Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (21 February) . . Page.. 479..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
that occur from time to time for which you are responsible. I rather think that we should be aspiring to a higher standard.
MR SPEAKER: Ms MacDonald has a supplementary question.
MS MacDONALD: Can the minister advise the house if the process used in the appointment of Mr MacDairmid was the same process used in previous appointments?
MR QUINLAN: Yes, Mr Speaker, in fact, I can. I suppose that the most remarkable aspect of this grubby little episode is that the process used was, indeed, the same process as was used when the immediate past CEO was appointed when Mr Smyth was the minister for tourism. Papers came forward. I am sure if Mr Smyth thought of himself as merely a rubber-stamp or sat at his desk and believed he did not have any responsibility to evaluate the advice that he had received and to not assume the responsibilities of minister, well, all I can say is that we have been through a bad patch.
Let me repeat to the house: the process used for this appointment is exactly the same process used in previous appointments. I might add just one postscript. I do have sympathies for other candidates who were in the running for this job but did not get it. However, I have to say that, across the tourism industry, there has been a constant theme that the appointment of Mr MacDairmid was the right choice, and the industry is very happy that that decision was made.
Mr Stanhope: I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.
MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, yesterday I undertook to provide some clarification or further clarification to a question asked by Ms Cross in relation to the natural justice rights of Justice Gallop. I will provide that information for the benefit of Ms Cross and members.
Mrs Cross: Mrs Cross, thank you.
MR STANHOPE: I beg your pardon. I meant no disrespect; I wasn't aware of that. Mrs Cross asked yesterday whether or not my response to certain matters in relation to the Gallop report infringed Justice Gallop's rights to natural justice.
The department has provided this advice to me in relation to that particular issue. The rules of natural justice require basically two things. The first is that no person should be deprived of their rights without being given the opportunity of a hearing. The second is that the decision maker must be above any reasonable suspicion of bias.
Justice Gallop was appointed by the executive pursuant to section 5 of the Inquiries Act 1991. Section 14 of that act requires the board of inquiry to present a report to the Chief Minister, which it did in December 2001. Justice Gallop ceased to hold office following presentation of the report.