Territory Stories

Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 17 May 1995



Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 17 May 1995

Other title

Parliamentary Record 10


Debates for 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES - Wednesday 17 May 1995 distinction between the body corporate that controls the fund and the fund itself. Currently, the definitions that are used in the act make it less easy to read than it needs to be. With those comments, I indicate our support for the bill and my earnest desire that the Attorney-General will take on board what I hope he will regard as my constructive comments in respect of the general operation of the legislation as it relates to the fidelity fund. Mr FINCH (Attorney-General): Mr Speaker, I certainly can give the member for MaeDonnell who, I understand, is the pseudo-spokesman on matters Attorney-General... Mr Bell: Sorry? Mr FINCH: You are not actually the spokesman for matters Attorney-General? Mr Bell: Yes. Mr FINCH: You are? Mr Bell: Yes. Mr FINCH: Has there been a reshuffle? Mr Bell: Yes. Mr FINCH: I thank the honourable spokesman for his constructive contribution on this most complex matter. I thank him also for reminding me that he has forgotten what I said in my second-reading speech in relation to both the general requirements for the minister to continue to approve the manner in which all moneys of the fidelity fund are invested, and the fact that any future proposals for further investment in real property would require case-by-case evaluation. The Investment Board makes the investment decisions. My understanding is that there is a requirement that they be endorsed by the minister as they go. This is really a one-off exercise in my view, although there may be other opportunities down the line that would warrant some type of approval for investment in real property. This is clearly one of those cases where those who contribute to the fund will be virtually the tenants of the property being considered for lease at what obviously is to be a commercial return to provide at least the same interest component and, therefore, the value of the fund will continue to maintain itself at least at the level that would be achieved in the open marketplace, so to speak. I heard some of the suggestions about other amendments that the honourable member thought were required in terms of definition etc. We will look at those but, as it stands at the moment, they do not detract from the intention of the bill. I thank the Registrar-General and his officers for what obviously has been a most convincing argument put forward in this case, and I thank him particularly for interrupting his dinner time for such a minor bill. Motion agreed to; bill read a second time. 3312