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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 8 Hansard (27 October) . . Page.. 2251 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Clause 7 of the Bill deals with disclosure of interest. That replaces a similar provision at section 13 of the Act. I have no difficulty with that, and that will be supported. It seems to me to be a finetuning of the approach that will be taken in relation to disclosure of interest. The provisions which prevent members from being present at any deliberation of the board and so on as a result of a conflict of interest are retained. Paragraph (b) of clause 7 of the Bill proposes to omit the definition of "member" and substitute another definition which includes the alternate appointed by the chief executive. That will be opposed.

Clause 8 of the Bill, "Procedures of the Board", also relates to the alternate appointed by the chief executive and will be opposed. Clause 9 of the Bill sets out to repeal section 18 of the Act. Section 18 goes to the powers of the executive. I quote from the legislation:

(1) The Chief Executive shall maintain an office in the Government Service the duties of which include performing the functions of the office of Executive Officer of the Board.

(2) The Executive Officer shall be the public servant for the time being performing the duties of the Government Service office referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Executive Officer shall perform such functions as the Board directs.

This is the point that I want to emphasise: The executive officer is a functionary for the board. He or she is a voting member of the board but also carries out the decisions of the board, as set out earlier in the legislation, in the functions of the board. Mr Speaker, in my view it is important that that independent standing of the board be maintained. If this Bill were to be passed, it would be quite easy and open to form the view that the independence of the board had been somewhat undermined. In any event, the proposed amendment to the structure of the board does not make any sense. If it argues that the only reason for doing it is to reduce the number on quite a large board by one person, then it is a very thin argument, in my view. Against that argument is the argument that the independence of the board is being undermined. I think that is a far stronger argument.

I think the approach that is taken in respect of other members of the board - that is, the Minister appoints them - should be pursued in relation to the alternate the chief executive officer would appoint to the board. If this Bill were to pass, all of the board members, including the chief executive, may be appointed by the Minister, except for the one that might replace her. None of the other board members are empowered to replace themselves or to endorse a particular alternate. Neither should they be able to do that, because this is a board with statutory powers and it is quite appropriate for the Minister to appoint all of the members. It is quite inappropriate for members of the board to appoint their own alternates.

That summarises our opposition to parts of the Bill and our support for parts of the Bill.

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