Senator FORSHAW(1.22 p.m.) —I would indicate, on behalf of the opposition, that we will not support the amendments moved by the Democrats. Firstly, I should say that we do not have any argument as such with the substance of what Senator Murray has put with respect to what should be the case when members of boards are appointed by ministers or by governments. We all agree that all appointments should be on the basis of merit and should be on the basis of endeavouring to ensure that various interests are represented. They should not be on the basis of pure political patronage or for favours owed or for some other criteria. Clearly, the person who is appointed should possess the skills warranted for the task at hand.

However, the amendments put forward by the Democrats are essentially window-dressing. The Democrat amendments still leave it clearly within the gift of the minister to make the appointments and to actually determine what the code of practice should be. Whilst it is proposed in the amendments to set out general principles, I would suggest that those general principles are ones which, given the need for flexibility in these circumstances, are nevertheless what are in place and should be followed.

If there are issues that arise in due course about the performance of board members of any government authority, statutory authority or whatever, then they are able to be taken up by members of parliament through the parliamentary process, the Senate estimates committees and so on. We fail to see how the Democrat amendments will do anything to enhance the objectives that Senator Murray has espoused. As I said, we do not argue that these are important considerations but we say that they are essentially already in place. These amendments do not take the matter any further one iota.

Senator Murray interjecting—

Senator FORSHAW —Senator Murray, your own amendment says that it is the minister who must, by writing, determine what the code of practice is.

Senator Murray —Because you rejected them the last time I did it. It was down to you.

Senator FORSHAW —Senator Murray, despite all of your pious words and noble objectives, you are still saying very clearly that it is the minister who actually determines the code of practice.

I also want to make a couple of other points, and Senator Troeth, the parliamentary secretary, has raised the obvious one; that is, what we are dealing with here in this legislation is the first part of a two-part legislative change that will ultimately see the abolition of the Australian Wheat Board and the functions of the AWB taken over by listed companies on the Stock Exchange. I would have thought, Senator Murray, that if you had concerns about this issue you may have been prepared to support our amendment, which was moved in the second reading debate. That was to postpone further consideration of all of this legislation until we saw what was in the second tranche of legislation to come next year.

There are concerns about the future structure of the companies that will manage the marketing of wheat and there are concerns, as we and the farmers groups have pointed out, about taxation considerations. But Senator Troeth is right in making the point that, under the proposals as they are at the moment, the AWB will cease to exist in June 1999. So your amendment is related to a body which has a very short life span left and, in that sense, is rather insignificant in terms of what is really to follow—that is, the new structure under which wheat marketing will operate in this country. Of course, under the new structure, the companies that will be put into place will be listed on the Stock Exchange. Shares will be traded and directors of the companies will be elected by the shareholders or by the members affected. So, as Senator Troeth has said, this proposal, at the end of the day, is irrelevant for the purposes of the future structure that will exist in the wheat industry.

Those are all of the comments I have on this aspect. I do have some other questions that I wanted to ask the parliamentary secretary. If anyone wanted to comment on this they could or I could proceed to those questions.