Simon trying to backdate his appointments?

johnboy 13 February 2009 13

Another day, another cock-up by Simon Corbell?

The Liberals’ Vicki Dunne is up in arms that the Assembly is having to make laws to legitimise invalid appointments by our beleaguered Attorney-General:

    “The Attorney made three appointments to ACT Tribunals the day before the election, in contravention of the law.

    “Now the Attorney is seeking to paper over his mistake by introducing new laws to cover his breaches of the old laws.

    “The proposed legislation says it all with words like ‘purportedly made by the Minister’, ‘taken to be, and always to have been valid’ and ‘as if the instrument of selection had been properly’ made, notified and presented.

    “The proposed legislation also seeks to validate anything done or purported to have been done by the appointees during the period between their appointments and the validation of their appointments, assuming, of course, the Assembly passes the Attorney’s bill.

The more things change…


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
13 Responses to Simon trying to backdate his appointments?
Filter
Order
jacks_auntee jacks_auntee 4:50 pm 18 Feb 09

Never ceases to amaze me. If the opposition or cross bench say nothing thay are lazy, if they point out the governments mistakes they are being negative. In this instance what exactly should Dunn have done…?

Vicki’s just pissed she didn’t get to be speaker or got a real job – would someone please pass Vicki a doughnut!

I-filed I-filed 5:20 pm 13 Feb 09

Cool! I’ll backdate my next traffic infringement defence to the state of the no-parking signs as far back as useful!

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 3:40 pm 13 Feb 09

~~~sigh~~~

barking toad barking toad 1:08 pm 13 Feb 09

simon the sad has always had a problem with calendars – appointment dates, opening dates etc.

it’s nasty for the opposition to draw attention to it – it hurts his feelings

johnboy johnboy 12:59 pm 13 Feb 09

jerish said :

Never ceases to amaze me. If the opposition or cross bench say nothing thay are lazy, if they point out the governments mistakes they are being negative. In this instance what exactly should Dunn have done…?

What she’s done, keep plugging away.

jerish jerish 12:58 pm 13 Feb 09

Never ceases to amaze me. If the opposition or cross bench say nothing thay are lazy, if they point out the governments mistakes they are being negative. In this instance what exactly should Dunn have done…?

jakez jakez 12:10 pm 13 Feb 09

Reprobate said :

jakez said :

just because it is, doesn’t make it right

Just like the Government, really…

Love.

MsCheeky said :

To borrow from Henry Kissinger: University (and ACT) politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

University politics is ridiculously vicious. I’m glad I’m out of that game.

MsCheeky MsCheeky 11:45 am 13 Feb 09

Ok jakez, I just went and had a look at the legislation. It seems that Corbell didn’t undertake consultation with an assembly committee prior to making the appointments to the Liquor Licensing Board and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. I would expect at the least the liquor appointment would be sensitive. Bad Simon. Why he didn’t is a question that is undoubtedly caught up in the convoluted web of ACT politics and personalities, and I can’t make myself interested in delving further.

To borrow from Henry Kissinger: University (and ACT) politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

Reprobate Reprobate 11:27 am 13 Feb 09

jakez said :

just because it is, doesn’t make it right

Just like the Government, really…

jakez jakez 11:18 am 13 Feb 09

Despite the intriguing timing of this particular statutory change I would make the point MsCheeky that just because it is, doesn’t make it right

MsCheeky MsCheeky 11:11 am 13 Feb 09

“The proposed legislation also seeks to validate anything done or purported to have been done by the appointees during the period between their appointments and the validation of their appointments, assuming, of course, the Assembly passes the Attorney’s bill.”

Appointments to statutory bodies are my bread and butter. The clause described above is a very common one. For instance, from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988:

79(5) Anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under an appointment under subsection (4) is not invalid merely because:
(a) the occasion for the appointment had not arisen;
(b) there was a defect or irregularity in connection with the appointment;
(c)the appointment had ceased to have effect; or
(d) the occasion to act had not arisen or had ceased.

Also, appointments can be made during the caretaker period leading up to an election, though federally, and I’m assuming also at state and territory levels, there are protocols to be observed, such as consulting with the opposition. What protocols are observed depend very much on what the appointments are.

I think Vicki Dunne is running a conspiracy theory here. I accept that oppositions will oppose, but I find the constant stream of negativity that emanates from the ACT Liberals tedious to the extreme. Just glad that I live over the border.

jakez jakez 11:06 am 13 Feb 09

Thumper said :

You couldn’t invent our legislative assembly if you tried.

No-one would believe you.

Indeed.

Thumper Thumper 10:59 am 13 Feb 09

You couldn’t invent our legislative assembly if you tried.

No-one would believe you.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site