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

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the coalition on amendments (2) and (3). I am pleased that they have been separated from amendments (1) and (4), which I do not support, in regard to trying to deny a staff elected director onto the board. This issue of singling out those who are involved in the political process, whether as members of parliament or as political staffers, is unfair. I certainly do not covet a position with any ABC or SBS board. I do not think my arguments should be interpreted as attempts to have snouts in the trough. I can certainly see the reason why government is concerned about this issue of governments of the day appointing so-called mates.

However, I think that issue is addressed through a transparent, merit based process. That should weed out anyone who does not qualify on their own terms on their own CV for a directorship on either of those two boards. It is a transparent, merit based process that is the backbone of this legislation before the House today. To manipulate that process by denying any group of people, regardless of whether they are members of parliament—they might be farmers or they might be from a particular industry—and to distort that merit based process is lessening the opportunities that the ABC board and the SBS board have to be as strong as I would hope all members of this chamber would like.

I know the government is trying to send some sort of symbolic message, and I think you are doing that through, as I say, making it a transparent, merit based process. But I think that by denying a certain group of people—in this case it is members of parliament and senior staff—you are potentially doing damage to the future boards of both the ABC and SBS. As we all know, there are many people in this place, including staff, who have a whole range of skills. We are more than one-dimensional creatures, and some of those skills—post time in the political process—may be of value to this country in another form through one of those boards. If we are being truly transparent and all encompassing about our ABC and our SBS then all comers should be welcome.

As I said last night, my eight cents a day should be no more than anyone else in Australia’s eight cents a day but, importantly, it should be no less. I think that is what is happening with this legislation with regard to denying those who have been involved in the political process. It is lessening the value of our eight cents a day in the future ABC and SBS boards. I would like to think that all of us have an ownership of these two entities—the ABC and SBS organisations. We all have our one in 22 millionth of those two entities and that is, I hope, for those who are not involved in political processes as much as those who are.

It is unfortunate that the government has, for whatever reason, chosen to make this statement by using politicians and political staffers as some sort of blunt instrument to try and make a symbolic point. I do not think that in the future this will necessarily lead to a better ABC and a better SBS board. I think the term ‘overshot’ is the one that has been used previously. I would ask the government to reconsider; this is actually quite a sensible amendment in that it brings this into line with the previous codes of conduct about ministerial behaviour and an 18-month cooling off period, then game on. We all get on with our lives once we have left this place, whether as a staffer or as a member of parliament. We should not be denied opportunities in the future because we have been involved in the political process and, vice versa, the boards of the ABC and SBS should not be denied the opportunity to use the skills of anyone who has previously been involved in the political process.

I support the coalition amendments. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support these amendments. The government has a view that a prohibition on current and former members of Australian parliaments and senior political staff is about strengthening the independence of the process and ensuring the process is as far removed from political interference as possible. On that basis, the government will not be supporting these amendments.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Anthony Smith’s) be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (4):

(1)    Clause 2, page 2, table items 3 to 5, omit the table items.

(4)    Schedule 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 23 (line 22), omit the Schedule.

I will not speak in detail on these amendments. I have outlined the reasons that the coalition are opposed to a reinstatement of the ABC staff elected director.

Question put.