Page 5230 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
than four people, which previously was not clear with Mr Smyth’s amendment. Again, this just clarifies the situation and the Greens will be supporting this amendment.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Gaming and Racing) (4.46): Just on this matter, I do note the need for Mr Smyth’s amendment and/or the government’s one to pass here. As I have become acutely aware, there is a provision within the Financial Management Act that indicates that the chief executive officer of any of these territory-owned corporations is, indeed, a member of the board. It would appear that Mr Smyth’s office and my office found this out jointly in the discussions in relation to possible amendments to this bill.
It was, perhaps, news even to the chief executive officer of the EPIC board that he was not ex officio on the board but was, under the Financial Management Act, because of the intersection of the two pieces of legislation—just to make matters somewhat more complex—in fact, a member of the board. As has become notorious, that was why there was an additional member. It was the department’s understanding and the advice they provided to me in making the appointments back in June that the chief executive officer was an ex officio member, not a full member. Once it was established that the chief executive officer was, indeed, a full member of the board, that meant that the board had one more member than it should have had, and I immediately took action to correct that.
I do acknowledge that mistake. As I think I have said in the media, it was not a highlight of public administration. It will not go in anyone’s scrapbook, except maybe the shadow treasurer’s and the Greens’ spokesperson’s. On behalf of my department and me, I apologise to the Assembly for that error. I can certainly advise that it was not done maliciously and was, perhaps, a reflection of the complexity of two intersecting acts governing this particular board. I suppose it goes to further highlight the government’s position in relation to the need for a board at Exhibition Park at all. But, that matter having been determined by the Assembly this year, there is no value in reliving that at this point in time.
As the Treasurer indicated, particularly in relation to the EPIC board, it is worth noting the impact of this amendment in terms of the people who will have to be removed from the Exhibition Park board. I note previous comments from some in this debate about the value of having some people who happen to be public servants who bring a certain skill set. If Mr Smyth’s amendment is passed then at least one of those people will have to be removed from the new board. If the government’s amendment is supported then it would be possible for that skill set to be maintained and for there to be some continuity. That is the reason that the government believes its amendment is better and more sustainable for the EPIC board in its new structure.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clause 4A.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video