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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2803 ..


Clauses 16 and 17, by leave, taken together.

MR QUINLAN (8.04): Mr Speaker, I ask for leave to move amendments Nos 25 to 27 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR QUINLAN: These are only name changes. I move:

Nos 25 to 27-

Clause 16-

Page 6, line 29, omit "ACTIC", substitute "ACTIA".

Clause 17-

Page 7, line 3, subclause (1), omit "ACTIC", substitute "ACTIA".

Page 7, lines 5 and 6, paragraphs (2) (a) and (b), omit "ACTIC", substitute "ACTIA".

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18.

Amendment (Mr Quinlan's ) agreed to:

No 28-

Page 7, line 9, omit "ACTIC", substitute "ACTIA".

MR QUINLAN (8.05): Mr Speaker, I move amendment No 29 circulated in my name. It says:

No 29-

Page 7, line 10, paragraph (a), omit "5", substitute "3".

This is the first of a number of amendments that I alluded to in the in-principle stage, Mr Speaker, which relate to reducing the number of members on the board of the insurance authority from six to four. As it is set out in the bill, because the general manager is included, we would end up with two specialist members on the board and three client representatives, or two client representatives and the chief executive or his nominee. One presumes from the way this legislation is written in relation to the chief executive that it is sufficient to identify the chief executive of the ACT administration. It is not quite clear to me, but I am taking that bit on face value.

We would like to reduce the board to four. The board would then be two specialists, a nominee of the chief executive of the administration, one presumes, and the general manager who would be appointed by the other three anyway. That is sufficient, I think, to manage a board with such fairly precise functions in front of it. I would like to think that we ended up with a board that was not dominated by the clientele; that we ended up with a captive insurer which was distinct from the administration and took its decisions in relation to what it does in the best interest of its function, insurance, as opposed to having that extended input from the client base.


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