Senator ROBERT RAY (3:28 PM) —We had the spectacle today of the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston, having to go to the Oxford Dictionary to define what a public company is. Really, if it is to be believed that the Menzies Research Centre is not a public company, the logical question is why is it registered as such? What is the advantage? Is it done as a lurk? The fact is that the prime ministerial guidelines say that each minister, including the Prime Minister, must resign directorships of public companies. There is not a little footnote at the bottom or a little asterisk saying, `Refer to the Oxford Dictionary if you want to weasel your way out of this particular provision.'

The fact is that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was a director of this company for 227 days following the 2 March election. It is not contested. But, if there is no bother about this, if there is no conflict of interest and if there is no potential conflict of interest—even though cabinet, at a meeting which he presided over, allocated $100,000 over four outyears—why did the Prime Minister when he resigned not inform the public that he was doing so? After all, he called a panic press conference at 1 o'clock on that Wednesday, 16 October 1996 to explain his code, what he was going to do about it and why he had the problems with Senator Short and Senator Gibson.

This was a perfect opportunity, the day after he resigned from it, to tell the public why he in fact resigned from it. The reason he did not was that, 14 days before, he sat in a cabinet meeting as a director of this public company, and he improved the enrichment of that company by $100,000 a year over the next four outyears. It was too close to be connected. All the press releases came out, both by Mr Jull and Mr Costello, on 10 October, announcing not only the grant, but tax deductibility. The one excuse the Prime Minister puts forward, Senator Alston put forward here today, `There is no personal enrichment; it was just a position. It does not actually attract any income or anything else.'

Let's go back and judge this coalition by its own words. Let's go back to 4 May 1992 when the then opposition was attacking the then Senator Richardson. They accepted that he had no personal pecuniary interest in this. Senator Hill said at the time, `It may not be a question of some financial or pecuniary conflict.' This is related to registrable interest, not just pecuniary interest. The statement and the standards that the Prime Minister says 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 a potential position of conflict.

The opportunism of 1992 comes back to haunt the coalition. They were willing to judge Senator Richardson by this set of standards six years ago; they were willing to invent any reason to attack him at that time. When they discovered he did not have a direct, personal, pecuniary interest, they had to say it was registrable interest—the critical point. And, directorship of a public company is a registrable interest, even if there is no income or no personal gain by the Prime Minister.

Senator Alston —You hypocrite; you defended—

Senator ROBERT RAY —But if you want any evidence that he was embarrassed by this particular matter, if you want any evidence whatsoever, it was the fact that he sneaked it off—

Senator Alston —Should Richardson have resigned or not?

Senator ROBERT RAY —the Australian Securities Commission record, but he made no public announcement whatsoever. There was a reason he did not do that. How could he ever look at Senator Short again? How could he ever look at Senator Gibson again? They had done the honourable thing; they had in fact resigned because they were in breach of the guidelines. But this sneaky, underhand Prime Minister resigns without telling anyone.

Senator Alston —You hypocrite!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Alston, for some time you have been using language which is unparliamentary. I have tried to ignore it, but would you please withdraw the unparliamentary language, unconditionally.

Senator Alston —Just to be clear on what you have in mind, Madam Deputy President, I was referring to Senator Ray—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Withdraw unconditionally.

Senator Alston —If you were saying it was unparliamentary of me to ask Senator Ray whether Senator Richardson should have resigned because he was involved as a director of a very commercial operation, I do not see what is unparliamentary about that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I interpreted the comments you were making to be directed at Senator Ray. Would you please withdraw them?

Senator Alston —I will withdraw, in deference to you, Madam Deputy President, but I cannot see what the problem is.

Senator ROBERT RAY —As I was saying, if you ever want evidence of the guilt of the Prime Minister, it is that he resigned this directorship 227 days after the election and did not tell anyone about it. He is guilty as charged; guilty with his own words against Senator Richardson in 1992. Go back and read the Hansard . He actually set out the preconditions for his own downfall. It was good for Senator Richardson then, according to the Prime Minister, so he should abide by his own words and go.