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.