Hello and welcome back to the Australian Law Student Podcast. I'm your host Oliver Hammond
and welcome to the finale of Season 1, 2024. 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 New South Wales Parliament
House to have a conversation with none other than former Premier of New South Wales, Dominic
Perrottet. 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 New South Wales, and then
eventually as Premier. Facing the COVID-19 pandemic, severe natural disasters in the
northern parts of New South Wales, and a tumultuous economy, Dom's leadership was
certainly tested in some of the toughest times seen in Australian history. As the
youngest Premier of New South Wales, Dom discussed his path into politics and the relationship
he sees between the law, the 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 New South Wales Premier
Dominic Perrottet. Dom, how are you?
Very well, Oli, how are you?
Great 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 engaged with the party whilst I was working
It was called Henry Davis York, which no longer exists. It's now Norton Rose, in commercial
litigation and insolvency 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 Hill, which I think is the name of the firm. And I was like, I'm
going to do this. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. I'm going
to do this. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. I'm going
to do this. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. And I called him, because I think
the time was the safest Liberal seat in the state. This was 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 we were going, well, it's clear at this stage, we were going to govern a bit of a
landslide election in 2011. And so I kind of thought to myself, well, I may 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 all the Liberal Party members
vote on who should be the candidate and it was successful by I think a few votes so it was kind
of you know it just kind of happened that way and so yeah I was elected in that 2011 election
and it was you know it was a landslide election for the Liberal Party then
and then I've held a few seats since then I moved to Hawkesbury actually in 2015 and then
2019 Epping where I live in Beecroft so and I was re-elected in 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 law and how my views have
changed well I think when you're on the the legislature side right 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 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 has been 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 I can never say it properly
the legislature the executive and
the executive and the executive and the executive and the executive and the executive and the executive
and the executive and the executive and the executive and the executive and the executive
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 in most cases the member as member of the executive government a recent
one was the is wrong the high court decision in relation to the electric vehicles the levies
at the state's court the state's,
couldn't impose them so that that has real ramifications they're not seen yet that's
going to have real ramifications for the federation um and and the levies of taxes i mean they said
they said those um that that that levy was within you know prohibited under section 90 of the
constitution right so 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 um that we would sit there and say well that's against what we just well we may have
disagreed with the decision but ultimately the law wasn't clear i mean that's what 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 um societal changes and community expectations have changed so you think
about those things um and then you may make adjustments to the laws here um to
make it abundantly clear uh to the um make those laws very clear so the judiciary understands that
um this is the view and that's why the second reading speech is obviously incredibly important
because for the abundance of any doubt um this is this is what we mean this is what the intent is
uh and uh that hopefully provides the clarity that the judiciary need in relation to the
interpretation of um whatever case uh is in front of them yeah yeah and i think um the the the it's
really interesting the electric vehicles case we covered that case actually in the
in the point of view of the judiciary and i think that's a really interesting case
and i think that's a really interesting case
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 um he basically listed i think it was
probably around 10 to 20 judges being like owen dixon is wrong with this president owen dixon is
wrong i am wrong yeah you were wrong he basically started listing off 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 it also occurs um yeah yeah well in that case i mean the the way that
the judiciary is always considered the state's 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 i think and you know i kind of got a deep appreciation of this over the last 12
years in politics but you know uh we are a federation that's what our country is the
federation you know that we the states bought into this concept um and you know as part of that
um 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 never sought to take it back now politically that would be
incredibly challenging yeah yeah but but that's uh i don't know advocating for that but i think that's
a good thing for that yeah um 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 um and the autonomy needs to be there if you start taking away the
state's rights in relation to um their fiscal capacity to raise revenue um it causes substantive
challenges and you know over the time i've always thought the state's the best place to deal with
the stock market in relation to um they're very flexible and they've got the ability to provide
legal services and they've got the ability to use their money uh because you know they don't just
buy and sell their goods to use the stock market they don't just do uh we'll look at it from the
perspective of the issues we're in and they mean things right you know and so i think i think while
this is undervalued i think we should continue to continue to have a very important role in
ensuring that the state's and the state's economy is able to sell its hayまた is able to sell its
food to the state that's what we're doing that our state needs to do and that's what i'm trying to do
care we're involved in preschools but they were trying they've always been trying to shift the
liability of the ndis onto the states interesting right and it's been it's been a push by treasury
yeah so seeing that today i can i can tell exactly what's going on uh 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 the states agreed to take on some liability or some
operational management of the ndis and they've probably had their treasuries and they'll do
crunch the numbers and say this is a really bad this is a really bad deal for the states and
ultimately that's you know everyone wants the ndis to succeed yeah 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 and a bureaucrat comes in and says to you uh hey i've got a great idea on
on a certain national wide service program 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
well-intentioned as their as their programs may be ultimately the states are very different
and trying to have canberra um make decisions and roll out these programs um you know it's created
the ndis pink bats building education revolution the nbn yeah i mean all of these all of these
delivery programs have had um that are on a national scale and had substantive substantive
problems so it's important for my well i'd say from being a former parent of this state uh that
to and the premiers and the treasurer 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 um we're doing federal constitutional law
at the moment and so um yeah i just learned so obviously learning about the taxation power yes
that was sort of gone by the states and then never giving back um obviously there was i think there
was two times where um prime ministers sort of i think was malcolm turnbull and fraser wanted to
perhaps think about giving it back but was sort of yeah pushed back so um yeah the the
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 big.
And that creates these major challenges, right?
like look at the GST at the moment.
So the state signed up to the GST
and on a condition that they would abolish
a lot of stamp duties and other taxes,
like there was a hotel bed tax.
There was a number that we agreed,
but obviously under those taxes,
the state's 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 New South Wales is giving to Victoria.
My kind of view is we should be based on the formula.
I've got no problem with that.
But the decision that Malcolm Turnbull
and Scott Morrison made in relation to the floor for WA
is one of the worst.
It's one of the worst public policy decisions since federation.
And, you know, WA are now receiving,
you know, when I negotiated that no worse off clause
with the federal government at the time,
which became enshrined in law,
because Malcolm was like,
well, no state's going to be worse off.
I was 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 seeing 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 or the line going down a map.
WA getting further funding in GST
much more than they should be getting
because ultimately they have much greater revenue raising capacity.
And talk about the federation.
This is one of the great aspects of Australia.
We have a very egalitarian society
and the principles it's based on
is that every state should have the same capacity
for service delivery at a level.
Now, the reality is WA has a much greater capacity
for revenue raising or particularly at the moment
when it comes to the resources sector.
The Western Australian government didn't put those resources under,
there wasn't some great fiscal management on their behalf.
And there are 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 so I don't know how they unwind that now that we're here.
But it's certainly going to create challenges going forward.
And I suppose now just shifting it perhaps to a little bit
when you first were elected,
you were one of if not the youngest Premier in New South Wales.
And you certainly came onto the political scene very young
and held quite big roles 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 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 and politics or both?
Both or generally?
Well, I think surround yourself by smart people.
I think a lot of people have, you can get insecure, right?
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 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 yes, sir, no, sir.
That leads you, I believe, to be more of a critical thinker.
I think that's essential.
Critically think.
You're thinking about issues and challenging yourself
and nothing's a substitute for hard work.
And yeah, you do that in a balanced way.
I probably could have been a bit more balanced at times,
but it was pretty difficult times over the last four years,
particularly during the pandemic
and some of the challenges we've had
when we're working around the clock nonstop.
But yeah, I think they'd be the number, the top two things.
So when you started out,
would you say that you came into politics thinking,
you were wanting to work as hard as you possibly could?
And how can you, I suppose, sharing a little bit more on that,
perhaps how do you balance that with sort of work and life?
Obviously family and-
And these jobs are 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 day-to-day grind.
And look, I've been very blessed to have the roles
that I had in finance and treasury,
and particularly during some of the darkest times
our country's faced,
during bushfires, floods, and the COVID pandemic.
And they were really difficult.
They were 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 a university podcast.
But I think 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 and make a contribution and leave.
And I always saw the roles that I had
was to make the best contribution I could
for the limited period of time
that I would have the great honor of serving at this level.
So it's not a forever job.
So it's kind of like,
just go in and make 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 the difficult times.
So to be in those roles at times
where there was health challenges,
economic challenges, and natural disasters,
and being at the forefront
and trying to work through those issues
and come up with solutions,
you know, it was very special.
I suppose moving on to our next question,
your time in politics has seen you come up
with a number of large reforms
from New South Wales's digital IDs,
which as a Victorian, I might like to add,
I'd love to see back in my home state,
but to a multimillion dollar overhaul
into gambling reform and major reforms to stamp duty.
Can you explain a little bit about the sort of mental process
of how a politician comes up with these ideas?
And I suppose some of the challenges
that might be faced perhaps by the public
or things like that.
So, you know, 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 talk about digital licenses,
like when I tried to do that, we did it.
That 85% take up just quietly.
I think, I think,
I think South Australia's one's got like 30%.
The, I remember something so basic as that, right?
I wouldn't have thought that was hard, right?
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 are school hours nine till three
in a modern society?
Like, cause some people, you know,
like cause some bureaucrat a hundred years ago
made a decision that school hours are nine to three.
Now I'm not saying, I was advocating to change them
and we changed them and did 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, okay,
I want to get to this point.
How do I get there?
Cause that's, that's, that's,
that's the bigger challenge.
One thing is determining what's right.
That's not that hard sometimes.
If you're thinking critically,
thinking about the way society is structured,
then it's kind of like, okay, 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 created iCare.
And it was the right decision.
So absolutely the right policy,
but my execution was poor.
and then things got messed up,
mixed up in saying,
oh, well, it was bad reform because,
when problems occur in workers' compensation,
it's now all that must've occurred because of the change.
No, it's a much better system.
well, what's the upside of reforming workers' compensation?
That's a matter for another 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.
It's how do I bring people on this journey?
And stamp duty was a really,
that took me three years.
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 did I land was,
okay, let's do this.
We'll give bite sized chunks.
We'll give first home buyers the choice first.
And then we implemented that.
And then in the election campaign it was like,
okay, so now the next stage is
we're going to give people choice for life
if you've been in that scheme.
And then it would have been negotiated
with the federal government.
weren't penalized on GST distributions to go further.
And then probably would have given it to
boomers to downsize.
yeah right would not have to pay stamp duty right so you start you've got to slowly change things
in a way that um makes people comfortable um and you'll have some key learnings you'll make
mistakes because you can't think of everything yeah but but with stamp duty i mean we had
documents like like i had a q a like that yeah like and and knew every like i had studied the
thing like and because it was three year journey yeah every permutation and combination that could
come through yeah right so that you don't do that overnight you don't do that with running
a story on the front page of daily telegraph and going there's 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 there was no understanding in the public mindset of the scourge of poker machines
we've got more poker machines anywhere in the world than outside nevada and they are impacting
people in in some of the most lower socioeconomic communities across our state and it's an absolute
that this has occurred we now have you know we've we've you know poking machines on every corner now
i'm not against gambling um i'm just against a situation where people are throwing their life
savings down um and are clearly addicted to that yeah and how do we change it so i once i knew where
we had to go but i had to work very closely with um with with um stakeholders um with the national
party which were in a coalition and let me tell you that was that was a um 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 just like
on that policy i knew we're going but i waited a long time to actually come out and say what
it was i'd stay 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 yeah because the you had to build the momentum of the issue
you've got to have you don't come out with a solution for which people don't understand
the problem yeah 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 suppose that that process as well it needs to be much more thought
out it's not as simple as perhaps um some people would like to um put it forth i mean some people
all people are always calling for quick political changes and quick um fixes but i think there's
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 good and
taking time is okay you do get politically yeah i mean three years yeah for a reform like that yeah
and people say oh dom talks about stuff but what's he doing about it was like well i'm working on it
yeah yeah you know i can't you you you you you need to apply your mind
to when you and when you're talking these are this is substantive change right like if you're
talking changing the entire property tax system yeah you can't do that overnight of course you
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 okay to go like in pretty much what is now a cashless society to pretty
much walk in there and just throw cash down um and and their life savings down well you know
that's gonna there's gonna be a lot of interest invested interest in that the pubs the clubs like
you've got to take time to get it right and then but you've got to have also i think what's most
important though is have courage of your convictions if you believe something is the
right thing to do yeah then you do it yeah 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 and you're back in it you're back in the decision
so but when you believe something you needs to be done and you and you back yourself in and you and
you know what you're doing that's always always say start with the end in mind like if you know
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 your questions answered.
to know them better and to get 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
uh standardized questions all i guess for our listeners to get to know the person better and
have a more personal relationship so um with the first question um what was your favorite subject
in law school favorite subject uh would have probably been constitutional law and corporations
um yeah they're both they're both great so i i think your love of subjects also comes to you
the teachers that you have the lectures that you have and i had some great lecturers at
sydney university and um enjoyed it thoroughly that's great that's great um and what's one
habit you believe has been pivotal to your success um in the political field uh i'd say
never give up yeah yeah probably never give up that sounds that sounds pretty obvious but
you know in politics you get you get it's tough going yeah uh 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 and initiative is particularly important yeah um and um as i said
surrounding self by good people yeah yeah um can you name a book or a movie that's significant to
you and one you'd recommend to students oh look from a political perspective always like you know
william wilberforce i thought was a great book and william hay a uk politician wrote a book about
him an in-depth story of his life yeah and i think it's a great story because it's about young
people who got into politics um who believed in something that was counter to the cultural view
at the time yeah and uh 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 um and to do good um and to have that vision of
where we where we need to go as a society that's always probably been
the best book i've read yeah yeah um and did you always envision yourself practicing in the field
you do and if not i mean you spoke a little bit perhaps being a barrister but perhaps even earlier
perhaps out of high school or um first entering in um university was it still being about oh i
always liked the idea of pol like the idea of having 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 um is something that's um
you know truly inspirational i mean if you ask me what i've this probably won't go down well with
your audience but if you ask me what i prefer to kind of make the laws or interpret the laws i
prefer to make them yeah yeah yeah um and i suppose um onto the last rapid fire question
what's the greatest piece of advice you've ever received and who gave it what goes back to that
one about never giving up yeah okay never two things i'd say never giving up um and um you
know my father time with that yeah and you don't really think about it until you're in moments
because there's a lot of them in your politics um
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 are so many things that are in common from generation
generation that people have been and had those challenges before so i'd say to your list if
you're working in law you're working wherever you are on your journey afterwards just seek
out people's advice and even if you don't know that but you respect someone yeah you'll be
surprised they'll be willing to help and i i've certainly been helped in my professional journey
through reaching out in politics from both sides of both sides of the aisle
you know i struck up a very good friendship with paul keating yeah i'd see i'd speak to him and get
a lot of advice and people like john howard as well
well so both sides it's not about the poll everyone gets obsessed with politics and liberals
of this and labor's that it's just like ultimately people get in a public life and public service
because they want to do good and they want to make our country a better place yeah um and the things
that unite us are much greater than than those that don't and um and so i think always seeking
advice is is uh it's important yeah yeah um so i'll now give the final question and this is one
from our listeners this was from um christian from usw um on the 7th of march in 2022 you nominated
andrew bell into the role of chief justice of new south wales um from your firsthand experience
what's the appointment of judges like as a politician and um what are the considerations
and factors um that go into an appointment well that was an interesting one because andrew was
the president of the court of appeal and um so by appointing andrew we then had a we then had a
vacancy in the presence of the court of appeal so we then appointed julie ward who was a supreme
court judge in equity
the equity division um so we had to make two appointments two very important appointments
so we made her the president of the court of appeal um so the the process works in relation to
there's a panel and the attorney it's not politicized i mean the the the the attorney
general seeks advice your and would bring that to the time means the premier and then it goes to
cabinet but ultimately the the the consideration is those who are on the bench um
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 um
the best or close to the best um 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're the chief judge i don't think you're going to be able to do that
i don't see it just as the supreme court but actually all the courts yeah because the advice
that the the chief justice would provide to the attorney general uh would would would stem further
than that in relation to the entire administration of all the courts within the state yeah and how
they are functioning so you need someone who's obviously um uh incredibly legally sound uh and
has a and has a very bright legal mind but also someone who has the capacity to administer um the
the legal system 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 discover that i remember that discussion in relation because
obviously that this the recommendation and both both those uh appointments they're they're both
brilliant um uh uh lawyers um and and were uh brilliant judges so that so we you know we were
blessed with choice yeah um and and ultimately
i think that we landed that and that went to cabinet and it was approved but you know it's it's
it's something that you would seek the polit the political the political class the executive is
would be seeks the advice from the legal fraternity yeah who are there every single day um and and
have have advice in relation to who they would recommend for the job and so you think that that
um uh if for example uh there was a sort of more politically motivated appointment the legal
fraternity would just come out of the court yeah i think that's a good point i think that's a good point
i think that's a good point i think that's a good point
so 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 um
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 important judges um so uh you're
to make sure that the person that you choose um is of is of is of great legal mind yeah um well
respected by their peers but ultimately it's the chief justice you have broader responsibilities
and you know andrew for example um stepped in and when the queen died yeah to do or take on
a whole lot of roles that the governor had yeah at the time um because she was away
um um so there's there's a broader leadership role at play and i think um
but yeah the attorney general takes that very seriously and provides the provides the
recommendations to me and then ultimately we'll take that to the cabinet yeah well dom we've um
just about i ran out of time for this um one so thank you so much for joining me on today's
episode and um all the best for the rest of the year thanks i enjoyed it thank you