Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the coalition on amendments (2) and (3). I am pleased that they have been separated from amendments (1) and (4), which I do not support, in regard to trying to deny a staff elected director onto the board. This issue of singling out those who are involved in the political process, whether as members of parliament or as political staffers, is unfair. I certainly do not covet a position with any ABC or SBS board. I do not think my arguments should be interpreted as attempts to have snouts in the trough. I can certainly see the reason why government is concerned about this issue of governments of the day appointing so-called mates.

However, I think that issue is addressed through a transparent, merit based process. That should weed out anyone who does not qualify on their own terms on their own CV for a directorship on either of those two boards. It is a transparent, merit based process that is the backbone of this legislation before the House today. To manipulate that process by denying any group of people, regardless of whether they are members of parliament—they might be farmers or they might be from a particular industry—and to distort that merit based process is lessening the opportunities that the ABC board and the SBS board have to be as strong as I would hope all members of this chamber would like.

I know the government is trying to send some sort of symbolic message, and I think you are doing that through, as I say, making it a transparent, merit based process. But I think that by denying a certain group of people—in this case it is members of parliament and senior staff—you are potentially doing damage to the future boards of both the ABC and SBS. As we all know, there are many people in this place, including staff, who have a whole range of skills. We are more than one-dimensional creatures, and some of those skills—post time in the political process—may be of value to this country in another form through one of those boards. If we are being truly transparent and all encompassing about our ABC and our SBS then all comers should be welcome.

As I said last night, my eight cents a day should be no more than anyone else in Australia’s eight cents a day but, importantly, it should be no less. I think that is what is happening with this legislation with regard to denying those who have been involved in the political process. It is lessening the value of our eight cents a day in the future ABC and SBS boards. I would like to think that all of us have an ownership of these two entities—the ABC and SBS organisations. We all have our one in 22 millionth of those two entities and that is, I hope, for those who are not involved in political processes as much as those who are.

It is unfortunate that the government has, for whatever reason, chosen to make this statement by using politicians and political staffers as some sort of blunt instrument to try and make a symbolic point. I do not think that in the future this will necessarily lead to a better ABC and a better SBS board. I think the term ‘overshot’ is the one that has been used previously. I would ask the government to reconsider; this is actually quite a sensible amendment in that it brings this into line with the previous codes of conduct about ministerial behaviour and an 18-month cooling off period, then game on. We all get on with our lives once we have left this place, whether as a staffer or as a member of parliament. We should not be denied opportunities in the future because we have been involved in the political process and, vice versa, the boards of the ABC and SBS should not be denied the opportunity to use the skills of anyone who has previously been involved in the political process.

I support the coalition amendments. (Time expired)

See this speech in context