get up here and say that the public of Australia would be amazed to discover that all the people on our side of politics actually belong to either the Liberal or the National parties, you are even bigger fools than I thought.

They probably would be very interested to know how many of you are actually trade union members because they think in their naivete that you are actually there to represent the wider community. But, of course, if they studied the goings-on in this place, they would understand that, time and again, whatever the holding company says, the wholly owned subsidiary sings the tune. You are here to represent to very narrow sectional interests. If anyone was surprised to discover that you are all members of the Labor Party, I would be amazed. (Time expired)