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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 345 ..

Ms Tucker: Socially disadvantaged people, I said.

MR HUMPHRIES: You said that this commissioner would represent the interests of the community in these sorts of issues better - - -

Ms Tucker: No. I said they would bring a different perspective.

MR HUMPHRIES: Look at the Hansard. I think you said something different to that, Ms Tucker. You said something to the effect that this person is going to be closer to the community's interests than the other two commissioners would be. I will look at Hansard. Perhaps I misheard you, but it seemed that that is what you were saying. All three of the commissioners will be protecting community interests. That is what they are there for. It is designed for them to be there in that particular role.

In recent days the Assembly, as I recall, has voted against provisions which require particular characteristics for people on committees or boards, and I would urge them to do so again today. The amendment reads:

I am concerned about the narrowness of that. What if the Executive want to appoint somebody who had a very strong generalist background and who had a very good mind for the conduct of investigations to handle a particularly tricky process? For example, you might want to appoint a lawyer to overview a process in an inquiry which does not have anything to do with the law as such but which is a matter of concern.

I am concerned that by having a requirement that the person has to have experience in the particular area that is the subject of investigation we limit the capacity of the commission to have an inquiry with somebody who might have very good skills in a different field but who cannot be appointed because of the provisions of subclause (3).

MR QUINLAN (12.05): Mr Speaker, the import of the amendment that I have put forward is to support the last two provisions of Ms Tucker's amendment No. 7 - that is, to include the provision for someone with knowledge and experience in consumer rights and/or the provision of services to disadvantaged persons, and then the further provision that an associate commissioner for a particular investigation should have knowledge and experience related to the investigation.

Quite obviously, in competitive neutrality investigations and issues as they arise, we will touch regularly on what is in the public interest. I am sure that each of us would have a slightly different view of the public interest as it relates to any particular issue. As a flint-hearted old accountant myself, I think it is important that we do not populate a commission with people who have a background in economics, law or commerce but who do not necessarily have experience in the wider community in dealing directly with community issues. From our perspective, the results of many of these investigations will not be about which business wins but more about the eventual impact upon the public interest.

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