Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Hansard source

I have listened very carefully to Senator Sherry’s comments, and what we appear to be discussing here with this amendment is an agreement on the part of the government that this would be very desirable if in fact there could be greater transparency but it is just too difficult and not practical to do it. That seems to be the thrust of what Senator Sherry was saying, that the practical difficulties or the process difficulties would be the main inhibitors or main barriers to it as well as the fact that it is too difficult to do and it would not actually achieve the outcome being sought.

I want to address those points, but first of all I should just put on record that this has been a matter where it having been foreshadowed that the opposition was interested in getting greater transparency in moving an amendment to this bill, it is very unfortunate indeed that there has not been an opportunity to have a meeting of minds or a briefing or a discussion. Senator Sherry did mention that the government had offered a briefing. The great pity about that was that the briefing was offered for four o’clock this afternoon, which is not very helpful to anyone getting a better understanding of the government’s position in relation to this bill. It was introduced yesterday and came to the Senate this morning and the amendment was circulated in the way it had been drafted without the benefit of this briefing. That is the amendment that we are moving and the amendment that I am still speaking to.

Senator Sherry did mention the fact that the legislative requirement on data is also a register. The problem with that is that he talked at great length about the ABS surveys and the information compiled and the data made available by surveys. This is not in fact what we are talking about here. We are talking about what can be done to identify and compile an actual register of actual owners. We do know that more information is available in other jurisdictions. Whether or not it is different to this particular amendment that is being put up by the opposition is immaterial because we do know that you can in fact get better information available if this information is compiled in a more effective way. It is passing strange indeed that no-one appears to know, at least so the minister said, who the owners of all of this investment in Australia are. The difficulty we have is that the Reserve Bank must be writing out interest cheques to someone; the interest does not go into the ether. It does appear that much more information and better information should be able to be made available and that much more information is made about if not the actual owners then certainly the regions, the countries from which these investors come. We think it is entirely reasonable to want that as part of the arrangements that are being agreed to as part of this bill.

Senator Sherry also mentioned the fact that there can be other jurisdictions that own vast percentages of bonds—the Caymans or the Bahamas. I mentioned the Bahamas. In fact, we do not know that detail either. We think it is entirely appropriate that the details of the jurisdictions of even the nominees who may be purchasing bonds on behalf of beneficial owners should be available. We do not even know that in Australia, and we think that is certainly something that is reasonable to ask for.

The government seems to be advancing a slightly conflicting argument in opposing the amendment. On the one hand the minister says it would be desirable if we knew who the owners of the bonds are, but then he talks about the fact that another barrier would be a reduction in confidentiality. But if we do not know who they are, we do not know how their confidentiality is in any way going to be impacted and how that would somehow or other impede investment in Australia.

All this money floating around the world belongs to someone. We think that in Australia it is entirely appropriate that more information be made available about who the investors in the Australian bond market are and who is lending all this money to the Australian government. I want to say again, because I do not want to be taken out of context, that we are not suggesting that any investors in Australia are investing inappropriately. That is not the purpose of the amendment that we are seeking to advance here. But there will be borrowing on a scale that we have not seen in Australia before. We know it is going to be in the order of $315 billion, and it would be extraordinary if it does not go higher than that. So we believe we would not be doing our job if we did not hold the government to account to do a lot better than they are currently doing to identify to the Australian public more information about who is investing in Australia. We note that having more information available in the United States does not seem to have seriously curtailed investment in US bonds. This investment is no doubt legitimate—and we certainly hope it is. It is a nonsense to suggest that it would in any way deter any investor if more information of a statistical nature were available to identify where the money is coming from.

It is not beyond the wit of authorities to devise a system with better information about buying bonds. I refer to the Reserve Bank’s website, which has some helpful information that they want everyone to know. It says that from 2 September 2007 all new stockholders must complete an identification reference form—that sounds like something you could ask for, doesn’t it? It also says that, following the introduction of the Anti-Money Laundering And Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, attorneys acting on behalf of stockholders should also complete the identification reference form—what would there be, for example, to prevent an identification reference form from being completed in relation to the application to buy bonds? It goes on to say that the purchase form and the identification reference form, together with certified copies of identity documents, should be lodged in person at either the Sydney or Canberra office of the Reserve Bank of Australia—so there we have the information being lodged. Alternatively, the documents can be posted to the registry of a prescribed stock that has been mentioned. The registry is already there to provide assistance. There is a mechanism which enables identification for a particular purpose. The Reserve Bank seems to be right across how you would identify someone who wants to buy Australian government bonds. So we simply are not persuaded by the minister’s arguments. In fact, we do not think that any of the arguments hold much water. It is entirely appropriate to have a bit of sunlight shone on who are the investors in Australian bonds and we will continue to press for our amendment.