hamble701, you missed the point of my post.
It was about process meeting the usual checks and balances in a government funded body (auditable, transparent, fair, etc) before the incumbent was selected.
Similarly, if the position has been extended as mentioned, was the market tested to make sure this important representative position has the best person in it going forward?
Or again, did a sponsor use their authority and make a snap on behalf of the people of Australia?
My post was not about the incumbents suitability for membership of Mensa, or her interpersonal skills or anything else, but about what defines appropriate governance in public office.
004, appreciated your perspectives on the inner workings. A bit hard figuring things out from the outside.
