Page 3324 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
undertaken by the Gambling and Racing Commission. Influential persons are defined in the act to include an executive officer of the corporation, a related corporation and executive officer of a related corporation, or an influential owner, who is further defined to mean a person that can control five per cent of the votes at an annual general meeting or can control the appointment of directors of the corporation.
In addition, it is a requirement of the act that a club’s management committee or board must have complete control over the club’s business or operations or any significant aspect of the club’s business or operations. This requirement relates to the way a club makes management decisions about its activities, and it deals with the question of who makes the decision and, therefore, who is in control. In interpreting the application of this requirement under the act—section 14(1)(h)—consideration must be given to the normal business practice that a board or management committee may seek or receive advice from a range of persons who may offer differing opinions or views about a subject matter under consideration by the board, for example, seeking members’ views or obtaining expert legal or financial opinion.
Any corporate board is the subject of suggestions or lobbying on a regular basis, irrespective of whether the opinions they provided have been sought or are welcome. Some opinions or views are accepted, some are not. This is a matter of judgement for the relevant board. Equally, just because someone provides an opinion to a board does not necessarily mean that they have control over a business.
In relation to Mr Seselja’s claim for investigation, I think I am the only person in this place, as a representative of the government, that has forwarded the information that has been aired publicly. Mr Seselja seems to have a fairly good dossier of all of that, and I notice that he has done nothing with it other than to pontificate. I forwarded the letter that I was copied in from the chair of the board of directors of the Canberra Labor club—I first saw a copy of it on Monday—to the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, and I have asked them to review the concerns raised in the letter.
In relation to Mr Seselja’s comments that the commission is unable to do its job properly, I take offence at that.
Mr Seselja: I did not say that.
MS GALLAGHER: The commission is an independent regulator. You did say that. You said that it was unable to investigate—
Mr Seselja: I said the CEO is not independent of you, and that’s true.
MS GALLAGHER: No, you said the commission was unable to investigate this because—
Mr Seselja: Can you sack the CEO? Can you sack the CEO? You could sack him tomorrow.
MS GALLAGHER: Right. I take up Mr Seselja’s point that I potentially could sack a CEO on whatever grounds. Then what, Mr Seselja? Another CEO is appointed and then I sack him, and then another CEO is appointment and then I sack him? What a joke!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .