Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, you make a good point, of course. There never has been a net made through which a fish has not been able to swim. I recognise that point, and those who have been watching the British press recently will know that the Prime Minister in waiting, Mr Gordon Brown, is in fact making something of a case for further improvements to the method of appointments, given concern throughout the United Kingdom that it is still not what it should be. But the point is that the British did try to address it. They did create for Westminster a Commissioner for Public Appointments, which was independent. But, coming back to the real nub of the issue: whether you accept this amendment or not—and you choose not to—the next point you made was a really important one; that is, the onus on you in your capacity as Minister for Finance and Administration, or whoever succeeds you, and the Treasurer to ensure that your advisers carefully check the candidates for the board is a vital one.

It is very difficult in any walk of life—as anyone who has ever employed large numbers of people, as I have, would know—to be sure in every instance that those who claim a degree have that degree, that those who claim a particular background have that background or that people have not got an improper connection with tax havens, are not secret inside traders or are not people who have problems with the tax office. If the lessons of politics, life and business are ever to be noted, they are: to take care. The more important the appointment, the more care that must be taken. So although, Minister, you choose to reject this mechanism, which I think is an advance on our existing system, nevertheless I would urge you to check even those who on the face of it might be seen to be absolutely honourable, just to make doubly sure that they are, because of course it will come back and sting you if you do not.