Page 2129 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
we need to get the legislation right. We have got that about right. We need to get the guidelines right. There will be negotiations on that and I hope that all parties will engage in that in good faith. And, thirdly, we need to make sure that we have the 100 per cent best applicant for the job in the job of reviewing this. We simply cannot make a judgement on that unless we are given details of all of the applicants so that we can then make an informed judgement.
As I mentioned earlier, if someone wants to adjourn the debate so we can have further discussions, we would be pleased to consider that. But, as the motion stands, because of the lack of information, because we have not received all of the details that we have asked for from the government, because we have not received the full list of applicants, we will not be supporting the motion.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (12.24): The Greens support the nominations of Mr Volker and Mr Hull. They have expertise and experience in the relevant fields as set out in section 12 of the Government Agencies (Campaign Advertising) Act 2009. For Mr Volker that is in public administration and for Mr Hull in media and law. Neither of them is currently employed in the public service and both of them have quite distinguished careers in their respective fields.
Mr Volker was the head of three commonwealth departments under both Labor and Liberal governments and has been appointed to roles by both Labor and Liberal ACT governments. He is a fellow of the Australian Institute of Public Affairs and has been for 18 years.
Mr Hull, as we all know, is a well-known Canberra media identity and has written articles expressing views both positive and critical towards all parties in this place. His legal expertise and media knowledge make him well placed to perform the role if Mr Volker is unavailable.
I am confident that both nominees will perform the role objectively, fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the act. That said, I think it is worth considering the issue of bias, which is, of course, a reason for the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the Assembly to be in agreement with the proposed reviewers. The concern and the need for independent decision makers comes about because of a fear of bias and an inherent mistrust in objective decision making where the decision maker stands to benefit.
It is a fundamental principle of the common law that no person shall be the judge of his or her own cause. Therefore, this Assembly has determined that it is inappropriate that the government decide to undertake an advertising campaign from which it potentially stands to benefit, without the approval of an impartial person who can objectively assess, against established criteria, the appropriateness or otherwise of advertising material.
The key point here is that the decision maker must be, and must be seen to be, impartial; that is, disinterested in the matter at hand. There must be neither actual nor apprehended bias. It would be fair to say that this rule is seen to be universally true of all executive and judicial decision makers. Professors Creyke and McMillan in their book Control of government action make the point very well when they say, “The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video