Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate that the minister is only here in a representative capacity. Obviously in this context being a representative is fine—he is representing the minister in the other chamber—but I would like him to provide the Senate with a little bit more detail for the record, and perhaps to inform slightly better the debate on the second amendment, which I will be presenting shortly. My understanding, from the material provided to the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, was that the invitation to the 21 Indigenous organisations was the standard letter telling them that the review was starting. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the Senate whether there was any specific consultation with those groups or any other groups about the particular issue of Indigenous representation on the authority, and whether this was even flagged with any of them as a possible outcome of the review.

The minister mentioned meeting with the board—the authority itself—in its current capacity, including the current Indigenous representative. My understanding was that the authority’s own submission to the review supported retaining the Indigenous representative. I wonder whether the minister could clarify that. Obviously the government does not have to acquiesce to that but, given that the review met with the board, and it is being raised as a relevant matter in the context of this amendment and the subsequent amendment, it would be useful to have an indication of whether the board or the authority had a position on this one way or the other. I will not labour the point but it seems to me that one of the issues here is that this has happened almost as an aside. I would like to know whether or not the issue was flagged and debated, and what feedback came from the board or anybody else about this specific issue of Indigenous representation.

I am sure this is not the government’s intent but, as the minister himself says, this change is meant to improve governance and transparency—and there was one other word, which I cannot remember—so I do not think it is a terribly helpful thing to say that removing Indigenous representation from an authority is going to improve governance, or transparency for that matter. It seems as if a narrow bureaucratic principle is being applied without consideration to the wider and deeper issues. In any case, I would appreciate it if the minister was able to provide any little bit of that extra information to the Senate, for the record, and to slightly better inform my position, which I will speak to shortly in the debate on the second amendment.