Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to 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.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the view of the shadow spokesperson, the member for Prospect, on this amendment, but the government does not support the first recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. We do not support it because we think that it is unworkable and unduly narrow. The Takeovers Panel was established to take takeover cases away from the courts in most instances. It needs a broad power, we believe, for experts to decide the commercial issues based on broad principles and what they consider to be unacceptable. The aim of this bill is really to give the panel a wide power so that it can act and make these commercial decisions, which give effect to the spirit and the purpose of the act. The PJC itself actually acknowledged that the panel needs this broad jurisdictional reach, and I would put to the opposition that adopting this recommendation actually takes away from that; it actually unduly narrows the panel’s scope. That really is the primary reason why the government will not accept this amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Bowen’s) be agreed to.