The reasons for these proposals in the Second Reading Speech—

are clearly spurious. It is said to be based on a need for specialist expertise `from time to time in a particular location'. The Act allows the Chairperson adequate capacity to engage persons for limited periods at any location. The flexibility of the current public sector employment rules are such as to enable the engagement of staff on terms and conditions which are in line with public sector remuneration in Australia. If private sector remuneration is necessary this can be achieved through the use of consultancies. Sections 47 to 50 are in my experience, adequate.

This then raises the issue of why these changes are now being proposed. Is it intended that over time the majority of the staff would be engaged under these provisions? What specific problems have been encountered which would give rise to the proposal? Over the years members of the authority, including Chairmen who have come from the Bar, appear uncomfortable and unfamiliar with the need for the procedures which necessarily and appropriately apply to the engagement of staff for public purposes. These requirements include the need to advertise, select on merit and the need to ensure work of similar value is remunerated similarly. The proposals will allow a future Chairperson to engage in personnel practices inimical to the best interests of the NCA and the Commonwealth.