Page 1980 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It will also recognise the proper independence, rights and responsibilities of those bodies under their enabling legislation. This practice is already followed in a number of instances. For example, amendments to ACTEW's pricing schedules are provided to Cabinet for information, not for decision. The process of Cabinet consideration has strong built-in checks which require provision of information and consultation with relevant agencies. The Cabinet system provides a high level of assurance that all dimensions of a proposed course of action are examined by relevant agencies.
Madam Speaker, our second response to the proposal on guidelines is to review the arrangements for communication between each authority on the one hand and the related department on the other. An individual protocol will be discussed and agreed in relation to each body, covering delineation of responsibilities between the authority and department, and responsibilities for advising each other and the Minister. These protocols will be negotiated between relevant bodies. They will be flexible documents in practice, and should not be seen as curtailing the proper operations and independence of the authority. The very discussion and existence of these protocols is designed, more than anything, to remind all concerned of the need to think about their actions and responsibilities in relation to other bodies, particularly the Government. Where there is any disagreement the protocol arrangements will be examined by the Government. Should it be necessary to clarify responsibilities, we may find that some minor legislative amendments are brought to the Assembly in due course. As I have already indicated, the Government has no intention of imposing an onerous new workload or compromising the existing independence of authorities. As far as we are aware, Madam Speaker, this is the first time that a government has taken action of this kind to clarify the working relationship between all departments and authorities. We believe that it will be a useful initiative.
In relation to conclusion No. (8) by Professor Pearce, which reads, "The Board of ACTTAB should include a person or persons who is an expert in the operation of TABs", the Government has taken decisive action to strengthen the expertise on the ACTTAB board. Professor Pearce's final conclusion, No. (9), says:
The obligation of ACTTAB to pay a percentage of its turnover as distinct from its profit to the Government should be examined so that ACTTAB will not feel constrained to enter into contracts simply to enable it to meet its financial obligations to the Government.
Madam Speaker, the Government notes that the various States have differing arrangements about the payment of fixed percentages of turnover, or a proportion of profit, to the Government and the racing industry. Arguably, the requirement to pay a fixed proportion of turnover is a way of ensuring a certain standard of efficiency in ACTTAB's operations. Profit targets could be used as another means of defining the expected return to the community. But the profit target might need to relate to turnover levels anyway, given that the whole totalisator operation is based upon paying out percentages of a fluctuating pool of bets. The Government will therefore need to examine this question further in consultation with ACTTAB.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .