Senator JACINTA COLLINS (2:21 PM) —My question is to Senator Alston, the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the acting leader stand by his statement yesterday regarding Mr Murray's $2 million Commonwealth Bank share options, worth over $50 million, when he said:

Is it not true that a shareholder explanatory memorandum sets out clear limitations on employees' eligibility for share options under the CBA Equity Reward Plan in the following way—and I quote from the document:

Of the 37,131 full-time Commonwealth Bank staff, aside from the part-time staff, just how many bank tellers or call centre operators does the minister think will be among the lucky 100 CBA option recipients?

Senator ALSTON (Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —That's probably the best she can do.

Senator Faulkner —See if you can improve on that.

Senator ALSTON —I will do my best for you.

Senator Faulkner —I know its a long way; shoot for the stars.

Senator ALSTON —I am happy to settle for a PB, all right? If you want to go for gold, go for it.

Senator Faulkner —You certainly haven't scored a PB this week.

Senator ALSTON —You are not in the stadium yet, I can assure you.

The PRESIDENT —Senator Faulkner, you have been speaking loudly ever since I called the minister to answer Senator Collins's question. You are behaving in a disorderly fashion.

Senator Faulkner —So is he.

Senator ALSTON —Oh, there, there! The first part of the question asks whether I—

Senator Knowles —Madam President, I raise a point of order under standing order 203, infringement of order in the Senate. All this week we have sat here while Senator Faulkner has consistently interjected and back-answered and abused you, as he did yesterday, many of those times with his back to you. In fact, on two or three occasions yesterday, he abused you directly to your face. Today, he has consistently overruled your rulings on order, as has Senator Bolkus. Senator Bolkus and Senator Cook have consistently done the same this week, as has Senator Carr.

Madam President, I simply ask, in accordance with standing order 203(b)—a senator `is guilty of disorderly conduct'; standing order 203(d)—`persistently and wilfully refuses to conform to the standing orders'; and standing order 203(e)—`persistently and wilfully disregards the authority of the chair', that action be taken against these senators who consistently disrupt the proceedings of the Senate, against your instructions.

Senator Faulkner —On the point of order, Madam President: these points of order are taken on a weekly basis by Senator Knowles deliberately to allow a minister who cannot find their brief to find their brief and give them time to try to get a script to answer a difficult question from the opposition. Treat the point of order with the contempt it deserves from a senator who deserves only contempt in this chamber.

The PRESIDENT —I had already drawn Senator Faulkner's attention to his behaviour. I think it is time we got on with question time.

Senator ALSTON —Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Schacht —Do you have the brief, Richard?

The PRESIDENT —Senator Schacht!

Senator ALSTON —No, I do not think we actually need a brief for this one. I did see some further comments this morning. The first part of the question was: do I stand by my remarks of yesterday? And the answer to that is yes. The second part of the question seemed to relate to the fact that you say that, under the current CBA rules, equity or stock options are available only to some 100 senior executives. Therefore, you say that Mr Murray was talking only about them. What was suggested to me today was that he was not talking just about the CBA at all; he was talking about senior executives in large companies. I did say yesterday that, as far as the rest of the company is concerned—in other words, the bulk of the rank and file, as you would describe them—the report from the House of Representatives committee, chaired by Dr Brendan Nelson, will be very important in informing future government decision making in relation to employee share ownership schemes. That will canvass a lot of those issues, and it will do it in relation to both large companies and small companies.

But if the question is whether I somehow resent the fact that Mr Murray is calling for more sympathetic consideration in relation to senior executives, I take that as the starting point for a sensible debate for an examination of whether, for example, the remarks made by Mr Paul Anderson yesterday are accurate in the sense that they may well discourage people from staying in this country as long as we would like them to be here—in other words, whether there are changes to the incentive structures that need to be made to ensure that we have the world's best quality executives running some of our leading companies.

The Labor Party's approach seems to be, `We don't represent the top end of town so we will do everything to basically drag them down. We don't care whether you end up with mediocre executives running failing companies'—which then have to put off your union members—`because we're only interested in scoring the points against the rich because we purport to represent the poor.' We know that is not true in any shape or form. I would have thought that Senator Collins should be much more interested in looking at what is necessary in this country to ensure that incentive structures apply at all levels of the company: to senior executives—

Senator Jacinta Collins —Precisely.

Senator ALSTON —Precisely. If Mr Murray was not talking about, that does not make—

Senator Jacinta Collins —He was.

Senator ALSTON —He was, all right; I thought you said he was confining his remarks to the top 100. Now you are saying he is talking about the entirety of the work force. If he was, well and good. I am saying to you that there is a report coming out that will throw a lot of light on what happens to those other than senior executives. If any of you can read, you ought to give that a good going over and come up with a sensible report. As I understand it, the Labor Party are hell bent on coming up with a dissenting report. That is the likelihood. No doubt that is because, once again, they take their instructions from outside the chamber. They are not interested in how we can make Australia efficient and how we can make the reward structures encouraging. All they are interested in doing is dragging down those who happen to be running some of Australia's largest companies.

Senator George Campbell —Have you seen the report?

Senator ALSTON —No, I have not.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the acting leader aware that his comments yesterday generally supporting the exorbitant Commonwealth Bank's executive and elite share option scheme are in direct contradiction to the statement by the Prime Minister late last year in the context of the equally exorbitant AMP and Coles-Myer share option plans? Didn't the Prime Minister say back then:

And further:

What are the differences, Minister, between the Commonwealth Bank and the Coles-Myer and AMP schemes, or will you apologise to the Prime Minister for this gaffe during Senator Hill's absence?

Senator ALSTON (Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —I agree with every word he says.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator ALSTON —You do not understand. This is a bit more of a sophisticated argument than you are prepared to accept. What the Prime Minister has said—and what I think a number of people have said on both sides of this chamber—is that one does not appreciate seeing senior executives awarding themselves substantial increases in salary irrespective of performances. What you do not seem to understand is that options schemes and other share entitlements are based on incentive structures. In other words, you do not just get them automatically; you get them because you reach a hurdle rate. You then exercise the strike price and you make a profit. If they do not get there, you do not. In other words, it is fundamentally different from simply giving someone an increase in salary irrespective of performance. I do not for a moment support companies whose CEOs' salary levels go up when the company performance goes down. I would not have thought the CBA was in the category of a failing Australian company. (Time expired)