Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move general business notice of motion No. 1249:

(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 26 October 2021, the internal review of ASIC's handling of the Sterling Group produced by a litigation counsel in the chief legal office which contains a factual analysis of the work undertaken by the relevant ASIC business units in relation to Sterling Group.

(2) If the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166.

Notice of motion altered on 19 October 2021 pursuant to standing order 77

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes this motion. ASIC is undertaking an ongoing investigation into the conduct of a number of entities and officers within the Sterling Group of Companies. The government does not wish to prejudice the independent work of ASIC. I refer to the comments I made yesterday, on a similar motion, that matters relating to the Sterling Income Trust have been subject to litigation and the government does not want or wish to prejudice any possible future proceedings.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Responding to the minister—just because ASIC is conducting an investigation into something doesn't absolve the Senate from its responsibility to oversight government. Secondly, in relation to prejudicing the potential litigation, nothing tabled in the Senate can be adduced in evidence in a court. The threshold for prejudicing judicial proceedings is in fact 'substantially prejudice'. So, unless that's made out properly, the order should be complied with.

Question agreed to.