Senator MURRAY (7:10 PM) —I would respond to Senator Harradine. The management discussion and analysis section of annual reports has been around as an issue for quite some time. It was the second Corporate Law Simplification Bill 1996 report from the joint committee which recommended that there should be an MD&A, as it is called, of the matters that members need to be informed on if they are to understand the overall financial position of the company.

The parliamentary secretary is quite right in indicating that things have moved on, and the ASX is now in a position to present and to recommend a listing section. However, it is not true that there is universal acceptance of ASX's proposal, even though that is strongly advocated by it and strongly supported by some bodies. We did, in the most recent hearing, have a number of organisations—including the Australian Accounting Research Foundation—which felt that the MD&A was necessary in the bill; in particular, they felt it was necessary because it is a characteristic of major capital markets, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

The point that the parliamentary secretary is making is that the professional bodies all do agree that there should be an MD&A, and so does the ASX, but they want it to be voluntary. As I understand it, the ASX has made it clear that it is not a requirement to include MD&A, but its listings guide would be a matter of guidance. That is what concerns me, because it is my belief that an MD&A should be obligatory. It is vital that shareholders receive a minimum checklist of information required. That laid out in my amendment item 38, Senator Harradine, comes out of the deliberations of the joint committee—it is not something I have invented—and has wide support.

If the bill had said, `Look, either you must have an MD&A of this kind, or you must do the ASX's listing,' I would have been more inclined to the parliamentary secretary's view. But it does not do that; it leaves it open, unless the ASX listing is abided with by the company. Where Senator Cook's amendment goes is to limit the MD&A only to publicly listed companies, whereas the MD&A requirement we have put is to a company of a certain size and up.

That is a legitimate debate, but I have never understood why corporate entities of 50 or more should not still have to provide fundamental material, such as results of operations, key strategic initiatives and major commitments to their shareholders—even if it is 50 people. So, if you like, I take a fairly maximalist view, the Labor Party takes a view in between and the government takes a fairly flexible and open market view.

Once again, it is a case of there being good arguments on a number of sides. But, at this juncture, I am not persuaded that the lack of an MD&A would not result in some problems for shareholders in the nature of reporting.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy) —The question is that amendments 35 and 36 be agreed to.

Question resolved in the negative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I now propose that we consider Democrats amendment No. 37.