Mr. Fast presented a point of order. I would like to ask you a question with regard to that point of order.
If qualifications alone are what we discuss when we discuss an appointment, surely in terms of transparency and all those other reasons, one may ask questions about a conflict of interest or about ethical breaches that one feels may make a person not qualified on that basis. Qualifications, in my understanding, when one interviews anyone, are not only about their academic past or what their job description is or has been; it is to determine whether or not the person is ethically and in other ways fit or qualified to be doing the things that they're doing. These are public positions.
I believe that some of the questions being asked are within that prerogative with regard to ethical and/or different qualifications. Surely if all we're going to talk about is academic and work qualifications, we are missing the point of this whole thing.