Page 5262 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Going to the legislation, the legislation does have a two-thirds requirement, and there is a reason for that. To be fair to Ms Gallagher, it has not been Ms Gallagher’s fault that it has played out as it has. It has been the Chief Minister who has treated it as if there was no two-thirds requirement—right from the beginning. We had the situation where the Chief Minister announced, before consulting with the Assembly—
Mr Corbell: How can you say that with a straight face?
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Order, members! Mr Seselja has the floor.
Mr Corbell: He can’t say it with a straight face. Look at him.
MR SESELJA: Mr Corbell does not like it.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Order, members! We will not continue this banter across the chamber, thank you. Mr Seselja, you have the floor.
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker; I appreciate you bringing Mr Corbell to heel. Mr Stanhope did not follow a good-faith process where he actually sought to engage with the Assembly. There is no point in having a two-thirds requirement other than to ensure that the government actually negotiates. And there was no negotiation. There was an announcement about particular reviewers that were going to be put forward. It was on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We were in a position where we had to leave it.
What we have had since then is a back and forth about viewing the entire list, which is what I put on the record last time. The Chief Minister’s office has been less than helpful in putting ridiculous restrictions on the ability to view it. I have got to contrast that with the attitude and the progress that we have seen with the Acting Chief Minister. With the Acting Chief Minister we have actually seen it. We felt that we were in a position where we are close, and I still believe we are close.
We had a letter last week from Ms Gallagher which gave us the names of the other applicants for the position, which is a major step forward for our considerations. We had no further correspondence on that, and we are in the process of considering that. There was no notice given of this today, which I found a little bit odd. I would have thought that if you were serious about this, you would have put it on the notice paper in one form or another and then sat down and had the negotiation.
This morning, as I said, I contacted the Acting Chief Minister and put to her that I thought we could have negotiations. I raised concerns particularly about one of the nominees on the list. I said that it would be my preference if we did not have to play out our concerns in the Assembly. Ms Gallagher chose to push ahead.
There is no doubt that putting Crispin Hull forward creates potential conflicts of interest. There is no doubt about that. Any reasonable observer—
Ms Gallagher: He writes a column for the paper.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video