Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 12 Hansard (Thursday, 28 October 2010) . . Page.. 5272 ..


Chief Minister provided the names before that. So I would welcome Mr Seselja’s clarification of that little piece of history and whether he has a different understanding.

We then debated this matter in the chamber on 22 June this year, quite a number of months ago now. At the time, Mr Seselja came in here and he said that he would not support the nominations that were put forward. He said, and I quote from the Hansard:

In the end we cannot make a judgement on whether or not Mr Volker is indeed the best applicant for the job without actually seeing who all of the applicants are.

He went on to say:

… we need to ensure that the person reviewing the legislation and how the government complies with the guidelines is absolutely the best person for the job and is beyond reproach.

That was the stated reason at the time. So what Mr Seselja came in here and said on that occasion was that they could not possibly approve this person because they had not seen the whole list. He said that they had not seen the whole list. We disputed that at the time. I said privately to either Mr Seselja or to some of his staff—there was a discussion going on about this—that I did not believe the original intent of the legislation was that the test in the legislation was “the best person”. The test in the legislation is: is this a suitable person to do the job? We certainly hold—

Mr Seselja: Change the legislation, Shane. Change it.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, you have had your chance.

MR RATTENBURY: The challenge here, of course, is that the legislation is silent on this matter. But I think if you take the spirit of the legislation, it is not about the best possible person. It is: is this person suitable for the job? Does this person have an issue of bias? It is our view that neither of the people proposed are a problem under either of those standards.

But, of course, today we finally become aware of Mr Seselja and the Liberal Party having a specific concern about a specific candidate. Months and months and months after this process started, finally the real reasons are put on the table—finally. What is mature and sensible about that? For months and months and months we have had little games, we have been a little bit embarrassed to state our real reasons and put them on the table. But today, at least, it is finally out there.

It actually gets better because it turns out that Mr Seselja has catcalled across the chamber, he actually apparently said it earlier today—Ms Hunter just passed it on to me—that Crispin Hull is my nomination. I find that very extraordinary.

Mr Seselja: He is. You told me. He was your first suggestion to me.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Seselja!


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video