Page 3799 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not think that is necessary. Many of the people who have served under both governments for many years are quite aware of the general requirements that have been placed on them in relation to social responsibilities and the wider responsibilities of the organisations, as defined by government and as defined by their enabling legislation. If that is not sufficient, let us address the cause of the problem. Let us not have a belt and braces approach to setting up the management of the boards.
I think it would be far better to have boards of management with the skills, capacities and experience to achieve the objectives of the agency or authority and then for them to have imposed upon them a requirement as to what levels of social responsibility they must observe and satisfy.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.49): I will finish the debate. Naturally, I am very disappointed that the Opposition does not support our amendments. I was not sure what attitude it would take. I knew that Mr Quinlan did not plan to support them, but I did hope that he might have had a rethink in the period since the last sitting.
It is important to note that the wording of the amendment is to “try to ensure that the members appointed have, between them, the experience and expertise”. I sit on two committees that look at appointments. An appointee to a board does not provide a curriculum vitae. They do not even bother to detail any experience that they may have had in these areas or particular interests or expertise. If this amendment gets through, then people may perhaps go to this extent. One knows that a CV is tailored according to the position it is being submitted for and if people knew that the government was looking to expand the sustainability expertise on boards, then they would include those.
Many of the people whom we have appointed to boards in recent months may indeed have that ability. If this amendment were to get through, then we would know about it. As it is, we do not have a clue. Frameworks are very important. Having people who understand those frameworks is just as essential. If people who are applying the framework do not have a clue what the words mean, it is a fairly useless exercise, in my opinion.
There are lots of ways that the Greens can work to increase the expertise of boards, bureaucracies and the government in actually implementing the rhetoric about sustainability. This is one of them. We will, of course, use every means at our disposal. I reiterate my disappointment that this one did not get us there; it puts it off a bit longer.
Amendments negatived.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (5.51): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 9 and 10 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR MULCAHY: I move amendments Nos 9 and 10 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 3810].
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .