Senator GROGAN (South Australia) (15:19): What a fascinating conversation! What a fascinating debate we're having here! I would like to start off by offering my congratulations to Ms Wood as a fellow South Australian. She is touted as an outstanding economist, and her background would give rise to her being a great candidate for this role. So I don't think it's any major surprise that she made it through a merit process overseen by the APS—a normal merit based process that we would expect for such a position. I don't think there's anything here other than those opposite showing us again and again and again that they have neither respect for nor commitment to women. I can see no other reason why you would have such a problem with Ms Wood as opposed to another candidate. The point has been raised by Senator Canavan that he knew more than Ms Wood while he was a graduate in the Productivity Commission, that he spent time as a graduate in the Productivity Commission and that he was probably better placed than her. He points to the fact that she has run an independent think tank. In case anyone is unsure, that's a place where you independently think. That is exactly what we want from the Productivity Commission. We're not going to continue on the same pathway as those opposite, who commissioned report after report from the Productivity Commission and proceeded to ignore every last one of them. What we're doing here—what the Labor government is doing here—is looking to the Productivity Commission for ideas, for that independent thinking and for that investigation into critical issues. So, no, it doesn't seem particularly surprising to me that we would pick someone who's had that kind of depth of experience. Senator Henderson: 'We' would pick someone? 'We' would? Senator GROGAN: I'm not going to go to your interjections. If I misspoke, we'll clean it up afterwards. The narrow and inflexible thought process from those opposite is a missed opportunity from those opposite. We have looked to find someone, through a merit based process, who can give us that breadth of thinking. We are not going to shy away from that. Some of the accusations are just ludicrous. Now, yes, Ms Wood has indeed advocated various things that the Labor government may not wish to pursue. We are not looking for somebody who has a particular way of thinking; we're looking for someone with an open, inquiring way of thinking to boost the efforts of the Productivity Commission so that it gives us the kind of broad thinking that we need to help develop how we're going in this country, because we have had 10 pretty shabby years. And, no, we don't need somebody who agrees with everything that the Treasurer says. That is not what we're looking for at all. To echo the comments of my colleagues, Labor has no plans for an inheritance tax. That's just the fact of it. We do not. That is not where we're going. Minister Gallagher has been very clear. Senator O'Neill has been very clear. The Treasurer has been pretty clear. This is not what we're looking at the pathway of. So we can just put that one to bed. Just because one person who is in the employ of a part of the government has a particular thought does not make it government policy. Maybe in your day it did, on the other side of the chamber, when you employed in a narrow fashion, but that's not where we are. We're not afraid of ideas, we're not afraid of debating things, and we're not afraid of putting people who have excellent backgrounds and excellent credentials and who will challenge the thinking into positions, as we have by putting Ms Wood in the Productivity Commission. She is an excellent appointment.