Page 3882 - Week 10 - Thursday, 28 August 2008

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.54), in reply: I really appreciate the effort that the government has gone to to find advice that maintains the perspective that we have had put to us all the way along. I am also glad that Ms Gallagher did not resort to the language that Mr Stanhope used when he stood up last time.

I still stand by this report. It was done very carefully. We heard a lot of evidence. We looked at many minutes of the board. We spoke to the Chief Minister. We did everything that we could to try and shine a light on it. Of course, we did not have access to the inside thinking; we did not know the exact communications that passed between the shareholders and the board. But there was dysfunctionality in those relationships, I believe. We had a chief executive officer who was obviously getting away with mayhem. She certainly was not being well supervised; she had a board that did not ask the appropriate questions of her. The board was appointed by the shareholders. It is as simple as that.

I believe that there have been lessons learned. Even in the advice in Ms Gallagher’s speech, I think I could detect that, while it will never be admitted, there have been lessons learned. That is the point of it, isn’t it? I am glad that the legal advice has been tabled. I would have asked for that had it not been.

I just reiterate that the legislation is fairly clear. The committee had access to that legislation. It is legislation which governs territory-owned corporations. Perhaps the issue is that Rhodium should never have been a territory-owned corporation in the first place, but it was. I know that there were difficulties about exactly what to do with it and what form to squeeze TotalCare into. Perhaps that was the only option at the time.

Nonetheless the report is out there now. I am sure that in the fullness of time the government will prepare a response to the report and that the lessons will be learned. And the lessons need to be learned, because the territory-owned corporations Actew and ACTTAB are also affected by the legislation. However, I do think that there are different mechanisms at work there, because Actew and ACTTAB are very different beasts from Rhodium.

I am pleased to conclude this debate. I thank all members for their contribution to it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Administration and Procedure–Standing Committee


Debate resumed from 6 December 2007, on motion by Mr Smyth:

That standing order 156 be referred to the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure for inquiry and report, with specific reference to whether Members who receive benefits from poker machine revenue should be able to participate in debate on matters pertaining to gambling and associated subjects.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .