247 {Cvgilati (Tuuncit Tuesday, 8 May 1990 1 THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon J.M. Brown) took the Chair at 3.30 pm, and read prayers. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT - BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Companies and Securities Law Meeting HON J.M. BERINSON (North Metropolitan - Attorney General) [3.33 pm] - by leave: Last Thursday, I made a detailed statement about the current status of the Commonwealth's proposals to assume control of companies and securities law. I indicated at that time that the Comnmonwealth had proposed negotiations with a view to resolving its current impasse with the States, and had proposed 4 May 1990 as a meeting date. I also indicated that I would represent the State Government at the meeting, and would report back to the Parliament thereafter. In the event, Ministers of all States and the Northern Territory were able to meet as planned with the Commonwealth Attorney General, Hon Michael Duffy. It is fair to say that significant progress was made at the meeting on the broad framework of a possible compromise. Due to the short notice for the meeting, few Ministers were able to give a firm commidtment to proposals developed at that time. However, there was broad. in-principle acceptance of the New South Wales-Victorian joint proposal as a basis for negotiations. A further meeting of Ministers has been tentatively scheduled for 18 May 1990 to further consider important unresolved issues. In summary, the negotiations now appear to be proceeding on the basis that the Commonwealth will no longer seek to legislate unilaterally in the companies and securities area and will continue to utilise State law to overcome its identified and potential constitutional difficulties. For this purpose the Commonwealth will rely on the same legislative device as the existing cooperative scheme is based on; that is, the Commonwealth will legislate in respect of companies and securities matters for the Australian Capital Territory, and the States and the Northern Territory will then enact that law uniformly in their own jurisdictions so as to underpin the proposed national laws. The role which the States will play in approving the substantive companies and securities laws is based on the Sumner proposal, to which I referred last week, with the exception that the Commonwealth will not be obliged to introduce into the Commonwealth Parliament any Ministerial Council majority proposals with which it disagrees. Conversely, the Comnmonwealth will not introduce proposals which it supports itself, but which are opposed by a majority of the Ministerial Council. There is also broad approval for a unified system of administration of companies and securities law. Under these proposals the Commonwealth's Australian Securities Commnission, the ASC, will assume responsibility for the administration of all companies and securities law to the exclusion of the existing State and Territory Corporate Affairs administrations and the National Companies and Securities Commission- To facilitate this, and to assist an orderly transition, it was agreed that the Chairman of the ASC, Mr Harrnell, should also assume the chairmanship of the NCSC on I July 1990. This is with a view to effecting an orderly transition from the existing cooperative scheme to full administration of companies and securities law by the ASC by 1 January 1991, if practicable. All States agreed with the Western Australian submission that the most basic requirement was to ensure that the current level of service available through the State and Territory Corporate Affairs Commissions was maintained, at the very least, at its current level- In this respect the Comnmonwealth undertook to prepare a report which would identify appropriate methods for measuring current standards of service. At the next meeting consideration will have to be given as to how the future maintenance of those standards can be positively assured. There was also a general acceptance in principle of the Western Australian proposition that the States should continue to be able to integrate uniforn companies and securities administration with other aspects of the business regulatory framework currently maintained by the States. To this end, the Commuonwealth will prepare a paper on the implications of continuing both Commonwealth and State business regulation functions in an integrated office. Some States indicated a preference for quarantining State and A75471I-1 249 [COUNCIL] Comnmonwealth functions and further- consideration will be on the basis that both alternatives should be available if practicable. In respect of revenue, it was agreed that Comnmonwealth officers would meet with relevant Corporate Affairs and Treasury officials from the States to fon-nulate a suitable base for sharing the revenue from companies and securities administration. This issue will be the subject of further negotiation at the next meeting. One further important matter which will need to be resolved when details of a compromise become clearer is the question of transitional arrangements. Further detailed work will be required in this area to ensure that the transition to any new scheme is achieved with minimum disruption to existing activities and existing levels of service. I will1 make a further report to the House when further progress is made in the current negotiations. Mr Deputy President (Hon J.M. Brown), beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that no doubt explains the range of conclusions about last Friday's meeting as reflected in various media reports. The headline of the The Sydney Morning Herald report, for example, said, simply, that the ASC would commence operations on I January 1991. Hopefully it will, but as wil be clear from my comnments there are many important issues to resolve before the position can realistically be put with anything approaching that degree of certainty. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon George Cash (Leader of the Opposition). PETITION - BURS WOOD RESORT CASINO PROCEEDINGS Corporate Affairs Department - Files and Documents Privilege The following petition signed on behalf of Famnel Pty Ltd was presented by Hon N.F. Moore - To the President and members of the Legislative Council of Western Australia in Parliament assembled, This petition shows - (a) that your petitioner is a parry to an action in the Federal Court of Australia relating to a prospectus issued by the Burswood Management Trust; (b) certain documents and files in the possession or control of the Corporate Affairs Office that are relevant to the Federal Court action were tendered in evidence before a select committee of the Legislative Council inquiring into decisions made by the Conunissioner not to prosecute persons under the Companies Code (WA) for apparent breaches of the Code resulting from cost overruns in the construction of the Burswood casino; (c) the documents and files, having become part of the evidence adduced before the select commnittee, are absolutely privileged and may not be used as evidence in any trial or other legal proceedings without leave of the Legislative Council. Your petitioner asks that the Legislative Council, by resolution, waive its privilege in relation to those documents and files and thus enable them to be used according to law in the conduct of the proceedings to which your petitioner is a parry. And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper No 188.] MOTION - PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS COMMITTEE REPORT Order of the Day On motion by Hon George Cash (Leader of the Opposition), resolved - That the report on the Parliamentary Standards Committee be made an Order of the Day for the next sitting of the House. [Tuesday, 8 May 1990] 2494 URGENCY MOTION - LEGISLATION National Parry Blockade - Liberal Party Selective Blockade THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon J.M. Brown): I have received the following letter - Hon Jim Brown MLC Deputy President Legislative Council Parliament House Perth WA 6000 Dear Mr Deputy President In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order Number 63, II advise you that it is my intention to move today a motion for adjournment, to debate a matter of urgency, so that the House can express its concern over - (1) the decision of the National Party that would have its three Legislative Councillors seeking to block all Government legislation; (2) the proposal from the Liberal Party that would lead to an intensive but selective blockade of Government legislation; (3) the resulting strategy that would see legislation before this House being blocked without regard to the merits of the legislation but for - other unrelated reasons; (4) the blatant disregard that these steps demonstrate for the proper role of the Legislative Council and for the obligation on Members of this House to have due regard to the best interests of their constituents and the best interest of the State by fully debating and making decisions on all legislation having regard to merit rather than to unrelated issues. Therefore, I wild move: "That at its rising the House adjourn until 11.00 o'clock on Friday, May 11, 1990". Yours sincerely Torn Stephens, BA (ANTS), [.P., MLC, Member for Mining and Pastoral Region. May 8, 1990 The mover of this motion will require the support of four members. [At least four members rose in their places.] HON TOM STEPHENS (Mining and Pastoral) [4.02 pm]: I move - That at its rising the House adjourn until 11.00 am on Friday, 11I May 1990. I thank my coleagues for joining with me in expressing their concern about the state of play which has developed in this State as a result of comments made to the media, primarily over the last few days, by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party. On Thursday, 3 May, the Leader of the National Party, Hendy Cowan, spoke in the lower House about one of the measures which the Government had indicated would be debated in that House; that is, a more accountable process of Government.