Senate debates

Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009; Australian Business Investment Partnership (Consequential Amendment) Bill 2009

In Committee

5:27 pm

Photo of Bob BrownBob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (5) to (8) on sheet 5757:

(5)    Clause 10, page 7 (line 9), omit “5”, substitute “6”.

(6)    Clause 10, page 7 (lines 10 to 12), omit paragraph (1)(c), substitute:

             (c)    a provision that each member of ABIP Limited (other than the Commonwealth) is to nominate one of the 6 directors and may remove the nominated director from office;

           (ca)    a provision that the Commonwealth is to nominate 2 of the 6 directors and may remove either or both of those nominated directors from office;

(7)    Clause 10, page 7 (line 13), omit “the director”, substitute “a director”.

(8)    Clause 10, page 7 (lines 20 to 26), omit paragraph (1)(f), substitute:

              (f)    a provision requiring enforcement resolutions to be passed by a majority that includes:

                   (i)    at least 75% of the votes cast by directors who were entitled to vote on the resolution and were not nominated by the Commonwealth; and

                  (ii)    the vote of the Chairperson of the Board of ABIP Limited;

These amendments are to improve the structure of the proposed board of the Australian Business Investment Partnership. Briefly, because the big four banks would each be putting in $500 million and the Commonwealth would be putting in $2 billion on behalf of the taxpayers, we want to see the board represent that input, such that the banks would have a representative on the board each and the Commonwealth would supply four representatives. We recognise that in the legislation, as it stands, each member of the board would have veto power, but we also recognise that when you are arguing cases—and the Commonwealth would presumably be arguing in the public interest, if it came to a dispute in the board—you are much more effective in doing that if you have colleagues with you. The Greens amendment simply improves the public representation on the board to a level that is commensurate with the amount of public money that is put at risk.

Comments

No comments