Page 1000 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Members of the Assembly will recall that, following negotiations between this Government and the NRMA insurance company, the general manager of NRMA Insurance Ltd, Mr Peter Corrigan, and I jointly announced in October last year what arrangements would apply for the distribution of excess profits accrued from compulsory third-party insurance premiums being made available by the NRMA. In particular, $10m was to be invested in a trust fund to be spent on projects which enhanced motoring safety in the ACT and $10m was to be provided to continue to, in effect, subsidise the third-party premiums paid by Canberra motorists. It was anticipated that a further sum of up to $20m may be available in the future to continue those programs.
Following their nomination in late December and subsequent appointment, the trustees of the trust to administer this $10m met for the first time in early January this year. Since that time they have worked very hard to get the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust onto a sound legal and financial footing and to ensure that the right mechanisms are in place for allocating funds to worthwhile projects. The objectives and purposes of the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust, the powers and responsibilities of the trustees, and other matters relating to the proposed functions and operations of the trust are set out in the deed of trust which forms the Schedule to this Bill, thus bringing it before the public through the Assembly.
However, legislation is required because the execution of the trust deed by itself cannot guarantee that the objects and purposes of the trust will be held to be charitable. It is difficult to be certain beyond doubt that the proposed trust would not fail by a court holding that the purposes were not charitable purposes. The problem is that lawyers can hold different views on these matters and a road safety trust is somewhat beyond the normal run of charitable trusts which are familiar to lawyers and the courts.
Mr De Domenico: In fact, Bernard often disagreed with Collaery in the previous house.
MR CONNOLLY: I note with great interest that interjection from Mr De Domenico. If the objects and purposes were held by a court not to be charitable, then the trust may fail and the gift of $10m itself may fail. There is no legislation in the ACT, as there is in some States of Australia, that would prevent this from happening. The Bill will formally establish the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust as a charitable institution and confirm that it will operate for public charitable purposes, thus removing any possibility for legal argument which could result in the loss of the $10m.
The Bill also contains exemptions from liability for those individuals and organisations involved. This is particularly important for non-government trustees who might not have the same level of protection afforded to trustees appointed by the Government. This will ensure that the trust's activities can be carried out effectively without unnecessarily restrictive constraints imposed by potential legal actions that might otherwise arise. It is essential that trustees have the flexibility to administer and allocate trust funds independently and according to their discretion in order to fulfil the objectives of the trust. It should also be noted that, as a result of these provisions in the draft legislation, there will be no contingent liability on the Government. So, in effect, the gift will operate, the money will be distributed and there will be no contingent liability on the Government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .