Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the amendment moved by the minister—the member for Fowler! One day hopefully minister! There's a really subtle but important point that is being lost within this debate. Earlier today we saw the opposition move an amendment to try and ensure there would be someone who had significant regional and rural experience appointed to work with this board. We now have a member who is standing and asking respectfully that there be a requirement that somebody from a culturally and linguistically diverse background also be considered for appointment to this board. I've heard the minister now respond that she's confident that the contents of the legislation are such that they will bring about this diversity.

What I would like to reflect back to the government of the day is that one of my understandings is that you are most proud of the fact that over 50 per cent of those who now sit in parliament for you are women. What I would like to point out to your party is that that, in large part, was brought about because of the quotas you set for yourselves and the commitment you made to ensure that that diversity was mandated in the way that your party structure moved forward. To go from that position to now adopting the opposite, which is: 'She'll be right. We don't need quotas or directions, because merit will get the right people there,' is to actually step away from what you have led so well on in the case of female representation. Respectfully, I would ask the minister to reconsider the amendment that is being offered by the member for Fowler. I think she is quite rightly arguing now for the next frontier of true representation for diverse communities when it comes to how legislation is developed.

See this speech in context