NSW Premier in waiting AG Mark Speakman should be more concerned with his own reporting issues, rather than US politics.

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

NSW Premier in waiting AG Mark  Speakman is quite concerned about the state of US politics. 



Meanwhile these issues remain outstanding,and they do go to NSW LPAB Annual Reports which he has tabled in Parliament: 

"The fishy smell around Zhu Minshen's Top Education Institute": Clive Hamilton's "Silent Invasion" raises questions for NSW AG Mark Speakman & the LPAB



And as for alternative facts, this feat by the AG and his officers has been achieved by misrepresenting the facts (not decision or opinion) of a decision of the NSW Supreme Court:

Protection provided journalists,whistle blowers and sources by Carlovers v Sahathevan ,Bond v Barry undermined by NSW judicial body overseen by Chief Justice NSW, and AG Speakman

 







See also this, first raised on a related blog, remain outstanding:
NSW Budget 2020 & Contingent Liabilities: HCA decision in Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Levitt suggests hidden potential liabilities, and strategies designed to limit the Dept Of Justice’s $ 492 Million in contingent liabilities
JUNE 23, 2019 / REALPOLITIKASIA

by Ganesh Sahathevan

 

The recent decision of the High Court Of Australia in Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Levitt  may be relevant to the issue of contingent ,possibly hidden liabilities in the books of the various departments of the Government of NSW.

Counsel for the Council of the Law Society Ms CA Webster SC said in submissions:

 

……the Council, either the Law Society Council or the Bar Council, or the Legal Services Commissioner, having adopted the summary procedure, it would only be if someone were to seek to take a matter – no, I withdraw that. There will not have been any possible consideration of the conduct amounting to professional misconduct if anyone is proposing to deal with the matter under section 540, so it must be a subset. But there are, in addition to the matters enumerated, as we say, subject to some very slight winnowing of the numbers over time since our reply was filed, some matters that had been put on hold pending the outcome of these proceedings.

We understand that there are……..matters on hold in the order of 66 matters but, as your Honour Justice Edelman said, that is only going to be the potential effect – a subset of all of the matters that we identify as potentially affected, because it is the way in which the 2004 Act was structured and we do not, and cannot, say that, subject to the way some matters have been applied in the Supreme Court, that the precise language has not been replicated in the 2015 Legal Profession Uniform Law.

 

The response to her submission was as follows:

GAGELER J: ( Counsel for the  respondent Brett Walker SC) , we do not need to hear from you, thank you.

We are not persuaded that the question of statutory construction sought to be agitated in this Court is of sufficient general importance to warrant the attention of the Court. Special leave to appeal is refused with costs..

The hearing commenced at 10:34 AM and was concluded at 10:47 AM 

The above suggests that the Council Of The Law Society ty, acting on behalf of the Legal Services Commissioner (a statutory body under the purview of the AG NSW) was prepared to  try its luck with an appeal for much was at stake ie some 66 other matters, the financial consequences of which remain unknown.

The Council and the Legal Services Commissioner comprise some of the most senior lawyers in this country;it is therefore hard to comprehend that they could not have known that their case was weak( in this case, very weak).

Legal principal and practice aside, the above does look like a case of a government funded entity taking on greater risks of loss so as to conceal liabilities and/or losses that have been kept off the books.

At $ 492 Million the Department of Justice has the second highest level of contingent liabilities.. It is only natural for departmental heads to want to limit any growth in that  figure,especially when one’s department has the second highest level of contingent liability.

Ii is therefore in the best interest of all taxpayers that the AG NSW and the departments under his purview be subject to a complete audit by the Audit Office NSW, to determine the extent of contingent and possibly hidden losses.

 

 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ben Robert-Smith : How was Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court able to find that the crime of murder has a civil twin, which can be determined on a balance of probabilities

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevam                                                                                                                  The Hon Justice Anthony Besanko Media reports about the Ben Robert-Smith defamation matter  have at least given the impression, if not asserted,  that Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court found  that Robert-Smith had committed murder. Most if not all reports have been at pains to stress that the finding was based on a balance of probabilities, and not beyond a reasonable doubt, for the matter was a civil and not criminal matter.  However,  reading his summary one can immediately see that Justice Besanko  found not that Roberts-Smith had committed murder but that the " respondents had, (on  a balance of probabilities) established the substantial truth"  that  Roberts-Smith had committed murder.  However, murder is a  crime and a finding of murder in a criminal court (which is the court in which crimes like murder can be determined!) inv
Read more

Who authorised former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller to say anything about the Berejiklian era quarantine fee and why? Fuller's notice confirms suspicion that NSW Berejiklian government had no basis to impose the quarantine fee, nor quarantine persons who were COVID negative 

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevan      Premier Gladys Berejiklian with NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller and Brigadier Mick             Garraway Who authorised former  NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller  to say anything about the  Berejiklian era  quarantine fee and why? Fuller's issuance of his  COVID  quarantine notice, and subsequent silence, would seem to confirm suspicions raised on this blog that NSW's Berejiklian government had no basis to impose its quarantine fee. Fuller's conduct also adds to suspicion that the Berejiklian government did not have the authority, even under its COVID emergency powers, to quarantine persons who were COVID negative. International arrivals had to test negative for COVID before boarding their flights to Sydney, and tests had to be administered within 72 hours of departure. Quarantine on arrival of those who exhibited no COVID symptoms was quite likely unnecessary. It did, of course help bolster Gladys Berejiklian's approval ratings. TO BE RE
Read more

Revenue NSW COVID Quarantine Fee payment demand notices suggest that Police Commissioner Mick Fuller breached the law with his demand for quarantine fees

Image
 By Ganesh Sahathevan  Anyone who has received a Revenue NSW Quarantine Fee demand for payment notice  will be familiar with these words that are contained in the notice: What is the quarantine service fee? A mandatory quarantine service fee applies to all travellers arriving in New South Wales (NSW) who are required to quarantine as part of the public health order. Mandatory quarantine is needed to stop the spread. of COVID-19 in NSW The qurantine fee has been charged pursuant to Section 70 of  the NSW Health Act. However, as previously reported, that section does not permit any imposition of mandatory fees.  However, in apparent defiance of Section 70 of the Health Act, Fuller issued a notice   in which he said  that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee". TOE BE READ WITH  Former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said in his notice that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee" - Former NSW Ministers Hazzard, Tudehope insis
Read more