The Minister for Small Business, Geoff Prosser, condemned himself out of his own mouth in Parliament this week. His statement to the House on Thursday read like a prosecutor’s summing up in every respect except the unsustainable conclusions. He should have been moved to another portfolio at the beginning of this episode. Now it is too late. He should have resigned as a minister or the Prime Minister should have removed him. Apparently that is not to be. Parliament has risen for the winter recess and Mr Prosser remains in the ministry.
Mr Prosser may have escaped for now. But Mr Howard has not. Nor has his Deputy and Acting Prime Minister, Tim Fischer. Mr Fischer looked ridiculous attempting to defend the impossible and Mr Howard’s election promise to lift ministerial and parliamentary standards must now be read as a non-core promise — in short, a broken promise. His code of ministerial standards is no longer a guide to conduct to be adhered to in substance, but rather like some technical law reduced by semantics to meaninglessness.
Mr Prosser outline four key points of the Howard code: Don’t engage in the daily work of any business; resign directorships of private companies if they are likely to conflict with ministerial duty; divest interests in businesses involved in area of portfolio responsibilities.
He then detailed his business activity and interests in six or seven companies. He attended quarterly board meetings (presumably having prepared himself) and fortnightly meetings with his brother, a co-shareholder. He had weekly phone calls with his manager. He had meetings with Bunbury shire concillors at which development proposals and other works by his companies on his properties were discussed.
He discussed his business with state planning ministers.
He drew a bizarre distinction between formal representations to councillors and ministers and other meetings on social occasions and phone calls. The distinction is bizarre because it is precisely “informal” occasions that carry the most potential for misuse of ministerial title and trappings. It is not that the Minister intended to exert improper influence, but that those with whom he mentioned his private interests might see it that way. It is for this reason, presumably, that Mr Howard proposed such a strict code of conduct.
As Minister for Small Business, Mr Prosser was bound to be asked to make decisions that could be seen to conflict with his personal interests. He should, under the code, have divested. It might have been better if the code required only a blind trust, rather than divestment which could deter many good people from entering Parliament. Even so, Mr Prosser did not even go that far. On his own admission he had weekly contact with his manager.
Mr Prosser’s speech made it clear that he was engaging in the daily business of his companies. Mr Fischer looked ridiculous to insist on a precise meaning of daily, as in every day.
The rules of conduct should not be so strict as to discourage successful business people and professionals from seeking ministerial positions, but Mr Prosser’s admitted conduct in discussing the affairs of his companies with councillors and state ministers directly involved making decisions about those companies is unacceptable.
Leaving aside his dissembling and less-than-candid replies to Parliament before Thursday, Mr Prosser should not remain in the ministry.