Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General. It relates to the ministerial code. I refer to the fact that he has disclosed an investment in an actively managed Australian equities fund, the Pengana Emerging Companies Fund, which reports amongst its holdings businesses affected by the government's regulatory settings such as telco Uniti Wireless Ltd, healthcare company Healius Ltd and health insurer NIB. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that this investment does not create a perception of a conflict of interest?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. I have fully complied with the ministerial code of conduct. The Prime Minister earlier, in answer to similarly groundless questions from the opposition on this matter, read out the passage from the ministerial code of conduct.

You've asked the question; you should listen to the answer. You don't like it.

Opposition members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Attorney-General will return to the question.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Prime Minister explained in reading out the relevant passage from the ministerial code of conduct, it is absolutely in order for ministers to own shares in publicly listed managed investment trusts—I'd hope that some of those opposite would know what they are—where the minister concerned has no control over the investments made by that managed investment trust. That is my position.

What's extraordinary is that the level of transparency that we have provided as a cabinet, as a ministry and as members of this parliament in the register of interests that these people opposite have been raking through—that level of transparency was never provided by those opposite while they were in government. Indeed, those opposite, when they were in government, permitted shareholdings in private companies, permitted shareholdings in public companies, because they didn't care about any conflicts of interest. They didn't care about the appearance of conflicts of interest and they didn't care about the actual conflicts of interest. We do. We are a government of integrity, and those opposite would do well to have a look at how this should be done, because you didn't know in office how this should be done.