Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I am sure you would. As I say, I have difficulty lifting the bill let alone dealing with it. I appreciate the minister made some remarks about the registrar reviewing the implementation of the act. That will be helpful. I also flag, though, as we did in the second reading amendment, that we want to ensure there is monitoring of the implementation. While I take what the minister said in good faith, we will be keen to make sure the monitoring is sufficient and also that there is some sort of independent assessment of that. If we are not satisfied with the level of monitoring, the opposition may well seek to pursue that at estimates or by a review of the bill by the Senate committee after some period of time. As I said, there is no motive other than to be assured that what we think we are doing today happens and to be very clear about the experience of those Aboriginal corporations with the new act, because it is designed to assist them and we do not want to find out too late if there are problems with that. I formally move amendment (1) on sheet 5096:

(1)    Clause 246-25, page 195 (line 20), omit “2 years”, substitute “3 years”.

This is an amendment which seeks to extend the limit on the maximum term of appointment for directors from two to three years. There is no limit on the maximum term of appointment for directors in mainstream Corporations Law and, while it may be appropriate to encourage shorter terms to enhanced accountability, it is also important to encourage stability in corporate governance. Labor considers that three years would be a more reasonable limit to provide that stability. The point was made by, I think, the North Queensland Land Council in its comprehensive submission to the Senate inquiry.

The parliamentary amendments have made it possible for corporations to seek an exemption from this limit, so we are allowing exemption, but we are insisting on a two-year limit. Labor supports the option for exemption but thinks it would still be preferable for the limit to be increased so there are fewer organisations having to undergo an unnecessary exemption process. It may not seem a huge issue, but it is one of those issues that we thought was worth pursuing. One of the problems in these corporations is the issue of stability and corporate knowledge. We ought to be doing everything we can to build on that and not limit it.