Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 9), omit “having regard to”, substitute “because they are inconsistent with or contrary to”.

I appreciate the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer in summing up the second reading debate. As I said in the debate on the second reading, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, on a bipartisan basis, recommended the acceptance of the submission of the Law Council of Australia. The Law Council of Australia is a respected body and it does not make submissions such as this lightly. Its submission was found to be persuasive not only by Labor members but also by government members on that committee, including the chairman, Senator Chapman, and Senator Brandis—who is no longer on the committee, of course; he is now a minister—and others. This submission was very well thought out and made its case persuasively. That case is that the words ‘having regard to’ would give the panel such broad jurisdiction that it would be open to challenge and open to misinterpretation. The words ‘because they are inconsistent with or contrary to’ give the panel much better guidance from this parliament as to the way it does its business. It is not a restrictive clause; it is not a clause which attempts to take away the panel’s jurisdiction, but rather one which would give it proper guidance and proper guidelines.

For that reason we call on the government to accept this amendment, which was unanimously carried by the joint committee, of which I and the shadow minister in the other place, Senator Wong, are members. We regard this as making the bill a better bill. As I said in my remarks on the second reading debate, we regard it as a good bill, but this amendment would make it a better bill.

See this speech in context