Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (2:47 PM) —My question is directed to Senator Coonan, representing the Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that ASIC recently announced a new accounting surveillance project directed at monitoring compliance with certain accounting standards? Isn't this in fact the same program ASIC conducted on a regular basis only a few years ago? Can the minister advise whether that program was suspended due to ASIC having insufficient funds to resource the program or did the government not want the shonky accounting practices of corporate mates revealed?

Senator COONAN (Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) —Thank you, Senator Faulkner, for the question. The situation with ASIC is that it has a role to enforce the Corporations Law and, as part of that process, to enforce the application of accounting standards, and it has never stopped doing that. Its activities leading to the restatement of company accounts, whether through consultation or litigation, demonstrate that it is doing its job effectively and efficiently and protecting Australian investors from misleading financial statements. ASIC has a history of targeting abuse of accounting standards. In 1999, it caused restatements of reported accounts in the listed sector of $1.4 billion and has carried out targeted surveillance each year since. ASIC is currently conducting a surveillance project targeted at accounting issues of the type recently uncovered in the United States. The government has every confidence in ASIC that it will continue to perform at its current high level in this matter.

On the issue of enforcement, we in Australia have laws that provide for jail terms of up to five years for breaches of directors' duties and for insolvent trading. Quite apart from casting any slurs on ASIC's ability to conduct its surveillance effectively, I would have thought that the opposition would be commending ASIC for the way in which it has conducted its enforcement. In the last three years, 69 corporate criminals have been jailed for a total maximum of 227 years, 111 defendants are currently facing criminal charges and 20 more are facing civil penalties. Labor is talking tough about sentences while the government is actually getting on with putting criminals behind bars and funding ASIC. Labor took a policy to the last election promising something in the order of $6 million, which was $86 million less than the coalition not only took to the election but introduced into the budget—

Senator Faulkner —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. You would be aware that I asked the minister whether ASIC's recently announced new accounting surveillance project was in fact the same program that ASIC was conducting on a regular basis only a few years ago. Could you please direct the minister to answer the question I asked. If she does not have an answer, and she seems to depend mainly on question time briefs, could she take it on notice.

Senator Ian Campbell —Mr President, on the point of order: I listened very carefully to Senator Faulkner's question, and it did relate to the surveillance program, which was addressed by the minister. Senator Faulkner may have forgotten the question, because he probably did not write the question which he had to ask. If he reads the question that probably the shadow spokesman or some adviser in the shadow spokesman's office wrote for him, he will see that he asked about ASIC's resourcing. As Senator Faulkner jumped to his feet to interrupt the minister answering that question, the minister was drawing the attention of the Senate to the fact that the government has provided tenfold more than Labor promised before the election to resource ASIC. The minister's answer is totally in order, and Senator Faulkner should allow her to give the answer.

The PRESIDENT —Senator Campbell, you are now debating the point of order and I would ask you to resume your seat.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —I would like some order on my left. The answer was very difficult to hear because Senator Conroy kept interjecting. There are 1½ minutes left for the minister to complete her answer and I am sure she will attempt to answer the questions that you raised, Senator Faulkner.

Senator COONAN —It is extraordinary that Senator Faulkner now seems to be worried about the resourcing of ASIC when, at the last election, the Labor Party offered $6 million for the resourcing of ASIC and this government offered $90 million for the resourcing of ASIC. That underscores perfectly Labor's sham response to this whole issue of corporate governance. While this government has actually implemented and got on with anticipating some of the needs for corporate regulation with its CLERP program, the Labor Party seems to have discovered it yesterday. Only yesterday Senator Conroy did not know which minister to ask about corporate governance. No-one opposite ever thought about corporate governance until they suddenly thought it would be an issue of some interest. The government is consulting and working at implementing change but Labor is simply carping and whining about it, scrounging around for the next political football. If you are going to score points on corporate governance, please remember that on your watch we saw Alan Bond, we saw Abe Goldberg and Lintner—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order!

Senator COONAN —It was the Labor Party taking care of corporate governance when Alan Bond took— (Time expired)

Senator FAULKNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given that in your nonanswer to my question you raised the role of ASIC in 1999, can you confirm that in the 1998-99 annual report ASIC said:

Minister, is it not a fact that, until this financial year, the government had starved ASIC of necessary funding, leaving it unresourced during the time of the HIH, Ansett, One.Tel and Harris Scarfe corporate collapses? Minister, they all happened on your watch.

Senator COONAN (Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) —I have already answered the question about ASIC, I have answered the question about its resourcing and I have answered the question about its continued surveillance. But I would like to take this brief opportunity to remind Labor of what happened on its watch, because two can play the game of scoring on corporate governance. The Labor Party was looking after corporate governance when Alan Bond was taking hundreds of millions of dollars. The Labor Party was on watch when Abe Goldberg took hundreds of millions of dollars from Lintner. The Labor Party was in office when Laurie Connell was running amok. And wasn't it Labor who was overseeing corporate governance when Brian Yuill took hundreds of millions of dollars from the shareholders of Spedley?

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Before I call for the next question, I remind honourable senators on both sides of the chamber that continual interjecting is disorderly.