|
representatives vote 2023-03-09#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-03-17 10:30:37
|
Title
Bills — National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail- National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Board appointment
Description
<p class="speaker">Zoe Daniel</p><p>I move the amendment circulated in my name:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-09.15.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What did these amendments do?
- Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-09.15.1):
- > *I bring forward these amendments today to inject into the bill a more robust and independent process for the appointment of members to the board of this corporation. After all, this board will be making investment decisions for a $15 billion fund.*
- >
- > *Over the last decade, the integrity of many institutions that underpin our democracy has taken a battering. In recent years, we've witnessed the 'jobs for mates' culture flourish here in Canberra, as rates of political friendly appointments to public boards and entities have soared. Last term, one of those entities, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was so heavily stacked with political appointees—a rate of 40 per cent of those appointments—that the current Attorney-General has made the decision to abolish it. How can the Australian people trust the decisions that flow from institutions that have had their independence compromised in this way?*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 20), after the definition of financial accommodation, insert:*
- >
- >> *former judge means:*
- >>
- >> *(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or*
- >>
- >> *(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or*
- >>
- >> *(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.*
- >
- > *(2) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:*
- >
- >> *(1A) A person must not be appointed as a Board member unless:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:*
- >>>
- >>>> *(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates.*
- >
- > *(3) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:*
- >
- >> *(4) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as a Board member, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (1A)(a)(iii)) to be:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.*
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 17, page 15 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:</p><p class="italic">(4) In performing its functions, the Board must have regard to the desirability of encouraging and improving economic participation by historically underrepresented groups, including:</p><p class="italic">(a) women; and</p><p class="italic">(b) First Nations Australians; and</p><p class="italic">(c) people with a disability; and</p><p class="italic">(d) people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.</p><p class="italic">(5) Subsection (4) does not:</p><p class="italic">(a) limit the matters to which the Board may have regard; or</p><p class="italic">(b) by implication, limit the matters with respect to which the Board may be directed under subsection 71(1).</p><p>I was elected in part on a promise of promoting gender equality. As I said at the Jobs and Skills Summit, we're in danger of limiting ourselves to high-vis solutions to what is clearly also a pink problem. I believe that all legislation should contain a gender impact statement if we're to reboot the productivity we would get if more women, who are currently sidelined, were in the workforce in higher skilled, higher paying and more secure jobs. At a time of skills shortages and a tight labour market it is simply a no brainer. The minds and initiative are there. Women want secure jobs and respect. Women are not waiting to be asked. They don't want permission; they want the opportunity.</p><p>But given how far behind women are on wages and participation that will require active facilitation. Indeed, it's a systems change, a true culture shift. As Chief Executive Women said in its prebudget submission, 'Prioritising organisations with gender balanced leadership and forward looking policies in government procurement processes must be embedded in gender responsive budgeting. A whole of government application of a gender lens to consideration of all new policy proposals is required to deliver coherent, effective policy.'</p><p>The seven priority areas identified in this legislation are largely those requiring STEM skills, and in that Australia's record in getting women into science, technology, engineering and maths is poor, as is our lingering gender pay gap, as high as 30 per cent in some sectors. Encouraging women into the sectors identified in this legislation ought to be a priority but it's more than that. Government procurement, loans and grants should be geared to businesses and industries that find ways to elevate under-represented cohorts. This is yet another building block in the process to create true equality and that is why I'm moving the amendment circulated today.</p><p>As we enter a renewables revolution with all of its associated new trades, let's not fall into the same old habits and allow women to be left behind. Women and girls must be fostered into these new industries. It is about women, but it's not just about women. We also need to foster First Nations Australians, people with a disability and people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds into the new cleaner, greener technologies, manufacturing and services if we are to have the prosperous Australia we want and that our children deserve, and encourage and foster businesses and industries to do so. That is how we will correct this imbalance. This is something that I know the minister understands, representing a highly diverse electorate. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, I promised the Goldstein community, especially our women and girls, that if I got into this room where it happens I would speak up for those who are not in the room. Perhaps if we did that, our daughters wouldn't be almost my age by the time they had true equality. I thank the minister for his genuine engagement, and I thank the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Ed Husic</p><p>We will be agreeing to this amendment because, through our work and the matters that have been raised by the member for Goldstein—I thank her for her work in this regard and for championing this amendment—a number of us across the chamber have seen firsthand that this is an issue that we have an opportunity to correct.</p><p>Last month, member for Goldstein, I was in the US. I had the very real honour of meeting with Australians and Australian companies doing incredible work there. One of the most eye-opening conversations I had was with Marissa Warren from ALIAVIA Ventures, a California based venture capital firm with Australians in it who are early-stage investors. Importantly, they're early-stage investors in businesses led by female founders. Marissa pointed to the fact that less than three per cent of venture funding goes to female founded companies, which is frankly a shocking number. Interestingly, investments in the ones that do get the investment deliver 35 per cent higher returns on the investment compared to those led by men.</p><p>Here in Australia, <i>Women's Agenda</i> issued a report recently which said that just one in three of the top VC firms here invested in a female founder in 2022, and that two-thirds of the country's top venture capital firms didn't invest in a venture led by a female founder in 2022. Again, this is something that has to be addressed. Clearly, we do need to acknowledge that there's a funding gap there. There's an opportunity for the NRF to crowd in funding, and there's also a need for a whole stack of underrepresented groups to have that chance to have the financial backing to grow their firms. We want to make sure the NRF can back these diverse businesses, to give people a sense that this is something that governments champion—the creation of these firms and these new enterprises. It's really important that this happens. We need that stream of investment made available for a wider group of people, and we also need to embark, as I've discussed with the member for Goldstein, on a culture change within the mindset of some VCs. If this can provide an opportunity to make that happen, let's see where we can go to progress that.</p><p>Again, I welcome the contribution. It is a great amendment, and we look forward to working further on this to make it a tangible reality.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Sophie Scamps</p><p>SCAMPS () (): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 20), after the definition of <i>financial accommodation</i>, insert:</p><p class="italic"><i>former judge</i> means:</p><p class="italic">(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or</p><p class="italic">(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or</p><p class="italic">(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) A person must not be appointed as a Board member unless:</p><p class="italic">(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:</p><p class="italic">(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and</p><p class="italic">(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and</p><p class="italic">(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates.</p><p class="italic">(3) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:</p><p class="italic">(4) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as a Board member, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (1A)(a)(iii)) to be:</p><p class="italic">(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or</p><p class="italic">(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.</p><p>I recently stood up in this place to speak about the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. While broadly supportive of this bill, I raised my significant concerns about the integrity of the fund's board appointment process. I also asked a question of the minister in question time about this, and I wasn't completely satisfied with the answer. So I bring forward these amendments today to inject into the bill a more robust and independent process for the appointment of members to the board of this corporation. After all, this board will be making investment decisions for a $15 billion fund.</p><p>Over the last decade, the integrity of many institutions that underpin our democracy has taken a battering. In recent years, we've witnessed the 'jobs for mates' culture flourish here in Canberra, as rates of political friendly appointments to public boards and entities have soared. Last term, one of those entities, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was so heavily stacked with political appointees—a rate of 40 per cent of those appointments—that the current Attorney-General has made the decision to abolish it. How can the Australian people trust the decisions that flow from institutions that have had their independence compromised in this way? We also recently heard about a minister who received donations and gifts from an industry she was conducting an inquiry into and was making regulatory decisions about. Last term, we saw millions of dollars in grants handed out for party political reasons without any semblance of proper process. It was no wonder, then, that at the time of the 2022 election Australia had dropped to its lowest ever level on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. This behaviour has to stop.</p><p>At the election, the people of Australia voted in droves for greater integrity in our political system. The best solution to this issue of corruption and cronyism would be the enactment of comprehensive legislation that requires a transparent, accountable and independent process for all major Commonwealth public appointments, such as I introduced earlier this week with my private member's bill, ending jobs for mates. This is a gold standard process, which balances an appropriate level of ministerial discretion as the final decision-maker with ensuring a shortlist of candidates is independently selected based on their expertise, experience and integrity.</p><p>In the meantime, however, I have no choice but to introduce this amendment to this bill. I will now go to the bill currently before the House and my proposed amendment. At present the ministers responsible for the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation, the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance, have complete discretion over who is appointed to the board. The ministers are required to have regard to the experience, professional credibility and standing of the board members they propose to appoint. This is, of course, something that that is expected. However, there is no mechanism or oversight committee to guarantee that the board member selection process is actually competitive, fair and equitable, as would occur under my ending jobs for mates legislation.</p><p>My amendment to this bill requires that, in the selection of National Reconstruction Fund board members: the positions and selection criteria be publicly advertised for a minimum of ten consecutive days; the assessment of applications is undertaken by an independent selection panel with at least three members and a former superior court judge as chair; the panel shortlists at least three candidates for each position and certifies they meet the selection criteria; the minister chooses the successful candidate only from the shortlist; and, lastly, the certification of the successful candidate must be tabled in the parliament.</p><p>This amendment strikes the right balance between ministerial discretion and public accountability, and it will not result in undue bureaucratic burden or cost. What it will do is ensure the integrity of the National Reconstruction Fund board and, thus, the important decisions they make on the disbursement of the $15 billion in the fund. The people of Australia deserve a political system they can trust. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that amendments (1) to (3), circulated by the member for Mackellar, be disagreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|