(1) In each calendar month from July 1997 to March 2000, how many Corporations Law matters were (a) filed, (b) completed and (c) current in the Federal Court.

(2) What is the status of his discussion with Attorneys-General of each of the States and Territories in relation to achieving a referral of powers by each of those jurisdictions to the Commonwealth to address the problems created by the decision of the High Court in Re Wakim.

(3) What is the estimated cost of holding a referendum to amend the Commonwealth Constitution to allow federal courts to exercise state jurisdiction (a) in conjunction with a federal election and (b) as a stand-alone referendum.

(1) The attached table sets out this information.

(2) The impact of the High Court's decision in Re Wakim has been greatest in the area of the Corporations Law, for which the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Mr Hockey, is responsible. Further issues about corporate law regulation have been raised by the decision of the High Court in The Queen v Hughes, which was handed down on 3 May 2000.

At the joint meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Ministerial Council on Corporations held on 24 March 2000, the Attorney-General and Mr Hockey discussed with State and Territory Ministers the question of an appropriate referral of power in relation to corporate law regulation to address the problems created by Re Wakim and other legal challenges to the Corporations Law scheme. Most State Ministers have indicated a preparedness to consider an appropriate referral of power, although Western Australia and South Australia have expressed reservations. A detailed proposal for a referral was put to State officials by Commonwealth officials on 28 April 2000.

(3) Following the High Court's decision in Re Wakim, consideration was given to various options to restore federal court jurisdiction, including the possibility of a referendum. Some initial costings were obtained from the Australian Electoral Commission on the cost of holding an appropriate referendum. The Commission's preliminary estimate, based on the holding of a referendum at the same time as an election for the House of Representatives and half the Senate, was that the cost of putting a single referendum question to the people would be approximately $20.5m.

The AEC did not estimate the cost of holding a stand-alone referendum. While the exact cost of last year's republic referendum has not been finally calculated as yet, the AEC estimates that its costs in relation to that referendum were approximately $71.9 million. (This figure does not include the additional amounts spent on the neutral public education conducted by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and in relation to the Yes/No campaigns.)

However, this figure is not necessarily an accurate guide to the cost of holding any stand-alone referendum. Each referendum raises different issues, and therefore different costs are likely to be incurred.

As has been previously indicated, the Commonwealth does not favour holding a referendum to remove the problems with the current Corporations Law identified in recent High Court cases. A referendum would give rise to timing difficulties and, based on historical experience of referenda, would be unlikely to succeed. Rather, the Commonwealth and most States have indicated a willingness to pursue the option of a referral of State powers to enable a Commonwealth Corporations Act to be passed with a secure constitutional foundation. (This would also have the effect of fully restoring the Federal Court's jurisdiction in respect of corporate law matters.)

Attachment A

Corporations Law Cases Filed, Completed, Current by Month