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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4151 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I note what he is doing. I do not have a particular objection to it. But one would expect that when these people who are appointed to a board like the Kingston Foreshore Development Authority go on to other boards in other places, when they are on companies and so on, they would disclose their interest. It would not necessarily be to a semi-public body such as a committee of the ACT Legislative Assembly; nonetheless, they would be used to disclosing these sorts of interest. I express - - -

Mr Quinlan: Are you talking while you wait for your amendment to turn up or something?

MR HUMPHRIES: No, I am not. I am just making a point about that, I assure you. The purpose is to ask the question of why we are doing this. I hope, Mr Quinlan, you will explain why we are doing this when we get to the next stage. The next amendment is to make the provisions of proposed section 32 of the Act subject to generally accepted accounting principles. That is quite a reasonable matter that Mr Quinlan raises. I would hope that the matters referred to in clause 32 are matters that will be subject to generally accepted accounting principles.

When I asked about it, I was assured that in fact they would be. The authority, in any case, is subject to the provisions of the Financial Management Act 1996, and in particular to Part VIII of that Act. Section 54(3)(e) of that Act requires, and I quote:

Mr Quinlan says, "Generally accepted accounting principles". I am not sure there is any difference between the two. But this is rather a matter of belt and braces, I suspect. I think it is already covered by the legislation. I do not have an objection to it going in a second time.

The third matter is the amendment that requires a Minister to take into account certain things, including reference to and consultation with the relevant committee of the Legislative Assembly. Mr Speaker, I do not object to this going in the legislation, but Mr Quinlan and other members should be aware that this authority and appointments to this authority's board are already subject to the provisions of the Statutory Appointments Act. So we will need to consult with the relevant Assembly committee anyway under that Act. We will also be required under the Kingston Foreshore Act itself to make the same consultation. I am not sure what the reason for having it in two different places might be. Whatever the reason, it does not pose a particularly serious problem. I do not want to be difficult and oppose it for the sake of simply stopping that belt and braces approach. I hope Mr Quinlan will explain to us why we need to have this disclosure, and perhaps indicate if he intends to broaden this principle to other statutory authorities or territory owned corporations; which sorts of authorities it might be; and what the circumstances of its imposition might be.

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