Page 1826 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: A very good decision, too; a first-rate decision.
MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Kaine, I agree. That was a very good decision, a first-rate decision made by a first-rate Liberal Party section of an Alliance government. A package of legislation was passed which, in effect, created ACTTAB Ltd as the first Territory owned corporation pursuant to the Territory Owned Corporations Act. The philosophy behind the creation of TOCs was efficiency, profitability and enhanced revenue generation. I will repeat that for those who did not listen. The philosophy behind the creation of the Territory owned corporation was efficiency, profitability and enhanced revenue generation.
It was emphasised by the then Chief Minister, Mr Kaine, when he introduced the Bills, that Territory owned corporations were about corporatisation in the interests of efficiency, not about privatisation. Corporatisation was about efficiency, not about privatisation. The concept of the accountability of Territory owned corporations to the Legislative Assembly was not abandoned. It was not abandoned at all. Territory owned corporations generally were to be accountable to the Commonwealth as corporations regulated by the corporations law and to the Legislative Assembly pursuant to the Territory owned corporations law. So there were two ways of being accountable: To the Commonwealth through the Companies Act, in other words, and to the Assembly, through the Territory owned corporations law. In addition, Madam Speaker, to its accountability as a corporation, ACTTAB was specifically made accountable to the Assembly by its memorandum and articles, the Territory Owned Corporations Act and the betting Act. So there are five ways in which ACTTAB Ltd is accountable.
Mr Berry puts forward as his rationale for decorporatising ACTTAB the following:
... I believe that the current legislative framework limits the Government's ability to exercise a more positive role in ACTTAB's operations. For the Government to have more direct involvement and responsibility for ACTTAB's operations, the most appropriate structure is for ACTTAB to operate as a statutory authority.
That is what Mr Berry said in his ministerial statement to this Assembly on 15 December 1992. Mr Berry went on, though, and I will quote him once again. On 8 January 1993 he wrote a letter to the Canberra Times in which he said:
Given the importance of the racing industry and the amount of income generated, it is a high priority for the Government to ensure that the ACTTAB functions in a manner which achieves the maximum benefit to the Government, the racing industry and the people of the ACT.
He went on to say:
The proposed change is one of accountability under machinery of government arrangements ... The major change is that the Government and the Assembly, as the ACT's elected representatives, will have a closer role in the management of the ACTTAB.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .