Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

It is an answer. There are two members, two designated trade union representatives, on the Fair Pay Commission and the Award Review Taskforce Reference Group. As I said, if I spend a bit of time checking during the next couple of hours, I am sure I can come up with dozens more examples to disprove the absolute statement that was made by one of the opposition senators that we want to get rid of all trade union representation on government-appointed committees. It is just not true—and you should not say things in this place that are not true.

Senator Allison was quite right to say that there is an almost unlimited list of types of expertise that may be relevant, and she was quite right in identifying some of them, such as climate change. There could be occupational health safety and there could be air quality. I think that Senator McLucas and Senator Allison have pulled out quite good examples for consideration. That is precisely why all of these things have not been expressly listed in the bill: because they change over time, and from time to time different types of expertise may be required depending on the issue that is being considered.

That is why the legislation leaves open the number of places for people with appropriate expertise to be brought on, depending on the needs at the time. I would hope that would be acceptable as a reasonable proposition in this place, as it would if we went out into the wider marketplace amongst the people who elect us to this place. I think, with respect, that you would find it quite difficult to sell the argument that some flexibility is not a good thing in terms of leaving open positions to be filled by people with relevant expertise at a time when that relevant expertise is needed.

Going back to the size of the committee, a number of reviews have—as honourable senators opposite have—concluded that the current membership and the size of the membership is not conducive to the most effective operation of the committee. Those reviews included the ANAO review, the Grant review, the Wills review and, more recently, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee review. It is not as if this government have rushed in here. We did not get a rush of blood to the head and say: ‘Okay, we are going to cut down the size of the membership of the committee.’ It is because we think that, as, generally speaking, the principle is that smaller committees operate in a less unwieldy manner, it was a good thing. There have been some significant reviews of the way the committee operates. I have named three, and we have taken note of those recommendations.

Under the current legislation, the size of the council is 29 and it is drawn from 17 prescribed bodies following an eight-month consultation process. I do not think we need to apologise for wanting to streamline that process, which, as Senator Humphries and others—particularly at a Senate committee inquiry level—have stated, is unwieldy. Rather than prescribing the expertise for each and every position, as was the case in the past, the new legislation provides that certain people must be appointed. There is recognition that some people with relevant expertise must be appointed, such as the Chief Medical Officer for each state and territory. The bill, as we have all stated repeatedly, provides for six but no more than 11 members to be selected for expertise, either in one of the listed areas or in other appropriate areas of expertise.

The legislation also provides flexibility so that one member can be appointed for expertise in a number of different fields. That is also a very good innovation. You have acknowledged that.