Dominic Perrottet | Former Premier of New South Wales: Appointing Judges, Politics & Legislation

Published: May 07, 2024

About this episode

Welcome to the Season 1 Finale! Host Ollie welcomes former Premier of New South Wales Dominic Perrottet to discuss his journey into politics. Educated at the University of Sydney, Dominic had a brief stint at Henry Davis York (now Norton Rose Fulbright) before entering politics. He gives exclusive insight into his position in government and his experience as leader of Australia's most populated state. Whether you're a law student, a legal professional, or just curious about the law, 'The Australian Law Student' is your insider's guide to navigating the Australian legal landscape. Tune in and join the conversation! To find out more about Hall & Wilcox graduate and career opportunities check out the link below! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/theaustralianlawstudent⁠⁠⁠⁠
0:00
-0:00

Transcript

Hello and welcome back to the Australian Law Student Podcast. I'm your host, Oliver Hammond and welcome to the finale of season 1/20/24. And what a season it's been. I've had the pleasure of sitting down with so many amazing guests this season who have shared such an amazing insight on the law and today's final. Episode is certainly no exception. Now, as is the case with all our political guests, our obligatory disclaimer. At the Australian Law Student, we strive to present a broad array of views about the law and society as a whole. We are by no means politically affiliated and strive for political neutrality at all times. Now with that out of the way, in this episode I had the pleasure of being welcomed to NSW Parliament House to have a conversation with none other than former Premier of NSW, Dominic Paratay. In his earlier years, Dom was a law student at the University of Sydney and would go on to serve as the Minister for Finance, then Treasurer of NSW and then eventually as Premier. Facing the COVID-19 pandemic, severe natural disasters in the northern parts of NSW and a tumultuous economy, Dom's leadership was certainly tested in some of the toughest time seen in Australian history. As the youngest Premier of NSW, Dom discussed his path into politics and the relationship he sees between the law, legislature and the judiciary. This is certainly a discussion you don't want to miss. So without further ado, sit back, relax and enjoy the podcast. Thank you for listening. Hello everyone, and welcome back to another episode of the Australian Law Student Podcast. I'm very honoured today to have a very special guest with us, former NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet. Dom, how are you? Very well, how are you? Good. Thank you. Good to join you. We'll start off with the first question. Dom, what was your journey into politics like? And can you share any? Anecdotes that have shaped or even changed your view on the law and perhaps its role in society. Yeah, I mean, well firstly I was working as a lawyer and I was involved in the Liberal Party at university and it kind of stayed in engaged with the party whilst I was working at a firm called Henry Davis York, which no longer exists. It's now Norton Rose in commercial litigation and solvency law. And I actually wanted to go to the bar. And I had kind of made this decision with my wife when we discussed it at the time. And I was going to kind of take a back step in politics and kind of pursue a career in law. And then randomly, just like literally, I think a week after I had that conversation or less the former member for a seat called Castle, which I think in the time was the safest Liberal seat in the state. It's like 2010 called me, he'd been there for 17 years and he called me and said he wasn't going to recontest the 2011 election, which was pretty unfortunate for him because he'd spent 16 years in opposition and and we were going, well, it's clear at this stage we're going to govern a bit of a landslide election in 2011. And so I kind of thought to myself, well, I might as well just have a crack in this pre selection and see how we go. I didn't actually expect to win it. And that's kind of where the Liberal Party members vote on who should be the candidate and, and I was successful, but I think a few votes. So it was kind of, you know, it just kind of happened that way. And, and so, yeah, there was elected in that 20, 2011 election and it was a, you know, it was a, it was a landslide election for the Liberal Party then. And, and then I've held a few seats since I moved to Hawkesbury actually in 2015. And then 20, 19 Epping where I live in Beecroft. So, and I was reelected the last election, which obviously we lost government. And so, but I'm still kind of still a member for, for Epping in the Parliament. And the question in relation to the, the, the law and how my views have changed. Well, I think when you're on the, the legislature side, right, you're, you're obviously making laws. So you're changing the laws that are currently in existence. So the role of the law, I mean, if you look at the, the, the, the, the democratic principles you have in place that create such a Great Society that we have in Australia. Well, part of that is the, is the structure that we have in place that I think is being proven to be incredibly successful and helped our country become the prosperous nation that it is today. And a key part of that is that separation between the legislature, the legislature and I would say probably legislature, the executive and and the judiciary, right? And there are times where the judiciary makes decisions which you may or may not agree with that have a substantive impact in relation to your job as a member of the legislative assembly here or most cases a member as a member of the executive government. You know, a recent one was the is wrong. The High Court decision in relation to the electric vehicles, the levies of the states, the states couldn't impose them. So that that has real ramifications. They're not saying yet that's going to have real ramifications for the federation and and the levies of taxes. I mean, they said, they said that, they said those that, that, that levy was within, you know, prohibited under Section 9 of the Constitution, right. So the, the, the implications of that. So then you kind of go, what's the role of guiding the executive in relation to that? Well, there's a number of times where courts make decisions that we would sit there and say, well, that's against what we, well, we may have disagreed with the decision, but ultimately the law wasn't clear. I mean, that's what the, the, the, the judiciary is doing. They're interpreting the laws that we make. Or maybe they were relevant for a certain point in time, but societal changes and and community expectations have changed. So you think about those things and then you may make adjustments to the laws here to make it abundantly clear to the make make those laws very clear so that you sure understands that this is the view. And that's why the second reading speech is obviously incredibly important because for the abundance of any doubt, this is this is what we mean. This is what the intent is, and that hopefully provides the clarity that you sure need in relation with the interpretation of of whatever case is in front of them. Yeah, yeah. And I think the the, the, that's really interesting. The electric vehicles case, we covered that case actually in the podcast in an earlier episode. And that was the case where Justice Edelman, one of the High Court justices, he his dissent was rather scathing and it was sort of he basically listed, I think it was probably around 10 to 20 judges being like Owen Dixon is wrong, that with this president, Owen Dixon is wrong. I am wrong, you were wrong. He he he basically started listing of all these judges that would be wrong if this was overturned. So, yeah, it is really interesting how the judiciary, I suppose because that relationship, I think it's all obviously thought that the legislature is always influencing the judiciary, but I think the opposite way around and it also occurs. Yeah. Well, in that case, I mean the the way that the usury is always considered, the states imposing taxes and levies has had that degree of flexibility. Now I that High Court decision has overturned a long standing legal view. Now, ultimately that creates challenges to the fiscal capacity of the States and, you know, people and, you know, I kind of got a deep appreciation of this over the last 12 years in politics. But, you know, we are a federation. That's what our country's the federation. You know, the we, the states bought into this concept. And, you know, it's part of that. In fact, it was the states that gave up the capacity for income tax during the war. We gave it over to the federal government and then never sought to take it back. Now, politically, that would be incredibly challenging. Yeah. Yeah. But but that's, I don't know advocating for that, but but you know, decisions like that shine a light on, well, hold on. The states need to have the autonomy in relation to revenue raising because every state's different and they have different needs and the autonomy needs to be there. If you start taking away the state's rights in relation to their fiscal capacity to raise revenue causes substantive challenges. And you know, over the time, I've always thought the state's the best place to deal with service delivery and therefore needs, you know, need, need the funding to be able to do that. And the GST is an interesting one as well, right, The GST. Well, I think as we're speaking, I think there was reports there, the NDIS sort of meetings around with the premiers around that with sort. Of yeah, we see what's happening there, right? Yeah, I can tell what's happened there because when I was treasurer, they were trying to do it that the federal treasury was trying to do it to myself at the time. And they're trying to do an arrangement in relation to who should fund early childhood education because they get involved in childcare, we're involved in preschools. But they were trying, they've always been trying to shift the liability of the NDIS onto the state, right. And it's been, it's been a push by Treasury. So seeing that today, I can, I can tell exactly what's going on. There was a meeting last year and I think there was a lot of, you know, new members, new premiers, new treasurers in play. And I, I can imagine back then, then the states agreed to take on some liability or some operational management of the NDIS. And they've probably had their treasuries now do crunch the numbers and say this is a really bad, this is a really bad deal for the, for the states. And ultimately that's, you know, everyone wants the NDIS to succeed. But, you know, I think from my perspective, the state should have greater engagement when it comes to, I mean, if you're a federal minister and A, and A, and a bureaucrat comes in and says to you, hey, I've got a great idea on, on a, on a national wide service program, you'd, you'd pretty much say, please leave. I'll let the states do it because, I mean, they haven't got the greatest track record, right. As as well-intentioned as their, as their programs may be, ultimately the states are very different and trying to have Canberra make decisions and roll out these programs. You know, it's created the NDIS, pink bats, booting, Education Revolution, the NBN and all of these, all of these delivery programs have had that on a national scale and that substantive, substantive problems. So it's important for my, well, I'd say from being a former premier of this state that they need to and the premiers and the Treasury need to make sure that that cost shift doesn't occur. Yeah, Yeah. I mean, this is really relevant, I suppose for myself and a couple of other law students that I know would listen to this. It's them we're doing federal constitutional law at the moment. And so, yeah, just learnt. So obviously learning about the taxation power, yes, that they're sort of by the States and they're never giving back. Obviously there was, I think there was two times where the Prime Minister sort of I think was Malcolm Turnbull and Fraser wanted to perhaps think about giving it back, but was sort of, yeah, push back. So yeah, you're right. I think a lot of people don't view sort of Australia as a federation, I think. I suppose they view. It as sort of this and that creates these major challenges right in relation to like look at the GST at the moment. So the state signed up for the GST and on a condition that that would abolish a lot of stamp duties and other taxes. Like there was a hotel bed tax, there was a number that we'd agreed, but obviously under those taxes, the states received a hundred cents in the dollar. Now ultimately the GST due to that principle of horizontal fiscal equalization, you end up in a position where there's distributed. There's a big thing at the moment that NSW given to Victoria. My kind of view as we should be based on based on the the formula a problem with that. But you know, the what, what, what Malcolm, the decision that Malcolm Turnbull and, and, and Scott Morrison made in relation to the floor for WA is one of the worst public policy decisions since Federation. And you know, WI are now receiving, you know, we, when I negotiated that no worse off clause with the federal, with the federal government at the time, which became enshrined in law. Because Malcolm's like, when no state's going to be worse off. It's like, well, if no state's going to be worse off, Malcolm put it in the legislation and we'll see. And we're now saying it's costing around $5 billion a year and the taxpayers are now paying for that, which is getting shifted off to WA. And WA is much greater only because of an accident of the line going down a map. WA, WA getting further funding in, in GST much more than they should, they should be getting because ultimately they have much greater revenue raising capacity. And talk about the federation is one of the great aspects of Australia. We have a very egalitarian society where and, and, and the principles it's based on is that every state should have the same capacity for service delivery at A, at A, at a level right now. The reality is WI has a much greater capacity for revenue raising or particularly at the moment when it comes to the resources sector. You know, the Western Australian government didn't put those resources under, there wasn't some great fiscal management on the on, on their behalf and their Australian resources that ultimately the benefits should be shared to ensure that wherever you live in this great country, you're able to provide an adequate level of service delivery. And and so I don't know how they unwind that now that we're now that now that we're here, but it's certainly going to create challenges going forward. Yeah, yeah. And I suppose, yeah, just shifting it perhaps to a little bit in your, when you first were elected, you were one of, if not the youngest Premier in NSW and you certainly came onto the political scene very young and held quite big roles at at a very young age. What would you say to perhaps younger lawyers and other young professionals that are looking to make that impact? What, what sort of keys do you think that you were able to sort of things you were able to do to sort of help those chances? Are you saying just generally or in law or in politics or both? But both or generally. Both. Well, I think surround yourself by smart people, you know, I think a lot of people have, you can get insecure, right? You, you the, the best people I've seen, the best ministers have always been those people who have broader people than them around them. And if you do that and, and you're, and you're open to feedback and you're open to constructive criticism, then you will, I think naturally succeed rather than surrounding yourself by people who just say yes and, and yeah, yes, Sir, no, Sir. Three better like you. You want, you want that, that leads you, I believe, to be more of a critical thinker. I think that's, that's essential, you know, critically thinking about issues and challenging yourself and nothing to substitute for hard work, you know, And yeah, you do that in a balanced way. I probably could have been a bit more balanced at times, but it had pretty, you know, it was pretty difficult times over the last four year, particularly during the pandemic. And some of the challenges we've had, we're working around the clock non-stop. But yeah, I think that'd be the the the number, the top two things. Did so when when you started out would you say that you came into politics thinking, oh, you were you were wanting to work as hard as you possibly could and how can you I suppose sharing a bit more on that perhaps how how do you balance that with sort of work and life obviously family and. Oh, it's hard. And these, these, these, these jobs are, are, you know, unique and I don't think the public really appreciates the amount of work that goes into them because you just kind of see the press conference. You don't see the, the, the day-to-day grind. And, and look, I've been very blessed to have the roles that I had in finance and treasury and particularly during what some of the darkest times our country's faced during Bush fires, floods and the COVID pandemic. And now really difficult, now really difficult times. But you're not, I don't unlike the old, you know, the olden days. I probably feel like I'm part of the olden days now doing the university podcast. But but I think the, the, the, the, there's going to be a greater shift towards politicians kind of moving in out of the private sector, right. So kind of go in, make a contribution and leave. And I always saw the roles that I had was to to make the best contribution I could for the limited period of time that I would have the great honor of serving at at at this level. So it's not a forever job. So it's kind of like just going make, make it the difference that you can. And also, you know, it was very fortunate. As hard as it was, you don't get into politics for the good times. You get into politics for difficult times. So to be in those roles at times where there was health challenges, economic challenges and natural disasters and being and being the forefront and trying to work through those issues and come up with solutions, you know, it's very special. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I suppose moving on to our next question, your time in politics has seen you come up with a number of large reforms from NSW's digital IDs, which as Victorian I might like like to add, I'd love to see back in my home state. But to to a multi $1,000,000 overhaul into gambling reform and major reforms to stamp. Judy, can you explain a little bit about the sort of mental process of, of how a polishing comes up with these ideas and I suppose some of the challenges that might be faced perhaps by the public or, or, or or things like that? So, you know, I, I kind of, I always from the roles I had in finance and treasury and premier was always to be reformist, right, and to challenge the status quo. And the difficulty with that is people just accept, I think the way the world is and don't look outside and say how it could be better. So change is inevitably hard, like you to let digital licenses like when I tried to do that, we did a 85% take up just quite like, I think the I think SA's one's got like 30%. So we were 85%. The I remember if something so basic as that, right? I wouldn't have thought that was hard, right? That was basic. And you know, talk back radio, we went into meltdown. You know, they were saying things like what happens if, you know, you lose your wallet. Oh, sorry, if your phone goes dead. And I'd say, well, what happens if you lose your wallet? Like this is just how, how can we not look outside the but like, why is school hours 9 till three in a modern society? Like a some bureaucrat 100 years ago made a decision that school hours and 9:00 to 3:00. Now, I'm not saying I was advocating to change them and we changed them into trials, but it was incredibly, incredibly hard. Now, so on public policy making, how does how do you get to how do you bring people with you? Well, you got to start with what's right. So if you start with what's right and then you go, OK, I want to get to this point, how do I get there? Because that's, that's, that's that's a bigger challenge. One thing's determining what's right. That's not that hard sometimes. If you, if you're thinking, you're critically thinking about the way society is structured, then it's kind of like, OK, well, how am I going to bring people on this journey? And I made mistakes early on and that I learned a lot from. So when I was finance minister, I reformed the workers compensation system and credit eye care. And it was the right decision. So absolutely right policy, but my execution was poor and then things got messed up, mixed up in saying, oh, it was bad reform because you know, when problems occur in workers compensation, it's not all that must have occurred because of the change. No, it's it's a much better system. And he gave, well, what's the upside of reforming workers compensation? That's the matter for the other day. But it was the right thing to do nonetheless. But I learned from that it was really good to go, to go having that kind of being chastised through that reform because. It's not just saying, well, here's the end goal, off we go. It's how do I bring people on this journey? And stamp duty was a really that took me 3 years, A lot of work, a lot of focus groups that were organized to kind of get an insight into the way that someone who's over the age of 65 might look at this issue to someone who's 25, right? And I wanted to go to the end, but ultimately where do I land was OK, let's do this, let's do this in bite sized chunks. We'll give first home buyers the choice 1st. And then we implemented that. And then in the election campaign it was like, OK, so now the next stage is we're going to give people choice for life. If you've been in that scheme. And then there would have been negotiation with the federal government so we weren't back to GST, weren't penalized on GST distributions to go further. And then probably would have given it to boomers to downsize, right? Would not have to pay stamp duty, right? So you start you, you've got to slowly change things in a way that makes people comfortable. And you'll have some key learnings. You'll, you'll make mistakes because you can't think of everything. So, but, but with stamp duty, I mean, we had documents like like I had a Q&A like that like and and knew every like I had had studied the thing like and because it was three-year journey, every permutation and combination that could come through, right. So that you don't do that overnight. You do that with running a story on the front page of Daily Telegraph and going there. Use the policy. You've got to be considered and you've got to think deeply about it. The other one was gambling. Well, I knew what I wanted to do, but I there was no understanding in the public mindset of the scourge of poker machines. I mean, we've got more poker machines anywhere in the world than outside Nevada and they are impacting people in in in some of the most lower socio economic communities across our state. And it's an absolute disgrace that this has occurred. We now have, you know, we've we've, you know, got poker machines on every corner. Now, I'm not against gambling, I'm just against situation where people are throwing their life savings down and are clearly addicted to that. And how do we change it? So I once I knew where we had to go, but I had to work very closely with, with, with stakeholders, with the National Party, which were in a coalition. And let me tell you that was that was a, that's a challenge. That was a challenge. But to their credit, they came on board and, and with the media and credit to The Sydney Morning Herald, they ran a very strong campaign alongside that. But I didn't like on that policy. I knew where we're going, but I waited a long time to actually come out and say what it was. I'd state I stated what the problem was. I knew exactly what the solution was like. I'd work that out. Whether I was right or wrong. I knew where that position was going to be. But I kept it quiet because the you had to build the momentum of the issue. You've got to have a, you don't come out with a solution for which people don't understand the problem. You've got to, you've really got to lay the groundwork of what is the problem, why it needs to change. And then you come in with the solution and bang, you kind of got everyone on public. Support. Yeah, yeah, I, I suppose that that process as well, it needs to be much more fought out. It's not as simple as perhaps some people would like to put it forth. I mean, some people, people are always calling for quick political changes and quick fixes, but I think the process is supposed to be slow and it is supposed to be that because it needs to be rigorous and it needs to be thought out. And absolutely, yeah, I think that's. Very and taking time is OK, you do get politically. Yeah, I mean three years, yeah, 4 like. That yeah, but and people say oh, Dom talks about stuff what you doing about it like, well, I'm working on it yeah, you know I can't you you've you've you you need to apply your mind to when you and when you're talking this is this is substantive change, right Like if you're talking changing the entire property tax system, you can't do that overnight. Of course you can't you can't when people have just got used to the fact that you can have pokers in every single corner and it's all OK to go like, you know in pretty much what is now a cashless society to pretty much walk in there and just throw cash down and and, and their life savings down. Well, you know, that's going to there's going to be a lot of interest, interest in that the pubs, the clubs like you got to take time to get it right. And then but you got also, I think what's most important though, is have courage of your convictions. If you believe something is the right thing to do, then you do it. You know, yes, in politics, you compromise sometimes, particularly as part of the Westminster system, right? You see the cabinet sometimes and you disagree with decisions, but you walk out, you're back in the you're back in the decision. So but when you believe something you needs to be done and you and you back yourself and you know what you're doing, I suppose always say start with the end in mind. Like if you know where you want to get to the destination, then it's got to lay the groundwork to achieve it. Yeah. Thank you for listening to the Australian Law Student Podcast. The following segment is Questions from the Bench. Here we ask our guests a set series of questions designed for you to get to know them better and to get the key advice to help you on your journey. Each week we also take a question from you, our audience, head over to our socials and send us a message to get your question answered. Thanks for listening and. We'll move on to some rapid fire questions. We ask these standardized questions all, I guess, for our listeners to get to know the person better and have a more personal relationship. So with the first question, what was your favorite subject in law school? Favorite subject would have probably been constitutional law and corporation. I like corporations too. Yeah, they're both, they're both great. So I, I think your love of subjects also comes to the teachers that you have, the lectures that you have. And I had some great lecturers at Sydney University and enjoyed it thoroughly. That's great. That's great. And what's 1 habit you believe has been pivotal to your success in the political field? I'd say never give up, Yeah. Yeah. Probably never give up. I mean, it sounds, that sounds pretty obvious, but you know, in politics you get, you know, you get the tough game, you get beaten up a lot and you just got to keep going. So your resilience, your resilience levels go through the roof. But I'd say never giving up. I think initiative, initiative is particularly important. And as I said, it's only self by good people. Yeah, yeah. Can you name a book or a movie that's significant to you and one you'd recommend to students? From a political perspective, always like, you know, William Woolforth, I thought it was a great book. And William Hay, UK politician, wrote a book about him, an in depth story of his life. And I think it's a great story because it's about young people who got into politics, who believed in something that was counter to the cultural view at the time. And it's an incredibly inspiring story. And that was obviously in relation to ending slavery and the way they brought people on board, the way they use political tactics to actually achieve that end and to do good and to have that vision and of where we where we need to go as a society. That's always probably been the best book I've read. Yeah. And did you always envision yourself practicing in the field? You do. And if not, I mean, you spoke a little bit of perhaps being a barrister, but perhaps even earlier, perhaps out of high school or first entering in university. Was it still being a? Bachelor. I always liked the idea of Paul, like the idea of having them going into that profession. I mean, you know, John Howard said it's the noblest kind of form of kind of public service. And to go into an area where you can do good and make decisions I think is something that's truly inspiration. I mean, if you ask me, would I've, this probably won't go down well with your audience, but if you've asked me, would I prefer to kind of make the laws or interpret the laws? I prefer to make them. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I suppose on to the last rectifier question. What's the greatest piece of advice you've ever received and who gave it? Well, goes back to that one about never giving up. Yeah, OK, two things I'd say never giving up. And, you know, my father told me that and you don't really think about it until you're in moments where you actually feel like showing up because there's a lot of them in your politics. And the other one is actually to go and get advice. One thing I've learned on my journey in, in politics has been the amount of people who are always who have gone, who have worked, walked in your footsteps before and have gone through difficult times and have had the experience who are willing to provide that advice there. There are so many things that are in common from generation to generation that people have been and had those challenges before. So tell you, listen to be working in law or you're working wherever you are on your journey afterwards, just seek out people's advice. And, and even if you don't know that, but you respect someone, you'll be surprised they'll be willing to help. And I've, I've certainly been helped in my professional journey, reaching out and politics from both sides of both sides of the aisle. You know, I struck up a very good friendship with Paul Keating. I'd see, I'd speak to him and get a lot of advice. And people like John Howard as well. So both sides, it's not about the poll everyone gets with politics and liberals of this and Labor is that it's just like ultimately people get into public life in public service because they want to do good and they want to make our country a better place. Yeah. And the things that you notice are much greater than than those that don't. And, and so I think always seeking advice is is is is important. Yeah, yeah. So I'll, I'll now give the final question and this is one for my listeners. This was from Krishna from USW. On the 7th of March in 2022, you nominated Andrew Bell into the role of Chief Justice of NSW. From your first hand experience, what's the appointment of judges like as a politician and what are the considerations and factors that that go into an appointment? Well, that was an interesting one because Andrew was the president of the Court of Appeal. And so by appointing Andrew, we then had a, we then had a vacancy in the presidency of the Court of Appeal. So we then appointed Julie Ward, who was a Supreme Court judge in equity, the equity division. So we have to make two appointments, two very important appointments. So we made her the president of the court of the bill. So the the process works in relation to there's a panel and the attorney. It's it's not politicized. I mean, the, the, the the attorney general seeks advice your and would bring that to time me as the premier and then we goes to cabinet. But ultimately the, the, the consideration is those who are on the bench and the views of those in the legal field. Now in relation to the Chief Justice appointment, well, obviously you've got to be an incredibly sharp lawyer. You want to have, you want to have the best or close to the best legal mind in that role. But I think it's a bit broader than that because it's, there's also an administration and personable nature to this role. You're a leader of the court, you are the chief, you are the chief judge. I don't think, I don't see it just as the Supreme Court, but actually all the courts, because the advice that the, the Chief Justice would provide to the attorney general would, would, would stem further than that in relation to the entire administration of all the courts within the state and how they are functioning. So you need someone who's obviously incredibly legally sound and has A and A and has a very bright legal mind, but also someone who has the capacity to administer the, the legal system in, in, in the state. So you kind of need both that's the way to look at it. And so that would go to the attorney general. We would discuss that. I, I remember that discussion in relation because obviously that this, the recommendation and, and both, both those appointments, I mean, they're, they're, they're, they're, they're both brilliant lawyers and, and were brilliant judges. So that, so we, you know, we were blessed with choice and, and ultimately, I think that we, we landed that, that went to cabinet and it was approved. But you know, it's, it's, it's something that you would seek the, the political, the, the political class the executive is, would be seeks the advice from the legal fraternity who are there every single day and, and have have advice in relation to who they would recommend for the job. And so you think that that if, for example, there was a sort of more politically motivated appointment, the legal fraternity would just come out and say? Oh, yeah, for sure. I mean, there's, there's, there's a, there's always a list of kind of suitable candidates for these roles. And, and you make and you make decisions, but you're also very conscious, right, of this true separation between, as I say, the legislature, the, the executive and the judiciary. We just appoint that, we just appoint the judges, right? So, so and the, and the important judges. So you want to make sure that the person that you choose is of, is, of, is of great legal mind, well respected by their peers. But ultimately it's the Chief Justice. You have broader responsibilities. And, you know, Andrew, for example, stepped in and when the queen died to take on a whole lot of roles that the governor had at the time because she was away. So there's a broader leadership role at play and I think but yeah, the attorney general takes that very seriously. And we give and, and, and provides the, provides the recommendations to me and then ultimately take that to the cabinet. Yeah. Well, Dom, we've just about I ran out of time for this one. So thank you so much for joining me on today's episode and all the best for the. Rest of the year. Thanks Ellie, Enjoyed it. Thank you.