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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 892 ..

Clauses 24 to 30, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 31

MR QUINLAN (10.24): I move:

The point of this amendment is to ensure that, through a two-stage process, AGL can drop out of this partnership and set up ACTEW with whatever partner it wishes. We are talking about a related body, but that related body has rights of its own, and this Bill confers some rights on it. I have a note here relating to the Corporations Law, section 9, dictionary. The closest term I can find is "related entity" in relation to a body corporate, and it includes a promoter of the body, a relative or a de facto spouse of such promoter, et cetera.

We do not suspect that AGL has a plan to involve itself in breaking down the partnership immediately or tailoring it to suit itself. However, the whole structure of an act is the lowest common denominator. If we trusted everybody, we would not have laws at all. So, if we are going to enact this Bill, this ought be included. I notice that the special counsel to ACTEW has criticised it, but I do not think the main reason was addressed. Again, it was developed in consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel.

I heard on radio this morning a recommendation that nobody should ever watch sausages or the law being made. I guess we have got to that most unattractive stage.

Mr Humphries: Where did you get that phrase from, Ted?

MR QUINLAN: I got it off the radio this morning.

Mr Humphries: So did I.

MR QUINLAN: We were all caught in traffic this morning, were we? I do not think the criticism of the Special Counsel for ACTEW - I guess that is a hired lawyer - addresses the main thrust of it. As I said, no law is made for law-abiding citizens. It is made just in case. This is one of those "just in case" provisions which ought be included. I commend the amendment to the house.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (10.27): I want to briefly rebut the argument to this particular amendment. If law is like sausage-making - and this is real little weeny - what we are doing by removing subclause 2 is putting unnecessary restriction on what AGL may do to accommodate its needs as part of this partnership. It does not have an equivalent right to veto particular arrangements, such as restructuring within ACTEW that might be initiated at some point in the future. Why, arguably, should ACTEW have a right to veto some restructuring of the AGL Corporation?

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