Page 2690 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
6 May 2010, the minister, in responding to recommendation 25 of the Report on annual and financial reports 2008-2009 by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, indicated:
… Actew and ACTTAB have both indicated that they are receptive to changing the prevailing reporting requirements in order to provide added disclosure of executive remuneration.
And she gave her general support for the idea. I thank her for fulfilling the commitment she made on the day to bring legislation to the Assembly and for doing so in a manner that provides for disclosure this financial year.
During that statement, Ms Gallagher also made the point that, apart from the Water Corporation of Western Australia, which has the same requirements as are proposed in the bill before the Assembly today, virtually all other government businesses across Australia report on the same basis that is currently the case for ACT territory-owned corporations. I have no reason to doubt that this is the case.
This, of course, means that we are making a very positive step forward, which hopefully paves the way for other jurisdictions to improve what we view as a significant shortcoming in disclosure.
As Ms Gallagher pointed out on that day, it is an anomaly that government businesses are not obliged to provide the same level of disclosure as publicly listed companies. Given these companies are owned by the community and run for the community’s benefit and in that sense are more public than public companies, it does indeed make eminently logical sense that this information be disclosed to the community.
Further, we agree with the general premise that government businesses are expected to operate on a similar basis to their private sector counterparts. However, I do note that there are a number of points where differences are appropriate. Today’s debate is not the time for such a discussion, but I think it should be a factor in our minds.
The Greens certainly agree that the expenditure of public money should, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, be publicly disclosed and that it is in the public interest to do so. Given that publicly listed companies are required to report on the same basis and these individuals are paid with public money, it is very difficult to mount an argument against it.
The community—as the shareholders, effectively represented by the Chief Minister and Treasurer—has the right to know, just as all shareholders in publicly listed companies have the right to know, what remuneration is being paid to those who run them.
The Corporations Act 2001 requires the equivalent disclosure to what is being provided for in the bill. As I said earlier, the issue of the disclosure of executive salaries was heavily debated throughout the 90s and there is much literature which comprehensively describes and assesses the associated benefits of compelling disclosure. I will just very briefly draw the Assembly’s attention to two articles which very neatly put the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video