Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the opposition amendment:

(1) Clause 12

Insert

12(1)a.  The Minister to seek recommendations for the appointment of commissioners from fishing industry representatives.

Insert

12(2)     amend to read: The CEO may not be appointed as the chairperson and must not otherwise hold office as a part time commissioner.

The opposition support the bill, as I indicated in my opening remarks in my speech in the second reading debate, but we believe that there are a couple of improvements that can be made. The improvements that we are proposing come to us as a result of consultation with the industry. The amendments have the support of industry and we believe that they will make AFMA work better.

The opposition share the concerns of the industry that the commissioner and the organisational component of AFMA must separate the policy setting and service delivery roles. They are important functions that AFMA has. There is also a need for there to be a separation in the way in which those roles are delivered. That is why the opposition are moving the amendment to legislate that the CEO be not eligible to also be appointed as a commissioner. We believe that the office of CEO is a service delivery and administrative role and therefore the occupant of that position should not also be a commissioner.

AFMA manages Commonwealth fisheries and is largely funded by the fishing industry. It is therefore fair that the industry should have the opportunity to make recommendations for the commissioner positions. It is appropriate that the industry should be able to identify candidates for the role and that the minister should have an obligation to seek nominations from the industry for these positions. Our proposed amendment does not require that the minister accept those recommendations, but there should at least be a formal process in place which ensures that the minister will seek advice from the industry about appropriate people for that role. Our amendment seeks to mandate a consultative process with the industry in the appointment of AFMA commissioners.

Industry support and involvement in AFMA policy development is vital to ensuring that AFMA continues to deliver the services the industry needs while protecting Australian Commonwealth fisheries. I think, therefore, that it is absolutely essential that the industry feels as though it has a direct role in the appointment of commissioners and the way in which this industry body functions.

I was somewhat concerned by a comment made by the member for Lyons, who has now left the chamber. It may have been a slip of the tongue but, as I heard it, he said that the CEO would be the chairman of the commission. That was not my understanding of the government’s intention and, therefore, the minister might care to clarify precisely whether the legislation just makes it an option or whether it is actually the intention of the government that one person would fill the two roles. I would be very concerned if in fact the comments of the member for Lyons were a reflection of what the intent is.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the two amendments, I will first deal with the issue of the separation of the CEO and the chair, which has just been raised by the Leader of the Nationals. The standard model for commissions is that the same person be appointed as both chair and CEO. However, this legislation provides flexibility to best suit the requirements of AFMA. I do not recall whether the comments by the member for Lyons were made in the precise fashion to which the Leader of the Nationals has referred, but I can assure him that my intention as minister, and the intention of the provision in the legislation, is to have flexibility as to whether the positions are separated or combined based on making sure we get the best people in the jobs. The minister will be able to appoint the same person as both chair of the commission and CEO but will also be able to make separate appointments. Either option is possible under the flexibility in this bill.

AFMA is a small agency with a high profile and broad responsibilities. It may sometimes prove difficult to attract the best individual qualified to oversee the full range of AFMA’s fisheries management, regulatory, domestic and foreign compliance functions. For this reason I consider that there should be flexibility in combining the chair and CEO roles in order to attract the best people to those positions. As a matter of policy, if appropriate candidates can be found I would prefer to have the positions filled by two separate people. But I want to have the flexibility to make sure that merit is the prime concern. For that reason the government will be opposing the amendment and supporting the bill in its original form. We are also opposing the amendment with respect to the involvement of industry in the appointments process, not because it sets too high a bar but because I am concerned that, when you set a low bar, that is often all that ends up happening in the long term.

The bill establishes an expertise based commission that minimises the scope for conflict of interest in the management of this public resource. In line with broader government policy, the minister will have the authority to appoint the commissioners and the CEO for up to five years. To allow the government to implement a transparent, merit based appointments process and because of the proposed commencement date of 1 July, there is a need to appoint inaugural commissioners for a transitional period of up to six months. During this time a selection process will be conducted in accordance with whole-of-government policies for the selection of senior public servants and statutory office holders. This process ensures the candidates are assessed objectively and selected based on their merit, knowledge and skill. This is consistent with the aim of the reforms to AFMA—that is, to improve its governance and to minimise circumstances in which perceived or real conflicts of interest could arise. The peak industry and other stakeholders do not have a statutory role in the selection of AFMA commissioners. Both sides of the House, though—and I am sure I am not misrepresenting the other side of the House—do have a desire to ensure that the government consults with industry on the appointment of commissioners.

It is important that industry has confidence in the appointments process. To the extent that this amendment aims to achieve that end point, I do not for a minute doubt the good intention of the amendment. I can inform the Leader of the Nationals that I have already written to stakeholders seeking their views on the appointment of the inaugural commissioners of AFMA and will continue to consult with key stakeholder groups on future AFMA appointments. As a simple example, if we had the clause in the amendment referring purely to industry stakeholders then as a matter of course, as time went on, there would be no consultation with anyone from the recreational fishing sector. Notwithstanding that, given the goodwill that I believe is on both sides of the House and the long-term intention of consultation, both industry groups and the recreational fishing sector have been consulted on those appointments. Given that the opposition and government share a policy commitment to consult, I do not see the insertion of these words into the legislation as necessary or good practice.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess I could argue for exactly the same reasons as the minister has just espoused that those are good reasons to include these amendments in the bill. If both sides are basically happy that this is the sort of process that should be followed, I see no real impediment to including these proposals in the bill. For instance, it was never our intention that the only people who could put forward nominations for AFMA commissioners would be those who had met the favour of industry representatives. The use of the term ‘fishing industry representatives’ is also broad and would clearly embrace the recreational fishers, who I think also need to be seen legitimately as industry. It was always understood that the commissioner should bring to the new governance arrangements a mix of skills and experience. Just being a good fisherman does not necessarily mean that you are a good manager or a commissioner for AFMA. I would expect that the make-up of the new commission would include a broad representation from people with skills that are necessary to effectively govern an organisation of this nature.

I note the minister’s desire for some flexibility in relation to the appointment of a chair and a CEO. I also acknowledge that legislation establishing commissions is often drafted in a way that the one person fills two positions. However, that is not the wish of the industry in this instance. The minister has acknowledged that the industry feels quite strongly about this issue, and I would hope he would give that due weight in assessing not just the merits of the various candidates and their wishes but also what is important for the confidence that the industry needs to have in this body. I am somewhat assured by his statements in response to our amendments, and I can assure him that if in fact an alternative route is taken in the future and the one person is appointed to both positions the industry will be reminded of his comments of today and he will therefore have to have a satisfactory explanation for them.

Frankly, I cannot see any reason why the government should not accept these amendments, because it seems that we are one in spirit. If the government does not choose to follow that route, the second best option is the assurances that the minister at the table has given us, and I know that he is giving those assurances in good faith. If perchance I have or someone from this side has the opportunity to succeed him in his role at some stage in the future, I can assure the industry that the coalition has a similar view—that the CEO and the chairman should be different people and that the industry should be effectively consulted as part of the process of appointing the new commissioners.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.