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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 324 ..

"(4) The chairperson must, when requested by the Minister to do so, give to the Minister a statement of any disclosure of interest made under subsection (1) or (2).

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of a statement under subsection (4) to be laid before the relevant committee of the Legislative Assembly within 14 days after receiving the request.

(6) In subsection (5)-

relevant committee means -

(a) a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for the purposes of subsection (5); or

(b) if no nomination under paragraph (a) is in effect-the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly responsible for the scrutiny of public accounts.".

Amendment No. 25 does not relate to the name but rather relates to disclosure of interest. As I understand it, the Bill provided for disclosures to the Minister by the authority, and this amendment makes that information available to the Assembly. In light of recent days, I think it is a rather acceptable amendment. I commend the amendments to the Assembly.

MR KAINE (10.57): Mr Speaker, I support this particular amendment put forward by Mr Quinlan. I think this document is an interesting one when you read clause 16 in conjunction with clause 13 because these two clauses together place very real responsibility on people appointed to be directors. They are matters which under normal circumstances you would take for granted, but the Government has chosen in this Bill in connection with this particular authority to specifically state these requirements. They are quite onerous because clause 16 requires disclosure of personal or pecuniary interest direct or indirect.

And so on. That let-out subclause tends to negate somewhat the important issue made in subclause 16(1). If the board were to decide that a disclosure, having been made, should be disregarded or set aside on some grounds, I think it is important that somebody should have a look at that and ensure that clause 13 is being meticulously adhered to. Particularly because of those words in subclause (2), "unless the board otherwise decides", I think there does need to be some sort of a check and balance on this, and for that reason I support Mr Quinlan's amendment.

MS TUCKER (10.58): Yes, we also support this amendment. I had an amendment which was quite similar, in fact. It will give the opportunity to the Assembly to debate and possibly disallow any government proposals to transfer particular facilities to the corporation when regulations are tabled. It is just about accountability and it is very worth supporting.

MR SPEAKER: When are you moving that amendment? Are you foreshadowing it?

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