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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4811 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

TOCs is intended to enable them to compete and operate as private sector organisations do in a very competitive market, Mr Speaker. We would send mixed signals to our TOCs if we were to burden them with additional requirements that are inconsistent with the private sector. It is for this reason that TOCs have, up until now, been excluded from the requirements of both the Financial Management Act 1996 and the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 1995.

Members should note, Mr Speaker, that TOCs must already comply with the extensive requirements of the Federal Corporations Law. In addition, TOCs are bound by the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Reporting and exposure of wrongdoing and corrupt conduct is so important in the public sector that these additional requirements rightly apply. I do not believe that it is the same argument for other reporting requirements.

For the above reasons, Mr Speaker, the Government will duly review the specific reporting requirements of other agencies before applying any additional disclosure requirements upon our TOCs through the Chief Minister's annual reports directions. My Government remains committed to ensuring that specific reporting disclosures will be imposed only where the benefits of the information outweigh the costs of obtaining it. Mr Speaker, I think that is the message that members must decide on when they vote on the second Bill, the Annual Reports Bill. In this case, are we asking for information just for the sake of it, or are the costs of obtaining it - and they will be quite significant - worth it in this case, taking into account that the whole point of setting up TOCs is to allow them to compete with private sector entities in a deregulated market, such as the electricity market? I am sure that none of us would want to disadvantage ACTEW in that market and this, potentially, would do that. So we have to make sure that the extra information that we are requiring is of some use. At this stage I have to say that I have not been convinced that it is of any particular use. I think the points I make about the Chief Minister's annual reports directions need to be taken into account as well.

MR MOORE (12.06): Mr Speaker, I rise to support this legislation. It seems to me that there has been some concern in the Assembly for some time that a method of ensuring less accountability is to hive off a part of the ACT administration into a Territory-owned corporation and then apply less stringent standards to that corporation - and we have just heard the Chief Minister doing it - in the name of comparing the Territory-owned corporation to private business. A Territory-owned corporation is not, and should never be, exactly the same as a private business. I accept it is also true to say that they ought not be exactly the same as a government department. So, what we are trying to do is find the appropriate balance between those two. It seems to me that the amendments that Mr Whitecross has proposed to these two pieces of legislation do find that balance.

There are amendments circulated by Mrs Carnell. Her second amendment, in particular, is very astute in ensuring that we do have consistency across the Assembly in how these things operate. I think that is sensible. I am likely to oppose the first amendment because I accept the way that Mr Whitecross has set up his amendment in referring it back to the other piece of legislation to get a better consistency there.

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