Senator KNOWLES (3:06 PM) —It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has raised this issue from the Labor Party perspective. The Labor Party when in government had no code of conduct whatsoever. There was no tabled code of conduct. One does not have to go far back to remember some of the conflicts of interests that happened. For example, Alan Griffiths, a Labor member, owned a sandwich shop while Minister for Industry. That was a huge conflict which caused great problems for him in the end. Graham Richardson, who was a director of 2HD while a minister, did not declare his interests. Graham Richardson also used his position as a minister to try to influence the President of the Marshall Islands on behalf of his cousin, Greg Symons.

John Dawkins's mother owned Bell shares while Holmes a Court was trying to take over BHP. Bob Hawke was a personal friend of Sir Peter Abeles when Abeles was trying to crush the pilots union. Bob Hawke used his personal position as PM to collect $1 million from four WA business leaders at the gold tax lunch. The list goes on and on and on. The difference with the code of conduct that Prime Minister Howard has now set in place is that it takes into account the situation as it is today. The Labor Party would dearly love to disfranchise anyone who has been successful or not a trade unionist from coming into the parliament of Australia. There should be no penalty associated with anyone purely and simply because they are successful.

The difference is that this government has made sure that things like shares are more available to Australians. Approximately 750,000 Australians have entered the share market for the first time in the last eight months. Since 1995, a total of 2.3 million Australians have invested in the share market for the first time. In less than four years more than one in 10 adult Australians have become shareholders for the first time. What this government has done is try to encourage more and more people to become shareholders. Therefore, we should not penalise people for doing so and then say, `You cannot enter parliament until such time as you get rid of every asset that you have possibly got.'

One only needs to look at the registers of senators' and members' interests at the moment. Have a look at former ministers. What have they done with their incomes? Where have they hidden their incomes? One can only ask the question because the register clearly does not identify where former senators have stashed 13 years of ministerial salaries.

Senator Carr —Oh, dear, dear!

Senator KNOWLES —You might go, `Dear, dear, dear.'

Senator Carr —What about spending it?

Senator KNOWLES —Oh, they are big spenders, are they? Senator Carr says that they are big spenders and they have spent it all. It is a good socialist attitude to say, `Yes, you just spend over $100,000 a year for 13 years and have no assets whatsoever.' The total share ownership in Australia now stands at 40.3 per cent of the Australian adult population. Yet the Labor Party are saying that we should not have share ownership.

With regard to Senator Ellison, there is a very distinct point in his case that the Labor Party cannot get their brains around. Unfortunately, most of the journalists cannot get their brains around it either. Senator Ellison did not personally get one red cent out of any of those airline charters. There was not one single solitary charter that was outside entitlement. There was not one single solitary flight that was not meant to be taken.

It was interesting to note at question time today the cheer squad behind Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner when they were asking those questions. I think it is now up to the Labor Party to examine each and every one of their own histories as to what they have done, because it was the Labor Party that also went to the minister and expressed concerns about the ambiguity and the lack of clarity in the rules that have now been cleared up by the Minister for Finance and Administration. So I suggest the Labor Party has a long hard look at itself. Senator Ellison did not benefit personally one red cent. There is not one skerrick of rort about what he did. He has voluntarily paid back money when he did not have to do so. It should be taken into account in that form. (Time expired)