Page 5219 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The second purpose of the bill is to avoid blatant board stacking and, in this case, an attempt to ignore the will of the Assembly. That is what we saw from Mr Barr on this issue. That is why we saw his head down as he was delivering that. He would not say whether he was actually going to vote for it. We look forward to seeing whether Andrew Barr will vote for this legislation; whether he actually, now, sees the merit of it; whether he actually sees the importance of it. The Treasurer has clearly said that the government have no problem with this legislation, so we look forward to it being passed unanimously today.
The bill arose from an attempt by Andrew Barr to summarily dismiss a sitting independent board and take control completely by placing it under TAMS, and of course Mr Barr lost the vote on the Assembly floor. Mr Barr then sacked the independent chair and deputy chair and installed TAMS appointees: in effect a direct contradiction of the will of the Assembly. The Assembly had to act to protect the independence of boards from hostile takeovers or Andrew Barr’s management bias.
Mr Rattenbury referred in his contribution to the saga that this has been. It is worth just reviewing how we have got to this position. Mr Barr introduced the Exhibition Park Corporation Repeal Bill 2009 on 26 March of this year, seeking to remove the board and bring the operation under Territory Venues and Events. The intent, according to the presentation speech, was “to transfer the roles and responsibilities of the corporation to the Department of Territory and Municipal Services”. It also noted that there would be cost savings of $50, 000—the cost of the board members sacked. The bill was voted down on 5 May 2009, with the Assembly noting:
What this would mean is that EPIC would move from being managed by a board that has a good combination of commercial, strategic and event expertise to being a facility that is managed by people who have no particular commercial imperative, who may not have any expertise in the nature of events that are suitable for EPIC and who may have no strategic planning experience whatsoever.
That was from the Canberra Liberals on this debate. We heard from the Greens:
We have formed the view that there is real value in retaining a board with a range of community input and experience.
By July 2009 the minister had sacked key board members and appointed TAMS officials. He was thumbing his nose at the Assembly. That is how we entered onto this path. For all of the bluster from Mr Barr in his speech, that is a large part of how we have actually got to be where we are today. It is because this minister ignored the will of the Assembly. It was clearly expressed by a majority of members of this place what they wanted, that they wanted an independent board. Andrew Barr, when he did not get his way in the Assembly, decided he would do it his own way; that he would go around the Assembly.
And we saw him caught out on 2 July 2009 on radio. Mr Barr denied the sackings but was caught out. We had Ross Solly putting the question to him: “You told the two outgoing members, including EPIC board chairman, Brian Acworth, not to bother
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video