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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1047 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

There are stringent requirements under the disclosure of interest clause of the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation Act. Basically, that clause requires direct or indirect pecuniary or personal interest be declared to the corporation. There has to be a meeting, the meeting has to record that, the member cannot be part of a decision that is related, and it then has to be determined that that decision be communicated to the minister. That is an interesting point in itself because, as we know, Stephen Byron did declare an interest and stood aside. In the documents that I saw in the Clerk's office, I did not see a written briefing to the minister covering the issue of that declaration of interest which is required under the legislation. So I am not even sure that all of the documents were in the Clerk's office.

I ask the minister if he would table for us today, by close of business if possible, the briefing that, under the CTEC legislation, he should have received from the corporation about the declaration made by Stephen Byron. I hope to see that. I think all members would want to be sure that in fact that declaration and that written brief were, as the legislation requires, completed and communicated to the minister. As I said, it was not in the Clerk's office.

We know that the James Service and Jim Service matter has been seen as not being an issue. We also know that Mr Stainlay seemed quite surprised, but then he was not at that time familiar with the legislation, and it was after that that he sought the legal advice which I am still questioning. It has been suggested that this kind of relaxed approach is par for the course in the world of business. But it should never be par for the course when it comes to government corporations, however the legal advice is framed.

I would have expected the board members of government corporations to impose on themselves a standard of ethics as stringent as those we expect of public sector employees. Under the best practice notes attached to public sector management standards, conflict of interest can be actual, potential or apparent. The notes make the point that real and apparent conflicts of interest in the public domain are equally serious. Public employees are required to disclose both. In the context of a small group of business people engaged in a number of overlapping activities, as I have described above, real and perceived conflict of interest is a major issue of concern. It seems to me that this is a matter that should have been brought to the attention of the board.

The last part of my motion asks the Assembly to refer this matter to the Auditor-General-not that we formally refer it but we request him to look at this whole decision and the process through which this decision was made. I am asking the Assembly to support that because I think there are a number of very serious unanswered questions. Obviously, the Auditor-General plays this role and that is why we have this independent person to look at these sorts of issues. This government claims that it is not afraid of anything that it has done, that it has done everything correctly. This is what they are telling us. If that is the case, they should not have any concern about the Auditor-General looking at this if he desires to do so. This would obviously support their claims that everything is-

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, do you wish to seek a further extension?

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