Page 3989 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 15 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I will repeat for the benefit of those opposite what my colleague has already explained as far as the factors that shape the decision as to the appropriate form of that entity are concerned. They are the degree of profit motive or commercial activity, the level of dependency on the territory’s budget for funding, the level of day-to-day control exercised by the government over the activity of the entity, the potential for the entity to undertake the regulatory or social policy functions, and the extent to which principles of competitive neutrality would apply to those activities.
As should be clear to members, the practice of establishing entities in the form of territory-owned corporations or territory authorities is not something introduced to the ACT by this government, nor is it unique to the territory. Indeed, it is a widely accepted and utilised framework employed across all jurisdictions and reflects the highest principles of good governance, while allowing government services to be provided in the most cost-effective manner for the community. All governments in Australian jurisdictions have established companies or statutory authorities to facilitate significant government commercial functions.
The governance framework provides for a robust level of accountability and transparency. This is evident by the policies, procedures and reporting process adopted by our statutory authorities or TOCs. They are required to put in place policies and to report against these regularly through their board meetings. They cover, to name a few, legal risk and compliance, conflict of interest, audit committees, financial performance and delegations, staffing, marketing, and health and safety. The boards, or their chief executives, then regularly provide advice to the government, usually at least monthly.
Statutory authorities and TOCs are also required to undertake regular business planning. This takes the form of statements of intent or corporate intent and they are provided through their responsible minister or the Treasurer to the Assembly annually. In the case of TOCs, they are also required to notify their voting shareholders of significant events.
While members opposite are keen to talk about some of the negative experiences, I would like to remind the Assembly of the success we have also enjoyed. Notwithstanding the recent discussions on the cost escalations of some of the water security projects, it must be said that Actew is an example of why these structures are employed and how well they can work. Actew provides a range of essential services to the people of the ACT and the surrounding region, either directly or through its ventures with ActewAGL and TransACT.
We in the territory enjoy quality services, certainly in our supply of quality drinking water and ready access to electricity, natural gas and telecommunication services. Actew has successfully delivered the significant capital projects necessary to ensure the continuation of that security of supply and continues to plan and build for the future in a prudent and commercially sensitive manner.
Another strong example of delivery of important services through the statutory authority structure can be found in the Land Development Agency. The LDA has successfully delivered record numbers of blocks of land to the community across the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .