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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2806 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The presence of two specialist members on the board does provide a balance to the possibility of collusion between the government agencies, so it seems consistent to have supported Mr Quinlan's name change but your arrangement on the board.

MR QUINLAN (8.16): I am not clear on what Ms Tucker said in relation to collusion and then still supporting the reduced board.

Ms Tucker: No, I said it would stop collusion because you have the independent members there, the professionals.

MR QUINLAN: Okay. I will wind up briefly by saying I concede that the function of this enterprise is to meet the needs of the client, but it is to meet the insurance needs of the client which will at times be quite distinct from the overall needs and objectives of the particular agency or department that they represent.

What I was genuinely trying to create in this chain was a balanced process whereby at the bottom line you had the organisation, the insurance enterprise, bargaining and negotiating with clients, and that would be a balanced process because the insurance corporation would be focusing quite rightly on insurance and the clients would be focusing on their overall objectives at the end of the day. So some clients who may be on relatively short-term contracts and have relatively short-term horizons in relation to how they go about their business would not take necessarily that short-term view of the way we handle our risk management, which is what this is about.

I rather thought that what Mr Humphries said was self-contradictory, or at least contradictory to what he has said previously in relation to what he wanted from this corporation and the claims that he made about setting this up so that it would earn the respect of the wider industry and be able to treat with the wider industry from a position of relative strength; but then, on the other hand, it is now going to be totally focused inward. Before I close I invite Mr Kaine to give some indication as to whether or not he supports this amendment. We might save having to have a division.

MR RUGENDYKE (8.19): To clarify the situation for the benefit of Mr Quinlan, I will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 27, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 28.

Amendment (Mr Quinlan's ) proposed:

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