Commonwealth Solicitor-General Gleeson decides he has had enough of Attorney-General Brandis' unedifying antics and resigns

One for the history books.

A forceful letter of resignation from the second law office of the Commonwealth of Australia tendered at the end of an unedifying power grab by Attorney-General and Liberal Senator for Queensland George Brandis, who is considered by many to be one of the less illustrious members of the legal profession. 

This letter was delivered on the same day that the legal profession is:

Celebrating 100Years of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General

Venue: Banco Court, Level 13, Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney

Organisation: Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and the Australian Association of Constitutional Law

Time: 6.00 pm - 7.30 pm

Date: Mon, 2016-10-24

This event celebrates 100 years since the passage of the 1916 Act.

Opening remarks will be given by Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE QC, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia and Commonwealth Solicitor-General, 1964-1969. A panel of the former Commonwealth Solicitors-General will discuss and debate the history, legal position and practice of the office.

The panel will be chaired by Dr Gabrielle Appleby, Associate Professor UNSW Law, Co-Director of the Judiciary Project, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law.

Justin Gleeson SC's resignation takes effect on 7 November 2016.

Resignation letter sent to Australian Attorney-General George Brandis by Solicitor-General of the Commonwea... by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/328676245/Resignation-letter-sent-to-Australian-Attorney-General-George-Brandis-by-Solicitor-General-of-the-Commonwealth-Justin-Gleeson-SC

Australian Attorney-General & Liberal Party Senator George Brandis vs independent Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth Justin Gleeson: who has the most to hide?

The marked difference in degree of redaction in copies of the same official letter, submitted by both Australian Attorney-General & Liberal Party Senator  George Brandis and Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth Justin Gleeson to the Senate Inquiry into the Nature and scope of the consultations prior to the making of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016, raises a strong suspicion that Brandis is attempting to massage the truth and has something to hide……

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis v Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson - SIDE by SIDE by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/327282899/Australian-Attorney-General-George-Brandis-v-Solicitor-General-Justin-Gleeson-SIDE-by-SIDE

 BACKGROUND

See: http://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com.au/2016/10/australias-two-most-senior-legal.html

Australia's two most senior legal officers square off

Attorney-General George Brandis is making the news again for all the wrong reasons.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 October 2016:

Attorney-General George Brandis is facing calls to resign after the government's top legal adviser accused him of misleading Parliament, in a dramatic escalation of a toxic row between the country's two most senior legal officers.

Senator Brandis has come under fire over a contentious move to restrict his ministerial colleagues' ability to seek independent legal advice directly from Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson, SC.

Documents released at a Senate inquiry on Wednesday suggest same-sex marriage laws and a proposal to strip dual nationals involved in terrorism of Australian citizenship were flashpoints in a simmering feud between the two men.

Mr Gleeson, the government's top legal adviser, said in an explosive submission to the inquiry that he had not been consulted about a change requiring all ministers – including the prime minister – to obtain the written approval of Senator Brandis before seeking his advice.

Senator Brandis claimed in Parliament Mr Gleeson was consulted about the legally binding change, made days before the election.

Mr Gleeson said he had taken steps to have the change "withdrawn and for a proper consultation process to commence" but they had "proved futile".

"Had I been consulted ... I would have made a submission to the Attorney-General, in the strongest terms, that [the change] should not be made," Mr Gleeson said.

Legal experts have expressed concern the change is a power grab that restricts the independence of the Solicitor-General.

Mr Gleeson said there had been times since his appointment in 2013 when he had been asked directly by "persons, such as a Prime Minister or Governor-General" to provide confidential advice and it was "critically important" this should continue.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 October 2016:

Mr Gleeson wrote to Senator Brandis in November 2015, raising concerns the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) rather than his office was consulted on a marriage equality proposal that was "under active consideration by the government".

Mr Gleeson also said he was not consulted about significant changes to a proposal to strip dual nationals involved in terrorism of Australian citizenship. Senator Brandis later made public statements that Mr Gleeson had advised there was a "good prospect" the law would withstand a High Court challenge….

The Guardian, 5 October 2016:

So what did George Brandis tell the Senate? He tabled an unequivocal statement that he had consulted the solicitor general in relation to the Legal Services Direction:

“Section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903 empowers the attorney general to issue directions, which are to apply generally to Commonwealth legal work, or are to apply to Commonwealth legal work being performed, or to be performed, in relation to a particular matter. As the Direction relates to the process for referring a question of law to the solicitor general, the attorney general has consulted the solicitor general.”

A document obtained under Freedom of Information by The Guardian newspaper demonstrates that the Attorney-General has a rather odd notion of what consultation entails.

This letter clearly highlights the fact that there had been no prior consultation on changes to Legal Services Direction 2005:

Unfortunately for Senator Brandis the current Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs' inquiry into the Nature and scope of the consultations prior to the making of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016 allows the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth to give a full and frank explanation of the circumstances surrounding the Attorney-General's blatant power grab.

Something Justin Gleeson SC avails himself of in Submission No. 3 to the inquiry:

Evidence given at the 5 October 2016 inquiry hearing supports the contention that the Solicitor-General was only consulted about a guidance document (now superseded) not the directions document.

It  would appear that the Attorney-General has indeed knowingly mislead the Australian Parliament.

A position that sections of the mainstream media support.

Crikey.com.au, 6 October 2016:

George Brandis has blatantly misled parliament and has to resign. And his reluctance to use a better lawyer than himself for advice is behind the debacle……

Brandis has clearly, plainly misled Parliament, and on a very important issue. There’s no wriggle room or get-out clause for the provincial lawyer from Brisbane. He’s got to go.

As to a motive imputed to Brandis by the Crikey journalist - I suspect that the Solicitor-General holds a similar view although more diplomatically worded here:

Beware the Secret State - Part Two

The Secret State is becoming more than a concept in Australia as successive governments spend more and more money on surveillance and give more and more surveillance power to federal and state government departments and agencies.

On 5 August 2014 the Prime Minister announced his intention to further broaden surveillance powers via the mandatory retention by service providers of all telecommunications metadata, in order for government agencies to access information on Australian citizens, permanent residents and visiting tourists. 

Between 1 July and 31 December 2013 just one of Australia’s major telecommunications companies received these requests for data held on its customers:

Telstra customer information, carriage service records and pre-warrant checks 36,053

Life threatening situations and Triple Zero emergency calls 2,871

Court orders 270

Warrants for interception or access to stored communications 1,450

Total 40,644

Note: These figures do not include requests by national security agencies.

By 30 June 2014 these requests for data held on its customers in the 2013-14 financial year totalled :

Telstra customer information, carriage service records and pre-warrant checks 75,448

Life threatening situations and Triple Zero emergency calls 6,202

Court orders 598

Warrants for interception or access to stored communications 2,701

Total  84,949

Note: These figures do not include requests by national security agencies.

In addition the centralised database of all Australian telephone numbers including the service and directory addresses provided by the customer, the Integrated Public Number Database (IPND), was accessed by agencies approximately 104,000 times (excluding national security agencies) during the 2013-14 financial year.

Those agencies who can access all this metadata with or without a warrant include; federal, state & territory police forces, Customs, CrimTrac, state anti-corruption agencies, Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, state & territory corrective services, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Australian Securities & Investment Commission, Australian Taxation Office, Australia Post, Dept of Human Services (including Centrelink, Medicare, Child Support Program), Dept of Veterans’ Affairs, Dept of Immigration and Citizenship, Dept of Defence, State Emergency Services, the RSPCA, local councils – and many more.

That the system is open to possible abuse is evident.

The Global Mail reported on 13 December 2013 that:

In November [2013], Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus admitted his force had accessed the call data of “up to five” members of parliament. Negus made much of the judicial oversight, through the issuing of a warrant, for any interception of the contents of phone calls, emails or SMS messages – but the elephant in the room was his admission that up to five MPs had been the subjects of warrantless data-surveillance, and that no judge had any input at all regarding the propriety of this access….

The extent of use of these powers is surprising – and suggests that it is being used to shirk the hurdle of judicial oversight. No less than 40 government agencies made 293,501 warrantless requests for metadata from internet service providers in the 2011-12 financial year. Just 56,898 of those requests were made by the Federal Police, which has the primary criminal law-enforcement role. The RSPCA, Wyndham City Council, the Tax Practitioners Board and even the Victorian Taxi Directorate also have been allowed to access individual telecommunications data for a ‘law-enforcement purpose’. Why are we giving quangos and a taxi administrator the power to access often highly sensitive personal telecommunications data?

Voters will never know the level of metadata access, with or without a warrant, that has been available to national security agencies in the the last three financial years.

However, they do know that the Abbott Government intends to increase national security agency powers to spy on them, under the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 before the Senate .

The Australian Human Rights Commission stated that it is particularly concerned about the following elements of the bill which are overly broad in their coverage and which potentially impact upon rights to privacy and freedom of expression:

* Provisions enabling warrants for 12 months access to computers, computer networks and premises in the absence of adequate safeguards

* Blanket immunity to ASIO officers from Australian law in conducting surveillance activities with inadequate, independent oversight

* Strict liability for disclosure of information that could capture the work of journalists, among others.

That the Abbott Government intends to use this new legislation to capture journalists' sources can be inferred from this excerpt from a media report in The Sydney Morning Herald on 31 August 2014:

The Australian government has asked the federal police to investigate if lawyer Bernard Collaery and a former spy can be charged with disclosing classified information after revelations Australia spied on East Timor during sensitive oil and gas treaty talks.

Confirmation of the investigation came as the AFP asked the ABC to hand over material relating to its reports on the clandestine operation.

According to sources, the AFP was particularly keen on getting unedited footage of Mr Collaery's interviews with 7.30, Lateline and Four Corners.

It might also want an extract of an affidavit from the former Australian Secret Intelligence Service agent that reporter Conor Duffy claimed to have obtained.

In the interviews with the ABC and other media organisations, Mr Collaery – who had acted for East Timor and the former  ASIS agent – detailed how the former spy led the operation to insert listening devices into the wall cavity of East Timor's government offices under the cover of an aid project.

Attorney-General George Brandis and solicitor-general Justin Gleeson both said the former spy and Mr Collaery appeared to have breached laws preventing the public disclosure of classified information.

The offence carried a prison term of up to two years.

When asked if it was investigating Mr Collaery and the former spy for breaching commonwealth laws, a spokesman for the AFP said: "The AFP can confirm it has received a referral in relation to this matter. As this investigation is ongoing, it is inappropriate to comment further."

The referral was understood to have come from Senator Brandis or his department, which includes ASIO.

In emailed comments, Mr Collaery said he understood ASIO referred the matter to the AFP because of a suspected breach of section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act.

He noted that current ASIO boss David Irvine was head of ASIS at the time of the spying, which Mr Collaery said was illegal.

"This is the police knowingly or unknowingly trying to base a search warrant on an illegality. 

"The AFP should be investigating [former foreign minister Alexander] Downer and Irvine."

The ABC was considering its response but was understood to be prepared to reject the request, despite intimations from the AFP that it would seek a warrant for the material if it failed to comply.

While it was happy to provide footage that went to air (it was available online anyway), it regarded the unedited footage as including off-the-record information that might reveal the identity of protected sources.

International Court of Justice to hear Australia's case against Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean on June 26, 2013

Media Release

ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO REPRESENT AUSTRALIA 

 IN INTERNATIONAL WHALING CASE AGAINST JAPAN

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus QC will appear in Australia’s whaling case against Japan which has now been set down for a three week hearing in the International Court of Justice in the Hague from 26 June, 2013.
“I welcome the announcement of the ICJ hearing date. Australia wants this slaughter to end. We will now have our day in court to establish, once and for all, that Japan’s whaling hunt is not for scientific purposes and is against international law,” said Mr Dreyfus.
“The fixing of the date sets up the final stage in this case brought by the Australian Government. The oral hearings are the last phase of legal proceedings before the Court makes its decision.”
Australia commenced the proceedings against Japan on 31 May 2010. The International Court of Justice has received written submissions from both Parties.
Australia’s views on whaling are well known – we condemn all commercial whaling, including Japan’s so-called ‘scientific’ whaling,” said Minister for Environment Tony Burke.
“The Australian Government’s decision to bring this legal action demonstrates our determination to end commercial whaling.”
Minister for Foreign Affairs Bob Carr said Australia’s whaling case did not undermine the relationship between Australia and Japan.
“Australia and Japan have agreed that our differences over whaling will not affect the strong bilateral relationship we share,” said Mr Carr.
“The International Court of Justice is the appropriate forum to resolve these differences in a calm and measured way.”
Counsel appearing in the case with the Attorney-General will include Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson SC, Bill Campbell QC, Professor James Crawford SC, Professor Philippe Sands QC and Professor Laurence Boisson de Chazournes.
“We hope the Court will deliver its decision on the legality of Japan’s whaling before the start of the next whaling season,” Mr Dreyfus said.

April 12, 2013

ICJ hearing schedule

Gillard receives a blunt open letter for Christmas

From ABC online The Drum – Unleashed on 7 December 2010:

The authors write: We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law – and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them.
The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly.
We know that many others would have liked to sign. But given the urgency of the situation, we though it expedient to publish now rather than collect more names.
If, however, you agree with the sentiments expressed, we encourage you to leave your name in the comments section.

Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.

“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing.

Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.

As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.

We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.

We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial – it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.

We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.

We look forward to your response.

Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor
Lizzie O’Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn
Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic
Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author
Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer
Professor Peter Singer, author and academic
Adam Bandt, MP
Senator Bob Brown
Senator Scott Ludlam
Julian Burnside QC, barrister
Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions
Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic
Rob Stary, lawyer
Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer
The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC
Brian Walters SC, barrister
Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic
Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation
Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation
Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist
Christos Tsiolkas, author
James Bradley, author and journalist
Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer
Louise Swinn, publisher
Helen Garner, novelist
Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic
Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator
John Birmingham, writer
Guy Rundle, writer
Alex Miller, writer
Sophie Cunningham, editor and author
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Professor Judith Brett, author and academic
Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre
Sylvia Hale, MLC
Sophie Black, editor
David Ritter, lawyer and historian
Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic
Dr Mark Davis, author and academic
Henry Rosenbloom, publisher
Ben Naparstek, editor
Chris Feik, editor
Louise Swinn, publisher
Stephen Warne, barrister
Dr John Dwyer QC
Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher
Joan Dwyer OAM
Greg Barns, barrister
James Button, journalist
Owen Richardson, critic
Michelle Griffin, editor
John Timlin, literary Agent & producer
Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher
Alison Croggon, author, critic
Daniel Keene, playwright
Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer
Bill O'Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria
Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School
Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney
Anthony Georgeff, editor
Max Gillies, actor
Shane Maloney, writer
Louis Armand, author and publisher
Jenna Price, academic and journalist
Tanja Kovac, National Cooordinator EMILY's List Australia
Dr Russell Grigg, academic
Dr Justin Clemens, writer and academic
Susan Morairty, Lawyer
David Hirsch, Barrister
Cr Anne O’Shea
Kathryn Crosby, Candidates Online
Dr Robert Sparrow, academic
Jennifer Mills, author
Foong Ling Kong, editor
Tim Norton, Online Campaigns Co-ordinator, Oxfam Australia
Elisabeth Wynhausen, writer
Ben Slade, Lawyer
Nikki Anderson, publisher
Dan Cass
Professor Diane Bell, author and academic
Dr Philipa Rothfield, academic
Gary Cazalet, academic
Dr David Coady, academic
Dr Matthew Sharpe, writer and academic
Dr Tamas Pataki, writer and academic
Miska Mandic
Associate Professor Jake Lynch, academic
Professor Simon During, academic
Michael Brull, writer
Dr Geoff Boucher, academic
Jacinda Woodhead, writer and editor
Dr Rjurik Davidson, writer and editor
Mic Looby, writer
Jane Gleeson-White, writer and editor
Alex Skutenko, editor
Associate Professor John Collins, academic
Professor Philip Pettit, academic
Dr Christopher Scanlon, writer and academic
Dr Lawrie Zion, journalist
Johannes Jakob, editor
Sunili Govinnage, lawyer
Michael Bates, lawyer
Bridget Maidment, editor
Bryce Ives, theatre director
Sarah Darmody, writer
Jill Sparrow, writer
Lyn Bender, psychologist
Meredith Rose, editor
Dr Ellie Rennie, President, Engage Media
Ryan Paine, editor
Simon Cooper, editor
Chris Haan, lawyer
Carmela Baranowska, journalist.
Clinton Ellicott, publisher
Dr Charles Richardson, writer and academic
Phillip Frazer, publisher
Geoff Lemon, journalist
Jaya Savige, poet and editor
Johannes Jakob, editor
Kate Bree Geyer; journalist
Chay-Ya Clancy, performer
Lisa Greenaway, editor, writer
Chris Kennett - screenwriter, journalist
Kasey Edwards, author
Dr. Janine Little, academic
Dr Andrew Milner, writer and academic
Patricia Cornelius, writer
Elisa Berg, publisher
Lily Keil, editor
Jenny Sinclair
Roselina Rose
Stephen Luntz
PM Newton
Bryan Cooke
Kristen Obaid
Ryan Haldane-Underwood
Patrick Gardner
Robert Sinnerbrink
Kathryn Millist
Anne Coombs
Karen Pickering
Sarah Mizrahi
Suzanne Ingleton
Jessica Crouch
Michael Ingleton
Matt Griffin
Jane Allen
Tom Curtis
John Connell
David Garland
Stuart Hall
Meredith Tucker-Evans
Phil Perkins
Alexandra Adsett
Tom Doig, editor
Beth Jackson
Peter Mattessi
Robert Sinnerbrink
Greg Black
Paul Ashton
Sigi Jottkandt
Kym Connell, lawyer
Silma Ihram
Nicole Papaleo, lawyer
Melissa Forbes
Matthew Ryan
Ben Gook
Daniel East
Bridget Ikin
Lisa O'Connell
Melissa Cranenburgh
John Bryson
Michael Farrell
Melissa Reeves
Dr Emma Cox
Michael Green
Margherita Tracanelli
David Carlin, writer
Bridget McDonnell
Geoff Page, writer
Rebecca Interdonato
Roxane Ludbrook-Ingleton
Stefan Caramia
Ash Plummer

UPDATE:

The Independant on 8 December 2010 - Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.
Mr Assange is in a British jail awaiting extradition proceedings to Sweden after being refused bail at Westminster Magistrates’ Court despite a number of prominent public figures offering to stand as surety.
His arrest in north London yesterday was described by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as “good news”, and may pave the way for extradition to America and a possible lengthy jail sentence.

How we rate our Aussie politicians

Readers Digest has its fourth annual Most Trusted Poll up online.

Have a look at who rated below 50 - every politician on the 100 well-known people list and a few surprises.
I can understand Sol Trujillo an also ran at 95, Pell logged in at 75 and Keelty coming in at only 52, but Gleeson at 54? Is our High Court considered the realm of used car salesmen now?

51. Naomi Watts - Actor
52. Jessica Rowe - TV newsreader
52. Mick Keelty - Commissioner, Australian Federal Police
54. Andrew Symonds - Member of Australian cricket team
54. Murray Gleeson - Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia
56. Mick Fanning - World Champion surfer
57. Natalie Bassingthwaite - Actor, musician, TV host, So you think you can dance
58. Bert Newton - TV host
58. Karl Stefanovic - TV host, Today
60. Kerri-Anne Kennerley - TV Host, Mornings with Kerri-Anne
61. Bill Granger - Chef, TV Host and Author
62. Kevin Rudd - Prime Minister
63. Chris Lilley - Writer and comedian, Summer Heights High
64. Mel Gibson - Actor and director
65. Keith Urban - Musician
66. Jana Rawlinson (nee Pittman) - Olympic runner
67. Maxine McKew - Former journalist, Federal MP
67. Russell Crowe - Actor, businessman
69. Julia Gillard - Federal MP, Deputy Prime Minister
70. Greg Norman - Golfer
71. Lleyton Hewitt - Tennis player
72. Noel Pearson - Lawyer and activist
73. Therese Rein - Wife of Prime Minister, businesswoman
74. Janette Howard - Wife of former Prime Minister
75. Cardinal George Pell - Catholic Archbishop of Sydney
76. Peter Garrett - Federal MP, ex Midnight Oil musician
77. Lara Bingle - Model
78. Andrew Johns - Former rugby league player
79. The Chaser Boys - Comedians and satirists
80. Alan Jones - Radio presenter
81. Bob Brown - Federal senator, leader of the Australian Greens
82. Peter Holmes a Court - Businessman, owner South Sydney Rugby League Club
83. Glenn Stevens - Governor, Reserve Bank of Australia
84. Lachlan Murdoch - Businessman
85. Bob Hawke - Former Prime Minister
86. Rupert Murdoch - Media mogul
87. James Packer - Businessman
88. John Howard - Prime Minister
89. Kyle Sandilands - Radio personality, TV judge Australian Idol, TV Host, Big Brother
90. Malcolm Turnbull - Federal MP, Shadow Treasurer
91. Paul Keating - Former Prime Minister
92. Peter Costello - Federal MP, former treasurer
93. Brendan Nelson - Leader of the Opposition
94. Tony Abbott - Federal MP
95. Shane Warne - Former cricketer
95. Sol Trujillo - Telstra CEO
97. David Hicks - Confessed terrorism supporter
98. Ben Cousins - Suspended AFL player
99. Wayne Carey - Retired AFL player
100. Rodney Adler - Former director of telecommunications company One. Tel and insurance company HIH

Well duh, M'lud

Soon to retire Australian Chief Justice of the High Court, Murray Gleeson, predicts that attempts by governments to divide water rights among states, businesses and individuals would inevitably spill into the courts.

 

Speaking to The Sydney Morning Herald this week he said; "If someone asked me to predict - and said it was income tax 30 years ago, and it is immigration cases now - I would say in 30 years from now it will be water … When there is an important topic of public policy and the likelihood of government regulation, then lawyers are likely to get involved, too."

 

No doubt about it. Years of tertiary education, more years in legal practice, hundreds of hours on the Bench, and a judge comes out with a polished thought on something that has been bl**dy obvious to the hoi polloi on the NSW North Coast for yonks.

Ain't education and a decent income wunnerful?