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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 6 Hansard (16 May) . . Page.. 1771 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

regulations. It is open to any organisation or group of individuals to do that. That is a very important point to make: it is not organisation specific.

Ms Dundas' imputation that there has been an unhealthy level of collusion between the ACT government and the MBA is simply incorrect. The MBA clearly have a strong interest in this matter because it is their members who have been directly affected by the withdrawal of Dexta. Like any effective membership organisation representing the interests of their members, they have been advocating those interests strongly to the government and have been in close discussion with the government.

Equally, the government has had discussions with the HIA at officer level and at the level of government itself. We have also had discussions with the other proposed insurance provider in the ACT, Reward. It is important to stress that Reward indicated their intention of entering the market about a week and a half ago. I welcome their expression of interest in the market, but it is important to stress that they are not currently operating in it. They need to be approved for operation in the market, and PALM is currently working with Reward to process their application and assess it in a timely manner.

Mr Humphries raised some issues in relation to the regulations. Can I first and foremost assure members that I am now in a position to confirm that the regulations circulated to members yesterday will be in every respect the regulations the government intends to implement. We do not intend to change any of the requirements outlined in the regulations that have been circulated. They have now been checked closely by the Department of Urban Services, the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Department of Treasury, whose officers have advised me that they have confidence in those regulations and that these are now in a position to be implemented.

That said, if members have particular concerns about the regulations, I would, as the responsible minister, welcome the opportunity to discuss them with members prior to enacting them, so that any other issues can be appropriately addressed.

Mr Humphries raised two matters that he was seeking some reassurances on. The first was the monitoring of standards. It is true that these regulations are highly complex and are outside the usual round of work the ACT government undertakes. For that reason, the government has sought the assistance of the highly respected national law firm Freehills. Five of their key lawyers have been directly engaged in preparing these regulations. I can give a clear undertaking to the Assembly that the government will continue to seek outside assistance in the monitoring of these regulations whenever it is needed. I hope that goes some way towards addressing Mr Humphries' concern.

The other concern raised by Mr Humphries was about whether or not trustees would be capable of recovering costs associated with their responsibilities as trustees. Can I draw to members' attention clause 7 of the approval criteria, which provides for trustees to recover costs associated with their responsibilities. That is a matter which can be, and has been, effectively addressed.

Mr Humphries also raised a point about the circumstances in which a trustee can no longer be a trustee because they are under investigation. He raised the prospect of what he termed a relatively routine investigation effectively disqualifying someone from being

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