Derek McDowell (Labour)

I accept the clarification by Senator O'Toole. It is sensible. I am not sure that, on the face of it, the Bill is clear in this area. Section 24 requires that there should be a public interest element in it. It also says that on its own initiative or following a complaint from just about anybody, the supervisory authority can undertake an investigation into the work of a member of an accountancy body. I accept it is not intended this should happen regularly, and that there is a requirement of public interest, but the public interest is not defined, and it is left up to the authority to decide if there is a public interest or not. In those circumstances, the distinction between section 23 and section 24 is not as clear-cut as it might be.

Senator O'Toole said the authority was not an appeals body. I accept it is not intended to be such, but in effect it is being given the paraphernalia of powers to act as an appeals body if it wishes to do so. There is a danger of which we must all be conscious, that by setting out those powers, people are encouraged to use them. People will be encouraged to use the authority as an appeals mechanism to decide issues on the facts or merits rather than on the basis of due process, which is clearly what is intended. I am not sure that those two critical sections are sufficiently tightly drawn to ensure that the distinction remains real. We are discussing this issue in the context of the funding mechanism. I am not sure that the funding mechanism should be defined in such a blunt fashion, allowing for the reserve fund to be used only in relation to section 24, and not section 23.