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

I move Democrat amendment (1) on sheet 5324 revised:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:

1A  After section 6AA

Insert:

6AB  Procedures for merit selection of appointments under this Act

        (1)    The Minister must by writing establish a code of practice for selecting a person to be appointed by the Commonwealth or a Minister to a position under this Act that sets out general principles on which the selections are made, including but not limited to:

             (a)    merit; and

             (b)    independent scrutiny of appointments; and

             (c)    probity; and

             (d)    openness and transparency.

        (2)    As soon as practicable after establishing a code of practice under subsection (1), the Minister must publish the code in the Gazette.

        (3)    The Minister must conduct a review of the operation of the code of practice established in subsection (1) not later than the fifth anniversary after the code has been established.

        (4)    The Minister must invite public comment on the code when a review is conducted in accordance with subsection (3).

        (5)    A code of practice established under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

In moving that amendment, I will begin with a general remark. It is my view that this election is going to be contested on four broad fronts covering the issues of the economy, society, the environment and integrity. This particular measure is an integrity measure.

It interested me that, as soon as Mr Brown took over from Mr Blair as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, almost the very first thing he did was to move a very substantial set of proposals for improving integrity in the United Kingdom political system. If there is one issue on which the Howard government is roundly and commonly condemned, in my experience, throughout the population, it is failure to advance integrity in our political system. That applies whether you are talking about failure to improve freedom of information legislation or whistleblower legislation, or failure to properly control and manage government advertising programs, and, of course, it applies to the issue which I raise here, of appointments on merit.

Appointments on merit are a fundamental integrity issue, and now, as we reach the eleventh and a half year of coalition governmental milestone, I remind the Senate that about three dozen times the coalition has rejected appointment on merit proposals from the Australian Democrats. Labor, too, have rejected quite a number of those, but they have also supported a number of those, because they and we recognise that the issue of avoiding patronage and ensuring independent appointments is a vital and critical one, even if it is just a perception of patronage or a lack of independence. That is not, of course, to condemn or to imply that all appointments made by the Howard government have been poor—they have not. There have been some excellent appointments of some very excellent people. But it is the principle that needs to be laid down. Essentially, the principles that we consistently put before this chamber are built on Lord Nolan’s examination, in 1995, of the issue of appointments and patronage in the United Kingdom and on his proposals that were agreed to by the conservative government of John Major, then carried through and supported by the Blair government and now to be further enhanced and improved by the Brown government.

We are trying to build on best practice that is emerging in democratic countries with which we have common traditions. It is simply a safeguard that in future governments, under future ministers, the procedures for merit selection appointments will always be conducted to the highest level. Of course, it is not just a federal issue; it is also a state issue, but we are dealing here with federal legislation.

The basic structure of this amendment has been put before us some three dozen times. I am certain the Howard government will reject it. I think that just contributes to its generally low reputation on integrity matters, but that is its lookout, not mine. It is my job simply to try to keep putting forward proposals such as these, which are designed to address an area of concern amongst voters—that is, appointments might not always be made on merit and might be made with regard to other circumstances, such as patronage or political considerations. This amendment calls for the general principles on which the selections are made to be established by a code of practice, including that the selection of the person shall be on merit and shall cover independent scrutiny of appointments, probity, openness and transparency. It is hardly the sort of amendment which is unbearably restrictive or impractical.