Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on how extra funding has assisted the corporate regulator in enforcing the corporate law? Is the Treasurer aware of any proposals to cut funding to ASIC, and what risks would this present for corporate law enforcement?

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. I can inform him that this government formed, of course, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, that this government has increased funding for the corporate watchdog by 69 per cent above CPI from 1996 and that ASIC’s budget has grown from $128 million to $291 million. In that period it has been extremely successful in bringing to account those who have transgressed corporate laws: for example, its taskforce on HIH has to date seen eight defendants convicted and sentenced on 31 charges—very extensive and very fast—and it has really been able to work with maximum priority.

But I am concerned that there apparently is a proposal to gut the corporate watchdog. The Australian Labor Party has said that it has a plan to take $129 million out of the corporate watchdog over the next four years should it be elected. That message is pretty clear, I think. The Labor Party is saying to people who want to transgress corporate laws that it will be a lot easier if Labor gets elected—that the Labor Party will be taking away $129 million. Why would you want to do that? If you believed in upholding corporate laws and enforcement and in protecting the public, why would you propose to cut funding to the corporate regulator? The reality is that if you take $129 million out of ASIC some of the investigations will have to be wound back. The Labor Party might tell us whether it wants to wind back HIH. James Hardie is another special investigation which ASIC is currently undertaking. There are other investigations in relation to pyramid schemes. But if you want to take $129 million out of the corporate regulator you are giving a green light for more people to breach corporate laws.

I would have hoped that corporate regulation and corporate law enforcement in this country would be bipartisan. We have worked very hard to send that message to the corporate community. I think law-abiding Australians who want to be protected from corporate spivs will find it very hard to understand why the Australian Labor Party wants to wind back corporate law investment, investigations, prosecutions and enforcement. The only thing I can do is appeal to the backbench members of the Labor Party, who undoubtedly have not been consulted about this matter and probably do not even know about it, to rein in those people who want to gut ASIC and to make it clear that they will not stand for winding back corporate law enforcement. While this policy remains on the books, the Labor Party will never be able to talk about law enforcement because, as I keep on saying in this parliament, it is deeds, not words. If you wanted to talk about corporate law enforcement, you would not be trying to gut the corporate cop.