Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1918 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It is often a difficult task to balance competing commercial and social or environmental objectives, but this is a task we must tackle head-on. It is important that these principles be enshrined in legislation wherever possible. Yesterday we were looking at the issue of housing in the ACT. When I noted that energy efficiency was not mentioned in the Act, Mr Stefaniak assured us that this sort of thing will be looked after; but this needs to be enshrined in legislation because it is an indication of the importance in which the Government holds these matters. We do not hear of financial or economic responsibility being assumed in such a way.

The second amendment I present today is a requirement for each Territory-owned corporation to include a director to represent the interests of consumers and also a director to represent the interests of employees. In the case of ACTEW and Totalcare, the board must also include a director with environmental expertise. The amendment also sets out a selection process. This process we have modelled on the New South Wales Water Board, which was quite recently corporatised. The Public Accounts Committee recently recommended that the appointments of boards of directors of Territory-owned corporations be referred to the relevant standing committee for consideration. I understand that Ms Follett is putting forward legislation to this effect. The Greens will be supporting this.

However, we are proposing an extension to this process because we think it is appropriate that there be some outside expertise and involvement in the nomination and selection of appropriate directors. What we are proposing is the involvement of a relevant peak organisation. The relevant organisation will put forward three nominations. A selection committee will then be established which involves not only the voting shareholders but also the peak organisation and the chairperson of the board in question. Mr Speaker, if we wish to open up government processes, this amendment makes very good sense. We believe that it is consistent with principles of industrial democracy to have the interests of workers represented on the board. There is a growing realisation that involving workers in the highest level of decision-making can reduce industrial disputes and can increase productivity. The Liberal Government sometimes appears to understand industrial democracy to mean only the offering of individual contracts - arguably, not at all in the interests of industrial democracy, considering the very unequal power relationship between an individual employee and the employer.

A Commonwealth discussion paper on industrial democracy and employee participation released in 1986 discusses some of the practices that have been adopted overseas. These include information sharing. Many western European countries have legislation requiring disclosure and financial participation and many countries have legislation requiring boards of directors to include a staff representative. Having more involvement from workers and consumers at the highest level of decision-making is seen by many countries as an economic necessity, as is consideration of environmental costs. There seems to be a fear of this amongst present members of some boards. They seem to be frightened that their financial decisions will be negatively affected by the presence of broader interests on the board. However, through our selection process, we have made it quite possible to have on the board people with financial expertise as well as people with an understanding of other very important aspects of any business activity, such as the environment, worker interests and consumer interests.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .