Page 1842 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (10.06): We put forward a proposal this morning - I accept that it was this morning - to refer this, I agree, important piece of legislation to a committee for a number of reasons. The first and most important one is that it became patently obvious to anybody who has bothered to speak to any of the interested parties in the industry that they really feel that they have not had an opportunity to tell anybody, to tell us, the Assembly, or the people of Canberra, what they believe is their point of view on this issue. One of the great things about our committee structure - this is something that I think all the MLAs here agree on - is that it works well. It works in a non-partisan way and it gives members of the community an opportunity to be heard. This is a Bill which many people in the community feel exceedingly strongly about. It is a Bill on which no consultation, as we have found out from Mr De Domenico's leaked documents, has been entered into with any part of the industry. We also find out that there have been no impact studies, no feasibility reviews, no work whatsoever, to find out just what will happen in financial terms for the ACT if this Bill is passed today. We also have no idea whatsoever whether it will have any detrimental effect on the ACT Racing Club's bid to become a principal club.
Mr Berry: It has nothing at all to do with a principal club.
MRS CARNELL: That is what you say, Minister, but it is not what people in the industry say. Quite seriously, it seems logical to those on this side of the house that if there are a lot of people out there who feel strongly about an issue, who feel that they have not been heard, who feel that they have a point of view that needs to be put, the appropriate way to go is to refer this piece of legislation to a committee. You have constantly claimed that there will be better accountability and control under this change, but that, patently, is not true.
Corporate responsibility is exceedingly far reaching, as I know Mr Connolly knows. I am surprised that Mr Connolly has not told you about it; that he has not told you that corporate responsibility means that the directors who are there now are responsible under corporate law. That, quite seriously, is substantially more accountable than they ever can be under the Minister's proposed changes. You are quite right in saying that the current shareholders, meaning the Chief Minister and her deputy, can appoint or remove a director at any time. That means that they have total control. They have control, but the directors are accountable. That is an appropriate way to run anything. It means that everybody in the chain is accountable and responsible and is in a position where they have to personally care for and be responsible about what happens in the TAB. This has to be a substantially better way to approach any corporation or any enterprise that the ACT Government is involved in. I and my colleagues have been very interested that Mr Connolly has not brought forward similar changes to Totalcare.
Mr De Domenico: That might be next, though.
MRS CARNELL: It is very hard for us to really comprehend why this could be the case, except possibly - - -
Mr Kaine: Then they will not need a Bill to allow them to lend money to them.
MRS CARNELL: That is right. Maybe it is that we - - -
Mr Connolly: The TAB is very different. It is a monopoly supplier of services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .