Page 1838 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORNWELL (9.54): I seek leave to speak.
Leave granted.
MR CORNWELL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it is important to bring us back to the debate. The real question that we are looking at this evening is consultation. It is very obvious that this Government has failed to consult in relation to this legislation with any of the people who are directly involved. The lack of consultation must therefore lead inevitably to a lack of confidence in what this Government is doing in relation to this legislation. It stands to reason. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that there is considerable confusion in what the Government is planning to do.
Mr Berry: Rubbish!
MR CORNWELL: All right. I will just pause here, Mr Berry. We might have a look at some of the confusion. First of all, on 15 December 1992 Mr Berry made a ministerial statement on racing industry legislation. He said in that statement:
I believe that the current legislative framework limits the Government's ability to exercise a more positive role in ACTTAB's operations.
How is that if there are only two shareholders? One of them is the Chief Minister and the other is the Deputy Chief Minister. How can the current legislative framework limit the Government's ability to exercise a more positive role in ACTTAB's operations? I do not understand. Is there a faction fight? I do not know. Perhaps there is. It does not make sense. Either your statement on 15 December does not make sense, or your subsequent actions, in bringing in this legislation, do not make sense. They simply do not match.
Mr Berry: Or they both make sense.
MR CORNWELL: No, that is highly unlikely, Mr Berry. He went on to say:
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.
Again, no explanation whatsoever was given as to why this should be. He then went on to talk about ACTTAB becoming a body corporate, and then he stated:
I believe that it is essential to maintain a board of directors to provide a broad perspective for the day-to-day management of the authority.
How does this match up with this statement in the Bill:
A member shall be a person having appropriate qualifications and experience having regard to the functions of the Board.
How does that fit in with providing a broad perspective for the day-to-day management of the authority? It does not make sense at all. He then made perhaps the most absurd and confusing statement of all. I quote:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .