Mr BEAZLEY (3:05 PM) —My question is to the Treasurer and follows the answer he gave to my previous question. Given that Mr Lucy has confirmed that ASIC is still investigating the continuous disclosure obligations of Telstra, will the Treasurer ensure that the ASIC investigation is able to extend to all people, including himself and the Prime Minister, who have had access to market sensitive information or who were present at the 11 August 2005 meeting with Telstra?

Mr COSTELLO (Treasurer) —I have no objection whatsoever to ASIC investigating every single person that they think is relevant—none whatsoever. I will make this point: the obligation on disclosure to the Australian Stock Exchange falls on a company. It is a company that is in possession of information that would have a material effect on the share price that has an obligation to disclose.

Let me say this entirely clearly too: if Telstra were in possession of information that would have had a material effect on the share price, it had an obligation to disclose it. If it did not, then there ought to be an investigation. But, as I understand the situation, Telstra says it was always observing its duties that it had disclosed to the Stock Exchange such information as would have a material effect on the price. Telstra says it was complying. If there is a suggestion that it was not, you have an investigation—that is what ASIC does. We welcome the investigation. ASIC will investigate and in due course will announce its results. I would encourage ASIC to make inquiries of anybody that it believes can assist in relation to that investigation. It ought to be open, it ought to be transparent, it ought to be thorough—there is no objection from this side of the parliament to that.

As it turns out, ASIC does not believe that the Prime Minister has any obligation in relation to disclosure and has issued a statement to that effect. I would have thought that was obvious. The Prime Minister is not a director of Telstra, he is not an executive of Telstra and he does not discharge a function on behalf of Telstra; neither does he come under the Corporations Law, which requires the company itself to disclose. I would have thought that was pretty obvious; the statement makes it clear. But, if Mr Lucy wants to investigate anybody, he knows that he does not need an instruction, because he is a statutory officer. He knows that he has the power to do it. He knows that he has the protection to do it. He knows that he has the investigative powers to do it. He knows that he can take evidence. He knows that he has rights in relation to civil liberties. And he will do it. I know him to be an honourable man who will discharge his statutory duties, as this government would expect.