Page 1435 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 11 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The precise wording for giving effect to this intention has been adopted to also reflect that Loan Council resolutions are not mere recommendations but represent firm commitments by Ministers under agreed arrangements. Madam Speaker, I said yesterday that I thought the drafting was extremely difficult, and I certainly would not commend that kind of drafting. It is not the kind of drafting that is typically in Bills produced in this Territory.
The other question that Mr Kaine asked was with reference to the final phrases of subclause 4(9). This enables the Loan Council to exempt a public sector entity from Loan Council resolutions. Public sector entities that meet strict commerciality criteria - including, for example, part ownership by the private sector - have been exempted from previous global limit controls. That subclause is intended to pick up that spirit again.
Mr Stevenson raised the issue of the apparent contradiction of the new agreement abolishing the prohibition on States borrowing in their own name, given that the ACT is already able to borrow in its own name. We would say to Mr Stevenson, were he here, that the ACT is not a party to the current agreement. This prohibition, therefore, does not apply to the ACT. The Northern Territory, of course, is in the same position. Madam Speaker, the Commonwealth and the States have recognised that the prohibition incorporated in the current agreement is anachronistic. Most States have, in fact, borrowed in the name of State authorities, including central financing authorities, such as the New South Wales Treasury Corporation. The new agreement removes the need for States to borrow through such separate authorities and confirms that all States and Territories are responsible for their own debts. I think I have covered most of the issues that were raised in the in-principle debate, Madam Speaker. I hope that that clarifies some of the trickier issues for members. I again commend the Bill to the Assembly.
MR KAINE: Madam Speaker, I know that it is unusual, but I did raise the question about what subclause 4(9) of the agreement meant, and I am still not certain. I seek leave of the Assembly to seek further clarification from the Chief Minister as to her explanation, because I am still not clear.
Leave granted.
MR KAINE: Madam Speaker, I believe that it is in the interests of the members of the Assembly to know exactly what we are endorsing here. Chief Minister, setting aside the qualification at the end of that subclause, which you have explained - the exceptions - and setting aside the reference to that subclause in the early agreement, which I now understand, you said that the resolutions are not legally binding nor are they mere recommendations. That still does not clarify for me how a resolution of the Loan Council affects the ACT and what the ramifications for us are if the Loan Council makes a resolution. That is really the only outstanding matter in my mind. If they are neither legally binding nor mere recommendations, then what is their force and what are the ramifications for us?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .