I want to make the observation that everyone seems to support in principle all of the criteria laid out in the existing Accountability Act. I haven't seen anyone particularly disagree with the requirement that someone have judicial experience or experience on a tribunal or a commission. Everybody agrees in theory; they just don't agree in practice. They don't want this one individual, with whom they have some particular attachment, to have to live up to those requirements.
If we agree that the job must be held by someone who has this experience, then presumably that means that any person who holds the job must have that experience. It should not be that everybody except one guy has to meet the requirements. So I do find that contradictory. Either the members agree that the person who occupies this post should have that experience, or they don't agree. They have to decide which it is. It can't be that everybody in the country who applies for the job has to have all the qualifications except for one guy, who we prefer to believe can go around those obligations.
In the interests of consistency, we stand in favour of the existing wording of the bill.