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

There are two things I wish to put. The first is a statement or request and the second is a question. Through you, Chair, I make a request to the shadow minister for communications and information technology. I believe that what Labor have announced and proposed as an improvement on the ABC appointment process is indeed an improvement, and I would be attracted to consider that if it was placed as a legislative amendment to the act. I would request, through the chair, for the shadow minister to put to his caucus the proposition that, the next time a bill is before us dealing with the ABC, Labor in fact put forward a legislative amendment to implement their proposal—with the caveat, of course, that we would always want to see the words. But on the basis of the principles Labor have outlined I would be inclined to argue to my party that we should be supportive of such an amendment. It would be very useful if the Senate was given the opportunity to consider an alternative model. That is just a request through the chair.

My question is to the minister. Minister, I think you stated explicitly rather than implicitly, because of the way in which the act is framed, that the Governor-General is the ultimate arbiter as to whether an appointment conforms with the act. You may be able to correct me because, of course, you would have dealings with him in council in a way I do not, but to my knowledge the deliberations of the Governor-General are not public. We have no way of knowing by what process the Governor-General would examine such appointments and whether they comply with the act. I would assume, given the act gives him a task to do, that the minister responsible would provide a brief and the Governor-General would examine that brief to see if it met the act.

My question is: how does he test that brief? How does he establish it? Does he just accept whatever the minister says at face value? If it is a process that the Governor-General does just accept at face value, to cross reference a remark: somebody once remarked that they had the Governor of the Reserve Bank in their pocket. I would hate to think that the Prime Minister or any minister would think they had the Governor-General in their pocket. If the Governor-General ever rejected a bill or an appointment then I would be satisfied that there was a public signal that he was not just complying with whatever the minister or the government wanted. Speaking personally, I think being the final arbiter of an appointment is an invidious position, frankly, for the Governor-General to be in. I think the process should be ironed out long before that occurs. Perhaps for the elucidation of the Senate, the minister might indicate the precise role of the Governor-General and how he carries it out with respect to the specific requirements of the act.