Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

I guess I could argue for exactly the same reasons as the minister has just espoused that those are good reasons to include these amendments in the bill. If both sides are basically happy that this is the sort of process that should be followed, I see no real impediment to including these proposals in the bill. For instance, it was never our intention that the only people who could put forward nominations for AFMA commissioners would be those who had met the favour of industry representatives. The use of the term ‘fishing industry representatives’ is also broad and would clearly embrace the recreational fishers, who I think also need to be seen legitimately as industry. It was always understood that the commissioner should bring to the new governance arrangements a mix of skills and experience. Just being a good fisherman does not necessarily mean that you are a good manager or a commissioner for AFMA. I would expect that the make-up of the new commission would include a broad representation from people with skills that are necessary to effectively govern an organisation of this nature.

I note the minister’s desire for some flexibility in relation to the appointment of a chair and a CEO. I also acknowledge that legislation establishing commissions is often drafted in a way that the one person fills two positions. However, that is not the wish of the industry in this instance. The minister has acknowledged that the industry feels quite strongly about this issue, and I would hope he would give that due weight in assessing not just the merits of the various candidates and their wishes but also what is important for the confidence that the industry needs to have in this body. I am somewhat assured by his statements in response to our amendments, and I can assure him that if in fact an alternative route is taken in the future and the one person is appointed to both positions the industry will be reminded of his comments of today and he will therefore have to have a satisfactory explanation for them.

Frankly, I cannot see any reason why the government should not accept these amendments, because it seems that we are one in spirit. If the government does not choose to follow that route, the second best option is the assurances that the minister at the table has given us, and I know that he is giving those assurances in good faith. If perchance I have or someone from this side has the opportunity to succeed him in his role at some stage in the future, I can assure the industry that the coalition has a similar view—that the CEO and the chairman should be different people and that the industry should be effectively consulted as part of the process of appointing the new commissioners.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context