Senator ABETZ —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the minister to a report in the CBD section of the Sydney Morning Herald of 27 May 1998, which states that the Australian Taxation Office is conducting a continuing investigation into the affairs of:

. . . one of the country's most recognisable faces, regarding a snortingly good profit earned on his rural interests.

Can the minister confirm public speculation that the person in question is none other than Mr P.J. Keating, the former Labor Prime Minister? As today's Sydney Morning Herald makes it clear that Mr Keating's true profit was many millions of dollars, what steps will the government take to ensure that all tax liability to the Commonwealth arising from the sale of Mr Keating's piggery interests has been made in full? Can the minister also inform the Senate of the status of the tax office's investigation?

Senator Faulkner —Madam President, I rise on a point of order. On consistent rulings that you have made, at least the first part of that question from Senator Abetz is clearly out of order.

The PRESIDENT —I agree.

Senator Faulkner —And Madam President—

The PRESIDENT —I need no further advice on the matter.

Senator Faulkner —Well, Madam President, a further point of order: with respect, I think the second part is out of order also.

The PRESIDENT —The second part is not; the first part is. I call Senator Hill.

Senator HILL (Environment) —Yes, I saw this little piece about the `snortingly good profit' in the Sydney Morning Herald .

Senator Faulkner —Madam President, on a point of order: hasn't the Leader of the Government just immediately flouted your ruling by canvassing part of a question that was directed to him that you have ruled out of order? I would ask you to enforce the ruling that you have made, enforce the standing orders, and not allow the Leader of the Government to flout your rulings in this way.

The PRESIDENT —There is no suggestion he is flouting. He made an observation, on a part which is out of order. He will deal with the second part, which I will allow him to do.

Senator HILL —Perhaps Senator Faulkner knows more than I do because I cannot confirm that it is Mr Keating, but I do know that they apply a different standard to their own side. It is interesting that this little snippet at the trough refers to an issue over a windfall profit of $10.5 million. What we saw in the Sydney Morning Herald was a suggestion that Mr Keating had been paid $6 million, but that he had had a further interest that he had disposed of to the Indonesians a year later in March 1995 and then finally in 1996 got rid of the rest of his interest. Of course, none of this came out in the House of Representatives disclosure. That is a different issue.

It is interesting that the third charge the Labor Party levels against Senator Parer is that he is wealthy. That is the basis for condemnation. Senator Carr gets to his feet every day and condemns Senator Parer for being wealthy, playing on the old politics of envy. Yet the former Prime Minister, the head of the Australian Labor Party, a multimillionaire, sells out his interest for millions of dollars to rich Indonesian businessmen, and that is an entirely different thing. Did we see Senator Carr come in here and condemn the leadership of the ALP for being wealthy? No, of course, that is entirely different. Did he condemn them for the circumstances of their being wealthy? No, entirely. I do not know whether it is referring to Mr Keating, but the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that—

Senator Carr interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Carr.

Senator HILL —After the final settlement in 1996 of the sale of his piggery interest, he was able to settle on his $2.2 million mansion in Woollahra, Senator Carr—the leader of the battlers' party.

Senator Carr —What about Senator Parer?

The PRESIDENT —Senator Carr.

Senator HILL —It was a $2.2 million mansion in Woollahra, and then he bought Mr Laws' riverfront house, a weekender, for another $1 million. It was a good deal for Mr Keating certainly, a very wealthy leader of the ALP. But that is not to be condemned by the Australian Labor Party because that does not suit their political interest. But because Senator Parer worked hard in his business life and made a dollar, for that, he should be condemned and he should be dragged through the political mire because he made a bit of money in the past. What hypocrisy! What double standards! We see them yet again.