Page 1486 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
General is at this point premature while we are working through that information. We have a special general meeting with the ACTEW board on Monday, where we will raise concerns that we have had. We will also work through the information that ACTEW has given us. There is here, in this motion, reporting back to the Assembly on a whole range of matters, including the enlarged Cotter Dam and the information that comes from the special general meeting.
It is all very easy to throw stones and carry on without actually having a position yourself. The shareholders have done their job. We have done our job at every step of the way. In relation to the remuneration, as the opposition knows—and it is clearly on the public record—we sought information about the remuneration. We do not believe politicians should set the managing director of ACTEW’s salary. I do not believe it and I do not think Mr Hanson believes it. Maybe he does.
I do not know if you, Mr Seselja, think that politicians should sit and muck around with salaries. But we do not. We do not actually believe we should. We believe it is a function and responsibility of the board and that is quite common for companies that are covered by the Corporations Act. Indeed, when you look at a whole range of government-owned corporations, it is the board that sets the pay of the managing director.
This is what we believe, but, yes, we believe there is a concern around the level of that remuneration. There is a concern that the information that has been provided to the shareholders about that remuneration has not been correct in correspondence from the chair of the board and indeed in information provided to the Assembly through the annual reports process. We will meet with the board to let them know about that.
I am not going to accept that the relationship is dysfunctional, as members of the opposition would say. I am also not prepared not to raise concerns publicly when I have them. I am not just going to sit by and think, “Oh, well, I wouldn’t want anyone to criticise the relationship between the shareholders and the board.” If we have concerns as shareholders and I am asked questions about that then I will answer honestly. It is not going to just be a hand-in-hand relationship. And that is what you are seeing at the moment. There is disagreement between the shareholders and the board in relation to some of the material that we have been provided in relation to accountability and transparency of the board and we are addressing those matters appropriately.
The amendment put forward by the Treasurer is sensible. It keeps the Assembly informed at every step of the way; it keeps the Assembly updated at every step of the way. It acknowledges that the Auditor-General has already flagged a performance audit in relation to ACTEW and the ICRC in terms of the setting of water prices. I think this matter will be revisited—we accept that—but we also believe that there are a number of processes underway at the moment and the matter is being dealt with responsibly by the shareholders. We will continue to update the community and the Assembly as that work progresses, but we will not be supporting a referral to the Auditor-General at this stage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video