Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (2) and (3):

(2)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (lines 8 to 15), omit subsection (5A), substitute:

     (5A)    The following persons are not eligible for appointment as a Director referred to in paragraph (1)(b) or (c):

             (a)    a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, or a former member where it has been less than 18 months since the person left office;

             (b)    a member of the Parliament of a State, of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory or of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, or a former member where it has been less than 18 months since the person left office;

             (c)    a person who is a senior political staff member, or a former senior political staff member where it has been less than 18 months since the person left the position.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 24, page 16 (lines 1 to 10), omit subsection (2A), substitute:

     (5A)    The following persons are not eligible for appointment as a non-executive Director referred to in paragraph 8(aa) or (b):

             (a)    a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, or a former member where it has been less than 18 months since the person left office;

             (b)    a member of the Parliament of a State, of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory or of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, or a former member where it has been less than 18 months since the person left office;

             (c)    a person who is a senior political staff member, or a former senior political staff member where it has been less than 18 months since the person left the position.

Opposition amendments (2) and (3) deal with the proposition in this bill with respect to former members of parliament and former senior staff being ineligible to be considered as directors of the ABC by the new merit process. As I said earlier in the debate, this is a short-sighted and hypocritical move. It was best summed up, by accident, by the speaker prior to the minister, the member for Makin, who said—and I think I have quoted him accurately from trying to read my untidy handwriting—‘It was wrong that anyone who had worked in politics in one form or another should be on the board.’ I have news for the member for Makin. This bill allows a lot of people who have worked in politics in one form or another to be considered for the board: any non-senior member of staff and any member of a political party—anyone who has not been a member of parliament or a senior staff member. That is the great, gigantic hole in this proposal for those opposite.

In conjuring up this cheap stunt the examples they have used are of people involved in the political process who have been previously appointed, who were not members of parliament and who were not former senior staff. The point we make is: former members of parliament down the track should at least be able to be considered. If they do not stack up, and if you believe in merit, the merit process will deal with that. Someone like—and I will not choose an example from my side of politics—Bob Carr, a former Premier of New South Wales who has had experience in many areas, cannot be considered down the track by a merit process, but a former federal or state secretary or director who has not been elected to a parliament anywhere or has not been a former senior staff member can be considered.

The opposition has put forward a sensible amendment with respect to both the ABC board and the SBS board that after 18 months those people should be able to be considered. We think this is sensible. The 18-month principle is a principle the government have adopted in their own ministerial code of conduct. We say: have a cooling-off period and then at least allow those people to be considered.

The other point we make is that this approach—like so many things of the current government, designed in an instant for a headline—is completely at odds with the Prime Minister’s approach on many other appointments. The Prime Minister has stood in this House and talked about former members of parliament and former ministers—indeed, former ministers from the previous government—being appointed by this government because on merit they ought to be able to serve in those jobs. What is the Prime Minister saying? Is he saying that, if someone has been a member of parliament, they are inherently biased but it does not matter in a diplomatic appointment and does not matter in any other area? But someone who has, in the words of the member for Makin, ‘worked in the political process in one form or another’ is not eligible. There are a lot of people who are still eligible in that category.

The opposition think that this is something the government, in the cool light of day, should reconsider. They have a chance to do so now. On this side of the House I fully expect they will not, but I would ask them to reflect on that in the period of time between this House dealing with this bill and the other place considering it in the coming weeks.

See this speech in context