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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 6 Hansard (16 May) . . Page.. 1777 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The important words are "are comparable". We acknowledge that it will not be exactly the same.

MRS DUNNE (6.55): Mr Speaker, the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. "As far as practicable" and "are comparable" would make the situation entirely unworkable. If the standards were to be comparable with those required under APRA, it would mean an unwarranted delay in the setting up of the system.

MS DUNDAS (6.55): I will be supporting this amendment. I agree with Mr Corbell's comments that we are not setting up an insurance scheme but a fidelity fund, but perhaps in all the rush the minister has not had time to read Ms Tucker's first amendment, which uses the terms "as far as practicable" and "comparable with". It does not say that it must work in exactly the same way as the APRA guidelines do but, as far as practicable, must be comparable with the guidelines we set down through APRA for the insurance industry. If they are good enough for the insurance industry, why can they not be good enough for a scheme designed to overcome a crisis in the insurance industry?

MR CORBELL (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.56): Mr Speaker, I have to stress again that Ms Tucker's amendments require that the prudential standards made under the Insurance Act 1973 apply. My very clear advice, which I relay to members, is that that means that the capital adequacy requirements, which it is proposed be $5 million, will apply. It is not a matter of them applying "as far as practicable". They will apply. That will be the outcome of Ms Tucker's amendments.

As I have already indicated in response to Ms Dundas, a fidelity fund and an insurance fund are different beasts. They operate in different contexts. A fidelity fund will apply only in relation to building work within the ACT. An insurance fund will operate Australia wide and will operate across a range of markets, not just the construction market.

Ms Tucker's amendment will impose the requirement for $5 million of capital adequacy. We do not believe that that is an appropriate measure, and on those grounds we will not be supporting the amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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