Page 2688 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
entitlements. It is then totalled up—and, indeed, it has then got a comparison to the previous year. So it is obviously not hard to do it and it is clearly the practice that has been carried on in publicly listed companies. I see no reason why the consideration of a TOC is any different from the consideration of a listed entity. In fact, TOCs probably have a closer link with the community, in that, typically, they are involved in delivering public policy programs.
While ministers from the government of the day are the actual shareholders of these entities, they are performing this role as proxies for taxpayers. They represent us with respect to the performance of each TOC, and each TOC reports to the government of the day. The government of the day assesses the performance of each TOC and provides appropriate feedback to the community—and, of course, there is scrutiny of these processes by the Assembly, through the activities of the opposition and Assembly committees. Being a shareholder of a listed company is analogous to being a shareholder—that is, as a taxpayer—of a TOC, and there appears to be no reason why each group of shareholders should be treated differently.
In this day and age there is no security of tenure attached to being a director or a senior manager of a TOC, hence this is not an argument to suppress remuneration information. Directors and senior managers are appointed by the government of the day and they can be removed by the government of the day. I also note that the provision of remuneration information enables appropriate scrutiny of the actual amounts of remuneration and the relativities in remuneration. This is very important for evaluation of the performance of directors and executives, as well as for ensuring the accountability of each TOC to the government of the day—and to the community. I acknowledge the benefits of having transparency and accountability in the management of these entities through having these remuneration details available. The only substantial issue is the precise nature of the reporting that will be provided in the annual reports.
I do not want to see the spirit of this proposal defeated by reporting that is aggregated or otherwise suppresses remuneration details. I understand that guidelines will be promulgated by Treasury that will provide a template for the way in which remuneration details will be reported, along the lines of the approach already required for listed companies, and will set out short-term and long-term remuneration, including salaries, superannuation, motor vehicles and any other benefits. We, of course, look forward to receiving a copy of those guidelines as soon as they are available.
There are two further matters that I need to mention. First, through my staff, I raised with the Treasurer’s office the inclusion in this bill of two definitions of “senior manager”, which are almost identical. One is in proposed new section 18A(4) and the other is in section 22(5). I queried why a single definition could not have been put in the dictionary for the TOC act, being mindful of the ever increasing complexity of legislation. Nevertheless, I understand there is a sound reason for this approach. Apparently, it has to do with the audit committee being specific to Actew and, hence, a specific definition of senior manager is required in section 18. A definition with more general application is provided in section 2. I am still surprised that a single definition could not be included in the dictionary, but who am I to argue with the parliamentary counsel’s office?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video