Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would just like to make a short contribution to this debate from a slightly different perspective. As chair of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, I'm currently chairing the inquiry into consultancies, which has made a number of disturbing revelations. We already have one report that has been published by that committee as a part of our process of inquiring into consultancies that operate in this country. These are very large organisations.

One of the questions that has arisen as part of that process is: what is the regulatory framework under which these large consultancies sit? Some of them are large partnerships. Some of them sit under the Corporations Act. We've had a number before us. They've talked about the way in which they operate. They've talked about their structures. They've talked about all of the things they say they're going to do in order to do the right thing. But one of the questions that we as a committee are going to have to consider is: what is the appropriate framework, particularly for the large partnerships?

It is really quite disturbing that one of the major governance and government structures that we have in this country to provide oversight to corporations is not prepared to share with this parliament some of the ways in which it operates. Senator Canavan and some of my other colleagues have said that this is important information for us to have. If the committee that I'm chairing is to make sensible recommendations to the parliament and to the government, some understanding of what happens inside the black box is important. This is not for any reason other than that we will want to understand how the organisation makes its decisions. I think the point that's been made by a couple of colleagues is that we're not after information around ongoing or current investigations. That is quite properly kept within the organisation. But as for the processes around completed investigations, I don't see why that information can't be provided to the Senate. ASIC is a government instrument. The government, the parliament, the Senate has oversight of these organisations through various different mechanisms. I could go through some of the political points that have been made by some of my colleagues, but I won't because I don't see this particular matter in that light, to be frank. But I would sincerely make an appeal to ASIC and to the government to reconsider their stance on this particular matter.

It may very well be that ASIC is asked to come and present to the finance and public administration inquiry into consultants, to provide us with some assistance into what we may recommend as an oversight mechanism for these big consultancies that largely sit outside any regulatory framework right now and what that might look like. Getting good evidence in that context is going to be really important for us.

We've seen the outrageous things that have occurred through the disgraceful operations of a couple of individuals within PwC. We know things go wrong within large corporations and smaller organisations, but that's why we have these rules and these processes and these organisations, like ASIC, in place—to provide oversight, to report to the parliament, and to the Australian people through the parliament, on how those things are being managed and what the rules are. And the rules and the operational process of that are important. The point was made before: we ought to understand the rule book. Quite frankly, anyone operating under ASIC's rules should likewise be able to understand the rule book. It shouldn't be a mystery.

From the perspective that I bring, through a process I'm in the middle of right now, it shows how the work of this parliament quite often intertwines with the work that Senator Bragg's doing in his committee into the operations of what is a very important organisation providing governance in the Australian business economy, and how we might make some recommendations to the parliament for another very important part of the Australian economy. There are some obvious linkages, so the work that Senator Bragg's committee will be doing will be of interest to what we're looking to do. As I said, it may very well be that ASIC becomes a witness at our inquiry, providing important information, and it may be the questions are quite similar.

So from the perspective of enabling this place to do its work properly—sometimes these things are uncomfortable, I know, but as chair of the committee I want to be in the position, and I know my colleagues sitting with me on that committee would also like to be in the position, of making valuable recommendations to the parliament and therefore to the government around what a regulatory framework might look like if that's where the evidence takes us. But we need to be able to get the information that supports us to do that, and the information being sought by Senator Bragg and his committee is directly in that wheelhouse.

Again, I would make an appeal to ASIC and to government to reconsider their approach to this. I think it's a reasonable request that Senator Bragg's committee are asking. I don't want it to be a partisan one. I just would like it to be one about providing quality information to support the processes of the parliament. From my point of view, quality information is gold, because that's what allows us to make good, sensible recommendations around the way that the economy is run in this country. It's important to us, our standing and the way the economy works. It's one of the things that facilitates good operation of industry and business. Again, I give a final appeal to the minister representing the minister in the other place, but I also appeal to ASIC to reconsider in the broader interests of the work that we do in this place.

Question agreed to.