Showing posts with label George Brandis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Brandis. Show all posts

Tuesday 29 November 2016

The real reason Australian Attorney-General George Brandis was determined to oust Commonwealth Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson


Finally the truth is out concerning the extraordinary behaviour of Attorney-General and Liberal Senator for Queensland, George Brandis.

Exhibit A surfaced as the principal reason Brandis wanted to force the then Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, Justin Gleeson, from office…..

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA, judgement summary, 16 May 2016:

BELL GROUP N.V. (IN LIQUIDATION) v WESTERN AUSTRALIA;
W.A. GLENDINNING & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD v WESTERN AUSTRALIA;
MARANOA TRANSPORT PTY LTD (IN LIQ) v WESTERN AUSTRALIA
[2016] HCA 21

Today the High Court unanimously held that the Bell Group Companies (Finalisation of Matters and Distribution of Proceeds) Act 2015 (WA) ("the Bell Act") is invalid in its entirety by the operation of s 109 of the Constitution because of inconsistency between its provisions and provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (collectively, "the Tax Acts").

In November 2015, the Parliament of Western Australia enacted the Bell Act "to provide a legislative framework for the dissolution, and administration of the property, of The Bell Group Ltd ACN 008 666 993 (In Liquidation) and certain of its subsidiaries and for related purposes". The Bell Act was enacted to deal with a list of companies, each defined in the Bell Act as a "WA Bell Company" and each either in liquidation or deregistered. The Commonwealth is a substantial creditor of a number of WA Bell Companies in respect of taxation liabilities.

The purported legal operation and practical effect of the Bell Act is that the State of Western Australia ("the State") collects, pools, and vests in a State authority, the property of each WA Bell Company. The State then determines in its "absolute discretion" who is paid an amount or has property transferred to or vested in them out of the pooled property (if anyone). To the extent that the State chooses not to distribute the pooled property of the WA Bell Companies, the surplus vests in the State.

In each proceeding, the parties stated a special case and questions of law arising for the opinion of the Full Court. The questions of law include whether the Bell Act (or certain provisions of the Bell Act) is invalid by the operation of s 109 of the Constitution because of inconsistency with one or more provisions of the Tax Acts.

By majority, the High Court held that the Bell Act purports to create a scheme under which Commonwealth tax debts are stripped of the characteristics ascribed to them by the Tax Acts as to their existence, their quantification, their enforceability and their recovery. The rights and obligations which arose and had accrued to the Commonwealth as a creditor of the WA Bell Companies in liquidation, and to the Commissioner of Taxation, under a law of the Commonwealth prior to the commencement of the Bell Act are altered, impaired or detracted from by the Bell Act. That alteration or impairment of, or detraction from, the Tax Acts engages s 109 of the Constitution which operates to render the offending provisions of the Bell Act invalid. It was not possible to read down offending aspects of the Bell Act nor were the offending provisions able to be severed from the rest of the Bell Act. The Court held, therefore, that the Bell Act is invalid in its entirety. That being so, the Court found it unnecessary to consider other challenges to the validity of the Bell Act.

This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court's reasons.

And the mainstream media filled in the blanks in what is looking increasingly like an abuse of ministerial power on the part of the Attorney-General as well as a behind the scenes attempt to flout the Australian Constitution……

Yahoo! News, 25 November 2016:

A secret political deal between the Federal and State governments to let WA claw back $1 billion from Alan Bond's collapsed Bell Group was torpedoed by submissions made by Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson on behalf of the Australian Tax Office.

It is understood Mr Gleeson's submissions were critical in events that led to his resignation last month.

A senior Federal source told The West Australian that Attorney-General George Brandis verbally instructed Mr Gleeson earlier this year, as counsel for the A-G, not to run a particular argument in the High Court when a Bell creditor and its liquidator challenged the constitutionality of WA's attempt to take control of the group's $1.8 billion.

The West Australian understands Senator Brandis told Mr Gleeson an understanding had been reached between the Federal and WA governments to finally end more than two decades of litigation stemming from the group's collapse.

The ATO, which at nearly $300 million was one of Bell's four main creditors, separately approached the Solicitor-General to also act as its counsel and to run the argument for it.
Despite Senator Brandis' instruction, the ATO's written submission to the High Court — authored by Mr Gleeson — used the precise legal argument that the Attorney-General had assured his State counterpart Michael Mischin would be avoided by the Commonwealth.

"Mr Gleeson advanced an argument that caused the WA Government to think the Commonwealth had acted in bad faith," the senior Federal source said.

Mr Mischin was infuriated by the ATO's move, not only because its argument in the High Court was on a basis the Commonwealth had promised not to advance, but because he thought the tone of the agency's submission professed WA's ignorance of the Constitution.

In fact, the Commonwealth was kept well abreast of the State's intentions, with WA openly discussing the constitutional issues concerning its legislation and even sharing early drafts.
WA Treasurer Mike Nahan had received personal and written assurances early last year from then Federal counterpart Joe Hockey that the Commonwealth would not oppose the State Governments move.

On the weekend of April 2-3, just two days before the High Court hearing, Mr Mischin repeatedly called Senator Brandis and Assistant Treasurer Kelly O'Dwyer to seek an agreement that would avert Commonwealth involvement in the case — but to no avail.

The ATO was heard in the High Court case with its arguments — that the WA laws were inconsistent with Federal tax law — used to effectively "kill" the State's legislation.

On April 12, five days after the High Court had heard the case, Mr Mischin and Senator Brandis had what witnesses say was a "blazing row" when the two attorneys-general met in Perth. Mr Mischin told Senator Brandis he was unhappy that the Commonwealth intervened in the case on the grounds pursued in court.

On May 16, the High Court ruled 7-0 that the legislation, which sought to elevate the Insurance Commission of WA to the front of the queue of creditors, was "invalid in its entirety".
It led to Senator Brandis believing Mr Gleeson, as the second law officer, had disobeyed instructions from him, the first law officer, the Federal source said.

On May 4, Senator Brandis issued a directive that any department or agency seeking legal opinion from the Solicitor-General must first get Attorney-General approval…..

…..Senator Brandis believed Mr Gleeson should have acted as the Government's barrister, acting within the confines of the Attorney-General's instructions, Mr Gleeson appears to have seen his role differently.

During a recent parliamentary inquiry, Mr Gleeson said the Solicitor-General was both independent and a key element of the government.

"The Solicitor-General is independent. The independence is protected by the statute," Mr Gleeson said.

"The Solicitor-General has an important role in assisting ... the Government to uphold the rule of law for the benefit of the whole community."

In his written submission to the inquiry, Mr Gleeson said it was "critically important" that those seeking advice from the Solicitor-General do so in an "uninhibited fashion and in respect of questions framed by them and not by others".

Mr Gleeson's view was supported by previous solicitors-general Dr Gavan Griffith QC and Sir Anthony Mason, a former High Court chief justice, and upheld by the majority report of the parliamentary inquiry. At a Senate estimates hearing in October, the tax office second commissioner Andrew Mills said it would have been strange if the ATO had failed to be part of the High Court action.

"In fact, the basis on which the litigation was being undertaken by that creditor relied on parts of the Tax Act, so it would seem strange for us not to be involved," he said.

Mr Mills said that when the ATO became aware of the details of the legislation, it believed it had a responsibility to see if the laws were constitutional and to "protect the position of the Commonwealth".

News.com.au, 25 November 2016:

WA Attorney-General Michael Mischin has denied he had a deal with his federal counterpart to keep the Commonwealth out of the state government's bid to claw back $1 billion from Alan Bond's collapsed Bell Group.

His denial comes despite WA Treasurer Mike Nahan telling parliament the day after the High Court shot down the Bell Group legislation in May that the state government thought it had a deal.

It's time for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to retire this Abbott-era attorney-general to the back bench, from where he can be constrained and so do less harm to the nation.

BACKGROUND

Financial Review, 16 June 2016:

At issue is a move by Senator Brandis – a few days before the election was called – to stop Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson, SC, from providing advice to any arm of the government without Senator Brandis giving him approval.

The advice of a solicitor-general can be crucial in politically contentious issues faced by the government – such as on asylum seeker policy. But it  also provides advice directly to a range of government entities from the office of the Governor-General to the Australian Taxation Office.

On May 4, Senator Brandis's office sent Mr Gleeson a letter outlining directions that were tabled in the Senate that day, with immediate effect, and which ruled that no one in government, including the Prime Minister, could seek the Solicitor-General's advice without getting permission from Senator Brandis.

What made the direction more disturbing for the legal bureaucracy of Canberra was that a range of officials – including the Office of Legal Services Coordination in the Attorney-General's Department -  were instructed not to consult the Solicitor-General or his office, or to notify him of the change.

The Office of Parliamentary Counsel – which has the job of putting the government's legal wishes into legislative form – raised concerns with Senator Brandis's department that neither Mr Gleeson nor his office had been consulted about the move and this might not be consistent with the Law Officers Act 1964 which sets out the Solicitor-General's responsibilities.

What was more, it emerged that officials within the Australian Government Solicitor's office had also not been consulted and had concerns about how the new directive might work in practice.

The Australian Financial Review has been briefed on an extensive record of correspondence, meeting minutes and reports about the behind-the-scenes meetings about the directive..
Senator Brandis told the parliament in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the new restrictions that Mr Gleeson had been consulted about the new guidelines.

But it has now emerged that Mr Gleeson wrote a letter to Senator Brandis on May 11 – via an email to two of Senator Brandis's advisers and to a departmental liaison officer - that was widely copied within the bureaucracy noting that he did not accept that he had been consulted, as Senator Brandis had asserted.

The letter effectively meant the Solicitor-General was warning the Attorney-General that he had misled parliament……

Legal sources say the move comes at a time when it has also become the practice that senior counsel in the Attorney-General's department has been working to an instruction that advice should only be provided to the Attorney-General's office in draft form, so it can be asserted advice has never been formally received – an extension of a tendency by Senator Brandis to intervene in the independence of agencies within his portfolio.

There are plenty of theories about why the relationship between the two men is frosty, ranging from Mr Gleeson's advice to the ATO on a High Court challenge to West Australian Government legislation, to altercations over same sex marriage and citizenship laws, to advice over the proroguing of parliament.

The High Court case involved Barnett government legislation that would have allowed a government agency to take control of the assets of the Bell Group (in liquidation).

In a submission in the case lodged on behalf of the ATO (a Bell creditor for $300 million in unpaid taxes), Mr Gleeson argued the drafter of the state's Bell Group seizure laws either forgot about federal tax law or "decided to proceed blithely in disregard to its existence".

The High Court overturned the WA legislation on May 16.

Tuesday 8 November 2016

Senate finds Attorney-General Brandis sought to undermine rule of law in Australia


Australian Senate, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Inquiry into the  Nature and scope of the consultations prior to the making of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016, 8 November 2016 – majority view:

4.9 It is the committee's view that the Attorney-General has sought to undermine the rule of law in Australia by failing to adequately consult the Solicitor-General and constraining the independence of the Solicitor-General….

4.27 The committee makes the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1 
4.28 That the Senate disallow the amendment to the Direction or the Attorney-General withdraw it immediately, and that the Guidance Note be revised accordingly.

Recommendation 2 
4.29 That the Attorney-General provide, within three sitting days, an explanation to the Senate responding to the matters raised in this report.

Recommendation 3 
4.30 That the Senate censure the Attorney-General for misleading the parliament and failing to discharge his duties as Attorney-General appropriately.

Full report here.


Tuesday 17 May 2016

Is there no lie too big or too small that Liberal party ministers, candidates or supporters will not utter in the 2016 Australian federal election campaign?


This was Australian Attorney-General and Liberal Senator for Queensland George Brandis as reported by ABC News on 15 May 2016:
In 2009 Peta Murphy was among a group of lawyers who made a submission to parliament urging the Government to deny police and the domestic spy agency ASIO stronger powers to detain terror suspects without charge.
Attorney General George Brandis said he was "very alarmed" at Ms Murphy's stance and demanded Mr Shorten immediately dump her as Labor's candidate.
"That submission was made a matter of weeks after it was disclosed that the Al-Shabaab terrorist group had been engaged in a plan to attack the Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney," he told reporters.
"It is shocking that the Labor candidate … should be a person who, within weeks of people being charged for an attempted terrorist strike against an Australian military base, should be calling into question both whether or not Al-Shabaab should be listed as a terrorist organisation, which she did, and whether we should have specific anti-terrorism laws, which she also did."
The Australian Financial Review added further detail:
In 2009, Ms Murphy was a signatory on a submission by Liberty Victoria sent to then Labor attorney-general Robert McClelland calling on him to deny the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the police stronger powers to detain ­terror suspects without charge.

So what did Ms. Murphy sign that was supposedly so shocking?

On 25 June 2009 the Senate referred the private member’s bill Anti-Terrorism Laws Reform Bill 2009 for inquiry and report.

In August 2009 three men were arrested and charged with terrorism offences committed between 1 February and 4 August that year. At that time Al-Shabaab was not listed as a terrorist organisation by the Australian Government [See Fattal & Ors v The Queen [2013] VSCA 276]. These men were not brought to trial until mid-2010.

The submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee George Brandis was referring to appears to be one submitted by the 77 year-old advocacy group Liberty Victoria (Victorian Council of Civil Liberties Inc.) on 9 September 2009 which was co-signed by Peta Murphy as a council committee member.

It was the only submission made by Liberty Victoria to the Inquiry into the Anti-Terrorism Laws Reform Bill 2009 and it comprised two pages in length.

None of the other 2009 archived submissions* listed on the Liberty Victoria website which address national anti-terrorism legislation carry her name as a specific co-signatory.

Currently Ms.Murphy is a Labor candidate in the Dunkley electorate and is a barrister who has worked at the Victorian Law Reform Commission, as a Senior Public Defender for Legal Aid and as an adviser in the Australian Parliament. 

To understand what an incredible distortion of fact the accusations made by George Brandis are, here is that Liberty Victoria submission in full:


* One other 2009 submission by Liberty Victoria sent on 25 September to the Assistant Secretary, Security Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department referred in part to the same private member's bill and was signed not by Ms.Murphy, but solely by the then president of the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties. It can be viewed here.

Wednesday 24 February 2016

Just because Australia's Attorney-General doesn't like the lyrics.....


It appears that Australian Attorney-General, Senator George Henry Brandis QC, is upset by certain topical lyrics written by singer-songwriter Tim Minchin.

I felt it only right that I upset that rather pompous alumnus of the private Catholic Villanova College even more by posting Tim’s lyrics here.

COME HOME (CARDINAL PELL)

[Verse 1]
It's a lovely day in 
Ballarat
I'm kicking back, thinking of you
I hear that you've been poorly
I am sorry that you're feeling blue

I know what it's like when you feel a little shitty
You just want to 
curl up and have an itty-bitty doona day
But a lot of people here really miss ya, Georgie
They really think you oughta just get on a plane
(Just get on a plane)
We all just want you to...

[Chorus 1]
Come home, Cardinal Pell
I know you're not feeling well
And being crook ain't much fun
Even so, we think you should come

Home, Cardinal Pell 
Come down from your citadel
It's just the right thing to do
We have a right to know what you knew

[Verse 2] 
Couldn't you see what was under your nose, Georgie
Back in '73 when you were living with Gerry?
Is it true that you knew but you chose to ignore
Or did you actively try to keep it buried?


And years later, when survivors, despite their shame and their fear
Stood up to tell their stories, 
you spent year after year
Working hard to protect the church's assets

I mean, with all due respect, dude, I think you're scum!
And I reckon you should...

[Chorus 2]
Come home, Cardinal Pell
(Cardinal Pell)
I know you're not feeling well
Perhaps you just need some sun
It's lovely here, you should come

Home, you pompous buffoon
(Pompous buffoon)
And I suggest do it soon
I hear the tolling of the bell
And it has a Pellian knell


[Bridge]
I want to be transparent here, George, I'm not the greatest fan of your religion
And 
I personally believe that those who cover up abuse should go to prison
But your ethical hypocrisy, your intellectual 
vacuity, and your arrogance don't bother me as much
As the fact that you have turned out to be such a goddamn coward

You're a coward, Georgie
(You're a coward, George) 
Come and face the music, Georgie
(Face the music, George)
You owe it to the victims, Georgie
(You owe it, George)
Come and face the music, the music 
Hallelujah, hallelujah
If the Lord God omnipotent reigneth

He would take one look at you and say:
(One look at you and say)

[Chorus 3]
"Go home, Cardinal Pell
I've got a nice spot in hell
With your name on it and so
I suggest you toughen up and go

"Home, Cardinal Pell
I'm sure they'll make you feel wel-
Come at the pub in Ballarat
They just want a beer and a chat"

Come home, Cardinal Pell
(Cardinal Pell)
I know you're scared, Georgie-Poo
(Come home)
They have a right to know what you knew

Your time is running out to atone, Georgie
I think the Lord is calling ya home, Georgie
Perhaps he could forgive even you
If you just let them know what you knew

[Outro]
Oh, Cardinal Pell
My lawyer just rang me to tell
Me this song
Could get me in legal trouble

Oh well, Cardinal Pell
If you don't feel compelled
To come home by
A sense of moral duty
Perhaps you will come home and frickin' sue me


Readers will note there in one "shitty", a single "goddamn" and a lone "frickin" - terms which would barely register on the offensive expletives scale.

Which makes this The Guardian headline on 12 February 2016 above an article by Monica Tan, Tim Minchin asks George Pell to 'come home' in expletive-filled new song, all the more puzzling.

Sunday 28 September 2014

One of life's little Canberra mysteries


Apparently bohemians are persona non grata in Abbott's Australia, even when endorsed by an apparently chest-beating, weapon-toting attorney-general such as 'Lord Brandis of the Bookshelf' .....


@samdrummond 25 September 2014


This is the club in question:



Welcome to the Melbourne Savage Club

Established in 1894, the Melbourne Savage Club is one of Australia’s oldest and most atmospheric private members clubs.

The clubhouse is an historic 19th century mansion right in the heart of Melbourne.

The club’s name reflects the desire of the founders to encourage a flowering of Bohemian tradition, like the London Savage Club, by taking the name of Richard Savage, a free-spirited 17th century English poet.
 

These origins are expressed today through club members who engage in a broad range of interests across the arts, literature, science and sport.
 

A diverse mix of academics and artists, lawyers and judges, businessmen and journalists is to be found behind the clubhouse’s scarlet doors, enjoying one another’s company amid classic décor and furnishings, fine art and exotic artefacts.
 

Hospitable rooms provide a rare ambience for the many member performances showcasing their musical, theatrical and artistic talents, and for wonderfully eccentric social occasions.
 

Membership is offered to gentlemen only, based upon the criteria of good fellowship and shared interests.


The shared interests of these clubbable males became a Question Time subject for discussion in the Senate at 2.47pm on 25 September. During which the Opposition taunted the Government with this line; Which institution is harder for a woman to get into in 2014: the Savage Club or the Abbott cabinet?

However it appears to have been Labor Senator Doug Cameron's observation that this club had bizarre rituals that require members, when they are greeting a new member or when a new member is being initiated, to make guttural noises and to beat their chests which saw Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan lose his cool and approach his fellow senator too closely:


The Sydney Morning Herald 25 September 2014

The 'discussion' was finally laid to rest with this from Senator Cameron at 3.04pm; The Savage Club has also said that it is 'the more sozzled alternative to the genteel Melbourne Club'. That is why they have got to lift the handrails up! This is really bizarre. It is a club that is based on 'bohemianism, free love, frugality and voluntary poverty'. I will not go into the first point in relation to Senator Brandis but I certainly know that frugality is not one of his main games. And they all have their own titles when they go to the club. Senator Brandis has picked 'Lord Brandis of the Bookshelf'! That is his title when he goes to the club. He will be beating his chest and making guttural noises and making sure women have no place at the Savage Club. What an absolute disgrace from a frontbench minister in this government. 

The mystery of which weapons owned by the Melbourne Savage Club have resulted in its website being blocked remains unanswered.

As does the question of why the club still retains that bizarre and implicitly racist logo/watermark on its website.

Friday 18 July 2014

Jackboot George is at it again


You receive an email from a friend of a friend asking if they can cadge a lift to your second cousin's wedding and, someone in the friend’s family is a person of interest to Australia’s intelligence agencies (just like writers of letters to the editor in 1945,  those supporting Moratorium marches in the 1970s, or former High Court Justice Michael Kirby as a young child ) and surreptitiously your computer is hacked and your privacy violated or worse.

Welcome to the world according to Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Attorney-General George Brandis…………….


Attorney-General George Brandis is preparing to introduce legislation next week that will expand the surveillance powers of ASIO and other intelligence agencies.
Among other things, it would enable them to hack into a third party's computer to access a target computer, and infiltrate entire computer networks on a single warrant.

Saturday 15 March 2014

'like a cane toad in a rose garden'


Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mike Carlton has provided some wonderful imagery in a piece he wrote about Chris Kenny, a scribe who pens pieces for The Australian.

In today's Herald Carlton wrote (in part):

The Tories and their army of media toadies wage their war on the ABC with increasing fury, sniping here, a charge from the big battalions there.
Whimpering in the trenches is one Chris Kenny, once a factotum to Lord Downer at the peak of his global glory, now a minor columnist for The Australian and a hugely unwatched talking head for Sky News. As he tells anyone who'll listen, he is much insulted by a Chaser comedy sketch on ABC TV last September which showed him Photo-shopped, pants down, apparently in carnal congress with a canine.

.......

Queensland's finest legal mind, the saponaceous George Brandis, is also up in arms. As federal Attorney-General, he is outraged by the ABC's mockery of Kenny. But, perversely, he remains bent on removing section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, thus clearing the way for Melbourne's village idiot, Andrew Bolt, to resume his racist sneering at indigenous Australians. So it's OK to rubbish black academics but not Murdoch hacks.
It was hilarious watching Soapy bluster his way around this daft contradiction on Q&A last Monday. Seated next to the fragrant Lisa Wilkinson, squat and unblinking, he looked like a cane toad in a rose garden. No doubt he would defend to the death my right to say this.


Sauce Source: SMH, 15/3/14

Thursday 13 March 2014

Are the Institute of Public Affairs' resident wingnuts losing control of one of their puppets?


Really happening or wishful thinking?


A political fight is brewing between Attorney-General George Brandis and the Institute of Public Affairs.
Senator Brandis has angered the IPA and other powerful Liberal Party allies, who believe the Attorney-General is using tricky language to dilute his promise to repeal a controversial section of the race discrimination laws.
The Attorney-General has also been lobbied internally by marginal seat MPs representing multicultural electorates worried about losing protections against hate speech.
Free speech advocates say they have detected a change in Senator Brandis' tone recently, and they believe he has been persuaded by religious, ethnic and indigenous leaders, who have been lobbying against changing the race discrimination laws.
The dispute is likely to get worse, especially if Senator Brandis introduces, as some expect, a new criminal offence of racial vilification. IPA executive director John Roskam said he would rather there were no changes to the law than a new criminal ban on hate speech. He also said it had ''got back to me'' that Senator Brandis had been criticising the IPA in private conversations.
On ABC1's Q&A program on Monday, Senator Brandis said the Abbott government was determined to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act ''in its current form''. It is that phrase which angers the IPA.
''That was not the tone and intention of what Senator Brandis expressed before the election,'' Mr Roskam said. He said Senator Brandis had led him to believe he would repeal section 18C entirely. Senator Brandis condemned the law - which makes it unlawful to ''offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate'' someone because of their race or ethnicity - when columnist Andrew Bolt breached it for an article he wrote about ''white'' Aborigines.

Thursday 10 October 2013

George Brandis has a book or two


"Attorney-General George Brandis has defended as within his rights spending nearly $13,000 of taxpayer funds over the past four years on his personal library....
A Fairfax Media analysis of Senator Brandis' expenses, following a report from blogger Stephen Murray, shows that he has spent $12,808.35 on publications between July 2009 and December 2012."

The mainstream media refer to Senator Brandis' growing library as a personal one.


Personal it most definitely is as Brandis declared it (for what appears to be the first time) as a private asset, along with his own car, in his 2011 Statement of Registrable Interests:



Readers will notice that he declares the library to be a professional one. Presumably tax deductible in some form or other at the end of each financial year.

Perhaps the good senator is amassing an apparently extensive range of taxpayer-funded books to add to this library in anticipation of consultancy work once he retires from Parliament?