Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—On behalf of the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lyn Allison, I move Democrats amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 4843 revised:

(1)    Clause 14, page 6 (line 5), at the end of subclause (1), add “in accordance with the merit selection process required by subsections (3) to (7)”.

(2)    Clause 14, page 6 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:

        (3)    The Minister must by writing determine a code of practice for selecting and appointing the Chief Executive Officer and any acting Chief Executive Officer which sets out general principles on which selection and appointment is to be made, including but not limited to:

             (a)    merit;

             (b)    independent scrutiny of appointments;

             (c)    probity;

             (d)    openness and transparency.

        (4)    After determining a code of practice under subsection (3), the Minister must publish the code in the Gazette.

        (5)    Not later than every fifth anniversary after a code of practice has been determined, the Minister must review the code.

        (6)    In reviewing a code of practice, the Minister must invite the public to comment on the code.

        (7)    A code of practice determined under subsection (3) is a legislative instrument.

(3)    Clause 25, page 9 (line 10), after “members”, insert “one of whom is a person who has had or currently has cancer”.

(4)    Clause 27, page 10 (line 6), at the end of subclause (1), add “in accordance with the merit selection process required by subsections (3) to (7)”.

(5)    Clause 27, page 10 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:

        (3)    The Minister must by writing determine a code of practice for selecting and appointing the Advisory Council members (including the Chair) which sets out general principles on which selection and appointment is to be made, including but not limited to:

             (a)    merit;

             (b)    independent scrutiny of appointments;

             (c)    probity;

             (d)    openness and transparency.

        (4)    After determining a code of practice under subsection (3), the Minister must publish the code in the Gazette.

        (5)    Not later than every fifth anniversary after a code of practice has been determined, the Minister must review the code.

        (6)    In reviewing a code of practice, the Minister must invite the public to comment on the code.

        (7)    A code of practice determined under subsection (3) is a legislative instrument.

I imagine senators would be familiar with these amendments. It is not surprising that the Democrats would move them. They relate to the issue of appointment on merit. I draw the committee’s attention to amendment (3), which actually specifies in relation to representation on the advisory council that one member should be a person who has had or currently has cancer. I will not speak to the rest of the amendments. Some you will be familiar with. Let’s face it, I am the stand-in tonight.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that Labor will be supporting these amendments and particularly draw attention to (3). Labor supports that amendment implicitly. We have had some involvement in getting the words to reflect the views of community members who gave evidence, I think, to the committee of inquiry that Senator Moore spoke of this evening. We strongly support these amendments, particularly amendment (3), and I certainly hope the government will be adopting that amendment in particular.

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

The government will not be supporting the amendments. I would like to state briefly the reasons for that. In terms of the selection of the CEO and the advisory council, I can inform all honourable senators, including those who have just spoken, that the Australian government is committed to ensuring that the chief executive officer and membership of the advisory council of Cancer Australia are of the highest possible standing and calibre. We regard these amendments as unnecessary, particularly in relation to appointments, which we undertake on the basis of merit.

In terms of the specific references to consumer representation on the advisory council, I acknowledge it is a genuine concern of the senators who have spoken or who may not even have spoken. In regard to the proposed amendment that the Cancer Australia advisory council include consumer representation, I am able to advise the Senate that the Hon. Jocelyn Newman has already been appointed to the council. She is a cancer survivor and is a board member of both the National Breast Cancer Foundation and the Breast Cancer Network Australia. On this basis, the proposed amendment is not supported.

Question negatived.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I and on behalf of Senator Allison move a final amendment, amendment (1) on page 4863:

(1)    Clause 37, page 14, (line13), at the end of subclause (1), add “, including a summary description of any advice or reports provided by the Advisory Council to the Chief Executive Officer”.

The amendment relates to making the advice by the advisory council public. No doubt this has been moved by the Australian Democrats in the interests of transparency and accountability. I understand it has some support. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be supporting the amendment.

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

The government side of the Senate is not aware of the amendment. I have not sighted it and the advisers also indicate that they are not aware of it. I do not know where we go to from here on that basis.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could help, I understand that the amendment was circulated on 28 March at 9.47 pm.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment was circulated on 28 March at 9.47 pm. I am sorry that the government has not seen that amendment. I say in the absence of my leader that it looks like a jolly good amendment to me. The fact that it has the Labor Party’s support speaks volumes too. You know how big we are on accountability in this place, and I think that is just more of it. I commend it to Senator Santoro. Imagine what we are going to be like in about three hours time, people.

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

On behalf of whoever I need to apologise for, I do so and say that the government has not had sufficient time to consider this amendment. On that basis I recommend that we do not accept it. But I give you the assurance, Senator Stott Despoja, that upon further consideration over the next couple of days, or certainly before we come back, I will discuss it directly with the minister and his senior advisers. If we have to come back for an amendment to reflect what you put before the Senate, I undertake to do that, and I or the minister will get back to you personally in relation to this matter.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.