Hughento (Secretary of External Affairs) Confirmation Hearing

[afleitch]

I think the hearing suffered in part due to the lack of questioning on issues of foreign and defence policy in comparison to previous hearings. I don't believe Phil's intervention was productive to that effect.

[afleitch]

I think the hearing suffered in part due to the lack of questioning on issues of foreign and defence policy in comparison to previous hearings. I don't believe Phil's intervention was productive to that effect.

I don't believe this to be accurate. The Nay voters didn't outline any objections to this nominee at all. If they were concerned over hugh's foreign and defence policy stances, they surely would have questioned him in this regard.

That's partly the point I was making. Very few questions were asked because the hearing was sidetracked. Had the proceedings run more smoothly I'm sure such issues would have been touched apon.

[afleitch]

Worse yet, Nay votes were cast not because this was a bad nominee but because of unhappiness with the previous Secretary no longer holding the job, despite that person being nominated for something else.

I don't believe that to be the primary motivation for the outcome. It has to be remembered that I was only nominated as a justice at approximately the same time as Hugh's confirmation hearing ended.

May I also add, it is also unfair to apply Dave's stated reason on the matter to every Senator who voted against the nomination.

[afleitch]

If the Senators can not state the reason why they rejected Hughento as SoEA then they should all RESIGN from this chamber.

x Fmr. Senator MAS117

And what constitutional requirement is there for a Senator to reveal the reasons behind voting in favour or against a nominee or a bill? Senators have a right to make private decisions in deciding on how they vote, Will everyone please stop harrasing Senators over this- if you demand to know why they voted no, then why not demand to know why some Senators voted yes?