Senator JOYCE—The law firms which you second the panel members from, which law firms are they?

Talk
Mr Bulman—At the moment they are from Blakes and another small law firm in Sydney, but we tend to rotate to most law firms around the country. So there has been Freehills, Allens Arthur Robinson, Mallesons, Freehills, et cetera.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—It would make sense that a lot of these law firms would also be acting on behalf of parties to takeovers, would they not?

Talk
Mr Bulman—Yes, that is correct.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—How do you and the Takeovers Panel deal with conflicts of interest on that? Have you had any instances of conflict of interest and when was the last time someone removed themselves from the Takeovers Panel because of a conflict of interest?

Talk
Mr Bulman—I might need to explain this piece by piece. Every time we get an application we have to determine, and the president has to determine with advice from the executive, who the sitting panel is. At that point there is a discussion about conflicts of interest and certainly there have been many cases where we have thought of a particular panel member to adjudicate on a matter and in discussions with that panel member it is fairly clear that they have a conflict of interest and the matter ends there. When the panel has actually been chose and we have assumed there are not any conflicts, we still send a letter to the parties that actually explains all the particular issues that each of those panel members—their background, where they are from, what they have done—and that gives the opportunity to the parties to raise any issues that they see of conflicts. I have only been with the panel since 2 January and I do not have particular information about how many times parties do raise those issues, but certainly that letter to the parties gives parties an opportunity to raise any of those issues. At the same time, the members of the executive, both Alan and myself and also the secondees, also disclose any issues there may be in relation to conflicts and there may well be a situation where if a secondee has a conflict they would not actually be involved in the matter.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—When you talk about informed markets, are you talking about informed as to all the attributes of the participants in a takeover or the participants in one company on another?

Talk
Mr Bulman—The efficient fair market principle is a general one and sometimes in determining issues you would need to consider the particular facts about whether they derogate against efficient fair market or not. In terms of adequate information, there are various aspects in chapter 6 that require information to be given to shareholders in target companies and we would look at those sections and we would also look generally to make sure that shareholders are properly informed,

Talk
Senator JOYCE—So it would be fair to say that members of a target company would want to have a fair understanding, a transparent understanding, of the nature of the company which is trying to take them over. That would be a primary aspect of transparency, would it not?

Talk
Mr Bulman—Speaking in general terms, yes. There are specific provisions in the act that require disclosure, very similar to the prospectus provisions in the act about sufficient information for target shareholders to make a decision in relation to a bid.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—If a target of a takeover was being approached by an organisation that had a complete veil on how they acted and was more than opaque but was almost indiscernible as to what their true motives, their true motivations and everything from the selection of their board to how they operate, you would say that that would probably for the target company mean they are not dealing in an informed market.

Talk
Mr Bulman—I think you have just mentioned a sort of a hypothetical scenario.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—I will make it less hypothetical. In something such as Chinalco coming into Rio where you have a government owned organisation, how do you cross the concept of an informed market there? How could the market possibly be informed about something that was a government owned entity?

Talk
Mr Bulman—I should make it very clear that of course the Takeovers Panel’s role is to resolve disputes and that issue has not come before the panel in any way, shape or form. My understanding of the facts, and it is only my understanding from reading the newspapers, is that that interest is not an interest that triggers the takeover provisions as such. It is a minority interest and in that case the degree to which the takeover provisions themselves would apply to that situation would be limited. That is on my understanding of the facts.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Would you inform a person that whilst they have a minority interest they do not have anything to worry about, that there will be some serious concerns should they go beyond that?

Talk
Mr Bulman—The takeovers provisions are based on the concept that if you go over 20 per cent you have to be within one of the exceptions in section 6(11) of the act. One of those exceptions is to make a bid or potentially to go to shareholders and seek approval. Both of those would involve the provision of information prescribed under the act; again, very similar to the prospectus provisions and would need disclosure of aspects to do with the identity, funding of the bid and any other information the target shareholders need to make a decision.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—What investigations do you make of the identity and what discussions do you have?

Talk
Mr Bulman—I would go back to the fact that the Takeovers Panel is not an investigative body. It is a peer dispute resolution body, so it would depend upon a particular matter being put before us.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—So what you are saying is as far as you are concerned at this point in time it is hypothetical, therefore you do not want to discuss it?

Talk
CHAIR—Senator Joyce, hypothetical questions, as you know, are not generally answered in this forum so I think it is really incumbent on—

Talk
Senator JOYCE—It is a shame that you are the only one here tonight, Mr Bulman. How many are in your panel?

Talk
Mr Bulman—As I said, in the executive there is myself, Alan Shaw and two secondees and two support staff.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—In seniority, whereabouts are you?

Talk
Mr Bulman—The most senior person to the council, non-executive.

Senator JOYCE—It is half past 8. How many cases are before the Takeovers Panel at the moment?

Talk
Mr Bulman—At the moment, three.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Are any of them major players? Is it public information at the moment?

Talk
Mr Bulman—Yes, it is fine. Mount Gibson has just been recently received. There is one in relation to Allegiance and Zinifex and the other one is in relation to Golden West. I suppose some of them are reasonably large players and some of them are smaller.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Do you have a stronger interrelationship with the Foreign Investment Review Board? Do they have much to do with you? Do you communicate o